- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
I did my duty yesterday and went to ward council meeting. Of course part of the meeting was going over semi-active and inactive members, and mapping out a plan (making them projects). I told the wife that I would be positive, but it bothered me a great deal. I finally couldn’t take it any longer and made the comment that perhaps these people don’t want to be part of the this church and they DON’T WANT our “help.”
Dead silence.
I then asked them why we are doing this. The answers were disturbing to me. I don’t think it really has anything to do with people CARING about the individual in most cases — I think for the most part it is just part of our missionary work/fellowshipping conditioning that kicks in, and we do it because we are suppose to do it.
I don’t know.
Good point. I think finding out the level of contact the member wants with the Church is important for meeting their needs. If someone says they don’t want you in their house, or to contact them, is it considerate to keep contacting them, assigning home teachers, forgetting to process their name removal letters, losing them, and continuing to harrass them with visits? I think our systems need to be expanded to capture this capability so we meet people at the level of contact they want.
I find the caring happens when the person has made connections in the Ward with people. When I had my semi-active period, I played in a band with a bunch of members and we were real friends. One of them really did reach out with caring when I stopped going to Church for a while. I feel the same sense of caring when I’ve had an opportunity to really care about the people.
And I have a very close friend who calls me and talks about Church stuff for decades now — he said, when I had my first trial of commitment that he cared about ME and that my involvement in the Church was secondary to his caring about ME. And he’s sustained that caring for well over a decade now, even though we live in different countries. He’s had huge influence over the years.
An eternal principle that I would like to see written into the D&C is that often, we get what we want after we stop wanting it. I think that’s sometimes true with activation. Stop wanting to people to be active, and just care about them as much as you can. Often, they come around; being pushy about it with a flash-in-the-pan effort, and then dropping them if they don’t respond immediately sends a bad message, in my view.
Brian Johnston wrote:The bad news: they care about you.
The good news: they care about you.
This sounds like a great opportunity to practice setting boundaries with people at church, and doing so with a smile.
🙂 I’ve had this experience recently, because I was away over the holidays. It wasn’t entirely unwelcome though, since I had been ill for several days, and I appreciated the fact that the church looked out for me. Virtually no one does.
SilentDawning wrote:On the other hand, I wouldn’t stop recognizing their good hearts in trying to reach out to you, flower.
I agree…give them credit for trying…but they may not always get it right and may be offensive at times.
Like Brian said, set the boundaries to let them know when they’ve crossed the line, but also practice humility and gratitude when appropriate. They are not better than you because they are reaching out to you…and you’re not better than them for being honest to who you are and how you feel.
I usually believe people trying to serve each other is better than doing nothing in fear of offending others. Better to try and fail than do nothing at all…isn’t that the adage?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.