Congregational participation

[Mathew Ward]

Better? 

Yes, that is more accurately reflective of what I stated, and what I would continue to assert.  It's based on 25+ years of being a Christian and about 15 years of being a church member.  That doesn't necessarily mean that my experience can be extrapolated to the whole of Christianity, but based on other factors that I read and hear about, I'd say that it represents a significant demographic of those who come to church meetings.  The topic of discussion is "congregational participation".  Many (especially the younger generation) feel that they are doing their duty by coming to church a couple of times a month.  Anything more than that cuts into their other pursuits.  Are you denying this as an observable truth in the congregations you've been in?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I do believe that there is a disconnect with the millennials. There may be a variety of reasons. I do know that the young adults in my orbit respond to one on one very openly and appreciate the interest and attention. I can also point to some early 20 somethings that will put who are older to shame if we are keeping attendance score. So yes I have seen what you describe but I don't think it is as clean nor clear as you present it.

As to all the other fluff and furor; while I can see the tomato's concern I believe he is throwing the baby out with the bath water. While I can see the concern that a traditionalist like you may have, I believe there is room for alteration without obliteration of the normal ways of doing church.

Small group dynamics are truly different than large congregational dynamics. What I don't understand is the idea that they compete with each other. I see them as complementary.

Our last go-round of SS electives included a "class" of breaking down the morning sermon further. How do you see it applying in your life? Where were you challenged or convicted to make a change? Who hasn't had the experience of hearing the same sermon as another and both coming away with different life applications? This is God working through the preaching of His word! We just accelerated the idea by letting folks mutually edify (for tomato and SC) each other with the words preached from the pulpit (for you and the traditional gang). What a concept!

So there is my rambling response. 

Tomato wants the average person to have a say in the service, and thinks the traditional model doesn't allow them their opportunity to "prophecy", but as you've pointed out (as well as others have in the past) the Sunday School hour is only one of several options where they can have their voice heard.  It's really much ado about nothing, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

Not only Sunday school, but we have a ladies Bible study (every other week) at 10AM and 6:30PM on Thursdays.

We also have a men's Bible study (every other week) on Saturday 8AM.

Folks can also get together after any of the services for fellowship and discussion of the word.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Not only Sunday school, but we have a ladies Bible study (every other week) at 10AM and 6:30PM on Thursdays.

We also have a men's Bible study (every other week) on Saturday 8AM.

Folks can also get together after any of the services for fellowship and discussion of the word.

But those venues don't allow the sheeple to speak to the entire congregation when they gather for the main event.  Only the designated mannagawd is capable of doing THAT!  (at least that seems to be some folk's insistence).

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I don't know of any pastor who only wants members to sit quietly and listen. I know that pastors would love to have more folks involved in the work of the ministry.

You honestly don't know what I mean?  Please.

That would include the preaching, at least the pastors I know, for those who can teach the Scriptures.

Well, I don't know any pastors who want folks in their congregation to preach in their place.  But that still doesn't change the unidirectional nature of the service.  It just swaps out one performer for another. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

 

[ALAYMAN]

SC would've scolded the woman with the alabaster box of ointment too.   (and this reality check does not in any way negate that there is potential for abuse <opulence or ostentatiousness> in the use of the people's giving to the church).

 

[Smellin Coffee]

SC would've scolded the woman with the alabaster box of ointment too.   (and this reality check does not in any way negate that there is potential for abuse <opulence or ostentatiousness> in the use of the people's giving to the church).

I take it she was giving to a homeless man.

When does begins such "abuse"? Does it start with the lighting? Instrumentation? Air conditioning? Padded pews? Paying a mortgage on a building? Elevators to the balcony? Marble decorative plates outside the sanctuary? Paying a professional landscaper to put flowers in? Having a coffee shop inside?

 

[subllibrm]

SC would've scolded the woman with the alabaster box of ointment too.   (and this reality check does not in any way negate that there is potential for abuse <opulence or ostentatiousness> in the use of the people's giving to the church).

I take it she was giving to a homeless man.

When does begins such "abuse"? Does it start with the lighting? Instrumentation? Air conditioning? Padded pews? Paying a mortgage on a building? Elevators to the balcony? Marble decorative plates outside the sanctuary? Paying a professional landscaper to put flowers in? Having a coffee shop inside?

Bolded red text time out; Irrelevant to the discussion. Unless the building is on one level, elevators are required by federal law. Nothing to do with luxury or ease.

Carry on.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

SC would've scolded the woman with the alabaster box of ointment too.   (and this reality check does not in any way negate that there is potential for abuse <opulence or ostentatiousness> in the use of the people's giving to the church).

