How do you and your church respond ...?

[Marsha Lynn]

It has happened again. Long-time, fully vested members of the church have announced they are leaving. The only reason for this I've heard is that they "don't like the direction the church is heading."

When/if this happens in your church, how do you personally and corporately respond? Do you go on as though nothing has changed? Do you talk about it? If you talk about it, how? In what setting? Is it ever acknowledged to the congregation as a whole?

In my setting, it is never addressed in any formal setting and speaking of it at all seems to fall into the area of gossip. Questions are pushed aside because of confidentiality issues. (Yes, I know what happened but I can't tell you. You need to talk to the people personally if you want to know anything. This is not a topic I feel comfortable discussing.) Does that mean each of us needs to individually set up an interview with those leaving and then keep what they tell us to ourselves? Is there any legitimate forum for sharing our corporate grief when we have been served "divorce" papers by members of the family?

(In my "gossip" group where we actually talk about such things rather than pretending nothing is wrong, I mentioned the part about not liking the "direction the church is heading." We agreed that we really need to dig further into this. Who knew there was anyone among us who had figured out which direction we're headed?!)

Just curious as to how others handle such times of upheaval in the faith community.

Marsha

[Mike Schutz]

It's difficult for the pastoral staff to address this in a public setting, without coming across as defensive or "feeding the beast." Most pastors take the perspective that others can say anything they want, but we just have to sit and take it. This is also because, as difficult as it may be to understand, most pastors take anyone leaving as personal against them.

To answer your question, in our church I discuss these type of situations with our staff, and then with the board.

In your situation, I wonder if the phrase "the direction the church is going" makes sense to folks. Have there been radical changes to mission, worship style, focus, theological emphasis, programming, so that many can point to what exactly the departed mean? Or does this mean that the church has stopped growing? Or does this sound personal against the pastor to you? Sometimes the reason folks give is a way for them to save face. About a year ago someone used those exact words as they departed, when the real reason was I stripped them of all contact with children when I found out about a past molestation charge.

I know that I just get on some people's nerves. Pretty hard to lead a public conversation about the reason someone left when the reason they gave as they walked out the door was "I just can't stand to look at your face."

[Craig Laughlin]

Ah Marsha, you have touched deeply into a pastor's world.

People leave for all kinds of reasons and in my experience, especially with long time heart deep people, it is often hard to share those with the larger group. In a relatively small church if the reason is not obvious then something else is going on. In a smaller church the pastor can often know the real reason but may not be at liberty to discuss it. Again in my personal experience I've had people leave who were not really being honest with themselves so it was impossible to be honest with others. I've also had folks leave for reasons that they were unwilling to share. Example - My husband is attracted to Widow Hussy and I've caught them flirting (Or worse) and we need to make a change.

The "we don't like the direction the church is going" would signal some sort of unhappiness with leadership most likely the pastor. Again hard to know because it can be as innocent as "over exposure" in some session with the pastor. (they confessed stuff from their past but now feel very exposed.) (I've lost some really good friends this way) Of course there is the possibility of some sort of major conflict with the pastor over a change that was made. (this is less likely because in a small church people would know)

On of the great things about small churches is they can develop a deep sense of community and love for each other. The down side is that the assumed transparency has limits and it is often hard if beloved folks decide to withdraw and will not share what the issue is. The community has a sense that they should have a right to know and feel violated when they are shut out.

You can reach out but don't be surprised if the answers are not satisfying. If the pastor is very tight lipped then there is probably more going on than can be shared publicly. This isn't the pastor's fault but he/she will often take the hit. -

[Marsha Lynn]

It's difficult for the pastoral staff to address this in a public setting, without coming across as defensive or "feeding the beast." Most pastors take the perspective that others can say anything they want, but we just have to sit and take it. This is also because, as difficult as it may be to understand, most pastors take anyone leaving as personal against them.

Not at all hard to understand. It's not just the pastor. Those leaving have decided that if they never sit in a room with anyone in this church again (including me -- whoever me is), it will be just fine with them. Of course, the pastor may be considered the face of the church and legitimately take it more personally than others but all of us are among those "left behind."

I once had someone tell me that the only reason he and his wife were still in the church was because of the pastor, and that when the pastor left they would also leave. (As it turned out, the pastor's staying power was greater than theirs and they finally gave up on waiting him out.) I had to laugh in reflecting on that statement later. How often does someone tell you to your face that YOUR friendship and support certainly aren't of any value to them and sincerely see it as a positive statement in regards to someone else rather than a slap in the face to the person investing time in listening to them?

To answer your question, in our church I discuss these type of situations with our staff, and then with the board.

In your situation, I wonder if the phrase "the direction the church is going" makes sense to folks. Have there been radical changes to mission, worship style, focus, theological emphasis, programming, so that many can point to what exactly the departed mean? Or does this mean that the church has stopped growing? Or does this sound personal against the pastor to you? Sometimes the reason folks give is a way for them to save face. About a year ago someone used those exact words as they departed, when the real reason was I stripped them of all contact with children when I found out about a past molestation charge.

