Why do we go to Church?

[Botz]

I wish our Church had a soccer field and a bowling alley.

Seriously I think it is fine for a Church to accomodate some of these things as long as they are also providing for the poor in the Church and the homeless and deprived in the local community...otherwise priorities might be a little lop-sided and the desire to have decent facilities for a cozy Church enviroment does so at the cost of ignoring the poor and sending out a pretty mixed message to a hurting world.

[Guest Called]

I have also been to a church that is on fire for God, is led by the Holy Spirit, the members are real, the pastor is bold and not afraid to step on toes. They don't have business meetings and a potluck supper every month. They have cell groups that meet weekly to nurture Christians and make disciples. That is their focus... win souls and make disciples! How awesome for a church to make the Great Commission their 1# focus! I'm still looking for a church like that in my area

Heyyyyyy that sounds just like my church! Oh Wait! It is my church!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I AM BLESSED!

[Spiritual Warrior]

Let me share a story with you all!

I grew up in a church that had swimming pools, racket ball court, basket ball gym, weight room, Sauna, etc. I used to enjoy going to church because I could enjoy these things. Every time I went, I GOT WHAT I CAME FOR, fun fun fun. Years later when I went to college, I lived a very rebellious lifestyle, even after I had married my beutiful wife we had problems because of my temper and bad attitude. I was watching T.V. one night and I saw a man preaching about the fact that Jesus was coming soon, His insight to eschatological events astounded me. I realized I needed to get my life right if I was to ever have a chance to get to Heaven. That Sunday, My wife and family went to a small broken down church, and I received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. You see that day I GOT WHAT I CAME FOR!

Are we getting what we come for when we go to church. If so, what is it?

[stevehut]

Give me that old-time religion. It was good enough for my Mama and Daddy and it's good enough for me. These latest trends in churches don't impress me at all.

I used to think that way too. Then I did some research into church history.

Fact is, the Bible tells us very little about ouw to conduct a worship service. Just about everything we do in our corporate worship meetings is a modern trend. The same was true in the days of your parents.

Hey, even the tradition bound churches like Catholic and Orthodox, have changed with the times.

The test shouldn't be "old or new". but "does this glorify God?"

[Spiritual Warrior]

The best thing I know what to say is to follow your convictions and I will follow mine.

Romans 12:2 (AMP) - "DO NOT be conformed to this world (this age), [fashioned after and adapted to its external superficial customs],....."

But I do appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

[stevehut]

Romans 12:2 (AMP) - "DO NOT be conformed to this world (this age), [fashioned after and adapted to its external superficial customs],....."

Was that for me? You disagree with my comemnts?

[Spiritual Warrior]

I would never disagree with a royal member

[stevehut]

I would never disagree with a royal member

I've only been Royal for about 24 hours now. You can be honest with me.

[AmyR]

I think it is good to find a balance between going to church for 'fun' and for spiritual feeding. Having more contemporary worship for some people is how they connect with Jesus and God most easily while for others is is the traditional hymns. Finding a mix between the 2 is what brings me closer to God. Hymns have some great words that speak to me but many of the 'newer' songs also feed my soul. Having all of the Hymns in worship drives me nuts!!!

However, there is the other matter at hand of church being a sports club of sorts rather than a church. If done properly, a church that has some of the extra ammenities can be just as spiritually sound as the one that does not. The emphasis needs to be on Jesus in the services though rather than on the 'fun'. I went to a church before I moved that had 2 gyms attached to the church. They used these gyms for activites, basketball leagues, volleyball leagues, and etc. But, the emphasis was still on having a relationship with Jesus. The extra ammenities, in my mind, offer a great way for christians and non-christians to gather for encouragement and fellowship. There is a huge possiblity for abuse though and there needs to be a wise group of leaders who decide how these facilities should be used and an emphasis on the word and life that we lead should always be there.

We as christians appear isolated to the outside world. If having some of these ammenities such as a bowling alley that doesn't have a bar attached to it, helps bridge the gap between the church and the rest of the community. All the more power to them. Something that just came to my mind on this topic, is that with Blessing comes Responsibility.

Amy

p.s. I'll disagree with you any day steve, eventhough you are a 'royal' member.

