Twentysomethings Leaving The Church??

Where Scripture speaks, we speak. There are guidelines for people who wish to teach. There are not guidelines for people who want to come and see what church is all about. All who wish may come. Where Scripture is silent, we are silent, and we realize there may be personal differences.

As Jim pointed out, the Church is made up of brothers and sisters in Christ. church (with a lower-case c, I Corinthians 14:16 speaks about a church service with a person who is an inquirer present. Paul sets out rules of orderly worship with the lost attending the service in mind. Verses 23 and 24 talks about the unbelievers in the service.

It's clear that, to Paul, unbelievers were a part of the attenders.

 

No, welcome them, serve them, witness to them. What you should NOT do is to change your service to allow them to feel comfortable in their state of unbelief. You don't change church to cater to the non-believers and make it more "comfortable" for them in their non-belief. You share the Word of God and let it penetrate their heart so that they come to Christ. They are always welcome to church, but this thread wasn't about visitors in church, it is why people of a certain age group aren't in church. I don't think the answer is to make it "their kind of church." If they aren't saved, they will only "like" it if it isn't convicting. If they ARE saved, they will like it if it IS convicting.

The focus of what we do in church should be to edify the church. The Bible teaches that. If non-believers come in then GREAT, but you shouldn't stop edifying the body to bring in more non-believers. If you edify the body good enough, they will be reaching the non-believers for you. Their visitors will be babes in Christ, not non-believers.

~Lorelei

 

Loreli, you've answered well. The Holy Spirit will convict them. It's up to us to remain salt and light, lambs that roar, ever constant in our faith and life witness.

Twentysomething's are caught up in 'new lives' with hubby's, wives, careers, babies and new responsibilities like mortgages, college loans and family. Many lose sight of what is most important and when time is tight, church is the first thing to go. Those who are true believers will return but we should stay on them with cards, calls, visits and lovingly guide them back into the assembly.

Diane

 

Lorelei,

I'm aware of what the thread started out as; the last few entries however have been about whether church is for believers only, or whether unbelievers are welcome too. Your one thread seems to have you saying that it's our responsibility to get people saved before we welcome them into our churches. (I re-read it again & it still seems to me that that's what you're saying.)

My apology if I'm misinterpreting your position, but you seem to have made your stand on the position that unbelievers are unwelcome in church.

 

But they were not part of the "church". You used the terminology "members" and "non-members." Does your church have a membership roll? If so, are unbelievers on it?

I never said that non-members were not welcome, but they do not make up the church and to fill a building with people who are hostile to God, and convince them that they are a part of that "church" is wrong. That is what was going on in the link that was presented.

~Lorelei

 

Unwelcome, I never said that. Are they considered a "member" or someone we should cater our entire service around so that they are "pleased" enough to return? No.

Welcome everyone, but cater your services only to God.

~Lorelei

 

It isn't our responsibility to save them, but we should be sharing the gospel before they walk in the door of the church. If they are your guest, they should have heard the gospel at least once already. If all they heard was "come to Church" soemthing is not right.

~Lorelei

 

Unwelcome, I never said that. Are they considered a "member" or someone we should cater our entire service around so that they are "pleased" enough to return? No.

Welcome everyone, but cater your services only to God.

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]Of course unbelievers aren't considered members. Only saved, baptized by immersion individuals are "members" of the Church. You've seemed to be simply saying that we should permit only the already regenerate to enter the doors of our church buildings though, which is an idea I totally reject. When I'm greeting people at the doors of my Baptist church this Sunday morning, I'm not intending to try to "screen out" the unsaved from entering!

 

That is so true.

 

It seems clear at this point that the conflict that arose between Lorelei and those who challenged her position (including myself) were simply engaged in a conflict based on unclear use/understanding of terminology.

I, along with some others, apparently thought that Lorelei was inexplicably advocating that unbelievers be prohibited from entering church buildings for the purpose of simple attendance at church services; in turn she seems to have thought that we were advocating that unbelievers be permitted to enter/join the Church (that is, the body of saved, baptized believers).

I think I can safely speak for all who challenged Lorelai in stating that nobody was advocating that unbelievers be allowed positions of authority (or welcomed as members) in the Church (the body of believers).

This conflict now appears to have simply been one side referring to the church (church building); and the other referring to the Church (the body of believers).

(I must admit I was puzzled when it seemed that Diane was also advocating that the unsaved weren't welcome in our church buildings!)

[ October 02, 2003, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: LarryN ]

 

It is not arrogant to take a position against something. I could just as easily say you are arrogant for determining what is and what isn't an essential.

Again, your charge of arrogance is worthless.

Take a look at their organization. Does that follow N.T. ecclessiology? Not even close.

