Crossing the Bridge

“The first step of backsliding is missing church on Wednesday night! If you have a job that causes you to miss on Wednesday, quit the job. It’s not worth your soul! Amen?”

Have you ever attended church events out of compulsion, fear, or shame?

I’ve been there. I’ve heard the fear tactics coercing church attendance “every time the doors are open.” I’ve attended the churches that have three and four services a week—make that seven or more a week during regular revivals, camp-meetings, and homecomings. Youth camp, complete with at least 10 church services and/or classes, was the highlight of my year as a teen. Even as a child, I remember a feeling of excitement when our revival was extended for a third and fourth week.  I remember how the “really good services” lasted three hours, sometimes four. And we didn’t just attend our own church, there was also an obligation to fellowship other churches by attending their special meetings too (even churches that were out of state).

When you’re heavily involved in hyper fundamentalism, frequent church attendance is a way of life. It comes with emotional highs, social interaction, and a feeling of purpose. But the more you recognize misuse of Scripture, erred doctrines, shallow teaching, elitism, and even spiritual abuse, the more draining attending a hyper-fundamentalist church will become. Missing a service, or multiple services, often results in the person who missed becoming the center of attention. Alarm is raised about their spiritual well being. Hoping to avoid such drama, many people force themselves to attend until they reach their breaking point. 

For these reasons and more, church attendance burnout is very common among those of us who leave hyper fundamentalism. When you’ve experienced years of unhealthy and/or abusive churches, just the thought of stepping into a church service (of any kind) can elicit feelings of exhaustion, dread, or panic. Many who leave hyper fundamentalism choose to never resume church attendance (or any equivalent), and I understand why. At the same time, I fear that those who take this route are allowing hyper fundamentalism to rob them of a good gift, a life-giving community, that they were meant to enjoy and thrive in. 

It’s similar to if a teen girl entered her first dating relationship with excitement, only for her boyfriend to be abusive and cruel and tell her over and over again that no one will ever love her, and she’ll always be alone if she leaves him. Once their relationship finally comes to an end, we can’t blame the girl for proclaiming that she never ever wants to be in another relationship. But how tragic would it be if that abusive boyfriend not only beat her down during the years they dated, but successfully terrified her into never dating again? Because of the lingering effects of his cruelty, she could very well miss out on the joys of healthy relationships, a loving, caring husband, and a beautiful family of her own. It could almost feel like the abuser’s prediction that “No one will love you; you’ll be all alone without me” was true. 

 The way hyper-fundamentalist churches tell their congregants that they’ll never feel God’s presence anywhere else isn’t so different. No matter how dysfunctional a hyper-fundamentalist group may be, mainstream churches will still be “trash talked” by them as if every single one is significantly worse. The group will still portray itself as if it’s, quote, “the best God’s got going.” The message is clear, “if you leave us, you leave the best churches on earth and you’ll never find what we have anywhere else.”

 As I watch this pattern repeat again and again, it’s painful to see the abuser’s prediction seemingly come true. Not because it is true (far from it), but because toxic churches manage to so deeply scar their members that they never want to go back to any church again. In reality, a spiritually abusive, cultish group and a healthy, gospel-centered faith community couldn’t be more different. They’re as polar opposite as the gentle, kind husband who loves his wife more than life and the angry drunk who beats and rails on women. 

If you’re wondering “Why church?”, if giving up on all churches for good has crossed your mind, I hope you’ll continue reading. Over the next sections, we will survey the value and benefits of a faithful, local church. Thank you for taking time to consider this perspective. After all the negatives you’ve experienced elsewhere, may this series serve as a reminder that faith community is indeed one of God’s good gifts. 

Traditional/formal church services are good things. Sermons are edifying. Corporate worship is biblical.

But so is the following:

• Discipling our own family (Deut. 11:18-21; Titus 1:6; 1 Timothy 3:4–5; 2 Timothy 3:15-16)
• Confessing sins to one another (James 5:16)
• Holding each other accountable (Galatians 2:1–21)
• Bearing one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:1-2)
• Going out to share the gospel, then discipling the new converts (Matthew 28:19-20)
• Caring for practical needs in our community (Matthew 25:31-46; Acts 6:1-3; James 1:27)
• Mentoring/discipling younger believers and being mentored/disciples by more mature believers (1 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; 2:3-5)
• Participating in Bible study/studying God’s Word (Acts 17:11; John 5:39)

As good as it is, a formal church service (a sermon and songs) is insufficient to fulfill many of the biblical commands regarding faith community for Christians. The above commands require relationships, two-way discussions, vulnerability, life-on-life discipleship, and going beyond the four walls of our church’s sanctuary.

