Article: why millennials are leaving the church

[brandon1984]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/2 ... ?hpt=hp_c4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ccgr]

Hmm interesting read, I have been to some interesting churches and am not into old fashioned orthodox services. Some modern worship with some classics is a nice mixture, some churches are more of a production than anything else. And while I'm fine with being welcoming to homosexuals, I won't be a member of a church that marries them.

[ChickenSoup]

I can relate to some of the sentiments there.

On a semi-relates note, I too am occasionally drawn to more traditional services for some reason. I attended a Catholic service a year or two ago and it was refreshingly different than my usual stuff. I'm not sure traditional style all the time would be so refreshing for me, but something about the authenticity--or what felt like authenticity--of ritual and tradition not marred by culture was comforting.

[seancruz]

I believe the writer hit a few nails in her article, but it seems her perspective on the situation of contemporary church leaves out much more.

She is definitely right, that Jesus is not found in many churches today; no doubt, many people are leaving churches, but also consider, that not many people like to hear the hard sayings of Christ either. If you were to truly investigate the number of Christian communities that actually rely and follow Christ, you'd find few. And the members of such congregations are often small. For years, I've jumped from church to church, seeking for a real community of true believers, who were taught the unvarnished truth of Scripture. It was not until recently, that I was able to find a church that truly teaches the Scriptures, and functions in humbleness and contriteness towards God. I've found small communities online as well. But the point is, there are very few communities that are truly abiding in Christ.

I'd go as far as to say, that right now, the American Church is being tested; so many churches are consistently changing and "adapting" in an attempt to please unbelievers. I believe, that the majority of the American Church has forgotten, that the church is for the believers/saints of Christ; and that we are to go out, and preach the gospel. Church was never for the unbeliever, because spiritual matters are foolishness to those who do not believe in Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection. Church is for the nourishment of the believer, where the body of Christ gathers.

What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.

I think there is truth in this, but ultimately, that "substance", is, and should be Christ, and it is this substance, that many churches miss.

[Sstavix]

I'd go as far as to say, that right now, the American Church is being tested; so many churches are consistently changing and "adapting" in an attempt to please unbelievers.

I think there is some substance to this as well. I've heard many stories of pastors and preachers who change their message because they're afraid of losing members of their congregation if they did talk about what they thought or felt. They rely on those donations and tithes to keep their church - or perhaps their own bank accounts - afloat. Sadly, this leads to focusing more on the pocketbook rather than the lessons and example Jesus gave to us.

[brandon1984]

seancruz, welcome to the forum.

If you were to truly investigate the number of Christian communities that actually rely and follow Christ, you'd find few.

I don't think this is a claim you can defend. In fact, this is a claim you shouldn't even try to defend because the bible teaches that all of humanity has rejected God.

It was not until recently, that I was able to find a church that truly teaches the Scriptures, and functions in humbleness and contriteness towards God.

Maybe church hopping isn't the right idea. Jesus didn't go looking for the perfect synagogue. And, thinking that one exists is overconfident if not foolish.

I'd go as far as to say, that right now, the American Church is being tested; so many churches are consistently changing and "adapting" in an attempt to please unbelievers.

I think it's a mistake to think that this is a new problem and as if God is testing Americans.

[seancruz]

seancruz, welcome to the forum.

I don't think this is a claim you can defend. In fact, this is a claim you shouldn't even try to defend because the bible teaches that all of humanity has rejected God.

Maybe church hopping isn't the right idea. Jesus didn't go looking for the perfect synagogue. And, thinking that one exists is overconfident if not foolish.

I think it's a mistake to think that this is a new problem and as if God is testing Americans.

@Point 1: Yes you're right, the Bible says all man has rejected God. But I meant that of all the churches in this country, which ones rely on God through faith? Very little. The way how many churches conduct themselves today is evidence of their fruit; when you compare their works with what Scripture instructs us to do, I find that man often has created his own rules, traditions, and regulations opposite to God's instructions. I only claim this based on my experience from church-hopping, reading, studying sermons, etc.

@Point 2: Well you're right, perfection shouldn't be something I should look for in a church, because there is no perfect church. But, I do want to make sure that I am being fed the Word of God properly, with sound discernment, sound theology, and with people who truly do seek the Lord, by faith in Jesus Christ. It's not impossible, or improbable for a church like that to exist, though they are few. We are commanded to flee when hearing a false gospel, and sadly, I've heard false or water-down gospels in many churches. I want to be sure that I am with the "flock of sheep", and not the "herd of goats".

