If the church is ineffective…let’s start over.

The core of the Great Comission hinges on God’s Word and prayer. As a teacher, I am a firm believer in questioning and analyzing, and it seems to me that people reading and discussing the Bible, praying together, and worshiping somehow – any way they feel comfortable – would be the only things truly necessary to a church like this.

I think one of the essential elements is the one that still remains when we strip everything else away- a group of people who are sincere about their own relationship with God and about reaching people who don’t have a relationship with him. However we “do” church, there are two big things to consider- how to minister to those who already have that relationship, and how to effectively reach those that don’t.

I would add scripture and music of some sort back in, although I’m not sure I’d add back stage lights and a sound system. I think scripture and music do reach people, if done in a way that is relevant to the people we’re trying to reach. I would add food back in- but not coffee and bagels for people who could afford to eat in their own homes; I mean real food for people who are hungry and can’t afford it and may not even have a home. Where we met would be in the midst of the local community so people could get to it easily. The food could be done before the service, or after, and the people who come would obviously be encouraged to stay with us for the service as well. But I would completely change the whole structure. I would do away with the typical “church” setting (which, even in a non-traditional setting, we try to recreate by turning the theater into a church for the time we are there—lobby, congregation, nursery, etc). I would do away with the “audience” setup where the congregation is the audience and there are a few people up front the rest of the time running the show. I would do away with rows of chairs and arrange things more naturally, the way people would just naturally congregate in a room—clusters or a circle/semi-circle. People don’t naturally congregate in rows, shoulder to shoulder, all facing the same direction. So I guess I would scrap the theater entirely, but I’m not sure what I would replace it with. A big, open room with plenty of space, I suppose.

Why would I change all of that stuff? To try to reach people who don’t have a relationship with God and/or people who are sick of the way church is typically “done,” to reach out to people who have physical needs as well as spiritual ones, and to have a more natural, sincere tone to the whole thing.

I think people who are far from God will be reached by sincerity and simplicity– in meeting together, in worship, in talking about God, in studying his word, in relationships, in community outreach. I think people in our local culture who are sick of church are sick of a couple of different things: the way they may have been judged or ignored or overlooked, and the way that many churches seem to be doing the same old thing. Making the same old thing look a little cooler by adding lights and videos and stuff may not be as effective as scrapping the same old thing completely and overhauling the whole structure and setting.

Okay. I’m done. For now. 😉

This whole idea of rethinking church has been somewhat of a preoccupation of mine for a few years, so I apologize in advance for any rambling or potentially heretical statements that may occur.

I guess, before we can decide what would be “effective” in reaching people, we should know who they are. And by that I certainly don’t mean by conducting focus groups or marketing research to find out the best way to package the gospel so that it will “sell.” In the same way, how our church looks – or how we look, for that matter – shouldn’t be an attempt to “sell” Jesus. If there’s anything that people, whether Christian or not, are searching for is genuineness. Reality. What else would explain the fascination with reality tv? I guess people like to see that real people have real problems, whether is the ridiculous drama that is The Real World, or Big Brother, or maybe that they can see someone just like them – regular, ordinary – become a big star and have an impact on people (American Idol). They see people on TV, and they hear artists on the radio that screw things up and have people hate them and get dumped and their parents die of cancer and are hopeful or depressed… it touches them, because good stuff or crap like that happens to them, too. And they connect.

But do they hear that at church? It seems that mostly church tells you how to act, where to go and who to vote for (left and right)… Good Christians vote Republican, Real Christians are liberals, Good Christians don’t smoke, Good Christians don’t cuss… Good Christians don’t have problems.

And where does that leave Joe Regular (or me or you, for that matter)? On the outside, because they’re not perfect, and they know it… so why bother being beat over the head about it. Christianity to them sounds like a list of do’s and don’ts to follow, or a set of principles to live by. And how is that different than anything else out there? It’s just another moral code.

With all that said, I believe it is essential – before any programming or a certain method of bible study or musical style – to be authentic. “Your life sucks? So do ours.” Scripture, after all, is a story, and a darn good one at that. The One who created all you see around you knows your life sucks, and he wants to be a very intimate part of your sucky life.

I guess that’s a good place to start… It’s almost 2.30 and I can’t really think any more.

I can see the argument for re-branding, and can almost agree with it, as long as we don’t go around saying that we’re re-branding. Because again, this is not a marketing campaign.

