Did Our Church Handle It Wrong When We Left?
We left our church in May because of the dogmatic Calvinist pastor who seems to shame and manipulate people into Calvinism and who doesn’t seem to tolerate any other views but his.
It's been over three months since we left. And just recently, one of the elders (a long-time friend who is a Calvinist) apologized for how the whole situation was handled. They even had us over for dinner with their family. (They are truly wonderful people!) Apparently, some people have gone to the elders with concerns about how our situation was handled, saying that it was handled wrong.
Now you're probably wondering, So just how was it all handled? What exactly happened?
Answer: Nothing. That's what happened - nothing.
After we sent our letter to the elders detailing our concerns about the pastor's dogmatic Calvinism, nothing changed. In fact, the pastor only got more vocal about it. And so after hanging in there as long as we could, fruitlessly hoping that maybe our letter would have some effect or get people discussing this issue and exploring it on their own, we left quietly, simply sending a “We are withdrawing our membership here due to strong doctrinal disagreements with the head pastor” letter.
We resigned quietly. My husband quit his ministry positions (only telling those he worked with why we were leaving). And nothing else happened. We talked to no one about it, except a few friends who knew about it and a few who expressed sympathy that we left and wondered why. But no one from the leadership at church called or checked in with us or even let us know they got our resignation. We simply "vanished."
Was it handled wrong?
Personally, I don’t necessarily think it was handled wrong.
I mean, I know this kind of situation can be messy - when long-term members strongly disagree with a new-ish head pastor’s theology, when the elders all agree theologically with the pastor but many of them are friends with the members who disagree. This is not an easy spot for the elders to be in. Or for us. We had to tell our friends who are elders that we disagree with the pastor's theology. With their theology. That we don't think it's biblical. That’s a touchy situation. And we did not enjoy putting our wonderful Calvinist elder-friends in that tough position. But they handled it gracefully, as far as we can tell. At least when talking with us afterwards.
In fact, the head elder is a very good, long-time friend of ours. He and his family are wonderful people - some of the nicest, most thoughtful, gentle, godly people we know. And we had to send our letter directly to him. Ugh! Not fun! But we knew we had to say something about our concerns. Because if we didn't - if we just left without saying anything - it wouldn't be fair to the church.
It wouldn't be fair to those in the congregation who also disagree with the pastor but who think they are the only ones because no one else is speaking up, and who are feeling ashamed for disagreeing with him, as if there's something wrong with their faith or their understanding of God and the Gospel. If we left quietly, we might be saving ourselves but we'd be abandoning them - those who are hurting because of Calvinism and who need to hear that they're not alone, that someone else disagrees with it too.
And it wouldn't be fair to not let the church know about how some of us in the congregation feel and believe, warning them that some of us don't agree with the direction the church is headed in and that people may end up leaving over this issue.
And it wouldn't be fair to just hand the church over to deceptive lies, to heresy (which is what we believe Calvinism is). If we had a warning to give the church, for the sake of the church, and we didn't give it to them before we left, we would be partly responsible for the mess they ended up in. It would be on us. But if we did warn them but they didn't listen, then it would be on them. All we can do is share our thoughts and concerns with them, but then it's up to them to decide what to do about it.
See Ezekiel 3:18-21: "When I [the Lord] say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will surely die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself. Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself."
Of course, this isn't really about this issue, but I think it still fits to a degree. For me, it's a reminder that we are responsible to share truth when it's time to share truth. And if we don't, it's on us. But if we do and they don't listen, it's on them. I'd rather it be on them. I'd rather know that I did my part, no matter how uncomfortable it was, so that my conscious is clean before the Lord.
[And honestly, this passage totally contradicts Calvinism, that God alone controls and causes all we do and that we can't do anything other than what God has preplanned for us to do. Read it for yourself and see. The closest thing that could sound Calvinistic is the Lord putting the stumbling block before the person who's fallen from righteousness. It makes it sound like the Lord caused the person to do something unrighteous, but I don't think that's what it is. I think it's that the person was falling from unrighteousness first, that they desired to sin, and so God put something in their path or allowed something to be put in their path that they would stumble over, that would force them to make a choice. The Lord might put us in a situation that forces us to choose whether we will sin or obey, but He doesn't decide for us if we will sin or to obey. He leaves that up to us, as seen throughout that passage.]
