# Eight terrible church visits



## Pergamum (Oct 18, 2012)

Eight Terrible Church Visits

An interesting article. Any thoughts?


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 18, 2012)

At first I thought this was going to be a thread regarding your trip to Australia, but I'm glad it's not! The article you linked to is interesting to me because I have mixed reactions to the various visits and their "problems." However, at the very least, they can all serve as a good reminder to be more conscious of how we communicate and relate to others. No, we should not do any and all things in order to accommodate the lost, but there are simple things that if we are more mindful of would easily be resolved, such as not letting the new person feel outside of fellowship even though they are inside the doors.


----------



## Zach (Oct 18, 2012)

Good reminder. I think almost all of these are pretty "out there" and would be hard to find in our Churches. However, one thing that did strike me was the amount of "Christianese" we can use in our services and that can turn people away. We shouldn't oversimplify things, but we should remember what it was like to have almost no theological background to draw upon.


----------



## Douglas P. (Oct 18, 2012)

The word “unchurched” always throws up red flags. It’s a deceptive term. It makes it seem as though the goal of the church is to “church” the “unchurched”. The problem with this is that goal of the church isn’t to “church” people; the goal is to bring people to Jesus through the preaching of the Word and Sacraments. Let’s call the “unchurched” what they actually are, unbelievers.

The other red flag was that a consultant company was brought in to evaluate a church. It may be wise to have a trusted outsider come in and give a critique of your church, but the idea of a consultant coming in to evaluate a church makes the church seem like a business that is selling a product. The gospel is not a product to be bought it’s an announcement to be believed and obeyed. 

As for the eight critiques; did it really take the unique insight of an unbeliever to realize that each one of those situations was terrible? I’m sure that each one of the problems would have been realized by any believing outsider and the critique would have much more value coming from someone who knows how to ground it in scripture.


----------



## Tim (Oct 18, 2012)

> 2. "I had to walk fifty yards in the rain. There was no guest parking. No one offered me an umbrella. Apparently the members got there early so they could get the best parking spaces in the inclement weather."



Really? I mean, really? Is this person serious?


----------



## Jack K (Oct 18, 2012)

Accessible worship was one of the principles of the Reformation. And there is biblical mandate for the worship service being accessible, intelligible and welcoming to outsiders, so that they may be led to glorify God:



> If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.
> (1 Corinthians 14:23-25)



That article nowhere says we should dumb down our services or adjust the content to fit an unbeliever's sensibilities. It does, however, imply that we ought to be aware enough to make our services accessible to outsiders and as welcoming as possible given that they are, in fact, unbelievers. That's a good thing.

Sadly, just as there are churches that compromise to appeal to outsiders there are also many churches that remain unintelligible to the masses, ingrown and prickly. They sometimes justify this with talk of how they must not become one of those compromisers. That's just a lame excuse for what is really a failure to care about others, including outsiders. Is it really all that hard for us to stick to our guns on matters of doctrine and worship and still be welcoming and accessible? It's easy if we actually have love for others.

A few of the complaints in the article sound a bit picky (you'll get that if you ask for a critique of anything), but many are spot on. If a bit of in-person research helps a church see where they're being inaccessible, that might be a good thing.


----------



## Zach (Oct 18, 2012)

Jack K said:


> Accessible worship was one of the principles of the Reformation. And there is biblical mandate for the worship service being accessible, intelligible and welcoming to outsiders, so that they may be led to glorify God:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well said, Brother. Especially in Reformed Churches we should be understanding of just how "different" we will look to those without a Christian background and even those with some Christian background. I agree with you, Douglas, that the mission of the Church is to bring people to Jesus, but it is precisely for this reason that our worship must be accessible to those who do not yet know the Lord.


----------



## J. Dean (Oct 18, 2012)

1-Agree. That's a tacky thing to do to a visitor
2-Disagree. Whoever wrote that was being petty. 
3-Agree that a children's area should be kept clean. That being said, I prefer my kids be with me and the Mrs. during church.
4-Mixed feelings on this one. I do agree that too often we use "Christianese" when we speak and don't always explain what we mean (an aggrivating point with theological liberals who use our terminology with different meaning and intent). That being said, it's nothing a little investigation can't clarify.
5-Agree. The "family pew" thing has always struck me as a bit odd, and it is a bit rude to act as if others shouldn't be in "your space."
6-Depends. See, when I visit a church, I don't necessarily want people coming up to me and mobbing me with kindness. The best visits have been somewhere where one or two people say hello, engage me with some good conversation, and that's the end of it. But I'm not necessarily offended if nobody speaks to me the first time I show up.
7-Agree that preachers should not "scream" to be dramatic about their sermons. That being said, I would hope that a mature person would look past the presentation and examine the content.
8-Agree. A business meeting, if possible, should be after the service, not during.


