Anyone ever wonder why it's so hard to find a good church? Why is it that we search and search and search some more without results? I've been thinking a lot about it lately. I must say that I am thankful to be able to go to different churches right now and experience the various methods which people employ in the body of Christ.
I've noticed that at most, ok, all the churches I've been to, good worship will mean that I'll have a crummy sermon to follow it up with. In churches that are still acting like church worship was designed to be lived out in the 18th century, the messages are better. Why?
I can't help but believe that somewhere along the lines we've confused the definition of church (enter Dumples' history lesson). I'm guessing it was sometime around the 18th century. Ok, so I'm exaggerating, but not too much, I'm guessing the end of the 18th century. I say the 18th century, because it was at the end of the 1700's when Charles Wesley passed away and with him and his contemporaries went the concept of new music for the church. Enter "I just want to sing the classics" (not wrong, let's just think bigger).
When the music revolution was happening in America in the early 1900s, the mainline denominations didn't go with them, except for some smaller churches who realized the need for relevance to the people around them (judging from my weak knowledge of music history). Eventually in the 1990s non-denominational churches that were using contemporary music were really damaging a lot of the mainlines.
Most non-denominational churches that were/are using contemporary music were actually drawing people's attention who weren't Christians, as well (big shock, relevant music helps people connect? What? We shouldn't use an outdated KJV Bible?!?!). Yes, they use contemporary translations of the Bible too. You know, ones that you can understand, ones that are not translated into Middle English (Gee you mean people want to understand what's going on?). This is similar to the Great Awakining in the sense that they preached to the common people using common language. It is also similar to how the New Testament books were written in that they were written in the common man's language. I think they (non-denominational churches) saw the big need for all these people really seeking after God (that were pouring into their church by the buckets) to know how to become Christians and they changed their curriculum to help people get into a relationship with God. Complete with beginner sermons/preaching on Sundays, which you can find at most non-denominational churches today.
I've noticed that at most, ok, all the churches I've been to, good worship will mean that I'll have a crummy sermon to follow it up with. In churches that are still acting like church worship was designed to be lived out in the 18th century, the messages are better. Why?
I can't help but believe that somewhere along the lines we've confused the definition of church (enter Dumples' history lesson). I'm guessing it was sometime around the 18th century. Ok, so I'm exaggerating, but not too much, I'm guessing the end of the 18th century. I say the 18th century, because it was at the end of the 1700's when Charles Wesley passed away and with him and his contemporaries went the concept of new music for the church. Enter "I just want to sing the classics" (not wrong, let's just think bigger).
When the music revolution was happening in America in the early 1900s, the mainline denominations didn't go with them, except for some smaller churches who realized the need for relevance to the people around them (judging from my weak knowledge of music history). Eventually in the 1990s non-denominational churches that were using contemporary music were really damaging a lot of the mainlines.
Most non-denominational churches that were/are using contemporary music were actually drawing people's attention who weren't Christians, as well (big shock, relevant music helps people connect? What? We shouldn't use an outdated KJV Bible?!?!). Yes, they use contemporary translations of the Bible too. You know, ones that you can understand, ones that are not translated into Middle English (Gee you mean people want to understand what's going on?). This is similar to the Great Awakining in the sense that they preached to the common people using common language. It is also similar to how the New Testament books were written in that they were written in the common man's language. I think they (non-denominational churches) saw the big need for all these people really seeking after God (that were pouring into their church by the buckets) to know how to become Christians and they changed their curriculum to help people get into a relationship with God. Complete with beginner sermons/preaching on Sundays, which you can find at most non-denominational churches today.
I think this is where all the problems really started to creep up. The thought pretty much went like this, “We’ll gear the Sunday sermon to seekers, and the old believers will be fed on Wednesday nights!” So contemporary churches were pumping out baby believers right and left (baby factories if you will) while the mainline churches were/are struggling with one person realzing the joy of being a Christian a year, but they seem to have an ok retention rate (70%?) of old crusty believers who rarely/never share their faith (which is sick, mind you. If you had the cure for cancer you would tell everyone).
And all is good and well (in the contemporary churches), until the babies grow up, or want to grow up. See, when you make Sundays for seekers/babies, the older Christians can’t very easily grow if you don’t provide meat for them. By meat, I mean present a challenging and edifying enviroment at church for older, more mature believers.
I think essentially we have created yet another division in the body (the holy universal church of Christ), but this one is highly more divisive than previous divisions. See, what we’ve done is made a split between the seekers/baby Christians and the old crusty Christians. The old crusty ones aren’t using their gifts in helping the babies and seekers grow (kind of like not having a mom and dad just a food dispensing machine), and the church for the seekers and babies isn’t conducive for oldies to be fed in (mom and dad don't want to eat Gerber anymore). Thus, the oldies are uncontent at many contemporary churches. Although they do seem to find churches where they can be fed, but these churches seem... boring. We all know the water has to flow in and out of a pond or it gets stagnant, as such so older Christians need to help babies and seekers. And babies/seekers of course go to “hip” churches where they are fed (yeah Gerber!) but will find stunted growth (boo!) and hopefully don’t fall away from the church later disillusioned (I pray they don't just give up, search around if this is you).
So what’s my solution? Make church relevant in worship to babies/seekers and pair them up with older believers who will be fed in the sermon. I don’t believe the pastors primary role is to bring people to Christ on Sunday, I believe the pastor’s job is to equip the body (everyone going to church) to bring people to Christ every day of the week (I mean we all work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week with people who become our friends, and don't you want your friends in on the best thing going?).
But that’s just me (or not). I just want to find a church around here where I can be fed, enjoy relevant worship, and possibly do ministry. Keep my church search in your prayers. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment