I would do whatever I could to keep people from leaving.
The truth is, sometimes it’s better to allow—even help—people leave.
I’ve learned:
There are many things that can cause a person to consider leaving a church -- some good and some not so good. Many times the Lord may reassign a person to another church so they can bring ministry or encouragement to another congregation -- that’s the best reason to leave a church. In other situations, people may discover that their church actually impedes their spiritual well-being, and may find the necessity to withdraw. Frequently, people leave a church simply because they are disinterested, dissatisfied, or feel they can find something better.
Before doing anything, it’s a good idea to pray about your situation and seek the Lord’s leading (Prov. 3:6). If you feel the Lord genuinely wants you to leave and go elsewhere for good reason, go to the pastor and discuss it with him. Don’t just stop showing up for church. That is inconsiderate and immature. Keep in mind, leaving one church always means finding another -- the Lord does not lead anyone to simply stop going to church (Heb. 10:25).
My advice to you is, if you are presently in a church that (1) is scripturally sound, (2) is reasonably stable and loving, (3) has godly, moral leadership, (4) is doing their best to exalt Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and (5) if they’re making a reasonable effort to minister to you and your family, then hang in there and remain faithful! You don’t know how blessed you are to have a healthy church like that. Many Christians would give anything to just find a church that is merely at peace!
If you’re unhappy with a church which fits this fivefold description, it’s very likely that the problem isn’t the church, but yours. You are either hung up on some trivial issue, your feelings have been hurt, or you struggle with discontent from other personal problems.
Seven things to consider before leaving a church:
1. Don’t leave a church out of your personal discontent. -- If discontent is rooted within you, it will follow you wherever you go, regardless of what church you attend. A few years ago, a lady who had attended our church for a few weeks said something interesting to me. She said, “Your church is more uplifting than all the other churches around here.” I then asked her, “Just how many other churches have you attended?” “Oh, about five,” was her response. Privately, I realized that we were going to have problems with this new lady, because when it comes down to the basics, most Christian churches aren’t that much different from each other. Whenever a person finds dissatisfaction with several congregations, you can be assured that the problem is their own, not the churches. And sure enough, the woman eventually became unhappy and left our church too, the same as the previous five.
2. Don’t leave a church because you transferred your own personal frustrations there. -- Avoid pushing off your feelings of disappointment from other areas of our life onto the church. Sometimes unhappiness toward the church is a derivative from other personal problems such as: Family or marital difficulties, job dissatisfaction, personal offenses, memories of childhood abuse, mental stress, emotional illness, and so forth. People who struggle with deep internal problems sometimes develop a distorted estimation of the people or situations around them, and may blame them, including the church, for their anguish. Generally speaking, the church is not your problem. Remember that it and its ministers are there because they love you and want to help you -- not hurt you.
3. Don’t leave a church because your feelings got hurt. -- Hurt feelings are a “violation of self interests” and are usually a result of being too self-sensitive. In any church or gathering of people there may be many offensive things said or done, mostly unintended, but you don’t have to let yourself become offended. Those who are easily offended may simply be immature, too self-centered, or may retain self-sensitivities due to past, festering wounds. Hurt feelings are probably the greatest reason why people leave churches, but deepening your roots in Christ and His word can immunize you against such tenderness. “Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them” (Psalm 119:165 KJV).
4. Don’t leave a church over trivial criticisms. -- People sometimes have a remarkable ability of making a mountain out of molehill. I’ve known people to change churches merely because they didn’t like the way the pastor combed his hair, the length of the services, how the bulletin was typed, or other silly reasons. Of the many excuses that persons use to leave a church, this is among the most shallow. If all you seem to do is criticize and find fault with the church, you have an attitude problem. Regardless of where you go to church, you’ll find similar faults again, because the problem isn’t with the church -- the problem is with you.
5. Avoid leaving a church over its style or individuality. -- One of the most common explanations people give for switching churches is their “disagreement with certain beliefs.” However, I can recall many instances where people used this reason even though both churches believed and taught the same things. In reality, it was a dislike of the personality of the church -- its teaching methods, the style of worship, the structure of the services, or the pastor’s preaching style, etc. Many churches actually believe and teach the same things, but each might have a slightly different method, structure, or style which makes up it’s unique personality. No two churches are alike in their personality or methods, any more than two people are alike, but it’s not really very mature to abandon a church over such, shallow, external things. Our estimation of a church should be based on more spiritual, substantive issues, such as their beliefs, their love for one another, or their commitment to reach the lost, etc.
6. Don’t leave a church when faced with self conflict. -- Many people do not understand that spiritual growth requires confronting and overcoming conflict with our self-willed nature (James 1:3-4). The environment of the church provides two important features of growth producing conflict: (1) Authority who will challenge you with truth and correct you when you are wrong. And (2) an environment of believers, many of whom are imperfect and whose rough edges will serve as sandpaper to smooth out your wrinkles. “As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend” (Prov. 27:17).
If anyone thinks he is spiritual, just get close to your brethren, and you’ll find out what’s really inside you. People are like “mirrors” in which we can see ourselves as we really are. If there’s bitterness or a lack of love, it will become exposed. It doesn’t matter how agitating, rude or unspiritual your brethren might be. This does not justify your intolerance or impatience with them. These attitudes are characteristics of your own immaturity -- a weakness in YOU that needs perfected. This is why some people run from church to church -- because it exposes their bad side. They see their own sins and blemishes revealed in their relationship with the brethren, or they become outraged when their self-willed desires or sins are challenged through convicting preaching or correction.
If a person remains a “island” to themself they will never have to face up to the spiritual immaturity within them. But exposing themselves to the environment of the church will cause them to face conflicts that must overcome in order to grow up. A sign of a spiritually mature person is that they can be loving and patient with anyone (1 John 2:10, Gal. 5:22-23), and they can humbly submit themselves to truth and the correction of authority (Heb. 13:17).
