WWYT (church situation...obviously CC)

[marbel]

 

He gave me an answer this morning that I am mulling over.  Basically the leadership wants church members to meet in three areas: attend Sunday service, attend a small group, and serve in the church. Anyone who wants to offer a ministry such as a Sister Sharing brunch can approach the leadership, fill out a form, and if approved proceed with the event as long as the coordinator understands that the purpose is not a one-time get-together rather a move to get people to meet the three area listed above.  

 

Make sense to anyone?  I'm mulling this over.  

 

So the activities/ministries apart from corporate worship, small groups, and service to the church are supposed to support people who are engaging in those three core activities, is that correct? 

 

Are the "extra" activities open to people who, say, attend worship but don't belong to a small group?  New people who are just getting to know the church and don't know what area to serve in yet?  Guests of members who would like to get to know the church? 

 

I pretty much agree that everything that goes on in a church should support the preaching in the pulpit.  And I think people who are members or regular attenders of a church should find a way to serve to help support the Body.   Activities that promote fellowship can all point to that and make people feel more engaged and thus more eager to come to weekly worship, participate in a small group, and serve in some way. 

 

I guess I don't understand the "one-time get-together" thing.  

 

Is this for all ministries/activities or just the women?  You had earlier mentioned that it was just the women's activities which had stopped.

 

Was there a congregational meeting to present these changes and open the floor to questions? 

 

I'm probably not getting something 'cause it still seems odd to me. But maybe that's just because it's different from the way my church works and I'm not thinking outside my own box.

 

[mommaduck]

The crazy growth came when a huge church in the area went through a traumatizing event with its pastor and many of the members came to our church.  There were, before my church, 3 "mega churches" in the area.  All three have lost members to my church for one reason or another and many of the incoming people knew each other.  The pastoral staff, however, has only one guy from one of those churches.  The new associate pastor (who is making all of these changes) came from out of state, however he also came from a mega-church.  

 

He gave me an answer this morning that I am mulling over.  Basically the leadership wants church members to meet in three areas: attend Sunday service, attend a small group, and serve in the church. Anyone who wants to offer a ministry such as a Sister Sharing brunch can approach the leadership, fill out a form, and if approved proceed with the event as long as the coordinator understands that the purpose is not a one-time get-together rather a move to get people to meet the three area listed above.  

 

Make sense to anyone?  I'm mulling this over.  

 

There is something wrong with his answer when all youth and male activities have remained the same. I don't believe him. I don't believe his answer is completely honest. Take it from someone that has been through churches that have made change or have an abusive authoritative issue. He would have lost my trust right there. It would be over for me.

[Laurie4b]

The crazy growth came when a huge church in the area went through a traumatizing event with its pastor and many of the members came to our church.  There were, before my church, 3 "mega churches" in the area.  All three have lost members to my church for one reason or another and many of the incoming people knew each other.  The pastoral staff, however, has only one guy from one of those churches.  The new associate pastor (who is making all of these changes) came from out of state, however he also came from a mega-church.  

 

He gave me an answer this morning that I am mulling over.  Basically the leadership wants church members to meet in three areas: attend Sunday service, attend a small group, and serve in the church. Anyone who wants to offer a ministry such as a Sister Sharing brunch can approach the leadership, fill out a form, and if approved proceed with the event as long as the coordinator understands that the purpose is not a one-time get-together rather a move to get people to meet the three area listed above.  

 

Make sense to anyone?  I'm mulling this over.  

 

If you read the book Simple Church, you'll find that that is a current church management philosophy.  The point of the philosophy is that channeling people into a few areas counteracts people being spread too thin. But getting the book will enable you to see the thinking behind it.

 

Pastors from mega -churches are command-and- control guys. Mega-churches aren't run with a "What do the people in the church think?" philosophy because they are too big.

 

You'll have to decide if you can accept the new philosophy of leadership.

[6packofun]

Hmmm.  Is the leadership, perhaps, trying to cut down on an (in their opinion) overabundance of social/fellowship type of activities that the women do and kind of reign it in to have more teaching/learning and service type ministry?  Remember that churches have to pay utilities for for *everything* that meets at the church and if he men and youth are not doing similar things in terms of sheer numbers, *maybe* it's not a gender discrimination type thing and simply logistical?

 

I'm trying to think the best here, but it still seems out of whack to me.  Hard to tell without knowing the whole story, especially if the leadership is not sharing something negative that happened in women's ministry with everyone.  (Not that that is reason enough to shut everything down.  They do seem to be trying to get more organized and start limiting things that fall under the church's *vision*.  That could be to get ahead of the game with all of these new people, too.)

 

I'd pray about it and continue to ask questions if not satisfied.

[Seasider]

You might want to do some research into the Shepherding Movement. It seems to be making a comeback. Also, is your church a member of 9 Marks? Might want to check their website and see if your church's name appears in their online list. Also, seeing that your new guy has a megachurch background, you might want to check out the Acts 29 network.

