Struggles and reservations about commiting to any church group

[dms1972]

I still think a smaller new-comers service / group is not a bad idea. Not a pot-luck. Of course these could take the form of Christianity explored, or Alpha courses., or similiar courses. It needs to be optional however. It can be difficult to find one's feet in a biggish congregation. One could fill out a card if interested, usually that is what happens if you are interested in settling in a church they have a card you can drop in a box and the minister will give you a call or visit. Midweek services in churches were they are held, I found in the past was also a good place to get to know a few people, usually there is not so many there as perhaps at a Sunday morning service.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I think many modern churches are often chasing their own tails trying to acquire new members. Just as business organizations are influenced by the last great business book written, I think church programming is too often influenced by the latest book or seminar on how to grow and sustain a congregation. Then the church tries to put everyone into the formula it has been led to believe will work. Only it doesn't. The church is great at trying to force the square peg into the round hole. And, for many people it doesn't fit. I think it is important for churches to find out what inquirers are looking for and to try to incorporate them into the life of the church in the manner the inquirer values without pushing folks out of their comfort zone. I go to church for corporate worship. I am not interested in your fellowship group...and I'm certainly not coming to your potluck. More power to the persons that derive something positive from that. There is nothing wrong with it, but it's not why I go to church. When I headed off to college at age 18 I reassured my mother I would still go to church, but I told her I was never going to another potluck as long as I lived. I've pretty much kept both those promises.


In my former denomination, I had a pastor whose sermon schtick always included something like, "Turn to the person in the pew next to you and tell them... (something God has done in your life this week) or (Jesus loves you and so do I)" or something like that. You get the idea. I couldn't stand it. Instead, I warmly greeted my neighbor, told them I didn't do this (foolishness), wished them a good week, and finally started looking for a new church that is fine with the person I am.

A church should not be a business and growth comes from the Lord. We plant the seed and water it with prayer but only He can cause new birth. I do believe God is sovereign over salvation. I believe in the doctrine of election. If we are seeding and watering then we shouldn't worry about the growth. We care because of what it says about our fallen world but we can't measure success by it. What if by God's will fewer are coming to believe in our time? I don't even see keeping the doors open as a reason to focus on growth. In some countries, the church is completely underground. There are no paid pastors, fancy facilities, or music teams. Yet, the church typically thrives under those circumstances. Christianity gets real when you face arrest and imprisonment. I think persecution might be the best thing for the church here in America and maybe in other countries. Take away the tax-exempt status of giving and force churches to focus on the essentials. Maybe the world will take notice when our churches no longer look like country clubs and Christians put more time and energy into evangelism than they do in politics. I would rather go to a small church of passionate Christians than a large church trying to cater to everyone and anyone.

A sign of a mature church is they trust God and the Holy Spirit to work in people's lives. They don't have to have a program for everything. They don't need gimmicks and multimedia. They don't care how many people attend and they don't take on loads of expenses that require a large attendance to support. The pastor preaches the Word faithfully with no worries about how people might react. No one is pushed or coerced and the church knows that they all have a mission that extends beyond the four walls of the church. Let the unchurched see passionate Christians. If they walk into our churches and feel 100% comfortable, something is wrong. It should seem somewhat different. They might hear something convicting. They will encounter people who live differently. If God is working in their heart, they will find something attractive about it and want to know more. If He's not, or it's not their time, they may be turned off. Yes, we should be welcoming and loving but they are not yet a part of the family and it's bound to be a different experience. That's a good thing.

 

[dms1972]

I had an interesting conversation with an elder at a church I attended years ago. He was in charge of an upcoming men's retreat and signups were starting that day. He cornered me after church and encouraged me to sign up for the retreat. I asked him for more information. Was there a theme or topic? Was there an itinerary? Was there a speaker? He indicated that the details were still being worked on. He said he had a speaker. I asked who the speaker was and what he would be talking about. He said he was leaving it up to the speaker to pick a topic. I told him that I would wait for more details before making a decision.

It sounds like he had his cart a bit before the horse. He may have been organising something for the first time. From my own experience it can be difficult organising an event. Maybe someone sent him out to snag a few folks so they could say there was some interest in people wanting to attend. In any case I believe you were correct not to commit yourself until they could provide more concrete details such as itinerary of what the activities would be, as the term "retreat" is in danger of losing its meaning. Quite often its just a men's weekend that is being organised, so they might be better to call it such.