@Point 3: The church will always be tested by trials and tribulations in this world. It is to be expected; after all, the world, is under the dominion of Satan. The question is, will a church endure to the end? Or will it give in to worldly comforts, worldly relevance, or worldly friendliness? I find the fruits of many American churches today to be in the latter.

[brandon1984]

My friend, my post is very critical but I want it to be constructive. Please, keep that in mind.

But I meant that of all the churches in this country, which ones rely on God through faith? Very little. The way how many churches conduct themselves today is evidence of their fruit; when you compare their works with what Scripture instructs us to do, I find that man often has created his own rules, traditions, and regulations opposite to God's instructions. I only claim this based on my experience from church-hopping, reading, studying sermons, etc.

You're claim that "very little" churches in America rely on God through faith cannot be substantiated by your personal experience. There are simply too many churches. And, you cannot, as a human, adequately evaluate their fruit. You are in no position to judge them. Now, I can agree with you that there are some churches out there based on false gospels (i.e., prosperity gospel). But, I get the sense that you probably mean to say that most churches do not agree with your interpretation of scripture which is wanting a large dose of humility.

But, I do want to make sure that I am being fed the Word of God properly, with sound discernment, sound theology, and with people who truly do seek the Lord, by faith in Jesus Christ. It's not impossible, or improbable for a church like that to exist, though they are few. We are commanded to flee when hearing a false gospel, and sadly, I've heard false or water-down gospels in many churches. I want to be sure that I am with the "flock of sheep", and not the "herd of goats".

Your sentiment confirms my suspicion that you probably think your interpretation of scripture is superior to others. And, do you seriously think that sound doctrine puts you in the "flock of sheep"? Do you worship sound doctrine? It's not sound doctrine, but rather God who saves as an act of charity towards his creatures.

[seancruz]

My friend, my post is very critical but I want it to be constructive. Please, keep that in mind.

You're claim that "very little" churches in America rely on God through faith cannot be substantiated by your personal experience. There are simply too many churches. And, you cannot, as a human, adequately evaluate their fruit. You are in no position to judge them. Now, I can agree with you that there are some churches out there based on false gospels (i.e., prosperity gospel). But, I get the sense that you probably mean to say that most churches do not agree with your interpretation of scripture which is wanting a large dose of humility.

Your sentiment confirms my suspicion that you probably think your interpretation of scripture is superior to others. And, do you seriously think that sound doctrine puts you in the "flock of sheep"? Do you worship sound doctrine? It's not sound doctrine, but rather God who saves as an act of charity towards his creatures.

I appreciate the constructive discussion, and we all need it, especially me. I think perhaps we're misunderstanding each other, but, I think that's rather my fault. I tend to say lots of things at once, without defining certain things. And the fact that it's hard to discern attitude since this is not a face-to-face conversation probably contributes to that.

I admit, what I said earlier came off in a way as if I was claiming something, as if I could substantiate it. Very few churches that I've visited, studied, and observed, did not rely on God through faith in Jesus Christ. This is my fault, I did not clearly state this. In addition to visiting churches, I've listened to many popular Christian leaders and pastors, and I've concluded that many (of the ones I've listened to) tend to believe in things that either are not Biblically true, or are man-made. Sometimes it's okay; no pastor is perfect, no one can know the whole of Scriptures, including myself. But there are some teachers that do teach false ideas and concepts that are not Biblical at all, and this to me is danger. Danger for all Christians.

About being in a position to judge: it's not a matter of what right or position we have to judge. As Christians, we should be able to discern what is true to God's Word and what isn't. It is through this, that we can know, and be aware of false teachers, and others who proclaim a gospel that is not the gospel preached in the Scriptures. Jesus has warned the disciples, and the disciples in turn, have warned others to be wary of false prophets, teachers, and Christs. It is a serious matter, and I take it seriously. I believe that if I am to seek a new congregation, it is good for me to observe them and judge whether they really are teaching Scripture, or man-made ideas with a few verses sprinkled on top. The fact that you agree with me that there are some who teach prosperity gospels shows that you, yourself have judged them to be teaching a wrong gospel. There is nothing wrong with that. It is better that we discern such things, than choosing to never judge.

I think we all struggle to some degree, with interpreting Scripture our own way, and I admit I definitely am guilty of that. However, I do not think this is the case for our discussion. I do not expect churches to have the same interpretation as I do; I expect churches to teach Scripture. Of the many churches I've visited and attended, many teachers and pastors taught man-made ideas that boosted man's power to help himself, and lowered God's power. They pretended to have a form of godliness but denied the power of it, and for this, I have become very cautious about who I listen to. They hardly even mention Christ or the gospel, and they expect people to be saved by just "accepting Him into your heart." But we know, I hope, that that is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. In addition, many teach works, and that by works, one gains favor with God, and honors God. We know that is not true, and I adamantly choose not to attend such churches. Not because it doesn't follow with my interpretation, but because the Scriptures are clear: that it is not by works of the law that we are saved, but by grace.

