Three ways to change churches

Father David Epps's picture

At one time in our nation’s history, there was a great deal of denominational loyalty. If a person was born a Methodist or a Baptist, he or she tended to stay a Methodist or a Baptist and so did the children. That day is no more.

Today, people change churches and denominations like they change their socks. A few weeks ago, I was at a denominational meeting and several of us were sitting around talking “clergy talk” and this subject came up.

Although none of us were having people leave our churches, all of us had been in the ministry long enough (35 years for me) to see people come and to see people go.

In my opinion, there are three ways to leave a church or a denomination. One way is wrong and destructive, another hurtful and cowardly, and the third honorable and proper.

The wrong and destructive way is to leave angry, full of contention or in rebellion. Truthfully, in my experience, there are a fair number of people who seem to leave in this manner. It’s as though they have to trash their former church and its leadership so that they can feel good about themselves as they storm out.

One man in a former church of mine left and loudly informed people that he was leaving because the pastor (yours truly) wasn’t “spiritual enough,” whatever that meant.

A few weeks later, I was in a bookstore shopping for a Robert’s Rules of Order, for an upcoming business meeting when, out of the room in the back (the porno section of the otherwise nice bookstore), came my friend who left the church because I wasn’t “spiritual enough.” He saw me, turned beet-red, and stumbled all over himself trying to explain away the magazine in his hand.

Often ministers who leave denominations will, likewise, sling rocks at their leadership, or policies, or fellow Christians. In their wake they leave people reeling and confused.

Another way to leave is one that causes misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and guilt. This occurs when someone simply vacates without ever telling anybody anything. They were there and then they were not.

When people call them, write letters, or try to find out if they are having problems, they avoid contact and never give a reason or attempt to bring closure. People in the church wonder if they have hurt or offended them, the pastor feels that in some way he may have failed them, and their best friends feel betrayed and hurt.

While this method is not as destructive as the first, it still leaves an ache in the hearts of those left behind. Many are the people in whom I have invested countless hours and prayers (sometimes dollars), who left. I believed that a relationship had developed, when, suddenly, they were gone with no notice and left no reason. All pastors have experienced the deep hurt and disappointment that comes with such situations.

Sometimes people suddenly move out of town or are transferred and don’t have much time to say their goodbyes. In this case, a phone call or letter after the move is complete allows for the relationships and good feelings to continue.

The third method is to approach the pastor and explain why the person or family is leaving, express appreciation for the good accomplished in their life while they were attending the church, and ask for and receive the prayers and blessing of the leadership.

Are there good and valid reasons to leave a church or denomination? Yes, and I will share about that in a future article.

Some 11 or 12 years ago, a couple in the church I served at the time felt that the church was taking a new direction and they believed that, while the church should, perhaps, pursue that direction, it simply wasn’t for them.

They had been loyal tithing members, active in many leadership roles, but they believed the time had come for them to worship elsewhere. We met, talked, and prayed, and I laid my hands on them and blessed and released them. They prospered in their new church home and we have remained friends to this day.

I served in another denomination for some 19 years. When the time came for me to enter the ministry of my current denomination, I explained my reasons to my denominational officials, told them how formative they had been in my life, and asked for their prayers, blessing, and release.

They graciously gave me all three and I have nothing but good memories and feelings about my nearly two decades with them.

In my last pastorate, on my last Sunday with them, my wife and I prayed personally for every person in the church, over 400 people that day. At the end of the service, the leadership and the people prayed for us and blessed us. Our ministry there was thus at an end, but my prayers for that church and its people continue and I rejoice when they grow and build new buildings.

Sometimes, it is not possible to get the blessing of the leadership, especially when that leadership has become corrupt or abusive. In that event, one must leave in peace and humility, trusting God for the future. As my bishop says, “It’s all about relationships.” And, as Jesus said, “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35 KJV).

login to post comments | Father David Epps's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Mon, 07/10/2006 - 7:20am.

I mentioned the attached article in an earlier post. This appears in this month's Wittenburg Door. It has also been printed in a Dallas editorial column as well as at the following website where I lifted it for print here.

www.christianethicstoday.com/ issue/057/Issue_057_Christmas_2005_PDF.pdf -

The author is likely the age of my sons--in his twenties or early thirties. His point: the mega church approach is backfiring on his generation.

