Here’s an article with a small point but which ends up in a very bad place. And to be sure, I’ve been in places where the departure of a problematic person brought peace and even enabled progress. But I rightly grieved that reality (even when it made my life easier). I don’t really sense any sorrow in this. We have a hard-nosed, bottom-line, business calculation here.
A quick response to the seven reasons:
#1 – rather than worry about the cost of the unaligned, make the vision central to all you do. You’re inviting them to be part of it. Some may leave, but that’s not your intent or purpose (or your invitation).
#2 – business models do not describe the church. You are not “hiring” people. God has given you a stewardship.
#3 – Sometimes a person would be better off elsewhere, but that’s not inviting them to leave but encouraging them to find their niche. Not quite the same. And the motivation is different.
#4 – corporations rotate ineffective employees from division to division, leaving pain throughout the organization. I guess that should be the church model too.
#5 – Yes, but what does that have to do with encouraging others to leave?
#6 – so the job of the church is to make its members honored and relieved? Maybe it is to serve others, even if painful or difficult at times.
#7 – if you can’t figure out how to harness enthusiasm, sending people away may not help.
In the end, I refuse to think of disengaged people in the almost parasitic model he suggests. True, they take up seats and even resources. But they are still God’s people who we are called to minister to. If we can’t figure out how to do that, we are to discard them? Ouch. That sounds more like corporate models for corporate success. We aren’t supposed to be like that.