The Tipping Point - Leaving the Church

There's good and bad in everything, and it is no different with the church.  As long as the good outweighs the bad, people will stay and survive... and even thrive.  But if a tipping point is reached where the bad outweighs the good, their reasons for staying will be outnumbered by their reasons for leaving and they will stage their own personal exodus.  It is often calculated and pre-meditated, since there is usually painful fall-out that comes with it.  The inevitable loss of lifelong friends is one of the most painful consequences.

Staying

There are a lot of good reasons why people will stay in the institution.  For many, it is a family tradition that is comfortable and familiar and their is no good reason to quit.  For others, their social and emotional needs are met by the company of good friends and like-minded birds of a feather.  Others find common ground in doctrines and dogmas that make sense to them ideologically.  They may like the political platform of the church.  Many will attend to get close to God and enjoy the kindred spirit of corporate worship.  And the list goes on.

In my opinion, when people feel happy and safe in the church environment, they should continue as long as they can...  for a lifetime if possible.

Leaving

There are also a lot of good reasons for leaving the church, and many of them have to do with the reverse of everything good.  If they don't fell safe there, if their emotional and social needs are not being met there and there is no sense of community, if they don't have friends there, if they take issue with the doctrines and dogmas there, if they can't feel close to God there, and so on, they have good reason to leave.

Why would anyone want to keep attending a club where they are not welcome?  Why would they continue to contribute to an organization whose values are not consistent with theirs?  What if they are made to feel like a misfit or an outcast, should they keep going for the sake of the institution?  What about abusive situations where they are being condemned or guilted into submission by domineering leaders or doctrines?  

I would not recommend that anybody continue in a setting where they do not feel safe, where their spirit is continually broken by destructive teaching and demeaning doctrines which give overbearing leaders a license to lord it over their people.

On the other hand, some may quit out of simple burnout.  Do you realize that if you attend the church three times a week plus board meetings, potlucks, and camp meetings, you will have been there 10,000 times by the time you are 50?  For some, that's more than enough!  Everything just starts to sound like the same old same old.

My Tipping Point

I attended and was embedded in the church for the first 60 years of my life, and was blind-sided when my own tipping point arrived.  I did not expect it and would never have predicted it.  I was a lifelong volunteer and leader in the organization.  My dad, my brother, and my son-in-law and several of my friends were pastors.  I was happy and thriving, even though I was at odds with some of the conservative platforms of the denomination and the local body.

The straw that broke the camel's back for me was an ideological one:  I woke up to the fact that my church and I were no longer moving in the same direction, and I had to decide whether I would continue to contribute to and perpetuate a religious organization whose values were different than mine.  I maybe had a few years left of life and didn't want to waste it kicking a dead horse, as it were.  I would have to tolerate a lot of cognitive dissonance.   (Also, there were critics who were openly pointing out my non-compliance and urging me to shut up or get out of the way.  Birds of a different feather are often ultimately kicked from the nest.)

I chose my own spiritual and emotional well-being over the that of the institution.  I quit.    Here's to health and freedom!

But it's not as simple as that.  There were major contributing factors that led up to my exodus.  I have written about them extensively in other posts, but I'll briefly touch on a few of them here:

Pacifism.  From the age of 18 I was a pacifist in keeping with Jesus' teachings to love your enemies.  I kept quiet about it for most of my life, but -  even though my denomination had roots in Anabaptist and Mennonite pacifism  -  the church has become increasingly political and militaristic in the last twenty years and my dissidence has grown correspondingly.   I view the separation of church and state as a good thing (not to mention constitutional).  The rise of nationalism in the church is anti-Christ.

Women's rights.  It seemed to me that if the church could dismiss the Biblical grounds for slavery as no longer culturally relevant, it could just as well ignore Paul's teachings on the submission of women by removing all limitations on women as leaders in the church.  I lobbied for it unsuccessfully.  In my (former) denomination, it will be a long time coming.  It will happen, but not in my lifetime.

Tithing.  There is no New Testament mandate for the collection of a 10% tithe to be given to the church.  Yet, it is perpetuated as an expected discipline, even a compulsion of the believer.  That is un-sanctified hogwash.  Unholy crap.  (My apologies to the swine.)

