another healthy church question

[nodak]

I think vacations are about over for everyone at our church. During travels some go to church wherever they are.

Some observations: some congregations don't have anyone under 50 in them. And some don't have anyone over 50 in them.

How did we get so age segregated? Is this healthy?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I think vacations are about over for everyone at our church. During travels some go to church wherever they are.

Some observations: some congregations don't have anyone under 50 in them. And some don't have anyone over 50 in them.

How did we get so age segregated? Is this healthy?

Well, in Protestantism, there's something for everyone. Some of your churches will cater to the young adult crowd, in regard to the contemporary services, which sometimes will leave out the older crowd that grew up with the more traditional services. Other Churches that adhere to traditional services only, will probably have more older adults, than younger adults.

Some Churches on the other hand are pretty good at blending the two services, some even separate the two services...traditional in the early am hours, since the older adults tend to be early risers.

That's my theory anyway...

Is this healthy?...No.

In XC
-

 

[Zenas]

Agnus has it about right. Also there is the reality that young people will reach out to and attract other younger people. Same thing with older people. So if a church has a preponderance of people within an age range, that age range will get even more numerous with the passing of time.

One thing I don't understand about contemporary services. Why do we have them? The church service I attended as a child was exactly like it had been for five or six generations before me. Suddenly there is a move to contemporary services. What is there about this generation that won't tolerate what we had for two hundred years without significant change?

 

[Tom Bryant]

We do 2 different services. The early service is "all hymns, all the time" and is very traditional in terms of music. It draws more people who grew up in church and like the hymns.

The later service is not a contemporary service in terms of harder music or, for lack of a better word, rock. We may sing a hymn but it's in the context of more recently written with a more contemporary style. It draws people who are first timers in church or have been gone a long time. This cuts across age demographics. Older people who are new believers like this service because it is much more basic.

What is there about this generation that won't tolerate what we had for two hundred years without significant change?

Why just go back 200 years? Why don't we go back to the music of the early church? If it was good enough for Paul, why isn't it good enough for us.

200 years ago, Christianity was a base line for most people. They may not have believed but they accepted the Bible and had some understanding of Christ and His message. Today, many of the people in our small community have no basic understanding of Biblical Christianity. They don't know how to sing a hymn or how the verses are sung and then the chorus. Even the believers grew up with a different style of music, then we ask them to step into a time machine and go back in time. Our contemporary service doesn't ask them to go back to the future.

By the way, the sermons in both are the same, but I have to spend more time defining terms in the 2nd service because they don't kow biblical terms.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Well, in Protestantism, there's something for everyone. Some of your churches will cater to the young adult crowd, in regard to the contemporary services, which sometimes will leave out the older crowd that grew up with the more traditional services. Other Churches that adhere to traditional services only, will probably have more older adults, than younger adults.

Some Churches on the other hand are pretty good at blending the two services, some even separate the two services...traditional in the early am hours, since the older adults tend to be early risers.

That's my theory anyway...

Is this healthy?...No.

In XC
-

Not only in Protestant churches, but the Catholic churches (at least the ones near me) do the same.

 

[Marcia]

What really makes a healthy church is sound doctrine, godly leadership, Bible-based teaching, and a caring pastor(s).

 

[Enow]

What really makes a healthy church is sound doctrine, godly leadership, Bible-based teaching, and a caring pastor(s).

... and caring members of the congregation. Too often the church is identified by its pastor as he is the leader of the church, but God has made everyone able ministers of the new testament. Each believer is an important member in the body of Christ and just because he is not a pastor, doesn't mean God doesn't have anything for him to do in showing love for thy neighbor or meeting the needs of the members within such as meeting the needs ofd the widows or the fatherless in distress. Caring members should not look to the caring pastors to do it all. Helping one another can go beyond encouraging words from a pastor like meeting the physical needs that the widow or the fatherless cannot do around the home that it takes an able body man to do... or some work around the house that a trained member of the church can give out of charity his time and services. Women can prepare meals or offer company to those in distress.

Anyway... I would like to add caring members to your list.:thumbs:

 

[gb93433]

One thing I don't understand about contemporary services. Why do we have them?

All services are contemporary. It is just that some look back rather than forward. The contemporary today soon becomes ancient tomorrow. Having different kinds of services tends to segregate people and cater to their preferences. It also creates separate churches too. Churches that have more than one service that is the same music and service eliminates separate services and forces the people away from selfishness. It tends to teach the younger people to appreciate the music others like and it teaches the older to appreciate what God is doing among the younger. There is some CCM that is junk and some hymns that are downright heretical. If families can work out who watches what program on TV then it is certainly possible the church can do the same thing.

The church service I attended as a child was exactly like it had been for five or six generations before me. Suddenly there is a move to contemporary services. What is there about this generation that won't tolerate what we had for two hundred years without significant change?

There was the same argument when Calvin began to sing the Psalms and later when Isaac Watts brought in the hymns we have today which was the CCM then. When Calvin brought in the Psalms there was no music in churches for about 1000 years.

 

[Marcia]

......Anyway... I would like to add caring members to your list.:thumbs:

I agree, but often this is modeled by the pastors and leaders. Their influence is very real.

 

[Zenas]

There was the same argument when Calvin began to sing the Psalms and later when Isaac Watts brought in the hymns we have today which was the CCM then. When Calvin brought in the Psalms there was no music in churches for about 1000 years.

I understand this but why the change now? Church services went approximately 200 years without significant change. Then in the period from 1980 to about 2000 we saw radical change in what music we use, how we dress when going to church, how we act in church, the Bible translations we use and a retreat away from denominationalism toward nondenominational "community churches." Why this period as opposed to 50 years ago? What is the driving force that has brought this about at this time?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Not only in Protestant churches, but the Catholic churches (at least the ones near me) do the same.

Yes, sadly since Vatican II there's been a change slowly evolving...I too visited a Catholic Church that had a band complete with a praise and worship leader...

In XC
-

 

[Marcia]

I understand this but why the change now? Church services went approximately 200 years without significant change. Then in the period from 1980 to about 2000 we saw radical change in what music we use, how we dress when going to church, how we act in church, the Bible translations we use and a retreat away from denominationalism toward nondenominational "community churches." Why this period as opposed to 50 years ago? What is the driving force that has brought this about at this time?

I didn't become a Christian until the end of 1990 and didn't find a good church until the middle of '92, so this is a guess - could it be the church growth movement that did this?

 

[Zenas]

I didn't become a Christian until the end of 1990 and didn't find a good church until the middle of '92, so this is a guess - could it be the church growth movement that did this?

Could be, I hadn't thought of that. I grew up in the 50's and went to high school and college in the 60's when secular music underwent radical change. We loved rock and roll--still do. But we didn't insist on taking it into the church. We didn't even want to. However, young people today do insist on taking their music into the church. Maybe it is the church growth movement, that does everything it can to structure church so those who attend will not be reminded they are at church.

 

[nodak]

Here is another point to ponder:

There are three churches in our town with enough people to be healthy so far as just considering nickles and noses goes (doctrine aside for the moment).

One is purpose driven church growth adult contemporary in style.

One is more hard rock contemporary.

One is like stepping back in time to a church service somewhere between 1930-1950. KJVO, old hymns, piano and organ.

All three are growing by leaps and bounds. All three are attracting ALL age groups.

So I guess "the old folks won't come if we go contemporary" or "the young folks won't come unless we go contemporary" are not true in our burg.