Anyway, like I said, after we sent our concerns, nothing happened.
You just don’t.
Not just for their sakes … but for yours. For the church.
So while I didn't have a problem with how it was handled for us, I would say that if it had been someone else then, yeah, it was handled wrong.
And while we might pay a small price for how it was handled in the short-term (we don't have a church home right now, we stay home watching sermons online), it will be the church that pays a big price in the long-term, something we had hoped to spare them from by sending the letter in the first place.
It's been over three months since we left. And just recently, one of the elders (a long-time friend who is a Calvinist) apologized for how the whole situation was handled. They even had us over for dinner with their family. (They are truly wonderful people!) Apparently, some people have gone to the elders with concerns about how our situation was handled, saying that it was handled wrong.
Now you're probably wondering, So just how was it all handled? What exactly happened?
Answer: Nothing. That's what happened - nothing.
After we sent our letter to the elders detailing our concerns about the pastor's dogmatic Calvinism, nothing changed. In fact, the pastor only got more vocal about it. And so after hanging in there as long as we could, fruitlessly hoping that maybe our letter would have some effect or get people discussing this issue and exploring it on their own, we left quietly, simply sending a “We are withdrawing our membership here due to strong doctrinal disagreements with the head pastor” letter.
We resigned quietly. My husband quit his ministry positions (only telling those he worked with why we were leaving). And nothing else happened. We talked to no one about it, except a few friends who knew about it and a few who expressed sympathy that we left and wondered why. But no one from the leadership at church called or checked in with us or even let us know they got our resignation. We simply "vanished."
Was it handled wrong?
Personally, I don’t necessarily think it was handled wrong.
I mean, I know this kind of situation can be messy - when long-term members strongly disagree with a new-ish head pastor’s theology, when the elders all agree theologically with the pastor but many of them are friends with the members who disagree. This is not an easy spot for the elders to be in. Or for us. We had to tell our friends who are elders that we disagree with the pastor's theology. With their theology. That we don't think it's biblical. That’s a touchy situation. And we did not enjoy putting our wonderful Calvinist elder-friends in that tough position. But they handled it gracefully, as far as we can tell. At least when talking with us afterwards.
In fact, the head elder is a very good, long-time friend of ours. He and his family are wonderful people - some of the nicest, most thoughtful, gentle, godly people we know. And we had to send our letter directly to him. Ugh! Not fun! But we knew we had to say something about our concerns. Because if we didn't - if we just left without saying anything - it wouldn't be fair to the church.
It wouldn't be fair to those in the congregation who also disagree with the pastor but who think they are the only ones because no one else is speaking up, and who are feeling ashamed for disagreeing with him, as if there's something wrong with their faith or their understanding of God and the Gospel. If we left quietly, we might be saving ourselves but we'd be abandoning them - those who are hurting because of Calvinism and who need to hear that they're not alone, that someone else disagrees with it too.
And it wouldn't be fair to not let the church know about how some of us in the congregation feel and believe, warning them that some of us don't agree with the direction the church is headed in and that people may end up leaving over this issue.
And it wouldn't be fair to just hand the church over to deceptive lies, to heresy (which is what we believe Calvinism is). If we had a warning to give the church, for the sake of the church, and we didn't give it to them before we left, we would be partly responsible for the mess they ended up in. It would be on us. But if we did warn them but they didn't listen, then it would be on them. All we can do is share our thoughts and concerns with them, but then it's up to them to decide what to do about it.
See Ezekiel 3:18-21: "When I [the Lord] say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will surely die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself. Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the righteous man not to sin and he does not sin, he will surely live because he took warning, and you will have saved yourself."
