glfredrick
New Member
Actually, Steve, though I'm sure you meant this tongue-in-cheek, you raise an important issue, and one that deserves some attention!
It is "weirdness" that seems to be the common denominator in church life, but not for the reasons you might assume. When the very people of any given community see a particular church as "weird" then why would they express any interest in that congregation? That is a basic concept of church growth (and yes, I know that term is now seen in somewhat a pejorative sense), i.e., that people are most comfortable in social settings when they match the setting. That concept has driven much of the "purpose-driven" church model as well as the "seeker driven" and "seeker sensitive" models of church growth and there is some validity to the idea.
The question, however, is what defines "weirdness?"
Church A
Is it church A that dresses in a 1960 style, plays music written in the middle 1800s on an organ that is only heard in common society at ball games, in a musical style last heard in common society in 1900, using language from the 1600s, and desiring to reach a people that no longer exist?
Church B
Or is it church B that wears common clothing (and places no great stipulation on a particular style of dress), plays a musical style that sounds similar to that heard in everyday life, uses language from today's world, and ministers to real people with real needs?
To a "church goer" with a life-long affiliation with the first style, the second example is "weird."
To a man on the street who has never attended church before, the first example is "weird."
Now, one must decide whom they are attempting to reach -- church goers or lost people living around the campus?
Next, one might consider which congregation is actually "growing" (and by that I don't mean the cop out that most pastors of dead churches use often, i.e., "We are not growing in numbers but we are growing spiritually..."). Is it church A or church B? While a handful of churches that might be categorized as "Church A" may be growing, about 80+ % of them are actually not growing and are in fact shrinking and closing their doors on a regular basis. Meanwhile, churches in the B category are growing rapidly, ministering to a people group that exists in this age (instead of looking back over their shoulders to the "glory days" of the church) and are turning the tide of church closures in America and elsewhere.
EVERY church (congregation) has a particular culture. Not every church has a particular culture that is mired in the 1950s, nor is there any express reason for any congregation to remain mired in the 1950s (or pick an era), and the primary reason that so many do is simply that they are "most comfortable" with that particular style because that is what they identify when they think "church."
Again, that is perfectly fine! But then go out and find THAT age demographic and social strata and build THAT church. Don't pretend that you will, with church model A, be "relevant" to anyone younger than 50. Is not going to happen.
And, finally, with these thoughts in mind, why not build a church that purposefully ministers to aging people? Sure, the membership would turn over a lot as people pass on, but what a great opportunity to reach an un-reached people group! Fill it to overflowing with others who wish to minister to that age and social demographic, use the styles and culture that remind them of church, and grow, for "healthy things grow" and the Lord Himself told us that we should "grow" His kingdom and His church.
Worth some thought...