There’s liberty to attend as many formal church services a week as you’d like to, 3, 4, 5… There’s nothing wrong with frequent church service attendance in and of itself, especially if you still are making time and finding ways to fulfill the other biblical commands, as well.

Realistically though, most Christians don’t have time for both (the above and *more* than 1-2 services a week). And in hyper-fundamentalist groups, replacing the midweek service with a community group, or the Sunday night service with local outreach, or (in some areas) the Saturday night service with intentional family discipleship, is unthinkable. So instead, they continue to attend 3–7 formal church services a week, content with not finding ways to fulfill the other biblical commands. Afterall, they don’t have time.

Some of these Christians are hasty to call into question the devotion—even the salvation—of believers who attend any fewer than three weekly services. “Don’t they love God?” “If they were really saved they would *want* to go to 3+ services a week.” It’s overlooked that attending fewer formal services may be what gives these other Christians the ability to participate in a community group, Bible study, local outreach, mentorship/discipleship relationships, and/or to disciple their own family (not to mention, taking space to heal from spiritual abuse and/or burnout).

Although believers in the Early Church likely spent time together throughout the week, observed Sabbath rest (along with their culture), and may’ve gathered for other purposes, the tradition of the Early Church was to hold one formal service a week. They held this service Saturday night (which was the beginning of the first day of the week in their minds), it lasted around three hours, and it revolved around the Lord’s Supper/Communion (which ironically, is often neglected within hyper-fundamentalism).

One formal service per week has consistently been the norm throughout Church history. Historic church groups can be found that gathered more often, but typically, the function of the second gathering was different (e.g. specifically for prayer, evangelism, Bible study, etc.). This is not so different from churches today that only have one Sunday service, but also host community groups, Bible studies, local outreach, etc.

The hyper-fundamentalist insistence on having three or more mandatory, highly similar, formal services per week is a relatively modern American trend.

The midweek service was originally a prayer meeting, popularized in the 1800s by men such as D.L. Moody and Charles Finney. In the 1900s, it evolved into being yet another Sunday service, but on Wednesday night.

It’s thought that the Sunday night service was originally for factory workers, especially in the 1940s, who couldn’t make the Sunday morning service due to their work schedule. The spread of electricity is what made this nighttime service feasible. Somehow, it shifted from being a second, overflow service to everyone being expected to come to both services.

And now, here we are, patting ourselves on the back for “serving God” by attending 3-7 nearly identical, formal services every week, but finding ourselves with little time or energy to participate in a community group (which is a context for relational faith community), lead a Bible study, mentor a younger believer, meet with an accountability partner, share the gospel, or find ways to meet practical needs/show Christ’s love in our community.

And, yet, we’ll harshly criticize Christians who attend one service a week (and then partake in faith community in other ways throughout the week) as “not really loving God,” “backsliding,” “not prioritizing the things of God,” “compromised,” “heart’s in the wrong place,” “dead and dry,” etc.

There’s nothing wrong with attending 3-7 formal church services a week; there’s liberty for that. In some situations, it may be the healthy and right thing to do. But when it gets to the point where we’re emphasizing one good thing at the detriment of neglecting other biblical commands entirely? And if we fancy ourselves as highly spiritual due to our high-frequency church attendance, while calling into question the salvation of believers who choose a more balanced approach?

Come now, let’s reevaluate.

Resources:

BH Facebook Post

What Was a Church Service Like in the Second Century?

2,000 Years of Christ’s Power: The Age of the Early Church Fathers

In recent years, there’s been some pushback against “going to church.” Those pushing back will point out that “We are the Church, it’s not a building.” They’ll also point to the fact that Early Christians met in houses and that the New Testament doesn’t give any requirement to meet in a certain building a certain amount of times per week. No outline of how services should be conducted is ever mentioned in Scripture; pews, pulpits, platforms, and prayer altars weren’t part of the Early Christians’ routine. And in all these facts, they are mostly correct. 

