Fixing Church

[tabibito]

Thanks everyone for participating. The discussion on church discipline was interesting and you're welcome to continue. I want to try to pull back to the OP.

One thought I've had is the expectations on the congregation need to be raised.

It doesn't seem that, isolated examples excepted, there is a whole lot that could be called "expectation" left to raise. Maybe "re-introduced" would be a better choice of term.

Too often, we have gotten into easy church. If you're breathing and want to be member, welcome.

If this was the opportunity to attend, that would be proper. Membership - having a say in how church should be conducted - there is a need for rules. The basis for some of the divisions of worship space of Jewish temples would be inappropriate for the here and now, but they had divided courts for a reason.

As I recall in the early days of the church, the new membership class lasted for a year.

Originally, agreement to obey the gospel and a handy pool of water were enough to establish membership. The early (monolithic) church rang in changes that negate the original procedure. New members, in most cases, are accepted into membership without even knowing what the gospel is, much less being required to commit to obeying it. Positions of responsibility were, however, initially restricted to experienced members in good standing.

The last membership class I went to was very casually done. I think the church leadership needs to start expecting more commitment out of the congregation. Yeah, let them join at low commitment but keep nudging them to increase their commitment and participation (beyond their offering!!!).

For the most part, leaders are trained to expect and require nothing from the congregation, and they teach and get precisely what they expect.

Ok it doesn't seem like a great formula to get a large congregation but I'm not sure that is a goal we are called to reach.

According to reports, congregations requiring standards and learning do in fact attract people with a will to commitment. They don't become "mega-churches," but do have appreciable membership sizes.

I'll also agree that this can pull a church into becoming a cult. Certainly it would have to be carefully done. One thought is: no shaming or shunning people who chose to leave.

Make no mistake, any congregation that conforms itself to scriptural warrant will be termed a cult - and the heaviest attacks will originate with the churches: so it is (tantamount to) written.

Also, I recognize this is hard to accomplish, especially an established church. If your a pastor or on the leadership team, you can lead the church through the change. What does a non-leader do? My attempts have not ended well so I'm not a good person to ask about this. Unfortunately I keep coming down to voting by walking out.

Wesley formed the Methodist movement (not the church) with like-minded individuals, the requirement being that its members be and remain part of church congregations. That movement had its own leadership and procedures - including ordained women, which kind of underscored the irrelevance of standard churches' requirements to Methodist conduct. Members who did not adhere to Methodist principle got bounced, with the option to be readmitted, if they chose to reform, extended to them. There is little (and perhaps quite a distance from nothing) to complain about with regard to Wesley's processes.

[Thoughtful Monk]

It doesn't seem that, isolated examples excepted, there is a whole lot that could be called "expectation" left to raise. Maybe "re-introduced" would be a better choice of term.

If this was the opportunity to attend, that would be proper. Membership - having a say in how church should be conducted - there is a need for rules. The basis for some of the divisions of worship space of Jewish temples would be inappropriate for the here and now, but they had divided courts for a reason.

Originally, agreement to obey the gospel and a handy pool of water were enough to establish membership. The early (monolithic) church rang in changes that negate the original procedure. New members, in most cases, are accepted into membership without even knowing what the gospel is, much less being required to commit to obeying it. Positions of responsibility were, however, initially restricted to experienced members in good standing.

For the most part, leaders are trained to expect and require nothing from the congregation, and they teach and get precisely what they expect.

According to reports, congregations requiring standards and learning do in fact attract people with a will to commitment. They don't become "mega-churches," but do have appreciable membership sizes.

Make no mistake, any congregation that conforms itself to scriptural warrant will be termed a cult - and the heaviest attacks will originate with the churches: so it is (tantamount to) written.

Wesley formed the Methodist movement (not the church) with like-minded individuals, the requirement being that its members be and remain part of church congregations. That movement had its own leadership and procedures - including ordained women, which kind of underscored the irrelevance of standard churches' requirements to Methodist conduct. Members who did not adhere to Methodist principle got bounced, with the option to be readmitted, if they chose to reform, extended to them. There is little (and perhaps quite a distance from nothing) to complain about with regard to Wesley's processes.

