# The Rise of the 'Done with Church' Population



## Semper Fidelis

The Rise of the 'Done With Church' Population

OK, so there is always some truth to the idea that we need to be talking to our people (which is one of the things this article encourages) but this statement highlights where we are today with many Christians:



> John is one in a growing multitude of ex-members. They’re sometimes called the de-churched. They have not abandoned their faith. They have not joined the also-growing legion of those with no religious affiliation—often called the Nones. Rather, John has joined the Dones.



Compare this with WCF XXV:



> II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.



Which do we believe? Which do _you_ believe? Have these people really not abandoned the Christian faith but they just don't go to Church anymore? Would you be willing to say to John that he can have no confidence that he will be saved being outside the Church?

I'm asking because I think there was a time when that question would not be hard to answer but voluntarism has created this category of "Christian" who isn't part of the visible Kingdom of God.


----------



## arapahoepark

Reading up on some of the reasons why they leave, I can understand it to a point. Case and point the unfriendliness or hypocritical nature of some of the members. I have dealt with things like that (it was unbearable at my former college grouo and the group is no longer functioning) and have family members who won't go due to it. But, the Bible commands we fellowship. Those who leave for that reason must suck it up and move on and realize the church is full of sinners. What did they expect.


----------



## Miss Marple

We are commanded to be subject to our elders. If we are not going to church or a member of a church, we are not keeping that command. Thus I'd say we are living in sin, which is not living a Christian life. Hopefully the Lord will forgive. But it seems to me to be in the "living in sin" category to willfully refuse to be part of the worshipping church.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

I don't get it, why be 'done'? I love my church! I'm challenged & inspired by every sermon & my pastor encourages members to use their 'gifts' & be active members (to serve others & be a faithful witness) - why not attempt to rise to the level of deacon, elder/teacher or minister? Why leave? I have a problem with the 'dones' - there's a better way


----------



## Gforce9

Rich,
This is also evidence of the contempt many have for the church; the church of which Christ is king and has appointed men to rule. I think if one was hunting for a church (just moved to the area, for example) and decided not to become a member for ecclesiastical reasons or left because he found serious error before saying "yes", but moved to another in hope of settling into one in which he could submit, fine....that's part of the process. To leave after saying "yes" for such reasons is exactly what it looks like..."someone said some very nasty things to me and I fell down the stairs and my shoes fell off". We are seeing a whole generation of self-centered babies. The horrible ecclesiology put forth by the church growth movement put grease on that wheel. 
Along these lines, a young 20-something youngster I know left a congregation to go be Emergent......meeting with folks at the café on the Lord's Day to have a nice dialogue (authoritative proclamation clean out the window). Next time I see him, I plan to ask 1) who are his rulers, 2) who is the ordained minister who proclaims, and 3) who administers the sacraments?


----------



## jambo

I believe that those who are "done with church" are not true believers in the first place. They may be "religious" or have a faith that is merely academic, or possibly with a second hand faith that has been handed down from their parents rather than a personal faith that has been embraced. In terms of true faith they lack any substance. They may be put into one of the categories where the sower's seed lands, any of the three that is not good soil.


----------



## Warren

Hebrews 10:29
Unless they repent and confess the body of Christ Jesus with the assembled body, they leave guilty of the blood... That's a sad state and apostasy.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

Yeah, sounds like a rebellious spirit.... I would be lost without Church & believe the Reformed have the best preachers!


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Obviously, we are not to abandon the visible church and to "forsake the gathering" of the saints. 

This article raises two questions: it raises a question about the character and integrity of the "dones" (why would they not want and need to worship God as commanded?) and it also raises a question about the character of the churches that they are leaving (are these true churches in any sense, in which the gospel is purely preached, the sacraments rightly observed, and discipline properly exercised?).

True saints will not abandon and remain outside of true visible churches over the long run. Perhaps some of these people are in false churches and will find their way into true churches and perhaps some of them are not true believers and will become so and come back to a true visible church. 

The solution is surely not what the writer of the article suggests: churches need to find out why members are leaving and become what they need to be so that members will not leave. Churches, and members, need to be faithful to the Word of God and to serve the Lord all the days of their lives as visible representatives of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Brian R.

I fully believe in the truth stated in WCF Chapter 25. Just wished my younger brother believed it. He's on the verge of being one of these "done with church" types. I don't see any biblical assurance for someone who willfully abandons Christ's church. Our Westminster Divines were very wise.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Trying to be as charitable as I can to people like John (in the article), he learned that notion of "the faith" from someone. There's probably not a person who has lived in the American Evangelical milieu who reads about this and is completely shocked by the attitude. After all, it is the author of the article (purported to be about "Church leadership") who states that John has not abandoned the faith. Furthermore, what is the concern of the article? It's the fact that people like John need to be listened to because these are the Church's best folk - hard working, giving, etc.

I even have personal acquaintances in mind. I don't despise these people but care for them but they've been infected by a notion that treats the local Church as somewhat incidental to Christianity and fellowship. Even if they take it seriously they certainly would gasp at the idea that they should fear Hell for those who have a personal experience of Jesus but just don't want to deal with a local Church anymore.

There are so many ministers and other Christian leaders today who heal the wounds of God's people lightly. We've grown up with the importance of the parachurch and volunteer organizations and the supreme importance of the Christian subject having a personal experience with Jesus. That personal experience trumps all and it is what most see as the common thread of being a Christian or not.

I'm thinking this through. I'm heart-broken over this but I also have to reckon with the fact that a good number of people coming into a local Church think the exact same way because it's the air we breathe. I have to think through how I give people an appreciation for how fundamental to Christianity the visible Church is.


----------



## Peairtach

Part of it is the radical individualism of our day, part of it is radical antinomianism among populations of Christians.

Another major problem is churches themselves turning worship services into entertainments or Christian concerts, meaty sermons into short talks full of pap and nonsense. Some genuine believers may know little of what a biblical worship service should be, or how a church should be run and ordered according to the Bible, and that may affect their being "done" with church. It doesn't justify them, but what passes for church in many cases is unbiblical and, also, frankly soul-sapping and depressing, and some believers don't know of anything better, or haven't been encouraged to develop a taste for it.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> Part of it is the radical individualism of our day, part of it is radical antinomianism among populations of Christians.
> 
> Another major problem is churches themselves turning worship services into entertainments or Christian concerts, meaty sermons into short talks full of pap and nonsense. Some genuine believers may know little of what a biblical worship service should be, or how a church should be run and ordered according to the Bible, and that may affect their being "done" with church. It doesn't justify them, but what passes for church in many cases is unbiblical and, also, frankly soul-sapping and depressing, and some believers don't know of anything better, or haven't been encouraged to develop a taste for it.




This I know. I am a member that is starving for something other than a Christian concert. I want to participate in the singing and I now know why I did not sing even before I came to the conclusion of EP. I can't "sing" and I surely can't dance. Though I suspect I could sing a psalm lead by a man who has the same lack of today's talent that leads our church service. I know I have said this in the past here but in the past 30 years at PCA churches with the past 8 or so years as a faithful regular member I have yet to hear ONE psalm sung. The only things keeping me at my church,which I do love, is our pastors sermons and teaching, benedictions, and the opportunity to contribute financially to The Cause of Christ. The Lord's supper I do enjoy even though it is Welch's.