Well, thinking about "the direction the church is going" would most naturally lead to our gradual elimination of traditional Sunday evening services. It has been a difficult transition. A large part of the congregation is willing to come back on Sunday evening if there's something to come to and we really haven't found a good alternative to the traditional service. (No one who would be responsible for making such a service happen is willing to go back to it.) Still, as you imply, I suspect that's more of an acceptable statement for public consumption than the core of the problem. We're all struggling with the Sunday evening thing but that wouldn't be a show-stopper without deeper problems that aren't being addressed. The most difficult aspects of congregational life right now are much more difficult to put into words without sounding either mean or petty or both. I suspect the thought of moving on has occurred to many more than have actually done it.

Thanks for your response. At least you address it at a board level. I have not heard a word about it other than at the grassroot level.

Does a church need a grief counselor apart from the pastor to address this type of congregational pain? It seems to be an area where the pastor is too personally involved to minister to the rest of those left behind.

Marsha

[Marsha Lynn]

On of the great things about small churches is they can develop a deep sense of community and love for each other. The down side is that the assumed transparency has limits and it is often hard if beloved folks decide to withdraw and will not share what the issue is. The community has a sense that they should have a right to know and feel violated when they are shut out.

You can reach out but don't be surprised if the answers are not satisfying. If the pastor is very tight lipped then there is probably more going on than can be shared publicly. This isn't the pastor's fault but he/she will often take the hit. -

Hmm... I'm not effectively communicating what is bothering me. Our congregation has had a piece of its heart ripped out. These people have been part of our church community for years. Now they are gone. They announced they were off to find greener pastures and left us behind. This is just the latest instance, at least the fifth couple in the past seven years. We're talking board members, very involved, just calling it quits. It doesn't matter why they left. There are plenty of reasons to go. I know some of them and can imagine others. (For that matter, I fully identify with some of them. I just haven't found any place I'd rather be.)

The thing is, as a congregation we are all saddened by this. Having committed church members suddenly walk away is devastating at some level. There is grief. Where did we go wrong? What could we have done differently? If only I had sent that note of appreciation. If only I had made a point to talk to them more often. If only that person who hurt them way back then had apologized. If only I could have helped them past that long ago wound ... If only ... if only ...

Now they are gone. Our weekly encounters are over. They have moved on and we are left behind. And our pastor, the one who might otherwise comfort us in our grief is shut up in his/her own sense of rejection and emotionally unavailable on the subject. No mention is made of the departure. No grief counseling is available. We don't talk about it. We don't sort through what happened in order to learn from our past. We just go on as though nothing has changed.

What is a healthy response within the congregation when we are all shocked by this tearing of the body, and our shepherd and counselor, other than being even more dejected than before, acts as though it never happened and refuses to talk about it? I understand that there are confidentiality issues. But surely there's a better way to respond to corporate grief within a community of faith than for each one to deal with their own grief individually while carrying on publicly as though nothing has happened. What good is being part of a faith community if we must grieve alone when facing this type of rejection and pain?

[Craig Laughlin]

Ah... The way I dealt with it was to talk (mostly listen) with people in the congregation on an individual basis or in small groups. (I don't want to speculate about your pastor but refusing to talk about it in private is not healthy) My purpose was to give them the opportunity to talk about and even vent at me as well as give me an opportunity to speak into their grief. If the reasons for leaving were "structural" - programming changes. We would talk about it in the board. If it was a deeper issue involving confidential information I would simply tell them (the board) that. However, even then is was hard because they sometimes wanted to start speculating. Often they thought they knew but they did not.

I am sorry for your grief and the grief of the congregation.

[Doug Ward]

Unfortunately, this is an issue I have dealt with as well. You see I am an emergent pastor (which comes as a great shock to most self-described emergents), and as you know emergents are dark and shadowy forces who seek to bring socialist, marxist influences into the church; as well as spread the destructive power of contemplative prayer. (I am paraphrasing the copied email - copied and distributed) This was aided by an ex-pastor, who happens to be at headquarters now.

We lost a few established members, which lead to a Holiness Today Article pleading for unity. Craig is right, we do need to be open and talk with people in response to this. However, we also need to emphasize that this is not just leaving for greener pastures, this is un-Christian, un-Biblical behavior. We are called to be in relationship with each other. In all of our hand-wring over other sins, how often do we read about factions, dissensions, and leaving the fellowship? It is convenient how often we ignore those warnings. There are especially needed in our consumerist culture, obsessed with whether my needs are being met.

I pray for a real attitude like Jeremiah, who said these are my people, and I will be with them. Oh well, if you don't like your wife, leave the old bag. If you don't like the church, pull up stakes, and go somewhere else - somewhere more spiritual like me. If your friend does something wrong, turn your back to the infidel.

[Marsha Lynn]

Ah... The way I dealt with it was to talk (mostly listen) with people in the congregation on an individual basis or in small groups. (I don't want to speculate about your pastor but refusing to talk about it in private is not healthy) My purpose was to give them the opportunity to talk about and even vent at me as well as give me an opportunity to speak into their grief. If the reasons for leaving were "structural" - programming changes. We would talk about it in the board. If it was a deeper issue involving confidential information I would simply tell them (the board) that. However, even then is was hard because they sometimes wanted to start speculating. Often they thought they knew but they did not.

