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]

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]

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]

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.