Dissect this Church

Actually, Steve, though I'm sure you meant this tongue-in-cheek, you raise an important issue, and one that deserves some attention!

It is "weirdness" that seems to be the common denominator in church life, but not for the reasons you might assume. When the very people of any given community see a particular church as "weird" then why would they express any interest in that congregation? That is a basic concept of church growth (and yes, I know that term is now seen in somewhat a pejorative sense), i.e., that people are most comfortable in social settings when they match the setting. That concept has driven much of the "purpose-driven" church model as well as the "seeker driven" and "seeker sensitive" models of church growth and there is some validity to the idea.

The question, however, is what defines "weirdness?"

Church A
Is it church A that dresses in a 1960 style, plays music written in the middle 1800s on an organ that is only heard in common society at ball games, in a musical style last heard in common society in 1900, using language from the 1600s, and desiring to reach a people that no longer exist?

Church B
Or is it church B that wears common clothing (and places no great stipulation on a particular style of dress), plays a musical style that sounds similar to that heard in everyday life, uses language from today's world, and ministers to real people with real needs?

To a "church goer" with a life-long affiliation with the first style, the second example is "weird."

To a man on the street who has never attended church before, the first example is "weird."

Now, one must decide whom they are attempting to reach -- church goers or lost people living around the campus?

Next, one might consider which congregation is actually "growing" (and by that I don't mean the cop out that most pastors of dead churches use often, i.e., "We are not growing in numbers but we are growing spiritually..."). Is it church A or church B? While a handful of churches that might be categorized as "Church A" may be growing, about 80+ % of them are actually not growing and are in fact shrinking and closing their doors on a regular basis. Meanwhile, churches in the B category are growing rapidly, ministering to a people group that exists in this age (instead of looking back over their shoulders to the "glory days" of the church) and are turning the tide of church closures in America and elsewhere.

EVERY church (congregation) has a particular culture. Not every church has a particular culture that is mired in the 1950s, nor is there any express reason for any congregation to remain mired in the 1950s (or pick an era), and the primary reason that so many do is simply that they are "most comfortable" with that particular style because that is what they identify when they think "church."

Again, that is perfectly fine! But then go out and find THAT age demographic and social strata and build THAT church. Don't pretend that you will, with church model A, be "relevant" to anyone younger than 50. Is not going to happen.

And, finally, with these thoughts in mind, why not build a church that purposefully ministers to aging people? Sure, the membership would turn over a lot as people pass on, but what a great opportunity to reach an un-reached people group! Fill it to overflowing with others who wish to minister to that age and social demographic, use the styles and culture that remind them of church, and grow, for "healthy things grow" and the Lord Himself told us that we should "grow" His kingdom and His church.

Worth some thought...

 

It only seems out of control... Actually, under the surface, our congregation is more in control than many a traditional church. We ACTUALLY implement church discipline and have adequate pastoral staff to minister to our people.

Don't make the error of seeing surface culture as good or bad, and equate that with church or secular. Culture is one thing, church is another. And, every church has a culture, but which?

We have "life" and "life" often seems a tad chaotic at first glance. :laugh:

 

EWF, My church is much like the one you described. We run around 20 or so and most of the congregation is old enough to be our grandparents. I've learned a few things from those older folks even though our ages are so far apart. My kids were the only ones in the church when God called us here. We sing the old hymns which I play on the piano (they needed a pianist.) I don't know WHY God called my dh to pastor in this place, but He did. We're blooming where planted.

It may be that God will use this church to change YOU in ways you don't realize. Don't let the musical style and age group distract you if God wants you to worship with these other believers.

 

"Isn't church about developing relationships?"

With God and the rest will come as that one works out properly.

"So if I cant do that, whats the sense of going."

Probably none since you already have made up your mind you can't.

I wouldn't get so down on old folks till you been there done that, lots of reasons they might be the way they are without being the way you paint them.

Amazing how well you "know" the group after so few visits. Kind of like me rattling the cage "knowing" you as well as I don't

Lots of good points in the thread.

I've always been an advocate of attending a church for what I can add to it, not so much how much I like it, feel about it, or dislike it. Emphasis, as you know, the prayer/Lord's leading. Trust He does that soon.

 

Good Advice :thumbsup: Might I add that the church isn't "dying" if the Lord is leading you there, If he has led you and your family there he will lead others. With all you've been through to find a church, he wouldn't take you there just to have them close the doors a few months later. Get in, get to know folks, learn from them, and roll your sleeves up buddy and get to work.

"'Tis all my business here below
The precious gospel seed to sow."

http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/plough.htm

 

:thumbs::applause::applause::thumbs:

 

Our church has been in the same spot for over 200 years, bro. Except for a few portions, the woodwork is still the original woodwork. if you go to the back there's a cemetery where those buried are by majority former members and some have the early 1800's in their tombstones.

When we joined the church there were regularly over 30 or so attendees, 5 of them have moved to other states since, 8 have gone home to glory, and when I pastored for two years the number of attendees would expand and shrink like an accordion.

