Disagreement between congregation and leadership

[samfan121]

I found out tonight that due to a decision taken by our vicar, a large number of my friends are considering leaving our church. While I see why they disagree, I think their actions are potentially extreme. I also have a couple of friends who agree with the vicar and am feeling stuck in the middle. Is it right that they leave, or would it do more harm than good, just for the sake of proving a point? How should we handle opposing views between congregation and leaders?

The situation has come about due to a homeless man who has been sleeping in the church porch for over 2 years. He is an older man who came out of prison and started living rough. He has some learning difficulties, is an alcoholic and has no family to speak of.

He started sleeping in the church porch because it was the other side of town (a fairly small town) from the only homeless action project, where he was scared of some of the clients. He said he felt safe at the church because it's in a nice residential area where the other homeless people don't go. Church staff made him cups of tea and people brought him clothes, food etc. The vicar tried to get him into shelters or a rehab programme but he refused to go.

Over time, he became a bit more demanding. Knocking at the Vicar's door at every mealtime, spending more and more time hanging around the office where the secretary works alone during the day. Understandably the Vicar began to try again to move him on but it didn't work.

A small group of friends decided to take him under their wing. They registered him with a doctor, make sure he goes to his appointments, bought him clothes, a new sleeping bag, hang out with him one evening a week. He started to help tidy up after services, he became more communicative to people, he loves the singing during services, They got him to agree to consider homeless shelters and halfway houses, but despite them writing applications and reference, no on would take him because of his conviction for arson.

Earlier this year, the man became angry at the vicar and threatened him with a broken bottle. He has called the Vicar's wife rude names when she returns to her house in the evening,

The Vicar has now announced he will be formally asking him to leave and will ask the police to move him on if he returns.

While I don't necessarily agree with this decision, because the man has nowhere to go and no one else to keep an eye on him, I totally see why he has made it,

My friends who have been helping the man are outraged and tearful about the whole thing, One has already told the Vicar she will never come back to our church, The rest are discussing amongst themselves and are meeting with the Vicar soon to make him aware of their views and the threat to leave. These people are all in leadership positions such as childrens work, music, various rotas. The impact if they leave would be big.

But i don't think it would solve anything and it wouldn't help this man,

I have advised them to put their case to the Vicar and hear him out. They have judged him for not doing more, but there has only been so much he can do without taking this man into his home. None of them have done this, but the Vicar has him on his doorstep everyday.

How should such things be dealt with? Is leaving rational, or should they try to make a change from the inside, rather than shutting themselves on the outside?

 

[lforrest]

I believe you have advised your friends and family adequately by asking them to meet with the Vicar and by pointing out their hypocrisy.

Perhaps the Vicar will consider taking his leave if half the church is threatening to depart. He is the only one who would be justified in leaving.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I suggest that you tell your friends to hold off on leaving the church until after they have taken the man into their own homes. Might give them some much needed perspective.

 

[FHII]

Jesus said the poor have the gospel preached to them. I have no problem with helping homeless folks, but Jesus and what he said is the cure for it. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day.... Teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

If this man didn't come to the services and embrace Christ and his way (even at the earthly level) what more can you give him? Has he tried to help himself? The Churches first and foremost responsibility is to preach the Gospel THAT alone should help. Jesus said, come to me and I'll provide all your needs. The second thing a Church should do is help those who are less unfortunate. But only AFTER preaching the Gospel.

Has this fellow tried to ammend his situation or is he a leach? Maybe he needs more time, but how long?

By "vicar" is believe you mean your leader? And this guy threatened him with a bottle?

This guy won't ever be better unless he grows spiritually. If he's going in that direction, then I would continue supporting him. If not... Forget him....

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

In this case I would take the side of the Vicar.

he tried his best to help the man and the man is now abusing the helpers

A lot of the homeless do not want a home , or anything close to normal , but they can be clever in their demands

They use guilt as the lever to get what they want

Like someone else said earlier, the congregationalists who disagree with the vicar should let the homeless man sleep on their porch for a while

Your church should not break up over the actions of one ungrateful homeless man.

If it does , that means the devil is behind it and everybody loses.


.

 

[HammerStone]

Well, the Biblical provision for the poor and homeless is to help them. I don't see where your vicar has not done this. Any church pastor, priest or vicar will tell you that there are certain folks out there who are professionals or are in need of serious mental help who can and will take advantage of a willing soul. This individual seems to be one of those.

We have little to no documentation of Jesus or his apostles dealing with someone over a long period of time who is finally converted due to persistence. (For the recond, there is nothing wrong with being persistent, but conversion rates will never be 100%, Jesus himself didn't have that rate.) There is a point to help these folks as much as possible, but then there is another point where this guy may endanger the life of the vicar, his wife or others in the church. As far as I can tell, your vicar has done everything he could do.

