Why people don’t reach out to people who lose commitment

[Anonymous]

I was pondering this the other day. We talk about how Jesus went after the single lamb that was lost from the flock — stressing the importance of going after each person. We put a lot of effort into activation, with very few results often (at least, in the case of my efforts). Yet when we have a long-time, contributing, active person who starts having doubts and shares them, and they stop coming, we often do nothing. Bridget mentioned something similar happened with her husband when he started having some concerns, and no one even bothered to reach out to him.

While I think there are many efforts at reaching out to people made by active members (I did, a lot when I was HPGL), I think there are reasons they don’t do it. I asked a couple people this question in a lesson years ago, and here were some of the startling responses I got:

1. They who went inactive were experienced in the Church, and understood the gospel — they should know better. (Yes, that one got a lot of head-nodding in the meeting).

2. They lack faith that their efforts will change the situation in any way. This has been my experience — people come around when they decide to come around; rarely have my efforts lit the fire unless the spark was already there. So, they don’t bother. Experience has shown their efforts are likely to result in a non-starter.

3. Some have shaky faith themselves and would rather not face someone else who is a little further down the road in their loss of faith.

4. One leader said each person is responsible for their own activity in the Church. They didn’t see it as their role to keep people active.

Comments? Valid points here? Invalid?

[Anonymous]

Hi SD,,

Glad you posted this. The various responses were interesting. It made me remember a time on my mission when we were sent to visit an inactive family. The wife was not really anti-Mormon but the husband was. I sincerely tried to listen to his complaints and what was bothering him about the church. Half the time, I did not really understand what he was talking about, but I do remember his anger and bitterness and negativity. So, I felt I really could not help him but did pray for him. Eventually, we left him alone because his negativity was depressing to me and my companion. Nevertheless, I feel good that I really did try to listen to him.

When I had left the lds church the first time to investigate the 7th day church, I had some really wonderful visiting teachers who asked if they could still come visit me even though I was out of the church. I told them that would be fine. They came by every month with a treat, no preaching, just to see how I was. I was surprised that they did that, the whole 2 years I was out of the church. Even though the timing had to be right for me to come back to the lds church and no one probably could have convinced me to come back until it was my own idea, I appreciated that they gave me unconditional love and visits. So, when I came back, I felt I was welcomed back with no questions or looked down on for leaving the church. In fact, some told me that they admired my courage for really wanting to know the truth and said that few have the guts to do that. So that was a good experience. Interesting how the 7th day member friends I had made reacted when I left them to go back to the lds church (This was in 1994-96, I believe). Some, stayed my friends and were true friends, others wrote me very nasty letters telling me how horrible we were for succumbing to satan and the lds church.

Now, this bishop in Florida at least did try to come by that once and said he would write me an apology letter, which he never did. He was wrong to have no empathy for me as a only active member or do his intergation of me over the phone like that. It was wrong that he did not have the compassion to call me in when we arrive to ask us about our doubts and why we had them. I reached out to him actually in letters to let him know this is what I wished he had done. But, I would not say that this bishop actually made me leave the church. I have had other bishops who offended me and never felt that people should be the reason to leave or stay in the church. I was in the church because I thought the church was true. Once I had serious doubts and began believing the church was not the only true church, this bishop was just the cataylist that pushed me over the edge. I realize now that this was actually a blessing in disquise, as so much good has happened since then with people in other churches. My husband and I are just not sure anymore what the truth is about religion, so we hold fast to the good teachings we had in the lds church and add things we like about these other churches. I believe our present home teacher and bishop and Relief Society President believe it is best to leave us alone to figure things out for ourselves. I also believe they are really not that secure in their own faith so do not want to rock their own boats. I understand and accept this. I am not longer angry or bitter. But, the members, in the church who loved us unconditionally and do not think we are evil, decieved or bad for leaving the church and stay in contact with us, mean the very most. They exemplify true Christianity to me.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I was pondering this the other day. We talk about how Jesus went after the single lamb that was lost from the flock — stressing the importance of going after each person. We put a lot of effort into activation, with very few results often While I think there are many efforts at reaching out to people made by active members …I think there are reasons they don’t do it. I asked a couple people this question in a lesson years ago, and here were some of the startling responses I got:

They who went inactive were experienced in the Church, and understood the gospel — they should know better…One leader said each person is responsible for their own activity in the Church. They didn’t see it as their role to keep people active…Comments? Valid points here? Invalid?

I agree with your ideas about this and the main observation I would add that is related to some of these points is that nothing has really changed to make it any easier for some of these less active members to really feel good about the idea of returning to full activity in the Church. The problem is that the Church still basically expects them to change completely to conform to a long list of unrealistic expectations rather than ever trying to really work with people and meet them half-way sometimes.