Of course, this isn't really about this issue, but I think it still fits to a degree. For me, it's a reminder that we are responsible to share truth when it's time to share truth. And if we don't, it's on us. But if we do and they don't listen, it's on them. I'd rather it be on them. I'd rather know that I did my part, no matter how uncomfortable it was, so that my conscious is clean before the Lord.
[And honestly, this passage totally contradicts Calvinism, that God alone controls and causes all we do and that we can't do anything other than what God has preplanned for us to do. Read it for yourself and see. The closest thing that could sound Calvinistic is the Lord putting the stumbling block before the person who's fallen from righteousness. It makes it sound like the Lord caused the person to do something unrighteous, but I don't think that's what it is. I think it's that the person was falling from unrighteousness first, that they desired to sin, and so God put something in their path or allowed something to be put in their path that they would stumble over, that would force them to make a choice. The Lord might put us in a situation that forces us to choose whether we will sin or obey, but He doesn't decide for us if we will sin or to obey. He leaves that up to us, as seen throughout that passage.]
Anyway, like I said, after we sent our concerns, nothing happened.
Actually, something did - the pastor got even more vocal and dogmatic about it.
And so it was time for us to leave.
But since I don’t ever confront leaders, and since our friends are the elders, and since we knew the pastor is so dogmatic that he wouldn’t listen, I didn’t really have any kind of expectation for how our letter should have been handled, for how they should have responded to our concerns and to our resignation from church.
And so I guess the fact that they did nothing didn’t really faze me. I was prepared for nothing. I got nothing. And so I wasn’t bothered too much. At least we made our point and took our stand.
But a good friend of ours (who sees things the way we do) still says it was handled wrong. And so I started to think, “If this happened to someone else, not to us, would I think it was handled wrong?”
Was it really handled wrong?
And the honest answer is that if it happened to someone else, then “Yes, it was handled wrong.”
I mean, in our case, I didn’t expect anything to happen. And so it didn't bother us when nothing happened. (We told the head elder he didn't have to respond and that we didn't want to meet with the pastor over this.)
And so it was time for us to leave.
But since I don’t ever confront leaders, and since our friends are the elders, and since we knew the pastor is so dogmatic that he wouldn’t listen, I didn’t really have any kind of expectation for how our letter should have been handled, for how they should have responded to our concerns and to our resignation from church.
And so I guess the fact that they did nothing didn’t really faze me. I was prepared for nothing. I got nothing. And so I wasn’t bothered too much. At least we made our point and took our stand.
But a good friend of ours (who sees things the way we do) still says it was handled wrong. And so I started to think, “If this happened to someone else, not to us, would I think it was handled wrong?”
Was it really handled wrong?
And the honest answer is that if it happened to someone else, then “Yes, it was handled wrong.”
I mean, in our case, I didn’t expect anything to happen. And so it didn't bother us when nothing happened. (We told the head elder he didn't have to respond and that we didn't want to meet with the pastor over this.)
But if I step back and look at the situation, especially if it happened to someone else, there were a few things that were handled wrong:
1. It bothered my husband that the head elder told us (months after we sent our letter to the elders) that he had a letter to give us about how the elders’ meeting went when they discussed our letter. And so knowing that there was a response, my husband kept asking for it. But time and time again, the head elder put it off. Finally, he said he didn’t want to give it to us because he didn’t want to hurt the friendship and didn’t want it to sound like they weren’t going to do anything about it. (Which, obviously, they weren’t.)
This bothered my husband, to be told there was a letter but then to be denied the letter over and over again. I know the head elder is a great person with a wonderful heart, and he was in a really bad position, and so I don’t blame him at all. He didn’t have to even have a response of any kind for us, because we initially told him that it wasn’t necessary.
But by this point, we knew we had to leave because the pastor wasn't toning it down at all. We could tell where the pastor's heart and head was. And we could tell that all the elders and other pastors were behind him. But since my husband was struggling with how and when to quit his ministries before we officially left the church, he had really hoped to get that letter so that he had something official to refer to, a response from the church that would back up our reasons for quitting, for letting other people down. But we had to go forward with it.
