this way to the door
Posted on September 24, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Church
On our first foray into some proper discussion on Amateur Theology, we threw around the idea of at what point of theological disagreement should you leave a church, which prompted Ron (my father) to tell his story:
Back in what seems like an earlier life, my young family and I were in a church in a smallish country town - the denomination is not relevant. Up to this point in time, I had largely been ignorant of the gifts of the holy spirit. My wife and I were involved in assisting to run a youth group, and I was in fact on the elders council of the church, despite being at least 20 years younger than anyone else on this inflated body, and a relatively new christian.
Together with another couple, the leaders of the youth group, we had some responsibility for running monthly youth services on Sunday evenings. We made several mistakes, one was to include an ‘altar call’ for people who wanted to commit their lives to Jesus, and the other was to have someone speak about the gifts of the spirit as something that was real and to be apprehended in this age. To be summoned to the regional overseer (no titles to give denominational hints) and told that perhaps we would be better off in the local Baptist church (there you go, it wasn’t them) sort of put the writing on the wall for us, particularly as there wasn’t a local Baptist church.”
Dad’s story triggered the thought: should churches ever ask people to leave? Obviously any time this happens, it becomes a deeply hurtful experience - likely not just for the person being ejected but also for the person doing the ejecting. Should it ever happen on a point of theology? I’d be very interested to hear what people think.
About Geoff Matheson
Geoff is a 23 year old database administrator who has birthed amateurtheology.org from some crazy thoughts he had early one Monday morning. Geoff does his best to sound lots smarter than he actually is. He also runs some youth stuff at Yarra Valley Vineyard, and he is married to the very lovely Rebecca.
Geoff's site: http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/
Comments
12 Responses to “this way to the door”
Leave a Reply
My church has just opened a new building, so we have a bunch of bright green shiny, backlit exit signs positioned all over the place ready and waiting for anyone who needs to be given their marching orders.
More seriously though, the question is one of leadership. On a point of theology, I think an appointed church leader is completely within their bounds to say that X, Y or Z will or will not be happening in gatherings that they are responsible for overseeing.
Note that I used the word “will” instead of the word “should”. The question of whether X, Y or Z should be happening, changes the debate to one where the issue is whether the decision is (subjectively) right.
When two points of view are so far apart that a leader actually steps in and puts a stop to something, chances are that there hasn’t been a meeting of the minds and that future efforts are likely to be fraught with tension and the constant need for peace-making.
In that instance, moving on may be the better option, which in my view doesn’t equate to admitting to being wrong or proving someone else right. Sometimes things just need to happen separately. I think there is room in the Kingdom of God for that.
This post is reminding me of a topic that keeps coming up for me at the moment and demnds some thought.
Churches seem to have one of two fairly polarised approaches to discussing leadership power: they either seem to discuss how much more of it they want… or they don’t talk about it at all. We seem to better at consciously being autocratic or abdicratic than we are at being consciously ballanced… and if we are ballanced, we are often weak about it. Is it possible to be empowered and democratic at the same time? It feels like a side issue but I reckon it underpins some of what influences our choices about how to resolve differences of opinion and approach. I’m going to need to reflect on this some more… but this topic really interests me, and I hope people thrash it out a bit!
I think there are certainly times at which a certain person/s should be asked to leave the church. If any member persists in serious sin without repentence despite several warnings from the church leadership then I think it’s appropriate to ask that person not to come back until they’ve dealt with the sin in their life.
The same would apply, I suppose, if a member was in serious error with regards to their theology. To avoid condoning false teachers the church has to deal with them.
Who says that a person needs to be in a teaching role to be in a church?
If leadership thinks they’re a false teacher, or have something in their life that they need to deal with, or need to learn some theological lessons, then leadership has the right to say “sorry… you can’t be a leader here any more”.
That’s very different from telling someone “you can’t come here any more”. And whilst in most cases ego or differences of opinion would probably entice most people to leave anyway, unless there is a serious threat to the safety of another person or something similarly extreme, the invitation (or at least the option) should always be to stay on as a part of the church family.
