Twentysomethings Leaving The Church??

Been thnking about it, and we don't have a problem with 20's leaving, we have quite a few. And we aren't contemporary, but mixed worship, leaning more towards traditional music style.

 

I find it interesting when we speak about something so important as losing people in the church, it suddenly becomes a debate on the "style" of worship, as if that is what "church" is. If something as trivial as what kind of songs you sing is causing people to leave the church, there is a deeper problem than the simple fact that they left.

Christians should be coming to hear the Word, not the music. Christians should be coming to fellowship with other believers and uplift the body, not fulfill their own fleshly and selfish desires. Christians should be worrying about holding strong to sound doctrine, not worldliness or sound "tradition."

Why is it when people leave the church we worry more about "how" we are doing things than actually "what" we are doing.

The church we attend sings traditional hymns and their special music tends to have the old country beat to it. I don't mind hymns but I actually care very little for the style of music that is played. Do I try to change it or do I care and will my husband (who is still 20 something) and I leave the church over it? NO! We get sound doctrine, the unadulterated Word of God and a church of people living in the Spirit uplifting one another. THAT is what we should look for in a church. The rest is trivial! If it were more important it would have been addressed in the NT.


~Lorelei

 

So now you know my heart and mind.
Wow Gunther I am starting to believe you are either omniscient or extremely ostentatious. We can just let others decide which.

Your arrogant spirit has nothing to do with your being a Christian or a conservative. I am both as well. Your arrogance has to do with your continual dismissal and belittling of those who differ from you on the nonessentials. And that my friend is the issue.

I see you have bought into the lie that legalism is only concerned with a works-based salvation. In evangelical circles legalism has far more to do with adding my own preferences to the essentials.


Since you constantly accuse me of simply dismissing your views as preferences, could you please provide us your biblical basis for your own philosophy of ministry.

Also could you comment on the preaching methods of the following individuals:

Martin Luther
Jonathan Edwards
CH Spurgeon
John Piper

Would these preachers fit your criteria for how to do ministry?

 

Quote:

"Christians should be coming to hear the Word, not the music. Christians should be coming to fellowship with other believers and uplift the body, not fulfill their own fleshly and selfish desires. Christians should be worrying about holding strong to sound doctrine, not worldliness or sound "tradition."

-------------------------------------------------

You won't find me arguing with any of these statements, but they miss the point here. We're not talking about reaching young people who are mature christians; we're talking about reaching unbelieving young people, or in some cases young people who are actively hostile to the message. If you think that these people are being actively reached already you're just fooling yourself. George Barna provides figures based on solid research that will show that something like 85% of the 18-29 age bracket don't attend church, and don't express any interest whatsoever in Christianity/accepting Christ.

If we're willing to reach out to this age group only if there're willing to immediately conform to the style of worship or types of standards that more mature Christians may take for granted; I for one won't be holding my breath waiting. Such a strategy hasn't worked in the past, and it obviously (based on measurable research) doesn't work in the present; so why would we insist on beating this dead horse into the future?

I visited a very legalistic Baptist church several years ago. It had that reputation both among Christians & among the community at large. A young man with moderately long hair walked in and sat down toward the front just before the morning service. His long hair wasn't dirty or stringy; it was in fact clean & combed, even stylish. Naturally he was receiving more than his share of sideways glances from those in attendance.

The service progressed until the pastor got up to the pulpit to speak. He launched into his sermon for a while, and then suddenly he stopped. Apparently he either had noticed the young man for the very first time, or his incongruous presence has simply become too much for him to overlook. He actually singled out the man (in front of the assembled congregation) and demanded to know why he didn't get a haircut! The embarrassed young man simply stood up and walked out. Was he a christian? I have no earthly idea; but I feel quite sure that if he wasn't that smug, self-righteous incident probably threw up some huge barriers to his ever again listening to the message.

It's exactly because of this type of incident that so many unreached young people are not receptive to our churches or to the message. They know they're not welcome, and they don't see the love of Christ manifesting itself in our lives. Imagine if instead of simply having moderately long hair, the young man I told about had a blue-dyed mohawk, pierced eyelids, and a facial tattoo. Would he have even been allowed to be seated in that church to begin with?