I am sorry for your grief and the grief of the congregation.

Thanks, Craig. I appreciate your words of comfort.

In the interest of full disclosure (what internet communication is all about, right?), I should probably admit that I haven't mentioned this particular departure at all to my pastor or his wife. (Nor have they said a word about it within my hearing.) That's partly a lack of opportunity, but also because past experience tells me that they are too deeply wounded to look beyond their own pain and would not appreciate me bringing it up and putting them in a position of trying to find words of response that reveal nothing confidential. I guess I should include addressing their grief in my attempted visualization of what a healthy response on the part of the congregation looks like.

[Craig Laughlin]

Thanks, Craig. I appreciate your words of comfort.

In the interest of full disclosure (what internet communication is all about, right?), I should probably admit that I haven't mentioned this particular departure at all to my pastor or his wife. That's partly a lack of opportunity, but also because past experience tells me that they are too deeply wounded to look beyond their own pain and would not appreciate me bringing it up and putting them in a position of trying to find words of response that reveal nothing confidential. I guess I should include addressing their grief in my attempted visualization of what a healthy response on the part of the congregation looks like.

Marsha you have touched on something that I think complicates these situations, pastors who are not particularly emotionally healthy themselves. We have tons of them in ministry. Sadly the whole health paradigm goes out the window if the leader is very unhealthy. This is a topic for another thread but it profoundly impacts the situation you are dealing with.

[Roy Richardson]

I had to deal with one at a board level early in my tenure. A long-time member and SS teacher abruptly walked out and sent a letter to the board via his sister, another board member. She gave it to me, and after reading it and the accusations it contained, I chose not to share it with the board because it contained nothing redeeming. I told the board of my decision, and said that I will keep it in my file and they are free to come and read it if they want, but I wasn't going to waste precious board meeting time with it. No one asked to read it.

He was so incensed that he mailed it to each board member on his own. Their reaction was that "this has happened before" and let it roll off of them.

Recently someone announced they were leaving because we cancelled SS on Mother's Day. I let it sit for a couple of weeks and called them. The real issue had nothing to do with that. It was that they thought I wanted them to leave after I exercised a very light church discipline regarding potentially hurtful comments in public about things that were really none of their business (private family stuff with another family). After a couple conversations, they are back in the fold and I reiterated my love for them, as well as my love for the Body, and reminded them of how those comments could easily hurt someone's feelings. They are struggling to see that linkage, but they respect the way I handled it (privately in their living room).

It's not easy dealing with those who leave. Sometimes it feels personal. Other times it feels like an addition by subtraction, as if a burden has been lifted. I just pray that the Body of Christ is not damaged in the process.

[Wes Smith]

This thread has the potential to do more good to/for pastors, laypeople and congregations than anything I've ever read on NazNet or anywhere else. I hope this thread gets significant exposure and LOTS of people respond. This REAL stuff.

Friend,

Wes

[Mike Schutz]

One of the reasons pastors need to talk with members of the congregation about such things is to get a sense of perspective.
1. The congregation, or a group within the congregation, may be really hurting and to ignore it is to fail to address an elephant in the room that may inhibit trust and fellowship.
2. The pastors need to understand what is the story being told. While an "announcement from the pulpit," may not be appropriate, there may be the need to address at least some of the issues in smaller settings.
3. Sometimes, the response from long-time members is, "Pastor, they have done this with each of the three previous pastors. It's not you, it's them."

[Michael Flowers]

This topic speaks specifically to what I faced three months ago (after being in my church three months). I had a family leave because they did not like the direction of the denomination, though they would never tell me what they understood that direction to be. The gossip train was definitely moving as the wife was vocal about why they left to others in the congregation and I found myself having to do a lot of one-on-one clarification about things, while trying to let the issue fall silent rather than speaking on it and potentially allowing it to become a bigger deal than it needed to be.

Prayer is the course of action in such cases, and a willingness to listen to what people are seeing and understanding to be going on. I have found myself constantly praying for wisdom and thank God daily that I have a predominantly older core group of individuals who are firm in their faith who have stepped up and helped me in this.

Such times are hard on a local congregation, but God will see all of us through the trials.

[Jim Chabot]

Thanks, Craig. I appreciate your words of comfort.

In the interest of full disclosure (what internet communication is all about, right?), I should probably admit that I haven't mentioned this particular departure at all to my pastor or his wife. (Nor have they said a word about it within my hearing.) That's partly a lack of opportunity, but also because past experience tells me that they are too deeply wounded to look beyond their own pain and would not appreciate me bringing it up and putting them in a position of trying to find words of response that reveal nothing confidential. I guess I should include addressing their grief in my attempted visualization of what a healthy response on the part of the congregation looks like.

Perhaps you could help your pastor by reaching out to him and his wife. I have to wonder if you shared with them what you are sharing with us if it would bring healing there, and perhaps strength to reach out and bring the whole congregation together.

I have no way of knowing, but from the comments posted here by pastors, it's entirely possible that your pastor is feeling hurt and could be thinking that others are secretly blaming him. What a relief it would be to hear that these folks said that he was the only reason they were staying.

