Four reasons why I have no difficulty helping "issue Christians" to move on

I respect Dan and appreciate his writings, but I actually have a number of problems with this article that I do not have time and opportunity to expand upon.

Suffice it to say that I believe I have known a number of “issue Christians” in my time. I think some of them were spiritually healthy and some of them were not, depending upon the “issue.” Yes, some of them have the power to destroy a church single-handedly, such as one young man I encountered who believed he had the knowledge and experience to fix the church’s structural problems and re-align its doctrinal position. Others are a tremendous blessing, such as many I have met who are completely engrossed in Biblical creationism or prophecy (which seems to be portrayed negatively in the article). Some are just hurting or confused and need a place to land.

In the last church I pastored in rural Iowa, “issues” such as corn prices, gas prices, the Iowa caucuses, etc., were a major factor in people’s lives, whether for good or for ill, including when they came to church on Sunday morning. The pastor’s role is to help such people lift their eyes above the “issues” of life, through Bible teaching and worship. Nobody said this is going to be easy. But I think there is a real danger in some of the underlying premises in the article - “move them on” and watch your church ascend to new heights of church growth. This is not reality for the average pastor, nor does it convey the spirit of Biblical ministry, in my opinion.

Perhaps I am more leery because I hear this type of talk coming from many in the church marketing camp these days. Theirs is not a healthy emphasis.

There is a difference between dealing with an “issues” person who is actually causing trouble in the body, and running someone off because you think they MIGHT cause problems.

The Bible gives clear instructions for dealing with a divisive person. Sometimes they can be rescued by patient teaching. When not, after appropriate instruction and warning, they must be removed. However, to refuse them preemptively is not a Biblical option. (Read Romans 14) The tone of Dan’s article sounded more like a pastor who doesn’t want to be bothered with high maintenance sheep then one who is protecting the flock in a Biblical manner.

And just for the record, I agree with Dan more often than not. I just don’t believe he has given the “issues person” topic enough thoughtful consideration.

[G. N. Barkman]

“Sometimes they can be rescued by patient teaching.”

But most often times they cannot be changed. It is so many layers of issues typically that you have to get to. One of the foundational problems with “issue Christian” is that they have an issue with balance in their thought process. So there are so many layers you have to get to. I would have to say that I agree with Dan here. The vast majority of time these people will not change their mind. It is not fair to the congregation that you are protecting and shepherding to 1) allow this influence into your church, and 2) absorb so much of your time dealing with this issue that you invariably are neglecting other members of your church. I have seen this type of thing just tear up churches. Your responsibility as a pastor or elder is to the local church made up of believing members. It is not in trying to “fix” everyone who comes into the door.

“Issue Christians” are like Tapatío hot sauce:

In the appropriate mix they are a savory blessing …. too much and they are toxic

I removed myself from a church after the pastor told our Sunday School class that a new couple had come up to him after church one Sunday and told him they had been visiting several weeks now and liked his sermons, music and the people of the church and were thinking of applying for membership. The husband said that before they did, he wanted the pastor to know that he was Amillennial in his eschatology. The pastor then told him they would not want to worship in that church in that case. We happened to be studying the book of Revelations at the time in the adult Sunday School classes.

I was at that time discovering for myself the glories of the Doctrines of Grace and though I was not Amillennial, I knew that those doctrines too would become an issue so in order to not cause any problems, we looked for another church. That was almost 14 years ago now and we are grateful that the Lord used that incident to move us to our current church.

I’ve pretty much decided to “retire” from the SI comment threads for a variety of reasons, but decided to pop in on this one as the article was on my blog. Here are a few random, miscellaneous thoughts….

1. I did not author the article…It was written by the head of Lifeway Research, Ed Stetzer, and is an excerpt forwarded by Dr. Charles Wood in his daily email, “The WoodChuck’s Den.” Charles is my mentor and has been for many years. He found the article in “Christianity Today”. I just wanted to clarify as it seemed that some thought perhaps that I had written the article. I agree with most of it, but I did not write it.