Heck, it has backfired on me.

I think this is a good piece to follow up the bit of discussion we had in the wake of Father Epps' opinion piece.

Mega-Church Burnout
By Clint Rainey, Journalism Student
University of Texas, Austin

“Our studies consistently show that churches base their sense of success on indicators such as attendance, congregant satisfaction, dollars raised and built-out square footage. None of those factors relates to the kind of radical shift in thinking and behavior that Jesus Christ died on the cross to facilitate.” Pollster George Barna

Forgive the irreverence, but there’s irony in the fact that my 10-year stint inside a local megachurch began in the same decade as the fall of the ‘90s lip-sync imposter band Milli Vanilli.

In a decade—the time it took the country to totally forget those dance-pop boys—my church developed religious Beatlemania and went from a small community of several hundred members to a behemoth megachurch of nearly 10,000.

My generation, the offspring of the megachurch’s most loyal fans, isn’t quite so gripped.

I understand that this thriving model comes from the baby boomers’ rejection of hellfire-preaching ministers who so beleaguered the idea of church that fleeing churchgoers brought their children to megachurches in hopes of saving them from what theirs had become. But we were saved only to be part of a new problem: a church philosophy massive and impersonal in every way.

As megachurches go, ours is the quintessence: a skate park, a sports league with enrollment exceeding the city YMCA’s, a cafe and a game room outfitted with a half-dozen Xboxes. When baptisms take place during the service in the nearby “baptismal sanctuary,” the word “LIVE” appears in the corner of our auditorium’s three Jumbotrons as the event is telecast to us.

All of this, we’ve been reminded interminably, is to “attract seekers.” I’ve grown very disenchanted with this concept. Attract seekers to what? A sanctuary worthy of Broadway production? An auditorium mimicking a convention center? A complex of expensive buildings?

Thumbing through the biblical church model in Acts, I can’t find anything about seeker-friendly buildings. What’s there is a lot about seeker-friendly Christians.

Big numbers and a big building aren’t wrong on their face, but they often accompany bad motives. Case in point: The newest monster of megachurch monsters, Houston’s Lakewood Church, shelled out $75 million to renovate the NBA arena of the Compaq Center. Lakewood credits much of its success to Pastor Joel Osteen’s New York Times best seller on Christian “self-discovery.”

While many Christian bookstores consider the book a hodgepodge of biblical shallowness and have pulled it, Lakewood is in no hurry to denounce—or even clarify—its pastor’s work after seeing how the feel-good message attracts surface-level seekers. Is it just coincidence that spectators once cheered the Go-Gos and the Rockets in this same building?

Evangelicals should want to attract seekers; that’s what evangelicals do. But most megachurches do this in an impersonal way. Jaded by this philosophy, my generation has seen how being a mile wide and an inch deep allots, unsurprisingly, a whole mile for approximately an inch’s worth of deepness. As my church has grown, so has the frequency of cell phone interruptions and families sneaking out early under cover of the dark movie theater environment.

These churches attract middle-age adults like iron filings. If they can be spiritually filled there, then bully for them. But my generation isn’t in such awe.

Amid a culture inundated with bigness and cellular technology, iPods and TiVo, the technologized megachurch is no longer impressive. In fact, many young Christians come to church to get asylum from this worldliness. Infinitely more than the megachurch’s “stuff,” my generation wants religion. We want everything our parents didn’t, and that seems increasingly to be summed up in the word “meaning.”

Studies say our generation is the most conservative in decades on issues of religion, suggesting we’re averse to the risks that churches with a flashy, pop-culture bent take to appeal, ironically, to us.

So when we grow up, we’ll likely look for religion elsewhere. This leaves the surface-level seekers who are looking to plumb new spiritual depths for the first time, but for whom the church instead wastes time crafting pop culture analogies and brewing espressos, as the meat-and-potatoes churchgoers. They’ll come on Sundays in search of significance and find it in the same place they do the other six days: in “stuff,” in “things.”

In Europe, mass religious apostasy left its churches people free, but the American megachurch could bring this irony: We, unlike the Europeans, have people in our big, empty churches.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 07/10/2006 - 8:29am.

Biblical depth, Christ, God, sin recognition, repentence, totally dependent on grace... gone.