 

You have to decide for yourself whether or not you agree with (and by that I mean, be as a Berean, study the issues and see how/if Scripture lines up with) the particular doctrinal stances proposed by each of these networks. The trend in American evangelicalism these days seems to be towards pastoral authority and a focus on gender roles. The small group/shepherding structure lends itself well to this type of church administration. I won't totally knock small groups - I love how they help believers connect to one another. But I am wary of a model that sets up small group leaders to (sometimes for this express purpose) report everything back to the pastors. Again, that in itself is not always a bad thing, where a small group leader helps leadership be aware of express special needs; that's the way it should be. But a line can be crossed into a policing sort of situation. I asked in my earlier post about whether or not a new membership agreement/covenant has been introduced. Some churches have been known to use these agreement to regulate members' behavior. Also, long time regular attendees start to become shunned if they opt to not sign the new agreement (your invitation-only gatherings come to mind).

 

I do agree that these changes may just be the result of honest attempts to manage the swell of new members. But keep in mind that we are told be as Bereans and examine everything in the light of the Word.

 

I believe the gospel is simple: believe on The Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. I believe the commandments of Jesus are simple: love The Lord God with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. I believe in the priesthood of believers, powered by Christ, in whom we live, breath and have our being. After sitting in a church that has, over the past two to three years moved in the direction of authoritarian rule as I described above, among all the other changes, I have found the gospel itself to seem to be redefined. If you don't believe in a young earth, literal 6 day creation, "you cant really be a Christian." If you're not an official member of the church, "maybe you aren't really saved." If you don't hold the right view of gender roles, you're certainly in "rebellion." If you dare to discuss or question any of the changes being made by leadership, you are a "gossip."

 

Perhaps my cautionary tale is a little strong and not akin to what's actually going on in the OP's church, but I think it's better to be aware than to have your faith redefined right out from under you. There are many, many websites today devoted to discussing trends in the modern church. Unfortunately, many in the pastorate dismiss them as....gossip. But the sheep are bleating.

[MomatHWTK]

Wow, this is horrifying and fascinating at the same time!

 

Do you know of it happening IRL? Do you have any articles about it?

 

I

Happened at our current church years ago before we joined.  Eventually 2/3 of the members left and took much of the $ and equipment with them.  The existing church still hasn't recovered- though they did get to keep the building. 

 

It has been tried at our church at least twice since then, new folk comes in and wants to change everything*. In our case, the remnant that remained after the first coup is a little too wise to fall for the same again and we do have a strong and trustworthy pastor.  We've learned to be very vigilant and push back when someone starts shuffling valued saints out the door. 

 

*We are a changing congregation and have no problem with doing so.  But, in the two instances mentioned above it wasn't about changing as a group, it was about steamrolling any dissent to establish a whole new personality for the church in the image of the person attempting the coup.  I don't want to give more details but it is very upsetting when it happens. The level of disrespect toward existing membership and their values is just shocking. 

[bobbeym]

The crazy growth came when a huge church in the area went through a traumatizing event with its pastor and many of the members came to our church.  There were, before my church, 3 "mega churches" in the area.  All three have lost members to my church for one reason or another and many of the incoming people knew each other.  The pastoral staff, however, has only one guy from one of those churches.  The new associate pastor (who is making all of these changes) came from out of state, however he also came from a mega-church.  

 

He gave me an answer this morning that I am mulling over.  Basically the leadership wants church members to meet in three areas: attend Sunday service, attend a small group, and serve in the church. Anyone who wants to offer a ministry such as a Sister Sharing brunch can approach the leadership, fill out a form, and if approved proceed with the event as long as the coordinator understands that the purpose is not a one-time get-together rather a move to get people to meet the three area listed above.  

 

Make sense to anyone?  I'm mulling this over.  

 

His answer still doesn't make sense to me.  Small group fellowship doesn't negate a need for larger group fellowship, and it doesn't make any sense at all if they only stopped the women's fellowships and not the others.

 

At my church, we have LifeGroups - small, private groups that consist of 6-12 ladies or men that meet quarterly twice a year. These groups change each session depending on how the two pastors leading them feel the Holy Spirit guides them into grouping people together. But we still have corporate fellowship several times a year that are open to churched or non-churched visitors where the ladies and men can gather together for special events.  For the ladies, it's usually coffee and dessert or a beautifully decorated dinner and special workshops, speakers, or devotionals.  The men usually have a 3-day conference weekend filled with sporting events, speakers, and brisket cook-offs. 

 

Now, if we wanted to form groups beyond those as official church ministry groups it would probably require leadership review and approval, but that doesn't stop groups of people from meeting casually on their own outside of church.