[Honestly, the only way it could be handled "correctly" for us - enough to make us stay - would be for them to get rid of this pastor and find a new one. Or maybe they could have brought this issue up in front of church, clearly presenting the other side, encouraging the people to study this for themselves and to start discussing it. If it hadn't been swept under the rug, I might have been able to stay, knowing that people were openly discussing it, even if we saw things differently. This issue should be one where open discussion is allowed and encouraged, not where one side steamrolls the other into agreeing with them or into being quiet about their views on it.
But I believe all the elders and pastors are Calvinists. And I'm sure they like the head pastor and think he preaches truth boldly. (He is a good public speaker.) And I can understand why they would want to prevent the spread of other views. If I believed the way they did and felt that it was absolute truth and that this "truth" needed to be spread and that it was my job to protect the church from any attacks on that "absolute truth," then I would probably do exactly what they did. As our elder-friend said when we expressed frustration over the pastor's dogmatic manipulation, "But if what he's saying is truth, then that's what we want in a pastor." (I wish I had answered with "Yeah ... IF what he's saying is truth!")
I'm sure that the elders (and other Calvinists in the congregation) don't see the things he says as "manipulation." They probably just think "Way to go, Pastor! Way to be so bold with truth!"
But those who aren't Calvinists will see it as manipulation, as completely ignoring the fact that the church has debated this issue for hundreds of years and has never yet come to an agreement on it. And if this the case (which it is), how then can he take such a strong stand on it from the pulpit? Shaming those who don't agree with him?
All he's going to do is cause division, alienating those who don't see it his way. And that will eventually cause those who disagree to leave the church, leaving behind all those who do agree with him, causing that church to grow exclusively Calvinistic and more dogmatically Calvinistic because there will be no one there who disagrees with it or who feels comfortable voicing it.
And so ... if Calvinism is wrong ... there will be no one left to take a stand against it, to help lead the blinded to Truth! It will just be one giant cult where no other opinions are allowed, no one disagrees, and no one studies this issue for themselves. They just accept what's being fed to them because that's what everyone around them seems to believe.]
This bothered my husband, to be told there was a letter but then to be denied the letter over and over again. I know the head elder is a great person with a wonderful heart, and he was in a really bad position, and so I don’t blame him at all. He didn’t have to even have a response of any kind for us, because we initially told him that it wasn’t necessary.
But by this point, we knew we had to leave because the pastor wasn't toning it down at all. We could tell where the pastor's heart and head was. And we could tell that all the elders and other pastors were behind him. But since my husband was struggling with how and when to quit his ministries before we officially left the church, he had really hoped to get that letter so that he had something official to refer to, a response from the church that would back up our reasons for quitting, for letting other people down. But we had to go forward with it.
[Honestly, the only way it could be handled "correctly" for us - enough to make us stay - would be for them to get rid of this pastor and find a new one. Or maybe they could have brought this issue up in front of church, clearly presenting the other side, encouraging the people to study this for themselves and to start discussing it. If it hadn't been swept under the rug, I might have been able to stay, knowing that people were openly discussing it, even if we saw things differently. This issue should be one where open discussion is allowed and encouraged, not where one side steamrolls the other into agreeing with them or into being quiet about their views on it.
But I believe all the elders and pastors are Calvinists. And I'm sure they like the head pastor and think he preaches truth boldly. (He is a good public speaker.) And I can understand why they would want to prevent the spread of other views. If I believed the way they did and felt that it was absolute truth and that this "truth" needed to be spread and that it was my job to protect the church from any attacks on that "absolute truth," then I would probably do exactly what they did. As our elder-friend said when we expressed frustration over the pastor's dogmatic manipulation, "But if what he's saying is truth, then that's what we want in a pastor." (I wish I had answered with "Yeah ... IF what he's saying is truth!")
I'm sure that the elders (and other Calvinists in the congregation) don't see the things he says as "manipulation." They probably just think "Way to go, Pastor! Way to be so bold with truth!"
