At the Baptist Standard, Marv Knox responds to this question, saying,
I tend to tilt away from agreeing that “not being fed” is sufficient reason for leaving a church. …
A church cannot be all things to all people. So, the [Willow Creek] Reveal survey indicates stronger members should take responsibility for their own spiritual growth while they help and encourage the church and its ministers to provide what might, in other segments, be called remedial support for less-mature members.
Interesting. It is, of course, true that the preacher can’t preach to all levels of maturity at once. Moreover, we don’t all have the same needs. Sometimes a preacher will preach on things that don’t matter to me.
You know, we recently had a couple place membership after visiting for a quite a long time. We asked why they were so slow to place membership? They explained that they took the spiritual oversight of the elders very seriously. They believe that placing membership means coming under the authority of and becoming accountable to the elders. And so they see the decision to join a church as being just as serious as a decision to marry. They plan to remain through thick or thin — sickness or health, as it were.
Are they right?
Assuming a church is doctrinally okay, why might a member properly choose to change to another church in town? Do we choose churches as a consumer chooses a country club or barber? Or is it more like being adopted into a family? Just how easy should it be to leave?
People who leave for "not being fed" are leaving for selfish reasons, which on it's face, means it's probably not right.
For my wife and I, we've decided the only reason we would leave our current congregation is because we don't have opportunities to serve as we are able to serve.
Congregating with other believers should not be about what we get, but rather, what we have to give to others in the group.
– Or is it more like being adopted into a family? Just how easy should it be to leave?
I am beginning to believe the seeker is right and our stubborn refusal to change in order to edify and encourage ONE ANOTHER is our downfall.
We place way too much focus on "assembling to worship" yet that is never taught, exampled or inferred in scripture.
But what would I know I simply read from a simple English Translation and with my simple mind use common sense and that seems not to always meet our hermeneutics.
One would think one would see it is not what they seek that is wrong, it just may be what we offer to meet their needs do not meet their needs that is wrong.
I can read nothing in the NT that even hints at doing what we do and how we do it.
If they, the seeker needs group type therapy to help them personally deal with issues then why not provide that? Small groups is an excellent way to provide such individual needs.
I just have one phrase of advice for those who want to leave because they are not being fed:
Try feeding others.
I'm still having trouble with the ingrained concept of A Church versus THE Church… If you leave Church A and go to Church B have you ever left THE Church…NO…..
What Biblical instruction gives Elders the duty to create a loyalty to a specific building or group within THE church. Jay, you spoke of honoring and respecting the leadership of the Elders. Excellent point…But, where is the directive to force "membership" into a specific group?? I don't see one.. If therefore there is no "rule" then there is no shame or condemnation…
The duty of THE Church is to preach Jesus…The rest of it is a matter of edification, encouragement, etc…If somebody doesn't like your style and chooses to leave, encourage them on the way out the door in the hope that God will put them where He wants them…Guilt is a sorry motivator for maintaining membership if you ask me. Especially, when there is not a single God-given reason to feel guilty about moving to another location where THE Church meets…
We're not adding music and we're gonna keep that one cup during flu season and let God work out the details.. No kitchen, no recreational area, no Sunday School…thus sayeth the Elders and if you leave we'll make your life miserable… Really ? Sounds like spiritual "starvation" to me.
I think this would have been a very simple question for the first century church. If there were only one "denomination" of Christians, all living and teaching the truth, it's hard to think of a righteous reason for travelling past one assembly to join one farther away — much less to separate from one assembly to join another. Certainly, the notion that a certain group of Christians isn't good enough for me is repulsive.
I have recently made the realization that it really isn't up to the church to make sure every member is always spiritually fed. That is up to the individual through the sacrifices they are willing to make and by being intentional in growing spiritually.
I do think a church should be key in motivating people to do this along with helping out those who are not sure how to allow the Spirit to totally take over their life This in addition to loving others and reaching the lost more effectively together as a whole instead of alone.
Keith said: I just have one phrase of advice for those who want to leave because they are not being fed:
Try feeding others.
Clayton responds: They can't Keith. All the feeder positions are "filled" and if they are not, most would not "qualify" to be a feeder, since we have limited the source.to only the qualified.
We assemble why?
Hebrews 10:24 Let us think of ways to motivate one another to acts of love and good works. 25 And let us not neglect our meeting together, as some people do, but encourage one another, especially now that the day of his return is drawing near.
Many congregations have no intentions of thinking of ways to motivate one another for that was not what occurred in Acts 20:7
Perhaps a better question is, "Is it ok to leave a dead church?". If a Christian remains in a dead church with uninspired leaders who rarely use the Bible and only try to grow using events and programs, then the deadness in the church can kill their own faith. Before God each member must decide if his/her efforts to remain are actually helping to reinvigorate the church or if in remaining their personal faith will die a slow and gradual death as they sink into the collective lethargy.
Skip Paul's pattern was not limited to what occurred at Troas. Paul's pattern is that he traveled for aprox.10 years over 10,000 miles visiting congregations and planting congregations. He often went back and visited those congregations but no where do we see him installing a Preacher in each one of them, with the instructions to preach the bible at them for 30 minutes every Sunday.
I personally can't think of anything any more boring.