I cannot agree with you that I see my own interpretation of Scripture as superior to others, because I am not a scholar of Scripture, nor do I know everything God teaches through His Word. If anything, I am among the lowest students of Scripture, since I cannot even study the Bible in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew language. But I do compare what others teach with the Word, to make sure they are aligned. If not, then I need to see why they are not aligned, and determine if they are someone I should be listening to. If a teacher repeatedly teaches something that does not align with Scripture, then unfortunately, I must stop listening to him/her. There is no common sense in listening to someone who can potentially mislead you into deception. I've experienced it firsthand, and let me tell you, that God had to rescue me from that situation, and it was no fun. But I am so thankful to God that he re-aligned me to His Word.

Do I believe sound doctrine puts me in with the flock of sheep? No, sound doctrine never put me in any flock or herd. But I know that Jesus Christ died for my sins, was buried, and rose from the dead. I know that he paid the penalty for my sins, which I deserve for breaking the law of God. And there is nothing I could've done to save myself, or gain God's favor, or anything. And whatever righteousness, wisdom, knowledge, or godliness I may have (which is small), it is only because of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit. There's nothing of me or in me that can be righteous, wise, or knowledgeable. If there is anything good in me, anything at all, it is ALL God's work.

When I said sound doctrine, sound theology, etc, I was referring to someone who taught the truth of Scripture, and not the half-truth gospels, prosperity gospels, watered-down gospels, works gospel, etc, etc. When I meet with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I want to be fed the truth, not the lie. I want my brothers and sisters to be fed truth, and not lies. Again, I want to be sure that I am with the "flock of sheep", and not the "herd of goats". And that's a legitimate concern that all Christians should have. We live in evil times, and there are, sad to say, many false teachers and prophets, and pastors, and scholars, etc. We must learn to discern, so that we do not fall prey to those lies. I think we all need to remember that Christ said that His sheep hear and follow His voice. There's nothing wrong with discerning whether we are in the flock of sheep, or the herd of goats.

So again, I apologize. Sometimes I talk to other Christians without realizing that we might not all be on the same page, or see things the same way, so I often forget to be more articulate on certain things.

Now, apart from my personal experiences, I do make an assumption that many churches in America do not rely on God, and do not teach the Gospel, and teach varying degrees of man-made ideas. Why should I assume otherwise? If we truly live in an evil world, a world in constant rebellion to God, a world in which none are righteous, except those who live by faith, I cannot easily assume that most of America is following the true God. I stand by what I said earlier:

I'd go as far as to say, that right now, the American Church is being tested; so many churches are consistently changing and "adapting" in an attempt to please unbelievers. I believe, that the majority of the American Church has forgotten, that the church is for the believers/saints of Christ; and that we are to go out, and preach the gospel. Church was never for the unbeliever, because spiritual matters are foolishness to those who do not believe in Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection. Church is for the nourishment of the believer, where the body of Christ gathers.

I can safely assume that this trend of "adapting" to the culture around us; becoming "relevant" to the unbelieving culture, etc is something that is nation-wide, heck, international! The church model today has shifted to become a congregation for unbelievers, rather than believers. Instead of going out and preaching, and making disciples, we are consistently attempting to bring unbelievers in our church buildings, so we can show them how fun it is, how nice community is there, that God isn't such a killjoy, and that he can really bless your life. It is of my opinion and assumption, that many churches are in a quest to befriend the world, for the sake of saving unbelievers. And to me, this screams danger. While the intentions are well-meant, our goal is not to convince unbelievers that church can be fun, but to share the truth, and the truth is that Jesus Christ died for their sin, was buried, and rose again. Again, this is my assumption; I believe the state of many churches today, and their quest to become relevant to the world is evidence of their fruit. And their fruit has led, to the proliferation of all kinds of wrong gospels, man-made ideas, ecumenicalism with Islam and other religions, churches that now deem homosexuality to be okay with God, etc. All in the name of relevance, many churches, I believe, are befriending the world, slowly compromising the truth of the Word.