----------



## AJ Castellitto

I wonder if social media & audio sermons have an adverse effect? I think having children compels people to go to church - I know I don't want to be home all Lords Day with the kids, lol.... But in all seriousness, parents understand how vital church is in the raising of children


----------



## earl40

As a sidelight I know a "done" who left because the church took so much of his time because they asked him to be "involved". He is a surgeon who's calling is to be a good surgeon. Now don't get me wrong I love those who participate in the running of the church and appreciate them to no end, BUT I know that the opposite can be true for those who faithfully just "plop, pray and pay". I am one of those who look forward to a day of rest and the highlight of Sunday is "plopping, praying and paying".


----------



## JimmyH

Reading this makes me wonder if A.W. Pink heard 'Well done my good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of the Lord,' or Depart from me, ye that work iniquity, I never knew you'. ? 

I ask this as a serious question, not with any sort of hidden agenda.


----------



## jwithnell

Friends, I would encourage patience with the "dones." 

We do not know the end from the beginning. Though we cannot deny that a person who loves Jesus will love His bride, believers can and do struggle in their brokenness. The gospel is needed by all: the faithful, those struggling, and those who have never considered what God will do through grace. Does this mean the church should change what Christ has established in its preaching, sacraments, and purity? Certainly not. No more than the church should be catering to non-believers in a false pretense of being "welcoming." The only hope that someone has outside the church is an unfaltering beacon of truth shining _from_ the church and the amazing patience of a sovereign God.

Signed ~ A former "done."


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I agree, Jean. That is why I responded as I did.

Many "dones" may be either in a bad place spiritually (though truly a believer) or in that which is dubiously a church. Or they may not yet be believers, though the Lord may be pleased subsequently to bring them to Himself. 

It's just, as you yourself suggest, not the case that our response to "dones" is "we will make the church whatever you want." No, the response must be that the church faithfully executes its divine calling, knowing that all true believers will ultimately not forsake the church, even if many who are not yet believers or who are not walking with the Lord as they should are not eager to submit themselves to churches that are indeed true churches. 

But we must not give up on "dones," though they appear to give up on the church. We must take it on a case-by-case basis and deal with that actual person and the particular concerns that they have. We must, in other words, seek by all proper means to recover such in visible churches worthy of the name. 

I am so glad that you are done with being a "done." I know others who have left and returned as well. In some cases, they have proven to be quite faithful, if not some of the best, church members. All praise be to God!

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Jack K

The (laudable) evangelical emphasis on personal faith has led to a way of thinking where one's "personal walk with God" is seen as the center of what it means to live as a Christian. The church is viewed as a resource that supports this personal walk. This way of thinking makes it easy to be done with church when church-as-a-resource fails to live up to expectations or when better resources seem available elsewhere.

I suspect that many "dones" have never been taught that church is more than a resource to serve their personal walk. In fact, their churches themselves have fostered this way of thinking by marketing themselves as a useful resource:
- "Thank you for coming today. We hope you found the music and message to be a blessing to you.
- "You need to be in a small group in order to grow and be fed."
- "Our childen's and youth programs are great. They make your kids want to be at church and help them grow close to Jesus."

Such messages may not sound terrible, but what's missing is the idea that personal faith is not the only core. The church is more than a resource. Life in the church is not a peripheral support mechanism. Rather, it too is _central_ to what it means to live as a Christian.

The solution is probably not to criticize the "dones," but rather to fix the churches. At the heart of this is treating people (including those who've declared themselves done) as brothers and sisters, not customers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

To reiterate, I didn't focus on criticizing the "dones" but the spirit of the age.

I believe that the servant of Christ must be patient with all, desiring that they come to repentance. Consequently, someone who is "done" is worthy of patience and concern.

But there is concern.

It must be said that it is not "criticizing" someone who (for whatever reason) forsakes the local Church to observe that he is in great peril. It's not because they're worse sinners than others but simply because it is either true or it is not true that "binding and loosing" is either a big deal or it is not.

I'm trying to get at the same issue here because, reflexively, we worry that if we point out that a person forsaking the local Church should have no confidence that he is in the faith that we are somehow "criticizing" them or judging them with a standard we would not apply to ourselves. Certainly we could apply the "Church lady" standard of holiness to ourselves and this is the reason we are concerned because, after all, good people go to Church. But that's not why the Confession reiterates what the Church has confessed for centuries. It's not the conviction that people in the Church are better than others but it is where the visible Kingdom of God is found. It is where the means of grace are found.

As pitiable as it seems, Christ has ordained that there be a place where the Word is preached and the Sacraments are administered and the fellowship of believers are bound together. How can they believe if nobody preaches (paraphrasing Paul)? 

It's not a lack of charity or concern for the "dones" that drives my concern but a real anguish that I feel for so many people who have never been taught about the importance of the local Church. This is combined with a heartfelt anguish that there are so many local Churches that never preach or administer the Sacraments or pray or fellowship in such a way as to be Christ's means of conversion and sanctification. I can see why "John" wants to drop out of Church because there's a good chance that his local Church never had any sense that they were about the means of grace. John has been sinned against by bad Churches and so has never experienced nor has conception of the Church as described by the Scriptures. 

So, in the end, I never wrote this for any of us to be smug and I haven't interpreted any comments toward that end. I'm trying to wrestle with how we got here and whether there is a way out. I agree with Alan that we need to be faithful but I am always wont to be able to communicate this to people under my care. The reason is that this is very close to home and I've witnessed Officers literally quit the Church because they were looking for the Lord's leading in other directions. They weren't part of a Church but were "at peace" from the Lord over the decision. How do you ever convince run-of-the-mill members of what Christ ordained the Church for when her own officers apply a neo-Pentecostal "God told me I'm cool" hermeneutic to the situation? I'm not looking for answers but have been wrestling in anguished meditation over it.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I have a lot of mixed thoughts on the subject. I don't claim to be an expert or to have "the answers" to these issues. However, as one whose (growing) congregation is almost exclusively comprised of Millennials, I'd like to add my thoughts and reflections to the mix:

1) I think that there is much truth behind Jack's comments about the casting of religion in terms of "personal walk with God." This, in my mind, amounts to an "evangelical expression" of the larger cultural orientation towards the privatization of religion. This has done immeasurable damage to the concept of the Body and our place in it. So great and pervasive is this problem that in virtually every sermon I deliver there is at least some point about the corporate aspect of our faith. This is just me doing my small part to address the problem in my sphere of influence. 

2) Of course there is a legitimate skepticism of the profession of people who brazenly defy our Lord's commandments concerning the church. However, consider my case: I was in seminary - at SBTS, where they take ecclesiology seriously - before I ever learned that it was vital to be a member of a church. I had been regularly attending church since I was 10 and had become a believer at the age of 15. I'd been actively serving the Body since I was 20. I'd gone to Bible College and had even been a youth pastor. And yet I'd never formally been taught that it was the duty of Christians to be members of a church and to assemble for worship unless providentially hindered. Again, I was in seminary when I learned of the importance of church membership. Considering my own case, when I think of all these swarms of "Dones," I wonder how many of them have never even been exposed to the idea that church membership is not optional? How many of them are ignorantly acting out - with remarkable consistency - the "me-and-Jesus" privatization of faith they've heard preached for the past several generations? (Incidentally, and quite ironically, perhaps the sermons have been effective in communicating their message!) 

