Are Old Fashioned Baptist Churches shrinking?

I'll agree with this. Can you not see that we aren't talking either-or here? They are so many places on the spectrum...

Also, it's not ALL about comfort, but if a lost person comes to your church, do they see a Christ who can save them, or a bunch of people who are so afraid to look at them they'd rather stay away? When was the last time a stereotypically "wrong" person came to your church? What was the reaction?

 

wheew....I'll be okay. Thanks for your concern...no, really....thanks.:thumbs:

 

Amen and Amen.

I dont have any issue with methods except when they are looked at as needed. In other words to place on methods the idea that people cannot be reached without them. Methods are not necesary but that doesnt make them automatically wrong.

 

is not just "preaching the word of God" a method? Is that not a method that God has chosen. God also used some of human's methods to interact.....like when He crossed between the the birds cut in half to make a vow, or how about when he spoke to Moses....isn't that a method, speaking? How about Jesus walking on water, then challenging the faith of his disciple to do the same....isn't that a method He used (quite an object lesson). Aren't all forms of evangelizing methods? Isn't building a relationship with someone lost a method? Isn't standing in a pulpit a method? The point is....which methods work. Which are most appropriate. It is not, 1)preach the word or 2) use a method. It is all methods!!!!

 

That makes two of us.

I would say in all of the locations where the Bible says we should not lie or bare false witness or be a hypocrite.

Scripture declares that it is the foolishness of preaching that saves them that believe, not the foolishness of rock and roll or hymns.

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." - 1 Corinthians 1:21​

It's an Acts 17:29 thing.

The methods are contained in the message. There is an order and instruction for the way we are to worship and preach to the lost. There is a message about the method we are to set-up church. When we change the method we are changing the message.

I know your joking but that's the way it seems to some of us old-fashioned types. If putting a mechanical bull in the foyer brought in more warm bodies, it would not surprise me if there was a church somewhere that would consider it.

We go out to reach the lost, we come home to church for edification, sanctification, exhortation etc. The draw to go to church should be obedience to not forsake the assembly, to worship an Almighty God, a desire to hear the Word of God preached, a desire to praise God by raising our voices in beautiful melody, a desire to fellowship amongst saints etc. If the draw is an arena, cutting club, gymnasium, rocking band, coffee bar, big screens, movies, swim parties, ATMs and like-minded activities, then it would seem to me, that these are misplaced self-focused priorities.

 

And God was very clear on that method. That is the one method no one can do without. Everything else is not required. Using subculture to determine what goes on in the worship service is not scriptual. Trying to apply how Jesus interated with people outside of the worship service to insist that is how it should be done in the worship service is a misapplication. To insist we can only reach people through subcultures is a failure to see just who it is that does the reaching.

 

God never condemned other methods. By the way, when you say preaching....do you mean standing in front of a crowd and speaking an outlined message?? Just curious.


I never said anything about the requirement of using subcultures....whatever you mean by that. However, a refusal to look and understand the culture you are in so that you may effectively reach that culture is foolish.....and unbiblical. GASP!


I think you are in error to think that "worship services" then are the same now. Using Jesus' teaching methods is EXACTLY how we should be using them in our "worship services", or Sunday schools, or small groups.


I'm done. Its silly going back and forth.

 

God Bless!

 

Uh, His lap? As I read Scripture I find He usually sat down to teach and preach. So how come today we sit down, and the preacher stands??

Just stirrin' the pot a bit! 8


For Halloween!

Ed
​

 

If our "creative ministry" is not proclaiming the Word or its truths, we don't use it. Each element of our worship points to God, glorifies Him, and enumerates a scriptural truth.

That's a mis-application of Scripture. You are taking a figure of speech and interpreting it in a literal sense. The Bible does not lump "lie, bear false witness, or be a hypocrite" together. Acting (drama) and hypocrisy are not synonymous.

I think we all would be in agreement that the Word is central to any worship.

But let's also keep in mind...what we consider "old fashioned," relatively speaking, isn't. Does that mean it's wrong? Absolutely not. But there are many, many elements of an "old-fashioned" worship service that might be absent from, let's say, a 2nd-century worship service.

Our church doesn't utilize an "either-or" approach when it comes to worship. We do many, many differing things, all evaluated for their scriptural basis/emphasis and honoring of God. Our "old-fashioned" learn to appreciate new ways to worship, and our "newfangled" folk learn the rich meaning and theology from the "old fashioned" stuff.

And at our church, God is honored, and believe it or not, we all are getting along just fine.

 

OK, let me go at it this way...

Think of all the slogans you can for Coca-Cola.

• "Coke Adds Life"
• "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing..."
• "Have a Coke and a Smile"
• "Enjoy Coke"
• "The Real Thing"

and so on...

Now: with the exception of the failed "new Coke" in 1984, all of the above slogans pitched the same product. Only the slogans were changed to reach a new market...the "recipe" hadn't changed for any of these ad lines.