So if people have legitimate doubts or unanswered questions or feel like the meetings are pointless or boring or they don’t really like the lifestyle of callings and being told what to do in great detail then I don’t see how trying to reach out and show them some love and invite them back is really going to do all that much to help resolve some of the fundamental and understandable issues of dissatisfaction that many of these less active members still have with the Church. Basically, the Church acts like any members like this are the ones with a problem because it couldn’t possibly be any major problems with the Church in their opinion. To me a better and more efficient approach would be to focus on trying to make Church membership more of a positive experience for people rather than something members are just expected to endure simply because it is supposedly “true” and right.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

So if people have legitimate doubts or unanswered questions or feel like the meetings are pointless or boring or they don’t really like the lifestyle of callings and being told what to do in great detail then I don’t see how trying to reach out and show them some love and invite them back is really going to do all that much to help resolve some of the fundamental and understandable issues of dissatisfaction that many of these less active members still have with the Church. Basically, the Church acts like any members like this are the ones with a problem because it couldn’t possibly be any major problems with the Church in their opinion. To me a better and more efficient approach would be to focus on trying to make Church membership more of a positive experience for people rather than something members are just expected to endure simply because it is supposedly “true” and right.

Two comments — I think showing love works with some people — particularly when their trial is one of acceptance or socialization. In that case, it can be highly effective and is often the main thing they need.

But when their issues are doctrinal/procedural/cultural/policy related, and the person is generally socially independent, then it doesn’t work — often it’s the way you describe above….social measures don’t seem to have much impact UNLESS they pave the way to the open sharing of concerns so there can be discussion.

[Anonymous]

Bridget: What I get from your comments is that often, the best approach is just to be friends with people really. It’s the great paradox — that in certain situations, you get the result you’re seeking by stopping the pursuit of it. If you would like to see someone become active, then stop encouraging them to be active when they really need space and confidence they will be welcomed when they come back.

In the first case you quoted above, when everyone stopped trying to change you, and simply showed you they accepted you, and even met you on the plane you were pursuing (by complementing you on seeking truth), they got the result they wanted eventually – there was an open door and a fire lit in the fireplace for your return. The latter Bishop basically shut the door and rented out your room. He did apologize, however, but I see how you’re questioning the sincerity since he never wrote the letter. Perhaps he fell into the camp of doubting it would have an impact and didn’t bother. Or perhaps he felt the letter might end up on the SP’s desk? (BP’s are very concerned about the perception of the Stake Presidency).

Your experience throws new light on home teaching reporting, in my view. If you really want to measure effectiveness in home teaching and activation, the “reports” should measure:

1. How many members are you giving space who have asked for it? (All of them — GREAT JOB).

2. How many members do you have that are having doubts? How many of them have been dealt with using empathy and acceptance of their struggles, and even giving them space? (All of them — congratulations, you’re doing all you can!)

In the long run, I honestly believe those measures would result in more people coming back to Church. As a former HPGL, I could look at THOSE metrics with a measure of peace, knowing that I had done everything I could and was doing the right thing in just accepting and loving those people. But when our short-term orientation and measuring systems scream for immediate results, it creates deep angst on the part of the conscience, achievement-oriented priesthood leader.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

4. One leader said each person is responsible for their own activity in the Church. They didn’t see it as their role to keep people active.

Comments? Valid points here? Invalid?

I have to stand up for my current ward on this topic. My bishop and a few other members of our ward know of my disaffection and still visit my home seeking us out to come back to church. Sometimes more than others but they are still there nonetheless. My home ward in another state, this was not true. When I struggled with my testimony, it’s as if I had leprosy.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

1. They who went inactive were experienced in the Church, and understood the gospel — they should know better. (Yes, that one got a lot of head-nodding in the meeting).

2. They lack faith that their efforts will change the situation in any way. This has been my experience — people come around when they decide to come around; rarely have my efforts lit the fire unless the spark was already there. So, they don’t bother. Experience has shown their efforts are likely to result in a non-starter.

3. Some have shaky faith themselves and would rather not face someone else who is a little further down the road in their loss of faith.

4. One leader said each person is responsible for their own activity in the Church. They didn’t see it as their role to keep people active.

Comments? Valid points here? Invalid?

Sound pretty valid to me. I’m responsible for my own activity in the church.

I like Bridgets examples of caring members.

I think people should reach out to others, not because the less committed need to be saved, but it helps us all follow Christ’s example when we look outside ourselves and try to reach out to others. Everyone could use a friend. I reach out to youth in our ward, not because I’m in a leadership position, but because I think youth need to know how great they are…so I tell them…even the active ones. If we only reach out to the less committed, we are not equal opportunity carers for those who are committed.

[Anonymous]

* Some people get put off by the constant attention and pressure.

* Some people get put off by the lack of attention and friendship.

* Some people were impressed by specific missionaries who have since moved on.

* For some people, what they see in the church is not what they expected before baptism.

* Some people may experience spiritual burn out – i.e. burn brightly, than peter out.

* Some folk find it boring. (Perhaps people don’t want to admit this one!)

* Some people may be experiencing difficulties outside the church.

* Some people can’t practise the WoW.

* Some people may be happier in other churches.

[Author]

Posts