Toxic Churches

[mkgal1]

For example---as a parallel, it'd be like comparing toxic churches to the whole Ray/Janay Rice situation. That whole marriage is toxic.....it's poisoned Janay (and even the responses show how our culture needs some "fixing" in that area as well). IOW.....the general response doesn't "fix" the true problem----it perpetuates it further (mostly because the "enemy" isn't properly identified).

 

[BigDaddy4]

I don't think it's so much the topics (or stances) the churches take....but more the whole dynamic that's the problem.

What I mean is, when there's an overall dynamic of "don't rock the boat" or "don't question what you're being taught or else you're in violation of 1st Chronicles 16:22 and joining with our enemy". There has to be something that's keeping people there or else it'd be no different than your rogue "evangelist" that stands on street corners downtown and yells at passing cars.

Oy. That annoys me to no end. My work is a block away from a busy street. A couple times in the last few months, some street preacher with a microphone and a hand held speaker (not a megaphone) has stood out there preaching some jibberish. First, most of the traffic is vehicles with their windows up or radios on. Second, because of the traffic flow, cars stop for no more than a minute or two at a time. Third, because of the volume of the speakers and the poor quality, he is really not understandable anyway, which is why I call it jibberish.

 

[akmom]

Post #40. I don't understand what you're saying at all. What do you mean?

 

[DZoolander]

What always got me riled up about how political churches get is how they make themselves out to be just a bunch of dupes. Abortion is a perfect example of this.

I came to the opinion long ago that the Republican party has far more to gain from abortion remaining legal than the dems do... That's why they really don't do anything about it. So long as it remains legal those one-issue voters remain in their pocket. Why actually do anything about it, when action might then allow those people to then begin focusing on other things?

Clearly abortion people don't really care about results... They're kind of like dogs chasing after a car in a sense. It's the chase the matters. So long as someone out there yells the same stuff they yell - they're perfectly content. So, as a result, you get the politicians dredging out the abortion issue every couple of years around election time, they get their votes, then it's put to rest until the next election cycle.

For well over 40 years - that's exactly how it's been - and I see no reason to believe that my perception is anything but how it REALLY is.

To that end - I guess the question then becomes - which offends you more? People that disagree with you honestly, or people that cynically pander to you pretending to share your views for personal gain?

 

[mkgal1]

Oy. That annoys me to no end. My work is a block away from a busy street. A couple times in the last few months, some street preacher with a microphone and a hand held speaker (not a megaphone) has stood out there preaching some jibberish. First, most of the traffic is vehicles with their windows up or radios on. Second, because of the traffic flow, cars stop for no more than a minute or two at a time. Third, because of the volume of the speakers and the poor quality, he is really not understandable anyway, which is why I call it jibberish.

Right (it annoys me too).....it's hardly effective (and annoys *most* people). The thing is.....most people don't get drawn in---they stand back (faaar back) and immediately write that person off as "out there".

Toxic churches are completely different.....it's a whole group of people (surprisingly, often, intelligent people) that are corporately "out there" but no one has the ability to see that (because of the dynamics). I doubt they start off as blatantly far off the path of most churches.

 

[mkgal1]

What always got me riled up about how political churches get is how they make themselves out to be just a bunch of dupes. Abortion is a perfect example of this.

I came to the opinion long ago that the Republican party has far more to gain from abortion remaining legal than the dems do... That's why they really don't do anything about it. So long as it remains legal those one-issue voters remain in their pocket. Why actually do anything about it, when action might then allow those people to then begin focusing on other things?

Clearly abortion people don't really care about results... They're kind of like dogs chasing after a car in a sense. It's the chase the matters. So long as someone out there yells the same stuff they yell - they're perfectly content. So, as a result, you get the politicians dredging out the abortion issue every couple of years around election time, they get their votes, then it's put to rest until the next election cycle.

For well over 40 years - that's exactly how it's been - and I see no reason to believe that my perception is anything but how it REALLY is.

To that end - I guess the question then becomes - which offends you more? People that disagree with you honestly, or people that cynically pander to you pretending to share your views for personal gain?

I think that's a good example. If nothing is moving forward (as far as action)....then why do things continue to go 'round and 'round with no one standing up to say, "wait a minute.....nothing has actually been *done* to move towards our goal. What are we *really* doing here?".

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Post #40. I don't understand what you're saying at all. What do you mean?

This is part of why I brought up Mark Driscoll earlier in the thread. If I read the post (40) with those lenses on it makes sense. Pastor Driscoll is such a protected person in Evangelical circles that the harm he was doing to so many was a taboo subject. Anyone who wanted to discuss it, especially within his inner circle, was soon not a part of 'Mars Hill' any longer. And he made a point, sometimes from the pulpit, to call these people out and make sure that everyone knew who was in charge.

 

[mkgal1]

This is part of why I brought up Mark Driscoll earlier in the thread. If I read the post (40) with those lenses on it makes sense. Pastor Driscoll is such a protected person in Evangelical circles that the harm he was doing to so many was a taboo subject. Anyone who wanted to discuss it, especially within his inner circle, was soon not a part of 'Mars Hill' any longer. And he made a point, sometimes from the pulpit, to call these people out and make sure that everyone knew who was in charge.

Exactly---that's the sort of thing I mean...and sometimes it's even more subtle (like a pastor quoting 1st Chronicles 16:22 along with the corporate group being very protective of any 'negative' talk and quickly shutting any topics down that seem to allude to questioning at all ).