“Mostly” because many of the houses Early Christians met in were actually converted into churches. Take “The World’s Oldest Church” for example, the Dura-Europos church (c. 241). Michael Peppar writes, “The Dura Christian building is a true [house church], insofar as it was a converted private house, which after remodeling ceased to be used for domestic functions.”  (The World’s Oldest Church, (Yale University Press 2016), p.16, from https://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/viola-pagan-christianity-full.php) This isn’t to say house churches are in the wrong, of course, but only to offer balance to the notion that they are best and/or most biblical.

But if it’s true that “we are the church,” is it possible that we don’t need to go to church at all, house church or otherwise? Anytime that we interact with other believers is that a sufficient fulfillment of the command to forsake not assembling? 

I would answer this question by reflecting on the biblical functions of a healthy church and asking in return if the interactions check those boxes. In those interactions, was sound doctrine taught? Was there discipleship? Encouragement in Christ? Accountability? Worship? Fulfilling the Great Commission? 

I would hope that some of the functions of a healthy church would be fulfilled during organic/spontaneous interactions between believers. For example, it shouldn’t be a rare thing for believers to ask each other how we’re doing and offer encouragement and prayer. But at the same time, I would suspect that other functions would occur less often. The likelihood of an one-on-one, in-depth exposition of Scripture/sermon alternative is much lower. Spontaneous interactions here or there aren’t conducive to that. In contrast, regular gatherings in church buildings are conducive.

One of the biggest questions I have for those who advocate not going to church, but rather fellowshipping with believers in everyday life, is how does church discipline work in that model? How is sin brought to the leaders and to the church? How does disfellowshipping work? Even as I write this, I can think of hypothetical scenarios and ways this could work, but that’s not the most important question. The important one is will it work, will this happen. While there may be some amazing, very organized, people out there who will make sure that they are often discipling, being discipled, have accountability, are worshipping with other believers, are encouraging people, are receiving great Bible teaching, and more—all while not attending regular gatherings of believers (aka going to church)—the fact of the matter is that this spontaneous interaction model would never work for 99%+ of Christians. 

Just like “unschooling” is criticized as being a nice idea that winds up as “no schooling” for most people, this unchurched “be the church” idea usually ends up as no church. I suspect that’s why the New Testament Church, quite early in its creation, began to assemble regularly (likely once a week on the first day of the week: Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:1–2), and why Christians all throughout Church history have continued this custom. 

Last but not least, without regular gatherings, it’s hard to imagine how leadership would work without “going to church.” What would be the role of elders and deacons in this model? How are they chosen? Which believers do they serve? What do they do for them? The fact that these roles are clearly outlined in Scripture is a strong indication that believers, who are the Church in one sense, are still intended to “go to church,” in order to be led and discipled in a regular, group context.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

Ghosting is exactly what it sounds like—it’s leaving (disappearing) without warning and without saying a word, and not just leaving the church, but leaving your friendships, as well. Because this approach severs relationships and can cause confusion/pain without closure for the ones being ghosted, it’s generally not recommended. There are a few circumstances, however, in which ghosting might make sense, such as:

1. A relationship in which you’re not close and the other party won’t even realize you’ve stopped reaching out, or won’t think much of it if they do

2. A relationship in which the other party would be so distraught to hear that you’re no longer part of the group that the confusion/pain of losing touch would cause them reletively less distress then the confusion/pain of hearing you’ve left (this only works if it’s possible they’ll never hear that you left, or won’t learn of it via the grapevine for a long time)

3. A relationship with someone who has significant influence over you and who may go to great lengths to persuade, or even coerce, you into staying if given the chance

4. An abusive relationship in which the other party has a pattern of harming you or others, especially intentionally. For example, if there is someone who, no matter what you say it “can and will be held against you”—twisted, broadcasted publicly, and used for gossip—you don’t owe them an explanation. When it comes to unsafe people, by all means, do whatever is best for you and your loved ones—physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually.

A possible downside for the person who leaves is that rumors may fly as people speculate on what happened. Rumors are hard to avoid, however, so you may decide it’s best for them to be completely unfounded (since you ghosted without explanation) then to be believable due to the person spreading rumors having had a conversation with you.