Amazing Grace.  Though the evangelical community is founded on free grace and every speaker gives it a cursory nod, ironically, much more attention is given to the need to work for one's salvation.   Mine is a more generous orthodoxy that makes much of redemption and little of sin.  If you want to know, I think Jesus could be said to be "soft on sin".  He was called the "friend of sinners" after all.

That Damned Hierarchy!  There are many other points at which I have been a dissenter for a long time, but the granddaddy of all false doctrines that pervade almost all denominations is the teaching of the hierarchy, an idea which Jesus expressly banned in his teachings to his disciples. (Matt. 20:25-26)

It was the church leadership's unwavering adherence to the doctrine of submission-to-authority in the church that ultimately blew up my local congregation and precipitated an exodus of 2/3's of the constituency about six years ago.

Though every organization has its structure, the church has spiritualized its logistical framework with a contrived doctrine that ends up giving license to domineering leaders and abusers and compels the good people who believe it to do bad things.

I see the doctrine of the "God-ordained" hierarchy in the church as one of the most dangerous and destructive ideologies that have poisoned the church for the last 1700 years since Constantine implemented it in 313 A.D.  It has destroyed a lot of people.

Now here's the thing:  We need to differentiate between the institutional church and the Body of Christ, the True Church, which is all believers everywhere.  In the Body of Christ, all the parts of the body are answerable directly to the Head which is Christ. (Eph.4:15)  There is no multi-level echelon or chain-of-command.  We submit to Christ and to one another out of love (respect) for one another.  All have equal standing; no one has rank.  (Think you have automatic spiritual authority because you were appointed to a position in the church?  Think again!)

I'm Done

It's probably quite evident from this, that I no longer fit in the evangelical church.  My ideologies have become too honest, too Christlike, too purist to accommodate the way things are in the man-made institution called the church.

When my local parish blew up as a result of a destructive decision made by church leadership, I helped launch an appeal to the next level up the chain of command.  Though it was a legitimate step that was provided for in the by-laws, I was confronted in a lengthy and venomous reprimand and labeled as rebellious.  My "spiritual leaders" worked to smear my reputation behind the scenes.  They made sure we all knew that "no individual is as important as the institution."  (More institutional BS)

At the time, I marveled at protestant leaders telling other protestants that they shouldn't protest.  Huh?  Protestantism was born out of protest against church doctrine and hierarchy.  If protestants who protest are "rebelling against God" they are in the good company of reformers like Martin Luther and other church fathers.  Questioning is essential to sound doctrine.

Still, I could have forgiven all that carnality (maybe somebody was feeling a bit threatened?) and stayed on to feed the machine.  No tipping point there. (Read more about that church blow-up here.)

But ultimately is was ideology that was my tipping point.  I could have searched for a more liberal church, one with a more generous orthodoxy, but I have emotionally run out of gas.  I'm tired of the whole thing.  I have joined the "Dones", a growing multitude of exiles who, for one good reason or another, have come to their own tipping points and are just...

Done.

The Emerging Identity Part 2

  This is a follow-up to the previous post, so the reader may want to review that one (below) before reading this one.
  Actually, Part 2 was pretty much written for me as a brief comment on Part 1 by my cousin who loaned me Stuart Murray's book, The Naked Anabaptist.  Dave Hollenbeck, says, "I believe our common identity is simple child like faith and love for God... it is so dangerous to try and form a common group of God lovers; we just are not similar enough to fit under one roof."
  His comment summarizes two halves of a broader belief that I've arrived at when I've been pondering the phenomenon of denominationalism and how it affects the identity of the Body of Christ:  The first half is that generally, Christ-followers are to be known for their love for God and for each other; this is the flag that should fly over all of us.  The second is that because of our differences, we will never be able to agree on many of the secondary aspects of our identity - our doctrines, our dogmas, our various convictions and opinions; so there will always be a thousand denominations - or un-denominations, if you will - groups of believers with no organizational trademark.
  Which means that neo-Anabaptism, or any other denomination-like identity, will represent some of us, and maybe a lot of us, but not all of us.  And because of this truth, I believe it might be better for us to attempt to avoid making concrete generalizations about what our common identity will be, outside of our common love for each other and for the Lord.  Or maybe we can make those generalizations, but avoid a label or title or name for our group.  And especially I would like to avoid the committee meetings that are endemic to denominational structures!  (Bake sales are okay, because one comes away with a good taste in his mouth!)
  I am actually relieved at this.  As I observe the grass-roots movement that is emerging in the Christian world today, I do not see a hierarchy or an organization rising to the top to take control or a champion ascending to become its leader.*  Other than a smattering of unassuming spokesmen or authors, there is no organizer emerging, other than the Holy Spirit of Christ.  Thank God!  I am really happy about this and hope it stays this way.
  But I'm also still happy about the general direction that the new Emergents are moving:  away from legalism, toward freedom and mutual respect;  away from militarism, toward non-violence;  away from nationalism, toward a new allegiance to a greater Kingdom;  away from lording-it-over-chain-of-command-style hierarchies, toward humble servanthood regardless of gender and economic status.
  So I'll probably keep making generalizations as I describe this movement, but I'll resist any and every attempt to organize it, institutionalize it or otherwise damn it.
  *What rises to the top in the pond next to my house is scum!  (Oh, relax, it's just a bit of sarcasm.)

