Mainline Protestant and Evangelical denominations both declining, how do we change that?

[NeedyFollower]

Well, what I saw in your post was this:
1. You say you are in disagreement with a lot of what the church you currently attend teaches.

2. You also said--



I see two important points in that snippet. In addition to wishing your church had a more uplifting service than it offers, you say that you have been so disaffected by it that you haven't received Communion in a year.

Beyond that, it looked to me that you were saying that the Catholic Mass was possibly better, at least as far as the style of the worship service is concerned. You didn't seem willing to become a Catholic because of this, but you might not know that the Lutheran Communion service and the Anglican/Episcopal Communion services are very similar to the Catholic Mass.

So, all in all, you might be interested in experiencing one or the other of them. That's all there was to my suggestion. It was a side issue to the topic of this thread, however, that's true.

As I read the various comments regarding liturgies / forms of worship / worship service / , I wonder if we are missing the point. It seems the emphasis is still on man. Even the gospel has become very man centered When Jesus said that God is a Spirit and the time is coming and now is when true worshippers will worship in spirit and truth for God seeks such. Did Christ go to the temple or synagogue to worship ? I think he went to teach and to reach out to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. I think His life was worship since He is the Way and the Truth and the Life. I believe true worship is a result of knowing God according to His riches in Christ Jesus. It humbles ( prostrates ) us ....as it must and should when we behold God. Music , symphonies , choirs , worship leaders , etc. etc. ...If I could not afford these things may I still do truth ? What if I wished to assemble before dawn daily as some of the early christians had to do before their "day job" as slaves . Suit and tie ..assemble the choir , get the pastor , make sure someone is available to watch the kindergarten ...whew ! Exhausting . What if two or more just gathered in His name ...dressed in their slave clothes and clothed in humility . Would that count ?
Paul to the corinthians said to let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge. Have we been misled through tradition into paying a clergy person to have a relationship with God for us and we busy with careers ? Then we can come " and hear the word of God " . If I were clergy ( and I am not ) I would want to know , What is God speaking to you ? What is He possibly showing you that I am not seeing , hearing ? I think we need to rethink the meaning of worship and is it a service or a lifestyle ?

 

[Albion]

As I read the various comments regarding liturgies / forms of worship / worship service / , I wonder if we are missing the point. It seems the emphasis is still on man.

I'm sure that your post deserves a better reply than this one, but I do want to say that the historic liturgy is anything but man-centered.

If we look at every one of its many parts, we can see that the emphasis is upon God's work, God's greatness, our acknowledgement of Him, and upon what he's done for us.

Personally, I don't think that all of this can correctly be described as "the emphasis is on man."

 

[NeedyFollower]

I'm sure that your post deserves a better reply than this one, but I do want to say that the historic liturgy is anything but man-centered.

If we look at every one of its many parts, we can see that the emphasis is upon God's work, God's greatness, our acknowledgement of Him, and upon what he's done for us.

Personally, I don't think that all of this can correctly be described as "the emphasis is on man."

Hi Brother ..Growing up as a Methodist ( I realize John and Charles Wesley were Anglican and did not mean to start Methodism) ...saying the apostles creed, singing the doxology , etc. I BELIEVED every Word ..but I was lost , lost , lost . Having fellowshiped with some Amish and former Amish, I know how easy it is for the tradition and "forms of worship " to take precedent over doing truth ...even when the tradition is scriptural. For example , the wearing of the prayer veil for women ....No question both scriptural and traditional even for protestants until the 20th century , but if a woman is not submitted ...a head covering has no real truth ...just a tradition. Liturgy and correct and precise forms of worship but if we do not know , love , bear the burdens of one another ...if we are not the living manifestation of Christ bride , watching, waiting and preparing for His return what value does it have though it be an exact replica of a first century church ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Paul to the corinthians said to let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge. Have we been misled through tradition into paying a clergy person to have a relationship with God for us and we busy with careers ?

Either through tradition,
or something else / other things, eh?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

...if we are not the living manifestation of Christ bride , watching, waiting and preparing for His return what value does it have though it be an exact replica of a first century church ?