If it was not for our small groups where we assemble together and actually encourage and edify one another I would have already pulled what hair I have left OUT. 🙂
Often times we actually bear one another's burdens and pray for one another.and actually miss one another if someone doesn't show up. Those involved in such meetings that the NT church met and practiced
rarely feel unloved, unnoticed and unappreciated.
Just sayin. 🙂
I used to hate small groups. It went against my idea of church. But now I think they are essential for big time spiritual growth.
My wife and I lived in the same metropolitan area the first twenty years of marriage. We attended three separate congregations during that time.
The first was where I had been baptized as a teenager. It was small and getting smaller. The elders had fired and hired four different preachers in five years. My wife felt smothered. I saw more constraints than specified in scripture. When my wife became pregnant we decided we wanted a better environment for our children and placed membership elsewhere (after a year long search and prayers).
Eight years later we switched again for similar reasons. I attributed drops in attendance to a lack of leadership. I initiated several church planning and strategy sessions with the elders, deacons and other men. The place was at a standstill and the quality of the children's classes was dropping.
We found a fantastic place in town where the elders were true leaders, the preacher was a true people person and always uplifting. Unfortunately, we moved out of state. We still miss those days.
In each case, the choice to change came slowly with much thought. At all places, my wife and I were both very active as bible class teachers, policy makers (within our level of authority) and usually well liked by our fellow Christians (to the best of our knowledge). Without getting into details, we did what we thought best at the time to make the congregation a better place (with some success) before making the change.
None of the moves were over a particular doctrinal issue. They all dealt with leadership and our predicted future for that particular congregation. I may have handled the situations a little differently now than when I was younger, more energetic and less experienced. But nevertheless, each move was a positive for my family.
This is a tough one, especially considering we are so divided. 🙁 I relatively recently left a "fellowship" that we had been going to for about 6 years. First of all, I do think it is the individuals responsibility to abide in Christ which is the only way that we can produce fruit. I think the weakness in the church IS because about the only food a believer eats is what they get from the pulpit or Sunday School. It isn't enough to sustain or fill a believer. We are to let the Word of Christ dwell in us richly. And as we fill ourselves with His Word, His Word becomes the lamp for our feet and the light for our path. We begin recognizing and experience the Spirit of God in our life (these Words are Spirit and they are LIFE). That said, I was hurt tremendously by a leader who lorded over the faith of others. I needed someone to love me and care for me and help me to unscramble the damage done. I expressed to a leader's wife how I was lonely and needed help to trust others again. As wounded as I was, I tried to have people in my house, opened my home to a life group, etc. But never once did any of the leaders or elders invite me into their home and show and express their love to me. How can one lead if he doesn't know the condition of the flock and their needs? We left because I was terribly lonely and was not finding the fellowship that I needed so terribly. To be truthful, I feel lonely at the new place. But I do see more potential for fellowship. We are to be a family, and if the only time we care for one another is at the building what motivates one to want to stay? We have no "family" other than our immediate family. So when you try to spend time with others for holidays or whatever, but everyone spends their time with THEIR extended families, where is the family of Christ? Where are my brothers and sisters in Christ? There is never a feeling of loneliness greater than when you are with others and still sense loneliness. I personally think that Clayton McCool and Adam Legler's comments above are on the mark. Our focus should be more on each other. Sometimes, I think that the "order of things" is more important than the children of God. 🙁
This is a timely question by Jay.
I agree with what Keith and others have said that we are called to feed rather than be fed, to serve rather than be served, and to encourage/edify rather than be encouraged/edified.
Our current congregation numbers less than 20 members (after years of church splits, stretching back over decades), so there are no elders or deacons, and only a handful of men available for the various duties and responsibilities. I wear several hats myself.
But Skip Gross touches on my feelings on the subject. When there is poor leadership, and members are content with stagnant growth because "we are sound" (i.e., 5 acts of worship) and therefore outreach and works of service are unnecessary, despite speaking out during every business meeting, during weekly devotionals and announcements (my only opportunities to address the congregation), and serving whenever and wherever possible with little participation from the rest of the group, it wears on your soul.
I have had a lot of experience with smaller congregations, but I have never left one except when moving from one part of the country to another, so this has been a very difficult decision for my wife and I to make. But at this point, it is something we need to do for our own spiritual well being. We have done what we can; it is time to move on.
Hmm, site has experienced a throwback it seems in the way we post. Darn change agents…
Sometimes these thought questions are a bit too thoughty.
Are there situations where the preacher or eldership get so focused on a single issue or style and are driving the congregations teaching into a ditch and therefore totally Christ-centered people would seek "greener pastures?" Sure – I have seen such situations.
Are there times when the Church is doing a good job meeting the needs of the entry level believers but the top tier isn't getting their meet and feel a Christ-centered need to move on? Sure – I have seen that as well.
Usually though the problem will be one of the heart – selfishness and a desire to be lifted up. Even meeting everyones specific needs were the proper role fo the Church – any group of more than two could not actually accomplish it on a regular basis.
For the leadership – do try to vary your programs bothin content and method of delivery to ensure you are meeting the needs of as many as possible. Do you best to make sure the offerings aren't repetitive during the week (Not to be confused with having a basic study on Sunday and a deeper exploration of the practical material later in the week.) You'll never be able to keep the selfish people happy – and in the long run it is probably best that you don't so they will move on – but you can at least arrange things to be able to say you are covering the bases.