3) As I read the article I found myself nodding in agreement with the point that the younger generation(s) want to be involved, but they aren't given an opportunity. I've seen it in a number of churches and I see it even here in our chapels. The older generations want it their way, they hold the reins of influence and they aren't about to give them up. They say "We'd love for you to join us!" and they really mean, "We'd love for you to join us and do things our way and by your presence help make us feel that our ideas and methods are working." They sanctimoniously baptize their preferences and practices with theological language and marginalize those who don't agree. They may not be the ones leaving the church, but they just as clearly deny the unity of the Body. While I could provide countless examples from the dozens of churches I've attended, my context here illustrates the point: There are 3 chapels in my area. Two of the three are populated by mostly DA civilians and because of their status they hold most of the positions of influence. In one case they wouldn't even allow a would-be volunteer to greet people at the door in an "official" capacity. I, on the other hand, know that Millennials are just itching for opportunities to be trusted. I also know that people commit to things in which they can invest themselves. So I opened the flood gates. Consequently, I have more volunteers than I have ways to employ them. I'm running the only military chapel in Germany with a volunteer-run nursery. (This may not be a big deal to you, but in my context, this is a paradigm busting accomplishment.) I had a guy come up with a work-around to our lack of internet connectivity: He made an antenna out of wire, popsicle sticks, and tape (no kidding) and he climbed onto the roof of our building and pointed it in the direction of his home. Meanwhile he did something to broadcast and focus the WiFi from his home and he pointed it towards the chapel. The result: we have WiFi. The Millennial generation are whizzes when it comes to technology. Let them show off their savvy! Anyway, the point is: if you want the younger generations to attend and invest, you need to be willing to create the right conditions. This includes the reality that you need to allow them to have a voice at the table.

4) I read the line in the article where the man says that he's "tired of being lectured to" and that he's "done with having some guy tell [him] what to do." I had two things come to mind: First, regarding the part in which he refers to the preacher as "some guy:" Is this the consequence of ministers trying so hard to be relevant? Could it be that in our attempt to be seen as a mere mortal, a man "just like you," that this has bred such commonality that we've lost the voice of authority? Second, concerning being "lectured to" and being told "what to do." Could it be that this the effect of so much preaching which amounts to moralizing and the propagation of a Christian form of Law? Or can we safely dismiss his remarks as the banal regurgitations of someone who has imbibed of relativism and refuses to hear and submit to the pure word of God?

5) I'm more inclined to locate the problem inside the church as opposed to outside it. The Church has always existed in cultures that are in one way or another antagonistic to the true faith. So I'm not disposed to say "it's the culture's fault we're having these issues!" While the culture certainly contributes, I'd say that the real culprit is more along the lines of the church having created a Frankenstein (see my #1 and #2 above) and being a bit slow to recognize and respond to shifts in the culture.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

I believe that you are right to wrestle and I appreciate your posting this, Rich. This is an issue that we need to talk about and it's not going to go away.

I think Jack is right that not only do people consider the church simply a "resource" but also many evangelical churches have marketed themselves as just that. There is no sense of Cyprian's dictum (that Calvin repeated): "He who does not have the church as his mother does not have God as his father." 

Both congregant and church have adopted a consumer mentality. Just another way in which the pervasive structures of our society (our market capitalism, in this case) have influenced the church. I think that many of us, even in Reformed and Presbyterian churches, have been far more influenced by our society than we dare to imagine. How we need to be Reformed according to the Word of God!

Just to add this, since Ben and my posts crossed. I very much appreciate Ben's observations as well, both the theological and practical ones. As to the former, I think his point 2 is especially relevant. Many have simply not been given any sort of solid ecclesiology and many of us (and I count myself in that number) did not get it until seminary and afterwards.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Semper Fidelis

{wrote this as Alan was typing}

Ben's post caused me to think about another thing based on his articulation of the way he sort of "grew up". I think many of us can relate.

It ought to be noted that I don't want to confuse what some _substitute_ for Church for what the local Church ought to be. There is no simple formula that goes to a guy like Ben in is early 20's, who might have never seen or been taught about what the local Church _is_ and then simply enjoins him that he needs to "commit".

The solution for "John" is much larger than telling him that he ought to go back to his Church and commit. If his Church is no Church at all (according to Word, Sacrament, and discipline) then surely I'm not simply saying that this is a simple matter of saying: "You have to stay committed to _that_ no matter what the form is."

Notice, in the article, what made John desirable for a Church was that he was a good giver and volunteered a lot. There was no articulation in the article about what the Church may or may not be missing in terms of whether John was ever _fed_ and cared for. It might has well have been describing a Rotary Club.

It's a much more complex problem with Churches not being Churches and so their shepherds are guilty of the woes of Eze 34. But even as the sheep are being abused by such shepherds, it is my hope that they don't simply die from starvation (because after all, it's better to starve than to be under any shepherd again) but that Christ's sheep would be led by Him to faithful undershepherds.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Semper Fidelis said:


> Notice, in the article, what made John desirable for a Church was that he was a good giver and volunteered a lot.



In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that it is the opinion of the author - a non-pastor and critic of the traditional church - who called John "every pastor's dream member."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Thank you gentlemen (Jack, Rich, Ben, and Alan) for this quite profitable discussion. I have been greatly blessed by it.


----------



## Gforce9

As a side note, I followed the links of the author and some of his "friends" and found these guys are very Emergent. _Holy Soup_ and _Lifetree Cafe_ are most of that ilk.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Greg:

I, too, noted the same (about our vaunted author). 

And speaking of a consumerist mentality and "selling" the church, he seems to have no small degree of interest in that regard. His latest book _Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore_ follows others of similar title and ilk. I do not mean to say that the author offers us nothing of any value only to note that it is in his interest that things are unsettled: check out his book covers in which he promises to make your declining church irresistible. This whole consumerist approach is so tiresome. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Gforce9

Alan D. Strange said:


> Greg:
> 
> I, too, noted the same (about our vaunted author).
> 
> And speaking of a consumerist mentality and "selling" the church, he seems to have no small degree of interest in that regard. His latest book _Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore_ follows others of similar title and ilk. I do not mean to say that the author offers us nothing of any value only to note that it is in his interest that things are unsettled: check out his book covers in which he promises to make your declining church irresistible. This whole consumerist approach is so tiresome.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



I began to understand a Reformed ecclesiology about 3 years ago. The whole idea of submitting to authorities, let alone the "church authorities" is as foreign as is an unheard language in Evangelicalism. After all (they say), church is voluntary and anything more than a hall monitor is reaching too far into my life......rubbish. I contemplate often how God brought us to Westminster out of Evangelicalism. We have a most excellent minister, our ruling elders are sober and wise, and we have faithful men in our presbytery...... Speaking of which, when are you going to come visit and minister the Word, pastor?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Slightly off topic but somewhat related, the classic Puritan work by Clarkson would also go counter the current culture of 'me and Jesus got our own thing goin'. _Public Worship to be Preferred before Private, _The Blue Banner, *Volume 8 Issue 7-8. July-August 1999.*


----------



## earl40

*Our *Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.Give *us* day by day our daily bread.And forgive *us* our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to *us*. And lead *us* not into temptation; but deliver *us* from evil.


----------



## SeanAnderson

Perhaps if we had more good confessional Reformed churches, certainly in the UK, disenchanted young Christians would flock to them?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

This thread is close to home for me. What is a “true church”? I am aware of the Belgic Confession’s Article 29, where the statement is found, “if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein”, being one mark of it.