When considering ghosting, it is important to be confident that ending the relationships is for the best. There’s already going to be grief due to the loss of community, complicating that grief with “what ifs?” and wondering if you would still be able to enjoy those friendships if you’d handled things differently, that all can be quite difficult. Another factor to consider is that at face value it’s “your fault” that the relationship ended, even if there’s no way the relationship could’ve/would’ve continued due to the beliefs of the other party. It can be frustrating to hear rumors and receive accusations regarding how you “shunned” your loved ones when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were going to shun you had they been given the opportunity. That said, some people find it easier on their emotions to be the ones choosing to walk away, rather than feeling abandoned. While we should be considerate of everyone involved, when it comes to unsafe relationships in particular, there’s nothing wrong with doing what’s best and safest for you.

Choosing to just “show up different” is similar to ghosting in that nothing is said, but different because you do show up. There’s an attempt to continue relationships as if nothing happened. At one family gathering you’re wearing a long skirt, and at the next you show up in jeans, one Sunday you’re at church, the next Sunday you’re not. The change is visible, but not audibly acknowledged or mentioned by you.

Like ghosting, this approach also may cause confusion and yield itself to unfounded rumors. The advantage over ghosting is that you have a chance at preserving relationships, especially with immediate and extended family. Even when it comes to relationships that you’ll very likely lose due to the teachings of hyper fundamentalism, for some people it can be reassuring to know that they weren’t the reason that the relationships were lost. They don’t have to deal with accusations about being the one to shun or cut off their loved ones.

A benefit of just showing up over the approaches that include explanations is that, for many people, it’s not as mentally taxing. There’s no speech to prepare, you just come as you are. It also doesn’t invite rebuttal or even give much of an opportunity for argument. This may be best when dealing with people who do not listen well, who are prone to ranting, and/or who you may fear would actually convince you to return to hyper fundamentalism if given the chance. That said, some people will take you showing up different as an invitation for a conversation and immediately start in on why you’re sinning. For these situations, it would be wise to have an answer, short and sweet, prepared beforehand. It could be as simple as, “I appreciate your concern, but we’ll have to agree to disagree,” or the slightly firmer, “I respect your beliefs, please respect mine.”

Unlike ghosting, just showing up different (on social media, in person, or any other way) will result in a plethora of very real reactions that you’ll be present to receive. Confusion, shock, and disappointment are the most common, but anger, snark, and even full emotional meltdowns are possible. This should all be taken into account when choosing the time/place/occasion most appropriate and safe for showing up at. You know your loved ones, so you’re in the best position to assess what to expect. But in general, the closer someone is to you, the more intense their reaction will be. For this reason, and out of consideration of their loved one’s feelings, many people choose to tell the people closest to them in advance and only “show up different” for the people they’re not as close with.

When why you are no longer following a hyper-fundamentalist dress code or why you are leaving a church needs to be addressed, and yet, you’re not comfortable explaining your reasoning in depth, the “short and sweet” approach may be appropriate. A short answer could be framed in a way that invites further conversation or that avoids further conversation, depending on which you think would be best.

As always when communicating negative news, it often helps to sandwhich it between positive statements about the group and/or and the person you are addressing (but these could be left off depending on your situation). For example:

“I’m grateful for all that God has done in my life while part of [name of group/church], but after much study and prayer, I believe He’s leading me elsewhere. This decision has not easy and it has not been made lightly. I would appreciate your prayer and understanding over the coming days.”

Depending on whether or not you are open to further conversation you could adapt the last line to say something like, 

“I’m not able to discuss this further, but I would really appreciate your prayer and understanding over the coming days.”

Or, alternatively, you could add on a sentence such as, “If you have any questions, feel free to ask me directly, I’m happy to share more.”

Due to the sensitive nature and high-emotions surrounding leaving hyper fundamentalism, some retorts are inevitable, especially if you choose to share your news verbally. The calmer you can stay, the better. Choosing to give grace and compassion to the other party is key. It may help to reflect on their beliefs and remember where they’re coming from—they may actually believe only their group is going to heaven, and that by leaving, you’re jeopardizing your salvation. This may cause them to feel frustrated, angry, and/or afraid on your behalf. It’s also possible that, by leaving, you are raising unwanted questions and doubts in their mind that are causing insecurity and anxiety.

Here are a few common retorts, and a few ideas for how to respond in a calm manner:

If they ask “Why are you leaving?”
Response:
“I’d be happy to share more sometime if you’d like, but for now, just know it’s something I’ve prayed about a lot. It’s not from hurt or bitterness — it’s just where God is leading me.”

If they say “You’re backsliding!”
Response:
“I understand why you might feel that way. I want you to know my relationship with Jesus is still the most important thing in my life. I’m committed to following Him wholeheartedly.”