Every church has opportunities for members to feed other members … whether the church leadership knows about them or not.
I'm not aware of any church that's overrun with volunteers for Sunday School teachers, devotional leaders at nursing homes, bloggers blogging the gospel, twitterers tweeting encouragement, writers of curriculum, Let's Start Talking conversationalists ….
just a couple of stray thoughts:
regarding being fed: Anyone remember the song Fat Baby? I believe Amy Grant recorded it back in the 1980s.
regarding leaving a church: Do we believe a person should leave some other denomination and join one of our fellowships?
and to repeat an earlier thought: What do we think of churches like Oak Hills CofC which became simply Oak Hills Church. They left their affiliation with the CofC and I believe they did it for theological reasons.
Hesed,
Randall
Keith,
Many have left because they tried to feed others and were criticized for doing so.
Associtaton with the unsaved is frowned on by many.
We understand that babies need to be fed and it's our responsibility to do it. We also have the responsibility of teaching these same children to feed themselves. But at some point, they better know how to do it or they're going to starve. Eating once or twice a week just doesn't work.
Alabama John and Aron, are churches which prevent one from doing God's work really churches – or just social associations of like-minded people? Are they redeemable? Only if they choose to follow Christ.
I have dear friends who have left the congregation where I worship and am employed. I can't argue with their reasons, and they remain dear brothers and sisters in Christ. If my kingdom efforts become devalued and disfranchised there, as theirs were, I will have to resign and go, too. It's been my church family for the better part of 27 years, and I love it dearly. So I stay and do what I can to build the kingdom and feed others.
It's an interesting question. About 6 years ago, about a year after moving across my county, I did switch from the congregation I'd been attending since I moved to this metro to one closer to my new home. There were a number of factors involved; geography was only a small part.
The then-preacher from the congregation I moved to spoke on a Wednesday night at my old congregation. I really enjoyed his lesson, and had been somewhat dissatisfied with the preaching at that congregation for some time — generally not unsound, just…shallow. Though there was the one preacher who once did a sermon based off the song "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina"…
I had been trying to bridge the growing chasm between the young adult group and the rest of the church for most of the 7 years I was there, with little to no success. The young adult minister seemed only interested in bonding within the group, not connecting outside of it. By seeking the larger, more diverse church community, I had functionally isolated myself from my peers.
I had been teaching in the cradle roll and preschool programs for several years; one consequence was that I was getting very little adult class time — the cradle roll teaching schedule was one month one, two off, so I was missing a third of every Sunday morning class series. Then there was a disagreement over classroom management in the preschool class I was teaching along with some others, and I was asked to step down from that role.
So…no more responsibilities, at a church much farther from home, where no one ever asked where I'd been when I missed a service, and I had very few — not none, but few — close connections after 7 years.
And then we had a series of guest speakers on Wednesday night, and, as I mentioned, one was from a church much closer to my current home, and it was a good lesson, and I decided to visit.
It was, and is, one of the friendliest, warmest, most welcoming congregations I've ever been to, with excellent children's classes, amazing singing, solid teaching, a strong eldership, and so much more. In fact, a year or so ago, we had a series of class-style Sunday night discussion of "difficult questions", including this very topic.
Within a year there, I think I'd been invited into more people's homes than I was in the entire 7 years at the previous congregation. Placing membership required sitting down and talking with the elders about why I wanted to join this congregation, not just filling out a card and dropping it in a plate.
I run the resource room / library now, which includes supervising whatever kids want to come back and hang out after services — they pick a DVD (VeggieTales, etc.) and we have some Duplos and things; it keeps them from running around banging into people so much, though some of that still happens, of course.
There have been some changes over the past year; the best way I can summarize it is to say the now-former preacher had a very ugly mid-life crisis. I'm not wild about the current preacher; he's more into buzzwords and less into fact-checking than I'd prefer. But if I ever think about looking at other area congregations, I can easily look around and see how much I'm loved here.
Of course, it's not simply about what others do for me; it's about what I do for them, but when I try to write more than a little about that, it feels like boasting, and I delete it. I can brag about what other people do more comfortably. 🙂
If I miss a service, due to travel or illness, several people will ask after me. We have a ladies group / pals program that's been running for over 50 years. The talent show at the annual Thanksgiving potluck is amazing — there's not much that's cuter than 2 year olds reciting memory verses!
I still get emailed bulletins from my former congregation, and I go back sometimes for special events — memorials for older members I knew there, a birthday gathering for a friend, that sort of thing. But it's really not home the way my current congregation is.
By the way, the wonderful, loving, warm welcoming congregation I attend now? Is also non-institutional. We still support several missionaries (6, if I recall correctly, both in and out of the US). We support a children's home in Mexico. We get together for potlucks, at parks and community centers. We've had special collections for disaster relief. Functionally, the difference between this congregation and the "mainstream" churches I grew up in are pretty subtle. I really wouldn't have noticed for quite a while if my dad hadn't noticed the marking in an old churches-of-the-nation directory.