Clarifying: do you mean like "having the form of religion, but denying the power thereof?" (i.e. no power to save a soul, to walk righteously, to live in union with Jesus... etc)

 

[dzheremi]

Re: post #143

'Forms' are just whatever is traditional to a given people or place, though, so it's not about having the same form of worship in every place. I think any discussion of form must make that connection you are talking about, Needy Follower, between what is done and the spirit in which it is done, or else you're right, it's just some people doing whatever it is they do because that's how they always do it, with no essential connection to the truth that is meant to be embodied in it. I think Albion's post #119 in this thread deals with this well by pointing out that the degree to which one is able to see that connection between what they do (liturgically) and what they believe and how they live can be correlated with what kind of message they ultimately get through their participation in liturgical worship. So if a person attends a liturgical church and the message they get out of it is limited to "just say these responses" or "it's a mortal sin to not show up" or something at that level, it is not surprising that they should come away with the idea that liturgical worship is all 'pomp and circumstance', which places a barrier between the worshiper and God rather than being a facilitation or embodiment of the worship of God.

It's truly sad that this happens, but from some other replies in this thread (and probably from any number of personal anecdotes) it seems understandable that it does. The same, of course, is also possible with people going to non-liturgical churches and having the same experience of getting shallow, guilt-ridden, authoritarian messages from whoever is leading those. So in either case it is not ever about form in isolation from the faith expressed through it.

 

[Albion]

Hi Brother ..Growing up as a Methodist ( I realize John and Charles Wesley were Anglican and did not mean to start Methodism) ...saying the apostles creed, singing the doxology , etc. I BELIEVED every Word ..but I was lost , lost , lost . Having fellowshiped with some Amish and former Amish, I know how easy it is for the tradition and "forms of worship " to take precedent over doing truth ...even when the tradition is scriptural. For example , the wearing of the prayer veil for women ....No question both scriptural and traditional even for protestants until the 20th century , but if a woman is not submitted ...a head covering has no real truth ...just a tradition. Liturgy and correct and precise forms of worship but if we do not know , love , bear the burdens of one another ...if we are not the living manifestation of Christ bride , watching, waiting and preparing for His return what value does it have though it be an exact replica of a first century church ?

Are we required to choose one or the other? Everyone places a high degree of emphasis upon conversion, etc. and rightly so. But then are we done...or do we get to praise and worship God, celebrate the sacraments, etc. as well? It might be possible to overdo that, and the prayer veil thing seems to my mind to do just that, but worship does seem to me to be important.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think it's cool at our church we have used a communion prayer from the Didache. You can't get more ancient than that in terms of extra-biblical material.

Some PC-USA Presbyterians are also liturgical.

 

[NeedyFollower]

Are we required to choose one or the other? Everyone places a high degree of emphasis upon conversion, etc. and rightly so. But then are we done...or do we get to praise and worship God, celebrate the sacraments, etc. as well? It might be possible to overdo that, and the prayer veil thing seems to my mind to do just that, but worship does seem to me to be important.

Hi Brother ..these are things I wonder about and question. Things seem a bit wrong to me anyway. In the "church" I mean . What is worship? Is it a service ? Or is the assembly primarily for exhortation , admonition, teaching, bearing one another's burdens . When and where did Jesus worship ? Was not His life a form of worship . What does God want ? Truth ? To know Him will lead to worship .

Jesus told the women at the well that it was no longer about a place and a time. ( I am familiar also with the admonition not to forsake the assembling ourselves together ...we are actually supposed to be doing that even more so as we see that day approaching . ) I know the our Lord Jesus in revelation told the church to repent ...except maybe the church at Philadelphia. . There may be a case made that history repeats itself. You may be familiar with Amos 6:5. I read a lot of the old prophets and ask myself are we christians doing the same things that the jews did in their day and in Jesus day ? Celebrate with our mouth but our heart going after covetousness ? Storing up treasures ..seeking careers based on income or prestige rather than making ourselves of no reputation like our Master Jesus . Could the "church " as we know it even exist without dual incomes ? That puts us in a place where we have to give our children to the world to raise. I think we have some things wrong . Doing truth is pretty critical .

 

[NeedyFollower]

Clarifying: do you mean like "having the form of religion, but denying the power thereof?" (i.e. no power to save a soul, to walk righteously, to live in union with Jesus... etc)

Well yes I am afraid that this is exactly what I believe has occurred in many body of believers ... Church has become something we do or somewhere we go to worship rather than the living breathing body of Jesus Christ ..It may because the form establish well prior to the reformation and continuing afterwards places the emphasis on preaching and that by one man ..the pastor . I believe in the early church , many were expected to potentially have an understanding , a revelation or minimally an experience where the Lord chastised them about something or gave them some " meat " to share . ..then everyone was edified. If there is much truth , when it tries to fit into the "form" ..it will have to either compromise or leave .