It's entirely hypocritical for your friends to be angry at the vicar. The vicar has taken this man into his home and has tried a number of things to get him on his feet and change his life's trajectory. If your friends are feeling so self righteous about it, perhaps they should shoulder the burden for a time. Otherwise, maybe they are best off to leave because it sounds like they're all for sacrifice when its not them sacrificing.

At the end of the day, this should be reconciled peacefully, and every effort made to be respectful on both sides. I would not be as harsh as I have been in the paragraph above, but someone needs to stand up to them.

I think you can begin by praying for God to work through you to resolve the situation. Ask for the right answer and how this situation, which is far from ideal, could be resolved for the glory of God.

 

[Surf Rider]

We're kind of mixed up in Christendom. The bible says to forsake hanging out with those who live in sin if they call themselves believers, but we don't do that, as proven by our churches. The bible says to get along with each other unless it's over living in sin. We divide over what someone does to a homeless person, but we fellowship with those in sin but call themselves believers. Sad indeed.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I can see why people are angry at the vicar. Am I the only one that caught the fact he was convicted for arson? That alone should have sent him packing, especially because a fire insurance claim might be denied for knowingly harboring an arsonist. Charity can go too far, especially when it puts the needs of one over the safety of everyone else.

 

[Selene]

I would take the side of the vicar. He's done all he can to help this homeless man. It's obvious that the homeless man prefer to stay homeless. He enjoys his homeless and alcoholic lifestyle rather than doing something to better himself.

 

[samfan121]

Thanks for your replies. I have a bit more information as things have progressed since my last post:

The group who oppose the Vicar's decision to move this man on, called a meeting with the Vicar yesterday. As far as I understand they believe the Vicar is going against fundamental christian principles by moving him on and not giving him another chance to be helped or to get his act together. They say they cannot remain in a church that would do that. They say they have befriended him, are helping him survive and if he is sent away he will not trust people again and will die alone somewhere and no one will know.

The Vicar says he has tried time and again over the past 2 years to help this guy but he is often too drunk to go to appointments with the authorities, shelters won't take him until he makes some attempt to stop drinking, and he has been hammering on the Vicar's door in the middle of the night and has been abusive to him in front of these people who are campaigning for him to stay. He has also stolen from the collection plate. The Vicar believes nothing will change if he is allowed to remain and that it's all very will people befriending him and keeping an eye on him, but this man is a safety risk and it cannot be allowed to continue. Also, that he should not be sleeping outside, for his own good. Which would be worse: a church that allowed him to stay for 2 years and never successfully got him to progress or took him in, and he died in the winter sleeping outside the church door; or a church that tried for 2 years, helped him to a certain point, but then tried to make him take some responsibility and kick start a fundamental change for him, even if that means moving him away and making him uncomfortable?

I should say the church and churchyard are adjacent to the Vicar's house with a connecting gate which is never locked.

After their meeting, the vicar has called an emergency parish council meeting for the next couple of days to talk this out.

I had a very frustrating conversation with one of the group last night. She said they were all emotional, hurting and drained after the meeting and that unless the vicar listens to them they cannot remain at the church. I said that it was not the church that was making him leave, but the Vicar, and the decision was well within his rights. What good would it do turning their backs on the whole congregation, and their responsibilities to that congregation? It really would leave a gaping hole.

My friend said that the homeless man refuses to stop drinking and doesn't like sleeping in doors and no one will help him. If he is moved off the church property he will not have a safe place to sleep and they will lose contact with him. The group think the Vicar's mention of the safety issue to him and church staff and congregation is untrue. Apparently they have been crying over it and 'wading through the issue' together all week since they heard about the decision.

But, the Vicar has arranged for a psych assessment for this man and is awaiting the outcome of that to see whether he qualifies for help on mental health grounds and if not he will refer him back to the council. It's not as if he has done nothing. He has tried to set boundaries for him in the past - asking him not to bring alcohol onto the property, asking him to come back at certain times of day when someone is free to make him a cup of tea etc, but to respect people's other commitments. This man has disregarded all of those rules.

I asked my friend, if there is really nowhere for him to go, and he likes sleeping outside, and the group are happy for him to remain doing so (by not wanting him moved on from the church porch), then why doesn't someone in the group offer their garden to sleep in?

I was given a list of reasons why this would not be possible - some of them live alone, others say neighbours wouldn't like it, others are at work during the day and say he needs someone around to look after him. All valid reasons, it would be a big things for someone do to, but if they feel as strongly as they say they do, then maybe they should work it out.It seems like they are pushing ideals on the Vicar, who they should be respecting, that they will not take on themselves.