[MomatHWTK]

See... I suspected mega church but didn't want to cast aspersions.  There seems to be a certain method for creating a mega church that some folks follow and that is what I've seen take place. The first real coup mentioned in my post was when we had a rapid growth situation, the other two were indviduals trying to create a mega church using our building. :( 

 

I think there are some really big churches out there that do some really great things.  The one next door to us actually has enough land and funding to build apartments for missionaries on leave to use- that is fabulous!  But there are also a few out there that do things for the sake of growth that I just don't like.  I guess the key is finding a church willing to grow in a way that is acceptable to all involved.  Me- I'm not so much into the "trust us, we know what is best" thing.  ;)

 

For me, the elimination of just one group of ministries while allowing the others to stay in place would not necessarily make me suspect sexism so much as favoritism.  The question then becomes, do you know and trust your elders?  Is your church run by Spirit-filled elders?   There is a reason the Bible sets forth guidelines for who should be in leadership positions and what personal qualities they should possess. KWIM? 

 

[MomatHWTK]

If you read the book Simple Church, you'll find that that is a current church management philosophy.  The point of the philosophy is that channeling people into a few areas counteracts people being spread too thin. But getting the book will enable you to see the thinking behind it.

 

Pastors from mega -churches are command-and- control guys. Mega-churches aren't run with a "What do the people in the church think?" philosophy because they are too big.

 

You'll have to decide if you can accept the new philosophy of leadership.

 

 

Ah... I knew there had to be a playbook.  Sounds like our new guy was practically quoting from the thing.   Sigh.  You know the best book for deciding how to manage your church? The Bible. 

[Catwoman]

Womanintheshoe, whatever you end up deciding to do, I'm sorry your church is changing so quickly and that it seems to be moving in a direction that isn't working for you. :(

[BakersDozen]

 

 

Womanintheshoe, whatever you end up deciding to do, I'm sorry your church is changing so quickly and that it seems to be moving in a direction that isn't working for you. 

Thanks.  This morning was rough.  

 

There are a few reasons why I don't feel comfortable approaching the church leadership, yet I've begun with the associate pastor and I'll see where that goes.  I've had my dh ask one of the elders whom he is close to and the answers dh has gotten have left both of us uncomfortable.  This makes me feel sad more than anything.  When we first started at this church the way I got to know the ladies was through events like the Sister Sharing.  When my babies were born early it was those women who helped us and are still involved in our lives.  Had we come to church and been directed to just one small group we would not have the connections and relationships we now have. 

[bolt.]

Wow, this is horrifying and fascinating at the same time!

 

Do you know of it happening IRL? Do you have any articles about it?

 

I

 

I've had more than a few mentors / profs / pastors mention that such tactics exist -- in a way that implied they had personal experiences... but I don't have anything concrete from you own experiences.

 

[Sahamamama]

The crazy growth came when a huge church in the area went through a traumatizing event with its pastor and many of the members came to our church.  There were, before my church, 3 "mega churches" in the area.  All three have lost members to my church for one reason or another and many of the incoming people knew each other.  The pastoral staff, however, has only one guy from one of those churches.  The new associate pastor (who is making all of these changes) came from out of state, however he also came from a mega-church.  

 

He gave me an answer this morning that I am mulling over.  Basically the leadership wants church members to meet in three areas: attend Sunday service, attend a small group, and serve in the church. Anyone who wants to offer a ministry such as a Sister Sharing brunch can approach the leadership, fill out a form, and if approved proceed with the event as long as the coordinator understands that the purpose is not a one-time get-together rather a move to get people to meet the three area listed above.  

 

Make sense to anyone?  I'm mulling this over.  

 

Hmmm... if that's the case, then why doesn't it apply to children's, youth, and men's ministries?

[BakersDozen]

 

 

Hmmm... if that's the case, then why doesn't it apply to children's, youth, and men's ministries?

Good question...I'll ask.

 

[sassenach]

The crazy growth came when a huge church in the area went through a traumatizing event with its pastor and many of the members came to our church.  There were, before my church, 3 "mega churches" in the area.  All three have lost members to my church for one reason or another and many of the incoming people knew each other.  The pastoral staff, however, has only one guy from one of those churches.  The new associate pastor (who is making all of these changes) came from out of state, however he also came from a mega-church.  

 

He gave me an answer this morning that I am mulling over.  Basically the leadership wants church members to meet in three areas: attend Sunday service, attend a small group, and serve in the church. Anyone who wants to offer a ministry such as a Sister Sharing brunch can approach the leadership, fill out a form, and if approved proceed with the event as long as the coordinator understands that the purpose is not a one-time get-together rather a move to get people to meet the three area listed above.  

 

Make sense to anyone?  I'm mulling this over.  

This actually makes a lot of sense to me.  Woman's ministry, especially in big churches, can sometimes become a sort of church within a church.  I've known several large churches who have seen this become a problem, as women start relying more on the community and teaching within women's min than they do the larger church.  

