MennoNet.com

Interesting link came across my desk this morning. Some are relevant to Anabaptism, some are not. I've been part of churches like this, so many of these ring true. Comment as needed. I have no dog in this dogfight.

***************************


I assume it’s clear that I’m using “family-run” as a negative for churches. I’ve known great families that have much positive influence in the church, and I thank God for those kinds of families. On the other hand, I’ve also seen the negative side of “family-run” churches. Here are some signs of that kind of church:

*A significant number of members are related to this family. I’ve seen some smaller churches where more than 50% of the members were part of a controlling family.

*The family has a matriarch or patriarch that the church recognizes as an influential, power-wielding member. Few people will confront him or her, lest they upset the family.

*A family member is part of every major committee in the church. In many cases, they chair these committees—and have done so for several years.

*Some folks know the church as “the church where the ______________ go.” You can fill in the blank with the name of any family that seems to run the church.

*A conflict with one family member often becomes conflict with the rest of the family. Everyone is so related that conflict quickly escalates.

*More than one family member has said to the pastor, “We were here when you came, and we’ll be here when you leave.” Their words are probably accurate, but they’re nevertheless an expression of power.

*Gifted people who want to serve aren’t often given that opportunity. That’s because family members already dominate the system—and they don’t want to give up their positions.

*Parades of short-term pastors have led the church. They come under God’s call, but they then hit the wall surrounding “the family.” Finding the opposition too stifling, they move on to another church—and the family again fills any leadership void.

*The church tends to see the senior pastor as an employee more than a spiritual leader. The family publicly or subversively requires the pastor to do what they want. They’re not open to spiritual teaching or correction.

*None of the family members would say that they’re controlling the church. They camouflage their actions in spiritual language, and they’re convinced they’re simply doing what’s best for the church.

*In many cases, the church is not growing. At best, they’re living in “maintenance mode.” The same people dominate all the church does, and they seldom have a strong commitment to evangelism. After all, reaching new members might ultimately threaten their positions.

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 5:28 am Interesting link came across my desk this morning. Some are relevant to Anabaptism, some are not. I've been part of churches like this, so many of these ring true. Comment as needed. I have no dog in this dogfight.

***************************


I assume it’s clear that I’m using “family-run” as a negative for churches. I’ve known great families that have much positive influence in the church, and I thank God for those kinds of families. On the other hand, I’ve also seen the negative side of “family-run” churches. Here are some signs of that kind of church:

*A significant number of members are related to this family. I’ve seen some smaller churches where more than 50% of the members were part of a controlling family.

*The family has a matriarch or patriarch that the church recognizes as an influential, power-wielding member. Few people will confront him or her, lest they upset the family.

*A family member is part of every major committee in the church. In many cases, they chair these committees—and have done so for several years.

*Some folks know the church as “the church where the ______________ go.” You can fill in the blank with the name of any family that seems to run the church.

*A conflict with one family member often becomes conflict with the rest of the family. Everyone is so related that conflict quickly escalates.

*More than one family member has said to the pastor, “We were here when you came, and we’ll be here when you leave.” Their words are probably accurate, but they’re nevertheless an expression of power.

*Gifted people who want to serve aren’t often given that opportunity. That’s because family members already dominate the system—and they don’t want to give up their positions.

*Parades of short-term pastors have led the church. They come under God’s call, but they then hit the wall surrounding “the family.” Finding the opposition too stifling, they move on to another church—and the family again fills any leadership void.

*The church tends to see the senior pastor as an employee more than a spiritual leader. The family publicly or subversively requires the pastor to do what they want. They’re not open to spiritual teaching or correction.

*None of the family members would say that they’re controlling the church. They camouflage their actions in spiritual language, and they’re convinced they’re simply doing what’s best for the church.

*In many cases, the church is not growing. At best, they’re living in “maintenance mode.” The same people dominate all the church does, and they seldom have a strong commitment to evangelism. After all, reaching new members might ultimately threaten their positions.

No need for a dog fight, but our cat can stand up to any dog, with her hissing, scratching and biting.

That being said, I have seen what is described above. I have also seen where the Lord had a way of bringing something into the lives of a family run church, that was extremely humbling, and a church structure changing drastically.

Grace wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 7:43 am

That being said, I have seen what is described above. I have also seen where the Lord had a way of bringing something into the lives of a family run church, that was extremely humbling, and a church structure changing drastically.

The few examples of this that comes to mind were never really stable and thus, never grew, and most likely never will. The one died out and the other seems half a heartbeat away from disbanding as well.

Grace wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 7:43 am
No need for a dog fight, but our cat can stand up to any dog, with her hissing, scratching and biting.

Seems I have to put that disclosure in there. My Army chaplain thread from yesterday went sideways because people thought I was advocating for it, when in fact I simply found it interesting

I think the 11 signs have parallels in an ethnic run church.

Ernie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 10:42 am I think the 11 signs have parallels in an ethnic run church.

Are you thinking of a mission church being operated by an ethnicity or culture different from the one it is serving?

I attended a church that had a few families that were very active in many parts of the church. I didn’t see any signs that they were ‘running’ the church but I can see how quickly that could change if the family was a little power hungry.

Sliceitup wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:43 pm I attended a church that had a few families that were very active in many parts of the church. I didn’t see any signs that they were ‘running’ the church but I can see how quickly that could change if the family was a little power hungry.

Quite. I have seen this in small Catholic parishes as well. While technically the Bishop and priests may be the leadership, one or two families who like to be in control of the gossip (information brokers) can be detrimental to the mission of the church and that parish in particular. If the parish has a strong priest who leads with a more Biblical standard; and who teaches Biblical discipleship frequently; then the problems can be suppressed.

My understanding is that smallish house churches were not uncommon in old times. Without bringing my preference on that topic, it seems to me that those would have inherently been family dominated. If accurate, then it seems like it would be easier, not harder, to have a church solution than a house church solution.

RZehr wrote: ↑Fri Dec 02, 2022 2:40 pm My understanding is that smallish house churches were not uncommon in old times. Without bringing my preference on that topic, it seems to me that those would have inherently been family dominated. If accurate, then it seems like it would be easier, not harder, to have a church solution than a house church solution.

House churches run in modern times tend to be dominated by one or two families, too. Woe be unto the person who is not best friends with one of these families.