[brandon1984]

I appreciate your response, and I can see that you mean well and do not seem to have a superiority complex. (Maybe I saw that in your comments because I have one). My criticism might have been a bit too harsh for the point I wanted to make -- that we should be more merciful to people we disagree with and be as inclusive as possible. People are not always led into false gospels because of ill-will. It's the dark forces, the so-called satan. I partially agree with you when you say:

If a teacher repeatedly teaches something that does not align with Scripture, then unfortunately, I must stop listening to him/her. There is no common sense in listening to someone who can potentially mislead you into deception.

I think this is very case-specific. For example, I will disengage a prosperity gospel church in a heartbeat. But, I think issues of denomination are generally not worth disengagement (i.e., Catholicism vs Methodism vs Calvinism). I think we should embrace what CS Lewis called "mere Christianity".

There's nothing wrong with discerning whether we are in the flock of sheep, or the herd of goats.

With all due respect I think there are problems with discerning who will be saved to eternal life and who will not. I remember there being a parable teaching this, but I can't remember the details, I will have to search for it. In the mean time I think it's a bad idea to judge people because 1) we cannot know if someone truly in their heart accepts or rejects the gospel, there are simply no good enough indicators to bridge our gap of knowledge. 2) It creates an "us and them" sort of mentality. This taints how we approach people when we should approach people with only love.

I can safely assume that this trend of "adapting" to the culture around us

I don't think churches should be counted as entities that "choose" to adapt to culture. People make these churches for a reason. They may be foolish, but there are still reasons. Also, people want to justify homosexuality for a reason. I love all my homosexual friends and I don't want to see them condemned. That does not make homosexuality moral, but serves as an example that there are reasons that people do things and form such churches. It's not just about PR.

So, instead of thinking churches "choose" to be watered-down or entertainment-driven, I think a more constructive way to look at it as the influences behind the individuals who have chosen to form such institutions. In other words, it's not just a bunch of morally deficient fools running about out there. It's that there are ideas counter to God that seem like good options and people choose them. I'm not preaching "love the sinner, hate the sin" but rather "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

[seancruz]

I think this is very case-specific. For example, I will disengage a prosperity gospel church in a heartbeat. But, I think issues of denomination are generally not worth disengagement (i.e., Catholicism vs Methodism vs Calvinism). I think we should embrace what CS Lewis called "mere Christianity".

With all due respect I think there are problems with discerning who will be saved to eternal life and who will not. I remember there being a parable teaching this, but I can't remember the details, I will have to search for it. In the mean time I think it's a bad idea to judge people because 1) we cannot know if someone truly in their heart accepts or rejects the gospel, there are simply no good enough indicators to bridge our gap of knowledge. 2) It creates an "us and them" sort of mentality. This taints how we approach people when we should approach people with only love.

I don't think churches should be counted as entities that "choose" to adapt to culture. People make these churches for a reason. They may be foolish, but there are still reasons. Also, people want to justify homosexuality for a reason. I love all my homosexual friends and I don't want to see them condemned. That does not make homosexuality moral, but serves as an example that there are reasons that people do things and form such churches. It's not just about PR.

So, instead of thinking churches "choose" to be watered-down or entertainment-driven, I think a more constructive way to look at it as the influences behind the individuals who have chosen to form such institutions. In other words, it's not just a bunch of morally deficient fools running about out there. It's that there are ideas counter to God that seem like good options and people choose them. I'm not preaching "love the sinner, hate the sin" but rather "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

Yes, issues of denominations are not something that bothers me. However, it doesn't mean we should not research as to why they believe certain things certain ways, etc. I've listened to baptist, presbyterian, charismatic, purpose-driven, reformed, emergent pastors and they all provide different perspectives, yet they all work together. Some people do tend to get picky about it. Sometimes certain perspectives are obviously not aligned with Scripture, but for others they are. But what I think is most important is that prosperity gospels are not denomination-specific; I'm sure I've heard it throughout different camps of Christianity. So given that, I think we should aways be aware of what pastors and teachers say no matter the denomination.

As for Catholicism, I am not sure where I stand on it at this time. There is a lot of research and study out there suggesting Catholicism has deviated so far from Scripture (in addition to adding and subtracting from Scripture) that they conclude it's a whole religion altogether—just one that appears to be Christian-like but is not. I think that's worth looking into, and it's worth comparing Scripture with the statements of the Catholic church. Because, if Catholicism is truly another religion, in disguise, then what does that mean for Catholics who believe they are safe? So that's something that should be talked about. If Catholicism is not a true church of Christ, then it would be wrong of me to accept Catholics as Christians without gently and patiently showing them the truth that Catholicism is not the way, Christ is. But, again, it requires a lot of research, because there are so many factors involved.