 

IMO, it should be reassuring to you that your associate pastor had a clear answer on this.  Whether or not you agree with the decision, it's the pastors of the church who stand accountable before God in the way that they lead.  Your pastors seem to have clarity in how and why they are leading your church in certain decisions.  Their leadership seems from this vantage point to be biblical.  I would strive to stay positive about these changes!

[sassenach]

Thanks.  This morning was rough.  

 

There are a few reasons why I don't feel comfortable approaching the church leadership, yet I've begun with the associate pastor and I'll see where that goes.  I've had my dh ask one of the elders whom he is close to and the answers dh has gotten have left both of us uncomfortable.  This makes me feel sad more than anything.  When we first started at this church the way I got to know the ladies was through events like the Sister Sharing.  When my babies were born early it was those women who helped us and are still involved in our lives.  Had we come to church and been directed to just one small group we would not have the connections and relationships we now have. 

Are you involved in a small group?  In our church, small groups is really where much of the Acts living happens.

[MomatHWTK]

Titus 2

 

 

[sassenach]

Womanintheshoe, whatever you end up deciding to do, I'm sorry your church is changing so quickly and that it seems to be moving in a direction that isn't working for you. :(

And yet, I think it's important to weather changes within our churches and not just jump ship when it stops working for us.  God is growing us in those seasons.  I believe church membership as covenantal.  *For me* to leave would require a major unbiblical breech.

 

Not that you told her to leave, but this board seems to often swing in that direction.

[sassenach]

You might want to do some research into the Shepherding Movement. It seems to be making a comeback. Also, is your church a member of 9 Marks? Might want to check their website and see if your church's name appears in their online list. Also, seeing that your new guy has a megachurch background, you might want to check out the Acts 29 network.

 

 

Just an FYI, Acts 29 is not a mega church network.  It's actually the opposite- a network of church planters.  Most of the churches (something like 80%) are between 40 and 120 members.  There are a handful of mega churches in the network,  like 10 or maybe 15 tops.  And Acts 29 does not dictate individual church structure at all.  

 

OP, if you want to understand what your leadership is doing, why, and what has led them to these decisions, I highly recommend going straight to them.  Since you have connected with the AP, why not invite him over for dinner?  Or meet him with your dh for coffee?  No amount of speculating here about what book or network or movement or philosophy is behind the change can make up for direct communication.  Sunday mornings are not the best time to go in depth, but I bet he'd be happy to walk you through things in a quieter setting.

[mommaduck]

Titus 2

 

Thank you! Sexist and knocks out Titus 2. If they were simply knocking out all extended ministries and trying to start from scratch, that would make more sense.

[sassenach]

Happened at our current church years ago before we joined.  Eventually 2/3 of the members left and took much of the $ and equipment with them.  The existing church still hasn't recovered- though they did get to keep the building. 

 

It has been tried at our church at least twice since then, new folk comes in and wants to change everything*. In our case, the remnant that remained after the first coup is a little too wise to fall for the same again and we do have a strong and trustworthy pastor.  We've learned to be very vigilant and push back when someone starts shuffling valued saints out the door. 

 

*We are a changing congregation and have no problem with doing so.  But, in the two instances mentioned above it wasn't about changing as a group, it was about steamrolling any dissent to establish a whole new personality for the church in the image of the person attempting the coup.  I don't want to give more details but it is very upsetting when it happens. The level of disrespect toward existing membership and their values is just shocking. 

Another protector against this is eliminating congregational vote.  

[Catwoman]

And yet, I think it's important to weather changes within our churches and not just jump ship when it stops working for us. God is growing us in those seasons. I believe church membership as covenantal. *For me* to leave would require a major unbiblical breech.

 

Not that you told her to leave, but this board seems to often swing in that direction.

I agree with you.

 

I was distressed when she first posted and a few people said it was time to find a new church, as we didn't even have any details yet. Realistically, we still don't know how things will turn out. The new leadership sounds kind of overzealous and in too big a hurry to make some sweeping changes, but if there is backlash from the congregation, they may re-think some of their new policies.

 

I'm no expert in any of this, but I don't think a quick, knee-jerk reaction is necessarily the way to go. Womanintheshoe obviously cares about her church, so hopefully things will work out in time.

[mommaduck]

I agree with you.

 

I was distressed when she first posted and a few people said it was time to find a new church, as we didn't even have any details yet. Realistically, we still don't know how things will turn out. The new leadership sounds kind of overzealous and in too big a hurry to make some sweeping changes, but if there is backlash from the congregation, they may re-think some of their new policies.

 

I'm no expert in any of this, but I don't think a quick, knee-jerk reaction is necessarily the way to go. Womanintheshoe obviously cares about her church, so hopefully things will work out in time.

