In which our regular writers toss around
subjects a little more volatile than usual.
I was reading this article. Now,
this is an old and still-debated topic, and I don’t deny that the author
probably has some good points. But what struck me about this article were several
things.
The author asks why it is that people leave a church, and then he goes on to suggest three reasons. In order, they are: (a) our subculture (by which he actually seems to mean the larger, secular culture of consumerism);
(b) expectations (and he emphasizes in particular the tendency to forget that the church is a “family”);
and (c) the “fatal assumption” … that newer is better (which, by some sort of path, “leads the
average church goer to hold the opinion that it is better to be served than to
serve.”)
Now, I’m not up for church-bashing here, or even for picking on the author. But
I couldn’t help but notice that he places 100% of the blame on the people
who leave. And I can’t help but wonder, is it not even possible that
something in his own congregation contributed some element to the problem?
Tom: A fairly natural question.
IC: I don’t know, of course; it’s his congregation. Maybe it’s perfect. And if
he’s talking about only his own church circumstances and specific people who
left “our church”, as he puts it, then I can’t contradict him at
all. How would I know? But what would concern me is this: the article
seems to take for granted that what has traditionally taken place and continues
to go on in the local congregation is biblical, good, right, sufficient, and
worthy of support — and that the only explanations to be sought when
people leave is that they lack commitment, maturity or the right attitude to
see that they should be staying and serving it.
Maintaining the Status Quo
I’ve run into this very one-sided attitude before. I’ve met people whose entire idea
of the Christian life is to support the status quo. Whatever has been
done in the past, goes their thinking, faithfulness consists in keeping it
going, and unfaithfulness is failing to support what is already being done. So
long as the church has its regular Family Bible Hour, or its Sunday School and youth
programs, its prayer meeting, and so on, it is the duty of every faithful
Christian to walk in lock-step with those programs, keep up for the team, and
put in his or her time, energy and money to keeping the programs rolling. And
if somebody tires out, gets discouraged and leaves, it’s 100% their fault for
not being in the right frame of mind or having the guts, devotion and loyalty
to stick it out and serve.
Any thoughts?
Tom: Well, yes, that’s quite a start. Okay, let’s begin with his comments
about subculture. It is true that we live in a consumerist society. That is a
good point. In the end, the individual decides what suits him or her. That too
is correct.
I’m not sure that’s entirely a problem. The writer is concerned that in
modern evangelical culture, “the buyer has the power and is thus the ‘god’ of
all transactions.” But what is the alternative? Should we cede to the elders or
pastor the power to compel us to stay when we want to leave? Surely not. They
are servants of Christ and undershepherds, not little dictators. Most of them
understand that.
Choosing Wisely Before God
Moreover, “the ‘god’ of all transactions” is only
one way to characterize the modern role of the individual believer.
Another is to frame it, as John Locke did, as the believer’s responsibility to
choose wisely before God. An individual’s choices (of church or anything else)
may well reflect his awareness of his own accountability. If he moves his
family from one church to another, certainly he may be doing so carnally.
Equally, he may be acting responsibly as a father with an obligation to his
children, moving them out of a bad, unspiritual situation into what he hopes
will be a better one. As onlookers, I’m not sure we get to weigh in on that
choice except to suggest it be made carefully and prayerfully.
IC: Choosing wisely. That sounds like another biblical concept: stewardship.
Still, I suppose it can be true that some people church shop
as an alternative to dealing with challenging local circumstances. And when
that happens, maybe problems in the congregation go unconfronted, and
dysfunction (or even evil) are granted a longer lease because of it. I’ve seen
that happen. Sometimes, staying to fight is actually the more godly option than
running
for the hills.
Two Very Different Departures
Tom: I think we need to distinguish between two very different sets of circumstances:
- Someone who has been in fellowship at your church for years picks up and leaves. Maybe he gives his reasons and maybe he doesn’t, but we should want to hear them. His departure may be reason for a little bit of self-examination. He may be behaving selfishly, or he may not. But we need to know his reasons for leaving before we judge him, and they are probably not at all related to consumerism or else he would have left much earlier, assuming the condition of the church has been relatively consistent over the years.
- The consumerist church-shopping family who drops in at our local meeting for a Sunday or three, then finally elects to fellowship at that Baptist church down the street. They are not really “leaving” anything. That family were never “ours” in the first place. They were visitors, and we may be better or worse off for not having them stay. That’s to be decided on the merits.
But what I’m thinking is that the writer of this piece maybe
blurs the lines by combining those two categories, and I don’t think they
are the same at all.
IC: I agree. I find myself wondering, “What would these leavers say if we had an exit interview?” Would
they really say, “We left because our church wasn’t focusing on us as
customers” or “because we had chances to serve and didn’t want to” or “because
our church wasn’t new enough”? I doubt it.
Tom: Me too.
The Exit Interview
IC: I suspect they’d have some more concrete concerns than that, even if we grant the author of the article
that some element of those things could be present. Personally, I’d
really want to know the specifics.
But the leavers are not around to defend themselves anymore, so the
interpretation of why they departed is often left up to those who are still
content to remain in the status quo.
Tom: Part of that is really good form for Christians. It’s the right way to leave. If you’re going to go because
of differences with leadership, it is rarely appropriate to air them publicly,
especially if they involve charges that can’t strictly be proven. Leaving in a cloud of dust is not the way to go: “If anyone ruins God’s sanctuary,
God will ruin him.”
