Finding a Church

[abacabb3]

The reason I left the PCA was specifically because in my immediate area the church simply was not engaged enough in the lives of its members or the community. However, I do not think you can divide correct doctrine from engagement. Correct doctrine motivates engagement from the right motives. This is what liberals lack. If you seek to love others as Christ did, but do not really know how God really loves us, then you will fall very short.

 

[BryanW92]

The reason I left the PCA was specifically because in my immediate area the church simply was not engaged enough in the lives of its members or the community. However, I do not think you can divide correct doctrine from engagement. Correct doctrine motivates engagement from the right motives. This is what liberals lack. If you seek to love others as Christ did, but do not really know how God really loves us, then you will fall very short.

The more emphasis a congregation or denomination places on Personal Holiness, the less it will place on Social Holiness and vice-versa. The UMC and other liberal churches virtually ignores Personal Holiness these days (even though it was important to John Wesley) and the PCA and other conservative churches are really big on Personal Holiness.

Like everything else in our well-planned and programmed culture, there never seems to be a middle ground because as soon as you move to the middle, the factions at one end or the other will declare the middle ground to be "too far in the other direction".

But, Acts 2 is always pointed out as the "perfect" church, yet it was taking care of its own and that was the thing that made it so attractive to the people who hadn't joined yet. The liberal Social Holiness churches are always wanting to "get out and serve" the community, but they are so afraid of Personal Holiness that they never want to call the people to Christ. They think men really do live by bread (and lunch meat) alone.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

But, Acts 2 is always pointed out as the "perfect" church, yet it was taking care of its own and that was the thing that made it so attractive to the people who hadn't joined yet.

I agree. Doctrinal purity might make a church attractive to me, but to the outsider, it's the demonstrations of love and care that are appealing. We need both, but, with few exceptions, there are no churches which do both well or even care to try to.

I'm searching for the illusive middle-ground church, but you are right. It can never exist because both sides will cry foul.

It takes some maturity to move from the fringes to the center without losing either your doctrine or your compassion. To preach a gospel which declares:

"We are more sinful and flawed in ourselves than we ever dared believe, yet at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope.” - Tim Keller

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The reason I left the PCA was specifically because in my immediate area the church simply was not engaged enough in the lives of its members or the community. However, I do not think you can divide correct doctrine from engagement. Correct doctrine motivates engagement from the right motives. This is what liberals lack. If you seek to love others as Christ did, but do not really know how God really loves us, then you will fall very short.

What I mean when I talk about philosophy of ministry differences rather than doctrinal differences is that 10 churches can all hold to the Westminster Confession, for example, yet they have very different "faces". Some are closed off, and others are engaged. They are in full agreement on a ton of doctrine, yet they practice very different ways to "do church"

 

[BryanW92]

When I was Methodist, we did everything we could for people. Word got around and people would be waiting outside the office when the pastor arrived in the morning. We were a church that helped people in meaningful ways.

NONE of those people ever attended a single Sunday service. People say, "well, that shouldn't be your goal!!" It wasn't. But it was an indicator of the amount of commitment to a life in Christ our charity created. Some of them would show up for the Wednesday night dinner, but would never stay for a bible study. "Not really into that" was their answer when we would invite them to stay.

Then, we went through some hard times and couldn't support people as we did. People would show up for their monthly "they're gonna turn my lights off" story and the pastor had to say, "I can't help you."

More than half of them cussed him out. We had to lock the church doors during office hours and put an intercom outside so the secretary could feel safe. We had given one woman (a single mom) over $3000 in the previous year. When the pastor told her no, she left and sent her husband back to yell at the pastor. Yes, the "single mom" had been married all along.

Eventually, they all found a different church that was "involved with the community" and had the all-important deep pockets.

The people who have been given the faith to believe come to the church for God, Jesus, fellowship, and if they need help, for help. The thing that appeals to them is not the handout. It's the hug. Its the community of beleivers who love God and love each other that is attractive to the outsider.

I learned a lot about people in that church and I learned a lot about the liberal religion.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

When I was Methodist, we did everything we could for people. Word got around and people would be waiting outside the office when the pastor arrived in the morning. We were a church that helped people in meaningful ways.

