House churches were very common, though usually the local believers of a city also had contact with each other. Rather, the term is "assembly" ecclesia , and refers to both the one Church, and to any assembly of believers two or more, any location!
Our english word 'church' comes from the greek 'Kyriakos' - "belonging to the Lord", which is also an apt description.
Unfortunately, it tends to be used as a label for whatever building the church is meeting in]. In the modern church, it is harder to keep the practice of meeting house to house due to various fractured denominations, lack of home churches, almost nonexistent fellowship of christians outside of 'going to church', etc. Do you find one church building or several to result in greater participation together in the work of Christ? Are you church hopping because you are afraid of setting roots [bad reason], or are you church hopping because one building alone is stifling spiritual growth [good reason], etc.
The early church consisted of small groups of Christians meeting in homes or in public places. There is no indication in Scriptu Though they frequently met in different locations like riversides, houses, synagogues and the Temple , they all remained connected to the church body at large. They were meeting in different locations to fellowship with other believers, to preach to a wider audience, etc.
Church hopping made them more connected to the body of Christ at large, not less. In Acts 2 we are given a couple examples of meeting styles.
In verse one, they are "all together in one place" Acts These were followers of Christ, Jews, and gentile converts to Judaism, gathered to celebrate Pentecost.
About 3, people were baptized - that's a large church service! Yet, in verse 46 we see the practice of the church same people! These houses were not large enough to encompass the entirety of the local church in Jerusalem, though the temple courts were. Acts , Acts They met as smaller groups of believer and as a larger group of believers.
House churches were very common, though usually the local believers of a city also had contact with each other. Rather, the term is "assembly" ecclesia , and refers to both the one Church, and to any assembly of believers two or more, any location! Our english word 'church' comes from the greek 'Kyriakos' - "belonging to the Lord", which is also an apt description. Unfortunately, it tends to be used as a label for whatever building the church is meeting in].
In the modern church, it is harder to keep the practice of meeting house to house due to various fractured denominations, lack of home churches, almost nonexistent fellowship of christians outside of 'going to church', etc. Do you find one church building or several to result in greater participation together in the work of Christ?
Are you church hopping because you are afraid of setting roots [bad reason], or are you church hopping because one building alone is stifling spiritual growth [good reason], etc. Conversely, is church hopping making it easier by the larger selection or different slant of ministries?
Chris Dibbern Follow the Holy Spirit, as the apostles and other early church members did. They would plant churches, and as various churches sprung up, they would hop from one to another, visiting, not staying too long, but would generally stay long enough to build fellowship and community. As the Holy Spirit led, these early brothers and sisters would visit churches already planted either by themselves or others, wherever they sprung up, and would go wherever they felt the Holy Spirit leading them.
Short term pastors may follow this pattern or one like it: They preach on Romans and Ephesians and maybe John and perhaps some Psalms. Then they redo the same series at their next church. They follow typical ministry approaches and do not come up with anything unique.
They might be really good at those things, but they have a limited spiritual cuisine. First, thanks to Aaron for using this. It's interesting to see the feedback from pastors and church members in various settings.
I think there's a way to do this that shows who the commenter is, but I haven't mastered that. I thought I heard God telling me to plant a church in Greenville I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I am amazed at the number of gospel-centered churches being started within blocks of each other. Where I pastored in Wisconsin, it seemed like there was a bar on every corner.
Here in Greenville County, it seems like there's a church on every corner. And new ones being started regularly. Again, having more local manifestations of the body of Christ in one area is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is a factor in the availability of churches all across the spectrum of theology, culture, and preference. Our church was one of those church plants, back in There is a lack of commitment to the body as an entity and to the people in it.
An anecdote - Several years ago, we had a Sunday event with an outside speaker who was the retired pastor of one of the larger conservative churches in the Greenville area. He's a very gracious, humble, and genuine person, with a witty humorous streak. As he started speaking, he looked across our congregation and said, "It's good to see you.
I recognize many of you. In fact, I think I have probably pastored most of you at one time or another. That's the reality of Greenville :.
Here's my question: Say the issue wasn't someone "church hopping" because their musical preference Ed uses "musical taste" doesn't match or no longer matches the particular church they are at.
I personally think this would be a bad reason to leave one church for another. Say instead that one's own church switches to a style of music that doesn't match one's "musical taste," even if that switch was from "traditional" to "contemporary. Dean, to what extent does the influence of the the large institution in your area factor into this experience? Church hopping can occur elsewhere, but it seems to me there are additional factors in specific places like have been mentioned something that might be similar in the vicinity of Watertown, WI, let's say that factor into this phenomenon.
Any thoughts or observations? Greg Linscott wrote:. I have never lived in Greenville. I doubt there is much church hopping in Neillsville, WI. Greg, I'm not sure if I'm hitting your question directly, but Dean's post got me thinking about the exceptional circumstances in Greenville in general. I wanted to get out of the Greenville area so I could be useful to someone. So, using my imagination, I could see legitimate reasons to change churches when you really want to serve, and you're in a church already saturated with godly and capable servants.
If I remember right, we did have a family or two start attending our church from the Greenville area just because they wanted to be involved. I suppose that leaves the person vulnerable to the "if I can't play, I'll take my marbles elsewhere" attitude, but it can also be born of just a matter-of-fact observation that, while God never needs me for His work, He really doesn't need me here.
It's kind of like watching young children play soccer: "Guys, you can't all kick the ball at once, especially when you're on the same team. I'll bite. Referring to what I wrote in an earlier post, a change like that in the church has to challenge you to ask, "Do I love an abstract ideal or do I love a flesh-and-blood congregation? So some changes in the church that dishonor Jesus would be a grounds for leaving, in time.