Currently, we have about 20 regular attendees, and the ages are getting younger.
My point is that given the years, the church should have already "died" out, but the Lord isn't done with that church yet, so there it is, and that's what makes it exciting for me, not knowing what the Lord will do.
You know what the Lord said: My thoughts are not your thoughts....

A young family used to go and attend church over at Churchville, Maryland, about 50 miles north, because they had more young people there (but I think it's really because they don't like a certain preacher. lol.) and now they're back regularly attending, and sometimes we actually have kids, KIDS, playing on the swing and running in the woods chasing each other. Howja like that ? lol.:laugh:

Don't worry about the numbers, and don't worry about the ages, just be the "baby brother" there like you said and sing with them, pray with them, worship with them, preach with them, and let the Lord of the church be the Lord of the church.

 

I'm with you Pinoy, My home church was organized in 1820. Our numbers have been up they have been down. We currently have 32 members but have over 200 people attend on our regular monthly meeting. God needs us where he puts us. I will continue to pray for you.

Peace and prayers

 

All of that is commendable, but what of the teaming masses who are just outside your doors that remain un-reached?

 

EWF,
You've been praying to find a reformed baptist church for a while. God has brought you into contact with one. Maybe that's the best place to start. Let God do His perfect work in you both, at least for the time being. Hang in there with them.

 

you mean, Christ missed a lot of souls He shed His blood for ? I don't think so.

 

No, neither do I, but did He not call US to harvest them? That seems to imply some action on our part, so that He can do what only He can do.

The missio dei in Scripture is very real, and throughout the text from OT to NT. God desires to harvest His elect and gives us a certain task in so doing.

"I [Paul] planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase."

"Go ye therefore into all the world..."

"And you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the world..."

"I will build My church..." and "I wil give you the keys..."

 

No, He did not call us to harvest them.
He called His apostles to the harvest, were you one of the Apostles He addressed ?
All these scriptures you quoted was addressed to His apostles, save maybe one.
I do not understand for the life of me why so many in Christendom feel that
the Savior needs their help for Him to successfully do what He set out to do and what the Father sent Him to do, or why they take Scripture out of context and say these Scriptures concern them.
He has gone up the cross, He has shed His blood, He has given up the ghost, He has taken up His life again, He went up to Heaven, and He is now seated a victorious, successful Redeemer and Shepherd who has recovered everyone of His lost sheep.
His redemption of His people is over.
If it pleases Him to bring one of His own into the folds of a church He will do it, no help from us, thank you.
If He does then we are charged to care for that sheep.

 

Well, now I'm confused. Paul didn't get converted until after Jesus' death; yet he was used to bring the word to so many, and saw many conversions. But if I understand what you wrote here, Jesus didn't need Paul. So what's the point of the bible even mentioning Paul, much less containing so many letters written by him?

 

Your theology sounds so pious, until you find it's totally unscriptural.

Those of us who feel and know it is our duty to reach the lost? Blessed to be a part of it.

His redemption of people is not over. Tell me, did it stop with you?

"If He pleases to bring one into His fold?" I thought He stopped doing that?

 

Who's "implying" anything at all? The proof is above, and make certain you see what is said and don't imply anything yourself.

It's plain to see what was said. I won't defend remarks like this, even if "their label" is "my label." It's totally unscriptural.

 

We should probably not turn this thread into another debate about PB and their practice, but the typical size and number of PB congregations seems to indicate one of their founding principles -- an anti-missionary stance.

While I applaud (loudly!) the stance of PB on many issues, their stance on "building the church" and "extending the kingdom" is one area where I have reservations and differences.

That is not to say, in any means, that our brothers and sisters are not evangelistic in any sense, but it does say that they do not tend to start new congregations, build large congregations, or venture widely into the mission field. If there is a fault, it is perhaps that they have taken the sovereignty of God a step beyond what God Himself told us in the word, to be about building His kingdom, as exemplified personally by Jesus Himself (not just in the words of the Great Commission) by the sending of the 70 house to house, by His traveling widely across the land, even into the region of the Decapolis (Greek worldview) and Samaria (despised people). Jesus set the example for missionary activity and included His followers in that activity, hence one of the reasons for wide-ranging mission activity in His church down through the ages.

I have also pointed out to you privately that though the PB and SBC were founded at roughly the same time, concerning roughly the same issue (missions) the SBC now has over 43,000 churches in every state and a world-wide mission that has close to 5,000 supported missionaries in people groups all over the world and saw over 360,000 baptisms and has over 163,000 churches outside the boundaries of the USA (2010 numbers) while the PB have roughly 72,000 members in about 1000 congregations worldwide.

The top 3 SBC congregations outnumber the total number of Primitive Baptists, which is (again) not to say anything bad about PB, nor to say that sheer numbers is the only criterion, but only to point out that their stated doctrine is not favorable to their continued existence.