 

[dms1972]

I think persecution might be the best thing for the church here in America and maybe in other countries.

Well maybe the leaders need to start teaching and preparing their congregations for that!

 

[Robert1849]

Well, I am not going to pretend to have an answer to the questions being raised here. I just felt like I should share my story. I became a Christian in 1984 out of high school. Years passed in the small church I was in. Looking back, it was most likely a mixture of God's favor and stupid human zeal in my life that the leaders responded to. Very quickly, I found myself getting invited into various groups like the elder board meeting for my input. I was often blunt, and to the point, and if my point was in scripture that was all that was needed as far as I was concerned. Time passed, the leadership moved on and now I was butting heads with who was put in charge. So I did the "honorable" thing and moved on so that we did not tear the church apart. My wife and I started a small house church, what a steep learning curve that was. But it grew and became very notable among other fellowships. Then the Lord threw me a curve ball. He had us move 400 miles away to a place we had never seen.

Like Missionaries, we boldly went off, but that plant stumbled and eventually fell down with a thud. From there the Lord had us sell our place and we moved across the united states to a major ministry where I was on staff for several years. We got to see the best of the best...and the worst of the worst. They held several conferences every year for themselves and rented out the facility to everyone from the Salvation Army to the most crazy Charismatics groups around. After several years my wife and I were worn out, beat up, and fed up with what I now call the corporate church. I wrote a book about it but got a warning from C.F. for advertising, so I won't be giving you a link..

So we ran away from the east coast and landed in Wyoming. We went silent from everyone, only set foot in a church a couple of times, and we could not stand the show. After a couple of years, we left and returned to where our last church plant failed so badly. Eventually, the local people found us, and after much persuading, I find myself back in the pastor's chair again in a house church.

So I would like to just bluntly say a few things, Church, in general, is under the illusion of being a “safe place,” but it’s not. Nor is it even close, almost every pedophile out there knows if you find the right place it will be your private hunting ground. If you want it safe, then you need to make it safe. That’s hard work, that's being a watchman on the wall. That's leadership willing to stand face to face with someone and say, “do not cross that line.” But then the next day is willing to cry with the lost and broken.

Ministry is not about show and tell, your bank records, and if a person is in it for other reasons… then they should be shown the door for they are unworthy of the calling.

 

[dms1972]

Thanks for sharing your story. Really all I am looking for is a church to attend, I would be giving financially and even though am not currently going regularly to any particular church I like to support ministries that are advancing the Kingdom of God. I have studied some theology in my own time, but I still am learning, and a lot of theology is abstraction in any case so I no longer invest a lot of mental energy on it. But what I don't want is someone in a church trying to take control of my life just because I perhaps am seeking help with some struggle I am going through. If a church is living and the dynamics of spiritual life are active in it people won't need pushing and manipulation and control.

 

[Swan7]

You bring up some good topics and one caught my eye, the house churches and your very good idea about bringing in newcomers. I like and agree to this very much. In such times we are in these are going to be very necessary and in some places already are.
I have been looking for such places myself, but haven't found any yet. Sometimes I wonder if God might put it on us (my husband and I) to do just that.

When looking for a church to go to, ask God for direction if you haven't done so already. God answered my dad's prayers for him and myself and after a while we found one God was pleased with.

I also think while we are looking its important to note we might have to break away sometimes as new age seems to infiltrate, or if God says to stay and make a change in a church. Pray and ask God where He wants you placed.

If you have already found a church, I hope God enriches your growth further - either way!

 

[Robert1849]

If you're looking or considering a house church. You can go to House Church Network This is where we posted ours. And our is the "no name" group in Idaho. Concerning the issue of money, yes a couple of people decided to bless us occasionally. But generally, we tell people to seek the Lord or find someone in need. The way I figure it, leaders should lead by example and not theory. If it becomes about money, then what's the real point?

 

[dms1972]

I felt a bit drawn to the Latter Rains movement in my youth, I liked the hymns like O River of God, but was not sure about all their theology, so never committed myself. I think some of those christians have found it difficult to settle in more traditional churches also.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Here's a thought. It seems to me that the traditional church format isn't working anymore. You get up early Sunday morning, you make it in time for coffee and a treat, you sing songs, then you listen to some guy talk for an hour. That's been how things have been done for longer than most of us have been alive. But does that mean we should continue this format?