Replaced by embrace everyone, every god, every holy book and so on. Feel good.

Know nothing, but feel good.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 10:42am.

I enjoy good political and religious debate, so when I read your articles on faith I'm often intrigued but not to the point that I find a need to respond.

The reasons I don't reply varies, but primarily I don't want to question another's persons faith, since I find that they either become angry, or they become less confident in what and why they believe what they believe.

Secondly, I try not to debate these issues, because when I do, my good christian friends look at me as if I am the devil's right hand man.

With that in mind, I'll make these very brief comments.

The reason you and many in these United States are Christians and not Muslims, Jews, or Hindus is simple, you were raised that way.

The first 6 years of a person's life is the most impressionable and we tend to either be permanently ingrained with these teachings or scarred as it were.

I do my best to live a thoughtful and loving existence. I hope that my life on this earth makes a positive difference. But I don't treat others with dignity, with honesty, with kindness because I fear that my God might send me to hell to burn in its eternal fires. No, I tend to believe that the God of my choosing is not a God of the Bible. He/She/It/We are not a angry and jealous God. My God doesn't torment Job because he is insecure. My God doesn't test Abraham to the extent that he almost kills his own son so that God can stop taking his prozac prescription for depression. (Genesis 22:2) My God doesn't allow the wolves and bears to slaughter and kill innocent children merely because they are not his "chosen" people. (Isaiah 13:18, Exodus 32:35) Nor does my God want me to stone to death homosexuals, or to kill my wife who on occasions has openly disagreed with me. She is not my chattel.

Neither does my God live or reside in the Air Conditioned Church buildings which are used 4-5 hours per week, all the while, innocent children are starving or dying of illness in our own backyards.

My God also didn't stop talking to us some 2000 years ago and then allowed some sectarian and religious politicians to make a decision on what is and isn't truly "God's Word". aka canonization.

No, My God is me. He made me and I am part of her/he/it. Just as my own wonderful and "good for nothing" younguns will never ever do anything that will cause me to withhold my love for them, so also will my God never ever cast me away into an everlasting torment to assuage his need for vengeance. My God loves me. He/She/It/We wants the best for me, but that is not necessarily defined by my definitions. Sometimes the best for me is exactly the opposite of what I thought it should be.

No, I'm not concerned about changing these Churches at all. What I would love to see is the changing of the hearts of those that attend these churches. Instead of the firebreathing self hating damnation preaching fear that is used to get people to do right, it should be the example of why doing right is just a darn good thing to do.

I'll end by telling you a brief story. One of my professors in College where I received my degree in Christian Theology and anthropology, told of how he went to Israel and was driving down a country road. He saw a shepherd that had walked across a narrow gap in the road to go across the street onto another field. Each of the sheep took its turn moving through the gap in the wall to follow their shepherd, having no mind to note the cars that were on the road. They only had one goal and that was to follow the shepherd, because they knew that he was good to them and would take them to greener pastures. They feared not the cars on the road.

He went on to compare the true church with this shepherd, and then compared our American Churches to nothing more than Cattle herders. They continually take a cattle prod and smack the rear of the herd to make the rest move forward, begrudgely. Instead of leading, the leaders are pushing the lowest common denominators of the herd. Our churches have become nothing more that bricks and mortar tied together by the cows at the rear of the pack because the leaders are not shepherding the flock to cross over to greener pastures. Those pastures being the solitude of knowing that we are all valuable in our God's eyes and that doing good to others is truly its own reward. No need for hell, no need for heaven. Love is truly the reward unto itself.

Well, I'll leave it at that. Sorry that it was not near as brief as I had hoped.

Oh, and I appreciate the many readers who might want to pray for my evil soul, but I would suggest your time would be best served by doing something positive rather than in praying about it. The Church needs Shepherds not Cattle herders. Quit the mooing over what Ms. Smith is wearing to church, whether Mr. Jones has a beer on the weekends, instead lead others to be better than they are now.

That's my humble opinion.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 11:22am.

That is one of the most honest posts I have ever read on this forum. And well thought out.

There are many in this country calling themselves Christians. But in a number of surveys and researches, where the core meaning of Christianity was tested against claims of being Christian, it was found at most 10% of those surveyed were actually Christians, meaning adhering to Christ being God incarnate, salvation by repentance in grace alone through faith, the sin nature of man, the need to repent and there are no other gods but the God of the Bible.