 

Perhaps because some of us have been through this before, either once or several times, and it never led to anything good. We left one after several things had happened. Several elders had nominated my husband for a deacon position and someone removed his name from voting (we know who and it was a personal grudge against us). Believe it or not, we didn't leave, even as an exodus was happening...until the day, without warning, I took my youngest to the bathroom and we were "locked out" of the sanctuary, where my other children were and one of the elders was blocking the door, informing me that I was not even allowed to retrieve my other children to leave. We never went back after that and several other families left also.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Perhaps because some of us have been through this before, either once or several times, and it never led to anything good. We left one after several things had happened. Several elders had nominated my husband for a deacon position and someone removed his name from voting (we know who and it was a personal grudge against us). Believe it or not, we didn't leave, even as an exodus was happening...until the day, without warning, I took my youngest to the bathroom and we were "locked out" of the sanctuary, where my other children were and one of the elders was blocking the door, informing me that I was not even allowed to retrieve my other children to leave. We never went back after that and several other families left also.

That is horrible!  I would have called the police to report that they had kidnapped your children.  And I'm about as non-confrontational as they come.  

[marbel]

Perhaps because some of us have been through this before, either once or several times, and it never led to anything good. We left one after several things had happened. Several elders had nominated my husband for a deacon position and someone removed his name from voting (we know who and it was a personal grudge against us). Believe it or not, we didn't leave, even as an exodus was happening...until the day, without warning, I took my youngest to the bathroom and we were "locked out" of the sanctuary, where my other children were and one of the elders was blocking the door, informing me that I was not even allowed to retrieve my other children to leave. We never went back after that and several other families left also.

 

You mean you had to leave during the service and they wouldn't let you back in?  You had to wait in the lobby (or whatever) till the service ended and your kids could come out?

 

Have I got that right?

 

Sounds like something they do in live theater when people have to leave during a performance!

 

That is extremely weird and wrong.

[mommaduck]

That is horrible!  I would have called the police to report that they had kidnapped your children.  And I'm about as non-confrontational as they come.  

 

I was tempted, because I knew this was both legally and ethically wrong. I understand the limiting in and out, but THAT was not the way to go about it, especially to spring it on everyone with no notice and no warning. I wasn't told till after why they did that. We had been members there for years and it was not a large church (abt 300). I decided not to ramp up the issues and just waited, I could see through the glass, and we never went back after that....we were asked to write a letter and found out our letter was nearly identical to another family that had left almost two months before we did (the husband of that family was a state trooper...I think they saw the writing on the wall also...their family also was attacked more at church over petty stuff).

[mommaduck]

You mean you had to leave during the service and they wouldn't let you back in?  You had to wait in the lobby (or whatever) till the service ended and your kids could come out?

 

Have I got that right?

 

Sounds like something they do in live theater when people have to leave during a performance!

 

That is extremely weird and wrong.

 

Yes, that is what happened. The thing is, I had young, but well behaved children in the service. I could leave them long enough for the bathroom and everyone in the church knew us...but to refuse to let me return with my toddler to the service and refuse to allow me to retrieve my children to leave (what if the baby had been throwing up?)

[marbel]

I was tempted, because I knew this was both legally and ethically wrong. I understand the limiting in and out, but THAT was not the way to go about it, especially to spring it on everyone with no notice and no warning. I wasn't told till after why they did that. We had been members there for years and it was not a large church (abt 300). I decided not to ramp up the issues and just waited, I could see through the glass, and we never went back after that....we were asked to write a letter and found out our letter was nearly identical to another family that had left almost two months before we did (the husband of that family was a state trooper...I think they saw the writing on the wall also...their family also was attacked more at church over petty stuff).

 

Wow, the more I read in this thread the more I appreciate my church.

 

But you know what?  I don't understand limiting the in and out. Not really.  The church is full of people and people have to use the bathroom, or get a drink of water due to a coughing fit, or find that ever since that car accident they need to get up and walk around a bit every 20 minutes and decide to go pace the lobby while they listen on the speaker.  Parents of young kids find that though they believe the child is ready to sit in church for an hour fifteen, the child has other ideas. 

 

Maybe the people at my church are remarkable, but people aren't going in and out willy-nilly, or to annoy the preacher.  They are going out because they have a need to, and they are coming back in because they have a need for that too. 

 

[mommaduck]

Wow, the more I read in this thread the more I appreciate my church.

 

But you know what?  I don't understand limiting the in and out. Not really.  The church is full of people and people have to use the bathroom, or get a drink of water due to a coughing fit, or find that ever since that car accident they need to get up and walk around a bit every 20 minutes and decide to go pace the lobby while they listen on the speaker.  Parents of young kids find that though they believe the child is ready to sit in church for an hour fifteen, the child has other ideas. 

 

Maybe the people at my church are remarkable, but people aren't going in and out willy-nilly, or to annoy the preacher.  They are going out because they have a need to, and they are coming back in because they have a need for that too. 