If they press “What church are you going to now?”
Response:
“I’m attending a church where I feel spiritually fed and challenged to grow closer to Christ. It’s been a blessing for me so far.”
(If you want, you can name the church — but it’s totally okay to stay general.)

If they ask “Don’t you believe in holiness anymore?”
Response:
“I absolutely believe in holiness. My understanding of it has grown — now I see it more as a matter of the heart and the fruit of the Spirit than just outward appearance.”

If they get emotional or angry
Response:
“I know this is hard to hear, and I care about how you feel. I’m not rejecting you or everything we shared. I’m simply following what I believe God is asking of me. I hope we can still have a strong relationship.”

If they try to argue theology
Response:
“I’m always open to friendly conversations, but I don’t want to argue. I respect your beliefs, and I ask that you respect mine, even if we don’t agree.”

If they guilt-trip you (“After all we taught you…”)
Response:
“I’m so thankful for everything you’ve taught me — it’s a big part of who I am. I hope you’ll trust that I’m not throwing anything away lightly. I’m building on that foundation, just in a different way.”

If they question your salvation
Response:
“My hope is fully in Christ, not in myself or my works. I trust Him to be my righteousness. I’m following Him with all my heart.”

If they accuse you of being deceived
Response:
“It’s always wise to be cautious about being deceived — that’s why I’ve taken a lot of time, prayer, and study before making this decision. I trust the Holy Spirit to guide me, just as I trust Him to guide you.”

If they say “You’ll regret this someday!”
Response:
“I understand your concern. I’ve made this choice with much prayer and consideration, and I’m trusting God to guide and correct me if needed, just like He’s always been faithful to do.”

When it comes to replying to friends and family members, the best approach will vary depending on your specific situation and relationships. Only you are in the position to judge what is best in your situation, and you will likely choose multiple approaches, tailored to your different relationships.

There are two main factors that you’ll need to decide for each relationship you have in the hyper-fundamentalist group: how much to say and how to say it. We’ll share a few possible approaches below, as well as some general observations and pros and cons. We hope these considerations will be beneficial to you as you navigate how to go forward. 

How Much to Say: Depth of Communication

Option 1: Ghost

Ghosting is exactly what it sounds like—it’s leaving (disappearing) without warning and without saying a word, and not just leaving the church, but leaving your friendships, as well. Because this approach severs relationships and can cause confusion/pain without closure for the ones being ghosted, it’s generally not recommended. There are a few circumstances, however, in which ghosting might make sense, such as:

1. A relationship in which you’re not close and the other party won’t even realize you’ve stopped reaching out, or won’t think much of it if they do

2. A relationship in which the other party would be so distraught to hear that you’re no longer part of the group that the confusion/pain of losing touch would cause them reletively less distress then the confusion/pain of hearing you’ve left (this only works if it’s possible they’ll never hear that you left, or won’t learn of it via the grapevine for a long time)

3. A relationship with someone who has significant influence over you and who may go to great lengths to persuade, or even coerce, you into staying if given the chance

4. An abusive relationship in which the other party has a pattern of harming you or others, especially intentionally. For example, if there is someone who, no matter what you say it “can and will be held against you”—twisted, broadcasted publicly, and used for gossip—you don’t owe them an explanation. When it comes to unsafe people, by all means, do whatever is best for you and your loved ones—physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually.

A possible downside for the person who leaves is that rumors may fly as people speculate on what happened. Rumors are hard to avoid, however, so you may decide it’s best for them to be completely unfounded (since you ghosted without explanation) then to be believable due to the person spreading rumors having had a conversation with you.

When considering ghosting, it is important to be confident that ending the relationships is for the best. There’s already going to be grief due to the loss of community, complicating that grief with “what ifs?” and wondering if you would still be able to enjoy those friendships if you’d handled things differently, that all can be quite difficult. Another factor to consider is that at face value it’s “your fault” that the relationship ended, even if there’s no way the relationship could’ve/would’ve continued due to the beliefs of the other party. It can be frustrating to hear rumors and receive accusations regarding how you “shunned” your loved ones when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were going to shun you had they been given the opportunity. That said, some people find it easier on their emotions to be the ones choosing to walk away, rather than feeling abandoned. While we should be considerate of everyone involved, when it comes to unsafe relationships in particular, there’s nothing wrong with doing what’s best and safest for you.