What often lures people in is being "chosen" to be a part of the "elite" inner circle (that's flattering to be 'chosen' )---it gives a person a sense of being part of the 'greater good'....especially if the pastor is highly esteemed and popular.

Like that article mentioned---good leadership serves the people within and outside the group (with mutuality)....toxic leadership serves the leader.

 

[akmom]

Guess I need to google "Mark Driscoll."

 

[ToBeBlessed]

Toxic churches are completely different.....it's a whole group of people (surprisingly, often, intelligent people) that are corporately "out there" but no one has the ability to see that (because of the dynamics). I doubt they start off as blatantly far off the path of most churches.

What is very sad though is that many toxic churches appear to be very normal. So in order to see what is really going on one must have gone there for quite a while, which at that point the person has made friends, probably had their children in the children's area, relationships are formed and that makes it so much harder to leave.

It can really be a rough emotional experience.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

What often lures people in is being "chosen" to be a part of the "elite" inner circle (that's flattering to be 'chosen' )---it gives a person a sense of being part of the 'greater good'....especially if the pastor is highly esteemed and popular.

This is so true. Pride under the disguise of serving God. It's a very powerful combination. We all want to feel special.

Those who do not know the Word can have it easily twisted by cherry picking verses out of context. I have some relatives who are Oneness (Jesus Only) Pentecostals. Very difficult and heart breaking.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Guess I need to google "Mark Driscoll."

Happy reading!

Also, look up "Bent Meyer"

 

[mkgal1]

What is very sad though is that many toxic churches appear to be very normal. So in order to see what is really going on one must have gone there for quite a while, which at that point the person has made friends, probably had their children in the children's area, relationships are formed and that makes it so much harder to leave.

It can really be a rough emotional experience.

This is all very true. If they didn't have that appearance that kept people quietly questioning and confused--it would all fall apart quickly. It's insidious and subtle--which is why it's so effective in "poisoning" so many people at one time.

 

[mkgal1]

Guess I need to google "Mark Driscoll."

Happy reading!

Since you all brought up the name....I think it's interesting to see what was being written two years ago (and to think that the church continued going strong until only recently).

An interesting Google search (IMO) is "Pastor Mark Reviews Rachel Held Evans November 2012". Take note of his blatant sexist language (in part--"Only an idiot would disagree. Or a woman."). The thing is...that was probably unnoticed, because a lot of people (women included) may have used the same language (and sentiment) so it didn't "sound" sexist. IOW.....many had grown to agree with him (isn't that what "followers" do?).

Oh....and three years ago is when his book came out (Real Marriage). There was loads of interweb conversations on that (you can Google that as well, if you are interested. Ironically, the Friendly Atheist had a great blog on that.). That didn't seem to negatively affect the church at all.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I think I read about a third of "Real Marriage" before I dumped it. That was actually my introduction to Mark.

 

[mkgal1]

From what I recall, there *were* some good parts of that book (but there were also those bad and ugly parts as well). Just like an abusive spouse--they aren't "all bad" (or else---like I said before---they'd be out on a street corner all alone doing their 'preaching').

Another thought I'd had is that so much of Christianity is about proper balance. ISTM that the things that get exploited are the things that are probably *meant* to be a mystery (and about us following the Holy Spirit for what He has for us individually each day).

To clarify....an example would be a guy plays on a co-ed softball team with his wife and family on Wednesday night (and has for years). It's always been a great family bonding time, as well as a time to get out with the community (this wasn't a 'Christian' softball group).

Let's say the pastor approaches this couple and says that he (the pastor) feels that God desires to have that couple lead a marriage ministry class (because it's been noted by several people how close this family is and what a great witness they are) and that the board has decided this would work perfectly on Wednesday nights when the children have activities so childcare wouldn't hold couples back from attending. The couple prays about it and discusses it between the two of them, and just can't see giving up this special family time....maybe in another season, but not now. They give their answer to the pastor, and he accuses them of "putting 'worldly' sports ahead of God". The couple is confident in their decision, but other members of the church soon hear how they "refused to give up wasting their time playing ball and would rather do that than doing 'God's work' " and they are quietly shunned at church. There's an overall judgement for the family that they had "conformed to the world"....."weren't very strong Christians" (and all the original admiration was forgotten).

The message to less confident people is that in order to "get it right...to be a good Christian" one has to put the church first, because church = God (because certainly the pastor knows what God desires---it's his job/occupation/life's work to know that).

 

[mkgal1]

Oh...and what I just described....how the church shunned the couple due to gossip and judgement is a tactic of our enemy (divide and conquer and then isolate people away from their support). I'd be wary of a church that doesn't want to teach about our enemy's ways (in a balanced way-- also teaching that we fight from a place of victory--not needing to fight *for* victory, as Chip Ingram says).....since the Bible says we ought to know so we don't fall for his schemes (2 Corinthians 2:11 and Ephesians 6:11)

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I think all churches are toxic to some degree. We are flawed humans who therefor are in flawed churches. I think we just have to find a church that is more suitable for us and less toxic then others. Your never going to find a perfect church where there aren't clicks, where people always agree, where they have the right amount of bible studies and so on.

One church we went to for years focused on sports and kids. Its all you ever heard about. So "joining" to be a full member meant they wanted your time to participate in those things. I don't mind kids of course but it doens't mean I want to be part of the people helping. I'd rather be in an adult bible study or stuff like that.

In the end you can be one of two people. The person who accepts a church thats close to what they believe in. Or the person who goes to hundreds of churches in your life time trying to find that perfect one that stays perfect forever.