I’ve lately been reading the book, _Godly Conversation: rediscovering the Puritan practice of conference_, by Joanne J. Jung (Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), which has not only opened a window into the spiritual practices of the Puritans during various governmental administrations – both for and against them – along with the quality of their spiritual lives and efforts to maintain them, but also, in the later chapter “Puritan Conference for the Contemporary Church”, how their vital spirituality might in some measure be replicated in our own times. It really affords a look – simply by comparing – into our own spiritual impoverishment, and that includes pastors as well as laity.

I think the one single thing most responsible for people being “done” with the church is the widespread absence of what I would call the anointing or unction of God’s Spirit on the preaching of the pastors. Apart from Him shining into and moving hearts preaching is but cerebral (if that) or emotional displays of religious talk. Months or years of this is indeed enough to send people home to listen to audio recordings and/or gather into small informal gatherings for fellowship. It may also lead to a widespread falling away from profession to the faith entirely. You may have heard the expression, “If the congregation is asleep, wake up the preacher.”

There is also a note of warning to those in churches in grave spiritual decline in Revelation 3:1-6 (the church of Sardis), not to leave but stick it out. For even in a church that had a name for being “alive” but in truth was “dead”, the Lord said of her, “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy” (v 4). True, there was only one church in Sardis in that day, whereas there are many in our time. There does come a point when one’s heart is moved to leave.

But would I go to an Arminian or Charismatic or Dispensational church that had a godly preacher, and whom the Holy Spirit moved through (in some manner)? I don’t think so, not for long anyway, as the doctrinal error of each of those errant views would curtail the Spirit from His full saving and edifying power.

I do think these are perilous times, not only externally in terms of culture and of political forces, but spiritually. When I consider the _second_ mark of the true church in Belgic Confession Art. 29, “if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ”, I am further dismayed. That the majority of even Presbyterian and Reformed churches disdain the _Reformation’s_ Words of Institution for the Lord’s Table, and cut out that our Saviour’s body was “broken” for us, it starkly shows for me the slide away from Reformation standards to some kind of modern hybrid grotesquerie, spiritually speaking. 

It appears to me that many of our present day Presbyterian churches (just to stick to our Reformed sector) are diligent to the max to get doctrine and practice right – which can be done by cerebral effort without the Spirit of Christ – but are lax where it also counts, that is, hearts that are awakened to discern in spirit where we are, both in the church, before God, and vis-à-vis the surrounding culture.

As some of you have well said, I also feel for the “dones”, and grieve for one great cause for their defection of sorts, as I have indicated.


----------



## Peairtach

earl40 said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of it is the radical individualism of our day, part of it is radical antinomianism among populations of Christians.
> 
> Another major problem is churches themselves turning worship services into entertainments or Christian concerts, meaty sermons into short talks full of pap and nonsense. Some genuine believers may know little of what a biblical worship service should be, or how a church should be run and ordered according to the Bible, and that may affect their being "done" with church. It doesn't justify them, but what passes for church in many cases is unbiblical and, also, frankly soul-sapping and depressing, and some believers don't know of anything better, or haven't been encouraged to develop a taste for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This I know. I am a member that is starving for something other than a Christian concert. I want to participate in the singing and I now know why I did not sing even before I came to the conclusion of EP. I can't "sing" and I surely can't dance. Though I suspect I could sing a psalm lead by a man who has the same lack of today's talent that leads our church service. I know I have said this in the past here but in the past 30 years at PCA churches with the past 8 or so years as a faithful regular member I have yet to hear ONE psalm sung. The only things keeping me at my church,which I do love, is our pastors sermons and teaching, benedictions, and the opportunity to contribute financially to The Cause of Christ. The Lord's supper I do enjoy even though it is Welch's.
Click to expand...


Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Christian soirees or concerts, depending on what's meant, not that I have much interest in them. I wouldn't necessariy condemn a Johnny Cash or Jim Reeves. 

But where the Regulative Principle is not followed, distinctions e.g. between generic worship and specific worship, and between private, family and public worship are overthrown.

It's good if a church has Reformed doctrine, government, general practice and excellent preaching, but things are marred when the praise isn't Reformed, and things can slip further if this is the case.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Cymro

Spot on Steve, especially regarding the unction.


----------



## DMcFadden

> Now resettled near Los Angeles, the [Rob Bell] no longer belongs to a traditional church. “We have a little tribe of friends,” Bell said. “We have a group that we are journeying with. There’s no building. We’re churching all the time. It’s more of a verb for us.”
> 
> He’s still a fan of churches — depending on the context.
> 
> “Churches can be places that help people grow and help people connect with others and help people connect with the great issues of our day,” Bell said. “They can also be toxic, black holes of despair. My thinking is, it depends on where you are in your life. One of the most extraordinary things I’ve done since I left Mars Hill is be with people and engage with people who would never step foot in a church.”



The Zeitgeist of American culture is so determined (irony intended) by voluntarism, that I'm not surprised by the "dones." The phenomenon dovetails neatly with American sensibilities. After all, why "join" a church (or even attend regularly) when you can cobble together your own reality, Burger King ("have it your way") style? You to can form a quasi-intentional spiritual community that meets your needs and gathers on an ad hoc basis whenever you feel like affiliating.


----------



## Peairtach

There's quite a bit of it on this side of the Pond, too.

But America's bad habits always tend to get here sooner or later 

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Warren

Gforce9 said:


> As a side note, I followed the links of the author and some of his "friends" and found these guys are very Emergent. _Holy Soup_ and _Lifetree Cafe_ are most of that ilk.


Then I wonder if this "done" crowd is a hoax. A sham alibi. A ploy by false teachers to steal some unawares from Christ's flock and scatter who he can with fear tactics. "See, you aren't the only one who _feels_ this way." "I know how you _feel_." "Does your church _feel_ right?" Apostasy is in every age and culture. If idle hands are the devil's workshop, feelings are the overseers. I'm not surprised that in a country of 40 million believers, whose "greatest" industry might be fielding gossip and slander, the evil one deploys on a larger scale. That doesn't mean we have a meltdown of the church in America on our hands, it means we need to be watchful of our feelings.



> 2 Timothy 3:1-9 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.


----------



## reaganmarsh

This has indeed been a most profitable discussion. I particularly appreciate the reminders of patience and tenderness for those who may be true Christians but are either in a season of sin or have not actually been part of a true church. 

I'm also reminded, however, of Warfield's words:

"It is not without significance that the apostolic writer couples together the exhortations, 'to hold fast the confession of our hope, that it waver not,' and 'to forsake not the assembling of ourselves together.' When he commands us not to forsake 'the assembling of ourselves together,' he has in mind, as the term he employs shows, the stated, formal assemblages of the community, and means to lay upon the hearts and consciences of his readers their duty to the church of which they are the supports, as well as their duty to themselves. And when he adds 'As the custom of some is,' he means to put a lash into his command. We can see his lip curl as he says it. Who are these people, who are so vastly strong, so supremely holy, that they do not need the assistance of the common worship for themselves; and who, being so strong and holy, will not give their assistance to the common worship?"


----------



## Peairtach

Abandoning attending or being associated with Christ's Church is a presumptuous sin, and those who do this should firstly be privately admonished by the elders, and if repentance is not forthcoming should be further admonished and barred from the Lord's Table for a season, and if still recalcitrant, sine die, until thete are further positive developments. 