Just thinking out loud, I see some good chances for healing and unity in this. I'll be praying for your church family.

[Sarah Smith]

We are a family that left because we didn't connect with the direction the ministry was going.

At first it was very painful and I think we all avoided each other (us and church family.)

But today, a couple of years later, we are all cordial and beyond that I believe still good friends.

We've come to accept that in our town, some need what that ministry offers and some are called to provide it.

And some of us need a different form of worship and different goals in ministry and are called to help reach the community with that.

It isn't who is right and who is wrong.

It isn't dividing the Body of Christ.

It is multiplying it.

They reach people we never would and are fed in ways we aren't.

But we reach people they never would and are fed in ways they aren't.

But when there is a need--believe me, we are all THERE for each other.

[John Reilly]

Lynn, very interesting topic and necessary for discussion. I just completed my Doctor of Ministry at NTS and my final project called the Pastoral Research Project, focused on "The Pastor as a Self-differentiated Leader Nurtured by a Confluence of Grace through the Wesleyan Spiritual Disciplines." The term self differentiated comes from Murray Bowen's family systems theory. Edwin Friedman in his book, Generation to Generation, talks about the church as a family system. Also Richardson wrote two books incorporating this term, Creating a Healthier Church and Being A Healthier Pastor. The Pastor is part of multiple family systems; his/her own nuclear family, second, the Pastor is part of each family that comes to church, thirdly the church as a whole is a family system, the district is family and the international cotn is a family. In view of multiple family systems we often observe interpersonal relationships in triangular sets. You could map out all the families of your church and connect them in triangular relationships. Family systems always seek homeostasis or balance. If the family system is out balance someone or many will be unhappy. One way for the church family to be in a positive dynamic is to be immersed in practicing spiritual disciplines. Ashes to Fire is a great tool for engaging the church family in a positive constructive dynamic interaction. Relationships are always seeking a healthy differentiation which means a movement away from obsessive enmeshed behavior and towards a healthy independent detachment. Obviously in your church setting the church family system is not in balance. Some call it the elephant int he room. But there is some issue or issues that are stressing the healthy interpersonal relationships dynamics. Could be the general issue we all deal with that being, "People like to worship with People who are like them." Although Nazarenes have traditionally ministered to the poor it does make the rich generally uncomfortable. As much as we like to think that Christians can worship as a diverse socio-economic group the reality is for there to be unity in diversity it requires an intentional strategic plan that is missional. I would be glad to talk with you more on the phone if that would help.

[Greg Farra]

Of course, the reason some people may leave is that they believe God is calling them elsewhere. We see pastors do this all the time, why not lay people?

[Roy Richardson]

This topic speaks specifically to what I faced three months ago (after being in my church three months). I had a family leave because they did not like the direction of the denomination, though they would never tell me what they understood that direction to be. The gossip train was definitely moving as the wife was vocal about why they left to others in the congregation and I found myself having to do a lot of one-on-one clarification about things, while trying to let the issue fall silent rather than speaking on it and potentially allowing it to become a bigger deal than it needed to be.

Prayer is the course of action in such cases, and a willingness to listen to what people are seeing and understanding to be going on. I have found myself constantly praying for wisdom and thank God daily that I have a predominantly older core group of individuals who are firm in their faith who have stepped up and helped me in this.

Such times are hard on a local congregation, but God will see all of us through the trials.

This is what is so disturbing about the tactics of demonization that are being used in battles within the church. When we make the other person and their viewpoint beneath us, we can stomp on them. The problem is that the tactic leads to enormous strife within the body. And I am sure that it saddens our Savior.

[Roy Richardson]

Of course, the reason some people may leave is that they believe God is calling them elsewhere. We see pastors do this all the time, why not lay people?

I was once that lay person at the beginning of my seminary experience. We left quietly after fulfilling our obligations, and it hurt. The pastor and I have reconciled, though my children still bear scars from leaving the only church they had ever known. He later saw what I saw when his church was split, but I couldn't make him understand that in advance.

My time in the next church was great for my ministry preparation, though my family paid a high price.

[Susan Unger]

Does a church need a grief counselor apart from the pastor to address this type of congregational pain? It seems to be an area where the pastor is too personally involved to minister to the rest of those left behind.

Marsha

I often thought so at my previous church.

My response to your opening post is to pray. Not just a simple "Dear Jesus, please bless the church." But a time of prayer and fasting, asking my praying friends who are sensing the same pain to join with me in prayer. I've been doing this for two weeks and already have seen some issues come to the top.

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha you have touched on something that I think complicates these situations, pastors who are not particularly emotionally healthy themselves. We have tons of them in ministry. Sadly the whole health paradigm goes out the window if the leader is very unhealthy. This is a topic for another thread but it profoundly impacts the situation you are dealing with.

I wonder how many of us could emerge emotionally whole after having so many key players walk away from an organization for which we have oversight. I guess it's to be expected that our leaders suffer the most.