If we change the "recipe" handed to us in the Word, we've messed up...kinda like "new Coke!" :laugh: But I don't mind using a different "slogan" to help folks see the "product."

IMPORTANT: I'm not reducing the Gospel to a product to be pitched. Jesus is so much more important than a carbonated beverage...I'm just trying to use an analogy that my brain (and hopefully other ones) can wrap around.

2 Timothy...we do agree that God can save if there's simply a preacher and a hearer. And we don't have worship services where I'm at without the Word being preached. But we try and communicate The truth in many other ways as well. But yes, the preaching of the Word is paramount.

 

How is this for old fashioned worship...
I wonder how many here are willing to do church the way they did less than a 100 yrs after Christ?

What some are calling old fashioned is really nostalgia from the 50s!
If you really want to be old fashioned, do it the right way...like Justin Marytr! If not, then you must be progressive also.

I posted the following, but you should read the whole article... very enlightening...
Here is also proof that Christians were worshiping on Sunday shortly after Christ. Pooof goes the proof of the SDAs! (which is another thread)

Chapter LXVII.-Weekly Worship of the Christians.
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things.
And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost.

And on the day called Sunday, (th tou Hliou legomenh hmera.) all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place,

and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits;
then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.
Never did faithful people SERMONIZE or further expound (private interpretation) the Inspired Word of God. Rather, preaching was simply making sure that everyone understood that which was read and exhorted to keep. To Timothy the EVANGELIST:

Till I come, give attendance to (public) reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.1Ti.4:13
​

Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended,

http://www.piney.com/MuJustMar.html


​

 

So the whole thing with Paul using a secular poem in Acts 17:28 is moot is guess.

Strange since it is fairly applicable to our current conversation.

 

RE: Are "Old School" Churches shrinking?

Here where I live in Eastern West Virginia, some of the "Old School" churches are shrinking, while others flourish. I don't know why, either. There are the Old Regular Baptist churches, which I attend, that seem to do quite well. Others, like "Old" United Baptists( They are just like the ORBs in practice, doctrine, and line-singing) seem to dwindle. I don't have the answer, either. One could be that more of the UB's had coal miners, and as the coal mines shut down- I know of at least four that have-this caused them to move where the work was/is at.

But I think the one major reason why I think that the older churches seem to dwindle is because they just don't go out and do things that they consider as "worldly". A lot of the freewill and UB's- that are just like the FW's in practice, doctrine, and singing- do things that the older churches would not find acceptable. The older churches don't believe in make-up, wearing shorts-male or female- cutting their hair, some of the women don't even wear pants. Now I am not saying that wearing make-up, cutting your hair, or wearing pants will condemn you to hell, but that is the way they were brought up. However, I did watch a documentry one time about Egypt, and they talked about lip-stick being used by the Egyptian harlots using it to resemble "something" when doing "something". I won't go into details, because it's too racy, but y'all know what I am talking about. So lipstick was apparently created to do ADULTEROUS(sp?) acts.

The newer/progressive churches tend to be a little too liberal for me. I believe that when someone becomes a christian, they need to act, as well as, look like a christian. I have witnessed some of the christians in the newer churches wearing real short, shorts. I think both sexes should wear modest clothing. But I am not going to judge them. I have no right to. Some of the things people do who attend the newer churches, going to concerts, listening to rock and roll, wouldn't be accepted in the older churches.

This is why I think that some of the churches do shrink in numbers. Please do not think I am judging anyone, I am just telling you an opinion. I will not judge anyone. I will stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ and give an account of myself.....and that's a handfull in-and-of-itself!!

I know that I haven't given any scripture, but as I said earlier, it only an opinion as to why they may be shrinking. Thanks. May God bless us all!!

 

RE: Are "Old School" churches shrinking?

I just thought of one more reason why they may be shrinking. Some of the "Old" United Baptist churches, as well as some, not all, ORBs seem to be shrinking is because they don't want to accept people who are what they call, Double-married. To be double-married, one has to be married to TWO people at the same time. They want to preach on Matthew chapter 19 too much. The ORB churches who do this, don't have very many members. But the ones who take these people in seem to flourish. If someone was married 100 times before they were saved, after salvation, I believe God only see one marriage. People want to try to group sinners with the church when they talk about the bible. The carnal minded is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. The OT was written to the Jew-God's chosen people. The NT was written to God's chosen people, the christians. The bible does not take affect on an individual until they are saved. Romans chapter 7 tells us that being married to the Spirit, is different than being married in nature. The ones who don't/won't take people in this condition, have a small number of members. But most of the ORBs take anyone in who gives a good confession. They won't go behind your conversion and judge you. These are the ones who do the best. Well, I guess I shall shut up now and try to go to bed. Take care and may God bless us all!!

 

Don't agree with everything you say (sure it works the other way too) Rufus_1611, but I believe you got 'em on the run. His Word says to me, and evidently you, we use foolish tools, our tongues and writings, to reach those "called". It is by the foolishness of preaching that saves those that believe.