After reading your response a couple times, I realized we are saying the same thing with some different emphasis. So let's move on...

How does this get fixed? There probably are a few pastors and church leaders who recognize things must change and are trying. The rest seem to be stuck in same old, same old we've always done it this way mode. It's no wonder the church seems to lack in power these days. I'm not a fan of change for the sake of change or follow the most recent trends but I think how we do church needs to change.

Do we stage church coups? I think that just causes unnecessary pain for the congregation.

Do we go out and start our own church? I suppose if God calls you to that. I definitely don't have that call on me.

I suppose we can try to influence the church we're a member of. I haven't had much success with that. Once the bureaucracy gets going, it doesn't want to change.

I guess I am most reminded of the ups and downs in the book of Judges. We seem to be in a downslope where the people have left God but the consequences aren't yet severe enough to bring about repentance. I guess we just try to wait faithfully until that point arrives. Certainly this isn't the Christian life, I've been taught for so long.

[Cow Poke]

After reading your response a couple times, I realized we are saying the same thing with some different emphasis. So let's move on...

How does this get fixed? There probably are a few pastors and church leaders who recognize things must change and are trying. The rest seem to be stuck in same old, same old we've always done it this way mode. It's no wonder the church seems to lack in power these days. I'm not a fan of change for the sake of change or follow the most recent trends but I think how we do church needs to change.

Do we stage church coups? I think that just causes unnecessary pain for the congregation.

Do we go out and start our own church? I suppose if God calls you to that. I definitely don't have that call on me.

I suppose we can try to influence the church we're a member of. I haven't had much success with that. Once the bureaucracy gets going, it doesn't want to change.

I guess I am most reminded of the ups and downs in the book of Judges. We seem to be in a downslope where the people have left God but the consequences aren't yet severe enough to bring about repentance. I guess we just try to wait faithfully until that point arrives. Certainly this isn't the Christian life, I've been taught for so long.

Quite honestly, I think we need more Sunday Morning teaching, and a little less preaching. To me, it seems "preaching" is for the lost, and "teaching" is for the saints.

[Faber]

Quite honestly, I think we need more Sunday Morning teaching, and a little less preaching. To me, it seems "preaching" is for the lost, and "teaching" is for the saints.

One of the things I like about your morning services is that it is a good blend of teaching and preaching. Also, I like the music. As much as I love my own church, its music has, well....

[Cow Poke]

One of the things I like about your morning services is that it is a good blend of teaching and preaching. Also, I like the music. As much as I love my own church, its music has, well....

Thanks -- but I remember the first time somebody told me "you're more of a teacher than a preacher...." and I was wounded!!!! I thought that was an insult.

Then I thought about some of the pastors I respect, and thought --- hey, they're more like teachers than preachers!

[tabibito]

How does this get fixed? There probably are a few pastors and church leaders who recognize things must change and are trying. The rest seem to be stuck in same old, same old we've always done it this way mode. It's no wonder the church seems to lack in power these days. I'm not a fan of change for the sake of change or follow the most recent trends but I think how we do church needs to change.

Most church leaders are well aware of the need for change, and many do try to work for change. The problem is that they tend to try to ring in changes by doing AND TEACHING the same things over and over again, hoping for a different result.

Do we stage church coups? I think that just causes unnecessary pain for the congregation.

Yes to both. The "coups" have to start at the individual level, and work outward, then upward. Wesley had the right idea.

Do we go out and start our own church? I suppose if God calls you to that. I definitely don't have that call on me.

Spurgeon was asked if he intended to start a new church. He said that it was a waste of time, because it would very quickly become just another denomination.

I suppose we can try to influence the church we're a member of. I haven't had much success with that. Once the bureaucracy gets going, it doesn't want to change.

Once the current semester finishes, I'll either have a degree in theology or never get one. Either way - I intend to head out for a few days of fasting and prayer at that time. Prior experience tells me that answers are easier to hear after doing that, so I'll get back to you with a report. [[ IMPORTANT NOTE: THREE DAYS OF FASTING IS THREE FASTS, BROKEN AT THE END OF EACH DAY, THREE DAYS IN SUCCESSION.]] Fasts don't seem to be efficacious unless they are full and solemn.