7. Don’t leave a church until you have contributed in some way to try help make it better. -- I have always noticed that the most critical people in the church are usually the ones who do the least. Have you prayed for the leaders? Have you made yourself available to serve or help in areas of ministry? Have you expressed helpful suggestions or brought your concerns to the leadership (in a non-judgmental fashion). Go to the leadership and share your heart without harsh criticism, verbal assaults, or nagging complaints, which only cause a leader to become defensive.
Never spread your “unhappiness,” criticism or dissatisfaction to members of the body -- this doesn’t do anything to help, and stirs up discord in the church, a sin God hates (Prov. 6:19).If you can’t keep from spreading your discontent to others, sadly, it may be in your best interest and for the peace of the congregation, for you to move on to another church. Compassionate leaders who are unable to reason with such persons would be wise, and justified by scripture, to encourage their departure from the fellowship. “Cast out the scoffer, and contention will leave; yes, strife and reproach will cease” (Prov. 22:10).
Trying to put into words a theory of aggression caused me to question the evidence that supports various ideas of the origin of aggression. Freud's instinct theory of aggression is typical of most of what he wrote, focusing on the libido and his over-the-top motivation of sexual desires. While I give Freud credit for being creative, I cannot support his theory of aggression for several reasons, but my main complaint revolves around one point. That point is despite his concentration on childhood development, he apparently failed to observe children in his studies. His theories are, to a large extent, based on a guess.
Biological theories of aggression have a lot to offer about the physical and neurobiological causes of aggressive acts. Studying this theory has been intriguing because it leans toward my belief that there is a neurobiological component to behavior. The problem for me is that I have only seen limited confirmation in this area. I believe that evidence for biological causes of aggression will probably increase in the future.
For me the social learning theory seems to be the most well supported and documented theory of aggression. Not only is it widely applicable to men and women, girls and boys and members of all different age levels, but it also has been repeatedly modified and improved through the years.
One important thing I have learned throughout the years is that we should not examine a problem from just one angle. Doing so leads to narrow conclusions that are only applicable in certain situations.
Since this is a physiological class let’s look at aggression as an expression of the central nervous system. As I have learned, behaviors can be generated by an external input, from within the nervous system, by transitional reasons, or even by built-in inconsistency. Finally, in today's violent world we must consider aggression as a combination of many factors. By themselves, the factors are probably are harmless, but when they are added together, they can give rise to aggression.
T. E. Lawrence once said, “All men dream but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to the day to find it was all vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for the many act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible...”
I believe that dreams (during sleep) can be described as the brain’s time to run free. When our bodies tire, we find a comfortable position, and become indifferent in the things going on around us that beg for our attention we are able to sleep. I believe that our dreams are comprised of, “all past experiences which are not available to waking consciousness, or for recollection. (Walsh, p. 25)” This leads to what happens when we do fall asleep, “As we go to sleep the door to the mind is, so to speak, gradually opened, and the dream is more (Walsh, p. 25).”
From a Biblical perspective, God revealed Himself to the prophets through dreams and visions to communicate His truth. However, I do not believe God speaks to us today through dreams, certainly not as He did in the Old Testament. I do think that God uses other avenues (people, trial or difficulties, circumstances, etc.) to teach us and call things to our attention that we need to deal with or learn from. When I walk 18 holes of golf, and I am huffing and puffing, I can understand that I am out of shape and need to exercise more. I believe God uses circumstances to teach us. Therefore, dreams may be important if there is a consistent theme. Emotionally and spiritually this could be pointing to a spiritual problem that needs to be worked out such as a broken relationship.
I have very little recall of what I dream. I do dream, but I really could not say how much because memories of my dreams never last long upon waking. The dreams that are the most vivid for me usually have to deal with negative issues within relationships.
Q. Should drugs that improve cognitive functions (ex. memory and attention) be available to everyone or only to those with impaired functioning such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)? What are the advantages and disadvantages of widespread use of such drugs among those who are unimpaired?
A. The demand for better memory and cognitive functioning is seen daily in the television and web ads that promote ginkgo-biloba supplements. If people were not buying this product, the ads would not exist. So there probably is a large demand, by otherwise healthy people, for something to help them with cognitive functioning. If neuro-enhancing drugs are available for use in this area, there could be some interesting scenarios created. What if a student who makes very good grades wants to reach the maximum points available? Their desired usage is far different from the student who is barely passing classes, and desires to better themselves by reaching the level of the student who makes very good grades. In this situation there could be a socio-economical disparity that prevents the student barley getting by from having access to the same medication as the student making good grades.
There are some interesting questions that arise from thinking about this topic. First, are there studies to show what the implications of using cognitive enhancing drugs as being beneficial to someone who is not cognitively impaired? Which makes me wonder, could using this type of medication actually have detrimental effects or unintended consequences? We automatically think that just because we have a good attention span, having an increased attention span would be better. The use of medication to treat Alzheimer’s patients is a good thing, but memory is a tricky thing. Our memories often times act similarly to a filter that allows some things to be retained, and not others. Remembering good things that happen in our lives such as the moment we met our spouse is a natural memory function. However, if we take memory enhancing drugs, will we remember things like sitting in the doctor’s office staring at the wall? Will the drugs be selective or comprehensive? Could we end up with a head full of things we would like to forget, or even repress?
I know I have answered questions with questions, but I think I made my point.
Here is a follow-up question: Alzheimer’s is sometimes described as losing one’s personality. If someone, who is totally obnoxious but unimpaired, uses drugs to enhance their personality, will it make them more obnoxious?
Just wondering…