I take it she was giving to a homeless man.

When does begins such "abuse"? Does it start with the lighting? Instrumentation? Air conditioning? Padded pews? Paying a mortgage on a building? Elevators to the balcony? Marble decorative plates outside the sanctuary? Paying a professional landscaper to put flowers in? Having a coffee shop inside?

Bolded red text time out; Irrelevant to the discussion. Unless the building is on one level, elevators are required by federal law. Nothing to do with luxury or ease.

Carry on.

My bad. I was thinking "escalators" and wrote "elevators". Dummy me.

Yes, there is a local mega church in our area that has escalators up to the balcony. The only church I've ever seen that has that...

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

SC would've scolded the woman with the alabaster box of ointment too.   (and this reality check does not in any way negate that there is potential for abuse <opulence or ostentatiousness> in the use of the people's giving to the church).

I take it she was giving to a homeless man.

When does begins such "abuse"? Does it start with the lighting? Instrumentation? Air conditioning? Padded pews? Paying a mortgage on a building? Elevators to the balcony? Marble decorative plates outside the sanctuary? Paying a professional landscaper to put flowers in? Having a coffee shop inside?

Yet again I respond to your repetitive argument.

A mega church with all of those 'frills' will give much, much more to the homeless and downtrodden than your kitchen table congregation. IF you care that the homeless and hungry are taken care of, the larger churches give far, far more to such causes.

Our local paper featured a 'ministry' (that prides themselves in having no building and little overhead) because they served 1400 families last year at their food ministry. Our church, with buildings and overhead served well over 5000 families last year in our food ministry, and we give almost twice as much food per family.....for the record.

So, your argument doesn't fly....but you keep throwing it up in the air. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

SC would've scolded the woman with the alabaster box of ointment too.   (and this reality check does not in any way negate that there is potential for abuse <opulence or ostentatiousness> in the use of the people's giving to the church).

I take it she was giving to a homeless man.

When does begins such "abuse"? Does it start with the lighting? Instrumentation? Air conditioning? Padded pews? Paying a mortgage on a building? Elevators to the balcony? Marble decorative plates outside the sanctuary? Paying a professional landscaper to put flowers in? Having a coffee shop inside?

Bolded red text time out; Irrelevant to the discussion. Unless the building is on one level, elevators are required by federal law. Nothing to do with luxury or ease.

Carry on.

My bad. I was thinking "escalators" and wrote "elevators". Dummy me.

Yes, there is a local mega church in our area that has escalators up to the balcony. The only church I've ever seen that has that...

Is that Calvary Church?

 

[Mathew Ward]

SC would've scolded the woman with the alabaster box of ointment too.   (and this reality check does not in any way negate that there is potential for abuse <opulence or ostentatiousness> in the use of the people's giving to the church).

I take it she was giving to a homeless man.

When does begins such "abuse"? Does it start with the lighting? Instrumentation? Air conditioning? Padded pews? Paying a mortgage on a building? Elevators to the balcony? Marble decorative plates outside the sanctuary? Paying a professional landscaper to put flowers in? Having a coffee shop inside?

Yet again I respond to your repetitive argument.

A mega church with all of those 'frills' will give much, much more to the homeless and downtrodden than your kitchen table congregation. IF you care that the homeless and hungry are taken care of, the larger churches give far, far more to such causes.

Our local paper featured a 'ministry' (that prides themselves in having no building and little overhead) because they served 1400 families last year at their food ministry. Our church, with buildings and overhead served well over 5000 families last year in our food ministry, and we give almost twice as much food per family.....for the record.

So, your argument doesn't fly....but you keep throwing it up in the air. 

If your argument is simply who gave more, Jesus did address this philosophy with people giving of their abundance vs a widow that gave 2 mites.

That's my 2¢...

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

SC would've scolded the woman with the alabaster box of ointment too.   (and this reality check does not in any way negate that there is potential for abuse <opulence or ostentatiousness> in the use of the people's giving to the church).

I take it she was giving to a homeless man.

When does begins such "abuse"? Does it start with the lighting? Instrumentation? Air conditioning? Padded pews? Paying a mortgage on a building? Elevators to the balcony? Marble decorative plates outside the sanctuary? Paying a professional landscaper to put flowers in? Having a coffee shop inside?

Yet again I respond to your repetitive argument.

A mega church with all of those 'frills' will give much, much more to the homeless and downtrodden than your kitchen table congregation. IF you care that the homeless and hungry are taken care of, the larger churches give far, far more to such causes.

Our local paper featured a 'ministry' (that prides themselves in having no building and little overhead) because they served 1400 families last year at their food ministry. Our church, with buildings and overhead served well over 5000 families last year in our food ministry, and we give almost twice as much food per family.....for the record.