 

The lie? How laughable. You mean the same "lie" that Paul taught in Galatians?

You should have said this: In SOME evangelical circles legalism has far more to do with adding my own preferences to the essentials.

Thank you for reiterating to me and others how worthless the phrase "evengelical" is. Even Open Theists far under that category. That really means alot there.

 

Gunther,

Why do you have such a tough time answering direct questions?

I never said a works-based salvation was not a form of legalism. I simply said it is not the only form. I would also argue that Paul did not limit his view of legalism to "earning salvation".

If your definition is correct, legalism is limited to those attempting to earn their salvation through some means other than faith. Do you really believe this is the only definition of legalism? (DIRECT QUESTION ALERT)

How do you define NT ecclesiology? (DIRECT QUESTION)

I did not determine it. The fundamentals were not determined by me. They have been established for most of church history.

Again -- present your philosophy of ministry and then we can discuss the biblical validity of your views.

And how about those preachers mentioned in my previous post, do they fit within your parameters? (MORE DIRECT QUESTIONS)

 

Lorelei,

It is obvious this discussion is operating on two different planes. No one here is arguing that unbelievers are a part of the CHURCH (meaning body of Christ -- redeemed -- saved -- invisible/universal -- whatever terminology you choose). By definition, they cannot be a part of this church.

What most of us are arguing against is the position you seemed to take earlier in the thread (and backed away from some) that unbelievers are not to be a part of a church service (I made this distinction in my earlier post). Church (meaning the time we gather in a building) should definitely be a time unbelievers are exposed to the gospel. As I suggested earlier, the level churches are sensitive to unbelievers varies and one can argue for or against structuring an entire "service" for unbelievers (which very, very few do). But the point is that a church should be sensitive to those who are attending who do not have a relationship with Christ. We should not water down the gospel or make them comfortable in their unbelief (as you suggested), but we should take measures to make sure they will hear the gospel and will feel welcome at our church. As I stated before, every church is seeker sensitive at some level. It simply varies to what extent some churches go.

The point in 1 Cor 14 is that there are unbelievers present who are exposed to the gospel. They are not shunned or turned away.

One more point: you are insistent that unbelievers should have heard the gospel "prior to" coming to church. The reality is that many believers are uncomfortable sharing their faith in an effective manner (right or wrong). But they might be willing to invite an unbelieving friend, co-worker, etc. to church on Sunday where they know that unbeliever will hear the gospel. Isn't that part of the planting and watering paradigm? I wish I had a church full of people confident enough to share their faith consitently. But reality in most churches speaks otherwise (no matter how much discipleship or expository preaching we do). For that reason, I want people to know that unbelievers will hear the gospel at some level when they come. Our services are not centered on unbelievers. They are Christ-focused. But at the end of a service, I want the unbelievers to know they can have a relationship with the God we are worshipping.

 

I don't think any of us are arguing that what happens in church should not be for the benefit of the LORD. The real question is to what extent church should be for us as believers ie what makes us comfortable, and to what extent it should be for unbelievers ie make us a bit uncomfortable on occasions, and to what extent then either/ both /neither of these scenarios are for the benefit of the LORD and His Kingdom. I would venture to suggest that, in glorifying the LORD in His service, the burden is on us to get out of our comfort zones so that the unbeliever may be reached where he or she is at. After all, at the end of the day, we're alright, we're saved, they are not, so it is incumbent on us to reach out to them (without compromise of course )rather than expect them to conform to our peculiar standards of dress and deportment. This is of course what Jesus did, and the church as His Body should do the same, even if it makes usa little uncomfortable sometimes

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

1. I dunno. Have you stopped picking your nose?

2. Good. It isn't just a form of legalism. It is legalism.

3. I know what you said. I just missed your scripture passage.

4. See no. 3.

5. See no. 3.

6. I see a pattern forming.

7. Is that the purpose of this thread? I would be more than happy to discuss this on another thread.

8. In another thread, we could discuss this as well.

9. See no. 8.

10. Here is a quick synopsis of each:

Martin Luther - I disagree with him on many theological issues. I believe he was off on bibliology, ecclesiology, eschatology, ordinances, etc. From what I understand about him though, he "style" was wrong because he was expositional in preaching. He just missed the boat on many issues.

Jonathan Edwards - I disagree with him on many theological issues. I believe he was off on ecclesiology, ordinances, and eschatology. From what I understand about him though, he "style" was wrong because he was expositional in preaching. He just missed the boat on many issues.

Chuckie Spurgeon - The only think I can think of that I disagree with him was on the timing of the rapture.

John Piper - same as Spurgeon.

 

They also might be stronger in the faith if they had a chance to hear more than the gospel message and grow enough to be equipped to share their faith.

