« | Main | »

since reading this post by The Armchair Theologian on searching for God, i have been thinking more about some of the attitudes i've seen and heard in the last few years from church goers. i (we) often hear people say they are looking for a place they can "feel God". i've often wondered what that means. are they saying that they are looking for real Christians, or are they saying that they can't feel God on the inside, so they're looking for Him on the outside?

i have no problem with people seeking out different worship experiences, but i do have a problem with people abandoning one church for another because at the new church they can "feel God". if you're in a church and you feel or see that it is lacking something, isn't it your responsibility to God and that church as a Christian in that church to address that problem. otherwise your actions must be somewhat self serving. if you are called to serve somewhere else that is good and we should follow those calls. but if we abandon our brothers and sisters in one place because another is "more like it is supposed to be", it seems to me to be pure selfishness. in this we do no service to the church we are going to, though perhaps the church we leave is better off.

Comments

From some things I have read about "church hopping" it is entirely possible that modern Christians are searching for real spiritual meat which not every church will be able to provide. I don't see a problem with leaving one church for another if the new church is providing something that is not available or even possible at the old one. If the thing that your church is lacking is something you have never experienced, there is no way for you to address the issue yourself until you have experienced that which you knew was missing.

you must admit that all those reasons are selfish ones. they assume that one should look for a church, or be a part of a church, only because of what that church can do for them. again selfish.

I suppose you could classify those things as selfish. I wouldn't. Paul did say that we should long for real spiritual food and not rely on the milk. If meat is not supplied at one church... maybe it is at another. Personally though, I'm not sure that the current church is what should be supplying the meat. These things come through the relationships and discipleship that Jesus modeled for us when He was here.

Selfish? If that were your only motivation, I would say yes. The fact of the matter is if meat is what you are craving, there are thousands of books, radio programs, other means of getting at that "meat". One of the primary sources of this "meat" is simply reading the Bible and allowing the Holy Spirit to do his work through that reading.

The people who talk about needing meat are generally the people who ought to be teachers rather than consumers of religious information. They are dissatisfied because they have heard most of it before. In fact, what they want is exegetical word by work translation from the Greek because it is the only way that they will learn something that they could not have learned on their own. Let it be known that so much of the time that you hear greek being used in pulpits it is wrong. There is a far ammount of bad use of ancient languages in books as well so I think their is an illusion created that you are receiving meat, when you are in fact not capable of affirming or arguing with the teaching. Greek aside, the search for meat is the search of those who need to be in a discipling/mentoring/evangelizing relationship so that they can again see the wonder in the gospel like a new believer does. Church for that person is amazing because they have never heard it before.

I tend to agree with Matt. When you feel as though you are full of knowledge to the point that the simple truths of the gospel no longer astound you, you have long since past the point where you should have been passing on the good news that you have received to others.

Most of us mistake our attrophy for hunger. We mistake our in action for lack of good teaching.

Now, I will admit that much of what I know I never learned at my church (although, positively, much of it I did). I read the bible on my own, went to other churches, conferences, read books, talked to people and went to school. I have no expectation that church can provide all of that for me. We are a part of a literate society and we have access to more information than could have ever been hoped for in the past. We are to blame if we are not growing. If you must attend another church (and at most times I did), go to an alternative service and receive what you need to. I went to discover the spiritual gifts in ways that the Grove wasn't going to help me with. I did that and I tried to share that with others as well. I never gave up on my home church.

I've been chewing on what you said Mark and although I do agree with you it is only to a point. To say that the responsibility for learning about God is on the believer alone is not right. I don't think you were trying to say that the church isn't responsible to teach about God at all and that we shouldn't hold them to it at all but that is how it came off the screen. That said, it is one thing to have one person disgruntled that the church isn't teaching him about God. If that one person has a problem and nobody else has the same problem then perhaps that person needs more than a church can give and they should take your advise and do further study on their own.

However, if there are many people feeling the same way then I think that's a sign that there is a problem. After all, isn't that one of the purposes of coming together as the body, to learn about God? Isn't that why we hire people who are gifted as teachers, to teach? If they aren't teaching they aren't exercising their gift and someone should speak up about it.

Of course, that is premised on the fact that the church's function is more than just teaching. It's about fellowship, healing, etc. We are to use our gifts collectively to build each other up. Therefore, if a church is getting low on the teaching part I don't think that that is a sufficient reason to give up on it altogether. I get frustrated when people move from church to church looking for the perfect body of believers for them. It is not about what the church can do for us but what we can do for the body. Therefore, if there is a deficiency in the body you are a part of you have a responsibility to address it with love and try to instigate some change all the while keeping in mind that you're dealing with people who may not be receptive to your words and may take time to see what you see and time to change.