This would not be an issue concerning doctrine. Based on Scripture, I myself see nothing particularly sacred about Sunday morning as a time to meet. While I have very little in common with Seventh Day Adventists, they are correct in that the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. (This doesn't mean I concur with the implications they draw from this point.)

 

[Kale100]

A church should not be a business... They don't have to have a program for everything. They don't need gimmicks and multimedia. They don't care how many people attend and they don't take on loads of expenses that require a large attendance to support... the church knows that they all have a mission that extends beyond the four walls of the church.

Sometimes I get a bit cynical when a pastor rambles on about giving, then about helping the homeless, all the while they want to buy a gigantic expensive building for churching that is going to sit empty and completely useless 90% of the time. How about we all gather outside, regardless of how cold and windy and rainy it is? That will generate some sympathy for the homeless, and hey, we'll have a bunch of money not tied up in a building to actually help them with!

 

[Robert1849]

Sometimes I get a bit cynical when a pastor rambles on about giving, then about helping the homeless, all the while they want to buy a gigantic expensive building for churching that is going to sit empty and completely useless 90% of the time. How about we all gather outside, regardless of how cold and windy and rainy it is? That will generate some sympathy for the homeless, and hey, we'll have a bunch of money not tied up in a building to actually help them with!

The painful reality is there is very little of the modern church that the Apostles of old would recognize. It seems that hitting the reset button is the only real option right now. Our fellowship has done that this last spring, and now the whole room is happy. I have generally banned anyone from calling me a pastor in an effort to remove the church class system between leadership and laity. And I told everyone to give where ever you want as I work at a local hardware store to pay our bills. Hitting the reset has been the best thing for us as we just live life in the presence of God.

 

[BobRyan]

Here's a thought. It seems to me that the traditional church format isn't working anymore. You get up early Sunday morning, you make it in time for coffee and a treat, you sing songs, then you listen to some guy talk for an hour. That's been how things have been done for longer than most of us have been alive. But does that mean we should continue this format?

This would not be an issue concerning doctrine. Based on Scripture, I myself see nothing particularly sacred about Sunday morning as a time to meet. While I have very little in common with Seventh Day Adventists, they are correct in that the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. (This doesn't mean I concur with the implications they draw from this point.)

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Given that the Ten Commandments specify the 7th day (Saturday) as the day for "holy assembly" Lev 23:3 Ex 20:8-11, do you think that it is reasonable for Seventh-day Adventists to hold what Lev 23 calls "holy convocation" at that time?

In Acts 13 the gentiles request that more Gospel preaching be scheduled and presented to them "on the next Sabbath" -- Acts 13:42 - in your POV do you think it was right for Paul to wait for the next Sabbath instead of calling them to meet "tomorrow" on week-day-1 as a result of his first gospel message to them which they were already accepting?

In Deut 5:22 The Bible says God wrote the TEN commandments on stone "and He added no more". Assuming we all agree that more than TEN are important for us when it comes to "all of scripture" - what meaning do you think God is conveying in that Deut 5:22 statement?

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Given that the Ten Commandments specify the 7th day (Saturday) as the day for "holy assembly" Lev 23:3 Ex 20:8-11, do you think that it is reasonable for Seventh-day Adventists to hold what Lev 23 calls "holy convocation" at that time?

In Acts 13 the gentiles request that more Gospel preaching be scheduled and presented to them "on the next Sabbath" -- Acts 13:42 - in your POV do you think it was right for Paul to wait for the next Sabbath instead of calling them to meet "tomorrow" on week-day-1 as a result of his first gospel message to them which they were already accepting?

In Deut 5:22 The Bible says God wrote the TEN commandments on stone "and He added no more". Assuming we all agree that more than TEN are important for us when it comes to "all of scripture" - what meaning do you think God is conveying in that Deut 5:22 statement?

The Ten Commandments are broad statements regarding how the Lord expects us to deal with Him and with others. Many moral imperatives will have some relation to one or more of these commandments. And if a clear moral imperative doesn't clearly derive from the Ten Commandments, then they would derive from some other biblical principle.