[Marsha Lynn]

Unfortunately, this is an issue I have dealt with as well. You see I am an emergent pastor (which comes as a great shock to most self-described emergents), and as you know emergents are dark and shadowy forces who seek to bring socialist, marxist influences into the church; as well as spread the destructive power of contemplative prayer. (I am paraphrasing the copied email - copied and distributed) This was aided by an ex-pastor, who happens to be at headquarters now.

We lost a few established members, which lead to a Holiness Today Article pleading for unity. Craig is right, we do need to be open and talk with people in response to this. However, we also need to emphasize that this is not just leaving for greener pastures, this is un-Christian, un-Biblical behavior. We are called to be in relationship with each other. In all of our hand-wring over other sins, how often do we read about factions, dissensions, and leaving the fellowship? It is convenient how often we ignore those warnings. There are especially needed in our consumerist culture, obsessed with whether my needs are being met.

I pray for a real attitude like Jeremiah, who said these are my people, and I will be with them. Oh well, if you don't like your wife, leave the old bag. If you don't like the church, pull up stakes, and go somewhere else - somewhere more spiritual like me. If your friend does something wrong, turn your back to the infidel.

Sorry to admit I didn't quite follow you through the field of sarcasm concerning the emerging church, but I did catch the part about the problem lying with those leaving rather than the church. I find that attitude to be unhelpful at best and an example of gross blindness at worst. How often is one party totally without fault in a divorce? From my point of view, anyone who looks at a divorce situation and completely exonerates one party while placing all the blame on the other is probably not seeing the whole picture. Besides, what percentage of a church's core members can leave and those left behind persist on fixing all the blame on those leaving?

Nor is it helpful to place the blame on the pastor or Ralph or Cindy or Jim-Bob. It takes a village to create an intolerable situation, and it seems that the healthiest response would be to take a good look at ourselves to see if those of us who are left can work together to create a healthy and joyful atmosphere that makes people more inclined to stick around. If good is truly capable of overcoming evil, there is no evil in any congregation that cannot potentially be covered over with love. I'd much rather pursue that path than write off all those who have left as sinners and sit around in a pool of self-pity mourning their lack of faithfulness.

Besides all that, I'm a little surprised by your response. Have you never left a church? And if you have, was it a sin?

Marsha

[Marsha Lynn]

Prayer is the course of action in such cases, and a willingness to listen to what people are seeing and understanding to be going on. I have found myself constantly praying for wisdom and thank God daily that I have a predominantly older core group of individuals who are firm in their faith who have stepped up and helped me in this.

Such times are hard on a local congregation, but God will see all of us through the trials.

Thanks, Michael. How long has it been since Wes Smith first called us to pray and fast on Thursdays for the church? Any time I have been faithful to that practice it seems crises such as these have arisen. I don't see good in any of the leaving, particularly this most recent one. (These people are about as inoffensive as any you will ever meet and no one would ever think we would be better off without them.) But I do see the resulting grief as sometimes prompting us to close up ranks and work harder to support each other.

[Roy Richardson]

Sorry to admit I didn't quite follow you through the field of sarcasm concerning the emerging church, but I did catch the part about the problem lying with those leaving rather than the church. I find that attitude to be unhelpful at best and an example of gross blindness at worst. How often is one party totally without fault in a divorce? From my point of view, anyone who looks at a divorce situation and completely exonerates one party while placing all the blame on the other is probably not seeing the whole picture. Besides, what percentage of a church's core members can leave and those left behind persist on fixing all the blame on those leaving?

Nor is it helpful to place the blame on the pastor or Ralph or Cindy or Jim-Bob. It takes a village to create an intolerable situation, and it seems that the healthiest response would be to take a good look at ourselves to see if those of us who are left can work together to create a healthy and joyful atmosphere that makes people more inclined to stick around. If good is truly capable of overcoming evil, there is no evil in any congregation that cannot potentially be covered over with love. I'd much rather pursue that path than write off all those who have left as sinners and sit around in a pool of self-pity mourning their lack of faithfulness.

Besides all that, I'm a little surprised by your response. Have you never left a church? And if you have, was it a sin?

Marsha

I have only left one without moving my family, and it was painful. There was a period of prayer and fasting, a great deal of introspection, periods of grief, anger, despair and great sadness. Through all of that, God was there, but I'm sure he wasn't pleased by the situation.

Dr. Christine Pohl gave a tremendous chapel service at Asbury Seminary when I was a student there on "Creating a culture of grace and truth" that I have kept and listen to every few years. Here is an excerpt from the book she wrote on the subject: "The Quaker tradition offers time-tested suggestions for fostering truthful living. They include these four: (1) Listen “for the truth in the words of others”; (2) Speak the truth as you understand it with “cordiality, kindness, and love”; (3) Avoid “gossip, tale bearing, breaking confidences, or the disparagement of others”; and (4) Resist “temptations to falsehood, coercion, and abuse.” Adopting these commitments would transform many interactions and communication patterns in our families and congregations."

Info on the book is here - http://www.faithandleadership.com/fe...ull&print=true

I think if we intentionally incorporated those practices into our body life, it would radically change the way we relate to each other.

In July I will be preaching on grace for the month, and I will borrow heavily from her thoughts. They are excellent.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I understand your asking the question but, really, I don't think this is a one-size-fits-all situation. The only reasonable answer is "it depends."