 

[Paidiske]

Have we been misled through tradition into paying a clergy person to have a relationship with God for us and we busy with careers ? Then we can come " and hear the word of God " . If I were clergy ( and I am not ) I would want to know , What is God speaking to you ? What is He possibly showing you that I am not seeing , hearing ? I think we need to rethink the meaning of worship and is it a service or a lifestyle ?

As one of the paid clergy... I don't really think that's a good representation of how it is. I don't have a relationship with God "for" my congregation; part of my job is to encourage and equip my congregation to pay attention to their own relationships with God.

And you're quite right; I'm not the sole repository of wisdom in the congregation. I'm one person with a role to play, in the midst of a community of people, each with a role to play. The foundation of doing my job well is listening; listening to God and listening to the people, and then reflecting on what I hear, making connections, building up, and providing leadership as together we discern our way forward in mission and ministry, and carry it out.

Worship is all that we do to glorify God; both in times especially set aside for that purpose, and in how we live the rest of our lives. Worship doesn't end when the clergy say "Go in peace." It just changes mode.

 

[NeedyFollower]

As one of the paid clergy... I don't really think that's a good representation of how it is. I don't have a relationship with God "for" my congregation; part of my job is to encourage and equip my congregation to pay attention to their own relationships with God.

And you're quite right; I'm not the sole repository of wisdom in the congregation. I'm one person with a role to play, in the midst of a community of people, each with a role to play. The foundation of doing my job well is listening; listening to God and listening to the people, and then reflecting on what I hear, making connections, building up, and providing leadership as together we discern our way forward in mission and ministry, and carry it out.

Worship is all that we do to glorify God; both in times especially set aside for that purpose, and in how we live the rest of our lives. Worship doesn't end when the clergy say "Go in peace." It just changes mode.

I am so thankful to hear from a paid clergy . I actually heard the comment made that " Aren't we paying him to visit the sick in the hospital , to visit the shut-ins , etc. ? It is my understanding that the clergy ( whether paid or a tentmaker like Paul ) is responsible to give an account to God for the souls of the flock to whom they have been entrusted . Not knowing whether you are a pastor , a teacher , an evangelist , a prophet or an apostle , i guess it is difficult to understand your role ...But it seems to me that if the congregation is going once, twice or three times a week to " hear the word of God " ..then I think something is bad wrong ....why are THEY not hearing from the Lord ? Do they have a personal relationship ? What is God through His Holy Spirit showing them ? Do you know what I mean ?

 

[Paidiske]

I am so thankful to hear from a paid clergy . I actually heard the comment made that " Aren't we paying him to visit the sick in the hospital , to visit the shut-ins , etc. ? It is my understanding that the clergy ( whether paid or a tentmaker like Paul ) is responsible to give an account to God for the souls of the flock to whom they have been entrusted . Not knowing whether you are a pastor , a teacher , an evangelist , a prophet or an apostle , i guess it is difficult to understand your role ...But it seems to me that if the congregation is going once, twice or three times a week to " hear the word of God " ..then I think something is bad wrong ....why are THEY not hearing from the Lord ? Do they have a personal relationship ? What is God through His Holy Spirit showing them ? Do you know what I mean ?

Of the five gifts in that list, I'm probably most a teacher. But Anglican clergy are expected to be a little bit of everything, is my experience.

I think all of us benefit from hearing the reflections of others. I'm on leave at the moment, and I'm genuinely looking forward to going to church on Sunday and hearing someone else preach. I don't think that listening to others preach or teach means you're not hearing from God yourself.

I totally understand the reaction against the idea of a passive laity who "go to church" to hear someone else preach, to watch someone else perform worship for them. That's a travesty of what church is supposed to be. But I don't think the problem there is specialisation within the church; it's making one specialisation into the whole thing. And that's clericalism, and it's wrong.

But I'm not sure it's quite as common as people seem to fear, either.

 

[dzheremi]

In the geography of Orthodox worship, at least (i.e., the physical arrangement of people and things), the unity of faith and action within the liturgy is emphasized by having all (priest, deacon, laity, etc.) face the altar and pray together. The priest's having this or that prayer to say is never to the detriment of the laity or the experience of God, as all of our publicly-recited prayers are in the plural anyhow, as in the following example from the Syriac Orthodox Church of India:

"Let our thoughts and minds and hearts be..."
"Let us give thanks to the Lord in fear and trembling"
"We commemorate Thy death, O Lord, and confess Thy resurrection, and await Thy second coming"

(NB: The Oriental Orthodox Church, of which the above Church is an example, have likewise kept the Nicene Creed in plural: "We believe in One God...")