"The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?" Jeremiah 5:31 ESV
There are more ways to prophesy falsely than to speak lies. You can also do it by simply not speaking the truth about Jesus.
I visited a congregation once where an elder was teaching a chapter by chapter study in the Old Testament. The chapter that week was Lev. 16 – about the Day of Atonement. He did a good job of describing the events of the day as laid out in the chapter – but as the end of the class came near, I kept waiting for him to make THE point about Jesus as our atonement and scape goat. Finally, I raised my hand and preached the gospel for about 3-5 minutes from my seat.
Afterward, I was amazed at the number of people (including the pastor-teacher) who said they had never heard anything like that before. They said, "It was beautiful."
If I were attending a church where that was the norm, and if I could do nothing about it – I think I would have to leave to maintain my sanity and spirituality.
Good grief. Church is about being fed? It's not about love and community and learning together? In this day and age, where we can all feed ourselves via online sermons, books, blogs etc….?
On saying that, I choose to no longer be force-fed by sermons from the pulpit. I choose only to be fed when the process is interactive – like a two-way Bible study or Small Group work. Would I leave church if the teaching wasn't good? No – I'd help develop better teachers/Bible scholars.
Love and community and learning together don't feed you?
Yes, Cathy – they do feed me. But, I got the impression that (rightly or wrongly) that Jay was talking about "pulpit preaching" which is not something I treasure about church. I choose to be elsewhere while that is going on….in this day and age, it's obsolete, IMO.
Keith,
God bless YOU and your efforts!
Many attend churches where the status quo is all that is wanted. If any start to grow around them its because they are doing something unscriptural. "Only a few will enter in" is the favorite verse.
In those churches the young leave as soon as they can and those that stay do so because its close to home or because they believe the fewer, the greater the reward will be.
If nothing is being done to increase the number being added (other than sending a check to a few preachers) its a pretty good indicator but not the only one, then its time to leave and go where you can feed..
" I'm working where the work is hardest' is the excuse heard by do nothing preachers, then its time for him to leave to look for more fruitful ground. Plowing in rocks is hard unproductive work
You are right, we are to not only be fed, but do the feeding.
I don't deer hunt in town, I go to the woods where they are. Never had one come jump in my truck.
This may be overly simplistic, but there are several physiological principles that may be illustrative.
(1) There are exceptions, but usually it is infants who are "fed" (passive) and it is the mature who feed themselves (active). "I'm not being fed" may be a statement of identity.
(2) People usually eat because they are hungry. They are hungry when they expend energy doing physical work. People are spiritually hungry and thirsty for righteousness when they are actively expending energy in the service of others. They shall be filled (Matthew 5:6)
(3) Sermons and teaching on Sunday mornings cannot adequately fill those who are actively expending spiritual energy. Sunday has to provide the "Whitman's Sampler" that makes one hunger for more the rest of the week. Those who get their "fill" on Sunday morning are eating junk food the rest of the week.
Suppose the real reason someone feels the lack of being fed is because the real need is for intimacy and realness. Sometimes I think the reason we have a preacher give a message from a pulpit each week its because of the one"sermon" that Paul gave that lasted till midnight and then till morning. Personally, I think the church would grow if there was an environment that encouraged and utilized the gifts of the whole body when we gathered together. I also think it would provide for more intimacy and openness. I think that is why more people are encouraged by small groups than by Sunday gatherings. In many ways I think those small groups are more in line with what our assembling together should be than what they are. They need to be personal and real, and provide opportunity to talk and share about what is important, pertinent, and matters.
Loribelle,
The word for "preached" as in "Paul preached to them" (Acts 20:7) is the word from which we get "dialog." Your instincts are right on target!
Does the church at Sardis shed any light on this discussion (Revelation 3)? Apparently the church at large was guilty of displeasing God. Yet Jesus says there were individuals in the congregation who were in the church but hadn't participated in the sin.
Why didn't the innocent ones emigrate to another city and church? Should they have done so?
Our first mistake in discussions like this is to assume the first century church (local churches) were perfect. They were not, just as mine and yours are not. Remember 1 Corinthians 3:1-9?, I follow Paul, I follow Peter, I follow Apollos?
Then there are the 7 churches in Revelation one of which was luke warm..
The criteria for me is this, does this church preach Christ? Is He the center of attention? Or, does this church preach mostly on their distinctives and what is wrong with all the other denominations?
If a church is led by men who love the sheep they have the charge over and purpose like Paul to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified, they will grow imo.
Far too many men are self styled "gospel preachers" and yet never preach the gospel. Sadly, I'm convinced that many of them don't know what the gospel is. Everyone should want to be living and worshiping with people whose first love it Jesus, not the church.
Royce
Royce,
Amen and AMEN, brother!
The key is to focus on Jesus.
I amen Royce too!
I see a change in the churches of Christ that started a short time ago toward Jesus instead of church.
How I wish it had always been so.
Wasted years, wasted years!
Nobody has mentioned love – as in "What does it mean to love those in my failing church?"
It isn't about me, what I feel, what I like, what I prefer, or what my ideas of right theology are. It isn't about how effectively I am used in the church, how I am respected, or what I am allowed to do. It is about loving those around me. Nothing more.