MANY laugh at the idea of sin nature, the need for repentance, that salvation cannot be earned by themselves and that Christ is God incarnate. And yet call themselves Christians.

Christianity is not a philosophy about life. It is not simply saying I know Christ is there and like what he said. It is submission to Christ and following him. But as he says follow him, not as men create guidelines they call following him.

Satan knows God and Christ are there. That does not make him a follower of God.

The very idea of what a Shepherd is, today, has been so warped and perverted it is obscene.

A pastor is not one who adorns themselves in uniforms of rank, takes on and demands his titles be honored, does not hold himself superior to any member of his congregation, who does not put his allegiance to his leaders in his denomination and surely does not demand a member sign an agreement to abide by and promote a denominational set of doctrines without exception.

All Christians are SUPPOSE to be members of one Body, while meeting in smaller bodies locally, are suppose to individual study and learn the Bible, are suppose to discuss, learn and grow by interchange among themselves, not just soaking up what a Statement of Beliefs demands they believe, the pastor is suppose to aid and promote that study, not tell them what to believe, outside the essential core doctrine the Bible lays out as minimal to being Christian, a pastor is suppose to support and promote individual study and group exchange and many more things.

The meeting place is not about the stained glass windows, choir robes, statues, ornate doors and so on. It is about meeting wherever to worship God and Christ and to study, learn and grow.

It is saddening that the only ones who seem to be seeing these issues, in depth, are the unchurched and those so turned off by churches they judge Christianity and the Bible through that lens.

Obviously, I disagree with several comments you made. We do need knowledge, Christ, repentance and humility before the true God. The God of the Bible.

And no, preaching fire and brimstone as the reason to convert is not good. But teaching the nature of man, what God has done to save us from ourselves, the amazing bounty he offers us if we 'get it right,' and what is expected of us, including the consequences, are legitimate things to preach.

Some see God as a cruel dictator, who is unfair and could give everyone what they want.

Others know that is impossible and unjust. They know we do a lot of evil things that deserve consequences. They know our natures, as we are now, will always result in some being abused by others. They know God offers us a way out, but that it must be freewill chosen by us, and cannot be coerced upon us.

They also know those who choose to accept God's offer cannot live with those who refuse it. That those who will refuse will never let the rest be at peace or without threat.

Justice is demanding. It sets rules. Those who reject justice cannot coexist with those who do.

Therefore, there is a very real need for Heaven and Hell.

I disagree being Christian is mainly because of being born where Christianity is heavily believed by parents. The spread and history of the spread of Christianity, Islam and Humanism disuptes that.

But again, an honest post. Even when I disagree with some of your premises and deductions.

It is saddening many do not even have a real clue what Christianity is or what the Bible actually says.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 9:20am.

One of the biggest reasons people are leaving denominations is because the denominations teach denominational doctrines, not the Bible.

As in your posts, you hold denominational teachings and loyalties above direct loyalties to Christ and the Bible.

You do not interact with responses to your posts on the Forum. Which is a basic responsibility, as in you make a declaration and someone challenges, you owe a response.

We live in the End Times. Apostacy abounds in denominations.

Those who want to actually learn what the Bible teaches are not going to find it in denominations. Not in the Seeker Sensitive Movement, not in the Interfaith Movement, not in the Ecumenical Movement or any of the other movements or hierarchial denominations where the leadership votes on what is to be believed.

Embracing women and homosexual ministers, declaring homosexuality is not a sin, and the rest, are not Biblical, and not going to be embraced by those who read the Bible literally.

The picture you paint of those leaving you are framed to make them wrong every time.

Yes, you are spiritual. But that does not make you Biblical.

Many are leaving denominations for good reasons.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


ctkcec's picture
Submitted by ctkcec on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 12:49pm.

PTC Guy you said:
"As in your posts, you hold denominational teachings and loyalties above direct loyalties to Christ and the Bible."

No, I do not.

You also said:

"You do not interact with responses to your posts on the Forum. Which is a basic responsibility, as in you make a declaration and someone challenges, you owe a response."

No, I do not. I write an opinion column. It's my opinion, I have no driving need to respond to the zillions of people who might disagree with some point or the other.