But those who aren't Calvinists will see it as manipulation, as completely ignoring the fact that the church has debated this issue for hundreds of years and has never yet come to an agreement on it. And if this the case (which it is), how then can he take such a strong stand on it from the pulpit? Shaming those who don't agree with him?
All he's going to do is cause division, alienating those who don't see it his way. And that will eventually cause those who disagree to leave the church, leaving behind all those who do agree with him, causing that church to grow exclusively Calvinistic and more dogmatically Calvinistic because there will be no one there who disagrees with it or who feels comfortable voicing it.
And so ... if Calvinism is wrong ... there will be no one left to take a stand against it, to help lead the blinded to Truth! It will just be one giant cult where no other opinions are allowed, no one disagrees, and no one studies this issue for themselves. They just accept what's being fed to them because that's what everyone around them seems to believe.]
2. Along these lines, I think it was handled wrong that the elders knew someone disagreed with the pastor's theology - and that we had biblical reasons for disagreeing - and yet they sweep it under the rug, refusing to open this issue up for discussion among the congregation.
(Again, I can understand why they would, if they believe in Calvinism as strongly as they do. But I would love to ask them, "Where did you get all your knowledge about Calvinism? From the Calvinist pastor and all of his Calvinist literature during your "Calvinist indoctrination" classes with him? You wouldn't trust the pesticide manufacturers to tell you how safe their products are, would you? Yet you're trusting dogmatic Calvinists to tell you how true Calvinism is! Just a warning about being careful where you get your information from.")
3. Also, it was handled wrong in that the elders apparently knew that this pastor was this dogmatic about Calvinism before they hired him, but they didn't inform the congregation about it. (Before this pastor, Calvinism wasn't really talked about. And it certainly wasn't preached from the pulpit. In fact, I don't even know what the previous pastor's views on this issue are. We were not a "Calvinist" or "Reformed" (deformed!) church.) The elders chose a strong, dogmatic Calvinist pastor for our new head pastor, without letting us know that he was a Calvinist. (Maybe they did and I just missed it. I knew there were some people from the congregation warning us about him, but I don't remember if anyone clearly spelled out what the issue was. I don't remember hearing anything about "Calvinism" during the whole time they were "trying on" this pastor. In fact, the pastor himself almost never mentions the word "Calvinism," despite the fact that he's so dogmatic about it. I'm sure he knows to avoid that word because it raises red flags, and so he just calls it "truth" and "what the Bible says.")
Anyway, I think it's wrong for elders to choose a dogmatic Calvinist pastor to shepherd a non-Calvinist church, without warning us first, without being absolutely open and forthright about what this man's theology is, without giving us a chance to study it and talk about it openly at a church meeting. (Once again, maybe they were forthright about it and maybe I just missed it. But if so, if it was this easy for me to miss it, maybe they weren't as open as they should have been.)
I read somewhere that if a non-Calvinist church brings on a dogmatic Calvinist pastor, it will split the church. And I think that might happen here, causing at least some of us to leave.
[Honestly, even if the elders got rid of this pastor and looked for a new one, I don't think I could trust their judgment. They are all Calvinists and have all been further indoctrinated by this Calvinist pastor. And so if our church was to look for a new pastor, I think all the elders would have to go through "deprogramming" classes first. You know what else? If Calvinism is as absolutely true as they think it is, then they shouldn't be afraid of being open about it, of allowing research and discussion on it. Wouldn't that just end up leading people to see the "truth" of Calvinism then? Wouldn't all that discussion just end up favoring them? If it's as undeniably true as they think it is? (Since we couldn't get this issue out in the open before we left, I did leave an online review about the church explaining that we left it because of the pastor's Calvinism and encouraging people to research it for themselves to see if they think it's biblical or not. I simply couldn't not say something to warn those who might consider going there.)]
