Former fundys, some of who post here.....ouchie.

[rsc2a]

We know Jesus wept but it never says He laughed. He was far too serious for that.

 

[subllibrm]

I knew it! They left the church because the church always gets the cheap beer for the men's outings! No wonder they are hurt. 8)

You jest, but the truth inherent to your humor (and part of the OPs point as well) is that the Young-Restless-and-Reformed types promote such a flippant approach to Christianity, rather than a sober and sacrificial life that elevates the proclamation of the gospel over our own personal preferences and liberties.

FWIW I mock everyone and everything that I deem worthy of my scorn. I love to tweak my "relevant" friends.  I find it great fun to remind Frag of his "anointing". And there is no shortage of people who would never touch a beer that suffer from the same selfish mindset when it comes to "quality" and "comfort". Good solid, separated, fundamental churches can find themselves minding the quality of the catered food or the comfort of the seating.

The best (worst) example I ever saw was a local church that was the home to the "big name" believers in our area. They actually had little brass plaques on the seats with the names of the movers and shakers. Those we assigned (bought?) seats and no one was to sit there except the "owner". When having your seat marked is of such importance, I would say that the gospel has taken the back seat (if it is even in the car). BTW this was in the 50's-60's. So the personal over the eternal is not new to this generation.

 

[ALAYMAN]

FWIW I mock everyone and everything that I deem worthy of my scorn. I love to tweak my "relevant" friends.

So, you are an equal opportunity twerker, ummm, tweaker, then?












Yes shallow Christianity can be found in a variety of camps, none are immune.  But this was a tweaking of Freebirds, so get with the program man! 

 

[praise_yeshua]

Lies hurt! Lies continually hurt! Lies damn. Lies destroy.

Why can't it just be about hating the endless lies found in fundamentalism? We fellowship in the Truth. Not in LIES.

Lies have wounded many people that claimed conservative fundamentalism,

Lies are far from the exclusive domain of fundys and conservative evangelicals, so if the reason a person hops from movement to movement and church to church is that they're looking for perfect people, well, good luck with that philosophy.  Truth be told, I think that's the true reason so many people cop-out and quit attending church.  Well, that, and carnality.

Never said they were. They are part of it. Why are you using the "non exclusive" argument to deflect? That's like one man in the leper colony pointing and shouting.

"That person has leprosy. Stay away"......

?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Never said they were. They are part of it. Why are you using the "non exclusive" argument to deflect? That's like one man in the leper colony pointing and shouting.

"That person has leprosy. Stay away"......

?

What?

 

[Bruh]

It's always the people's fault for any and all troubles that arise within the church............................always.

I was attending a church where we couldn't even teach children's Sunday School.
Why? Because on occasion we attend the movies, only PG, my wife also wears pants. She never wore pants to any church fuction, we knew better than to do that.

We were there going on 10 years, faithful to EVERY service, gave of our time and fiananices. We were only allowed to clean the church and the grounds, my wife was allowed to work in the nursery.

All because we go to the movies occasionally and my wife wears pants.

I talked to the pastor 3 different times about this in the almost 10 years. There were no cross words no disrespect from either of us.

I told him that I believe I have studied both the pants and movie issues and we don't see where the Lord is leading us to where you are. His answer, so you won't sign the paper because the Lord hasn't spoke to you about it?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Those people who used to be Church People, now find themselves outside of where you are now. They find themselves refugees and orphans and estranged family members. They are now Once-Churched People.

And I need you to know some things about them, because it can be very tempting from the inside to generalize them all; to paint them with the same lazy, sweeping strokes. It can be so very easy from your vantage point, to see them as the enemy or the problem or to somehow view them as adversaries—but that would be a huge mistake.

They have not all abandoned their faith, though many have.
They do not all resent you who are Church People, although some do.
They do not all wish to wage war with those on the inside, though many may feel forced into a defensive posture by them.
They are not all defiantly reveling in their outsider-ness. Lots of them are filled with grief and guilt, and have only left despite their best and continued attempts to stay.
They are not spiritual lepers whose presence you need to avoid, lest their immorality become contagious and infect you.
They are not the dangerous, devious “Them” to be feared or pitied or defeated.