2. I’m not sure anyone can fully understand the potential harm “issue believers” with an agenda (Note that I added “with an agenda”) can cause in a church unless they have been a lead pastor.

3. I’m not going to go “regulative principle” on this discussion as it is merely an opinion intended to stir debate which it apparently has. I don’t know that it is necessary to have a “chapter and verse” other than to ask where it would violate any “chapter and verse”. I do think that passages dealing with “marking those who cause dissent” and in other ways protecting the “flock” would adequately apply in this case, but are not essential to the point being made.

4. My experience has been (and I think Stetzer clearly noted this) that there can be a wide-variety of believers who may hold different opinions on non-doctrinal issues within the congregation and it not be problematic. I have never pastored, been on staff at or been a member of any church in which I agreed with 100% of what was taught in every small study or believed by every individual. The idea of 100% agreement is an idealistic fallacy found in reality only in churches with an average attendance of 1, in my opinion. I disagree rather strongly with my own pastor, our elders and my subordinates on staff on a number of issues that are non-doctrinal. We enjoy discussing them from time to time on someone’s back porch, but they are not points of conflict or an ongoing rub.

5. Unity does not break out in any relationship spontaneously. We must “seek peace and ensue/pursue it.” Why would we welcome someone in to our formal fellowship who clearly does not have a commitment to unity? We are not talking about someone who has a sincere personal position on a matter that they want to continue to practice, but someone who has the intention of taking their position and convincing others of their rightness. There is a big difference in the two.

6. Would any of us truly say that any church is the best choice for every single person? I wouldn’t. The diversity of local bodies around the world and even within a local community can be a blessed thing. I love visiting my mom and worshipping with her in a very traditional Independent Baptist church that runs about 50, uses hymnals and is basically the same as it was 40 years ago when it was started. I enjoy worshipping at my non-denominational Bible church that runs 800, uses screens and is very non-traditional in some ways. I can enjoy a high church experience or a country revival. But when it comes to where I want to place my membership and exercise my gifts….well, I’ve made that choice. It doesn’t make me superior or inferior. But we are different.

7. I can recall many incidents over the years of inviting issue/agenda folks to keep looking and some where I didn’t and lived to regret it. One Sunday morning when I pastoring a very large church, a couple came up to me after the services to meet me. They were new in town. They both wore KJV lapel pens. The man virtually did not speak, but in a very aggressive way, the lady began quizzing me on my position regarding the King James (though I had just spoken from it.) She wanted to know if we took a “stand”. What did I think of the modern translations. Would I allow someone to teach a class that used a different translation. She asked these questions without pausing for answers and very intensely. When she finally paused, I glanced over at her husband who had an odd sheepish look on his face, but still said nothing. So, I addressed her directly. “Ma’am, I love the King James version and use it regularly. However, I can tell by your line of questions that we are not the kind of church where you would be comfortable. I’m well familiar with those who hold a KJVO position and many of them are my friends. In fact, let me recommend a church to you that I believe you would find very consistent with the position you apparently hold.” I then gave her a name. She seemed shocked. She even protested and said she had more questions…I politely excused myself and moved on. There was no need to drag it out. On the other hand, I’ve had wonderful people who came in with questions about modes of baptism, music styles, approach to preaching (exposition/topical), denominations, etc… and I could discern from the onset that while we might not completely agree that we could have dialogue and even pleasant disagreement. Many of them chose to become a member of our church and became a blessing in the Body.

8. On those times when someone went ahead and joined and then began passing out books or holding home Bible studies or recruiting people for their MLM downline or passed out business cards after services or wrote me frequent. lengthy critical emails — well, the relationship never ended smoothly. Usually, they would leave in a huff after we took a step to prevent the sowing of dischord, but on two specific situations we eventually had to address them officially and ask them to cease or leave. If they did not cease, church discipline would follow. They left, but it wasn’t pleasant.