Taking the example of the non-believing friend. If they believe their friend is sincere and have no problems there, then maybe the issue is with the church in particular or the Church in general. Maybe there’s nothing there that connects with them… nothing that “grabs” them, in a personal or spiritual or even emotional way.

Like it was elsewhere on this blog, the church historically has adapted to the culture that it found itself in, or to say it better, the church was made up of individuals who were part of a particular culture, which is why the church in rome was different from the church in Alexandria, etc. The idea that all Christians should believe the exact same thing is a modern construction, coming out of the enlightenment where reason conquers all, more or less. There is one truth, and reason will guide us to it, and all other modes of finding truth are irrelevant and inferior. At some point what is written took the place of utmost importance in society, because what is written can be analyzed, dissected, parsed to find every nugget of truth or dismiss it as inferior. In church that leads to “the Word” (meaning the Bible) being the cornerstone of Christianity (thanks in part to Martin Luther… “sola scriptura”). Our lives revolved around The Word, we lived by The Word, we preach The Word and our gathering become centered around The Word. People gather around the preacher to hear what he thinks about The Word, and what he thinks the application of this piece of scripture is for our lives (and this is the only interpretation that can be valid). And so, just like the Catholic church pre-reformation, we are told what to believe, and our churches are built in the same manner… the “Man of God,” “The Word of God” is the centerpiece. And that worked, because society was pretty much the same way.

And then came the postmoderns, who argue that truth is more or less relative, and all interpretations are equally valid or invalid (depending on your perspective). Modernity questioned everything, postmodernity questions the questions. I’m not going to argue about whether there is one truth and only one way to get to it, or if all points are valid, because the argument is moot. It doesn’t matter any more, as far as society goes. And so the church needs to reform again, and we need to look around us.

I’ll probably have more later.

I wrote something along these lines in a blog post before, but it seems relevant now: It seems to me that if you are a person who has been hurt by Christians or if you’re bitter toward the church, the last thing you’re going to be receptive to is yet another Christian coming along and trying to talk you into coming to yet another church service at yet another church. Even if the person inviting you is a sincere friend, and even if their church really isn’t just like every other church, you have an idea of what “church” looks like, and it has been colored by your past experiences.

I think the non-believers that are looking for something, are looking for sincerity. I don’t think they want to feel as though someone is just interested in them to try to “get them in the church doors” or “win them to the Lord;” I think they would be much more interested someone who wants a real, honest, authentic relationship with them, outside of a church setting. Someone who will get to know them, talk with them, eat with them, help them when they’re in need, build an authentic relationship, love them without hesitation. I think a lot of times people end up feeling like a project instead of a real person who is really loved.

Kevin- I want to offer my perspective on the questions you asked in your first comment.

I generally think of Sunday morning (or whatever day/time our main service is held) as being more for reaching non-believers, while small-group times are more for believers. However, I think a balance is absolutely necessary; I would never, ever suggest that services are strictly for reaching non-believers and small groups are strictly for believers. I see a place for discussion in both a service and a small group, but I think of a small group as being more discussion-based than a service would be. I definitely think a church can be for believers and non-believers at the same time—but a lot of churches I have personally encountered feel more like they are for believers. I think part of “discipling Christians” is, in fact, reaching out to non-believers and maintaining relevance to the real world. I think it all goes hand in hand.

I’m intrigued by the idea of moving the main service to a different day, because I think that could be another part of the “same old thing” that could be changed. What day we meet really isn’t something I have personally given much thought to, probably because meeting on Sunday is how I’ve always done it and that’s just what I’m used to. 😛 However, I see the practicality of meeting on Sunday, also—people are probably less busy on a Sunday than they are on weeknights.

Jessa- I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that it is tying people’s hands or being legalistic to discuss the best ways to reach the people we are trying to reach, or to examine what people in our culture are looking for spiritually? Or are you referring back to the book Kevin posted about that claims to have the best way to do Christianity?

I’ve mentioned this to James, but perhaps it’s a good idea to mention it in this conversation too: While I think I know what would be most comfortable for ME, my own comfort is not what is most important to me; my goal is to reach other people. So if the thing that reaches people most effectively at this time, in this place, is not what makes ME most comfortable– that’s fine. Because I care more about reaching people who have no relationship with God than I care about what style of church or service or worship would make me most comfortable.

@Jenny – I think Jessa is just pointing out that there isn’t one “right” way to do church. She has an odd sense of humor and an odd way of explaining herself, but I love her anyway. 🙂

@Zack – Great post. I totally agree with you.