Anyway, I think it's wrong for elders to choose a dogmatic Calvinist pastor to shepherd a non-Calvinist church, without warning us first, without being absolutely open and forthright about what this man's theology is, without giving us a chance to study it and talk about it openly at a church meeting. (Once again, maybe they were forthright about it and maybe I just missed it. But if so, if it was this easy for me to miss it, maybe they weren't as open as they should have been.)
I read somewhere that if a non-Calvinist church brings on a dogmatic Calvinist pastor, it will split the church. And I think that might happen here, causing at least some of us to leave.
[Honestly, even if the elders got rid of this pastor and looked for a new one, I don't think I could trust their judgment. They are all Calvinists and have all been further indoctrinated by this Calvinist pastor. And so if our church was to look for a new pastor, I think all the elders would have to go through "deprogramming" classes first. You know what else? If Calvinism is as absolutely true as they think it is, then they shouldn't be afraid of being open about it, of allowing research and discussion on it. Wouldn't that just end up leading people to see the "truth" of Calvinism then? Wouldn't all that discussion just end up favoring them? If it's as undeniably true as they think it is? (Since we couldn't get this issue out in the open before we left, I did leave an online review about the church explaining that we left it because of the pastor's Calvinism and encouraging people to research it for themselves to see if they think it's biblical or not. I simply couldn't not say something to warn those who might consider going there.)]
4. And I guess another way it was handled wrong was that after we sent our resignation letter (well after the letter to the elders), no one from leadership or the office responded. No one checked in with us (except for those few friends whom we saw after we left). No one asked us to share what’s on our hearts and why we feel so strongly about this. No one from the office even acknowledged that we quit our membership or confirmed it, until they heard that someone complained about how it was handled. (And then we got an email telling us that they got our resignation and were removing us from the membership list. It was a nice email, thanking us for handling it kindly and graciously.)
I had thought people knew us well-enough to at least have some respect for us and our faith. That maybe they would go, “Wow! If they left the church, it must be for a good reason. Maybe we should call them and find out why.”
My suggestion: Tell the person who's resigning that you want to know what's on their heart and mind, that you will just listen to them. Ask them what they think the problem is and if they have any suggestions for what should change or how it can be "fixed," without making any promises to them. And ask the person who they would be willing to meet with, instead of pulling them in to a meeting with a bunch of people they don't want to talk to. We would have been willing to meet with an elder-friend or two, but not with the head pastor or elders we don't know.
I had thought people knew us well-enough to at least have some respect for us and our faith. That maybe they would go, “Wow! If they left the church, it must be for a good reason. Maybe we should call them and find out why.”
My suggestion: Tell the person who's resigning that you want to know what's on their heart and mind, that you will just listen to them. Ask them what they think the problem is and if they have any suggestions for what should change or how it can be "fixed," without making any promises to them. And ask the person who they would be willing to meet with, instead of pulling them in to a meeting with a bunch of people they don't want to talk to. We would have been willing to meet with an elder-friend or two, but not with the head pastor or elders we don't know.
(And as a warning to people who are leaving a church: I have read a lot online warning us against meeting with dogmatic Calvinist leadership at dogmatic Calvinist churches, particularly those listed with Acts 29 or 9Marks. You might just end up being suckered into some church discipline that you didn't see coming, simply for disagreeing with the leadership. So make sure any meetings are on your terms and only with people you trust to listen to you. Or don't attend any meetings at all, and simply send a letter. For your information, see this post about resigning from a church and one post and another one about signing membership agreements with a church.)
And if the people who are leaving are people you respect and trust, you should take to heart what they say and think deeply about it, instead of easily brushing it aside or covering it up. You don’t let faithful long-term members go without a word, without taking it seriously and finding out why.
Not just for their sakes … but for yours. For the church.
So while I didn't have a problem with how it was handled for us, I would say that if it had been someone else then, yeah, it was handled wrong.
And while we might pay a small price for how it was handled in the short-term (we don't have a church home right now, we stay home watching sermons online), it will be the church that pays a big price in the long-term, something we had hoped to spare them from by sending the letter in the first place.