So, your argument doesn't fly....but you keep throwing it up in the air. 

If your argument is simply who gave more, Jesus did address this philosophy with people giving of their abundance vs a widow that gave 2 mites.

That's my 2¢...

It wasn't my argument, I was responding to Dan's argument.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Francis Chan left pastoring his mega church because of a similar belief:

"Do you really see this supernatural power at work when the believers gather together for what we call church?" he asks. "Isn't it the same Holy Spirit that's supposed to be available to us today? Why is it so different?"

Chan's frustrations with the church today are what inspired the "BASIC" series. He was successfully leading a megachurch in Simi Valley, Calif., when he began to question and rethink "how we do church." He began feeling uncomfortable with people driving long distances just to hear him speak every weekend and with church having become a once-a-week routine.

After 16 years at Cornerstone Church, he let go of the reins in 2010 and traveled to Asia where he and his family spent time with persecuted Christians and orphans.

<snip>

"I heard one person say the church nowadays is neither super nor natural," he says. "Everything is predictable and everything is expected."

"There's a truth to that," he admits. "I feel bad about it. Being around a church culture, even leading a gathering of believers, I've gotten pretty good at predicting what's going to happen in a church service. Was that the way it was supposed to happen?"

"When Jesus said this power (of the Holy Spirit) would come upon you, it really did come upon them and they were powerful beings (Jesus' disciples)," Chan points out. "Why is it that in the church so many people are weak or defeated or we get so insecure because we look at ourselves rather than God? It doesn't make sense."

Though Christians believe in an almighty and all powerful God who places His spirit in believers, the response among His people today is: "Hi, welcome to church. Here's your bulletin. We'll get you out in an hour. Come back next week."

"I mean, really? Is that all God intended for us?" Chan challenges.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/francis-chan-church-today-not-what-god-intended-50000/

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Francis Chan left pastoring his mega church because of a similar belief:

"Do you really see this supernatural power at work when the believers gather together for what we call church?" he asks. "Isn't it the same Holy Spirit that's supposed to be available to us today? Why is it so different?"

Chan's frustrations with the church today are what inspired the "BASIC" series. He was successfully leading a megachurch in Simi Valley, Calif., when he began to question and rethink "how we do church." He began feeling uncomfortable with people driving long distances just to hear him speak every weekend and with church having become a once-a-week routine.

After 16 years at Cornerstone Church, he let go of the reins in 2010 and traveled to Asia where he and his family spent time with persecuted Christians and orphans.

<snip>

"I heard one person say the church nowadays is neither super nor natural," he says. "Everything is predictable and everything is expected."

"There's a truth to that," he admits. "I feel bad about it. Being around a church culture, even leading a gathering of believers, I've gotten pretty good at predicting what's going to happen in a church service. Was that the way it was supposed to happen?"

"When Jesus said this power (of the Holy Spirit) would come upon you, it really did come upon them and they were powerful beings (Jesus' disciples)," Chan points out. "Why is it that in the church so many people are weak or defeated or we get so insecure because we look at ourselves rather than God? It doesn't make sense."

Though Christians believe in an almighty and all powerful God who places His spirit in believers, the response among His people today is: "Hi, welcome to church. Here's your bulletin. We'll get you out in an hour. Come back next week."

"I mean, really? Is that all God intended for us?" Chan challenges.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/francis-chan-church-today-not-what-god-intended-50000/

I dont know anything about Francis Chan but this sounds a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Breakthe mega church into smaller more local congregations thatwould have the ability to together more. Seems like asimple solution but to go from mega to micro doesnt make sense.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svL3xs81RBg

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Francis Chan left pastoring his mega church because of a similar belief:

"Do you really see this supernatural power at work when the believers gather together for what we call church?" he asks. "Isn't it the same Holy Spirit that's supposed to be available to us today? Why is it so different?"

Chan's frustrations with the church today are what inspired the "BASIC" series. He was successfully leading a megachurch in Simi Valley, Calif., when he began to question and rethink "how we do church." He began feeling uncomfortable with people driving long distances just to hear him speak every weekend and with church having become a once-a-week routine.

After 16 years at Cornerstone Church, he let go of the reins in 2010 and traveled to Asia where he and his family spent time with persecuted Christians and orphans.

<snip>

"I heard one person say the church nowadays is neither super nor natural," he says. "Everything is predictable and everything is expected."

"There's a truth to that," he admits. "I feel bad about it. Being around a church culture, even leading a gathering of believers, I've gotten pretty good at predicting what's going to happen in a church service. Was that the way it was supposed to happen?"