I guess I am most reminded of the ups and downs in the book of Judges. We seem to be in a downslope where the people have left God but the consequences aren't yet severe enough to bring about repentance. I guess we just try to wait faithfully until that point arrives. Certainly this isn't the Christian life, I've been taught for so long.

Repentance of the kind you refer to usually follows a hammer blow. Everything I see in the churches (with scant few exceptions) leads me to the conclusion that matters have reached the point where a hammer blow will be forthcoming. My mind keeps turning to points where a corrupted people is handed over to the mercy of peoples even more corrupt.

[NorrinRadd]

Paul told Titus (1:13) to stand firm against the opposition and "rebuke them sharply".

While he told Timothy (1 Tim. 5:1) to NOT sharply rebuke an older man / elder.

And it is debatable whether either Timothy or Titus were "pastors" in the sense we normally use that word, as opposed to special emissaries of Paul, the implications of the traditional label "Pastoral Epistles" notwithstanding.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Thanks -- but I remember the first time somebody told me "you're more of a teacher than a preacher...." and I was wounded!!!! I thought that was an insult.

Then I thought about some of the pastors I respect, and thought --- hey, they're more like teachers than preachers!

One church I was at, the leaders were called pastor-teachers. The church had 1 lead pastor-teacher and 4 associate pastor-teachers. It actually worked well for quite awhile.

[Cow Poke]

While he told Timothy (1 Tim. 5:1) to NOT sharply rebuke an older man / elder.

Correct, totally different situation.

And it is debatable whether either Timothy or Titus were "pastors" in the sense we normally use that word, as opposed to special emissaries of Paul, the implications of the traditional label "Pastoral Epistles" notwithstanding.

Sure, no argument whatsoever.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Quite honestly, I think we need more Sunday Morning teaching, and a little less preaching. To me, it seems "preaching" is for the lost, and "teaching" is for the saints.

I agree with you although I don't mind an occasional "preaching" sermon. There probably always are lost people in the church and it is good to remind people where they have come from. I have found a constant "preaching" tends to leave the sheep starved. I think a church is poorly served when a person gifted as an evangelist tries to act as a pastor.

I also think we need to increase the quality of our Sunday Morning teaching. Too many teachings seem to be some worldly advice baptized with a little God to make it holy and acceptable.

[Cow Poke]

One church I was at, the leaders were called pastor-teachers.

And I don't have a problem with that at all if it works for that Church - I would be more concerned about their message than what they call themselves.

The church had 1 lead pastor-teacher and 4 associate pastor-teachers. It actually worked well for quite awhile.

For quie awhile? Then it didn't?

[Thoughtful Monk]

And I don't have a problem with that at all if it works for that Church - I would be more concerned about their message than what they call themselves.

For quite awhile? Then it didn't?

Unfortunately the lead pastor couldn't keep his hands to himself and the church did a slow motion collapse over about 2 years.

[Cow Poke]

Unfortunately the lead pastor couldn't keep his hands to himself and the church did a slow motion collapse over about 2 years.

That's so sad. The Devil always seems to have "an inside man" to attack the church from within, often from the top.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Well, there were good things said in this thread. I just can't draw a conclusion for what I should do. I guess I'm stuck in an arid land until God makes a move. I long gave up looking for the perfect church or church that I can serve in. I'm just a place I can tolerate.

Maybe someday I can move to Texas and join CP's church. It seems to be only functioning one left.

[Cow Poke]

Well, there were good things said in this thread. I just can't draw a conclusion for what I should do. I guess I'm stuck in an arid land until God makes a move. I long gave up looking for the perfect church or church that I can serve in. I'm just a place I can tolerate.

Maybe someday I can move to Texas and join CP's church. It seems to be only functioning one left.

Good advice --- if you're looking for the perfect church, and you find it - don't join it, or you'll* ruin it!

*the generic "you", not the specific "you".