----------



## Douglas P. (Oct 18, 2012)

Zach said:


> Well said, Brother. Especially in Reformed Churches we should be understanding of just how "different" we will look to those without a Christian background and even those with some Christian background. I agree with you, Douglas, that the mission of the Church is to bring people to Jesus, but it is precisely for this reason that our worship must be accessible to those who do not yet know the Lord.



Zach,

I wasn’t arguing against accessibility to outsiders. I was arguing against the methodology used to determine what accessibility is or ought to be. You start down a slippery slope when you try and adapt a business model to running a church. The church isn’t a business that is trying to sell a product or service. The church needs to be very cautious when taking cues from culture and not scripture. Words like “unchurched” and “consultation company” have an unsettling ring when using them to discuss church functions.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 18, 2012)

I have read a couple of Thom Rainer's books and while he does make some good observations, his thinking is fatally flawed in that he thinks the church exists primarily to meet the needs of people. The church exists primarily to worship God.


----------



## Zach (Oct 18, 2012)

Douglas Padgett said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> > Well said, Brother. Especially in Reformed Churches we should be understanding of just how "different" we will look to those without a Christian background and even those with some Christian background. I agree with you, Douglas, that the mission of the Church is to bring people to Jesus, but it is precisely for this reason that our worship must be accessible to those who do not yet know the Lord.
> ...



I agree with you and my apologies for making it sound like I thought you were arguing against accessibility to outsiders. I just wanted to point out that the Mission of the Church that you brought up fuels our need to be accessible in worship. Blessings, Brother!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 18, 2012)

I resonate with numbers 5 and 6. Number 5 has happened to my family and me multiple times in Reformed churches. Definitely not a good way to make a decent impression. Number 6 we've experienced and I tell you, number 6 gets worse feeling when you're two months in and still experiencing it. 

Number 4 I understand, and I think it is a helpful reminder to define terms and to make sure that everyone actually knows what we're talking about in our worship.


----------



## JennyG (Oct 18, 2012)

Douglas Padgett said:


> The word “unchurched” always throws up red flags. It’s a deceptive term. It makes it seem as though the goal of the church is to “church” the “unchurched”. The problem with this is that goal of the church isn’t to “church” people; the goal is to bring people to Jesus through the preaching of the Word and Sacraments. Let’s call the “unchurched” what they actually are, unbelievers.



To be fair, it's shorthand with a point behind it. Unbelievers can be either churched or unchurched.


----------



## Miss Marple (Oct 18, 2012)

I'd posit that it's possible to be a believer yet "unchurched." Perhaps you are a new Christian, or a Christian who's avoided church due to severe bad experiences but are trying to get back on track, or perhaps you have been badly taught in regards to church membership.


----------



## darrellmaurina (Oct 18, 2012)

I read much more than I post, but I didn't want to let this one pass by.

Due to job-related travels, over the last couple of decades I've visited far more local congregations than most people, whenever possible visiting Reformed churches of some type. I've also seen enough bad things while visiting broadly evangelical churches to remind me why I'm Reformed.

I have a high tolerance for issues which I see as a visitor. I understand that just because I see something one time in one church service doesn't mean it's normal in the church. Also, I'm well aware that a pastor may have an off-day. The pastor may have been preaching on one of the few areas where I would disagree with him. The problematic person who came up to talk with me may not have been representative of the church as a whole, and the elders may have no idea what the person is saying to visitors.

I'm fully aware that it's not possible to fairly evaluate a church with a single visit, apart from the most extreme cases. To cite a real-life example, I've seen pro-gay T-shirts being worn by people coming up to the front for communion in a supposedly confessional Reformed church -- that is a valid reason not to come back, and I later learned that what I saw in that visit was not an aberration. (The pastor is no longer there and the problem is in the process of being dealt with by the denomination, for whatever it's worth.)

The problem is that for many visitors, something that happens one time in one worship service could very easily turn them off to ever coming back. We need to be aware of such things, and eliminate them if possible.

I don't like to say this, but based on what I've seen in church visits to many different churches over many years, we ***DO*** have a real problem in the Reformed world with not being aware of how visitors are treated. Being friendly to people visiting, and to people who may not be familiar with Reformed theology, is not contrary to Calvinism.