But simply leaving right away is a violation of your covenant obligations. You have to stay and work through it. If they're drifting the wrong direction, hello, it's you're covenant obligation to help them get back on track. I'm not sure how much you're focusing on music in particular, and how much you're just using music as a test case for "what if the church changes first? Lurking in the background of your question is the person to whom the right kind of beat is right up there with the virgin birth, and who would handle drift in either area the same way.
Can I bracket that into a separate question, then sidestep it? What I would say that in the event that the church drifts in an area great or small, I have an ongoing function of provoking others to love and good works, and should have been active enough all along,and should get active now, to help my brothers and sisters in a godly way.
Mike, I think you are speaking to what I had in mind, to one degree or another. That tension of wanting to serve, but also wanting specific opportunities that don't seem to present themselves The music discussion others have raised is an interesting factor. Here's another: what about changing demographics? In the last years, the makeup of the congregation I serve has changed significantly I wrote about this here. In short, sometimes up to half our attending congregation now can be non-native English speakers.
We haven't had anyone leave because of this yet, but I do sometimes wonder how unsettling this might be to some visiting, or if someone more established here would ever consider leaving if there were another similarly organized, viable church option nearby the closest established options locally would be E-Free, LCMC Lutheran, or somewhere on the continuationist spectrum. We already know that sometimes congregations have relocated In one area I am aware of exploding with population growth Some left established congregations in that community and the metro to join in that effort, not always with their current pastor's blessing, either.
That can be an interesting scenario to deal with, too. Greg, the "saturation" effect mentioned above would be a factor. Also, it seems that people employed by such institutions are very dedicated to their work as a ministry, and in some cases don't have much time or energy left to devote to church involvement. I am speaking generally - there are many who are very engaged in our church. But for those who aren't, low involvement can lead to or be symptom of low commitment which can turn into floating around to various churches.
I will say that the current leadership at BJU seems to be encouraging University personnel to be highly committed to and involved in their local churches. At least I have observed more involvement on the part of some who weren't in the past. When a church changes direction and you began attending a church for the direction it had originally, that could warrant a departure, I would think.
However, if updating musical styles is the only change in other words, not forsaking expository preaching or a solid doctrinal emphasis for pop-psych seeker sensitive philosophies , then -- if you have truly become attached to the Body -- it might be time just to grin and bear it, IMO. If you have not established roots and tendrils into the Body there, it might be easier to leave. This is especially likely if you have not been there that long.
But that goes back to one main issue: we no longer have a family model of church. We would normally endure much to stay on good terms and in fellowship with our earthly family. Given our culture and the preconceptions people have of church life, it may not be possible for churches in the West to truly be a family. A "community," perhaps. A family, no. And that is why the New Testament Church is apples and even the best churches are oranges.
Skip to main content. Church Hopping. Needs There are people who think their current church is not meeting their needs. Preaching Some are looking for a different kind of preaching—more practical, more confrontational, more dynamic, more evangelistic, more relevant, more helpful for new believers, more nourishing to mature believers.
Changes Sometimes people leave because they disagree with changes happening in the church. Conflict Many instances of church-hopping happen because of conflict. Business Interpersonal conflicts are frequently business-related. Recruiting And finally, some are recruited, or at least invited, by their friends who have migrated to another church. Are you avoiding needed personal growth in your own life by leaving your church and going someplace that you think will better fit your preferences and perceived needs?
Are you more committed to your own preferences on non-essential issues than you are to the body of Christ, the absolutes of Scripture, and your relationships with the members and leadership of your church family? How should we respond to the pervasive and spiritually counterproductive reality of church hopping?
The primacy of the pulpit. If you do not want what I cooked, you are on your own for dinner. This should be how we respond to those who give this spiritual sounding excuse for church hopping. I accept the fact that there will be people who leave my congregation.
They will have to come up with some other excuse… uh… I mean reason. A strong pulpit has a way of anchoring a church and holding a congregation together. So by all means, preach! There is another side of this coin. While biblical preaching will draw and keep people, it also has a way of driving people away. If you are committed to sound doctrine and biblical exposition, be prepared for some people to avoid or leave your church.
They will find themselves a place where the preacher is saying what they want to hear, rather than what the word of God teaches.
But play the man and stay the course. And the Lord will reward your faithfulness. Pastoral ethics. There was a time when it was harder for a person to jump church from church to church, because there was a certain code of conduct among local pastors. If you left my church and went to a church across town, the pastor over there would call to inform me and ask some questions about you. You could not cause trouble in one church and then pop up somewhere else without the pastor asking why you left your previous church.
If you were joining from another church, many churches would require that you have a letter of recommendation from the church you left. That may sound like some crazy tradition. But it was the practice of the New Testament church. But now pastors are so busy competing with one another that we do not care where people come from or why. We only care about whether people are coming down the aisles and the membership roster is increasing. But if we as pastors would be more intentional about how we receive new members and more careful about how our policies demonstrate respect for other churches, it would disassemble the launching pad for many church hoppers.
Membership matters. We can discourage unnecessary church hopping by striving to make membership more meaning in our local churches.
It begins with the new members class. First of all, we should make sure that we have one. We also need to make sure that our congregations are governed by a plurality of godly men. Call them what you will — elders, associate pastors, or whatever. But a healthy church needs a team of godly men who are keeping watch over the souls of the membership Heb.
This is not the biblical responsibility of deacons. Churches have them to render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.
0コメント