IC: Agreed. But it’s also on the elders to find out why that person left. Especially in the case of people who’ve been around for an extended time and then leave, the elders need to track them down and ask for the information they are lacking: why did these people feel it was necessary to move on? That’s what I mean by an “exit interview”. We shouldn’t be relying on guesses as to why long-standing members disappeared suddenly.
This is different, though. The article’s author doesn’t suggest he talked to the people leaving; he just implies he knows why they left anyway.
Tom: And I agree, it’s not clear that he does.
Dropping the Ball
IC: I think that’s what seems to be happening with this article: the author is fairly happy with how things in
his local assembly are going, and since he doesn’t know what the leavers would
actually be concerned about, he’s left free to make up his own version of why
people are leaving. And his version is the kind that it leaves the status quo
unchanged.
Interestingly, one thing his version doesn’t include at all is any suspicion that his own
church is dropping the ball on something. And my concern is not that we know it
is; it’s that there isn’t even the thought in the article that it
even could be.
Tom: Well, his assumption seems to be that the leavers have expectations that are unreasonable. He
writes, “The church-goer is searching for an organization that provides gala
events and the latest and greatest Christian gadgetry. They are looking for the
best cut of steak every time.” I’m afraid I don’t think that’s it at all.
Not when people leave who have been in fellowship for years. People who are
looking for the “latest and greatest” stop by for a single Sunday, check out
how you do things, and then head straight for the megachurch up the road. They
don’t stay working beside you year after year, then suddenly bail because you
don’t serve “steak”. That simply doesn’t add up. People who have invested years
in a small, traditional place do not suddenly leave because you’re too small
and traditional. Something has changed, either in them or in the church. Like
you, I think we need to ask what exactly that might be rather than simply
assuming the motive is carnal.
Looking for Clues
IC: Okay, Tom. Let’s suppose you and I are elders. We’re sitting in the home of some people who’ve been in the church for years, serving steadily, but who have quietly informed us they are moving on.
Or maybe they haven’t even said anything, but they’ve been gone for a month or
two, and we’ve picked up that they’re elsewhere. We’ve come for our exit
interview with them, not to force them to change their minds, but to find out
if there’s anything we could do, or could have done, to help the next
situation.
What sorts of helpful information do you think these
well-intended leavers could provide to us?
Tom: Well, it seems to me something has changed over
the time they have been attending our church. At one point they were happy with
how things were going; now they aren’t. So, what changed, when, and what makes
it serious enough to leave over? (In all honesty, I’d really like to know why
they made the decision to leave without even approaching the elders to see if
things could be corrected, but perhaps that will become clearer as we talk.)
IC: That’s good. I’d also like to see the elders really try to gather
information. They could ask questions to find out if anything that
is really part of the legitimate church mandate is a problem. For example, they
might ask, “How do you see our doctrine?” or “Do you feel you were being helped
to grow in faith during the time you were with us?” or “Were there any
interpersonal issues that led you to leave?” and so on, so that the interview
doesn’t end up being vague. And, of course, they need to ask, “What led you to
move on?”
It may be, as the author of the article thinks, that nothing
but a shallow consumerism, a reluctance to serve or a love of novelty is behind
some people’s choice to change churches; but I’m pretty sure that’s not
everybody, and I’d be surprised if it were even the majority of
cases. Still, we’d best know, right?
“Newer is Better”
Tom: What do you think about this “fatal assumption ... that newer is better”? I guess a
group of elders, or even a single elder, conducting an interview would
certainly pick up if that is the motivation. But again, it’s rarely a
motivation I’ve seen from people who have congregated and served in a local
church for some length of time. Maybe if they are a young family, and their
kids are reaching an age where their parents feel they need to be with
Christian peers and they currently don’t have any. That happens, sure. But my
experience is that when the old hands start departing, it’s not always about
going where there’s a better band or more excitement. It’s often because they
feel the church is going in a direction they don’t agree with, and rather than
rock the boat, they prefer to quietly move on down the street.
IC: Yep, that’s more normal.
Tom: Let me ask you something, IC: Is all this really so terrible? These people are still
Christians, and they intend to still meet with other Christians. They are
probably still maintaining friendships with some in the church they are
leaving. They are probably still in the same neighborhood, or if not, then only
a few miles down the road. How they present their departure to the world need
not even involve a bad testimony if it’s done right. So is it really the end of
the world if Church A remains a little bit small, pokey and Victorian while
Church B goes for big, loud and modern? If Christians are still attending, still learning, and still growing in an
environment that works for them and their family, as an elder, I’d be saying,
“Go, with the Lord’s blessing.”
Should it really turn into the sort of competition to fill
seats that our writer envisions? We’re not that shallow and partisan, are we?
The Victorian Museum
IC: I hope not. But again, it’s kind of typical in the Victorian-style meeting to assume that
because things have been going along a particular way as long as anybody can
remember, they are fine, and they ought to continue in the Victorian mode.
Maybe that’s why the author never even considers the possibility there might be
something needing change in his own local church. And it’s also kind of typical
for some in the Victorian-style churches to think that others that have done
something more modern must necessarily have “departed the faith” in some
fashion. But that’s not necessarily true at all. It might be; it might not be.
So long as the church to which the people are going is a Bible-obeying one, it
matters very little whether its architecture and procedures are Victorian or
something newer; though why we would still be Victorian today needs some
looking at … the old gal, Victoria herself, has been gone a long time, so
why should a local church look and act like a Victorian museum today?
No comments :
Post a Comment