@Everyone else – What do you guys think?

Ok, James, your question is “What gets non-believers attention?” I’ve been rambling through rabbit trails and generally venting my own frustrations about church in general. My apologies to the other readers and posters and the servers housing your blog.

As far as the church service itself, I agree with Jenny regarding the seating arrangement, where the focus is on the community, and not necessarily the speaker, whether the particular speaker is better at a socratic method or a more lecture-style. I would also allow space for those who experience God in other ways or more ways than one – such as a time for the artists to draw or write or sculpt, for the dancers to pirouette or whatever it is they do. Not everyone can relate just by hearing or singing or studying a text. Incense and candles could also be used along with icons (in the representation of sacred things kind of way) to create a more sensory experience.

That would be before we sacrifice the virgin.

James,
Hope I’m not too late to throw in my “two cents”… I read your original blog at the top of your post and had to laugh-that is church how I have had it for years! As you know, I’ve not been able to attend a church of my choice for several years, and so I have not had the privelege of refreshments, sermons, and overheads. These are times when I look forward more than anything to be with my Christian friends. The times such as when you and your wife would drop by, and we would have dinner or hang out together (okay, so I’ll give you refreshments!). Inevitably, our conversation would always turn towards God and the things He was doing in our lives. I know, for the most part, I kept quiet during those times, but you have no idea how much I cherished those times, and how they always left me refreshed and encouraged in my walk with God! That has been my church! More than any Bible Study, teaching tape or worship CD. Where we could share what we were learning together. I have had more personal growth through those conversations, and those I have had with other Christians.

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that we can have no relationship with God unless we have relationships with others, for it is in our relationships with other people that our relationship with God is manifested. I don’t believe our relationship with God was ever to be between “just Me and God”, but me, God and others, this relationship moving left to right as well as up and down. Divine revelation is wonderful, but wouldn’t most admit that it is through others that we learn more? To me, that is a thriving “church” full of growth!

Now, my thoughts on reaching the lost: I think when most people think of winning the lost, they seem to think of a whole sea of people just waiting to be reeled in. That we just have to “manufacture” a huge net, such as a new program, or new sermon, or other mechanism, and just sweep them all up! I have to disagree. I really doubt that most people are equipped for “mass fishing”, but I believe all of us are capable of a rod and reel. Just as when you go fishing, you throw the line out there, and you wait. The fish in the pond usually need some time to get used to the line being there before they bite. I believe that is how we work. We have our faith, our belief system, in place, and that is our rod. And by making relationships with others, they get to know us and what we believe and what we stand by. After a while, when they see your steadfastness, they take a bite. What I have seen from the “secular” world, is that people are searching for something real, and not a gimmick (which we all know and have said for years). I believe the best way to win the lost is one soul at a time, by relationship building. What you win people with, you have to keep people with. If you come up with some fancy boat to win the lost, you had better keep that boat up, or at the first sign of deterioation, they will leave. If you win the lost by building solid, lasting relationships, you’ll keep them with your solid, lasting relationships. And with that said, that’s not something that just the pastor or the church structure can do.

James- You ask what crazy things I would be willing to do. I think a lot of what I’ve already said would also be an answer to your question, because I know a lot of these ideas are not necessarily the “norm,” and I think something that is really different from the norm has a good chance of reaching people. Not all people, of course (no traditional OR different way of doing things is guaranteed to reach all people), but some.

As far as other “crazy” things… well, I don’t know if I have any suggestions off the top of my head. I’m interested in reading other responses. Like you, I don’t care how unorthodox or taboo I have to be. However– and I’m sure you’ll agree– I would not be willing to cross the line into things that are obviously sinful (and I’m referring to black & white issues here, not gray areas).

(I’ve only had time to read the original post and not all of the threads, so excuse me if I repeat any ideas.)

-Some Non-Linear Ideas on Above-Mentioned Themes and Suggestions-

I believe a sometimes fatal flaw in the design and intention of the church and specific gatherings is that they advertise themselves to non-believers and the unreached as “non-traditional”, unconventional, etc., while at the same time adhering to completely traditional and conventional archetypes and paradigms (or, rather, ONE paradigm: one main speaker, corporate prayer, corporate worship, non-interactive congregation, and a strongly structured meeting time/place/event order.) I’m not bashing the traditional style of “church”. By all means, it’s worked swimmingly for the last couple millennia.