If by my ridicule, persecution, and outcast status I can then be the cruciform Christ to a dying church, isn't that the most noble of causes? One of the higher forms of service? The true calling of all believers in those places where the light of Christ is needed?
It isn't about escaping the pain, but by loving those who persecute you, praying for those who hate you. It is about loving your enemy, understanding that they are only enemy because of their heart, not yours. Within your heart, there is only love for the other – be them family, friend, or enemy.
Adam, why didn't you complete the alliteration of "family, friend, or foe" instead of "enemy"? Just kidding. My mind works that way too much.
Clayton,
Paul talks about his preaching the word throughout many of his epistles. In particular he admonished Timothy to preach the word in season and out of season. Paul in Acts said he didn't hesitate to preach the "whole counsel of God" in the three years he was in Ephesus. Our ability to enjoy and thrive in small groups is not based upon our innate talents and skills, it is based upon our being fed previously by the word of God so that we see how we are loved by God and how to love others. Of course in churches where the preaching is boring, I can understand why many in the church think preaching is irrelevant because they have been bored to tears. However, if the preacher really helps the congregation to dig into the word showing the glory of God and the application to daily life, it will inspire the members to their own Bible study. I am in a church now where virtually every sermon is an exposition of some portion of the Bible. We are are to about 3000 members because everyone keeps coming back to hear more fascinating insights from the word. Modern preaching is on catchy themes and the preachers own bent towards topics. Studying through the word will help us to have a balanced perspective. If we haven't heard deeply moving and inspiring expositions from the word then we slowly resort to finding other ways to be inspired within the church. Having been in prior churches with very boring and unbiblical sermons I am sympathetic to people who want to leave to find a more inspiring church.
From observation, some families have left churches when they had a child in an age bracket with no friends. Fewer than 200 people can leave holes.
Singles can find no one, or find someone only to have that person marry another.
Best to move away rather than deal with the anguish of seeing a loved one with someone else.
From my own observation, it seems all too often the "preacher" is disconnected with the needs of the congregation. He preaches on things that often times are irrelevant as to the "needs" of the congregation. That's another reason why I feel that our dependency upon one man is flawed. It takes the WHOLE body of Christ to bring growth. (Eph. 4: 14As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
15but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
16from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.
Most preachers are indeed disconnected from the real needs of the congregation and thus their preaching is irrelevant. In those churches, the members survive in spite of the sermons. Once you have been in churches where the Word of God is really opened up and made real and exciting it is very difficult to go back to boring and irrelevant sermons from boring and detached preachers. Remember, when Jesus spoke the people were amazed. Peters admonition in I Pet 4 was to "speak as speaking the very words of God". When that truly happens, the church will be transformed, the members will be fed, and then in turn they can effectively feed others.
We are a part of a great community of Christians. It is a wonderful place with many strong believers. Things are wonderful. My wife and I have found many opportunities to serve others. We have been challenged spiritually. Our children have been loved and involved and have grown in the faith.. Then we wake up and realize our younger son has no one to identify with. The youth group is large..but so few are his age…and the ones that are his age have labeled him as goofy/weird. He can't break the mold they have put him in…and he is so young…and he is not goofy and he is not weird. He is just too innocent and nice. Young people can be the meanest/cruelist. Our son no longer wants to sit with the youth group or go to any of the youth functions. We don't know what to do. I would like to tell some parents what I think about their parenting…and the youth minister about the lousy job he does. He knows what is happening and does nothing. But if I were to say something…even if I spoke with kindness and not in anger…it would not be effective. So…we are faced with finding a new place to be…and are praying that our son will find he is acceptedand wanted there. And hope that some day I will not harbor any wishes to see the snots that pushed him out of the youth group to eat snails tails. The sight of their shallow smiles is disgusting.
David,
I hope you wrote tongue-in-cheek. Just in case you didn't, here is something to think about.
Suppose the "snots" were his class mates at school. Would you uproot your family to move across town so he would be in a different school?
As a preacher I follow a very involved process to determine what I need to be preaching.
Step 1 – pray, pray, pray at all times and with every step in the process.
Step 2 – listen – What are the sheep crying for – do they struggle with forgiveness, love, humility, or they needing a refresher in the basics of Who God Is and what He does?
Step 3 – ask – Get insights from the elders or other strong members of the congregation. Don't be afraid to let them help guide the process.
Step 4 – study – find materials that help you understand what needs to be said in a way that communicates to the sheep.
Step 5 – feed the sheep. But like any loving shepherd watch to see if they are actually eating. If they are then keep it coming until they are full and then prepare for the next feeding. If they are not go back to your resources and find a different feed mix (style, method, illustrations, versions, etc) and try again.
At all times remember that this about bringing the sheep to the trough so they can be made better suited as children and servants for their Father. It is not and it is never about what you know, what you have to prove, scores you have to settle, or your ten favorite ideas or points of doctrine. (I have sinned in all of these ways in my time and probably will again but the outcome was always and will always be the same – bad for the sheep and eventually bad for me.)
There will always be goats among the sheep. That is not your problem to solve. There will always be sheep who will not eat or who are not yet ready to eat. That is also not your problem, though you need to circle around and give them individual attention at some point if they persist.
In all things teach Jesus and you cannot go far wrong.
