Adding By Subtracting
Today, we had a leaders’ retreat at Highland to further explore the implications of being a missional outpost. I was there as much as possible, shuffling between three basketball games and the retreat.
Two Highland guys, Mark Love and Chris Flanders, led most of the discussion time. Both have lots of insight and experience.
One thing Mark said really resonated. He said that as a church makes this move, those who are there for “goods and services” are likely to leave. But, he said, that is “addition by subtraction.”
It’s never easy to lose people. And we should never take pride in seeing people leave.
But, honestly, churches must not be held hostage by a few people who don’t like the direction that the leadership has discerned it must follow. Even if they’ve been there a long time. Even if they’re well known and well respected. Even if they give a lot.
Too much is at stake. One of the pastoral blessings a church must learn is the blessing that’s offered — in genuine love — to those who are leaving.
Usually addition comes from addition. Sometimes it comes from subtraction.
Steve,
I don’t necessarily disagree with the move to become more missional (which I think is bad terminology, but we’re stuck with it). My problem is that there seems to be a common thread in the more progressive end of thinking that comes across as, “You poor misguided soul, you’ve done church wrong for so many years. Let me lead you toward the light. If you’re unwilling to move in this direction, you can go find a new church.” Change is very necessary, but should be handled very carefully (and preferably without words like ecclesiologically). I have lived in several communities where a church has undergone a major personality and mission change. Each of them handled it poorly, and there were a lot of hard feelings for a long time. Some of that is unavoidable, but a good bit of it could be avoided by more understanding and better explanation of reasoning.
John – Wow. I couldn’t agree more. This “move” must be made carefully, but it must be made. Too much talk, I fear, slows or stops movement and obedience. Sorry for the “ecclesiologically” reference…too much grad school, I guess.
Blessings.
Steve, my friend,
Your passion is absolutely inspiring to me, and I’m terribly proud of you.
And I won’t mention that I was your 9th grade Bible teacher and high school chaplain, either, because that would look like I was trying to take partial credit for who you’re turning out to be. So I won’t do that.
Anyway, I love that you “get worked up about this stuff.” Thanks for challenging my thinking.
Matt — Thanks. I’m not sure if it would be credit or blame you’d be taking… 9th grade Bible rocked, by the way. I’ll never forget Scotty Douglas’ “slumbering flatulation…”
John — I think we’re on the same page now. I agree that change must be conducted delicately, but it must be conducted. We must not fear it, and we must be willing to move forward as God directs (even when some do not share that vision). Thanks for this engaging dialogue, man.
Wow…after reading this post, I think I can kind of de-code some of the language being mysteriously tossed around at my big-”progressive”-southern c-of-c for the last year or so…
We’ve heard “missional” — and that we’ll be different, and many won’t be comfortable — but much of the new church-speak is unintelligible to those of us who don’t attend the right conferences/seminars. Is this language common at Willow Creek and Zoe functions? (The people speaking this new “phraseology” have those groups in common…)
Coded language IS a cult characteristic…and those of us who haven’t read “the right” books or attended “the right” conferences, are left to wonder whether our “family” wants us to leave, or is just indifferent to our staying….
“Go with God” is code for “Here’s your hat. What’s your hurry?”
Yes, God’s greater good is of utmost importance…but if the hairs on my head are numbered, surely He cares about me as an individual, too.
Shouldn’t His church?
CB, I’m inclined to share your gut-level wonderings (“whether our family wants us to leave, or is just indifferent to our staying”). The whole notion of “addition by subtraction” seems tainted by an elitist point of view unless it is applied to the situations to which Jesus applied it:
1. In the matter of church discipline (Matthew 18)
2. In the matter of choosing whether to serve Jesus or not (Luke 14)
We are clearly shown that these weighty matters justify the separation of believers: even if it’s painful, it must be done. But in the matter of choosing what our strategy is going to be? That seems to be a stretch, a nod to efficiency, a desire not to be held back by “those recalcitrants,” a form of pin-your-ears-back urgency that neither the Gospels nor the Epistles seems to convey to us.
In musing over this whole idea, the thought occurred to me that no shepherd in Jesus’ mold would be content simply to let some sheep wander off to God-knows-where (Luke 15) without some bona fide effort to reach them, communicate with them, listen to their hearts. “Addition by subtraction” is euphemistic language for, “we’re probably better off without you anyway.”
Of course, no shepherd has standing to prohibit someone from moving on if that is his/her conviction and intention. But simply to let him/her go without challenging his/her decision with a pastoral heart just seems contrary to the spirit of John 10:1ff, Luke 15 etc.
qb
Not to prolongue this discussion beyond reason, and not even sure if this fits, but I notice something about Jesus that might be disturbing to those who resist the thought of losing people because of strategy. As far as we can tell from scripture, Jesus didn’t chase down those who did not continue their walk with him. As fas as we can tell, he never spent any time asking people what they thought of him, his mission, his strategy…he just did it and allowed people to make their own decision in regards to continung discipleship.
I wonder what would happen if an eldership/ministry staff spent a year teaching a congregtion about God’s call to care for the poor and disadvantaged, then after that year, they told the church that they are going to sell the church property and tend to the poor by creating shelters, job readyness courses, food pantries, etc. I fear that many in that congregation would choose to find another, more conventional expression of their faith at that point. Would the eldership be wrong to make that move?
Steve…are these people saying they are “not continuing their walk with them?”..I think its a disagreement on interpretation of the Bible not on whether they have decided not to walk with Him..
The lost sheep story comes to mind…
I have a giant antique painting in my dining room of Jesus holding the lost lamb…I cherish that depiction of Jesus..
Steve Sr. said: “…they told the church that they are going to sell the church property and tend to the poor by creating shelters, job readyness courses, food pantries, etc.”
Whoa. I might actually…JOIN a church club if they did something like that.
Luogo interessante, buon disegno, lo gradisco, signore! =)
Luogo interessante, buon disegno, lo gradisco, signore! =)
Google is the best search engine