Glad we left our former church when we did!

[Kathryn]

An update on a question I asked on here a year ago about a letter that we found disturbing that we received from the new rector of our church.

 

We did end up leaving that church, something we had wanted to do for a while, but felt a personal connection with the previous rector. We heard whispers here and there of problems with the new rector from those we kept in contact with. Yesterday, we got this in the mail. I have whited-out the church's name and the rector's name.

 

[in case the smaller text I inserted is hard to read, numbers 7, 12, and 20 have to do with the Spanish language congregation of the church, which has its own full-time priest, part-time deacon, and Spanish-language service each Sunday.]

 

 

[MyThreeSons]

Wow -- that seems strange to me. Looks like someone has an agenda and is trying to gain support for his cause.

[mamatohaleybug]

Wow and double wow!

 

[Seasider]

Looks like they want to make a major change with regard to this guy (which extreme is unclear - I think can him, but maybe promote and further his scheme? I didn't make it through the entire small print). Looks like the powers that be will use the survey results to validate their coming announcement. Who initiated this survey?

 

This is a far cry from the simple honest church that believers and seekers alike should find when they are gathered together in the name and pursuit of Christ.

[celticmom]

That does not sound like everything is rainbows and unicorns or whatever other happy image you prefer.

[Kathryn]

You left the name of the church un-whited-out in #11. Someone has an agenda.

 

Thanks! I changed it.

[Kathryn]

I don't know who is behind this, but I do know that a meeting back in March they held to discuss taking their concerns to the bishop was VERY well attended. We were meeting someone there for something else that night and couldn't find a parking place anywhere near the building, there were so many people. When we asked what was going on, the woman we were meeting said a lot of people were upset about how things were going with the new rector and were holding their own meeting to discuss the situation. She gave a few examples of what problems were. I recall her saying he refused to visit people in the hospital and that he was more concerned about recruiting young families than keeping older members. I guess that the meeting in number 11 is what resulted from that.

 

The survey does read extremely biased, especially the further along you go. I wonder how they picked who it went out to.

[PrincessMommy]

wow.  It sounds like a witch hunt to me.  I can see from the previous thread that the new priest isn't working out, but still... never good when people go after him with pitchforks.    Shouldn't the bishop have stepped in sooner to guide the priest in his priestly duties?  Isn't this partly what the bishop is for in the Episcopalian tradition? 

 

Sad... just sad all around.  I'm sorry for the people in this parish.

[Truscifi]

Those are some seriously slanted questions.

[forty-two]

As I was just telling my dh (a pastor), it could be worse - you could have members sending out a survey like that.

 

(But for an outside observer, that survey was full of awesome - I have a decent picture of what the rector's been up to plus how at least two members feel about it (cause they are a committee, and a committee takes at least two, right ;)) - oh, the quixotic fight to show that others feel like you do, via a detailed three-page questionnaire :lol. With self-addressed stamped envelopes, too, it sounds like. Now *that's* dedication.)

 

I do feel for the new rector, because a divided congregation is no fun :(. But, wow, did he do things stupidly. You have to go slowly in making changes as the new guy, especially following a longtime, well-loved rector. I've seen it several times among dh's fellow pastors - they have this vision of *the* way to do ministry, and they change too much too fast while dismissing those who prefer the old 'lesser' way as malcontents or just needing time to adjust. They are more focused on implementing their vision for the church than to find out what vision the *church* has and working to implement *the church's* vision - the pastor may care deeply, but they will only *show* that caring in particular ways, and respecting different views to the point of actually incorporating them into the plan for the congregation isn't one of them :(.

 

Also, per the highly biased survey, the new rector let traditional and important methods of connecting to his congregation slide in favor of administration duties. Thing is, people might appreciate the results of good administration, but that in itself doesn't build connections between people. If you want people to follow your lead - especially when it's a new and controversial approach - you need to work overtime to build connections, not snub those activities as not worth your time. People tend to react to that as evidence that *they* aren't worth your time, and that kills the relationship needed for effective ministry :(.

[MyThreeSons]

You have to go slowly in making changes as the new guy, especially following a longtime, well-loved rector. I've seen it several times among dh's fellow pastors - they have this vision of *the* way to do ministry, and they change too much too fast while dismissing those who prefer the old 'lesser' way as malcontents or just needing time to adjust. They are more focused on implementing their vision for the church than to find out what vision the *church* has and working to implement *the church's* vision - the pastor may care deeply, but they will only *show* that caring in particular ways, and respecting different views to the point of actually incorporating them into the plan for the congregation isn't one of them :(.