We are adopted children of God. Christ is our Brother. We might even sing "I'm so glad to be a part of the Family of God". But, the thing a Church Congregations needs to constantly ask itself is: "Does our Congregation behave like a loving Family?". If it does, I think no one in that congregation will be Church hopping. If it doesn't, then people will looking for a new congregation.
I really don't think the preaching at a congregation makes a big difference. I'd prefer good meaningful preaching but I can deal with a sermon that doesn't address my needs. But I don't need a disfunctional Church family.
Sorry, that next to last sentence should have read "…I CAN deal with a sermon that doesn't address my needs."
Yes it was tongue-in-check. I think it was. But I still don't know what to do.
As sad as it is to say, there are some congregations that need to die/fail/dissolve/whatever from their own chronic/terminal disfunctionality.
Staying in these congregations does nothing to ameliorate their situation while however continuing to inflict substantial damage on one's own spiritual health.
When we moved to the town we live in today, we attended a small church in town that had no elders or deacons, had no desire to install any (in fact, had attracted a man and his wife as teachers who believed that elders should've gone away after the first century) and were dominated by one family who had both stayed on and driven off members for several years. Frankly, they're waiting on a future that will never be based on a past that never was.
My wife and I are graduates of Lipscomb (albeit from different times and different degree programs), and we got tired of it. We really weren't making a difference and we wanted our daughters to have a healthy experience with congregational life. We also weren't inclined to sacrifice our own spiritual health in the process. So we bailed out at the first of the year to a larger congregation (250+, which is a large congregation in mid-Missouri) in the university town about 20 miles away.
We don't feel one bit guilty about it. We should've done it sooner. The girls have better teachers, more children their own age, and my wife and I likewise. We are literally plugged back into the greater Church of Christ collective hive (and those of you who grew up in the church in places like Nashville know exactly what I'm saying). Not to mention that we've run into many other refugees from that small congregation we left.
Being part of a congregation is about being able to be a part of a spiritual community, it's not about going down going down with a religious Titanic singing Nearer My God to Thee on the stern.
Todd,
When you preach, is there a dialogue? Can people ask questions during the sermon, or are they expected to be in receive mode? I'm failing to see the point of one-way communication in the way of preaching. It was great when people couldn't read and write, and didn't have access to written information and interactive websites. But nowadays – what benefits do you see over unilateral preaching coversations versus interactive Bible classes and small group work?
Thanks,
Vicki
Those that eschew preaching in pulpits are generally the ones who have had experience with boring, stale, and irrelevant preachers. Those that have listened to amazing and soul stirring preaching don't have that perspective. The first sermon in Acts 2 was not a dialogue and the church exploded with happy, loving people. I have been in many Bible discussion groups over the years and have lead many discussion groups. They have their place in the fellowship. But each member can't spend hours praying and studying the scriptures before making their point in a group discussion. A great preacher prays a lot, digs into the word, and preaches from the word and not from his opinions. I am not talking about topical sermons with catchy stories. I am talking about lifting out the Word of God and sharing its meaning. The word of God can indeed dramatically change lives. We currently attend a church where the teaching consistently amazes me because new insights keep being lifted from the word and I have heard sermons for 37 years and haven't seen this stuff before. As I said previously, about 3000 people come every week for the same reason, to hear the Word preached. And yes the church has small discussion groups throughout the week too.
In general don't knock preaching (lecture) as a teaching method as it is still the most widely used in all fields of knowledge and it is so because it works. (and as a disciple I tend to do what Jesus did – preach first and then discuss later.)
As for me personally – on Sunday morning, no we don't usually have time for questions. But every Sunday evening we begin by fielding questions or comments on the day's lesson and the evening lessons are treated more like a Bible class – open format. Also we use the Sunday am lesson to drive the talking points for our small groups during the week. So we benefit from exposition and from in depth discussion.
About dialogue and biased Bible translations
Paul "preached" and he gave a "speech" … sounds like a monologue, doesn't it.
Also quite "Paul-centered" … he kept on talking and talking until someone fell out of the window.
Well, here we see a difference. Paul "talked with them" which sounds more like a conversation; but again it was "his speech".
Let's examine that:
a) The context is a Christian assembly on te first day of the week.
b) The Breaking of bread and teaching were on some the main parts oftheis assembly.
How was the teaching done? As a conversation or as a speech "from a pulpit"? The Greek word is important here:
???????????, from this word we have our term dialogue. It is clearly a word describing a conversation, but not a sermon. the word "to preach" is a proper translation for ???????? which describes a herold proclaiming a Royal decree (which the Gospel is). Check this out for yourselves: ???????? is never used in the NT in the context of teaching or exhorting Christians in the Church.
But we get this utterly wrong impression from Bible translations that reflect the church-traditions of the time in which they were made. We have to digf deper here: How did a Rabbi teach his disciples? At least in part by challenging them through questions, by having a spiritual dialogue with them. See haow our Lord Jesus taught His disciples (not how He preached to the crouds).
"His speech" – there is no "his" in the Greek text, and the word for speech is ?????? – which is a very broad term. To translate with "his speech" leads back to the false idea of a monoloue. Rather ?????? points to the content of the dialogue, not to the format.