As for the flock of sheep, I think that there are some people who you can definitely tell they are Christian, because they behave so Christ-like. Some are just obviously Christian by their fruits, their words, their lives, etc. But for many many others, it's hard to tell. And sadly, for some, it seems they are not Christian whatsoever, when in fact they are. But I meant "flock of sheep" in a general sense; for example, many churches I've been to, do have their sheep in small numbers, but the congregation seems to be mostly goat. I assume this because of the pastor; if the pastor is not teaching Scripture, but instead teaches man-made ideas, then why are so many people listening to him? Either 1) They do not compare what he says to Scripture, 2) They are deceived into believing what he says is true, and/or 3) They are not sheep. I believe that if a pastor is truly teaching Scripture, without a care for what men think of him, and with humbleness before the Lord, I believe that sheep will follow and listen.

For example, in my case: the church I attend currently, I believe is mostly sheep. The pastor is not afraid to speak the hardest of truths, even if it means people will leave. He is ready in season and out of season, corrects, rebukes, reproves, and exhorts, with complete patience and teaching, just like Paul instructs in 2nd Timothy 4:2. The pastor is not worried with how many people come, how many people give money, or if anyone raises their hands. He knows that salvation can never be determined by people raising their hands, or coming up to the altar or pulpit. He is solely focused on feeding the believers the truth of Scripture. Because the leader of this congregation relies on the Holy Spirit to teach us all, and because he teaches Scripture, I feel I can safely assume that a majority of the congregation is a flock of sheep. And in turn, the congregation is very loving, something I hardly encountered in many other churches. They are extremely welcoming, and they like to talk to strangers and welcome them-to me that shows a Christ-like love I've never witnessed in any other church, where the preacher does not teach Scripture.

Could I be wrong, and there be many goats in my congregation? Sure, and if somehow I could know, then I would accept that I made a wrong assumption.

About those churches that are adapting to culture. I agree with you, and that is a constructive way of looking at it. But it does not diminish the fact that they are teaching wrong gospels, and/or man-made ideas. Those decisions and influences (seem to me), to be man's attempt to do church his own way, rather than God's way outlined in the Bible. The intentions are good, for example: the quest to bring people to Christ. But when man takes things into his own hands, i.e. making a church a hub for entertainment, who is man really relying on? Is it God's will and providence to save, or technology/entertainment/humor/concert-like stages/modern architecture, etc to convince people God is something worth looking into? That's how I see it at least. Perhaps there are other ways to see it, and I'd like to know how you see it.

The other thing, knowing that these churches that adapt to culture, might be causing more harm than good (I believe so) by preaching more man-made ideas and wrong gospels, is it right for us who do know that it's wrong to sit by and ignore it?

[brandon1984]

However, it doesn't mean we should not research as to why they believe certain things certain ways, etc.

Agreed.

As for Catholicism, I am not sure where I stand on it at this time.

Well, they have a very Roman power structure and ex cathedra doctrine I don't agree with (i.e., on birth control). But, what matters more is that they are Christians who believe in the redemptive power of Christ. I will not support them as an organization, but I will not judge them to be goats either.

As for the flock of sheep, I think that there are some people who you can definitely tell they are Christian. . . Could I be wrong, and there be many goats in my congregation? Sure, and if somehow I could know, then I would accept that I made a wrong assumption.

You've taken a precarious belief about your congregation. There could be scandals just waiting to surface. Upright congregants turning out to be having affairs, embellishing, molesting, etc. It's more reasonable to stop jumping to conclusion and admit that you don't know who are "sheep" and "goats". It's not our position to be each other's judge.

Those decisions and influences (seem to me), to be man's attempt to do church his own way, rather than God's way outlined in the Bible.

To start, I'm not sure if you are giving enough credit to the difficulty in coming to orthodoxy from the bible. The prosperity gospel is a modern form of ideas within Judaism (i.e., Deuteronomy 28) that God himself seems to have sanctioned. We seem to need frequent reminders that salvation is by grace alone and that's why we have Paul and Marin Luther, etc.

So, what exactly is influencing people to believe false gospels? Ultimately I think it's more complicated than a "man's way vs God's way" paradigm. There appear to me a myriad of influences that coalesce to cause people to believe and form these false gospel type churches. Part of it is the message is attractive to their situation, part of it is the social enjoyment they get out of it, etc.

We have to remember, not everyone is concerned with truth. The truth is scary at times. And, seeking it is an arduous endeavor. Truth at the top of a desert mountain may be bypassed for the partial truth hanging out an oasis. Or, truth may not appear to have any value. Or, truth may be trampled upon simply because it can be in our freedom.