You said:
"Embracing women and homosexual ministers, declaring homosexuality is not a sin, and the rest, are not Biblical, and not going to be embraced by those who read the Bible literally."

What in the world does that have to do with me or anything I have ever said? You have never read anything like that in my columns.

You said:
"Yes, you are spiritual. But that does not make you Biblical."

Well, I don't know how spiritual I am but I can assure you that anyone who knows me well would never accuse me of being unbiblical.

Thank for reading, though. I enjoy your responses!

Father David Epps+


ManofGreatLogic's picture
Submitted by ManofGreatLogic on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 7:20pm.

I guess because people are hypocrits is the reason I don't attend church very often. But they aren't any more hypocritical than I am. We all are.

I just don't enjoy all the chanting, the Karaoke, and such. By chanting, I mean everyone repeating the same thing the preacher says, and everyone chanting the Lord's Prayer at the same time. And by Karaoke, I mean all the canned music playing on the PA system while the actual words scroll by and some big haired lady on stage with fancy jewelry sings off key.

Plus, it seems the windows in churches are all frosted, or stained-glass, which blocks some or all of God's light from the sun.

I figure, why lock myself in man's creation (a building) when I can be in God's creation (outside). It seems to me that in many churches, people follow MEN and not God. That bothers me. This is why so many people who call themselves Christian are quick to shun the orders of Jesus, but will unquestioningly follow a MAN simply because he runs the country, claims to be a Christian, and has an (R) next to his name. Just my opinion. Doesn't mean I'm right.

Sunday's are a day of rest, and for me that means getting outside and enjoying nature. I don't need to go to church. God knows exactly what I think. I read the Bible everyday (Old and New Testament), and pray. But I pray as Jesus commanded, in secret.

All that said, I don't condemn church. It's a wonderful community resource for people. They make friends, support each other, build and maintain their faith, and bring other's into the church.

I grew up in the Mormon church, and even though it's not for me, most of them were genuine Christians who loved each other and were very charitable. They seemed to live by Jesus's word more than most I knew.

Of course, they followed Joseph Smith, and he seems, in my opinion, to have been a scam artist.

To each his own.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 3:57pm.

Thanks for replying.

PTC Guy you said:
"As in your posts, you hold denominational teachings and loyalties above direct loyalties to Christ and the Bible."

No, I do not.

Hmmm. You took vows to uphold your denominations doctrines.

Please clarify this apparant contradiction.

You also said:

"You do not interact with responses to your posts on the Forum. Which is a basic responsibility, as in you make a declaration and someone challenges, you owe a response."

No, I do not. I write an opinion column. It's my opinion, I have no driving need to respond to the zillions of people who might disagree with some point or the other.

Then don't write the column if you are not so willing.

You said:
"Embracing women and homosexual ministers, declaring homosexuality is not a sin, and the rest, are not Biblical, and not going to be embraced by those who read the Bible literally."

What in the world does that have to do with me or anything I have ever said? You have never read anything like that in my columns.

It was in reference to why people are leaving denominations.

You said:
"Yes, you are spiritual. But that does not make you Biblical."

Well, I don't know how spiritual I am but I can assure you that anyone who knows me well would never accuse me of being unbiblical.

Let me see.

You are Charismatic Episcopal. That is a denomination. And that violates Paul's command

1 Corinthians 1
10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul?

Denominationalism is division. You support it.

You carry, or have carried, the titles of Father and Reverend.

Matthew 23
5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Christ is very clear in his rejection of carrying such titles.

We are not to revere any man.

You wear uniforms of rank. Nonbiblical.

Your trying to put Christ into Espiscopal clothing of rank, in a past editorial, is nonbiblical.

You call yourself a priest. There is no such thing as a formal priesthood in the New Testament.

You speak of tithing. Freewill giving, not tithing, is in the New Testament.

This are but some examples of being nonbiblical.

You are unbiblical in numerous ways.

Thank for reading, though. I enjoy your responses!

Sure. And I appreciate you responding.

But truly, some self examination on your claims here are in order.

We all belong to Christ. We all are responsible to him. We are commanded to learn and abide by sound doctrine, we are commanded to defend sound doctrine, we are commanded to correct, rebuke and teach.

Do I consider you a brother in Christ? Actually, I do.

