There are a thousand reasons for someone choosing to move on, or to attend a different church, - some of them valid, and some of them as shallow as the analogy I used.

Point is, who am I to judge? In my opinion, and my opinion only, it appears that Paul Levy considers his "church plant/turn-around" worthy of more consideration than any other. He is wrong, and his attitude may go a long way to explaining why others are able to "steal" his people.

On the other hand,... some churches ARE about as spiritually fulfilling as a trip to the local coffee shop, which would be an excellent reason to migrate elsewhere.

We live within walking distance of two Tim Horton's franchises, and there are at least two more within five minutes' drive in Cobourg. I choose to drive ten kilometers to one in Port Hope because more of my friends go there; the staff are friendlier; the customers there are more in our age-group and there are not as many wacky teenagers; they always give Max a treat; and most importantly, they always get my order correct, - just the right amount of sugar, and the cup isn't half-empty.

Personally, I believe that there is far too much competition between denominations and far too little cooperation. Isn't it more important that I am a member of the Kingdom than at which "house" I choose to attend?

My question is this: When is "sheep stealing" actually stealing, and when is it merely a migration of one flock to another? Besides, just whose flock is it exactly? Do I "belong" to your church or the Church of Jesus Christ?

I agree. The analogy isn't perfect. My concern with his article is that it seemed to be based on a perspective that sees church planting as something unusual rather than as the regular practice of every healthy church. Even church plants should be preparing from the start to sacrificially give money and people away to reproduce in the future. This type of sacrifice should be normal rather than extraordinary.