Trying to come up with "Props, Seminars or Programs smacking of motivational pitches, can be hurtful. When we go forth preaching and teaching His Word, it has the Power, and what we on our own come up with only makes His Word palatable to the lost, and pabulum to the church members.

We should be careful what we put forth in using such materials that places heavy emphases on anything that alludes only to God's chosen people, such as 400 years, 40 years - 40 days, or twelve. God has reserved the use of these numbers (except for general use outside of His Word) only from the beginning, and His chosen people, just as the number 144,000 is set-aside for them. Overuse of these will have a tendency to believe we "may" think we are them. In the eyes of God, today, there is no Israel for they are just as we Gentiles.

Scripture tells us Paul is chosen to be the Apostle to the Gentile, as well as the Jew, and was just to preach God's gospel of grace, not with wisdom of words, but the Cross of Jesus. When we take our eyes off of the Cross, what are we doing? We have cut-off the light. Mans solution? "Oh that's OK". "Lights - camera - action". Hey I'll bet people would pay money to hear us sing and play. His Word isn't working, so we'll "strut our stuff" (Thank you Jesus) and show what we can do.

 

What I'm really reading in all these posts is: NUMBERS.

Numbers define the vitality of your church.

Numbers define whether a church is God's church.

Numbers define the effectivity of the preaching.

Heck, God is never big in numbers.

He had only twelve apostles, his first organized church had only 120 people, Paul made only three missionary journeys, there never was a mention of a big sized New Testament church in the Acts, and yet today half the world claims Jesus Christ as their Savior, the other half froths at His Name, kings and kingdoms have come and gone, the devil had tried to suppress His written word, yet His church survives, and those who would have numbers as their measuring stick would usually have compromised some principle to the world.

 

My church is an "Old Fashioned" church - according to your definition.

We are growing by leaps and bounds. Way over half of the church membership is younger families with several children each. They are taking over when the older members relinquish their duties.

We have a thriving outreach program (and always have) and also a Christian school. And we have our revivals when the Holy Spirit wants us to - we don't schedule one without Him.

We're not a mega church, by any means, but we give more to missions than a lot of the larger churches.

Be careful when stereotyping...

 

pb - "What I'm really reading in all these posts is: NUMBERS.

Numbers define the vitality of your church."

Not necessarily "define", but can and do give some evidence of impact, I'd say.

pb - "Numbers define whether a church is God's church."

Not at all. One of the largest growing organizations in the world is the "Church of Latter Day Saints" as the Mormons are known. I'd not call them God's church.

pb - "Numbers define the effectivity of the preaching."

Somewhat, probably, but the "effectivity" may be either 'bad' or 'good', as I've said in the two above sentences. The bigoted, onery, and out of fellowship, Jonah preached a sermon from a street corner of a total of eight words and a huge city repented. I'd say that message was 'effective'. Peter preached one sermon where 3000 souls and another where 5000 were "added to the Lord". I'd say those messages were "effective".

pb - "Heck, God is never big in numbers."

He had only twelve apostles, his first organized church had only 120 people, Paul made only three missionary journeys, there never was a mention of a big sized New Testament church in the Acts, and yet today half the world claims Jesus Christ as their Savior, the other half froths at His Name, kings and kingdoms have come and gone, the devil had tried to suppress His written word, yet His church survives, and those who would have numbers as their measuring stick would usually have compromised some principle to the world."

Overstated, IMO, with some half-truths, here. The Jerusalem Church may not have reached the numbers of "Saddleback" or "Willow Creek", early on, but 8000 converts in two sermons, and added to the church daily "such as were beig saved" does not seem to be a 'stagnant' congregation, IMO. And to assume that all larger churches are somehow 'compromizers' seems to be pretty judgmental, as well. We can still be a church at Ephesus- 'doctrinally correct' but still having "left our first love".

Ed

 

I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise.

Who's arguing for that? I mentioned "object lessons"--using something from everyday life to illustrate a God-breathed, Scriptural point. Jeremiah did it. Isaiah did it. Is it wrong for us to do it? Besides, I've been quite clear that the preaching of the Word is central.

I'm not sure I get this. In any worship service, there is creativity. When we sing a hymn...didn't someone "come up with" that? When we illustrate a point in a sermon...isn't that human creativity? God uses us, as creative beings, to proclaim His truth. Now...if His truth is absent, then Houston indeed has a problem. But creativity does not water down the Gospel unless it replaces it. When I used the "Facing the Giants" clip, it was to illustrate a truth from the Word...not something to go in place of said truth.

Once again...you're refuting a point no one has made here.

***

I'm reminded of the story in Mark 9:

The disciples had a problem with how someone else honored God. Jesus set them striaght...as long as they lifted Him up, the disciples were not to stop those who did His work, even if they weren't "one of us."