"When Jesus said this power (of the Holy Spirit) would come upon you, it really did come upon them and they were powerful beings (Jesus' disciples)," Chan points out. "Why is it that in the church so many people are weak or defeated or we get so insecure because we look at ourselves rather than God? It doesn't make sense."

Though Christians believe in an almighty and all powerful God who places His spirit in believers, the response among His people today is: "Hi, welcome to church. Here's your bulletin. We'll get you out in an hour. Come back next week."

"I mean, really? Is that all God intended for us?" Chan challenges.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/francis-chan-church-today-not-what-god-intended-50000/

Chan also believes Paul was inspired in the writing of God Inspired scripture!
How does any of hat refute my argument....IF your purpose is helping the needy.
Now, if your purpose is to simply bash the traditional church...then just be up front about it!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Chan also believes Paul was inspired in the writing of God Inspired scripture!

True, though I might not agree with him about that, it doesn't negate this particular ideal he is presenting with which I happen to agree.

How does any of hat refute my argument....IF your purpose is helping the needy.

And that is the problem. The purpose I have mentioned is to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and pull everything through those recorded teachings, even if it means pulling the rest of the canon through that grid.

Now, if your purpose is to simply bash the traditional church...then just be up front about it!

If pointing out that not following the structure Jesus put into practice is considered "bashing", then I guess there is no hiding it.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Chan also believes Paul was inspired in the writing of God Inspired scripture!

True, though I might not agree with him about that, it doesn't negate this particular ideal he is presenting with which I happen to agree.

How does any of hat refute my argument....IF your purpose is helping the needy.

And that is the problem. The purpose I have mentioned is to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and pull everything through those recorded teachings, even if it means pulling the rest of the canon through that grid.

Now, if your purpose is to simply bash the traditional church...then just be up front about it!

If pointing out that not following the structure Jesus put into practice is considered "bashing", then I guess there is no hiding it.

Dan, the argument...tired, old argument I responded to was that churches spend too much on 'frills' which should have gone to the poor and needy. My point is that the churches with 'frills' attract more people, therefore have more resources and do more for the poor and needy than the no frills kitchen table groups...IF you really care about the poor and needy.

In all honesty, your position on Scripture really negates/minimizes the weight of any argument you might offer in this area....at least to me. Now, Chan, who really isn't a kindred spirit with you at all, carries more weight, so to speak.....he spoke at Catalyst in April and is involved in planting CHURCHES in San Francisco.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Dan, the argument...tired, old argument I responded to was that churches spend too much on 'frills' which should have gone to the poor and needy. My point is that the churches with 'frills' attract more people, therefore have more resources and do more for the poor and needy than the no frills kitchen table groups...IF you really care about the poor and needy.

Not necessarily. A church of say 500 takes funds and donates to say a homeless shelter. A good chunk of change. 50 small churches of 10 can give smaller amounts to 50 DIFFERENT charitable organizations as well as meet the needs within the group. If the parishioners of the small groups gave the EXACT same amount to their groups as they did when a part of the 500 congregation, less overhead and a wider number of recipients touched, though maybe particular organizations may not receive as much.

In all honesty, your position on Scripture really negates/minimizes the weight of any argument you might offer in this area....at least to me.

And that is fair and to be expected. I have no issues with you disagreeing with me. I feel the same about somebody who makes his living from the giving of others. I wouldn't expect him to agree with me.

Now, Chan, who really isn't a kindred spirit with you at all, carries more weight, so to speak.....

Which is why I used him as an example. There are people who are more of a more Evangelical mindset than I who agree with this point I am saying.

he spoke at Catalyst in April and is involved in planting CHURCHES in San Francisco.

HOUSE churches. Did you see the link I sent with his YouTube video? He believes strongly in small congregations, no salaries and churches splitting and re-growing each year. And those churches spawn other small house churches for a year, etc.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Not necessarily. A church of say 500 takes funds and donates to say a homeless shelter. A good chunk of change. 50 small churches of 10 can give smaller amounts to 50 DIFFERENT charitable organizations as well as meet the needs within the group. If the parishioners of the small groups gave the EXACT same amount to their groups as they did when a part of the 500 congregation, less overhead and a wider number of recipients touched, though maybe particular organizations may not receive as much.


If a frog had wings.....

The fact of the matter is that larger churches and ministries can and do give more to these and other type ministries.
The fact that they organize, have structure and facilities are why they grow and why they have more resources...financial and man hours than smaller ministries.

IF you want the poor and needy to have their needs met, larger organizations are your ticket.
IF you want to knock larger organizations, take another road...this one don't go there!