In October 2011, I published a book and workbook titled, Church Hurt Ain't No Joke. The book examined the causes and impact of being emotionally and spiritually hurt while attending church, and offered solutions for understanding it and growing from it. In its totality, the book takes the reader through a definition of "church hurt," describes how and why it occurs, suggests how pastors and church leadership can avoid and work through it, and how individuals can both survive and thrive as they victoriously walk through it.
Little did I know that six years later some church leaders would still be responding to the phrase "church hurt" as if it unfairly chastises the church and hurts its reputation. What is interesting though is that the ones who consistently claim the inappropriateness of the term, are probably the same ones that have not objectively read my book or any other book about the phenomenon from cover to cover, spoken with church members, besides their own, to see what they think about the topic, held conversations with those who have chosen not to attend church, or worked to acquire any new perspective or clear understanding of why the term has become so popular and endearing to multitudes of individuals.
One of the primary comments often echoed against the phrase is that other types of common hurt are not coined in the same way. For example, opponents of the term contend that since we don't say, "school hurt," "family hurt" or "beauty shop hurt," it is inappropriate to "target" what happens in church as "church hurt." My answer to that has consistently been that in NONE of those venues do we walk in as spiritually open and vulnerable, expecting and searching for unconditional love and acceptance.
Another primary grievance registered against the phrase is that "churches don't hurt people, people hurt people." Technically that is true, but isn't it also true that the church is "responsible" to set the tone and agenda for its members? Or, at the very least, as church leaders we have a responsibility to hold up a standard that says "church hurt" will not be normalized. Church leaders also should be accountable to embrace a strategy that equips leadership and members to walk through it focused on spiritual maturity and growth.
Maybe if we as church leaders could contain our personal sensitivities and keep our God-ordained purposes in mind, we could reconnect with the ever increasing numbers of individuals who daily decide to leave the church. If we could focus on raising up leaders and disciples, maybe the "church hurt" phenomenon could serve as the panacea that guides us toward building church strategies that address the residual pain and separation from church that this type of hurt can lead to.
Ignoring the impact of "church hurt" is detrimental to our universal goals. It does little to position us to serve those with whom we are charged to serve, guide and mature in preparation for them to fulfill their created purpose. More importantly, it takes away from the very important tasks of raising spiritually healthy and mature individuals, who are equipped to more fully surrender to God's will.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0615517587/ref=cm_sw_su_dp
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0991028716/ref=cm_sw_su_dp
http://www.stlamerican.com/entertainment/living_it/healing-from-church-hurt/article_26eba8c0-51ec-11e5-acef-4f1c0aa01852.html
I've often heard hurt people hurt people. And most times the case is the same in churches. The building itself is not what hurts. It is the unsympathtic, judgemental, unsympathetic flesh of the people who can cause strife. Usually by the time an injured soul turns to the congregation it is as a last ditch effort in their search for compassion and or confirmation. Leaders are often so busy looking at long range goals that they mess up the miniscule assignments given thinking they are inconsequential. Yet, like dominoes or snowballs each and every encounter should be considered individually in order to build collectively.
ReplyDelete