Do I hold all you have said in support of denominations, vows, titles, ranks and so on spiritually healthy? No.

While not confined to PTC, I will use PTC as an example for my wife's question:

Why is it the unchurched are the main ones out there fighting the world, in every day life, for Christian values, moral standards and so on? Where are the pastors, denominational members and so on in this battle?

We never see you guys.

Then, when one of us goes to a church, we cannot be a member and disregarded because we refuse to embrace denominations requirements and call pastors titles the Bible forbides.

I look forward to your response on these points.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


ManofGreatLogic's picture
Submitted by ManofGreatLogic on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 7:25pm.

Well done!

That was great.

There is only one Christian Church: Belief in Him. THAT is the church. The Bible is the message translated into writing. One teacher: Christ. One church: Christ.

Cheap paneling in the basement and a shrimp dinner on Wednesday is a great community event, but it's not a church event.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 9:51am.

Yes, but the trend among evangelical, "seeker sensitive" churches is to push all denominational affiliation into the background and fine print. What was once the "First Baptist Church of Podunk" is now the "Family Praise and Worship Center." The pastor, who is one part psychological therapist and one part business CEO, has neither the training nor the aptitude for teaching theology. His sermons tend to be a kind of watered-down pop psychology. And, of course, the parishioners these days tend to be drawn in not because they have come to think that it might be *true* that there is a Creator who holds us accountable, but because Christianity has been marketed for its "therapeutic value": "Come to Jesus and you'll overcome your depression, your family will be more harmonious, and you won't have anymore crabgrass in your lawn." (Thanks, but I think I'll try Zoloft and Scott's Turf Builder.)

A lot of people welcome the move away from a "denominational" emphasis. And something *like* this *could* be welcome. But the current lack of denominational affiliation is a by-product of theological illiteracy (and apathy). The reason there can be unity among believers in such a context is that people have largely come to think that the things that used to divide churches just aren't important anymore.

I am currently unchurched.

I've fallen out of the Sunday habit that began in my childhood and carried all the way through the years when I was raising my kids. I'll accept (or at least assess) criticism and blame for this lapse, but I have simply lost heart in trying to fit into the contemporary evangelical and "seeker friendly" church.


ctkcec's picture
Submitted by ctkcec on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 12:55pm.

Muddle.

Here's my invitation to visit Christ the King. Here's what I can promise: (1) We are all sinners and flawed people at CTK. ("If any man says he is without sin, he lies and the truth is not in him").
(2) I'm pretty sure I'm the chief sinner at CTK. I have made that statement often and, so far, no one has disagreed with me! No perfect pastor here.
There is no perfect church but neither can we be "lone rangers" with no connection to a local body of believers. Stop looking for the perfect church and you will find that God ALWAYS uses imperfect and flawed men and women. Pax.
Father David Epps+


DragNet's picture
Submitted by DragNet on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 5:41pm.

Father, I am convinced that today's churches are attended more by "consummers" than by committed participants. Our tendency to "church consummerism" (a reflection of our secular world) has seriously debilitated the church and faith communities. For the majority of us (and please note I include myself here, as I recognize my disillusionment), church is just an event we attend or an organization to which we belong. We don't see the church as an institution that may influence our lives. Sadly, leaders of the churches go along with this tendency. They feel conmfortable with the status quo and don't want to incommodate their parishioners by showing the sad realities, injustices and needs of our world. It is easier to take the high stand and ignore or condemn the poor, the immigrants, those that don't look or think like them. I'd be curious as to the composition of your church, how diverse it is and if everybody, regardless would be welcome in your congregation.

-----------------------------------
Making you think twice......


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 7:55am.

Thanks very much for the invitation.

I hope it isn't that I have unrealistic expectations and am looking for the non-existent Perfect Church. I agree with you that God uses sinful and imperfect people. You'll never hear the old argument "The church is full of hypocrites" from me. Of course it is. So is the mall.

This month's issue of the Wittenburg Door has a piece titled "Megachurch Burnout" with the caption "The younger crowd has had its fill of big, flashy churches." (And, no, I'm not the author of that one if anyone wonders.) I don't know about the "young" part, but the "burnout" part describes me.

I am tired of the antics of the contemporary evangelical church and, indeed, the entire pop culture that has grown up around it.