In fact, they are in so many ways, exactly who they used to be when they were Church People too; those you joyfully rubbed shoulders with in Sunday worship, who served alongside you in Children’s Ministry, who sat next to you in small group, who prayed through tears with you during midweek services.

They are still people of great depth and character and substance and yes, even faith. They are still wonderfully attentive parents, devoted friends, loving spouses, amazing co-workers, helpful neighbors. They are still responsible and compassionate and loving, and so much of what you treasured and knew to be true about them then, is still true today. They are simply not comfortable in the space you find yourself. They are not misfits, but they most surely no longer fit.

And it’s important that you remember all of this; that you find a softness in your response to them. It’s critical that you treat them with kindness and gentleness and great respect, and that you resist the urge to minimize them or the journey they’ve traveled to the outside.

What Church People Really Need To Know About Once-Churched People

 

[subllibrm]

We used to be a church that ignorantly hurt people. By the grace of God He has made us into a church that heals. Not just those who come to us from other places but also those among us whom we have hurt. The very first step in this journey is to admit that your are capable of doing spiritual damage in another person's life and telling them to "get over it" is not a biblical healing method.

 

[ALAYMAN]

We used to be a church that ignorantly hurt people. By the grace of God He has made us into a church that heals. Not just those who come to us from other places but also those among us whom we have hurt. The very first step in this journey is to admit that your are capable of doing spiritual damage in another person's life and telling them to "get over it" is not a biblical healing method.

Grace is good, but it doesn't mean becoming an enabler.  Just like parenting, a single style of teaching and discipline doesn't suit all folk.  Paul's harsh language (as alluded to already in an earlier post) wouldn't be received well in this therapeutic generation.  When he said those who are lazy shouldn't eat maybe he meant that anybody is welcome into the church food pantry, at any time, for any reason.  Self-esteem building is not the first goal of the gospel.  Even James Harrison might have something to teach the church in this uber affirming generation...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13447657/james-harrison-pittsburgh-steelers-takes-away-kids-participation-trophies-says-awards-earned

 

[subllibrm]

We used to be a church that ignorantly hurt people. By the grace of God He has made us into a church that heals. Not just those who come to us from other places but also those among us whom we have hurt. The very first step in this journey is to admit that your are capable of doing spiritual damage in another person's life and telling them to "get over it" is not a biblical healing method.

Grace is good, but it doesn't mean becoming an enabler.  Just like parenting, a single style of teaching and discipline doesn't suit all folk.  Paul's harsh language (as alluded to already in an earlier post) wouldn't be received well in this therapeutic generation.  When he said those who are lazy shouldn't eat maybe he meant that anybody is welcome into the church food pantry, at any time, for any reason.  Self-esteem building is not the first goal of the gospel.  Even James Harrison might have something to teach the church in this uber affirming generation...

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13447657/james-harrison-pittsburgh-steelers-takes-away-kids-participation-trophies-says-awards-earned

Is this where I insert the word obtuse?

 

[subllibrm]

Grace is good, but ...

I know this isn't what you meant but it sure looks funny set up like this!

.... a single style of teaching and discipline doesn't suit all folk.

Who are we disciplining?  ???

I said we were a church that hurt people (I know I was one of them) ignorantly (note the root of ignorant is ignore). Who is supposed to be under discipline here?

Note again, the hurt was inflicted by the leadership onto the member. Why are you wanting to add to that by "using harsh words" against the member?

 

[Bruh]

Grace is good, but ...

I know this isn't what you meant but it sure looks funny set up like this!

.... a single style of teaching and discipline doesn't suit all folk.

Who are we disciplining?  ???

I said we were a church that hurt people (I know I was one of them) ignorantly (note the root of ignorant is ignore). Who is supposed to be under discipline here?

Note again, the hurt was inflicted by the leadership onto the member. Why are you wanting to add to that by "using harsh words" against the member?