The Emerging Identity Part 1

  Who are the emergent Christians?  Is there a common flag that can fly over all of us or most of us?  I've been wondering this for some time.  Having read most of the popular books from most of the leading authors - informal spokesmen for the emerging church, if it were possible - I've seen many labels used to describe this growing group of ragtag radical followers of Christ, from "Post-evangelicals" to "new reformers" to "barbarians" to - from the other side, "liberals" or even "heretics". (Surprise me, why don't you?)
  But what I have been watching for is a common orthodoxy or doctrinal identity.  Like a denominational platform.  Not that I want one.  The whole idea of signing on to a new doctrinal creed is repulsive to me... I mean, I just recently got rid of the old one!  And the new believers are understandably all over the map on their positions, because the new Way is in the process of developing and solidifying as we speak.
  Anyway, I think I may have found it - or it found me, or my cousin's husband found it for me.  Dave gave me a book titled, The Naked Anabaptist, by Stuart Murray, thinking that he saw me in there, I think: the Neo-Anabaptist.
  This just may be the common orthodoxical homeland for many of us, simply because there are so many similarities between the direction of the new reformers and this little-known 500-year-old tradition.  If you are one of the "new" Jesus-followers, you just might see yourself in these core convictions held by most contemporary Anabaptists:
  1. Emphasis on emulating/imitating Christ as a lifestyle, as well as worshipping him.
  2. Jesus-centered doctrine.  Emphasis on the gospels - the life and teachings of Christ - as a filter for interpreting all of the Bible.
  3. Commitment to learning from the experience of movements that have rejected standard assumptions of Christendom and pursued alternative ways of thinking and behaving.
  4. Commitment to exploring ways of being good news to the poor, powerless, and persecuted.
  5. Strong sense of community.  Churches will be places of discipleship and mission, friendship (not just fellowship), mutual accountability, multivoiced worship.  Young and old are valued, leadership is consultative (the group makes decisions together), roles are related to gifts rather than gender, baptism is for believers.
  6. Spirituality and economics are interconnected. Simple living, generous sharing, caring for creation, and working for justice.
  7. Nonviolence. Commitment to finding ways to make peace between individuals, within and among churches, in society, and between nations.
  You probably noticed right away that, as Murray puts it, "these statements say nothing at all about foundational theological subjects... Nor do they pretend to cover every aspect of the subjects they do address, such as Scripture, the church, and mission.  These core convictions are not intended to be comprehensive, to substitute for creeds or statements of faith....  They introduce a way of being followers of Jesus that is unusually holistic."
  So, you saw Shane Claiborne (The Irresistible Revolution) in there, right?  And how about Brian McLaren (A Generous Orthodoxy)?  And I also see my young counterparts, Sam, Ben, Jordon and Ricky in there, along with tens of thousands of new radicals who are leaving the traditional institutions on pilgrimage to something more authentically Christ-ian.
  I think Stuart Murray speaks for many Post-evangelicals when he points out the similarities between certain Anabaptist convictions and the common direction of many radical, authentic Christ-followers of today.