 

This was many years ago when my older children were young. In the EOC we have the opposite. Children do make noise, we all move around (a lot of standing), we know people will move in and out (I have a couple of children that have to step out from time to time due to the incense)...Father really doesn't mind and he'd rather a bit of noise and in and out than to have people stay home or what not...it's very organic and very different than I was raised (where if you make a peep, you might find yourself outside for a lecture).

 

The point is though, when there are drastic changes in staff (strangers, no less), drastic and unbalanced changes in normal church life (whatever is normal for that church), it rarely turns out well.

 

[kitten18]

The crazy growth came when a huge church in the area went through a traumatizing event with its pastor and many of the members came to our church.  There were, before my church, 3 "mega churches" in the area.  All three have lost members to my church for one reason or another and many of the incoming people knew each other.  The pastoral staff, however, has only one guy from one of those churches.  The new associate pastor (who is making all of these changes) came from out of state, however he also came from a mega-church.  

 

He gave me an answer this morning that I am mulling over.  Basically the leadership wants church members to meet in three areas: attend Sunday service, attend a small group, and serve in the church. Anyone who wants to offer a ministry such as a Sister Sharing brunch can approach the leadership, fill out a form, and if approved proceed with the event as long as the coordinator understands that the purpose is not a one-time get-together rather a move to get people to meet the three area listed above.  

 

Make sense to anyone?  I'm mulling this over.  

No.

[marbel]

 

 

The point is though, when there are drastic changes in staff (strangers, no less), drastic and unbalanced changes in normal church life (whatever is normal for that church), it rarely turns out well.

 

Absolutely.  Communication and gradual change, with everyone knowing what's going on and why, is key!

 

[Little Nyssa]

Well, while the church leadership figures it out, why not continue to get together with the women who you are close to, the ones who helped you when your babies were born?  You could just continue to meet, but not as a church organization, just as friends.  Then if you like you could someday bring it back under the church's ministries umbrella.  

[Catwoman]

Perhaps because some of us have been through this before, either once or several times, and it never led to anything good. We left one after several things had happened. Several elders had nominated my husband for a deacon position and someone removed his name from voting (we know who and it was a personal grudge against us). Believe it or not, we didn't leave, even as an exodus was happening...until the day, without warning, I took my youngest to the bathroom and we were "locked out" of the sanctuary, where my other children were and one of the elders was blocking the door, informing me that I was not even allowed to retrieve my other children to leave. We never went back after that and several other families left also.

Oh my gosh!!! That is just horrible!!!

 

Of course, I would have immediately made such a fuss that there wouldn't have been a single person in that church that didn't know exactly what was happening, but I'm sure you handled it better than I would have.

 

I like Jean's idea of calling the police -- that would have definitely gotten the "this is not acceptable" message across to the church powers-that-be!

[TechWife]

Yes, it seems "off", as you say.

 

It also seems like the Powers That Be have no clue how to effectively implement change in their organization without alienating a good deal of the organization.  It sounds like they're doing a textbook What Not to Do, as a matter of fact.  Do they not teach these things in seminary?  Because churches seem to be hotbeds of leadership screwing up the change process.

 

No, they actually don't teach these things in seminary. Very little "practical, how to be a leader" training goes on in seminaries. At least in the seminaries that I am familiar with. 

[sunflowerlady]

I think your pastor's answer sounds like something used to placate a member who questions things. If they stop the men's' and youth ministries, maybe then it will be a more accurate answer.

[abba12]

I would accept the answer if everything was paused. Fact is, only the women's ministries were paused. I am openly a believer in patriarchy, and even I think that this church sounds concerning, and I would seriously be considering leaving. 

[Seasider]

Sincere question what do you mean?

 

My thoughts in post #55 help explain. Gossip is the spreading of information, often false, that may cause the subject of the gossip harm or harm to reputation. Slander is the outright spreading of lies for the effect of injuring someone or his reputation. When church leadership makes decisions without clearly explaining them to the congregants, it is only natural for the congregants to seek answers. It is best to go directly to the pastorate for answers, but what if the answers are pat and/or nonsensical?  Or if leadership refuses to even discuss the issue? What if the answer is clearly nonBiblical and the congregants attempt to point this out to the leaders? The dissenters are often falsely labeled gossips. Labeling someone a gossip is sometimes no more than a red herring to deflect from the real issues at hand. It can be an abusive tactic.

 

I've had more than a few mentors / profs / pastors mention that such tactics exist -- in a way that implied they had personal experiences... but I don't have anything concrete from you own experiences.

 

 

Anyone with internet access and a bit of free time can find evidence of this. I have witnessed it first hand, not in my own church but in one that my family is close to for other activities.

 

Just an FYI, Acts 29 is not a mega church network.  It's actually the opposite- a network of church planters.  Most of the churches (something like 80%) are between 40 and 120 members.  There are a handful of mega churches in the network,  like 10 or maybe 15 tops.  And Acts 29 does not dictate individual church structure at all.  