Because it is ALWAYS the people's fault, and the people are to except and over look the faults of the leadership.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Grace is good, but ...

I know this isn't what you meant but it sure looks funny set up like this!

.... a single style of teaching and discipline doesn't suit all folk.

Who are we disciplining?  ???

I said we were a church that hurt people (I know I was one of them) ignorantly (note the root of ignorant is ignore). Who is supposed to be under discipline here?

Note again, the hurt was inflicted by the leadership onto the member. Why are you wanting to add to that by "using harsh words" against the member?

Depends on how you define "hurt".  If "hurt" means that somebody in leadership made a poor choice at one time to not include everybody by giving everyone a ribbon for entering into the church Barbecue competition, then I say "get over it".  Or in the other example I invoked regarding laziness, if somebody is unhappy because the church gives a once-a-year love offering to the church pianoist while they won't subsidize a slothful lifestyle of those too lazy to work, then those sluggards sometimes need to get over their hurtness and just get to work.

 

[subllibrm]

Grace is good, but ...

I know this isn't what you meant but it sure looks funny set up like this!

.... a single style of teaching and discipline doesn't suit all folk.

Who are we disciplining?  ???

I said we were a church that hurt people (I know I was one of them) ignorantly (note the root of ignorant is ignore). Who is supposed to be under discipline here?

Note again, the hurt was inflicted by the leadership onto the member. Why are you wanting to add to that by "using harsh words" against the member?

Depends on how you define "hurt".  If "hurt" means that somebody in leadership made a poor choice at one time to not include everybody by giving everyone a ribbon for entering into the church Barbecue competition, then I say "get over it".  Or in the other example I invoked regarding laziness, if somebody is unhappy because the church gives a once-a-year love offering to the church pianoist while they won't subsidize a slothful lifestyle of those too lazy to work, then those sluggards sometimes need to get over their hurtness and just get to work.

Whatever scenario you come up with the leadership is never wrong. No wonder you don't understand the issue.

You really can't conceive of a situation where a man makes a choice of expedience and pragmatism over following scriptural processes and principles? Or that said choices may require something more than a "my bad"?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Whatever scenario you come up with the leadership is never wrong.

Really?  In replies #47, 55, and 58 I conceded that there are situations that call for leadership to receive their due blame for abusing the sheep.  Maybe you haven't grown far enough from the fundy tactics of ignoring truth in favor of propping up your own set of facts.

You really can't conceive of a situation where a man makes a choice of expedience and pragmatism over following scriptural processes and principles? Or that said choices may require something more than a "my bad"?

Did I say that somewhere, or are you again putting words in my mouth?  You speak in vague ambiguity, whereas I've been a bit more specific.  For instance, what does "hurt" mean?  Is there not a spectrum of definitions that would be used by some people who simply need to get over it?  Have you ever met somebody who would benefit from not playing the victim card anymore, especially on thing as trivial as having lost the annual church bake-off?  How about the person who is a constant complainer that their situation in life is bad and that only if they were to be given a real opportunity to work at some high-paying job that they'd then go to work and show their real potential?  How about the person who quits church altogether because "you all are constantly talking about soulwinning.  Not everybody is geared for that."  Should such a "victim" be given creedance for their rationalizations perpetually?  Should leaders kowtow to their sorry excuses, or would it be more accurate to say that sometimes people need to hear the cold hard truth about their luke-warm and apathetic spiritual temperature.  Was Paul wrong for telling them to starve if they didn't work?

 

[subllibrm]

Whatever scenario you come up with the leadership is never wrong.

Really?  In replies #47, 55, and 58 I conceded that there are situations that call for leadership to receive their due blame for abusing the sheep.  Maybe you haven't grown far enough from the fundy tactics of ignoring truth in favor of propping up your own set of facts.

You really can't conceive of a situation where a man makes a choice of expedience and pragmatism over following scriptural processes and principles? Or that said choices may require something more than a "my bad"?