If we gear our church services around only leading the lost to Christ (which was the case in the church that I was posting about) then we don't have time to move on to the "meat" of the Word.

I don't know, is it? Are you saying Paul "invited them to church" and Apollos "watered" the seed by sharing the gospel? Is there anywhere you can find one verse in the Bible that says we are to "invite people to church" in order for the church to lead them to Christ?? There are several that say we are to preach the gospel, to teach, make disciples. Do you honestly think that Paul would pass up an opportunity to share the gospel himself and instead just ask someone to come hear him the next time he was behind the pulpit? (Did they even have one of those!?!?) Do you honestly think he intended for the church to "invite people to hear Paul speak" or did he expect people to "preach the word", in season and out of season? Did he encourage them to have campaigns to "invite people" to church? Please use scripture to support the claim that this is indeed our duty as a christian.

You hit the nail right on the head!! Somewhere we are failing at discipling the church to go out and teach others about Christ, so instead of fixing THAT problem, we take up the slack, gear our churches for the lost (which was not the example in scripture) and continue to FAIL at the thing the church is supposed to be doing, edifying, building up, and teaching the OTHERS in the church how to make disciples instead of simply becoming one.

Our pastor always closes with an invitation, but his message is always solid meat! The Holy Spirit is who convicts a sinner of their need for Christ, God's Word is alive and powerful and people can come to Christ hearing ANY of God's Word. So close with a brief "invitational" explaining how and why we need Christ, but don't change every thing you do, simply to make those who are "hostile" to the message more comfortable. (as was the case in the church that was linked to)

~Lorelei

 

1. I dunno. Have you stopped picking your nose?

Are you in 5th or 6th grade?

2. Good. It isn't just a form of legalism. It is legalism.

Call it a form or call it legalism itself. It is still the same point.

3. I know what you said. I just missed your scripture passage.

This is like saying "I missed that passage where the word Trinity or Bible is used." Legalism is not a word that is found in the text. It is a theological concept derived from biblical teaching. It is obvious that Paul warns against both attempting to add works to salvation itself and the effort to add works/preferences post-salvation (remember the whole weaker brother passages). Do you truly believe everyone Paul addressed in Galatia / Rome / Jerusalem Council were unbelievers attempting to add works to salvation itself?

Since you avoided it the first time, I ask again: a) is legalism limited to adding works to the salvation event itself or b) does legalism also include the attempt to make one's own personal preferences equal to or as important the funadmentals?

If you answer legalism is a) only, what is b)?

7. Is that the purpose of this thread? I would be more than happy to discuss this on another thread. 8. In another thread, we could discuss this as well.


Let me get this right. You bring these issues into the discussion and then refuse to discuss them?


Regarding the 4 preachers mentioned, would you consider them models of expository preaching and their methods of ministry legitimate and biblical?

Your wording is confusing in the post above. You must have mistyped.

Gunther it is obvious you are much better at slinging accusations and calling people names than you are at legititmate discussion. For some reason I just don't think you are actually going to engage me (or anyone else for that matter) in logical/intelligent/biblical dialogue. When you get ready to do so, let me know. I am beginning to wonder if it is more a matter of "can't" instead of "won't".

 

Does a church have to serve the "meat" at a particular time and fashion? These churches are offering great opportunities for spiritual growth and maturity. This is another straw man that many build but cannot support.

First, "preach the word" was not a mandate given to every believer but to young Timothy (applied specifically to preachers).

Our duty as a Christian is to share Christ in word and deed. Sometimes that may mean investing in people with our lives and some other person articulating the gospel to that person. Sowing and watering has to do with investing. I am not excusing silence (witnessing is a command). What I am saying is that sometimes that verbal witness may come in the form of inviting. The earliest example of this is Andrew's "come and see" invitation to Simon Peter. According to your view, Andrew blew it.

Do I think Paul probably invited people to come and hear him speak in the synagogues, temples, etc.??? Absolutely. The text indicates many unbelievers came to hear him speak.

Most of these churches are doing an incredible job at discipleship. For example, check out Saddleback's requirements for membership, CLASS program, etc. Discipleship is a must. I can't speak for The Rock church, but I imagine they too have some level of intense discipleship. As a matter of fact, most of these churches do a much better job at discipleship than most the traditional churches. Another straw man.

They did not change anything. They started with a different method. The message is the same. The method is different. No one is suggesting each church should change its methods. But my preferred method is not the only legitimate one. As long as the message is not altered, methods can vary.

 

In Andrew's example of "come and see", who were they coming to see? Andrew brought him to Jesus, not to a preacher! We should do the same.

I asked for scriptural support of your belief and only found accusations of creating "straw men". Do you have any scripture or is your belief based upon your own assumptions and traditions?

~Lorelei