I asked why, if they will not do this, why the Vicar should have to continue to do so, after 2 years, when he has been threatened, is woken in the night by him banging on the door, and has abuse shouted at him when he walks through the churchyard? My friend said 'because he has chosen a vocation and should help everyone, not just the nice middle class congregation' and because 'the churchyard is not his garden so it would be different'. It practically is his garden and the homeless man doesn't differentiate between the two.

My friend says Jesus does not allow for wiggleroom and the Vicar must carry on helping him. I replied that 'yet, you all feel you have wiggleroom, can you not see where the vicar is coming from?'

The thing is they really can't.

My feeling is that they are a little naive and idealistic and while it is all very well not turning people away, this isn't what's happening here. It's not like he was sent away after one night. He's been on church property for 2 years, and while he's generally quiet and sits at the back during services, he can also be very abusive, disregards the boundaries he's been set, and can be intimidating.

I can see the points on both sides, but my sympathies lie with the vicar. I think that we should be finding a way to support him and if he can't deal with this man anymore then we should be supporting him in finding other options, not shouting him down and crying. However my friends, all except 3, are all so emotional and overwrought, I worry about what this will do to the church and also our personal friendships if the three of us are seen to remain and be sympathetic to the vicar.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Your friends are hypocrites. They are expecting the vicar to do something that they are not willing to do themselves. Jesus defined justice as doing to others as you would want them to do to you. In other words, don't do things to others that you wouldn't want done to yourself. Yet that is exactly what they are doing to the vicar; expecting him to deal with the problems and potential dangers, while conveniently avoiding such. Let them go. A church doesn't need hypocrites.

 

[HammerStone]

I had a very frustrating conversation with one of the group last night. She said they were all emotional, hurting and drained after the meeting and that unless the vicar listens to them they cannot remain at the church. I said that it was not the church that was making him leave, but the Vicar, and the decision was well within his rights. What good would it do turning their backs on the whole congregation, and their responsibilities to that congregation? It really would leave a gaping hole.

Your friends are selfish, period. They want the vicar and the church to revolve around their definition of help, yet they find the excuses as to why they cannot do it themselves. They cannot overlook a single wrong and want to leave at the drop of a hat it would seem. What's a bit hard for me to swallow is that they are the ones hurting. No folks, that man is hurting the most and it may take some sort of step where he doesn't get a free ride to wake him out of his funk. The vicar has clearly tried everything he knows to do, and is clearly frustrated.

It sounds like this group wants a professional vicar/minister/priest. They don't desire to actually have to do anything...someone else will take care of that part. These are why the book of James was written.

Let them go. People like that slay churches and chase God away because they'd rather do things their way.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I don't understand. You would allow a convicted arsonist to pad at your church if you were the pastor?

Your friends are hypocrites. They are expecting the vicar to do something that they are not willing to do themselves. Jesus defined justice as doing to others as you would want them to do to you. In other words, don't do things to others that you wouldn't want done to yourself. Yet that is exactly what they are doing to the vicar; expecting him to deal with the problems and potential dangers, while conveniently avoiding such. Let them go. A church doesn't need hypocrites.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I don't understand. You would allow a convicted arsonist to pad at your church if you were the pastor?

No, I'm finding fault with his friends who want the vicar to make all of the sacrifices and put his life in harm's way so that they can feel good about themselves without making any sacrifices or taking any risks themselves..

 

[Selene]

I would let these people go, and they can take the homeless man with them to whatever church they planned on attending. Let's see what the next pastor has to say for the next two years.

 

[Dodo_David]

samfan121, your friends are enablers. They are helping the homeless man remain the way that he is by rescuing him from his self-destructive choices.
Some people will not change their ways until they hit bottom, which is what enablers prevent.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

One man shouldn't divide a church. The story described has reached a flash point because it was allowed to linger and appropriate action wasn't taken sooner.

I would let these people go, and they can take the homeless man with them to whatever church they planned on attending. Let's see what the next pastor has to say for the next two years.

 

[Selene]

samfan121, your friends are enablers. They are helping the homeless man remain the way that he is by rescuing him from his self-destructive choices.
Some people will not change their ways until they hit bottom, which is what enablers prevent.

I agree. Sometimes, people need to learn their lesson the hard way.

 

[day]

The Vicar's first responsibility is to the congregation. This man is clearly a threat and he needs to be relocated. The Vicar has done everything he is capable of to help the man (with no constructive assistance from this group) but his needs are beyond what this church and congregation can provide. The breakaway group's desire to keep the man around as a token "good deed" to enable themselves to feel holy is not doing the man or the other members of the congregation any service. The rest of the congregation should look for the nearest larger city that has facilities to meet the man's needs and take him there. In seeing that he has a safe place to stay, where his needs can be better met is where the church's real duty lies.

I also agree with posts 14 - 16 above.