Hi Geoff,
I won’t attempt to deal with this one myself and you may or may not know the reason we left our last church-I’ll let Gerry (when he returns from his rambles in the tropics) deal with this one. Suffice to say that asking someone to leave and the consequences and fallout of that decision caused the ultimate splitting of our former church-including the loss of our gifted young pastor, all the elders (of which Gerry was the chair) and about 75% of the members. God in his grace has brought a measure of healing but the pain and damage at the time and even now as I sit writing this in tears has been phenomenal. I agree with you that the best place for sinners is in the church and not out, but there comes a point when the sinful behaviour is so damaging and undermining of leadership that it can’t be allowed to continue for the sake of the rest of the body.
Interesting topic! Hope Gerry responds-he sure has plenty of first hand experience with this one.
Melinda
Wow, I don’t know who you are Reinhard, but I admire your persistance! There’s no discussion without diverse persepectives, so keep it up!
There are certainly a coupple of contexts (physical/sexual violence) where I would see it as necessary to have people removed from church physically, at least temporarily… but only a very small number of things would justify asking someone to discontiune their assosciation with a specific assembly, or the church as an institution.
Someone with a continueing agenda to undermine or subvert the meta-values of the church in a way that was damaging would probably prompt me to ask them “is this the best place for you?” and “do our values and yours mesh?”
If the decision is ever made to ask someone to leave, I think it should be done with fear and trembling, and with great humility! More thoughts later…
and… back for more thoughts (I had to watch “the Bill” with mum and dad before they go away for a week. Family ritual.)
It strikes me that while there are often theological issues that are used as baseball bats and tennis rackets in these situations, the issues that underpin them seem to be ones of politics, of power, and of control.
I’m inclined to think that people often find doctrines to cover their fears, rather than having fears based in doctrine.
On the other hand there are people who feel strongly that certain views are heresy and that any heretic should be sent packing. As frustrating and irritating as it is when this occurs in a fellowship where we have previously felt accepted and included… if those in power are not amenable to what we see as the best path forwards in Christ, then either we are mistaken, or they are standing in the way of God’s work.
Or… third option - the thing we feel called to do, is something we are called to do in a different part of the ‘church’.
There are contexts where dialogue can resolve differences, and there are contexts where no amount of dialogue will resolve differences. I’ve seen many people burn themselves out fighting a battle that can never be won.
In vineyard churches we sometimes claim to search for the radical middleground between liberalism and conservatism… which would, I believe, mandate selecting as leaders, people who are flexible and open-minded, but who have a strong foundation in scripture and interpretation.
In other churches conservatism might prevail… suggesting the promotion of leaders who are more absolute in their views… and this becomes self perpetuating. Parishoners abdicate their individual responsibility to those they put in authority above themselves. Christs model was a leadership based in service, and yet here we see leadership based in power.
Whatever our beliefs about doctrine, they don’t implicitly justify autocratic use of power. Any rationale for that ought to be carefully considered, and again it strikes me, rarely is.
Inevitably however, especially at the higher levels of leadership, when these things come to conflict they are decided more frequently by who has more power, than by what is right.
I tend to think that moderate liberals are the least likely to use what power they have… and I personally think this is unfortunate. It leaves us often at the mercy of the polarity of extreme views.
I don’t subscribe to the view that church leadership is God-ordained and infaliable. People are ordained by people… but hopefully under God’s leadership. All human leaders are fallable, and should in fact be the servants of, not dictators to those they lead.
So I’ve had more than my two bobs worth to say here, and I’ll conclude with some answers to the original questions.
Should churches ever ask people to leave?
It depends on the meta-values of that church… if the church is established around the kind of constitution that mandates such a response, then yes. If this is offensive to all members of that churches leadership, they should have their constitution changed to something they prefer. Under state and federal law, churches are obliged to protect people on their property and in their programmes from physical, sexual, and emotional abuse… and so that implies a direct mandate to remove someone… and if necessary to do so permanently.
> On issues of ideology:
I think the line is a lot more difficult to draw. How significant are the consequences of this person’s actions? Can they be stood down from leadership if they are a leader, and supported still in fellowship? Can they be encouraged not to influence others if they aren’t in formal leadership? Is our congregation vulnerable to deception from this individual or individuals, and can we educate them to protect them from that?