Alexander
Ooops the Greek characters disappeared:
dialegomai – speaking with others
kerysso – to preach (as a herald)
logos – (the) Word
Good word study but look at what is happening and what is recorded.
Jesus taught by telling stories and in long monologues. His stated purpose was to throw out the seed broadly. (He taught them in parables and He taught them as much as they could hear.) The "crowd" can not be so easily distinguished from His disciples as it was out from the "crowd" that the disciples were drawn. Discussions are recorded as happening later in a more private setting. You had to want to know more to get the dialogue. Also this is not just his pattern at the beginning, but He maintains it to the end. He was still preaching in His last days. And these words were not just for the outsiders to chew on. They formed the very basis of the knowledge the disciples would pass on the the Church.
The apostles followed His example. Peter did not discuss the Gospel on Pentecost, he proclaimed it. Acts shows repeated examples of the ancient practice of rhetoric: logical progressions, defenses, straightforward expostulation.
As you have said in other arenas we did not arrive at our ancient traditions out of nothing. Preaching was from the beginning and so was dialogue. It is dialogue we lost for a time, we have never lost preaching.
Consider also the nature of that first assembly – you cannot dialogue with 3000 people but you can teach them by preaching and then let them dialogue from house to house. Especially if you have 12 apostles and 120 original disciples to circulate among them to help guide the discussions.
The nearest teacher to the style of Jesus in modern times was not the big name preachers.
Will Rogers got his points across in the same manner.
Skip wrote, "Acts 2 was not a dialogue."
Verses 37 – 39 sounds like at least some dialog to me.
1 Corinthians 14 sounds like dialog – or at least shared speaking.
Acts 20:7 uses the root word for dialog.
In dialog, often one person (especially if that person is very knowledgeable in the subject being discussed) will be predominant – while accepting questions and comments from others who are present.
Most teaching seminars say we should use questions more than lecture. Churches, college classrooms and political diatribe are about the only places left where lecture dominates. All of these have a reputation for being boring.
I admit there are some excellent lecturers who can hold an audience in the palm of their hand – but even then there is often audience interaction of some sort.
Why must we be locked into one of the poorest methods of communicating because of our tradition of "preaching." I know preachers who do not even want their sermons to be discussed in classes or small groups later on the same day. Why? Are they that insecure? I welcome the opportunity to explain further the concepts that I present when preaching – and to get the opportunity for feed-back to see if I am getting my point across. And, it would sometimes bless me to hear another perspective on something I am saying.
But, we've got to have a sermon….
Again, Paul compelled Timothy to preach the word. Teacher is a role in the church as defined in Ephesians. Let us not go overboard and compel everyone to believe that a back and forth discussion is the only way the leaders in the church should ever convey a message. There are many examples in the Bible of Preaching/Teaching. Jesus assumed that preachers would go out and preach when he said "go into all the world and preach the gospel (Mark 16:15,16). Other examples of teaching/preaching are found in: Deut. 33:10; Neh. 8:8; Jer. 14:14; Luke 24:27, 44; Mat 24:14; Mat 26:13; Acts 8:25; Acts 14:7,21; Rom 1:9,15…. etc… Of course we are getting off the point of "is it ok to leave a church if I am not getting fed."
Dear Todd
Good point, but there is more to the story:
If you go through Matthew 13 you will notice a clear difference between the way He talked to the crowds and the way He "dialogued" with his disciples.
Even the location is dfifferent. He preached from a boat to the multitudes, but talked with His disciples after having returned to the house.
Our confusion has its roots in not making a difference between the public speeches addressed to outsiders and the intimate convarsations with His disciples. I believe our congregational meetings should be patterned after the second way of teaching (which leads to house churches).
This is confirmed by your own observation:
This does not exclude a speech in order to explain something in more detail, but this is only one ingredient to the "Spiritual Pot-Luck" of a Christian assembly.
We do have the same possibilities today. Let's go to where the crowds are and announce the Kingdom of God, and let's deepen and strengthen the faith of the believers in smaller groups from house to house. We still can function the same way as in the 1st century, and I am convinced that we can become as fruitful as they.
@ Jerry Starling
You are right, Acts 2 is not a dialogue, but – as is written – an "address" to the crowds. The Greek there is also not dialegomain but apophtheggomai (to speak forth). It is a classic example of a sermon preached like a herald to the multitudes. It is a declaration of the Kingdom to people who are still outside the kingdom.
This is preaching. But preaching is not directed to the disciples who are to be taught, admonished, engcouraged … fed (and if they say they are not fed, then we should examine ourselves carefully before we dismiss them as "unspiruitual" – which might be the case after all).
The word kerysso appears 61 times in the New Testament. Not once it it used in the setting af a Christian Church meeting, it is always a proclamation of the Kingdom to those still outside the Kingdom.
Now we are so used to use the term "preacher" for the minister on the pulpit because of – in fact – incorrect Bible translations and church tradition, that we think it is normal to confront an assembly of Spirit-Filled disciples with a lengthy monologue that instead of letting God's Seed in us work through many brothers (and sisters) for the edification of the saints.