What we have to work to discover is what the outsider is seeing, and, most importantly, what he or she is looking for. The people we find most often inside church walls are the ones who come with the expectation of the classic (pastor, music, prayer, etc.) church set-up, regardless of the presentation style. The people not coming in are (including, but not limited to) the ones who are either disinterested in, feel a disconnect to, or who have trouble finding relevance in the Church.

I feel the fatal mistake in the Non-Traditional Church’s mission to be such is that they present themselves as a fresh, new product, when, in fact, all they have done is presented fresh, new packaging on the same-old, same-old.

If we wish to be a New Church, and to break loose of the classic structures and stale paradigms, we have to rebuild ourselves and present ourselves as a new product. The masses aren’t always as blind as we think.

-hypothetical-

Imagine that we, as a church, didn’t limit our meetings to the church walls. What if we met on a cafe patio. No preaching. Completely interactive dialogue (with some guided discussion). We keep things nice and open, inviting others to sit and join the conversation. Folks can come and go as they please.

My dream would be to make religion and faith an integral part to everyone’s lives. I feel the best way to accomplish this would be to make it more accessible to outsiders without making them afraid of immediate change or compromise to their everyday lives. Besides, how many non-Christians know how easy is really is? Let’s show them.

This is a tough question to answer; we’re so used to doing things a certain way that it is difficult to come up with something “outside the box,” so to speak. I think a good place to begin is to look at who Jesus spent his time with and try to do the same. Who are the people in our culture that no one wants to be seen with? Who are the people that are typically rejected by the church (and, depending on the issue, by society in general)? Who are the people who are hurting and struggling and need love and compassion? We’ve already discussed meeting in a bar, and I think that’s a fantastic idea. I can think of a few other examples off the top of my head that many people are unwilling or afraid to associate with, that have been vilified by the church and sometimes society in general. To name a few: the homeless; homosexuals; sex offenders. There are many more, but these are examples of different “groups” of people that church people often label, look down on, keep at arms length, or are even disgusted by.

In order to not hijack this thread, I have posted on my own blog.

http://banderson81.blogspot.com/

I welcome anyone to stop by and please leave your thoughts.

This is such a great topic.I have been thinking about it since reading this blog. I want to add to what I have said, possibly for more clairity or maybe just so what Ive said won’t seem egotistical. The desire to reach the lost is obviously God ordained. As christians in this time, we must not be overly preocupied with being different from those who have come before us. We must reach into the heart of God that resides in us and bring forth Jesus into an earth dying to meet Him. He is the way, the truth, and the life. The people I know that refuse to attend service say they will not go because of the hypocracy. This reasoning cuts me to the quick because I am probably the hypocrit they are speaking of. They long possibly, unwittingly, to know the truth. Let me give an example of what I am talking about. I go to service and listen to the minister and because I am a good christian ,I give each week into the ministry. Sounds great doesn’t it? I am the congregation member many would like in their church attendance. Here is the irony in my statement, the service I attend is serving no one. The minister ,which means servant, is self serving and sewing is to be done where the need is greatest in people’s lives.We are to be good stewards of what God has given to us and to sew where there will be a great harvest, not just to the place we attend, blindly hoping it will somehow bring glory to the lord. To take it a step further, what does God find more joy in, an arena of christians packed to the gills to hear a message, or a group of 10 to 15 people volunteering in the name of Christ at the Habitat For Humanity program?
Mark 9:41 For whosoever shall give a cup of water to drink in my name, because you belong to Christ, verily I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.
Christ said He only said what the Father spoke Jonn 12:49-50. If Christ spoke and did the will of the Father, if I am a follower of Christ, what is the Father’s will on the earth?
Luke 4:18 The spirit of the lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to Preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the broken hearted,to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind,to set at liberty them that are bruised,to preach the acceptable year of the lord.
The poor, the broken hearted, the captives , the blind,the bruised,and those seeking the acceptable year of the lord, not my personal adgenda: here is the heart of the lord. The apostle Paul said,” follow me as I follow christ.”If we follow the spirit ,those seeking truth will come with.

