I sat down to dinner with a good brother from Hope. We had been chatting about theology. A part of me was nervous as to whether "why did you leave?" would come up. Whether, mind you, not when. And I agonized how I might approach the answer.
It continues to feel unsettling that hardly anyone, including our best friends, asked why we left. Does it not risk fellowship? Is it not a big deal? The elephant in the room? Rather, it is the topic to avoid. Everyone wants to keep the friendship. I'm even amazed by how little interest there is, despite that we can get deeply and quickly into other things.
Are they overlooking what they think is my sin, out of compassion? Do they secretly wonder if something is amiss on their end and not asking means not having to deal with it? For me, among Hope church friends it seems like this should be the first thing gotten out of the way so we can understand each other and move on.
I can't approach it with them. I'm the defector. I left them. I don't want to introduce division among brothers in Christ. Christ must be sovereign over his church. But I can't understand how they stay, how they don't ask their own questions?
This brother had another reason for not asking, however. He believed he already knew and it was benign.
Still, he was perplexed, asking where we were going to church, that we were still looking for a church? Why not keep Hope as a default?
Because...
Just a short while before he had asked Pastor Leake where the Parkinsons were, and Leake told him expressly that the Parkinsons had not left due to any of the troubles with Scott. And as proof, hadn't they parted cordially? Hadn't Tom and I hugged goodbye? Didn't everyone see that?
This was a terrible surprise. My friend genuinely didn't know any grievances were involved. Naturally, he immediately wondered, did we just slink away only to then grumble and rant behind the back of the church? Was I that kind of person, and he had terribly misjudged me? Did we not say anything?
I explained that Nov 17th, Tom and Alan were sent my detailed letter of our concerns about Hope, and within my initial letter, it was clear that leaving Hope was a matter of conscience for us and that we had made the decision with counsel from other brothers in the faith.
I questioned this brother to figure out if it was at all likely that Tom hadn't received the longer letter prior to talking about our leaving and it is clear that he and Alan had that letter for at least a week. I had voiced these concerns to our small group leader, a friend who I believed I owed a first conversation. He knew. He told Tom and presumably Alan months before this conversation.
Tom had asked if his secretary could set up an appointment to talk, that she would call, but this never happened. With other members meeting with him, Alan and David, this should have been a clue that something was not right.
Yet, once we left, we were no longer members, a lost cause, but no longer a likely source of worry for damage control. We guessed (correctly) we would no longer be approached by the church.
The only way Tom could keep up this illusion and honestly say we hadn't left due to the Scott Affair, was if he deliberately screened himself from knowing and hearing anything from those who left, which already should give a hint that something is off. Even I wondered if there was any potential scenario where Leake might have spoken honestly?
The uglier, simpler explanation is Tom lied. Again, not expecting it to be checked or, my guess, understanding that if it was checked it wouldn't make one iota of difference.
And I think that describes the reality. It's a house of cards, this appearance of integrity. No one really wants to know. They just need enough to pretend that they're still all doing God's will, part of the godly mission, church and leadership. Don't ask, don't tell.
Over time, more critically-minded brethren will leave.
Even this brother, who had few (stated) concerns about the church, left, according to him due to newfound doctrinal differences.
No comments:
Post a Comment