Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the church has lost relevance in developing spirituality in children, in connecting with the community, and making outreach meaningful to others. I've been in a few separate churches across time, at different levels of ministry. Any title or program I mention can be watered down and a social experience to anything/anyone. It is what you put into it and what you call others to extract out of it.
I've studied the bible extensively among others with reference to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic for decades. I've been on visits with monasteries, in temples, and in mosques. I have had the opportunity to ask the hard questions while in these environments for enlightenment. I've been on an Emmaus walk. I've gone to retreats. Our church members have installed roofing, siding, and plastered dry wall. We've given out food, backpacks loaded with school supplies, and have hosted Nativity shows. We had movie nights on the lawn, have marched in Gay Pride parades, and have helped cross-culturally establish churches across the community. We have done outreach through a decades-old pumpkin patch, and through the sales, have supplied for the children's ministries across that same time period.
There are a core of persons engaged and moving towards enlightenment. There are others who have given in ministry and seek to watch the flourishing from the sidelines. No ministry in itself moves forward with passion unless a member has a driving force. I've seen things get created and move into power. Make what you want and build what you seek with intention and meaning. That's the difference between a program and a ministry.
When you function like this, allow those you touch to inform you where you need to go next. This exchange creates the dynamic for moving into the next wave of ministry. Be relevant always. Those who need are out there. Find ways to bring them in and allow them to be useful.
So your standard to judge a person who should or should not be in ministry is if they can do miracles through their hands?
Is the laying on of hands a basic principle of the doctrine of Christ or not? Heb 6:1-2 indicates so. What happens with the laying on of hands? The giving of spirituals gifts (2 Tim 1:6, Rom 1:11, Acts 19:6). As for whether there can be a minister of the gospel, sent of God, without spiritual gifts, I must admit I am not entirely sure. Teachers may lack gifts. But I do know that the kingdom of God is in power, and not in word only, as Paul said.
I grew up in a church with a long sermon based upon one or two Bible verses teased out of the passage. I discovered that by staring at the minister without blinking, eventually everything around his his head would go black, making it look as if Reverend Gaston's detached talking head was floating suspended in midair. It got me through.
As an adult, the two best priests I ever heard spoke about the scripture readings from that day, explaining the context in which they were written and offering ideas on how we could apply them to our own lives today. Some of those sermons were very short, a few so short that I could repeat them today yet so profound that the lessons have stayed with me.
The centerpiece of these services, however, was the sharing of communion, a spiritual experience that bound all present with God and one another in a way that no words can do. In the church in which I grew up, communion happened only quarterly and was sort of an afterthought, a simple remembrance of "oh, yeah, and Christ told us to do this" rather than a ritual meant to bind and elevate those gathered to a higher place through a shared spiritual experience.
I preferred the latter. I do concede that the music was better in my childhood church, though. Most of the offerings in the Episcopal Hymnal are tuneless and incredibly dull to the ear.
I grew up in a church with a long sermon based upon one or two Bible verses teased out of the passage. I discovered that by staring at the minister without blinking, eventually everything around his his head would go black, making it look as if Reverend Gaston's detached talking head was floating suspended in midair. It got me through.
As an adult, the two best priests I ever heard spoke about the scripture readings from that day, explaining the context in which they were written and offering ideas on how we could apply them to our own lives today. Some of those sermons were very short, a few so short that I could repeat them today yet so profound that the lessons have stayed with me.
The centerpiece of these services, however, was the sharing of communion, a spiritual experience that bound all present with God and one another in a way that no words can do. In the church in which I grew up, communion happened only quarterly and was sort of an afterthought, a simple remembrance of "oh, yeah, and Christ told us to do this" rather than a ritual meant to bind and elevate those gathered to a higher place through a shared spiritual experience.
I preferred the latter. I do concede that the music was better in my childhood church, though. Most of the offerings in the Episcopal Hymnal are tuneless and incredibly dull to the ear.
27 minutes. That’s about the average attention span of the majority of people once they get into the preaching part of the church service. If the preacher has more to say on a topic continue it the next week.
Acts 20:9 KJV
“And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.â€
Problem: Church is "Fluff"
...
So the only reason I see to go is to see friends and to spend time in community with God. I don't learn much and the church doesn't require me to transform my life.
Spending time in community with God is the reason that you attend church? It's pointless to attend if the service doesn't worship God with a God-centered service. That may be the reason that the current format is full of fluff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
In my experience as a Professor, rigor tends to lessen voluntary participation, period.
Ironic that you mentioned this with Pope Francis imposing short of a total ban on ye olde Latin Mass last week. (Any new traditional services will surely be hampered by the additional approvals by Vatican bureaucrats.)