Did I say that somewhere, or are you again putting words in my mouth?  You speak in vague ambiguity, whereas I've been a bit more specific.  For instance, what does "hurt" mean?  Is there not a spectrum of definitions that would be used by some people who simply need to get over it?  Have you ever met somebody who would benefit from not playing the victim card anymore, especially on thing as trivial as having lost the annual church bake-off?  How about the person who is a constant complainer that their situation in life is bad and that only if they were to be given a real opportunity to work at some high-paying job that they'd then go to work and show their real potential?  How about the person who quits church altogether because "you all are constantly talking about soulwinning.  Not everybody is geared for that."  Should such a "victim" be given creedance for their rationalizations perpetually?  Should leaders kowtow to their sorry excuses, or would it be more accurate to say that sometimes people need to hear the cold hard truth about their luke-warm and apathetic spiritual temperature.  Was Paul wrong for telling them to starve if they didn't work?

Okay so I gave my mad copy - paste skills a work out.

Alayman "conceding":

#47 - Inherent in the question, like SCs "cereal" analogy, is the assumption that most churches are abusive.  I've only been a member of 2 churches in my 27 years as a Christian, and haven't found abuse in either one, neither for myself nor any hint of scandal towards others.  It's true that the depth of relationships ("community") is not always what it should be, but that is far from abuse, and just like my biological family, I don't abandon them because they disappoint me.

#55 - I had the same kind of experience with a candy bar known as a Smoothie as a kid, never to eat another.  I also had a scenario as a teenager where I was out doin' stuff that I shouldn't have been doin', only to suffer the hangover consequences the next morning.  I was at my best friend's house, and his step-dad woke me up with an offer of breakfast cereal, which was weird, because he wasn't the type to make us breakfast, ever.  Well, he insisted I eat it, and I felt like crap.  It made me hurl.  I've never eaten Cinnamon Toast Crunchies since.   The irony in that particular story is that I did continue to eat actual cinnamon toast in milk (an old family favorite) without any of the negative baggage.  I say all that to say this, getting burnt can leave a person apprehensive, but it ain't healthy to irrationally apply such baggage.   If a particular denom has a legitimate bad rap (such as many Indy-Fundy churches) then do your homework and avoid them, but they're only a small fraction of the cereals out there.   In the Aldi analogy the lady could have went to other thrift stores and almost assuredly purchased similar brands without ill effects.  Church is much the same, as is life, it's often what you put into it.  Put another way, character is often measured by seeing what it takes to stop somebody from doing the right thing.  Christ is worth perservering, and His church is where His saints find nurturing and fellowship.  Last cliché, I promise, but the adage of not throwing the baby out with the bath applies in various realms of life.

#58 - Never admitting you're (especially a spiritual leader who is supposed to be an example to the flock) wrong, in the event that a person is clearly in the wrong, is clearly foolish.  And people are wise to see through such shenanigans and pride if their spiritual gurus are like that, but to assume that all folk in conservative Christian leadership are like that is just foolish.  Sometimes the person who licks their wounds (perpetually )does so out of immaturity.  I've seen people on this very forum point to the Pharisee who likes to impose his scruples on everybody else and say effectively "I don't have to be held captive to that weaker brother's conscience, and he needs to mature".  They're right in calling such weak sin-sniffers to grow into the liberty that Christ affords, and it is right to not allow the cloak of "injury" to disguise licentious living.

Translation: sure there are few rare instances when a leader may cross a line (and then mostly in bad churches and almost never in good churches) but the vast majority of complaints are from childish whiners who just need to get over it.

*****************************

Specifics? Okay, but remember you asked for it.

My wife and I used to organize a camp-out every summer. It was essentially our replacement to "family camp" when the church leadership decided to drop family camp from the calendar due to lack of interest. While it was not an official church event we invited all of the church to join us on our summer camping vacation. So we ran it for 10-12 years. Along the way our schedule, life and priorities changed and we asked some friends if they would be willing to do the leg work to organize the next summer's camp-out. They agreed. We didn't participate that year except to stop in for dinner and campfire one of the nights. So far so good.