Would it be fair, given the above and the example of the good posts by our Anglican teacher Paidiske, to characterize the divide between the liturgical and the non-liturgical approaches to worship as being part of a larger conceptual divide between the collective-minded and the individualist-minded (worshipers, and hence forms of Christianity and churches)? I ask because when I read questions like the ones from our friend NeedyFollower, I can't help but think that there is a disconnect that probably subconciously causes things like the above example (or an Anglican example, should Paidiske wish to provide one; I don't mean to overwhelm the thread with OO stuff, it's just what I know/the perspective I naturally have by virtue of being OO myself) to be seen as something other than hearing the word of God, as though you don't or can't really have a personal relationship with God without a corresponding personal message given only to you, as though by miraculous individual visitation, and explicitly not through visible corporeal, liturgical worship. That may be (nay, probably is) at least something of an overstatement of the position, but I find it difficult not to take it that way given that this is all in contrast to the supposed deficiencies of liturgical worship ("then I think something is bad wrong..."), so the connection is not really something I've made without basis.

This is why I chose the segment of the liturgy that I did in the video example, by the way: Not only is the institution narrative based upon the actual spoken words of Jesus Christ our Lord and God, but in terms of its placement in the liturgy it is also placed 'in the neighborhood', so to speak*, of the Epiclesis, which is the literal calling down of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine to be transformed into the holy body and blood of Christ our Savior. So the idea that this should be necessarily separated from hearing the word of God is wrong (as the institution contains the very words He spoke), and the idea that this is also somehow separate from the literal presence of God among the believers is also wrong, because it involves the literal presence of God by the very act of the prayer itself.

(* The actual position of the institution narrative and the epiclesis relative to one another varies according to which liturgy you're looking at, and I unfortunately do not know this bit of information about the Syriac Orthodox in particular; in my own tradition, there are actually two epiclesis, with the institution narrative placed in between them. To quote the Coptic Encyclopedia article on the epiclesis: "The three usual Coptic divine liturgies—Saint Basil, Saint Gregory, and Saint Mark—contain explicitly a double epiclesis before and after the words of institution. The first epiclesis is inaudibly prayed by the priest and is petitioned to the Holy Logos, being the spotless Lamb, as a request for His presence on the altar and is in concurrence with the Old Testament paschal figure [....] The second epiclesis comes right after the words of institution, when the officiating priest petitions for the invocation of the Holy Spirit not only on the bread and wine but also on the congregation.")

I honestly wonder how many people who see wrong in liturgical worship and see it as alien to the worship or presence of God actually know what it is they are standing against, and on what grounds.

 

[Paidiske]

The individual/communal divide is, to my mind, one of the single biggest issues in Christianity today. The roots of our faith were/are communal, but most of us live instinctively in an individualist culture, and struggle to approach our faith in any other way. I do think this ties in to our discussions about liturgy, but also about polity, about what church is, and really fundamentally about what it means to be a Christian at all.

 

[dzheremi]

I agree completely, and to the extent that we may not agree on exactly what the answer to all those questions consists of, I am nevertheless very happy to see agreement on the most basic level concerning this philosophical/existential divide, i.e., that it is a real thing, that it has real consequences for our churches and religion more generally, etc. Especially the recognition that the roots of our faith are communal, as to me that is probably the most obvious characteristic of the more traditional churches when compared to modern ones (that they have retained that understanding and not become individualistic), and has an immediate impact on so much of the Christian life (e.g., the veneration of saints and icons, the idea of a liturgical calendar and what particular celebrations and periods are to be included in it, the preservation and strengthening of monasticism and church-wide asceticism, etc).

 

[NeedyFollower]

Of the five gifts in that list, I'm probably most a teacher. But Anglican clergy are expected to be a little bit of everything, is my experience.

I think all of us benefit from hearing the reflections of others. I'm on leave at the moment, and I'm genuinely looking forward to going to church on Sunday and hearing someone else preach. I don't think that listening to others preach or teach means you're not hearing from God yourself.

I totally understand the reaction against the idea of a passive laity who "go to church" to hear someone else preach, to watch someone else perform worship for them. That's a travesty of what church is supposed to be. But I don't think the problem there is specialisation within the church; it's making one specialisation into the whole thing. And that's clericalism, and it's wrong.