Now: And that's the thought question here! If people leave because they are not being fed, one reason might be that the "one and only" pracher does not connect with their hearts well enough. And it is a fact, that no preacher can speak in a way that all are edified. There are always some who profit and some who don't. But a New Testament Christian Assembly was never meant to be based on a monologue, but on mutual edification through the various gifts of the Spirit. When we assemble in our houses all three or four brothers present share a short teaching (sometimes as a short monologue, sometimes with questions and answers), my wife makes a children's devotion, all may choose a song and share good news or prayer requests, all may pray. All are involved in this or that way. It still is possible that on a given sunday someone might say, he was not fed – but in the long run this is quite unlikely.
Alexander
Skip,
What chapters and verses did Timothy use to preach the word? Thought question.
Preaching the word today in most cases means having a main scripture and using others to back it up.
More of a teacher-student, type lesson instead of preacher -sinner. Not much preaching to that, but safer.
How I miss the old time get among the sinners and bring them to Jesus preachers.
Whether the sermon is a lecture/monologue or a dialog – and same thing for classes – the important things are:
is the word being taught; are people being encouraged and edified; is God being glorified.
If so, then either method, or even a third method is fine. If people are simply sharing their ignorance with each other does it really matter whether it is done solo or as part of a larger group?
I am assuming we have all heard the word preached well by a single individual and also attended good classes with lots of give and take. I also assume we have experienced the other end of the spectrum.
Hesed,
Randall
I like Jesus sermon to Cleopas on the road to Emmaeus. Jesus started with Moses and "Opened up the scriptures" until their hearts burned with fire again. Whether you call it preaching or teaching, it is only effective if we "open up the scriptures" and people see things in a new light. Rehashing old doctrines over and over is not what I call "opening up the scriptures". There are tons of insights which can be found in scriptures that we haven't seen yet and can't see until we ask God to further open our eyes. If we are humble seekers looking for God to teach us more, he will through the Word.
David,
You have to speak to the youth minister. It's a Matt 18 thing.
(Mat 18:15-16 ESV) 15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses."
You cannot harbor this resentment unresolved. You may be right that it won't work, but you won't know — not really — until you meet with him. Nor is it fair to him to judge him as ineffective without giving him a chance to deal with the problem.
Meet with him. Be gentle but make sure he understands how much the children have hurt your son and you and your wife. Be frank about your feelings, but avoid personalizing it. That is, talk about the consequences of the stereotyping and rejection without putting him on the defensive. I assume he's young and a bit naive. If you make him defensive, he'll not be able to listen. Just speak from the heart.
(2Ti 2:24-25 ESV) 24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
(Gal 6:1 ESV) Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
Don't talk the elders until you've first met with him at least twice. If you get no satisfaction, go to him a second time with one or two witnesses. And then go to the elders.
Now, even if he comes to see your problem, he may not have the skills necessary to resolve the problem. But I've known many youth ministers who could help in such a case. If he doesn't know how to proceed, urge him to seek the wise counsel of more experienced youth ministers.
I'm no expert in adolescent psychology, but my guess is that the first thing he needs to do is change his own views toward your son. He's the leader, and his attitudes, even if unspoken, will affect the kids profoundly.
Second, most youth programs have other adults involved in the ministry. He needs to meet with them and ask them to help. Some may be parents. Some not. But all can behave in ways that change the outcome — in part by teaching the teens to act like Christians rather than the world. They may need to have some direct conversations about how Christians treat those who are a little different. And it may be that some of the adult volunteers have treated your son poorly or harbor condescending attitudes. They have to change.
Vicki,
Several years ago, we polled church members as to their favorite Bible classes at church of all time. The top 3 were all taught in lecture style! But they all presented new and interesting material that was outside the expertise of the class. They needed to learn a lot of new material before they could build on it through discussion.
As we sorted through the data and discussed it with the students, it appeared that the ordinary lecture is pretty bad, discussion classes are generally preferred over lecture, but the best lectures are even better than discusssion classes.
In a small church, there's really no reason for questions to be prohibited during the sermon. But in a church of hundreds, it's entirely impractical. On the other hand — recently at the Abilene Christian lectureships, Rick Atchley's sermon was followed by questions, presented by a moderator, based on comments texted from the audience. They tried this with several speakers. Clever idea.
The results were, I think, uneven, depending heavily on the nature of the sermon. But technology can be very helpful in some settings to add discussion even with very large audiences.
Jay,
You are right about the difference between large and small churches when it comes to discussion during a sermon. The "texting" of comments/questions for response is a neat idea.
I think that in a large church one way to involve discussion with a sermon is to base small group discussions around the themes of the sermon, even though I know preachers who are very hesitant to do anything like this. (They fear becoming "roast preacher" in the small groups.) One of the ground rules could be that negative comments be discouraged. The group leaders could provide feed-back to the preacher if the group just does not seem to get the point he was making.
Jerry,
Totally agree. Small groups that discuss the sermon can be very effective. Of course, like you say, it helps if they're good sermons. I suppose some groups might be dominated by negative personalities who use the group as an opportunity to skewer the preacher, but we never had that problem. If the sermons are bad, people will talk whether or not you have small groups.
Hi Jay, all:
I've been advised by HistoryGuy that he has not been around because he is facing a life-threatening illness and is now under doctors' care. 🙁
Please, keep him in your prayer