My point is this: If we insist on unbelievers meeting our standards or demonstrating the markings we would associate with mature believers, essentially we're simply washing our hands of any hope of effectively ministering to them.

 

An entry in this thread calls a church that consists largely of the 18-29 age bracket "deformed". The Campus Church of Pensacola Christian College is by-and-large made up of 18-22 years olds, other than staff & faculty who are required to attend there. How would this be any different?

Would this be any more deformed than the majority of churches that to a larger extent proportionally omit this same age group? I would submit that if we're going to call a church that caters to a certain segment of society "deformed", then virtually any church is deformed in one or more ways, including these:

1. "Deformed" along racial lines: It's often said that the 11:00 A.M. hour on Sunday mornings is the most segregated time of the week. When I've been in the deep south, in areas with roughly a 50/50 local breakdown between Caucasians and African Americans, the churches I've seen are known as either a "white church" or a "black church". Racial integration is virtually nil.

2. "Deformed" along other age brackets: Especially common in rural areas. Visit some older churches in rural areas and see if, at age 50, you're not considered the youngster in the congregation.

3. "Deformed" along socio-economic lines: "Birds of a feather flock together." You'll rarely find a proportionate distribution of poorer, middle-class, and richer congregating together; relative to the local population as a whole.

These are just three examples; I can think of other ways that churches would be "deformed", (as the writer of the entry above said) relative to their surrounding communities.

 

AMEN BROTHER.... we need to be like our Lord... meet them where they are... He did not care when I had a chartruse(sp?) mowawk, and was drunk out of my skull... He met me right there and saved me and made me sober and gave me a new song... That song came as a result of His salvation... not the other way around.. Thank God for the "heretics" who decided to meet me and minister to me where I was with out expecting me to rise to their standards first. It seems Jesus got criticized many times for ministering to the "sinners" of His day by the relifious establishment.

 

AMEN! Great testimony brother!

 

Hey Larry,

My impression, based pretty much soley on the "What is the Rock" portion of their website, is that they are calling a Friday night teen gathering a church. Frankly, that's not a church. Now I could be wrong and maybe it's more subtantial than that. I would say, though, that a church that targets only a small portion of the community is deformed, especially when you consider the Biblical emphasis on elders and all the other aspects of a NT local assembly. And, yes, I think the idea behind the PCC church is deformed, too.

As far as your other examples are concerned, I think it depends on the community that the church serves and if the church is actively targeting/excluding certain segments of the population. I've been in fundamental churches that have been very racially mixed and others that were not so. The only real difference between them was the population demographics of the community.

I'm all for reaching the unreached, even using new methods. But I'm not going to use a method that is worldly, not glorifying to God, or otherwise unbiblical.

I've been in strong fundamental Baptist churches all my life. I have never seen anything as egregious as the example you shared earlier. I don't know any fundamental pastor that would not strongly denounce what that pastor did. I'm not saying that sort of thing doesn't go on but I think it is much more rare, especially today, than what some people make it out to be.

Andy

 

Originally posted by Aefting:

"I've been in strong fundamental Baptist churches all my life. I have never seen anything as egregious as the example you shared earlier. I don't know any fundamental pastor that would not strongly denounce what that pastor did. I'm not saying that sort of thing doesn't go on but I think it is much more rare, especially today, than what some people make it out to be."

-------------------------------------------------

Yes, it was outrageous. Ironically, the church in question calls itself "The Church with a Heart" in its advertising. And yes, I know the origin of where they got that phrase.

 

Then the problem is that we need to reach them for Christ BEFORE we get them into the door of the church! The church is the body of believers not unbelievers. Unforturnately we think that our job is to invite people to church and the preacher's job is to get people saved. That is so backwards. Our job is share the gospel and bring the pastor new believers. His job is to nurture them and help them learn to grow in the grace of the Lord.