 

OP, if you want to understand what your leadership is doing, why, and what has led them to these decisions, I highly recommend going straight to them.  Since you have connected with the AP, why not invite him over for dinner?  Or meet him with your dh for coffee?  No amount of speculating here about what book or network or movement or philosophy is behind the change can make up for direct communication.  Sunday mornings are not the best time to go in depth, but I bet he'd be happy to walk you through things in a quieter setting.

 

I understand that Acts 29 is a church planting network. I know there are some great churches out there that are affiliated with the Acts 29 network. However, the network was co-founded by Mars Hill's Mark Driscoll. He is a fixture in American megachurchdom. I know that he recently stepped down out of that role, perhaps because he wishes to dedicate more time to a new method of church growth. OP, you may find this interesting: 

 

http://marshill.com/2012/04/10/is-your-church-interested-in-becoming-a-part-of-mars-hill

 

I agree you should speak to the pastor directly. Make a list of questions to take along.

 

Another protector against this is eliminating congregational vote.  

 

Well, that's one way of making sure no one watches the shepherd. Or at least limits the ability of the sheep to seek clarification on issues of church polity. Sassenach, I am truly not trying to pick a fight with you. I appreciate wise elders in the body! Doesn't the saying go, the kindest form of rule is a benevolent dictatorship? That's what I long for in heaven, Jesus Himself to rule! However, in the absence of grace and in pursuit of authority, SOME human local church leaders have been known to create and reinforce a hierarchy that disenfranchises individual believers. Individual believers who are filled with and led by the same Holy Spirit, members of the same universal church, as the paid clergy members. I think you and I would disagree about a number of things, and I don't want to argue! I do, however, believe that the OP should be encouraged in her freedom (dare I say, responsibility?) to seek reasonable answers for the changes she sees taking place in her current place of worship.

[twoxcell]

It sounds very strange to me. :confused1:

[PeacefulChaos]

If you began attending a church where women's ministries were strong (Bible studies, movie nights, scrapbooking days, luncheons, etc.) yet a change occurred and women's ministries were "suspended" per pastoral staff, what would you think?  There is one group for young moms that was by invitation only - no advertising in the bulletin - along with a Thursday morning playgroup that is also not advertised.  A Mom's Night Out "ran it's course" and is not allowed and, even when it was going, was not advertised in the bulletin, either.  

 

What would you think/do?  

 

Were any other things suspended?  I ask because some churches take a break from everything for a month or two, and then start back up.  sometimes they change things entirely, taking the time off to refocus and decide what direction they want their ministries to go in. 

The young moms invite only thing is weird.  I will admit, it doesn't surprise me to speak of... but a the same time, I can't imagine it actually starting out as an invite only thing!  :lol:  Same with the other stuff. 

As far as not being advertised in the bulletin, for what reason?  Was it intentional because they didn't want it open to everyone?  Or was it the fault of the person heading up the ministry, because they didn't get the info to the secretary who prints up the bulletin in time?  or, was it the fault of the secretary, who forgot to put it in?

Just a few thoughts.  Now going back to read all the replies...

[Catwoman]

How did it go at church today, womanintheshoe? Did you get any more information?

[PeacefulChaos]

The crazy growth came when a huge church in the area went through a traumatizing event with its pastor and many of the members came to our church.  There were, before my church, 3 "mega churches" in the area.  All three have lost members to my church for one reason or another and many of the incoming people knew each other.  The pastoral staff, however, has only one guy from one of those churches.  The new associate pastor (who is making all of these changes) came from out of state, however he also came from a mega-church.  

 

He gave me an answer this morning that I am mulling over.  Basically the leadership wants church members to meet in three areas: attend Sunday service, attend a small group, and serve in the church. Anyone who wants to offer a ministry such as a Sister Sharing brunch can approach the leadership, fill out a form, and if approved proceed with the event as long as the coordinator understands that the purpose is not a one-time get-together rather a move to get people to meet the three area listed above.  

 

Make sense to anyone?  I'm mulling this over.  

Hmm... I think it is strange. 

However.

I wouldn't be quick to jump ship.  No church or leader is perfect. So I would give it some time - see how everything pans out.  I can't say how long that will be, because I don't know.  But just trust your gut.  I think that if you should leave, you will feel peace about it.  Until then, just study everything that goes on. 

[ErinE]

He gave me an answer this morning that I am mulling over. Basically the leadership wants church members to meet in three areas: attend Sunday service, attend a small group, and serve in the church. Anyone who wants to offer a ministry such as a Sister Sharing brunch can approach the leadership, fill out a form, and if approved proceed with the event as long as the coordinator understands that the purpose is not a one-time get-together rather a move to get people to meet the three area listed above.

 

Make sense to anyone? I'm mulling this over.