Hey, if everyone is still interested in keeping the conversation going, I’d like it if we could all brainstorm together a bit:

Why don’t people come to church? I’m not talking about one church in particular; I’m talking about the church in general. We see people everywhere who are hurting, who are struggling, who are crying out for love– but, for some reason, the church doesn’t seem relevant and doesn’t interest them. Why is that? Are we as believers doing a lousy job of spreading the message of love and grace? Is the present culture one that contributes to church services seeming irrelevant to those we are trying to reach? Are we misconstruing the needs of others? This is something that has been on my mind a lot over the past few months, and I’m interested in what others think. I don’t have the answers, but maybe together we can come up with some ideas. What I know is that I want believers to effectively reach the people around us in a meaningful way.

Hey Ray, thanks for the comments.

I think there should be a difference marked between changing our message to make it relevant, and presenting our message in a way that our hearers can understand. When Jenny talks about the church being irrelevant to people’s lives, she doesn’t mean, at least I would wager, that the church’s message, or Jesus, or any aspect of the Gospel itself is inadequate, but that the church’s presentation of the Gospel has been so off-target that it has created a wall between the lost and Jesus. Not only do we expect people to follow God’s commandments, but we tack on a few extra of our own. We tell people how to dress and talk. We tell them what kind of music they can listen to, and what kind of television shows they can watch. We just keep piling on and piling on until even we can’t distinguish between our law and God’s. Then when people don’t live up to our expectations, we run them through the ringer and tell them that they don’t deserve God’s forgiveness. Sadly, I’ve been in a lot of churches that perpetuated this problem. These churches aren’t filled with evil, satanic people, they just don’t understand that you can say the right thing in the wrong way.

When I think about the church being relevant, I don’t mean that we stop telling people about the cross, or the repercussions of their current lifestyles, but that we find the right way to tell them. A way that they can understand. Jesus did the same thing, except he called them parables.

“When Jenny talks about the church being irrelevant to people’s lives, she doesn’t mean, at least I would wager, that the church’s message, or Jesus, or any aspect of the Gospel itself is inadequate, but that the church’s presentation of the Gospel has been so off-target that it has created a wall between the lost and Jesus.”

Yes, Kevin, that is exactly what I mean. 🙂

Whether we call it relevance or call it something else, the point is that if the church is not reaching people in a meaningful way, in a way that shows them the love and grace of God, then we need to ask ourselves what we are doing wrong and try to fix it. The church can come off as legalistic and judgmental; that generally does not reach people. Likewise the church can come off as super cool and fun and exciting– but often that will not reach people either. The people who are hurting, struggling, and looking for something real may not be attracting to either an ungraceful attitude by the church OR a church that is more of a feel-good party with some cool music but no message that reaches them. And this is what I mean by relevance– if we truly want to reach people who are far from God, we should probably do a better job of delievering God’s message and showing his love and compassion. It’s not about making lots of rules, it’s not about watering down the message, it’s not about what version of the Bible we read, it’s not about the style of our music, it’s not about where we meet– it’s about how to spread the real message of Jesus to those who are aching to experience grace, love, and compassion.

One other thing that has been on my mind since I read your comment, Ray- Jesus himself was certainly hated, but not by the “sinners.” He was hated by the “religious” folks of the day, the ones who were bent on following the letter of the law without understanding the heart of it. Yet today many Christians are very effective at turning the “sinners” off while being loved by the “religious.” Many times the world certainly does hate us, but I’m not convinced that the people who hate us now are the ones Jesus meant. You said “The reason we are disliked by thoes not seeking the truth is because when light shines in darkness evil deeds are exposed and men love darkness rather than light.” I am looking at this statement in a totally different way– the religious people in Jesus’ day disliked him because he was exposing their evil deeds and loving on the sinners who were hurting. I think it is imperative that we follow in Jesus’ footsteps. And in doing so I think we will undeniably be hated- not by the “sinners” but by the “religious” who do all the right things but do not get the heart of the message. And since you mentioned the example of the rich young ruler, some who are confronted with the heart of the message may choose to walk away because it just seems like too difficult of a thing to do.

I have made another post on my own blog, so as not to hijack (again) this one.

If anyone is interested:
http://banderson81.blogspot.com/

What are our motives? Why do we ask questions like “Why is the church ineffective?”

We have all these questions about programs and aesthetics and doctrine and theology… and that is necessary. But too often we seek to find the right answer, when all along the answer may not be as important as the process of asking.

Was Jesus’ mission merely to come, live, die, and then rise? Was the commission to go and convince people that that’s what happened? That’s it? Is all our existence merely biding time until we can get to that moment when we make that decision for Christ… so we can reach the world for Christ? Or, was it to make disciples like…. he did.

