Wayne's World...(23Apr08)

How approachable are we...really?

I was chatting to a friend of mine today. He leads a church and has had some folk leave over the last while. (Something we can all relate to). What struck me was one comment he made, and it has been ringing in my head the whole day. The comment was this…

"People are saying that they are leaving over a difference in theology, but no-one is telling me what that difference is"

It can be very difficult at the best of times to pinpoint why someone actually leaves a church at any given time. Here are a few thoughts I had that centered around this topic. These are not a criticism (aimed at anyone) but simply some thoughts as a result of some meditation over the matter. As pastors and leaders this is a relevant topic to throw around.

There are a few possible scenarios here.

1) All the people who are leaving have seriously lost the plot. We are right about our theology and they are all wrong. This may be true for one person leaving for "different theology", but when an exodus of people begins to take place it might mean we should not just write them all off as having "bad theology". Is God doing or saying something new?...must be asked.

2) People are telling us what the diffarances are , but were not hearing it, or simply disagree with them to the extent that we simply dismiss the "revalation/theology" as nonesence.

3) I'm wondering how much of a platform we create in our churches for people to openly and safely express their different doctrinal beliefs. (without judgment or consequence)

How do we respond/react when people have different theologies? Do we allow open discussion and expression of ideas and theologies?

My experience and personal leadership style has mainly responded as follows.

If the belief is different to mine (being the lead elder), the congregation member (or other elders) are expected to change their theology. If they do not, they are undermining my eldership. They are then causing division. (How can two walk together unless they agree). Usually this comes with an encouragement, or a command to not share this "revelation" with others.

If the doctrine is far away from mine I may even call it "bordering on heresy".

Some times the matter will be referred to an apostolic person for further input.
I think this is a good idea, but can have some inherent problems.

a) The "apostle" is usually very far removed from the actual discussion.

b) Often the elder presents the problem, without the congregation member. This can lead to a natural bias in the presentation of information. This waters down the ability for the "apostle" to objectively input into the situation.

c) It's our natural tendency to defend what we belong to(or our organization), so most the time we will find support for the lead elders side of the disagreement.

If people are truly convicted of their belief, they may very courageously see the process through any way. Standing by their convictions. This usually leads to "repent/change your doctrine, or leave the church". People seldom change what they feel are God given convictions, so they leave.

This is a scary place to be as unity cannot be reached on the basis of doctrine. Surely we all disagree on some things. "how can two walk together" as a law means none of us can walk together, ultimately.

Another thing I have noticed is our tendency to "speak into" this disagreement from the pulpit. Often this attacks the views of the person/people who had a difference of opinion. This often makes "attacked" people leave. ( i cant remember people like this ever staying for long). A preach like this translates to rejection, and people battle to fit in from then on.Another dynamic I've noticed; people are smarter than we give them credit for, we defend our doctrine and attack those who have a different doctrine. Those who are aware of the politics behind it, will know WHO the preach is intended for, see that PERSON being "attacked". The danger here is that if these people agree with the person being "preached at", it can result in multiple exits of people. I know some who left a church when another's beliefs were attacked, they left because they had the same belief and knew it was a matter of time before it would be found out. The others who had the "wrong beliefs" were asked to leave the church. People fear the same punishment, and just leave quietly. In this case it's doubtful that people will tell us exactly why they left. They may simply say, we have a difference in theology. What we need to realise here is that our church members often have stronger relationships with eachother, than they do with us! If we attack an individual, we need to realise a group will feel the effect. If one leaves many may.

My question is this…How is this working for us? How's the fruit? Are our churches better off? Are the people who left better off?

The people who leave seem to be badly hurt through this process, and the associated labels of rebels (those who cause division) and heretics, does not help them heal quickly.

We say people can approach and discuss anything, but people have the ability to scan the process and the results for their revelation, I suspect this will lead to many simply keeping quiet about how they feel (unhappy church goers of whom we say "i cant put my finger on it but it does not feel like they are blowing wind into my sails anymore") , or simply leaving the church with very little explanation.

This scary environment, what does it produce?

a) The scary thing about this environment is that we discourage people to think and learn for themselves. Rather we encourage people to us, and the fact that we have the revelation, and the truth. This is the very thing we've been trying to undo for centuries in the church.

b) We will sometimes miss new truth, or waves of God in the church.

Some of these people can be seriously apostolic or prophetic; to silence them would be disastrous. Prophets take the most strain when God is doing a new thing.

c) In this environment it is very unlikely that those who leave, will ever return, or have good feelings towards us or our churches again.(or our orginisation)

Another aspect of this whole approach must be mentioned.

The cities we live in are littered with hurt, disillusioned Christians who hate church, and any form of religious institution. Many of these were Christians in churches, elders, leaders, good people.

How did they get like this? Sure some of them might be to blame for their own situation, but how many were simply handled badly?

I'm not saying that we need to put up with ridiculous doctrines. We are to refute bad doctrine and live for the truth. What I'm saying is let's be wise about how we do that.

I'm, also suggesting that we need to be constantly refining our theology, doctrine and government. When we cease to evaluate and adjust these things, were setting ourselves up to fail in the future. In order to do this we need to create free platforms where we can discuss and disagree about doctrines, without fear or rejection of punishment or loss of inheritance. If we don't we will fill our churches with clones who believe what we believe, and do what we do. Many may simply be to afrais to say what they think or feel. It may even border on manipulation and control if left unchecked. Tragic. We will have become religious.(though never intended)

Michael Eaton

"It's scary when a pastor changes his belief, it's even scarier if he never does!"

Bill Johnson

Unity based on common doctrines has a measure of success. But there is an inherent problem with this approach – unity of this nature is based upon uniformity. When God is saying something new, those who are listening are usually asked by their leaders to leave the group they were a part of. Their newfound convictions and beliefs are considered threatening and divisive. If the whole group doesn't move in step with what God is saying, there will be a break in fellowship. When agreement in nonessential beliefs are considered necessary for fellowship, then division is natural and to be expected. While doctrine is vitally important it is not a strong enough foundation to bear the weight of His glory that is about to be revealed through true unity.

Change is in the Air

There are major changes in the "wind" right now. For the last several years people have started to gather around fathers instead of doctrine. In the natural, it would be easy to imagine a father with two very different children – one politically liberal and the other conservative. While discussions would probably be quite lively at the evening meal, they would not bring an end to the family. Gathering around fathers gives a stability that enables people to endure differences in opinion without falling under the influence of the spirit of offense. Fathers bring an element of peace that is impossible without them.