Option 2: Show Up Different

Choosing to just “show up different” is similar to ghosting in that nothing is said, but different because you do show up. There’s an attempt to continue relationships as if nothing happened. At one family gathering you’re wearing a long skirt, and at the next you show up in jeans, one Sunday you’re at church, the next Sunday you’re not, but you don’t acknowledge or mention the change.

Like ghosting, this approach also may cause confusion and yield itself to unfounded rumors. The obvious advantage over ghosting is that you have a chance at preserving relationships, especially with immediate and extended family. Even when it comes to relationships that you’ll very likely lose due to the teachings of hyper fundamentalism, for some people, it can be reassuring to know that they weren’t the reason that the relationships failed. 

Option 3: Short and Sweet

Option 4: Balance with Boundaries 

Option 5: In-Depth Explanation 

How to Say it: Medium of Communication

Option 1: Social Media

Option 2: Text Message

Option 3: Email

Option 4: Letter

Option 5: Call

Option 7: In Person

In some situations, people choose to simply state that God is leading them another direction, or that the changes have only been made after much thought, prayer, and Bible study. Depending on the friend/family member, sometimes boundaries need to be established, to avoid repeated, emotional confrontations. In other situations, people choose to take time and lay out their theological differences and even name resources that cross-examine the group’s teachings. A lot of it comes down to what you’re most comfortable with and what the other person(s) will understand and respond best to. 

Regarding telling family about your decisions and changes, we know that can be difficult to navigate—each family member may handle the news differently. This may affect how much you choose to share. Some people will feel reassured to hear the reasons behind your belief changes, because it shows them that you’ve truly put thought and study into this and aren’t changing impulsively with wrong motives.

However, other people may feel emotionally overwhelmed and personally attacked by hearing all your reasons. In those situations, it’s usually better to simply say you’ve put much prayer, thought, and study into this decision, and then briefly share your conclusion. Typically, the more you can focus on appreciation for your family member and your respect for their differing decisions, the better.

Writing can be a good way to complete your thoughts without the fear of being cut-off, as could happen in-person. Writing also gives you all the time you need to think, rethink, pray about, and edit your words before sending. Letters and emails generally come across as more thoughtful than texts. And because they’re long-form communication, they give you the opportunity to explain in more depth if that seems best.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy or cookie-cutter answer. A lot of it comes down to what you’re most comfortable with and what the other person(s) will understand and respond best to..

Just the fact that you’re willing to take time to share your decision with your friends/family should hopefully go a long way. Many people choose not to say anything at all, which can lead to misunderstandings.

How to let leadership know you’re leaving is something we’re asked about a lot. There’s no simple, cookie-cutter answer, what’s best looks different in different situations, and that’s why opinions vary so widely. We’ve seen the same thing that worked well for one person backfire for another and vice versa.

In writing may be best for someone who’s likely to be talked over or when communicating with leaders who are known to “misremember” what was said. In person may be best for someone who has a close relationship with the leader (e.g. it’s a family member) and wants to keep that relationship going forward. Slipping out without saying anything may be best in situations that are especially toxic, when “everything you say can and will be held against you.”

At the end of the day, letting leaders know that we’re leaving and why we’re leaving is a courtesy, not a biblical command.

When deciding on our approach, it makes sense to ask ourselves what the pros and cons are in our specific situation. What’s the benefit of informing them the leader in person? What’s the risk? Is there anyway to mitigate the risk?

For example, some people who choose to meet with church leader(s) in person, decide not to list all the reasons they’re leaving, but to instead focus on appreciation for what the leader(s)/church has done for them in the past, in order to keep the meeting as amicable as possible.

Personally, I needed to talk to multiple leaders/mentors/family members when I moved away from strict Holiness churches. My approach varied from person to person, based on how I believed they would react, how I predicted I would respond to their reaction, and how close our relationship was/how much I trusted them.

I will add that some toxic, authoritarian leaders will drill into their congregation that they must talk to them in person before leaving. Such leaders will use the meeting to degrade, pressure, guilt trip, scare, and try to manipulate the member into staying—or, if they can’t get the member to stay, some leaders may intentionally provoke them and then act to the rest of the congregation as if they were attacked.

After observing how much damage these kinds of meetings can do, it’s my personal opinion that abusive leaders like this do not deserve the courtesy of an in-person meeting. To be clear, not all leaders act this way, only you would know if it may be the case in your specific situation.