I think that if people are walking out the door, doing all the damage they can do, there might be a place for a public reaction. Or, if they were part of the core leadership of the church, it might need to be responded to openly. On the other hand, if someone attends 2 Sundays a month and has been rather "iffy" anyway, they should likely be allowed to exit gracefully and without comment.

That doesn't mean there can't be a quiet discussion on the church board or maybe even a private chat with some who might be more directly impacted.

Also, we need to keep in mind that "the reason" is seldom "the reason." People generally place the blame on anyone but themselves. The person most often blamed is the pastor, but the music people get their fair share. A family decides to walk and says it's because the pastor doesn't preach deep enough sermons. The real reason is that they switch churches about every 3 years and time is up. What is to be said about it publicly? Is the pastor to get up and defend his sermons? Is he to tell the church that they're just church hoppers anyway? Sometimes there's just nothing that can be said that won't cause more problems.

Again...the only answer is "it depends."

[Roy Richardson]

Has anyone successfully used a form of "Exit interviews" to gain insight? Not arguments, but just gathering information.

[Marsha Lynn]

I have only left one without moving my family, and it was painful. There was a period of prayer and fasting, a great deal of introspection, periods of grief, anger, despair and great sadness. Through all of that, God was there, but I'm sure he wasn't pleased by the situation.

Dr. Christine Pohl gave a tremendous chapel service at Asbury Seminary when I was a student there on "Creating a culture of grace and truth" that I have kept and listen to every few years. Here is an excerpt from the book she wrote on the subject: "The Quaker tradition offers time-tested suggestions for fostering truthful living. They include these four: (1) Listen “for the truth in the words of others”; (2) Speak the truth as you understand it with “cordiality, kindness, and love”; (3) Avoid “gossip, tale bearing, breaking confidences, or the disparagement of others”; and (4) Resist “temptations to falsehood, coercion, and abuse.” Adopting these commitments would transform many interactions and communication patterns in our families and congregations."

Info on the book is here - http://www.faithandleadership.com/fe...ull&print=true

I think if we intentionally incorporated those practices into our body life, it would radically change the way we relate to each other.

In July I will be preaching on grace for the month, and I will borrow heavily from her thoughts. They are excellent.

Thanks, Roy. I come from a long line of non-leavers. My widowed mother and youngest brother and family still attend the church in which my parents raised us and my sister-in-law's parents raised their children. I have been a member of the same church for the past 33 years, since I was 21. Leaving has never been the right answer for me, but there's no way in the world I would ever say it's not the right answer for others. Actually, I have watched multiple nominally-committed people leave over the years and bloom far beyond my expectations in their new setting. (I mentioned a particular example recently in a meeting without naming names and a couple in attendance recognized the description and agreed that it was a wonderful move for their daughter and son-in-law.) It still isn't the answer for me, but who am I to say it's never the right answer for anyone?

Still, it's a wake-up call for the church when someone leaves, and it seems a shame to suffer in individual silence when we could share each other's grief and talk about what we can learn from the pain. I appreciate the guidelines you have shared.

[Dennis M. Scott]

As you have indicated, there is undoubtedly more to the story, and sometimes contributing factors go back years. Neither are we privy to the conversations had with the pastor. It may be very difficult for the pastor for any number of reasons.

Because of the way we know you, I would encourage you to privately go to the pastor and let him know you're praying for him. I am absolutely certain he is in agony, particularly if he isn't able to address it publicly. As others have indicated, and as I know you are already doing, pray for the Holy Spirit to bring comfort and healing. This is absolutely like a death, except that it also has personal stingers in it. Usually when someone dies, they don't choose to die. In this case, they are not only still living, they have chosen to live with someone else. That always hurts, and frankly it hurts more when there has been a loving relationship.

Likely every pastor has a story along these lines. Mine included a very close friend, who didn't like the posters on the wall of my foster son. My friend said I was not being a good parent to let him keep them up, and to let him listen to the music he did. So they left, and blistered me on the way out. Several years later, he came back and apologized profusely, but it was pretty much catchup that you can't put back in the bottle. We hugged warmly, and I believe the relationship is healthy today. He admitted he wasn't right with the Lord, and it really had nothing to do with the foster son. The foster son became a Nazarene pastor, and my friend's two children are now far away from their parents, and as far as the parents know, far away from God. Even laymen can make mistakes, but knowing that doesn't let the pain go away.

Praying for you and your church family.

[Marsha Lynn]

I understand your asking the question but, really, I don't think this is a one-size-fits-all situation. The only reasonable answer is "it depends."

I think that if people are walking out the door, doing all the damage they can do, there might be a place for a public reaction. Or, if they were part of the core leadership of the church, it might need to be responded to openly. On the other hand, if someone attends 2 Sundays a month and has been rather "iffy" anyway, they should likely be allowed to exit gracefully and without comment.

That doesn't mean there can't be a quiet discussion on the church board or maybe even a private chat with some who might be more directly impacted.