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jwithnell

> ... should firstly be privately admonished by the elders


 This is critically important and the main reason I wonder about "erasing" members from the church rolls, even if a person has moved (and the church hasn't been contacted for transference of membership).


----------



## lynnie

Would you criticize or condemn a brother for not going to church for a year if they were in a hospital in traction with a full body cast and a badly broken back? Of course not. I know a lady who was in the hospital in the 80s for a year after a liver transplant.

I've known a lot of "dones" in my life. Often they find another church after about a year off, maybe longer. 

Church can be the equivalent of a broken back or a traumatic surgery. There are wolves in sheeps clothing out there. There are perverts parading as leaders to youth and adults, and there are normal sinners who gossip and betray and ignore and feel superior. There are pastors who break promises and get controlling and have nervous breakdowns, and there are all kinds of messed up people who go to church to get help and end up feeling abused. 

To be fair, almost all the stories I know are from charismatic churches. But I've heard some PCA sad tales as well. We are all fallen.

Anyway, give people time, and tell yourself that their soul was ripped and battered and broken every bit as badly as a body can be. I've never been a "done" but I know how it feels to wish I was. Church can be hard.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Lynnie,

I appreciate what you're saying about the social relationships being very destructive. Believe me I've been the subject of some vicious gossip when I was trying to lead a Church.

That said, we need to point away from blame-casting and focus on the issue of why the Church has consistently (before recent history) considered the Church to be crucial to salvation. If our focus is merely on how hard it is for us to continue to put up with the sins of others and how we can appreciate it then we never ask: "What is is about the Church that people in the past thought was used of God to save us."

There are bad preachers. Can we imagine (contra Romans 10) that we can do without preaching?
The Roman Catholics turn the Lord's Supper into a place of idolatry. Can we imagine that it is better, therefore, that there be no Lord's Supper at all?

As I've noted, there are bad Churches that are no Churches at all. What is heart breaking about all of this is that people find themselves wanting to be done and, because they have never experienced a solid Church, end up with no Church at all. I'm not saying it's their fault but it doesn't mean that I think that people are inherently good and, if abused, will somehow be saved without the Gospel.


----------



## lynnie

Rich.....I reread the letters to the seven churches today. Awful stuff. A woman false prophetess, teachings of Balaam and the Nicolatians, a name of being alive when actually dead. Jesus never says "now the rest of you get out and stay home". No, he calls them to patiently endure and be faithful and hold fast and so forth. 

I also skimmed through Galatians. Paul's rebuke is pretty strong! But he never says "now the rest of you get away from these legalistic false teachers and don't gather together until they clean up their act". He could have said that. 

I've probably had a dozen conversations in the real world over the years with people giving up on the institutionalized church. You can't read the NT and not see elders and deacons and teachers and the rest of the gifts as we assemble together. You just can't. 

But what I am trying to say is that when a person says "I am done", with church, or maybe their marriage, if you jump on them it doesn't help. Many of then over time do get over it and go back. And often they realize how they failed to go to an offender and confront, and they failed to get the elders involved, or they got bitter and didn't pray for those who despitefully used them, and they just don't know how to deal with abuse or mistreatment. Or ( very very common) they put leaders on an unrealistic pedestal. They can see this and get back into church but it may take a while, I've never seen it sooner than a year. The healing is slow, and facing our own mistakes comes slowly. I would try to listen and ask questions. What you often find is that they deep down do long to be part of a good church. 

It is really complicated when they are charismatic and want to be in a "God is really moving" charismatic church, on the cutting edge and all that jazz, without the bad stuff. I have to admit I find those cases way over my head....it'll take a miracle to get them into ordinary orthodoxy. But it does happen. The worst pair of flakes I ever met who spent years not going to church got into John Piper and are active in a local church now.

It does bothers me when certain segments of the Reformed community talk about church in a way that dismisses people all over the world in jail for their faith (think of Wurmbrand for 14 years), or unable to go to a church under Islam, or seriously invalided. God can provide for them and it is our solemn duty to pray for them and visit them if possible. I read missionary bios and many great men went alone to countries where there was no church gathering for a long time, or at most a few converts. If mostly only personal piety is ordained for us through such circumstances, God can provide fully with no lack.

Just my thoughts. I have enough exposure to postmil thinking to be optimistic as I pray that God will do something. Maybe it'll take nuclear bombs or economic collapse or persecution, but I think one day the "dones" with be gathering with us again.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Slightly off topic: Something must be wrong with my eyes tonight... as I read this thread, every time I skim the word "dones" my mind reads "drones." Interesting.


----------



## Caroline

I find myself with mixed ideas on this concept. I think it is far more complex than made out in the article. 

I question whether "John" was really a pastor's dream, or whether he only thought he was because he was that obtuse. I have known a couple of "dones" who volunteered time and gave generously but also were so cancerous to the welfare of the church (quarreling, slandering, etc) that no one was truly sorry to see them go. I even knew one that predicted the demise of the church due to his departure--and the church actually did much better without him. Such people often quit in a tantrum over not having their opinions rule the world, but it really isn't the fault of the church.

On the other hand, I have known some situations in which someone left a church that was so broken and twisted that it scared the congregant out of church for a while. I have known pastors who really do fail to make an effort to relate to their congregants. 

So I think it is really difficult to come up with any overall attitude toward "dones." Depending on the circumstances, they might need gentle encouragement... or they might just need to repent of being insufferable whiners.

In the larger cultural context however, I do think that there is a tendency to institutionalize the church far too much. I think this is what some were saying by referring to a consumer mentality. I am often surprised how taken aback people can be by the suggestion that they ought to love their pastor and teach their children to love their pastor. It is almost as though I suggested they ought to love the grocery store manager. Calvin says that the church should be our mother, but the church is made up of people. We are commanded to love these people. And love has to be practiced and taught. It doesn't come naturally to any of us.

I absolutely agree that young people ought to be encouraged to participate--primarily because this is how people learn to love each other. People bond through giving and receiving. We practice this in families all the time. Kids are taught to say thank you for meals and gifts and so on, and they offer their parents small tokens of love (handmade pictures or handfuls of Cheerios, or whatever), and the parent thanks the child for the gift. 

God has made people to function in this way. He provides for us, and we thank Him--and in doing so, we learn to love Him. In return for His kindness, we perform our small pitiful acts of service for God. Does God need our service? No, but it seems evident that He knows that we need to serve Him, to feel useful and helpful in His work. He lets us "help" Him like a father lets his toddler hammer a nail--not because the father needs the toddler's help, but the toddler needs to help his father.

I think this needs to be the idea behind volunteering for church work--a recognition that it is not so much that the church needs us (God will preserve His church, and it will carry on with or without us), but that we need to serve. We need to learn to love. Sometimes, sure, we have to cut back service due to life circumstances (jobs, etc), but in general, we should try to encourage everyone to participate--but not in a needy "come save this sinking church" way, but rather "this is a chance for you to contribute, to be grateful, to return something so that you learn to care about someone besides yourself." And unless John has a serious legitimate complaint about his church, this is where he is failing--that he does not care enough about his pastor and his fellow congregants to want to stay and serve them and be served by them. 