We're not supposed to be "God's frozen chosen," and there is a reason for the bad reputation Reformed churches sometimes get. Broad evangelicals, based on bad theology, often do a better job of welcoming "outsiders."

Going back to the original post, while some of this church consulting company's methods are questionable, sending a visitor to a church being evaluated really is a good idea. But why send someone "unchurched"? Why not send a person who not only is a Christian but also meets the biblical standards for the eldership and is therefore qualified to evaluate what the church is doing?

I firmly believe it would help many Reformed churches if the elders were to ask a number of friends who are Reformed (perhaps relatives from out of town coming to visit who the church members don't know) to come to a worship service, arrive separately from the members who invited them, sit somewhere other than where the members who invited them are sitting, and then afterwards write an evaluation of how they were treated by church members. Asking some people to visit who are solid evangelical Christians and know their Bibles but don't know Reformed doctrine might also be helpful.

We can learn a lot if we see ourselves through other people's eyes.

The perception may be wrong, or may be a misunderstanding. Some objections and criticisms cannot and should not result in changes -- obvious examples would include a visitor who objected to a "long sermon" of more than 20 minutes, or who didn't think it was appropriate to use "man-made documents" like the confessions in church.

On the other hand, Reformed churches could learn much from our broadly evangelical brothers on how to be more welcoming and more self-aware of how visitors perceive us. Not even knowing how we are perceived means we don't have the ability to fix real problems which can and should be fixed.


----------



## Miss Marple (Oct 18, 2012)

Also I suppose we'd all best have an Umbrella Guy in case visitors need to be escorted in the rain 

Sorry, but I found that one to be quite absurd.


----------



## Theoretical (Oct 18, 2012)

Number 6 I had happen at a local LCMS on a day where we'd gotten snowed/iced in down the street and my church's evening study was cancelled. The pastor greeted me warmly and introduced me to a few others, but I got completely ignored (except for the rote handshake in middle of service thing) and then actively avoided after I was the only one in the congregation of 250 (of age) to not take communion.

That was nearly hostile and I don't bite (far from it - my flaw is to be way the opposite way)


----------



## Caroline (Oct 18, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> Also I suppose we'd all best have an Umbrella Guy in case visitors need to be escorted in the rain
> 
> Sorry, but I found that one to be quite absurd.



Me too. Who'd they send for that one? The Wicked Witch of the West? I can't think of another reason for such a profound objection to a little water. I think the only ones that would really kill it for me would be the yelling pastor and the lack of cleanliness in the children's areas. Many years ago before I became Reformed, I visited several churches where the pastor yelled. I never went back to one like that. I remember telling my husband, "People yell to compensate when they don't have anything much to say."

I do think that Reformed churches can be oblivious to how confusing they are to someone who has never attended a Reformed church. I have known of more than one person who thought that the reason the plate was passed twice on certain Sundays was that the first time around the money was deemed insufficient. The bulletin said the second one was a 'deaconate' offering, but who other than Reformed people knows what a deaconate is?


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 18, 2012)

There's really no place for "insider" stuff during a worship service -- leave off the acronyms and business meetings! I'm in complete agreement that worship is the gathering of God's people for worship, however, it does make me wonder how much is in our order of worship that could be completely foreign. We are moving away from an era when a fairly large percentage of the US population spent some time in church during their youth. On the other hand, including a line of explanation about everything might be rather patronizing.


----------



## Miss Marple (Oct 18, 2012)

It occurred to me to share a terrible, at least disappointing, church visit I had.

I arrived at the new place in the new state with my husband, of course, and two sons under five. They were good boys, but, they were boys under age 5.

On the door of the sanctuary, or meeting room, whatever you like to call it - where worship is held -

Was posted a document concerning the behavior of small children in the worship. Listed were the offenses they could make, like crying, playing, talking, etc. There was a three point response lined out. Upon his first disturbance, the pastor - from the pulpit - would pause his preaching and look significantly at the offender. Upon the second disturbance, the pastor would audibly request that the child(ren) be removed. Upon the third disturbance, the elders were to come and escort the offender(s) to the church nursery. And so we were warned before we dared enter.

Needless to say I did not even make an effort to attend the public worship. I went straight to the nursery and stayed there with both boys. The many other ladies in there were very nice and it may have been a nice church. The doctrine (it was a NAPARC church) was no doubt sound. But what a sign to greet you as you go to enter the door!

I do believe a church should have a policy about disturbances, whether formal or informal. However I found the policy to be very harsh, and its posting on the front door for visitors to be very intimidating.

We didn't return - and we were looking for a new church at the time.


----------