[Kabowd]

And I dont need worldly methods to enhance my relationship with non Christians.

Just curious, do you think this is the same belief Jesus held?

I have a kindred spirit with those who love to talk about the things of God. If I want coffee and Donuts or pizza, Ill invite someone out to where they serve those things.

That's wonderful, but why not also invite them in and serve them those things yourself? Can you tell me what is the difference? (btw..could you also answer the questions I asked in my other post if you get the chance? ) Oh another thing, you've mentioned several times about your kindred spirit with those who believe, and fellowshipping with them...do you also make an effort to fellowship with those who are lost? Why or why not?

Remember Jesus turned the money tables over in the temple. Why? What they were doing was perfectly legal and their intentions were good. There is a right time and a right place for those things and in the church on Sunday morning isn't it

Well, I was actually taught that the reason Jesus was so angry is because they were selling sacrifices for ppl to offer to the Lord. Instead of walking in obedience, and raising their own animals to bring to God..ppl were buy "pre-approved" or "pre-packaged" sacrifices (if you will) at the door. Which obviously meant, they had put no amount of thought or effort into what they were bringing to the Lord. Not only that, but the ppl selling them were making a profit off of their disobedience. Jesus knew that He was here to sacrifice His very life for these ppl, it infuriated Him that they would even consider that God would be pleased with this type of heart attitude. I strongly disagree that His anger was because they were "exchanging money". It's more consistent with God's character to believe He saw their hearts, and knew they were not offering Him their best. In effect, they were trying to short-change or swindle God. That's, why Jesus was angry, I believe. In all reality, I think we act most like the money-changers when we come to church wearing our "Sunday Best", and never really enter into worship. We may sing the songs, lift our hands and appear to be offering Him our praise, but in our hearts we're just trying to "appease" Him..and thinking He'll be fooled.

Just some other food for thoutht. I recently read an interesting book on evangelism which covered alot of different methods. I am particularly impressed with the history of the Celtic way of evangelism. At the time of St. Patrick, the Roman Catholic church was the prevailing evangelistic source. However, Patrick had a heart to reach the unreachables, the so-called "barbarians" and the "uncivilized". The Roman church wanted things done "the Roman way", but Patrick approached evangelism differently...he approaced it "the Celtic way". Here is sort of a breakdown of the differences:

The Roman Way:

(this model was only for reaching people who were already "civilized" enough, btw)

1. Present the Christian message

2. Invite them to decide to believe in Christ and become Christians

3. If they decide positively, welcome them into the church and it's fellowship.

*it's a very logical approach: Presentation, Decision, Assimilation.

The Celtic Way:

1. You first establish community with people, or bring them into the fellowship of your community of faith

2. Within the fellowship, you engage in conversation, ministry, prayer and worship

3. In time, as they discover that they now believe, you invite them to commit

Do you recognize the Roman way? Does it sound vaguely familiar with the way modern churches approach evangelism? We expect ppl to come in, be like us, look like us, act like us before they are accepted. We also are very impatient about their acceptance of Christ...often getting frustrated or giving up on ppl if they don't come to repentance quickly. The Celtic way on the other hand, is gentler and more patient. They would establish relationships with ppl first, gain their respect, and then present the gospel to them.

So was the Celtic way successful? Well, before the time of Patrick and his missions team, there was probably not an Irish Christian movement in existence. Yet, during his time, Patick planted about 700 churches, ordained possibly 1000 priests, and within his lifetime 40 or more of Ireland's 150 tribes became substantially Christian.

"In two to three generations, all of Ireland had become substantially Christian...and Celtic monastic communities became the strategic "mission stations" from which apostolic bands reached the "barbarians" of Scotland, much of England, and much of Western Europe" (George Hunter)

The whole debate over "how much of the world can you incorporate into the body" has been going on for centuries. Some churches split over music styles, the color of the carpet, decor, etc....all because (I believe) they are too inwardly focused. We need remember we are here to be salt and light, we MUST ineract and embrace the world enough to identify with them and connect with them, or they will have no desire to hear our message. Am I saying compromise the Word? Absolutely not! But I think it's foolish not to make ourselves as relatable as possible, in order for them to identify with us.