I so wish that our current pastor had understood this about making changes slowly. He came in and made changes like gangbusters and alienated so many people in the process. He was young and idealistic, and not very humble.

 

I was so ready to leave so many times over the first few years. Then, I finally stepped back and looked at the changes. I had to admit that there were only a couple that really bothered me, and even those weren't worth leaving the church over. Honestly, it was simply offensive in a big way that he "found fault" with so many things.

 

I also realized that there were some really good new people coming in who couldn't see what all of the contention was about. When I stepped back, and looked at how the "new" church was, without comparing it to how it used to be, I was okay with it all.

[Kathryn]

Yes, I do think that mistakes have been made. On both sides. It's a mostly older congregation (per the cited newsletter, 80% are over age 45) who have been members for a long time and were very devoted to the former rector. There were financial difficulties and acknowledgement that they needed to pull in a younger crowd. They went looking for someone who could do that. Unfortunately, it looks like that's where ALL of his focus is and that is what has people upset. It appears, from looking at the newsletters and Sunday bulletins, that the part-time priest recently hired was hired specifically for "member care," her duties being to do all those things that the survey complained the rector isn't doing. Perhaps instead of sending the message "yes, these things are important too, so let's get them done," that sent the message to some that "I don't care about those things, so let's hire someone else to take care of them for me."

 

I did speak with a younger member of the church who said she feels it's overall been a good year, but acknowledged that there have been many "communication difficulties," and said that there are quite a few vocal and disgruntled members who are spending a great deal of time and money trying to get rid of the new rector.

[Violet Crown]

I don't know what the situation at your church (cathedral?) has been, but by question 5 or 6 it was clear that the writer/sender of the letter needs to reflect on the sins of gossip and calumny. Dressing them up as a survey is just icky.

[QueenCat]

Extremely biased survey, with the intent to have people look at the rector in a bad light.

[Momling]

I just recently filled out a survey as a part of our parish's mutual ministries review and it was nothing at all like this. The creator of your survey is out for blood. Whether the rector deserves it or not, that's an ugly survey that reflects badly on the writer.

[bettyandbob]

I would not want to go to church with parishioners who created such a survey, especially if the parishioners had leadership rolls. I don't know if the rector is good or bad, but such a church is not a community. 

[Little Nyssa]

I recently read a book by an Episcopal priest about the turmoil churches go through when they grow from one size to another and this sounds like an example. There were lots of suggestions on how to avoid it. Number one being don't change anything til you've been there awhile. I wish I could recall the name of the book, but that term, "program church" is from that book. Too bad this priest didn't read it!

[OrganicAnn]

Gosh.   At first I thought you meant this was coming from the diocese, but then I re-read it and an 'ad hoc' committee seems like it is a self-appointed group that has an agenda.     They might not like the current Priest, but I'll bet they wouldn't have liked any new Priest.  

[hillfarm]

A few years ago I read a very interesting book about the discontent felt by many older members of several church congregations. Basically, when they were young families themselves, most of the women were SAHM's. They were the among the bulk of the Baby Boomers. There were seniors in their churches, but they seriously outnumbered them. So it was fairly easy for the SAHM's to minister to the needs of the seniors and provide all sorts of care programs for them. Back then, our culture had more of a tendency to revere the elderly.

 

Fast forward to today, when these same SAHM's are now themselves the seniors of their churches. And where are the SAHM's they assume will be following in their footsteps and ministering to them? Well, for starters, the numbers have been reversed. The Baby Boomers have aged and there are many more of them than new families. Then there's the issue that the majority of the younger women work outside the home and are struggling to find time for their own families, let alone enough to minister to others. And finally, we have a much more youth oriented society that does not value the wisdom of their elders nor feel as much respect for them as was prevalent in the middle of the last century.

 

These folks, especially the women, are pretty irritated. They busted their butts and worked really hard to care for the seniors when they were young, but now when they need help, there isn't anyone around to help them. Or what little help there is has been spread very thin. Add to that a pastor who is places a lot of emphasis on being progressive and reaching the young, and you have a recipe for major disgruntlement, if not disaster.

[Aelwydd]

A few years ago I read a very interesting book about the discontent felt by many older members of several church congregations. Basically, when they were young families themselves, most of the women were SAHM's. They were the among the bulk of the Baby Boomers. There were seniors in their churches, but they seriously outnumbered them. So it was fairly easy for the SAHM's to minister to the needs of the seniors and provide all sorts of care programs for them. Back then, our culture had more of a tendency to revere the elderly.