That could account for the popularity of the Tridentine Mass among Millennials. Growing up with the new mass, it was forced participation non-stop with no rest periods for private reflection (until communion starts towards the end of the Mass).
No wonder most people started dozing off when the homily began! For the adults tired from the 5-day workweek and catching up on household chores and errands on Saturday, the last thing they wanted to do was to fake through the required responses for the "participation" aspect that the Vatican 2 reformers envisioned. (And actually rest on Sunday!)
Having to shake hands for the "Sign of Peace" and fake the required "Peace be with You" greeting with energetic enthusiasm also entailed that your hands got dirty. The reformers put it at the worst possible spot, right before Communion (no time to go to the bathroom to wash your icky hands). Meanwhile in the Episcopal (and ELCA?) churches, the peace is right before the Offertory hymn.
Now with Coronavirus highlighting hygiene, communion in the mouth should have made a comeback if the altar rails were still around. (The same reformers miraculously made altar rails a partisan issue--which oddly never happened in the Episcopal, Lutheran, and Methodist churches.)
During the Tridentine Mass, I have a choice to follow along with the priest with the missalette provided (with facing local language translation on the right; Latin on the left) or make-up for prayer time during the busy work week. Meanwhile the choir will be chanting/singing the appointed bible verses as the background music.
One priest quipped both masses to Capitalism vs. Communism: Tridentine being the Capitalist with being able to choose your activities during worship time; the New Mass being the Communist with compulsory congregational participation pre-determined and done in unison.
I quit attending almost a couple decades ago, mostly due to that which was being taught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justbyfaith
You should have sought to be an agent of change within rather than forsaking the assembly (Hebrews 10:25).
That is, unless you would have been promoting the practical atheism that you now appear to espouse to all of us.
In the winds of change, we find new direction. However, it's the Old Pagan concepts and beliefs of HELL and eternal damnation which you follow. And are far worse the the thoughts of an atheist who doesn't believe that nonsense to begin with. Fundamentalists such as yourself, discourage any logical reasoning or scientific evidence that challenges their beliefs, which are inherently maladaptive. A parasite like that of Satan, Hell and the ideology of eternal condemnation does not usually kill the host it inhabits, rather it is critically dependent on YOU for its survival.
Instead, it feeds off it (you), changing the hosts (your) thoughts and behaviors in ways that benefit its own existence through rote repetition. I quit playing in the sand boxes of religion and with the imaginary things of others decades ago by walking away from the teachings of extreme fundamentalism; not from that of an intelligent design for the maturation of humanity, which is in need of Spiritual growth. If you desire to believe in the reality of non-existent entities, like the devil and HELL - that's your choice. You can remain ignorant, if that is what you have chosen.
I'm a member of a mainline church in the US. It's in an affluent, well-educated community. There are some very successful and very educated people in the congregation, and the church belongs to a denomination whose members, as surveys show, are among the most highly educated of any religious group in the US. Members of the clergy all have at least one graduate degree, and some have PhDs or multiple graduate degrees. Thus the congregation and the clergy is capable of handling matters that are intellectually rigorous.
Problem: Church is "Fluff"
However, so many church services and other activities are light "fluff". For example, Sunday worship services involve only one passage of Scripture, and the sermon is about 20 minutes and may have a few minutes talking about the passage, but usually consists of the pastor's views (based on his or her own experiences, and other books and articles that the pastor has read) about life, and life in relation to the passage. Only sometimes is there an in-depth analysis of the passage.
Further, Sunday services are often as short as 40 minutes. We're told to "return good for evil" and we can certainly think about the passage and the sermon and see how it applies to our lives, but there's no clear instruction of "do this this week in order to grow in your faith".
So church activities are intellectually fluffy and there's no clear instruction to change our lives by putting the Bible to practice.
So the only reason I see to go is to see friends and to spend time in community with God. I don't learn much and the church doesn't require me to transform my life.
Question: Better if Church Were More Rigorous and Demanding?
What if church activities were significantly more intellectually challenging; for example, what if Sunday services took up an hour or an hour and fifteen minutes, with 20 minutes spend with a detailed analysis of at least one Bible passage? And what if the church required its members to do specific things to remain part of the community, such as do X hours of homeless ministry per month, or be part of a rigorous accountability group? That might drive a lot of people away, but for those who would take part, wouldn't that make church much more effective?
If church were more intellectually challenging, and if church were more demanding that its members put their faith into action to change their lives, wouldn't that be better? Couldn't that help churches grow, since then there would be a clear consequence from attendance, and there would be a clear reason to go?
Thanks.
I have trouble just doing our assigned work, let alone all that is available.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