Also, we need to keep in mind that "the reason" is seldom "the reason." People generally place the blame on anyone but themselves. The person most often blamed is the pastor, but the music people get their fair share. A family decides to walk and says it's because the pastor doesn't preach deep enough sermons. The real reason is that they switch churches about every 3 years and time is up. What is to be said about it publicly? Is the pastor to get up and defend his sermons? Is he to tell the church that they're just church hoppers anyway? Sometimes there's just nothing that can be said that won't cause more problems.

Again...the only answer is "it depends."

OK, when you got to the music, you finally got to an area where I would have a reason to initiate the response.

IF someone included the music as a reason for leaving, I would expect a discussion to ensue. Every time, not just on an "it depends" basis. Here's how I hope it would go:

As you probably know, John and Jane Doe are looking for a new church. Of course, we will probably never know all the factors that led to this decision for them, but one thing they mentioned specifically was the music. Music is something we do together to enable us to come into the presence of God. With a variety of people and musical tastes in our congregation not every song is going to please every person, but we want to do the best we can to make the music meaningful to the most people. Is this something we need to talk about?

Then I hope we would find a way to let people talk about what they like and don't like in the music and how we can have something for everyone. After all, those people likely complained about the music to at least 20 others before they left. How many of those 20 listeners sympathized with them? If we have that much discontent in the church we need to find a way to address it. That doesn't mean we're going to get out the hymnals and sing only songs written in the old holiness revival campmeeting days, but we're going to make sure we give people a chance to complain to those who are making the decisions rather than muttering about it in little groups.

If this were truly about the lack of traditional Sunday evening services (and no one has said that it is), it would be really nice to have an open discussion about what direction we are headed and what our options are, considering that both the pastor and the musicians are already committing all the time they have available just to do one service. It's a little more difficult to insist that we go backwards when it becomes apparent that the entire worship team is unavailable for such a move. If we conclude together that Sunday evening services are no longer a viable option then it becomes a congregational decision and those who leave in protest will do less damage to any one individual.

You mention the departure of less committed people in your "it depends" answer, but my scenario doesn't include those people. What I'm talking about is when "pillars of the church" take their pillars and leave while the rest of us try to keep the roof from falling. These aren't child molesters or church hoppers. They may not be as mature and steadfast as we would hope, but basically we're talking about hurt feelings and failure to communicate, not evil. I think we all stumble in many ways in areas such as those.

[Doug Ward]

Sorry to admit I didn't quite follow you through the field of sarcasm concerning the emerging church, but I did catch the part about the problem lying with those leaving rather than the church. I find that attitude to be unhelpful at best and an example of gross blindness at worst. How often is one party totally without fault in a divorce? From my point of view, anyone who looks at a divorce situation and completely exonerates one party while placing all the blame on the other is probably not seeing the whole picture. Besides, what percentage of a church's core members can leave and those left behind persist on fixing all the blame on those leaving?

Nor is it helpful to place the blame on the pastor or Ralph or Cindy or Jim-Bob. It takes a village to create an intolerable situation, and it seems that the healthiest response would be to take a good look at ourselves to see if those of us who are left can work together to create a healthy and joyful atmosphere that makes people more inclined to stick around. If good is truly capable of overcoming evil, there is no evil in any congregation that cannot potentially be covered over with love. I'd much rather pursue that path than write off all those who have left as sinners and sit around in a pool of self-pity mourning their lack of faithfulness.

Besides all that, I'm a little surprised by your response. Have you never left a church? And if you have, was it a sin?

Marsha

Let me share a few thoughts.

1. No, I have never left a church, and I would never unless there was a gross , theological divide. Something along the lines of a Luther/Catholic, or decision to go in a historical, non-orthodox direction. The only other reason I could even fathom would be due to an unreconciled, public sin. Perhaps the abuse of a congregant with no sense of repentance. It would have to be big. I would NEVER leave over music, style, preaching ability, pastor's spouse dress, service time, etc. Otherwise known as 98% of the reasons people leave. I am called to be the church, not attend one until I don't like something. That is so American, so consumerist. Count me out.
While in grad school I attended a church for a number of years, then I left to take a pastorate. I personally went to every person in the church on an individual basis to explain my decision, and to affirm I was not leaving the church. I told each how and why I valued them, and why it hurt to leave. I purposefully went over the top, because the relationship is paramount.
2. In my opinion, leaving over a music style, the color of the carpet, or personal feelings toward a pastor is un-Christian behavior, period. To copy emails, pass out letters, carry out whisper campaigns, impugn motives or character is sin of the highest order. If I leave a church because I do not like the music, the fault is mine, the wrong is mine. There are very few reasons to ver break fellowship, and that decision should be a long and agonizing one. Every other route should be blocked before that happens. This is not where most churches are at, and where most people who leave are. Any time someone leaves is a blow to the credibility and witness of the church. Where did we get the idea that we must like everything, or most things to stay. And we say the greatest of these is love. No it isn't. To us, the greatest of these is comfortable agreement, or I'm leaving.

[Roy Richardson]

Amen Doug.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

OK, when you got to the music, you finally got to an area where I would have a reason to initiate the response.

IF someone included the music as a reason for leaving, I would expect a discussion to ensue. Every time, not just on an "it depends" basis.