But I'm not sure it's quite as common as people seem to fear, either.

Please bear with me in patience and often fear I am in error , particularly when I talk about me , My walk , etc. I also ask your prayers. Also this is a long post . I hope in some way it is a help and not a hindrance.

By God's grace and according to what I believe He has provided , I have been studying the history of the church pretty extensively along with prayer and daily ( and throughout the day ) seeking Him. I believe this to be a form of worship not unlike any son wanting to spend time with his father. It is born of desire and NEED .

I am sorry to report that much of what I do ( and much of what I do Not do ) would be called legalism by those who profess liberty to do them ..for example . no tv , no movies , radio , limited books ( only history or christian theology ) ..I trust and hope I am not saying this in pride ..like all of us , I am in the race ..maybe I am weaker than most and do not want to " go to sleep spiritually " Also , I feel that time is short ( either my time or time for the return of Our Lord Jesus and am not confident that His bride is ready nor do I feel I am as fruitful as He would like for me to be.
Obviously by very definition we ( the church ) are still carnal , schematic ( so many thousands of sects and groups ) and in my opinion waaaaay too caught up in the world ...I do not say that in judgement but in observation. Are we known as a people watching and waiting for the return of our Lord ? As strangers and pilgrims ? Are we "odd" to the world in the things we are pursuing ?

Prayer seems more fruitful a use of my time than these other things . Also , Jesus said " What I say to you I say to all " Watch " for we know not the day nor the hour. " Obviously NOT doing things does not "save" anyone and again is often called legalism but Paul did admonish Timothy to flee these things . I am saved by God's grace and the sacrifice He provided. It does however allow me to spend more time with Him. Paul said to follow him as he follows Christ and we know that Paul spent his time redeeming the time. And this may be selfish on my part but according to scripture, I am quite confident my whole family is lost though active in "church" . ( We only speak of worldly things , church is an acceptable topic ..how many were there ..wasn't the music nice , isn't there a fundraiser coming up , it was a fine sermon , etc. ) The words of Jesus and the apostles are off limits or cause discord . My own dear little children have been taught to despise their father by church members. This lets me know that time is pretty short.

Yes , I agree with you on clericalism because it makes "laity" into others . It also pushes the leaders of the sheep into an administrative role managing many things which quite frankly have absolutely no eternal value. It may even cause compromise ...blessing a union of two people who may or not be followers of the Lamb in truth. It could also cause someone to "speak at a funeral and saying words they know not to be true and if we are not people of the truth then who are we ? It also is a very dangerous position in that since the clergy is often put on a pedestal, how are they to "confess their faults one to another and pray for one another that they be healed " ?

Regarding worship , the eucharist , liturgy , etc. I believe I have said this before but many of the early Christians met daily , often before dawn and in secret to provoke one another to faithfulness , love and to good works . No time to dress in splendidly adorned robes , no gold crosses or guilded bibles . Just a heart to follow their Lord and Master through whom they had be given a new heart and understanding ( the new birth ) A desire to know and love God and to follow His Son Jesus our Lord .
This came about through hearing and believing the Word which became flesh .

I do not wish to reopen the reformation since I have read of atrocities committed by many sides against other professing followers of Christ "in the name of orthodoxy " and against heretics whereby we are commanded to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. ( Protestants were as guilty and in gross error as others . )
There is a reason there was a bread and wine Eucharist and a reason it was taken to the widows and those members who were not able to be there in person . For one , Jesus said to remember Him in this way . Also , it was a time to be reminded that as there is one loaf but broken for MANY , we partake of Him ...and we are not to partake in an unworthy manor. ( Not discerning the body of our Lord as the Corinthians did when they did not discern that their poor brethren who arrived late because they were poor slaves went hungry while they were drunk and full ...was not Jesus present in those who went hungry ? )

Also when Jesus appeared to Saul and asked Saul why did he persecute Him , who was Saul persecuting ? He was persecuting the Lord Jesus ...the living body of Christ here on earth who dwelt in His members . But Saul was not throwing bread and wine in prison . Let us not forget who the body of Christ is . The church is a living WHO . The Lord said " The heavens are my throne and the earth is my footstool " What are ye going to build me ? He builds the Church . We build Him buildings.

 

[Paidiske]

Most of your post I have no disagreement with. I'm not sure what the problem would be of blessing a marriage of two people both of whom are not active, committed Christians. Although my church does require that at least one of them has been baptised, I see weddings as an opportunity to build relationships and preach the gospel to people who are not regular church goers; and having that opportunity can be a good thing! And their coming together in marriage (rather than living together outside marriage) is also a good thing, and worthy to be blessed.

