- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Oh, one more thought….maybe as others said above…being inactive isn’t such a bad thing. So…it may be ok to be treated as such. Thanks.
Heber13 wrote:
Oh, one more thought….maybe as others said above…being inactive isn’t such a bad thing. So…it may be ok to be treated as such.Thanks.
There are some very different types of inactivity though, right?
The four basic forms might be:
* Inactive due to sickness or work pressures etc.
* Inactive and hostile.
* Inactive and indifferent.
* Inactive but friendly.
All of these present differently to active church members and involve different emotional responses.
Just two very generalized observations: 1) People don’t like to treat people “badly” or “wrongly” – so, often, they err on the side of not treating people at all when they don’t know how those people want to be treated.
2) People usually treat people the way those people treat them. Smiling people get treated with smiles; scowling people are treated with scowls or ignored; yelling people are treated withbyells or avoided; etc.
Heber13 wrote:
I always tried to appreciate the efforts others made by seeing it as a sign they care … Even if I didn’t care for how they did it. Accept the offering for what it is, and work towards putting efforts into the relationship as you feel you want to.
Last night after church I received a text from my Gospel Essentials teacher and former bishop (who I have had discussions with and knows somewhat of my faith status). It read: “Roy. This is [censored]. I want to thank you for your questions and comments in class. They always add to make our class better. Thanks”I responded: “Thank you Brother [censored]. DW and I enjoy your class.”
Maybe he texts everyone that attends his class or maybe he is trying in his own awkward way to make me feel extra welcome at church. Regardless, I feel like his heart was in the right place and I try to receive his effort in the same spirit in which they were intended.
:thumbup: Old Timer wrote:
Just two very generalized observations:1) People don’t like to treat people “badly” or “wrongly” – so, often, they err on the side of not treating people at all when they don’t know how those people want to be treated.
2) People usually treat people the way those people treat them. Smiling people get treated with smiles; scowling people are treated with scowls or ignored; yelling people are treated withbyells or avoided; etc.
One of our RMs was told off by the teacher for talking in priesthood. I actually put in a complaint about this. He was a good lad, but he actually walked out of the class and has gone inactive as has his family. Both he and his brother served missions, although his brother had to return early due to health issues. But that one remark seems to have been enough to drive them away for good.
In regard to the first one, this is a really tricky one in terms of balance. We have had some people say we give them no attention yet many attempts have been made to reach out to them.
One thing I believe factors into the equation is that we don’t typically ask what kind of attention people want to receive, we give them the type of attention that we think they need. There’s a laundry list of expectations we place on people for them to be considered a part of the fold. Our interactions with people at church often follow a pattern where the interaction only exists to ensure the person is complying with those expectations. What if someone isn’t interested in, or is even turned off by attempts to get them to fit into the mold?
nibbler wrote:
Our interactions with people at church often follow a pattern where the interaction only exists to ensure the person is complying with those expectations.
Yeah, the phrase “We missed you at church on Sunday” can be used and interpreted as a veiled criticism. Even if the speaker is sincere, there are better ways to express concern.
One of my inactive home-teaching families (before ministering) told me that they were hurt that nobody reached out when they stopped attending church. In discussing this with DW’s VT who happened to be the RSP – she said that she was a little offended by that because she was serving in a presidency calling with the inactive lady at the time and had visited her a few times to try to resolve whatever was keeping them from church.
It was an interesting conversation because this sweet, salt of the earth RSP lady could not separate her love, care, and concern for the inactive lady from her desire for this person to come back to church.
I believe what the inactive family meant was that all of the friendships that they had built in their time in the church seemed to revolve around church stuff and that none of them seemed to survive outside of that context.
Roy wrote:
nibbler wrote:
Our interactions with people at church often follow a pattern where the interaction only exists to ensure the person is complying with those expectations.
Yeah, the phrase “We missed you at church on Sunday” can be used and interpreted as a veiled criticism. Even if the speaker is sincere, there are better ways to express concern.
One of my inactive home-teaching families (before ministering) told me that they were hurt that nobody reached out when they stopped attending church. In discussing this with DW’s VT who happened to be the RSP – she said that she was a little offended by that because she was serving in a presidency calling with the inactive lady at the time and had visited her a few times to try to resolve whatever was keeping them from church.
It was an interesting conversation because this sweet, salt of the earth RSP lady could not separate her love, care, and concern for the inactive lady from her desire for this person to come back to church.
I believe what the inactive family meant was that all of the friendships that they had built in their time in the church seemed to revolve around church stuff and that none of them seemed to survive outside of that context.
That’s been frustrating for me as I’ve stepped away from the church too. People will say hi in passing, but that’s about it. I’m glad they haven’t invited me back to church, as I asked the bishop to nip that in the bud before it started, but it hurts that those relationships are all just gone now. I mean, we’ve been in the ward for four years and I was the EQP until just a few months before I stopped attending.
nibbler wrote:
One thing I believe factors into the equation is that we don’t typically ask what kind of attention people want to receive, we give them the type of attention that we think they need.There’s a laundry list of expectations we place on people for them to be considered a part of the fold. Our interactions with people at church often follow a pattern where the interaction only exists to ensure the person is complying with those expectations. What if someone isn’t interested in, or is even turned off by attempts to get them to fit into the mold?
They won’t always tell you and some contradict themselves.
SamBee wrote:
They won’t always tell you and some contradict themselves.
For sure but it doesn’t hurt to make an attempt to discover what people want out of their church experience. If we can give that to them, we give it to them. If we can’t, we cant.
It’s a challenge. No one wants to feel like they are less than and the label “inactive” does just that. Wrong or right people that are less active or inactive may feel less than in the community. I for sure don’t want to put words in PazamaManX’s mouth but when a posse shows up at your door or you get a “glad to see you” at church you don’t want to come away feeling like it was social contact made out of obligation or pity.
Church life is tough for the introvert.
Quote:How introverts make friends: An extrovert found them, liked them, and adopted them.
It’s hard for introverts to break that ice when the contact feels forced or conditional.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.