In closing, I read this passage this morning and it brought this post to mind. Do with it what you will:

"'The time is surely coming,' says the Sovereign Lord, "when I will send a famine on the land--not a famine of bread or water but of hearing the words of the Lord. People will stagger everywhere from sea to sea, searching for the word of the Lord, running here and there but not finding it. Beautiful girls and fine young men will grow faint and weary, thirsting for the Lord's word." Amos 8:11-13

Caro, you made a false dicotomy from my comment. You believe that I said that the learning of an individual is on the responsibility of the individual on their own. You will note that I was referring only to the comments that I hear so often that what is lacking in church is "meat". People want deep teaching. What that generally means that is that people want Sunday services to consist of singing and the intellectual equivalent of a Biblical commentary. I am not against such teaching, I'm personally quite fond of it. However, when people are leaving churches over it, you better believe that people are taking the whole thing quite a bit too far.

The reality at Forest Grove is that if you want that kind of teaching, it is easily found in Barnabas or Harmony. You are not restricted from going to those clases.

You could also ask the Airchair Theologian to start his class back up since he was brilliant in his Sunday School series.

That aside, my point was that the people who cannot handle hearing the simple truths of the gospel again and again are those who should be teaching rather than complaining that the teaching is not at their level. Sunday morning is a gathering of believers at every level of their walk with God. It is the immature that need the most attention since they are the ones that need to grow and mature in their faith walk and the lack of teaching about the fundamental truths and actions of the Christian life is neglectful on the part of the whole church.

It is of course the teachers role to teach but let's not assume that the Sunday Morning service can be satisfactory for everyone. We should be missional in our thoughts about Sunday morning rather than being self-focused. If we can sacrifice our own desires for new and young believers, we do well. Those are the weak ones in the congregation and those that should be served first.

It can be agrued that new believers are quite capable of understanding deep concepts quite a bit more quickly that others assume. However, not everyone is a Master's student in law. Your mind has been honed and trained to standards of excellence that exceed most in the world. Your level of education even puts you in the top percentages of the country let alone the world. Your level of intellectual mastery means that you have a responsibility to cater to the needy before you ask for special favors.

As a congregation, Forest Grove is a middle to upper class culture but it is not exclusively so.

In all honesty, I find it exceedingly difficult to find a preacher that I can sit and listen to and say "wow, I've never heard that before". I love deep preaching and I'm all for it. I also felt that preaching was something that needed improvement at the Grove but I also recognized that there was a progression in the preaching at the Grove. In recognizing that progression, that made me happy.

I also rarely attend worship where I am blown away by it's depth. I simply accepted that my worship was pleasing to God regardless of whether or not it was pleasing to me.

The greatest joy that I found in my Sunday morning experience was when it ceased to be about me and I choose to make it about God and serving other people.

It is absolutely the role of the teachers to teach, the leaders to lead, the prophets to prophecy and the followers to follow. You may have moved well beyond the teachings of the teachers that you are surrounded by but that does not mean that you no longer need the local church that you are attending. That means that the local church has come to need you. No church has every aspect perfect, but I'd suggest that we act best when we make it our attempt, as mature believers, to give without thought of repayment. Then we become the servants that Christ spoke about.

In regards to the underlying scripture behind much of this:

Hebrews 5
11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

By this time, you ought to be a teacher. The best meat is that which you learn for the sake of teaching others.

Mark, I think I understood what you meant by your comment, I was responding to the way it came off the screen. I guess my basic assumption was that when people say they want more "meat" they mean biblical teaching. I can appreciate that the sermon on Sunday mornings won't always be at the depth of teaching that we'd like but there is a problem when it just skims along at best or is basically commentary on life or the pastor's personal opinion. By meat I was assuming people were missing actual teaching not what we seem to get more and more of these days from the Christian marketplace and the Church. That aside, I agree with you.

ok, i haven't read the ten pages of stuff you guys wrote yet, so this might be repetitive of something one of you said.

it's interesting that people say they want "meat" but then usually judge/choose a church based on the worship or how they were greeted or if they "feel good" after the service. i wouldn't say these are unimportant, but none of these are "meat".

I didn't actually define "meat" I was just commenting on some of the online articles I've found about church hopping in general. Mark, what you said was exactly what I needed to hear. I am at the point where it is becoming my responsibility to supply to the church that gift which Jesus gave me when he ascended on high in order to keep unity in the body of Christ. I also agree with you that I have experienced the gifts of the Spirit outside of Forest Grove in ways not yet possible among most people at the Grove. Although... I suppose all things are possible, but not everyone there is open to it.

I would tend to encourage men to go outside of Forest Grove to learn and grow in the spiritual gifts because the majority of the people actively seeking spiritual gifts are women. If you were a woman, there would be quite a community of people at the grove to talk to and pray with.

Post a comment