I still think "it depends" -- if the church has made a decision to, say, go with a high church, hymn oriented service, and these folks are died in the wool and also rather intolerant contemporary praise and worship affectionados, exactly what is there to talk about? If the church has already committed to that style of music, having a discussion about it is only opening a can of worms.

If the leaving is related to WHO is doing the music, yet that WHO is official and supported by the church leadership, having an open discussion would, quite possibly open a person who is simply doing what the church wants done to ridicule.

Then, of course, it might be just the right time to talk about some genuine issue associated with the music.

It depends.

[Dan Henderson]

Let me share a few thoughts.

1. No, I have never left a church,

I have, after attending my first board meeting as a board member of Church X. An autistic child had been publically ridiculed and banned from attending the local youth group. I addressed the issue with the youth leader first, having no resolution, I addressed the issue with the church board. After an hour of this board nearly uninimously supporting and defending the youth leader I fell silent. At the end of the meeting I returned home, wrote my resignation letter and never set foot in the doors of that church again. It is the only church I have ever left.

BTW, the autistic child is now a computer programmer.

[Doug Ward]

I have, after attending my first board meeting as a board member of Church X. An autistic child had been publically ridiculed and banned from attending the local youth group. I addressed the issue with the youth leader first, having no resolution, I addressed the issue with the church board. After an hour of this board nearly uninimously supporting and defending the youth leader I fell silent. At the end of the meeting I returned home, wrote my resignation letter and never set foot in the doors of that church again. It is the only church I have ever left.

BTW, the autistic child is now a computer programmer.

That might qualify as one of my reasons. Might. Though I might still be called to stay.

[Dan Henderson]

That might qualify as one of my reasons. Might. Though I might still be called to stay.

I wasn't called to stay. Children getting hurt is too much for me to deal with. Facing that in desert storm rendered me unconscious for 3 days and more than 10 years before I could even begin to talk about it.

[Mike Schutz]

I have, after attending my first board meeting as a board member of Church X. An autistic child had been publically ridiculed and banned from attending the local youth group. I addressed the issue with the youth leader first, having no resolution, I addressed the issue with the church board. After an hour of this board nearly uninimously supporting and defending the youth leader I fell silent. At the end of the meeting I returned home, wrote my resignation letter and never set foot in the doors of that church again. It is the only church I have ever left.

BTW, the autistic child is now a computer programmer.

Golly Dan, and just when I was getting so upset with you elsewhere on Naznet, you have to go and show that you really do understand social justice.

Come here, big guy, and get your hug!

[Dennis M. Scott]

I understand the sincere nature of this thread, and while I want to be respectful, I am reminded of a situation this week. I had a couple hour visit with a rabbi, and we go to telling stories. He told a joke I had only heard about Christians.

He said, "Three Jews were finally rescued off an island after twenty-five years. The rescuers noticed they had built four synagogues, and asked why four synagogues for three people. 'Why, one for each of our families, and the fourth is the one none of us want to be caught dead in."

The way I originally heard it, a lone Christian was rescued, and the rescuers noticed he had built two churches. When asked why, he said one was the church he attended, and the other was the church he used to attend.

The Jewish joke is funnier. The church joke is funny for awhile, and then it gets sad.

[Marsha Lynn]

I still think "it depends" -- if the church has made a decision to, say, go with a high church, hymn oriented service, and these folks are died in the wool and also rather intolerant contemporary praise and worship affectionados, exactly what is there to talk about? If the church has already committed to that style of music, having a discussion about it is only opening a can of worms.

Well, if they died in the wool, I guess we can just bury them, but if they are dyed-in-the-wool enthusiasts ... (oh, wait, stay on topic)

I'll concede the point, Scott, because I respect your experience and wisdom. I *think* I would still hope to have a discussion, however. Now that we know our music decision has the potential to cost us some of our core members, do we need to reassess our commitment to it? How many more are unhappy with it? Did we know we were alienating them when we made the decision? Did we invite them to be part of the conversation.

But then again, maybe not. Maybe it just depends.

[Doug Ward]

Well, if they died in the wool, I guess we can just bury them, but if they are dyed-in-the-wool enthusiasts ... (oh, wait, stay on topic)

I'll concede the point, Scott, because I respect your experience and wisdom. I *think* I would still hope to have a discussion, however. Now that we know our music decision has the potential to cost us some of our core members, do we need to reassess our commitment to it? How many more are unhappy with it? Did we know we were alienating them when we made the decision? Did we invite them to be part of the conversation.

But then again, maybe not. Maybe it just depends.

So, you have the discussion. You hear all sides. Then as a church you make the decision to change the music, but you purposefully still include traditional hymns in an effort to keep everyone included. Then the people leave anyway. Never mind there are a bunch of people who have hated the music for years, and still came. What do you say about the behavior of the people who left? The greatest of these is love.... or the greatest of these is the church just the way I like it?

[Greg Gates]

When that happens to me (as a pastor) I find/create something positive/new and make a huge deal about it. The key is to get people thinking about what's good about the future for us. Yesterday, in the mail, I received a kindly written thank you note from a member, it meant the world to me and filled my sails. Yesterday I also talked to another pastor and just in talking about ministry he inspired me.