If the answers to these questions lead us to conclude that we would be neglecting our duty to allow the individual in question to remain in fellowship, then, with very heavy hearts we may be forced to consider asking them to leave.
Unfortunately my experience is that the people who enjoy these kinds of power games usually are the ones doing the asking, and the people who are open to reflection and dialogue are the ones sent packing. If the situation is reversed, the prognosis may be better… but I get the impression that if we here from Gerry, the story he will tell might be one where individuals were asked to leave after very careful deliberation and prayer… and refused to.
Which leads to the question of enforcement… do you hire security guards, and have the person(s)restrained or removed?
But some of the most insidious and damaging leadership is far more effective and invisible (and happens all the time)… a well fed rumour mill can isolate someone and cause them to leave a church without any need for intervention.
So, my final thought is a question: If the structure of a church doesn’t allow dialogue on these issues, and allows the eviction of members without due process, do you want really want to be a part of that, regardless of how good it may seem on a superficial level? And leading from that, is it valid then to lead a breakaway group that in essence is the same church, with the outmoded heriarchy removed? How will that breakaway then respond when the time comes to make these choices?
Should churches ever ask people to leave? yes. Is it painful all round? yes Should it be avoided if at all possible? yes Should it be done by an individual leader? no.
The asking to leave might be based on a theological issue, or a community issue, or a behavioural issue, or a safety issue (how would you like your church service disrupted by a violent member every Sunday?). An approach based on collective wisdom and leadership is what I would advocate - thus it would unwise for any one individual leader to make a judgment call.
I believe that the asking to leave should never be done without a way back. In other words, the person should be asked to take specific action to sort out the issue at hand. A process of restoration that can be followed is important. if the person is unwilling to engage in the process then that could result in a non-return or non-restoration. But primarily it should e a pastoral discipline kind of exercise, not a getting rid of a problem kind of exercise (though believe me, there are moments, when, for the well-being of those serving as leaders, it is better for the church community to have a person leave.)
You amateur theologs should be looking at your scriptures. The Apostle Paul had something to say about removing someone from the church in Corinth. See 1 Cor 5:1-13.
Tim speaks about due process, this is important. One of the difficulties in achieving this though is that sometimes because of privacy issues, people in the church body will not know all the details, nor should they, but subsequently they may perceive that due process has not been followed.
One day if any of you are a leader of a body of believers (of whatever shape or style) you will probably experience this at the coal face because we are all humans living with the distortion of sin in our lives
Thanks for sharing that Gerry. I know it can’t be easy. I’d like to think that my comments here have been pretty close to your own, though granted, more theoretically than practically based.
By “there should always be the option to stay” I was trying to express much the same thing as you were - in that a chance of restoration is vital in the process. To put someone out of relationship with no way back - that isn’t grace. At the same time, church leadership taking authoritative action and defining what is acceptable is fundamentally necessary.
Of course, these situations are never going to be that clean cut. There’s always a phenomenal amount of hurt, confusion, miscommunication and sin wrapped up in situations which cause a major rift in the life of a particular church family. I don’t need to theorise about that. I’ve felt it for myself in a situation that has left some painful memories for myself and for many people whom I care for dearly, some of whom I no longer get to see regularly.
My theorising doesn’t really take into account the real emotions and difficulties and limitations faced by individual leaders (people). But certainly the balance of seeking to be agents of God’s grace without compromising on the rightful role of a leader becomes the thought process. Certainly in 1 Corinthians, Paul was encouraging the church in Corinth to stand for the truth, rather than encouraging sin (v2). The need for a way back - the need for grace to be considered - remains. It may not be practically possible in a given situation… but it has to enter into a Christian leader’s thinking on such matters.
I’m getting the impression Gerry, that you’d agree. Again, thanks for sharing. It’s always the things that touch a nerve that take a bit of extra effort to discuss.
-Paul.
Hmmm, yes!
I have to admit I struggle to want to go digging scripturally on this issue, because I think the way we should treat people in such circumstances should be common sense if its based in love. But you’re right of course!
I guess I just tire of people cooking up scriptures to argue whatever nonsensical pathway they have chosen, and neglecting to look at the big picture: is this the most loving solution?
But its a fair call, at least on my part… more homework required
Tim