 

Fast forward to today, when these same SAHM's are now themselves the seniors of their churches. And where are the SAHM's they assume will be following in their footsteps and ministering to them? Well, for starters, the numbers have been reversed. The Baby Boomers have aged and there are many more of them than new families. Then there's the issue that the majority of the younger women work outside the home and are struggling to find time for their own families, let alone enough to minister to others. And finally, we have a much more youth oriented society that does not value the wisdom of their elders nor feel as much respect for them as was prevalent in the middle of the last century.

 

These folks, especially the women, are pretty irritated. They busted their butts and worked really hard to care for the seniors when they were young, but now when they need help, there isn't anyone around to help them. Or what little help there is has been spread very thin. Add to that a pastor who is places a lot of emphasis on being progressive and reaching the young, and you have a recipe for major disgruntlement, if not disaster.

 

Yeah, overall church attendance has declined in the last several decades across all traditions.

[CyndiLJ]

A few years ago I read a very interesting book about the discontent felt by many older members of several church congregations. Basically, when they were young families themselves, most of the women were SAHM's. They were the among the bulk of the Baby Boomers. There were seniors in their churches, but they seriously outnumbered them. So it was fairly easy for the SAHM's to minister to the needs of the seniors and provide all sorts of care programs for them. Back then, our culture had more of a tendency to revere the elderly.

 

Fast forward to today, when these same SAHM's are now themselves the seniors of their churches. And where are the SAHM's they assume will be following in their footsteps and ministering to them? Well, for starters, the numbers have been reversed. The Baby Boomers have aged and there are many more of them than new families. Then there's the issue that the majority of the younger women work outside the home and are struggling to find time for their own families, let alone enough to minister to others. And finally, we have a much more youth oriented society that does not value the wisdom of their elders nor feel as much respect for them as was prevalent in the middle of the last century.

 

These folks, especially the women, are pretty irritated. They busted their butts and worked really hard to care for the seniors when they were young, but now when they need help, there isn't anyone around to help them. Or what little help there is has been spread very thin. Add to that a pastor who is places a lot of emphasis on being progressive and reaching the young, and you have a recipe for major disgruntlement, if not disaster.

 

This is the main reason our church split, but being on the "younger mom" side it was clear to us that our senior women (and it was mostly women) cared very little that our church size had shrunk to about 50 regularly attending members, with a mere 4 under 50 years old (not counting our 7 youth).  Quite literally they told us "We did it for others,now you do it for us" despite the fact that there is almost no one left young enough to do it.  We were expected to completely care for the interior and exterior of an aging building on land that had a huge 2 acre field and another acre of maintained grass, a gravel parking lot with weeds galore, along with all the other maintenance necessary like cleaning (there was no janitorial service).  Then, on top of that, they wanted programming, children and Sunday School, etc. while not realizing none of us had any energy left after being in maintenance mode to put towards ministry.

They voiced it clearly that they just didn't care, and demanded we do what they want.

Sadly, the church split and we moved to a low maintenance structure while about 20 very senior folks stayed behind, not really ever understanding exactly what happened, though they had heard it over and over as we pleaded for the idea of selling the building to start anew elsewhere that could be maintained with a minimum of effort.

 

I am glad it happened, but I miss a few folks a lot.  I do not miss feeling as if I have a huge property to maintain, almost alone.

 

The older generations are simply not seeing the congregational decline, and they expect the assistance they actually do deserve, as I agree they surely did their share.  However, it can't be on the backs of a very diminished younger population who simply can't do it all.

[Chris in VA]

Wow--what an ugly thing you've got going there. I am happy you found your own solution.

 

I will say one thing--it is common in many churches for an assistant or associate to be on charge of pastoral care, doing the bulk of the visitations and /or sick care and even counseling. IME, many older folks have the idea that the head honcho should be visiting--that being visited by the second banana is an insult. My own mother left a church for this reason. I'm not saying anything about this particular situation in your church, just that, after the church reaches a certain size, some tasks/ministries have to be divided somewhat. It's just not humanly possible for a priest with a family and a large, needy congregation to be all things to all people.

Just sayin'...

[Kathryn]

Interesting hillfarm! I certainly see a lot of that going on here.

 

Chris, I agree. Since we left before any of this went on, I really have no idea on what his attitude has been. I assume that those who feel comfortable with him saw it as you say, and that those who were already upset saw themselves being brushed aside. They were used to a certain dynamic and they want that. The previous rector was the age of the group of women that I suspect are behind this. The new rector is young enough to be their child (and has five young children).

 

It's just sad that the church has become so divided like this and that people are being so hostile.

[Starr]

So sad.  :(