Minister to them right where they are, but don't fill a church with people hostile to God's Word and still call it church. Go out and reach them how you can, but once they come to the Lord, get them into a building full of believers so they can fellowship and grow in God's grace. Don't allow them to stay in an environment that allows them to continue to be "hostile" to sound doctrine.


~Lorelei

[ October 02, 2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Lorelei ]

 

As the under-shepherd of the flock, I do not get to choose the flock. I get to work with them all; the old sheep, the younger productive sheep and the lambs. Feed them right and they will follow; feed them right and they will grow and be productive.

This applies to any church. By the way, bring me any sheep into the fold and I will deal with them; the saved and unsaved alike. My churches never excluded the unsaved.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Every church is seeker-sensitive. The only real question is how sensitive are you. If you have padded pews and visitor cards, you are sensitive.

The suggestion that the "church" (I use the term to stand for the gathering time) is exclusively for believers cannot be supported by Scripture. If anything, Paul says the opposite in 1 Cor 14, one of the few places he actually speaks of the composition of a "church service."

 

If churches are for believers only, what's next: placing signs that say "Members Only" over our church doors?

 

Or perhaps the two water fountains - Members and non-members. Imagine the bus ministry - "I'm sorry, you have to sit in the back"...

Okay - does that sound mean-spirited?

 

Are unbelievers allowed voting priviledges, teaching positions and other such priviledges? I hope you aren't so mean spirited that you don't allow them the same access as everyone else.

~Lorelei

 

You know, I've never met a non-believer who wanted to vote or one who wanted to teach, so that point, at least, is moot. As far as deacons and such go, there are clear Biblical guidelines for that. As was pointed out, there is no Scriptural backing for church being only for those who believe. THAT's where the difference is.

 

No actually, Paul supported my position. The entire focus of this chapter is spiritual gifts and what their purpose was. That purpose was to edify the church, the body of Christ. In a gathering we were to "edify the body." We are told in chapter 12:13 that we become part of the body when the Spirit baptizes us into it, not when we walk in the door of a church building.

The fact that he mentioned an "unbeliever" who might come in shows that they are in a category different than the "chruch" that was meeting. He did not say if one of you is a "nonbeleiver." Like Paul, I believe there may be unbelievers who may visit and they are welcome to do so.

You will see no instructions for an alter call, or an offering or anything else that traditional baptists equate with scripture. The only instruction was this; However they chose to exercise their gifts it was to be done "unto edifying."

Which verse specifically says we should allow unbelievers to become a part of our church and that our focus should be win them to Christ during that time of service? I need the exact verse you are referring to, I don't see how the chapter in any way is the opposite of what I believe.

The church's focus should be to win people to Christ, but the time of gathering for the edification of the body is not our primary time to focus on evangelism. That should be done at other times, preferably all week long! WE are the church, the service you have on Sunday morning is NOT church, it is merely a meeting OF the church, for the edification of the body which IS the church. Unbelievers are NOT part of the body until they receive the baptism of the Spirit.

~Lorelei

 

You twisted my statement and made it to sound "mean-spirited." So please, do me the courtesy and answer the question. I can arrange for a non-believer to be in your church and ask for a position if it will help you formulate an answer. What would you say to them if it happened?

Where is the scriptural reference that says the church consists of both believers and non-believers?

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei, what exactly would you suggest: That if a visitor hasn't made a profession of faith by say, their 3rd visit, that they be banned from returning to the church?

 

In this modern society, we have learned to separate a church building and the church, the body of Christ. The modern church building is designed to reach out; reach the saved; reach the lost; and build up the body. For these purposes, we have different sorts of meetings. Seldom do we see the unsaved frequenting Wednesday night prayer and Bible study. In areas where I served, the morning service generally served the sheep, and my sermons so served them. We had a tendancy to evangelize in the evening service, when our people concentrated on invitingt he unsaved to attend. I appreciate that times change and so do people...we must always be ready to adjust...perhaps this is why people like Spurgeon said that one should never preach without raising the Saviour, and offering the gospel.

Sometimes we would do well to evangelize the redeemed.

Cheers,

Jim