When we speak to our children, I think it is especially important that we tell them that their pastor and elders pray for them every week, that their pastor spends hours each week carefully preparing sermons, and that they should pray for their pastor and elders and thank them for these things. Tell them that God is their father and the church is their mother. The pastor should not be "some guy telling them what to do" any more than their mother is "some lady telling them what to do." If they talk that way about their church leaders, punishment ought to be as swift as if they had said it about their mother. Children ought to be taught to speak respectfully to and about their church leaders, to thank them, and to consider how they might help and encourage them. And in return, leaders ought to really work at encouraging children by thanking them for their efforts and asking them to contribute in small ways.

This has been on my mind somewhat this week because it is near our pastor's birthday, and my kids hatched an elaborate plot for a birthday gift. They have spent many hours this week preparing it in great excitement, contributing much of their own money and time to the cause of making it absolutely perfect. I am so delighted to see that, even if perhaps they go a bit overboard. But they are trying, in their teenager-ish way, to say that they love their pastor. I am comforted in this because I am pretty sure they will never be "dones" as long as they feel this way. 

People really can get good teaching at home through sermonaudio, and they can pray at home just as they can pray at church. Ultimately, it's love that holds people in church. When someone gossips about you and the trustees won't fix that broken back step that annoys you so much and the pastor just WON'T get out of the book of Jude.... you grit your teeth and bear with it all if you love them. And even more, you remind yourself that Christ loved them enough to die for them, and so if only for that reason, you should be willing to lay down your life for them too. I'm not saying that I'm good at remembering these things myself. But I know that I should, and I pray that God will teach me to be more like my children who eagerly sign up to be ushers and greaters, and who express their gratitude to their pastor with giant posters.


----------



## Miss Marple

"they can pray at home just as they can pray at church." . . . I am not sure on that - there is a particular blessing or presence when 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, that apparently is not part of solo prayer.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Caroline said:


> People really can get good teaching at home through sermonaudio, and they can pray at home just as they can pray at church. Ultimately, it's love that holds people in church.



Caroline,

What is the Confession getting at (as I posted in the OP) that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside the visible Church? 

What, precisely, do you think the Confession has in mind as far as _why_ it believes the local Church is somehow linked to salvation itself such that, outside of it, a person is not ordinarily saved?


----------



## KMK

Digitized documents, podcasts, apps, and video streaming have tweaked the definition of the local church. Many people think they can get all the local church offers from home because the sacraments and discipline have been already marginalized to a great extent. 

Most of the home churches I have known had very good reasons to leave their church. However, they don't have good reasons for staying out of church.


----------



## Caroline

Semper Fidelis said:


> Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> People really can get good teaching at home through sermonaudio, and they can pray at home just as they can pray at church. Ultimately, it's love that holds people in church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caroline,
> 
> What is the Confession getting at (as I posted in the OP) that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside the visible Church?
> 
> What, precisely, do you think the Confession has in mind as far as _why_ it believes the local Church is somehow linked to salvation itself such that, outside of it, a person is not ordinarily saved?
Click to expand...


I am sorry if I was unclear on that point. The law and the prophets hang on the commands to love the Lord your God and your neighbor. That is something that people who think they can just learn at home often miss. The greatest commandment is not to learn as much about God as you can, but to love Him. And Jesus said to Peter that if he loved Him, he should feed His sheep.

Furthermore, Jesus said that those who love Him should obey His commandments. It is utterly impossible to obey the Ten Commandments alone. The commandments require us not only to refrain from doing evil, but to do good--to uphold our neighbor's good name, to promote the wealth and outward estate of others (as well as ourselves), a charitable frame of spirit toward our neighbor, etc. (Quoting from the WSC, obviously). These are impossible to accomplish alone. Therefore, the idea that anyone CAN live a Christian life in isolation is simply factually incorrect (unless providence has forced that isolation upon him in the form of a desert island or something of that sort, and even then, it should be a great trial to him, not a blessing.)

The Proverbs say it best: "A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; he rages against all wise judgment." (Prov. 18:1)

Edited to add a small analogy for further clarification: If someone ever says to me, "I am your friend and I would do anything for you, but I hate your husband and I cannot bear to be around him. I think your children are annoying and I do not like them, so please leave them at home when you visit me," then I would not consider that person my friend. I would say, "If you love me, then for that reason alone, you should be kind to my husband and my children. I love them, so when you are hateful to them, you are hateful to me, and when you are kind to them, you are kind to me." 

I often wonder how it is that people (knowing that this sort of connection is true even in human relationships) think they can approach God and tell Him with a straight face that they love Him but hate His bride. Or (to use another biblical frame of reference) that they love Him but can't stand His other children. How do they not see how offensive that is?

We ought to always bear in mind that these are God's children. Even the pastor (as we are tempted to criticize) is one of God's children--someone for whom Christ died. If God is so kind to them, then maybe I should be too. After all, it is the same grace poured out to me.


----------



## earl40

That was a good post Caroline. Sometimes when working with patients at the hospital that are very ornery I treat them with love thinking that they were a baby and a child once that was dearly loved by the parents. Of course this thought comes from the love I have of my children which should convey how Our Lord loves us in like manner.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

earl40 said:


> That was a good post Caroline. Sometimes when working with patients at the hospital that are very ornery I treat them with love thinking that they were a baby and a child once that was dearly loved by the parents. Of course this thought comes from the love I have of my children which should convey how Our Lord loves us in like manner.



That's beautiful. Sinclair Ferguson told the story of a woman honored for her humanitarian work by the Queen. She remarked that she paled in comparison to her husband's ability to get close to the worst of human filth without flinching. When asked how he was able to be so near the stench of human filth he replied that he thinks of the stench of his own sin that his Savior had to wade through in order to save him from his sins.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Caroline said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caroline said:
> 
> 
> 
> People really can get good teaching at home through sermonaudio, and they can pray at home just as they can pray at church. Ultimately, it's love that holds people in church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caroline,
> 
> What is the Confession getting at (as I posted in the OP) that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside the visible Church?
> 
> What, precisely, do you think the Confession has in mind as far as _why_ it believes the local Church is somehow linked to salvation itself such that, outside of it, a person is not ordinarily saved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry if I was unclear on that point. The law and the prophets hang on the commands to love the Lord your God and your neighbor. That is something that people who think they can just learn at home often miss. The greatest commandment is not to learn as much about God as you can, but to love Him. And Jesus said to Peter that if he loved Him, he should feed His sheep.
> 
> Furthermore, Jesus said that those who love Him should obey His commandments. It is utterly impossible to obey the Ten Commandments alone. The commandments require us not only to refrain from doing evil, but to do good--to uphold our neighbor's good name, to promote the wealth and outward estate of others (as well as ourselves), a charitable frame of spirit toward our neighbor, etc. (Quoting from the WSC, obviously). These are impossible to accomplish alone. Therefore, the idea that anyone CAN live a Christian life in isolation is simply factually incorrect (unless providence has forced that isolation upon him in the form of a desert island or something of that sort, and even then, it should be a great trial to him, not a blessing.)
> 
> The Proverbs say it best: "A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; he rages against all wise judgment." (Prov. 18:1)
> 
> Edited to add a small analogy for further clarification: If someone ever says to me, "I am your friend and I would do anything for you, but I hate your husband and I cannot bear to be around him. I think your children are annoying and I do not like them, so please leave them at home when you visit me," then I would not consider that person my friend. I would say, "If you love me, then for that reason alone, you should be kind to my husband and my children. I love them, so when you are hateful to them, you are hateful to me, and when you are kind to them, you are kind to me."
> 
> I often wonder how it is that people (knowing that this sort of connection is true even in human relationships) think they can approach God and tell Him with a straight face that they love Him but hate His bride. Or (to use another biblical frame of reference) that they love Him but can't stand His other children. How do they not see how offensive that is?
> 
> We ought to always bear in mind that these are God's children. Even the pastor (as we are tempted to criticize) is one of God's children--someone for whom Christ died. If God is so kind to them, then maybe I should be too. After all, it is the same grace poured out to me.
Click to expand...