Interesting. Our pastor just gave a sermon on a church's purpose in the community and the need for focus. The congregation we attend is struggling with membership, for many reasons. The pastor emphasized that the church needs to identify a need in the community and help fill that specific need. In other words, don't try to be all things to all people. He read a Doonesbury cartoon with a punch line that stated a church had to cancel Sunday services because the members were so busy with everything else. The pastor used the cartoon to emphasize a church that tries to do everything, probably is doing nothing well.

 

It was a really challenging sermon. In the past, we've been a part of a mega-church that had many niche groups and it was easy for newcomers to fill a bit lost. Should the church sponsor knitting or scrapbooking circles? Is that its purpose in the community? I think it's a tough question to contemplate. Is the church's purpose a social outlet or a religious outreach?

 

At the big church, many of the women-oriented groups I attended spiraled down into DH and dc gripe sessions, which I found to be uncomfortable, poisonous experiences. My favorite groups were focused small groups, like bible or book study. It's possible this was happening at your church with its new members.

 

I think you were right to ask about the change, but it may not be a bad thing. Perhaps your pastor feels your church is losing its ways and there needs to be a re-orientation.

[Cinder]

:grouphug:   Our church is going through some changes but none of the groups has been stopped. I do find that part disconcerting. OP I hope you get some good answers/insight as to what's going on there.

[mommaduck]

reported.

[inmyopinion]

The crazy growth came when a huge church in the area went through a traumatizing event with its pastor and many of the members came to our church.  There were, before my church, 3 "mega churches" in the area.  All three have lost members to my church for one reason or another and many of the incoming people knew each other.  The pastoral staff, however, has only one guy from one of those churches.  The new associate pastor (who is making all of these changes) came from out of state, however he also came from a mega-church.  

 

He gave me an answer this morning that I am mulling over.  Basically the leadership wants church members to meet in three areas: attend Sunday service, attend a small group, and serve in the church. Anyone who wants to offer a ministry such as a Sister Sharing brunch can approach the leadership, fill out a form, and if approved proceed with the event as long as the coordinator understands that the purpose is not a one-time get-together rather a move to get people to meet the three area listed above.  

 

Make sense to anyone?  I'm mulling this over.  

I know there could be a thousand reasons for all of this, but just wanted to mention a comment a Pastor once made to me.  His concern with "groups" is that he did not want to have the "groups" take the place of worship.  Now, this can be debated, but his concern was that he had seen a church where the activities grew but the people attending were never firmly planted in the church. Again, I do not know that this is the reason, or, if it is, that it is a good reason. but there is so much that can be going on behind the scenes and they might be looking to try to get a handle on it. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

reported.

What a line to quote!  

[Catwoman]

What a line to quote!

I was thinking the same thing!

 

At least tonight's troll has a sense of humor! :D

[SunnyDays]

I was thinking the same thing!

 

At least tonight's troll has a sense of humor! :D

And isn't trying to hack the board... ;)

 

 

OP, please keep us updated. I really hope you get some deeper information soon and can mull over your options!

[kiwik]

It sounds awfully complicated to me - I just go to church and do some work in the office. If I need to leave during the service I leave and come back, if a woman has a howling baby to feed she goes to the parents room which is soundproof with a big window and a sound system so she can feed the baby without missing out. We drink coffee during the service at the beginning and are generally pretty relaxed. We don't have to sign anything but do have to take turns to do morning tea, creche etc (most people do at least one job a couple if times a month).

 

I got off topic. In my church mothers groups etc are seen as an outreach programme - it is a way of getting women into the church and exposing them to things they may not have thought about (not preaching at them though) - sometimes they come back with their families. Does your church not do evangelism? I don't know what I do - find a smaller church probably - 500 sounds awful to me. Good luck.

[justasque]

I know there could be a thousand reasons for all of this, but just wanted to mention a comment a Pastor once made to me.  His concern with "groups" is that he did not want to have the "groups" take the place of worship.  Now, this can be debated, but his concern was that he had seen a church where the activities grew but the people attending were never firmly planted in the church. Again, I do not know that this is the reason, or, if it is, that it is a good reason. but there is so much that can be going on behind the scenes and they might be looking to try to get a handle on it. 

 

But if the women's groups were stopped because of this kind of reason (or any of the others that have been suggested here), there'd be no need to be mysterious about it.  These concerns could be discussed at the leadership level and possibly in the groups themselves, input from group participants and others could be solicited, and the powers that be could then make a decision and announce it *with an honest and straightforward explanation of their decision*.  It would also have been thoughtful and wise to include some suggestions for other options for group participants, now that the groups have been abolished.  To do otherwise seems disrespectful to those who have put time and effort into creating and running the groups, as well as the participants who have been getting something out of their attendance.  Even if the reason must remain vague for privacy reasons, the cancellations could have been announced with some empathy for the loss, and some welcoming arms from other activities or groups within the church community.