9. In closing, I don’t think this article was intended to be a fresh passage of Scripture. It was and is a thought-provoking argument as to why it might not be wise to be so anxious to receive everyone without some level of filter or discernment. The article isn’t talking about non-believers. It isn’t talking about believers who might differ on minor issues. It is specifically talking about people who bring their own personal agenda to a congregation with the intention of seeing it take root. But each person must give account to the Lord and their own conscience.

10. One more closing item…let us all mark this date when Brother Don and I actually are in agreement! (Big Smile and Just Kidding.) I appreciate Pastor Johnson and while we differ on some issues, I look forward to many an afternoon chatting about life in Canada vs. life in the South some day in heaven.

Dan

How can you know that a person can’t be changed before you even try to instruct them? In truth, you can’t. Making a decision to exclude Christians based upon prior experience with different Christians cannot be sustained Biblically. Personally, I have experienced both situations. In some cases, I have witnessed “Issues Christians” who changed and matured under a patient, Word-centered ministry. They had not been carefully instructed before. Others did not change, and eventually had to be “ushered out” for the good of the flock. But know one can know the outcome before it happens.

Are we so insecure that we are afraid to let Christians who do not fit our exact mold in the door because they MIGHT adversely affect the flock? We must not be very confident about the maturity level of our churches. In my experience, even “Issues Christians” can help solidify the flock as our people: 1) Interact with them and are driven back to Scripture to affirm what they believe, and 2) Observe their pastor address these issues from the Bible in a very current, rather than a theoretical setting.

Maybe we should define the word issue. What do we mean by issue Christian?

Is an issue an interest that a person has? Such us prophecy, nutrition, volunteerism, politics, sports, etc.

If so, then I see no problem with it. The bible describes the church as a body, with different members, each with different abilities and personalities. Some people are health conscious, and are passionate about eating healthy and working out, and encouraging others to do the same. Others like getting involved in the community, and like encouraging others to do more volunteer work. Some like following current events or politics, and like talking about that from a biblical perspective. Some like bible prophecy, etc.

People are going to talk about those things that are affecting their lives. If a big company in town is going bankrupt, there is going to be talk about the economy and politics.

I am not saying that these topics need to be discussed during a service or bible study. But we cannot control what people talk about after a service, or during the week when they meet up to hang out. As long as people aren’t gossiping or murmuring, or spreading false teachings, I don’t see any danger of people discussing other things besides the bible.

We also have to remember that each member is in a different stage in their maturity. We should not try to force spiritual growth, or theological knowledge. People will grow at their own pace. A recent convert will not have the same theological or political views as someone who has been a Christian for over 30 years. Some members will abstain from going to the movies are listening to popular music, while other will go to the movies and to clubs to listen to blues and jazz. We should not judge people for what we imagine their intentions to be. We should judge people based on their actions, and words, and testimony in the church.

[G. N. Barkman]

Are we so insecure that we are afraid to let Christians who do not fit our exact mold in the door because they MIGHT adversely affect the flock?

Dan, your comment was spot on. It is the “with the agenda” kind of issue Christians we have to be careful with. It is true that we can coexist in church with people who strongly disagree on some points, but they do have to agree on ensuing peace.

I will admit that it can sometimes be difficult to spot the agenda people, but the sooner, the better. Sometimes when you find them coming from another church with lots of complaints for the old church and effusive praise for you… Watch out!

Agenda and Issue are both very ambiguous terms. And that is the problem with the article. Instead of using one of these terms, we should terms that are more clear, like sin, gossip, stirring up division, bringing in false teachings, etc.

The only reasons I see in scripture for censoring or removing a person from the congregation are, if they are openly living in sin, causing division, or teaching a false gospel. All other reasons seem superficial- more a matter of preference, preferring people who look and act the same- kind of like what companies do, when they select employees who will fit into the culture of the company.