Jesus invited people into the deep mysteries of heaven, of God, of life. He invited them into the Wardrobe, into the Kingdom of God. When people came to Jesus with questions, how did he typically respond? One of three ways: A smart-alec response (usually reserved for the religious elites), a story, or another question. Why?

Maybe for Jesus the point wasn’t the point… the point was the journey. The point was the community. Jesus was the Creator created, partaking in creation. Enjoying people where they were, as they were. The Kingdom of God wasn’t coming… The Kingdom of God has come. The beauty of Jesus was that he invited us to become his partners in this creation of the Kingdom of God. The Fall was man pushing away from God, trying to follow his design apart from the Designer. Jesus was God embracing man… reestablishing the fellowship.

How is this different from what we already believe? Good question. Rob Bell asks why in the Hebrew scriptures there is no word for ‘spiritual’ and why Jesus never uses the phrase ‘spiritual life?’ Because for Jesus everything is spiritual. There is no distinction between what is spiritual and everything else. So, then, why is our focus on getting the ‘unchurched’ to be ‘churched?’ Why are we focused on ‘reaching the lost?’ Why are we ‘in’ and they’re ‘out?’ Isn’t our mission… isn’t our Great Commission to love them anyway?

Well I recon (you like that, I said recon?) If I were to start over from scratch, the bible would still be the measuring stick by which all was judged. The scriptures say not to forsake the assembling of yourselves together. If that were from house to house breaking bread as in the early church, or visiting grandma in the nursing home, or took place in a traditional church setting, the where is less important than the act itself.
I believe assembling ourselves is not only meant to be taken as physically, or in voice through song. I also believe it has no time constraints. I should be touched with your infermities even though we be apart.
So what would I impliment you ask? Testimony, we overcame the advisary by the blood of the lamb and the word of our testimony. If I were to attend most any church on a Sunday morning and ask a question of the pastor, would that be considered rude? In most cases yes, but christianity is about growing together as iron sharpens iron. The whole third chapter of Colossians is eye opening but verse sixteen tells us as christians what church is to be. Teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns,and spiritual songs. Where today are the testimonies that make us weep and join together in prayer? What have I learned from the life experience of the people in my congregation? Chances are if they are not in my inner c lick the answer would be nothing.I can not learn from someone I never have contact with, but the bible demands we have compassion one for another,and the word compassion literaly means to suffer with. We are to cry with, rejoice with, and pray with our brothers and sisters and this is truely assembling ourselves together.

@Raymond – I swung by and read some of your stuff. I liked it but the only problem is I read and follow so many blogs that have to use a reader to make it easier and less time consuming and cluttered and myspace doesn’t have a way to subscribe in my current reader. When I have extra time and I think of it I will swing by but I wouldn’t expect it much because my available time to visit myspace is next to nil.

@Jenny – Wouldn’t you like to know? If you don’t see us do it at LifePoint it’s probably because I already removed it. In all honesty I believe the thing that mostly happens is that people inside the church feel like the privileged and not the indebted. The thing I desire to change is the idea that the church is for Christians to the truth that the church is Christians given to the world. I think this simple shift in thinking will change everything from how we do Sunday services to how we treat each other every other day of the week. This is brief look at the vision.

@Raymond – I understand your frustrations and I don’t think the issue is always the same or easily recognized. I am going to speak in general as a pastor of a local congregation. I love the people who come to LifePoint. When someone decides to leave I don’t love them any less but I have a responsibility to two groups of people, the lost and the ones who chose to make LifePoint their home. I may bump into them and share a “we love and miss you” and it would be completely genuine. The thing to remember is that they left we didn’t make them leave. The burden of communication falls on the one who chose to move on. This is only my specific perspective and I am willing to concede that.

Concerning you comment on “praying through”. Since you asked what happened to it I will offer some observations. Please do not assume that I hold any of these to be the case, these are just possibilities that various churches may not “pray through”.

1. Some may see it as unnecessary. The bible does not instruct that it is necessary for answered prayer so why spend longs periods praying when God heard us the first time. Jesus kind of made this point in Matthew 6.
2. Disappointment. How many times have we prayed for someone both long and short and have seen nothing happen? You mentioned the faith of the prayer, perhaps they have lost some.
3. Respect for the time that people entrust you with. Visitors come to your church and entrust you with their very limited time. Some may feel that is not the best use of a public service since most unchurched will check out during extended times of prayer.