When I go to church I do not want to be entertained. And, quite frankly, contemporary Christian music leaves a lot to be desired for this Allman Brothers/Grateful Dead/Neil Young listening, guitar-picking, aging hippy. When I listen to music, I don't want to be preached to.

As theologian David Wells has argued, the contemporary evangelical church, with its pragmatic and therapeutic concerns, leaves *No Place for Truth*. Wheaton historian, Mark Noll, opens his book *The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind* with the line, "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind." This mindlessness is played out every Sunday across the country.

One church that advertises frequently on this page includes short bios of the staff. The ministers make it clear that they don't read books. One includes "reading" as one of his "turn offs." God help us. He's really into the latest Christian band and follows his favorite sports team, but this spiritual leader likely thinks that Caesar and Washington were contemporaries, that the "Nestorians" invented the chocolate bar, and offers his descisive "refutation" of Darwin's theory in the form of a silhouette of the Fish of Truth devouring the Darwin amphibian.

Is it asking too much to find a group of people interested in cultivating what might be called the Christian Mind? (I believe it was Harry Blamires who first introduced this notion in print.) If it is true that "as a man thinketh in his heart so is he," then wouldn't it be a good idea for us to attempt to think through the full implications of a Christian worldview? Aren't we supposed to be transformed by the renewing of our *minds*? Not by cell groups or praise choruses or big, super duper programs.

I would like to attend church where my intelligence is not constantly insulted and, perhaps even where people know who Isaac Watts and Frances Havergal were.

*Every* church in this area of my own denomination has gone the contemporary, "seeker-sensitive" route. They all keep an eye on Willow Creek and Saddleback. "Rick Warren did such and such; Go thou and do likewise." I've had it.

So it's really not the presence of "imperfect people" that has me staying home of late. I just don't enjoy the circus and don't look good in face paint and spotted tights.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 9:14am.

Muddle, may I copy and post this post on CTZ in the topic I gave you a link to prior?

This rings so true to how we feel on the issues.

Being a Pre-Trib board believing we are in the times of the 6th and 7th church with the Great Apostacy in full swing, this post is a breath of fresh air.

Man, I wish you would chime in there. You would bring in a new angle a number of members would love to hear.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 9:47am.

Thanks. Sure, post it if anyone might find it helpful.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 10:01am.

Bro.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 11:26am.

You already got a compliment. I am sure more will come.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Peter Pfeifer's picture
Submitted by Peter Pfeifer on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 11:40am.

Muddle;

Come to Peachtree City United Methodist Church. As in ALL human organizations, you will find good and bad people, but as a whole it’s fabulous.

I have found there: Real, Biblical Christianity & caring people. MANY good & great people, terrific pastor and staff etc.

Since I use my name and you don’t, feel free to contact me. I’ll pick you up!

Peter


Submitted by bladderq on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 4:27pm.

I have family that attend the church and myself was raised a Methodist and I find it a good denomination; but, Muddle specifically mentioned Willow Creek. I lived in Chicago during the beginnings of this phenom and had in-laws attend, Muddle specifically mentioned his aversion to this type ministry and I believe that PTCUMC is looking to this church as a model. Not a member; I could be wrong.

I had a problem with the Lutherens wanting to sell and grow bigger. Whatever happened to the idea of a community church? Did I miss some church economies of scale theory? Why is bigger better? Can a pastor know his flock better; bigger? Or as CEO of Church, Inc.= bigger pay check?

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 8:14am.

This is very kind. Thank you. I might take you up on it. Probably not the ride, but the invitation in general. Eye-wink

Otherwise, see my reply to Father Epps above for some explanation of my current doldrums.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 07/07/2006 - 10:26am.

The Seeker Sensitive Movement is a new denomination.

I have two friends that recently became unchurched from two different churches that have recently embraced this movement.

They require you to sign doctrinal agreements and statements to remain or become members of this group.

Further, they reach out and are inclusive of cults as full and equal members within these groups.

Here is some material I believe you will find interesting on the Seek Sensitive and Purpose Driven Life.

To say the least, they have abandoned central Biblical teachings.

I am unchurched as well.

Almost every healthy Christians I know is unchurched. The churches drove them away by refusing to answer questions and getting hostile to being presented evidence they were wrong.

As for the CEO aspect. We have delved into that here.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.