The next year in late winter, I get a phone call from one of the pastors asking me to consider taking the reins back from my friends because we had always done a superior job to what this other couple was able to accomplish.  ???

So I stop by the church to get a little more information. It seems that one of the older ladies who had attended for many years felt that the event didn't have enough "spiritual" emphasis and had mentioned to the pastor how disappointed she was (1). Taking this "concern" to the committee responsible for church events (2) he asked for their input on how to resolve this problem (3). The committee in true committee fashion suggested that it should be referred to the deacons for their input (4). The issue was then added to the deacon's agenda where it led to a spirited discussion. Hashed over in many ways, from several angles:

"Is this even a church event? I thought it was just a bunch of friends going on vacation together."
"Why can't the committee just appoint a new person to organize the event?"
"Are there any church funds involved?"
"Just cancel the event and the complaints will stop."
"Blah,blah,blah let's throw it back in the committee's hands."

So back to the committee it goes (5). More discussion and a suggestion from the pastor that they request that my wife and I resume taking the lead role. Followed by the phone call to me (6).

Anyone notice what's missing in all of this? Very good weed-hopper. Not once in the three months this process took did anyone ever talk to the couple who had replaced us. The lady discussed it with the pastor but not the couple. Then the pastor took it to the committee without ever talking to the couple. The committee sent the issue to the deacons who discussed it but did not, among their thoughts and ideas, tell the pastor to discuss it with the couple. So now over 20 people have been in discussions over this "problem" without any contact withe the couple who had done such a poor job. Hello? Anyone see a problem here? Anyone? Bueller?

Now I am standing in the pastor's office being asked to go fire this couple from the role of leading this event. Needless to say, I had a few questions and concerns that I wanted cleared up. Now you may say that I or they should get over our "hurt". That misses the point entirely. What a colossal waste of time for both groups to discuss this (non)issue. What a total lack of leadership that out of all those people not one of them stopped the process and said "this whole thing is little more than gossip". Not one went back to the lady to find out that she wasn't telling the pastor to "fix" things. She just expressed her opinion when he asked how the camp-out went ("I liked it better when Bill and his wife ran it"). Not one moment of pause to think, hey maybe we are blowing this way out of proportion.

So I asked why didn't you just start with the new couple in charge and make some suggestions? "Well, I didn't want to upset anyone." (let that sink in a little bit).  So rather than talk to one couple for a few minutes to encourage them and give some guidance on how the event might be improved, you discuss it with 20 uninvolved people and come to the conclusion that A) they should be relieved of the responsibility and B) the dismissal should be done by someone else.

The good news is we got over it. 

****************

As long as I am killing server space:

I was Awana Commander. I get a call from my Boys senior club director; "they are taking Derek, one of my helpers, away from me. Do you know why?" No but I will ask.

So I stop into the pastor's office and ask why is Derek being asked to step aside from Awana? "Well we had some complaints (1) about his conduct with is girlfriend in front of the clubbers". Really? What did they do? (full disclosure this was my niece and her fiance)

"Well, I can't go into details but we had reports that there was apparently inappropriate behavior going on before club." Inappropriate in what way? "Again, I can't say without betraying a confidence (2) but she was very concerned about the clubbers." Were they approached about their behavior and asked to stop whatever it was? "No (3), we just asked him to shadow the maintenance guy on Wednesday nights and assist him as needed." So you reassigned him for inappropriate behavior but didn't address the behavior itself? "Well it really isn't that big of a deal. It is just easier (4) to remove him from the temptation. After all they will be married this summer so then it won't even matter" (let that sink in a little bit too).

I get a phone call from Regina (niece) asking if I know why Derek has been reassigned. I tell her what I had been told and asked if she knew what of their behavior might be a concern. She said that they would often walk into the club area holding hands but no one had ever said anything about it. Derek tells his mom who requests a meeting with the pastor to discuss the issue. Hearing that a meeting had been scheduled I invited myself and the director along. Also in attendance were Derek, Regina and the youth pastor.