Obviously there may be many more reasons why people don’t “pray through” as some do and again I am not saying any of these are mine I’m just offering some possibilities.

Mike,

First I want to say that I think I understand where you’re coming from. Maybe not, I could be reading you totally wrong, and I don’t know you, so this is just based on your comment and my experience. I think I understand where you’re coming from because not so long ago I could have written a lot of what you did.

I hear you saying that you’ve visited many churches in this area and have found them to be insincere, hesitant to share their faith, overly focused on wealth, and possibly legalistic and self-righteous. And that is definitely a serious problem, if that’s how churches really are, because that is simply not the way Jesus lived or taught others to live. And I do think that there are likely some churches and some Christians who are that way; I’m not saying that there aren’t. But I don’t agree that all are that way; I think there are some people who are different, who really are sincere, humble, and others-oriented.

I have struggled with finding sincerity, but I believe I’m realizing something—sometimes people really are sincere, but they’re imperfect people fumbling around and trying to show it but sometimes failing. I don’t doubt that there are those who are not sincere; but I also think that those who are sincere are sometimes misjudged because they may not always do or say the right thing at the right time. For me, I’ve learned that in forming relationships with people, it becomes much easier to see if they’re sincere, because as I get to know them better, I get a closer look at their heart and their intentions. In the churches I visited—even for years—but never really formed relationships, I had a hard time imagining that people were really sincere, and I think that is at least in part because I didn’t know them. Over the past year I’ve become involved at LifePoint, slowly at first because I was hesitant; I wasn’t sure if the sincerity was there or not, and I was just waiting to find out that it wasn’t and to be disappointed again. As I’ve become more involved, I’ve developed relationships with several amazing people, and I absolutely believe that they are sincere. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t still be here. And I can promise you that I would not say that if it wasn’t true; this isn’t just some meaningless plug for LifePoint, this is me telling you what I really feel. I know you don’t know me, so take it for what it’s worth- but I’m not the type to say something unless I mean it, and I think through my words carefully.

I agree with James that there is Biblical support for the church to take care of its pastor’s financial needs. I don’t think that means that a pastor should make an exorbitant amount of money and live in a million dollar home and drive a luxury vehicle and have every material thing imaginable—nor do I think it means a pastor and his family should have barely enough to get by. I think that it is a good thing for a church to think of their pastor and the work he is doing, and make meeting his family’s needs a priority. I think it’s a good way of showing appreciation, love, and support. I can understand the argument for leadership positions being unpaid on one hand, because that makes it more likely that the pastor isn’t just there for the money and is actually sincere; however, I also think that a sincere pastor doing the work of reaching out to a congregation and the community is more likely to be able to make a difference if he can focus his attention and energy there full-time.

James,
Thanks for your response. Too many times harsh comments are ignored. I purposefully posted harsh critical comments. Unchurched people are more critical than my posted comments. Your response shows me how you handle these types of comments at your church.
I wish you well in your church. It is my sincere prayer that Jesus shows up in your church every Sunday.
Mike

Ray, I know you said this was your last comment so I don’t expect a response but I feel this conversation of yours has moved from general talk about church to very specific issues that you are dealing with. My comments about bumping into people who have left the church was not specifically directed towards your situation but a general observation about my own actual perspective in very general instances.

My ability to visit all my friends MySpace accounts is not a reflection of my caring. I don’t get to call them all or visit with them either. If I made it a habit of visiting all my friends MySpace accounts on a regular basis I would spends many hours on MySpace. I am sorry that it isn’t an option for me. If I am aware that you are in need, I am there. Unfortunately I have so many people in my life that the ones who are in the most need and make me aware of it get my time. If that makes me a bad friend…I’m sorry.

You speak of “suffering with” but that is what my whole life is about. And because there is a lot of it I am always busy. If you are going through something and I can help, I want to know but your comment implies that I know something that I don’t. I haven’t seen you in a very long time and have no way of knowing what’s going on in your life unless you tell me. I’m not just a person with a few friends to check in on. I am a pastor who has people pulling on him from every direction. I am doing my best but I many times fall short. For that I am sorry.

Brandon, you hit the nail on the head. One of the things I would change in the church has nothing to do with how we do service at all. Why can’t we love and cheer each other on for our part of the greater work? Why can’t we stop esteeming ourselves more highly than another?

The reason most people remain outside the church is the attitude that has always been inside the church.