NONE of those people ever attended a single Sunday service. People say, "well, that shouldn't be your goal!!" It wasn't. But it was an indicator of the amount of commitment to a life in Christ our charity created. Some of them would show up for the Wednesday night dinner, but would never stay for a bible study. "Not really into that" was their answer when we would invite them to stay.

Then, we went through some hard times and couldn't support people as we did. People would show up for their monthly "they're gonna turn my lights off" story and the pastor had to say, "I can't help you."

More than half of them cussed him out. We had to lock the church doors during office hours and put an intercom outside so the secretary could feel safe. We had given one woman (a single mom) over $3000 in the previous year. When the pastor told her no, she left and sent her husband back to yell at the pastor. Yes, the "single mom" had been married all along.

Eventually, they all found a different church that was "involved with the community" and had the all-important deep pockets.

The people who have been given the faith to believe come to the church for God, Jesus, fellowship, and if they need help, for help. The thing that appeals to them is not the handout. It's the hug. Its the community of beleivers who love God and love each other that is attractive to the outsider.

I learned a lot about people in that church and I learned a lot about the liberal religion.

Great stories. Very helpful in developing a wise approach to helping the "poor".

Many, many moons ago, I went to Atlantic City to gamble at a casino. I arrived just before the doors opened at 6:00 AM. It was a Wednesday morning at 6:00 AM, and there were dozens of elderly people at the door chomping at the bit to get in and give The Donald their money. Some had walkers and canes, they were all over 65, and they all appeared to be lower-middle class.

These folks had plenty of money to gamble, but I would bet (no I don't gamble any longer) that these same people "can't afford" their Rx drugs, and they "can't afford" heating oil. . .

Too be clear, when I'm speaking of social engagement, I'm much more speaking of finding avenues to share the gospel with them than I am about providing handouts. I'm more for teaching a many to fish, anyway.

I'm talking about open forums, discussions at pubs (I'm a Presbyterian etc. I'm a not a "social justice" guy; although I would argue that we should help give power to the powerless and give voice to the voiceless, but as your story, and my experience, demonstrate, there are not really not many of them in our culture. The "poor" here have iphones. . .

 

[phydaux]

The more emphasis a congregation or denomination places on Personal Holiness, the less it will place on Social Holiness and vice-versa... as soon as you move to the middle, the factions at one end or the other will declare the middle ground to be "too far in the other direction".

That's an excellent point. Another good point my current pastor often makes is that once you let the congregation's focus shift from winning those you might gain to keeping those you might lose, you begin to stagnate and die.

 

[abacabb3]

I've had homeless people turn away my own lunch when I offered it to them. Apparently, what is good enough for me isn't for them.

In my wife's country (Cambodia), that's not the case. In their culture, taking something that is offered to you is polite. Way too many beggars, because even there it can practically become a job.

 

[BryanW92]

The "poor" here have iphones. . .

Exactly. By global standards, there are no poor in the United States. By first century Judea standards, there are no poor in the United States. Even the "homeless" have government assistance that would make a poor African family consider themselves rich.

But in the US, we have a spiritual deadness. Even most of our churches are dead inside. We need people to come back to life and we need to spread that life a lot more than we need to pass out sandwiches to people who receive food stamps and HUD housing and Medicaid and Medicare and WIC and....

When I was a young sailor, I took the offer a free dinner at a "Serviceman's Center" in Chicago. It turned out to be a Salvation Army church. To eat the meal, you had to listen to the sermon. I wasn't a Christian in those days, so I was a little peeved, but I could have got up and left at any time. So, I listened. I still remember after more than 30 years that it was on the Sermon on the Mount, but I forget what the meal was.

The Gospel is the real food that sticks to your ribs!

 

[BryanW92]

That's an excellent point. Another good point my current pastor often makes is that once you let the congregation's focus shift from winning those you might gain to keeping those you might lose, you begin to stagnate and die.

Pastors say that when their church is dying and they've given up on the people they already have in the hopes of getting some "new blood". You can't "win" anyone with an empty church. An empty church in Haiti calls out for people. But, this is a country with a church every couple hundred yards, so the dying and empty church is just a building and not an opportunity for renewal, especially for a pastor who let all the people get away.