With the couple sitting right there, the pastors both refused to identify the actual behavior that led to the reassignment (5). They said that it would be a breach of trust because if the did, the person who had reported it would be known (6). At this point mom pretty much went ballistic. After calming her down I asked how the decision was made without consulting myself or the director for any input or verification that the reports were accurate. Again, they were unwilling to risk the identify of the individual making the complaint (7) and that commander and director weren't really leadership positions tasked with making these types of decisions. That was the last term as commander for me.

So the couple got married and stayed on for a year or two. Then they walked through a similar situation with a friend where the same answers were given and the results were the same. They "got over it" by leaving for another church.

I could go on but there should be enough "specifics" here to show that it wasn't about bake offs or parking spots.

And the number in parentheses? Those are where there were opportunities to make a better choice or where biblical principles (Matt 18) were ignored in favor of taking the easier road.

I am sure that the thinking was something like, grace is good, but ....

 

[Bruh]

Any IFB church I have been a part of, any problem that came up within the church, the pastor has ALWAYS came across as, it's the people's fault because they don't want to submit and follow.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Any IFB church I have been a part of, any problem that came up within the church, the pastor has ALWAYS came across as, it's the people's fault because they don't want to submit and follow.

Then you've been part of churches that had poor leadership, and hopefully you were wise enough to not stay there long.  It's my opinion, if I were looking for a church, that a person who does their due diligence should be able to avoid such leadership pitfalls.  That could be accomplished several ways.  Like knowing a trustworthy mature member of the church and asking their opinion of how such matters are handled from the pulpit as well as in counsel.  Or taking time to listen to the style of messages preached (ie, are they full of grace and wisdom vs authoritarian hobby-horse messages).  And lastly, sitting down with the pastor after a time of attendance and evaluation at the church in order to talk with him and determine his stance/position on leadership styles.

 

[Biker]

Subllibrum Most people wouldn't do anything like what you did, good for you. 
In accordance with this Pastor showing his true colors, it is likely him who made it up about your niece and her suitor.
Meaning there was no report about your niece and her suitor being inappropriate, he fabricated it hence why he cannot back it up.



When it involves a Pastor/Elder acting on his own accordance outside of scripture, TO BOOT,... you then cannot even question that it is likely a fabricated story. I think you already knew or suspected it was. His fellow elders must deal with one of their own making decisions GOD (used Apostle Paul) to command be made by a group of men. God used Paul to command the church be ran by a group of Elders, so they need to make decisions about who stays on, as a group of men. And in what capacity. They decide your neice's suitors fate. Not one man. Including their own fate and this needs to be evaluated whether This Pastor/Elder is worthy to be in a leadership capacity at all cause this is bad. At best he should step down on his own accordance. IF not, the Elders need to boot HIM.
This Pastor/Elder doesn't sound mature. But I am preaching to the Choir no doubt, your handling of it adhering to scripture...is admirable

 

[ALAYMAN]

....

So the couple got married and stayed on for a year or two. Then they walked through a similar situation with a friend where the same answers were given and the results were the same. They "got over it" by leaving for another church.

I could go on but there should be enough "specifics" here to show that it wasn't about bake offs or parking spots.

And the number in parentheses? Those are where there were opportunities to make a better choice or where biblical principles (Matt 18) were ignored in favor of taking the easier road.

I am sure that the thinking was something like, grace is good, but ....

Mistakes in leadership are often made in all circles of human organization, even the church.  Your scenarios sound like a lot of botched headship, and when confronted in meekness, in  the spirit of wise accountability, those leaders should offer better reasoning for their course of action.  Having said that, and not trying to be either of the O words (Offensive, or Obtuse ) I wouldn't count those things that happened to your folk to be worthy of causing any significant "hurt".  Like I said earlier, thicker skin is warranted.  It sounds like after long enough exposure to such poor leadership they did the mature thing, and moved on to seek a community of faith hopefully where their service would be appreciated and their positions respected with dignity.  To me, that's just life, nothing worthy of lamenting too long or losing sleep over.