At every church where I have served you can look through the database of members names and see thousands of people who joined the church and are still officially members but who have not been seen or heard from in years. There are hundreds of people in each church who "walked the aisle" to join the congregation and asked to be baptized and are still listed in these databases as "pending baptism". Some of them have been listed this way for 20-25 years. Why have we let things get to this state? I think that in many ways we have been too lax in making sure that people understand what is expected of them when they become Christians. We have fostered a culture in our churches that leads people to believe that all they have to do is walk forward and shake the preacher's hand and get their names on the official membership roll of "First Church in the City" and that will serve as their "get out of Hell free" card. In studying church history I was amazed to see that in the first few centuries of the church, when someone wanted to be baptized they waited, sometimes up to 2 years, while they were discipled and taught what it meant to be a Christian. While I don't think we need to return to a set catechism I do think that a time of study and reflection would be appropriate. We have focused so much on numbers, while saying that numbers don't really matter because "every number is a soul won to the kingdom", that we have almost forgotten that new believers are like babies. They need to be fed and cared for in order for them to mature into adult believers.
So back to the original point of this post. I wonder if we have not focused too much on getting as many people into the pews as possibleby adding more and more pews, and too little on training the ones who have heard the gospel to be able to share it with others. I've talked with some friends about our conception of church and it seems that there are many others who are wondreing these same things.
Here are just a few of the questions that are popping up in my mind:
Should we focus more of our money on ministry and less on buildings and facilities?
Would it be better to keep the size of the church smaller in order to foster closer relationships?
When the church grows should we expand the current church, or start a new one?
In my Baptist History class at here at Southern Seminary we have been reading various confessional documents from William Lumpkin's, Baptist Confessions of Faith and one in particular jumped out at me. In 1611 Thomas Helwys, wrote
That the members off everie Church or Congregacion ought to knowe one another, that so they may performe all the duties off love one towards another both to soule and bodie. Mat. 18.15. I Thes. 5.14. I Cor. 12.25. And especiallie the Elders ought to knowe the whole flock, whereoff the HOLIE GHOST hath made them overseers. Acts 20.28; I Pet. 5.2, 3. And therefore a Church ought not to consist off such a multitude as cannot have particuler knowledg one off another.It seems that this debate has been around for a long time, and it is likely that it will be around for a long time hence. But these are questions that we need to ask ourselves through every generation, for by not asking them, and making sure that the image of the local church is in line with scripture, we run the risk of following man-made traditions that will lead us away from scripture and therefore away from God.
Any comments or thoughts? They would be much appreciated.
11 comments:
Robert and I have been wrestling with this issue. We are coming to the viewpoint that a church of 500 or smaller is ideal. After 500 members, then a new church should be birthed. I/we also think that church should be much more about doing life together---spending more time in true fellowship (not just a once a year event, but regularly sharing meals together), active missions locally and globally, active learning that involves all 5 senses, etc. I could go on, but we are both really praying, reading, watching, and learning on this very issue. All I know is that I don't think Jesus would be very impressed with the way that we (contemporary Christian culture) are "doing church" right now.
Pam
Sounds like you're discussing the Emerging Church movement without naming it.
Many in the large evangelical churches, particularly the 20s and 30s, are leaving to form smaller churches.
Glad to read that you have read some of the patristics texts on baptism. If you thought those were amazing, wait until you read the ancient texts on the early liturgies. I particularly like this one by Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.xxvii.html
Pam,
I agree, but I think even 500 might be too many. It's hard to know that many people. The conversations I've been having with some friends here in Louisville have been more around the 100-150 range. It's incredibly hard to even keep track of, much less disciple, larger numbers.
And I think you're right about true fellowship. Our worship has developed into our own form of Baptist liturgy which doesn't lead people to develop relationships with each other. We come in, sing the required 3 or 4 songs (be they hymns, worship choruses, or whatever), shake hands with the people around us, take up an offering, and listen to a sermon, then sing another song and go home. Not much chance to really get to know the people around you and where they are in their spiritual journey.
anonymous,
I know it may sound like emergent, and there may be some similarities, but that is not my intent. I disagree with much of the theology that is coming out of the emergent movement, though I do agree with some of their methodologies. I think our churches need to focus more on relationships that lead to discipleship and less on bringing in as many people as possible. True discipleship doesn't happen when sitting in an auditorium with 2000 other people listening to a preacher. It happens in everyday life, sitting with one or two others in coffee shops or in living rooms where we can get to know each other and share the hurts and the passions of our lives.