Thank you Caroline.

Would you also agree that the local Church is not merely where you demonstrate that you love your neighbor? In other words, it is true that we can't really say that we love the Lord but hate His Bride and so we never demonstrably love the people who constitute the Church. This much is true.

But is there more to it than that? Is it merely because you need to demonstrate a living faith that the Church is vital for your salvation or is there something that the visible Church ministers _to you_ that is vital to the Lord's saving plan for His children?


----------



## Caroline

I'm not sure that I understand your question, Rich. I did not say that loving one's neighbor and one's God is the only thing we do at church, nor that it precludes ministry to us, nor that it is where we "merely demonstrate." But the church is where we learn to love God and our neighbor, and as those are the two greatest commandments, I would not characterize that as "merely demonstrating." It is not possible to learn to love God or one's neighbor sitting at home on one's couch alone every Sunday, except perhaps in special circumstances wherein one cannot go to church, and then one must pray for special grace to learn outside of the normal method.

This is not to say that I take away from the authority of the church. That is a whole other discussion and a lengthy one--what authority the church has, how that authority is applied in churches that are corrupt in leadership, etc, etc. My concern is that the focus on the authority of the church sometimes causes people to deflect their responsibility as believers. People often turn up their noses at the authority of the church because they nitpick small flaws. "I can learn more at home than I can learn from my pastor" or "Why should I be involved in church ministry when no one appreciates all the work I do?" or "I get tired of people always asking me to teach the kids' Sunday school." The sum of it ends up being, "I don't think my church is good enough to declare the word of God to me or be the ordinary means of salvation for me. They do this and that thing that I just think is unwise/ not purely Reformed/ annoying/ whatever."

I'm not saying that people never have legitimate complaints about their pastor or other church leaders or other laymen, and I am not saying that those things should go unaddressed. I have known some churches to be worth leaving, and I have made complaints myself over legitimate grievances even in very good churches.

But my point is this... God declares that if we do not forgive others, He will not forgive us (Mark 11:26). Christ says that what we do for the least of His brethren we do for Him (Matthew 25:40), and that even one who offers water to one of God's little ones will not lose his reward (Matt 10:42). James says that that pure religion involves caring for orphans and widows (James 1:27). I could go on and on. 

It's not a matter of demonstrating. Love isn't something we feel sitting on our sofa listening to sermonaudio. It's something that we do when we forgive and bear with others in patience and serve God's little ones. It's treating our pastor the way we would want congregants to treat us if we were in his place. 

I didn't make the law of God, and sometimes I even chafe against it when I really, really don't want to get up in the morning and go to church and take communion with that guy who was so rude to me last week. But nevertheless, that is the commandment, and it is purer than I will ever be.

But the sum of what I am saying is simply this: If someone says that they can be a Christian just as well at home alone as going to church with their brothers and sisters in Christ, the reply is simply that this is patently ridiculous. We cannot keep the two greatest commandments that way. We can't keep the Ten Commandments that way. We can't produce the fruit of the Spirit that way (how can you be patient or kind or gentle alone?). I think it is better for people to think less about whether their pastor and elders are "good enough" to be making judgments about their salvation and consider their own responsibilities to the ones that Jesus referred to as His "brethren" and His "little ones." If the focus is always on whether the church is ministering to ME, then it becomes far too much about my feelings and whether I think I'm "getting my money's worth," so to speak. If the church, by having difficult and frustrating people with whom you must be patient and forgiving, is teaching you to be patient and forgiving, then it IS ministering to you. If you learn to love your neighbor even when your neighbor wants to paint the sanctuary purple, then you just learned to keep the second-greatest commandment. That's an important thing to learn, and I don't know how someone can be a Christian and take no interest in keeping the commandments.


----------



## jandrusk

I think that there is a key statement in the article that is very telling and I think is probably the motivator for those who are leaving: "I’m tired of being lectured to. I’m just done with having some guy tell me what to do.” That statement is prefixed with the feeling that they have "learned it all". It seems to me at least by what the article laid out is that it's a rebellion against church authority and having to submit to the authority of the church. Also notice how the quote views the position as simply, 'some guy'. This just may be a natural outworking of BK philosophy; I'll have it my way or no way at all. 

This actually may not be a bad thing that's happening. The author of the article seems to think that it's problematic due to the nature of there being less people around to serve and provide financially. I see it as the Father pruning His church to refine it as gold in the fire.


----------



## mercyminister

I could have easily been one of the "dones." I recently left an OPC congregation for several reasons. The church was without a pastor since June and had been under the leadership of two elders. One of the elders became very despotic and made sure those who he did not care for became very insignificant in the church. A second reason, and more importantly, the Gospel was not a living Gospel in that congregation. Opportunities to serve were very few and were discouraged unless one was a church officer. Finally, the congregation did not show Christian love. If one was not a member of one of the three "privileged" families, they were outsiders. Outsiders were expected to remain in their seats, keep silent, and put their offering in the plate. No more was expected of them.

Anyhow, I got to know a congregation of the Bible Fellowship Church, a small denomination primarily in eastern Pennsylvania. This church is everything I expect a Gospel-living church to be and I thank the Lord every day for bringing me there. I just regret that things did not work out at the OPC church I had been attending for 15 months.


----------



## Edward

mercyminister said:


> Bible Fellowship Church



Had to consult Wikipedia for that.

I am confused, however. Your signature says that you are an officer of a PCA congregation; you post indicates that you were in an OPC church since sometime in 2013, and you indicate that you have now gotten to know a Bible Fellowship congregation. 

Are you still a PCA officer? 
Did you ever join the OPC church? (I couldn't really fault an elder for not looking to a non-membership for leadership)
And what does it mean to 'get to know' a congregation?


----------



## mercyminister

*Are you still a PCA officer?* I am an ordained deacon in the PCA and still have the Mercy Ministry that I had before the PCA church I was in had to close because of falling membership.

*Did you ever join the OPC church?* Yes, I did join. I was there 15 months and the church had a pastor for the first nine months I was there. Originally, it was supposed to be a merger of the two congregations, but did not work out that way.

*And what does it mean to 'get to know' a congregation?* I had attended conferences at the BFC and was impressed with their dedication to promoting the Gospel, their worship quality, and their Sunday School program. I had attended a few times while I was a member of the OPC congregation. When I finally left the OPC church, it was an easy move as I already knew the Pastor and some of the leaders there.

James


----------



## timmopussycat

jandrusk said:


> I think that there is a key statement in the article that is very telling and I think is probably the motivator for those who are leaving: "I’m tired of being lectured to. I’m just done with having some guy tell me what to do.” That statement is prefixed with the feeling that they have "learned it all". It seems to me at least by what the article laid out is that it's a rebellion against church authority and having to submit to the authority of the church. Also notice how the quote views the position as simply, 'some guy'. This just may be a natural outworking of BK philosophy; I'll have it my way or no way at all.
> 
> This actually may not be a bad thing that's happening. The author of the article seems to think that it's problematic due to the nature of there being less people around to serve and provide financially. I see it as the Father pruning His church to refine it as gold in the fire.