Buildings are a constant tension. They're not the point, but a good building serves the community in many ways. The needed balance is in not letting the buildings become the point, or take up too much time, attention or money.

 

[NeedyFollower]

Most of your post I have no disagreement with. I'm not sure what the problem would be of blessing a marriage of two people both of whom are not active, committed Christians. Although my church does require that at least one of them has been baptised, I see weddings as an opportunity to build relationships and preach the gospel to people who are not regular church goers; and having that opportunity can be a good thing! And their coming together in marriage (rather than living together outside marriage) is also a good thing, and worthy to be blessed.

Buildings are a constant tension. They're not the point, but a good building serves the community in many ways. The needed balance is in not letting the buildings become the point, or take up too much time, attention or money.

Well I guess everything is based on perspective . Having experienced being in error, I know I can be in error. That is a "truth" I can be comfortable with . I did not understand marriage until after my wife asked for a divorce . After being converted ( enlightened , found , returned from being a prodigal , back to caring what the Father's opinion was , being redefined by God's love and mercy through His Son ) , I was no longer the man she married . She married a "believer" but we both loved the world ...Very , very expensive Catholic wedding ( but you may substitute Protestant , Jewish , etc. ) The point is , we were not committed to Christ so regardless of our theology , we were outside of God's grace although we made vows , etc. We had traditional vows with traditional scriptures ...13 Corinthians , i.e Love , etc. Lived together prior to marriage and although the thinking is " making it right with God by marrying , two sinners getting married equals two sinners married ...two lost people on a journey we call life. After my divorce ( though I believe I do not have the liberty to remarry ) I started having what I believe to be a better understanding . Marriage was and is always about the love of God through Christ . It is another demonstration of the " one-ness of Christ and His bride . The one-ness of Christ and the Father . It is a demonstration of faithfulness . The two shall become one . Joint heirs of the promise . It is not about the couple ( if they be true believers of God's Word .

Although my wife remarried , that has nothing to do with my faithfulness for God was faithful to me when I was not faithful to Him. Shall I treat my wife any different than how I was treated by a God who is so abundantly patient ? This is why in the first century church there was grounds for divorce ( fornication....adultery was grounds for stoning ) which actually happened prior to the ceremony but not remarriage . So this comes to blessing those who God has not . Since marriage is about God and His purposes and being a follower of Christ is again about God , there is the admonition of not being unequally yoked . While this was not addressed to potential marriage partners it is often applied and rightly so . How can two be joint heirs of a promise made to believers if one is not ? Can the spirit of Christ in the believer be joined with the spirit of the god of this world which dwells in the children of disobedience ? Paul addresses this .
While I understand and appreciate your desire to preach the gospel ( praise God ! ) to unbelievers , I wonder if that should not be done prior to bringing an unbeliever "into the church " since in reality the church is only believers . In Corinthians 14:24 ...if an unbeliever happen to come in among you ..etc. It seemed to be the exception rather than the rule . I think this is one of the reason for the current state of the church .

I realize this may sound odd, but why did the father of the bride allow his daughter to even contemplate being married to someone who is not for Christ and by Jesus' own definition , he that is not for me is against me ? Same thing with the man marrying outside of the faith. Like most things I am afraid , we have made this life , marriage , Christianity , the Gospel about us . ( it is For us but not about us . ) Marriage is for us but not about us . It is like everything about God the Father and His Son.
I agree with you on the use of the building ..I used to help a landscaper mow the grounds of a large church and parsonage as part of my employment ...Then I started doing the math on every church and of every denomination ...and they mostly sit empty all week ....wow ! Gazillons ...What vanity since it will all be burnt one day and I am not persuaded that God may get more enjoyment and honor out of us actually feeding someone hungry than any brick and mortar . ( At least if I were hungry , I would think that would be a better use of God's money . ) I know we have been doing it for 1700 years and is a bit of a tradition but what does truth and love dictate ? I know in the epistles of John , 1st and 2nd ...it talks about truth ..he hears that the walk in the truth . If I do something contrary to truth , how many years can I do it and what is the number of people required to also believe it before it finally becomes true ? It will never be true though it be done for 1700 years and everyone believe it to be .

 

[Rion]

I'd suggest stop worrying about numbers and start focusing on following scripture, but that's just me.