hey rob - i absolutely agree with your last comment. that's why my Bible study, my community group, and my church - the Ring Community Church (!) are so very effective in my life as a believer. i'm being discipled all the time, by people in all seasons of life and i am incredibly blessed.
i had a conversation recently that revolved around layers of intimacy with our friends. there are the few that know every detail of our life, and then those that exist in varying degrees away from this central point. the goal is to allow people to move closer and closer to the center of the ring. this, in reality, can only happen with a finite number of people. if we take this concept outward and apply it to the church, then i believe it is a compelling argument that the intimacy that true fellowship and discipleship demands can only allow for a finite number of people in a congregation. i believe this idea is supported by the movement of the early church. they didn't form mega churches - they took Jesus' charge to "Therefore, go..." seriously.
if they hadn't, you and i may never have heard the Gospel...
Ann,
Thanks for the input. I totally agree. We spend so much time "doing church", sitting in services, running from this program to that program, etc., that we never really get to know the people we are supposed to be felloshipping with. I read something recently about the church in Jerusalem in the first days after Pentecost. The author pointed out that it was a single church because the Bible says in Acts 5.12 "The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon's Colonnade." But the Bible also tells us how people were discipled. Saul was discipled by several people in Damascus and he in turn discipled Timothy. It seems that we have gotten things backwards. We want to bring people into the church so that the preacher can tell them about Jesus and then we can fellowship wiht them when we should build a relationship in order to tell them about Jesus and then bring them into the church to celebrate.
People who come to church have not been wasting their precious time as lip-service or eye-service church goers, but church leaders have been doing what Jesus Christ told us not to do.
1.Long hours of repeating sermons and favouring rich members of the congregation and looking down on the poor ones.
2. Ministers who don't know the homes of the poor and needy members of the church and hardly visit them in the ghettos. But, they remember to go and dine and wine in the homes of the comfortable members.
3. Church minsters who love to fish in troubled waters and take advantage of the problems of members to milk them dry.
Why should many members of the church be on the waiting list for baptism? Because, the church ministers failed to baptize them. I was in one church, where the leadership insisted on new converts regular attendance before baptism which is totally against the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Converts should be baptized within hours or days of accepting Jesus Christ and commit them to the Holy Spirit and not asking them to go through examinations to qualify for baptism or counting how many times they came for church programmes before they can be baptized.
Church leaders must preach only the teachings of Jesus Christ as led by the Holy Spirit and not their own denominational manifestos.
May God help us all.
Orikinla,
I agree with much of what you are saying. It is largley a problem of leadership. We have not done a good job, as leaders, of letting people know that there will be expectations placed upon them when they join the church.
As to the baptism question. Most of the people that are "pending baptism" are not there because the church won't do it, but because the people refuse to follow through with it. I was speaking with one of our secretaries just recently and she told me a story of a person who wanted to join our church and be baptized 5 years ago. The person continues to decline baptism saying "I'm just not ready yet." There's nothing a minister can do when a person refuses to follow the command of the Bible to be baptized.
But it is partly the minister's fault, because we have not made people understand that baptism is required for membership in our churches. We focus so much on getting people saved that many times we neglect to disciple them, and teach them that there is more to the Christian life than just getting your name placed on the roll of a church.
Interesting blog. You are a busy guy!
Well, all this church bigness isn't a real problem in my denom. . .(Orthodox Presbyterian). We have 75 people on a good Sunday morning! Of course that may be different in more receptive areas of the U.S.
I don't think churches should be small, infact they are too small, theres 6 million people on this planet and the majority to reach. The church is the tool that God is using to reach the lost... I've been to smaller churches and the buildings leave a lot to be desired, I mean this is suppose to be God's house. I don't agree at all with this philophesy of pastors filling their pockets from the offerings. There have been some cases I'm sure where this has been true, but when you see where the money goes and see the building you can't help but want to be involved.
Our church extended the building and built a new auditorium, cafe/multi purpose room and kitchen and they had no money but the compliments are amazing.
Church should be multi generational where the focus shouldn't be on just youth or the older generation, they all need each other, the zeal of the young and the wisdom of the elderly.
If you really don't want your church to grow, be a cheap skate and water down the gospel to try and get the numbers in, that way may work for a short time but the fruit won't exist.
God is awesome and has an awesome future for you
Bless your socks off
Mike
Ok, check my blog *Shameless plug*
Post a Comment