There may be something even more profound behind that statement. It may indicate that the kind of preaching being experienced by the "dones" is not Christ-centred but focused on something else.


----------



## Herald

jambo said:


> I believe that those who are "done with church" are not true believers in the first place.



We have to be careful in adopting a "throw the baby out with the bath water" view of the de-churched. When an individual removes themselves from the authority of the local church they expose themselves to a life without the graces of the church. It is hard to name Christ while at the same time rejecting Him. The Lord's discipline can be harsh at times, but if the wayward saint turns back to the church it could be said that God's discipline was itself a form of grace. 

If they do not return then their abandonment may very well be an act of apostasy (1 John 2:19).


----------



## Kalinin

10+ years ago I'd probably have dismissed someone automatically who said they didn't commit to a congregation where the gospel was preached, perhaps waving a quote from Paul about not giving up on meeting together. Perhaps I'd have thought that if that was their attitude, they didn't think much of the gospel in the first place - or maybe the image of the seed falling amongst the stoney ground would spring to my mind?

However, that is exactly the situation I found myself in. I had got to the stage where I simply couldn't bare attending church any more. It's one thing being on your own and having difficulties in health etc, it's quite another to go each week and see ppl in groups all around you having lively jovial conversations about work or education, promotions, holidays & moving to a bigger house etc - while you nurse a coffee and want the ground to swallow you up. If that sounds like jealousy then please understand I love to see people happy and so on, but being on the outside looking in is like torture. I regularly attended Sunday services and the midweek prayer meeting and was a member in good standing, but although I loved the praise and the preaching was super & systematic bible preaching, I was dying inwardly. I don't mean that in the biblical sense of my "old man" dying inwardly, but rather the seemingly intentional lack of any meaningful fellowship or even a few decent friendships was literally destroying me - please forgive the analogy, but for me it was like being in an abusive relationship where one partner is repeatedly punching the other, I felt ritually humiliated every time this happened.

I had internalised this as being "my fault" and eventually decided just not to physically go and attend, but rather just listen to the sermons online. At least that way I'd get the teaching and avoid the crushing experience of weekly rejection. 
But in the process of attending a few services to support a new ministry in the city, people in that church would actually speak to me and encourage me to stay for coffee. The minister remembered my name the second time I spoke to him, and people were kind and friendly.
I started going to this church more and more, and am now a member there, and deeply blessed by both the preaching AND fellowship.

Basically the point is, I'd got to the stage where I couldn't take the rejection any more. I'd read Job 29 and 30 where Job contrasts how people treated him when things were good in his life and he was well to do and respectable, with in chapter 30 where he is treated with such contempt that people almost line up to spit in his face! 

To turn this to a positive lesson for me, I pray to God to give me a holy confidence in Christ to allow me to approach someone who I see standing by themselves and looking lost after a service. I say "confidence" just because I'm not the most sure of myself, but I ask the Holy Spirit to lead me in saying hi and being sensitive to show an interest without asking too much, and knowing when to listen etc. So far it's been positive for me, just a little mini-ministry if I can call it even that, and who knows that by speaking to people visiting or so "showing hospitality to strangers" that we might "entertain Angels (literally God's messengers to us) unawares"?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## arapahoepark

Kalinin said:


> 10+ years ago I'd probably have dismissed someone automatically who said they didn't commit to a congregation where the gospel was preached, perhaps waving a quote from Paul about not giving up on meeting together. Perhaps I'd have thought that if that was their attitude, they didn't think much of the gospel in the first place - or maybe the image of the seed falling amongst the stoney ground would spring to my mind?
> 
> However, that is exactly the situation I found myself in. I had got to the stage where I simply couldn't bare attending church any more. It's one thing being on your own and having difficulties in health etc, it's quite another to go each week and see ppl in groups all around you having lively jovial conversations about work or education, promotions, holidays & moving to a bigger house etc - while you nurse a coffee and want the ground to swallow you up. If that sounds like jealousy then please understand I love to see people happy and so on, but being on the outside looking in is like torture. I regularly attended Sunday services and the midweek prayer meeting and was a member in good standing, but although I loved the praise and the preaching was super & systematic bible preaching, I was dying inwardly. I don't mean that in the biblical sense of my "old man" dying inwardly, but rather the seemingly intentional lack of any meaningful fellowship or even a few decent friendships was literally destroying me - please forgive the analogy, but for me it was like being in an abusive relationship where one partner is repeatedly punching the other, I felt ritually humiliated every time this happened.
> 
> I had internalised this as being "my fault" and eventually decided just not to physically go and attend, but rather just listen to the sermons online. At least that way I'd get the teaching and avoid the crushing experience of weekly rejection.
> But in the process of attending a few services to support a new ministry in the city, people in that church would actually speak to me and encourage me to stay for coffee. The minister remembered my name the second time I spoke to him, and people were kind and friendly.
> I started going to this church more and more, and am now a member there, and deeply blessed by both the preaching AND fellowship.
> 
> Basically the point is, I'd got to the stage where I couldn't take the rejection any more. I'd read Job 29 and 30 where Job contrasts how people treated him when things were good in his life and he was well to do and respectable, with in chapter 30 where he is treated with such contempt that people almost line up to spit in his face!
> 
> To turn this to a positive lesson for me, I pray to God to give me a holy confidence in Christ to allow me to approach someone who I see standing by themselves and looking lost after a service. I say "confidence" just because I'm not the most sure of myself, but I ask the Holy Spirit to lead me in saying hi and being sensitive to show an interest without asking too much, and knowing when to listen etc. So far it's been positive for me, just a little mini-ministry if I can call it even that, and who knows that by speaking to people visiting or so "showing hospitality to strangers" that we might "entertain Angels (literally God's messengers to us) unawares"?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


So wonderfully put. This is what I was trying to get at in my first post. Though I attend regular services, I could not bear fellowship at the college group I was attending and I have been hesitant to go again to another one. I frequently hear that someone feeling left out should be outgoing and friendly. Even that did not work for me. I was completely intentional about trying to be involved with the others and gain friends who were Christian but to no avail. So I simply stopped going.

Its been awhile since I popped into this thread and it is nice to see some sympathy for those who are done with church due to some social aspects. That, however, doesn't let them off the hook. Fellowship in community needs to be emphasized rather than this 'moralistic therapeutic deism' or lowest common denominator Christianity that doesn't value the church whom Christ died for.


----------



## aadebayo

Peairtach said:


> Abandoning attending or being associated with Christ's Church is a presumptuous sin, and those who do this should firstly be privately admonished by the elders, and if repentance is not forthcoming should be further admonished and barred from the Lord's Table for a season, and if still recalcitrant, sine die, until thete are further positive developments.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2



The bible clearly tells us in Hebrews 10:25


> Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.


 This is a command from God's word, disobedience to which is sin. I completely agree with your point * Peairtach *. However, how does someone deal with a situation where the nearest bible believing Church is say over 40 miles away and such person does not have access to reliable transport om the Lord's day. Here in the U.K, I took 3 of my boys on holiday to Skegness in Lincolnshire. The nearest bible believing fellowship is 45 miles away in Lincoln, which was where we went for fellowship. However, for some one who lives an works in Skegness, who does not have a car, this will be impossible. I suppose this is where the Met Tab's live web cast will come handy.


----------