He might have written this to communicate that the broad biblical moral standards are complete as written. False teachers often add imperatives that have no biblical basis and passing them off as if they were as fundamental as the Ten Commandments. Saying X is sin when it is not is just as dangerous - possibly more so - than erring in the other direction.

As an aside: many Christians believe false teachings are loose in their morals, when in fact heresies are oftentimes legalistic.

 

[BobRyan]

The Ten Commandments are broad statements regarding how the Lord expects us to deal with Him and with others.

True - but they are very specific about the 7th day as is Gen 2:1-3, Ex 16 "tomorrow is the Sabbath" (no manna fell on Sabbath), Lev 23:3 a day of holy convocation, Is 58:13 no secular activity on that day .... etc.

hence my two questions in response to your statement about Adventists and the Sabbath

1. Given that the Ten Commandments specify the 7th day (Saturday) as the day for "holy assembly" Lev 23:3 Ex 20:8-11, do you think that it is reasonable for Seventh-day Adventists to hold what Lev 23 calls "holy convocation" at that time?

2.In Acts 13 the gentiles request that more Gospel preaching be scheduled and presented to them "on the next Sabbath" -- Acts 13:42 - in your POV do you think it was right for Paul to wait for the next Sabbath instead of calling them to meet "tomorrow" on week-day-1 as a result of his first gospel message to them which they were already accepting?

Many moral imperatives will have some relation to one or more of these commandments. And if a clear moral imperative doesn't clearly derive from the Ten Commandments, then they would derive from some other biblical principle.

agreed.

He might have written this to communicate that the broad biblical moral standards are complete as written. False teachers often add imperatives that have no biblical basis and passing them off as if they were as fundamental as the Ten Commandments.

agreed. The Jews did that a lot and so do others.

Saying X is sin when it is not is just as dangerous - possibly more so - than erring in the other direction.

Agreed.

1 John 3:3 "sin IS transgression of the Law"

As an aside: many Christians believe false teachings are loose in their morals, when in fact heresies are oftentimes legalistic.

But I am asking you about specific texts and very specific practices as noted above.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

True - but they are very specific about the 7th day as is Gen 2:1-3, Ex 16 "tomorrow is the Sabbath" (no manna fell on Sabbath), Lev 23:3 a day of holy convocation, Is 58:13 no secular activity on that day .... etc.

hence my two questions in response to your statement about Adventists and the Sabbath

1. Given that the Ten Commandments specify the 7th day (Saturday) as the day for "holy assembly" Lev 23:3 Ex 20:8-11, do you think that it is reasonable for Seventh-day Adventists to hold what Lev 23 calls "holy convocation" at that time?

If this answers your questions:

I don't think it is unreasonable to hold "holy convocation" on a Saturday. I would not hold that any day - whether Saturday or Sunday - would be a day where all secular activity is forbidden. That's the kind of thing Jesus preached against at a time when the Pharisees would make an idol out of the Sabbath. Some of the restrictions the Pharisees would place on people during the Sabbath were ridiculous and mind-bending.

I don't quite know what "58:13" is a reference to since neither the book of Genesis nor Leviticus contain that many chapters. It can't be a time stamp because this isn't YouTube, and a day doesn't have that many hours in it.

2.In Acts 13 the gentiles request that more Gospel preaching be scheduled and presented to them "on the next Sabbath" -- Acts 13:42 - in your POV do you think it was right for Paul to wait for the next Sabbath instead of calling them to meet "tomorrow" on week-day-1 as a result of his first gospel message to them which they were already accepting?

The people probably invited Paul to speak on the next Saturday for practical reasons, and not so much out of anything directly related to the Sabbath. Verse 44 says nearly the whole city came to hear Paul speak, so it is likely the people making this request were anticipating that others would be very interested in what Paul had to say - and the Sabbath would be their next opportunity to do so.

I wouldn't read too much into why this day and not that. Sometimes people tend to read too much into some minor aspect of the Word of God. Sometimes I think of things like John 8:6 where Jesus was writing something on the ground with His finger. People have speculated on what He was writing there, but I don't worry about it. If it were important that we know what this was, the Book of John would have disclosed it.

agreed.

agreed. The Jews did that a lot and so do others.

Agreed.

1 John 3:3 "sin IS transgression of the Law"

But I am asking you about specific texts and very specific practices as noted above.

Hopefully my answers are on-point to your questions.