Exactly right Christian. Some pastors just like comfort.

“Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.” (Romans 14:1 Please read the whole chapter.) This passage tells us we do not have the right to preemptively exclude people from our local church fellowship based upon differing views on non-Scriptural matters, such as diet or Bible versions. Exclusion from church fellowship should only occur because of heretical doctrine or un-Christian behavior.

Romans 14, the most extensive passage on Christian liberty, forces believers to stretch and grow. It forces us out of our comfort zones.

As far as anecdotal evidence (which is always secondary to the Scriptures), we have successfully absorbed a number of “Issues Christians” into our congregation over the years. We have also been forced to remove some who would not stop creating division. But I would say we have seen more salvaged than excluded. If they are truly Christians, they are capable of growth and change.

One example: a number of years ago an older couple, outside our church, approached me with a strong KJVO harangue. I listened politely and said little. Later, I mailed them a couple of books on the subject, along with a short note, kindly written, encouraging them to investigate the opposite perspective. I heard nothing for several years. Then, to my total surprise, they moved to our city and joined our church and became fruitful members. They just needed to be taught. Nobody had ever exposed them to the errors of “KJV Onlyism” before.

Agenda and Issue are both very ambiguous terms. And that is the problem with the article.

Actually, in the article, they are not that ambiguous. Issue Christians are not people who disagree, or even make their disagreement known. Ed talks about pastoring Calvinists and Arminians and continuationists and cessationists in the same church. What that makes clear is that there were differences, and they were known because they had been talked about.

Issue Christians are people who are passionate about a single issue to the point that the issue becomes (or they think should become) one of the main issues in the church. They are unwilling for others not to hold it in the same esteem and priority that they do. And they are willing to make an issue of it (no pun intended). I had a guy like that for a while. Every conversation was about prophecy. He did not make it a public issue, but it sure took a lot time for me to keep saying, “We just don’t know.” In retrospect, I would have challenged him on his obsession with it. But all of our conversations were private so I was a bit more patient. To my knowledge, there was never any church division over it. Issue Christians don’t just differ; they are unwilling to let others differ with them without making it a major issue.

To the larger issue, this situation has been magnified by the proliferation of churches, which can lead to consumerism: If I don’t like the way you are doing it, I will go somewhere else. But the truth is that if two people, as a matter of conscience, strongly believe something very different, it is wise for them to split if possible. With the proliferation of churches, there is no necessary reason to ask someone to offend or ignore their conscience to satisfy yours. Split ways amicably. There is no biblical reason not to. And it is often to the benefit of both parties to do so.

For those saying this has no biblical basis, we need only to consider Paul and Barnabas who separated ways over a matter of conscience about the suitability of Mark for ministry. Barnabas had a more tender heart of grace and mercy. Paul had a strong concern about the future and Mark’s weakness. The Bible never condemns or praises either for that action. And it was obviously in church ministry context, since they were planting churches. Paul did not believe that Mark was a suitable partner in ministry, and because Barnabas did to the point of refusing to abandon Mark, Paul and Barnabas could not work together. But what happened is that because of their sharp differences, the work of the gospel was doubled since now there were two teams, even though the circumstances for division may have been less than ideal.

In the end, the Bible is clear that people can have differences of conscience on things, and they should defer to one another. It is also clear that it is okay to split ways and go to another place of ministry in some cases.

This should be done exceedingly sparingly, IMO. And we should practice a great spirit of deference to each other and commitment to the local church.

But don’t try to force someone to sin against their conscience by asking them to put aside their strong concerns about issues simply because you don’t share them.

Some ‘Agenda/Issue’ people actually agree with the beliefs of pastor or church, they just don’t think the issues are presented properly or prominently enough. Examples: home schooling, anti-abortion, prophecy

The problem is their willingness to sow discord and division because of their perception that the church isn’t doing enough on their particular issue.