I like the strong fellowship idea too. I think that churches need to show a united presence in a community, no matter what the denominational flavour.

@EcclecticChristian Your points are well noted. I think where you and I would largely differ is that I would prefer a church that has strong fellowship with the other churches in the area (to avoid grossly aberrant doctrine) as opposed to a church that has “strong oversight” from a democratically elected denomination board. Part of the reason I feel this way is that the bigger an organization becomes, the slower it moves. While denominational machines are very useful for churning out support for missionaries, great pastor’s conferences and rousing denomination meetings, it can also hinder the work of Christ.
Practical example: a couple that I have been good friends with for a very long time have felt like God has called them to the mission’s field. However, they could not get financial support from their home church, or any churches in that denomination because they were not “licensed” by the denomination’s seminary. Structure and organization are not bad, but they can be unhelpful when they reach critical mass.
And we are definitely agreed about smaller churches burning out the membership.

Thanks for stopping by. You have some very wonderful poetry by the way.

To answer a few of your questions…

Many of my recent posts have been along the lines of making church statistics more understandable for people. I have had quite a few comments appreciating the fact that I have let the data speak for itself, rather than dwell on the commentary.

That being said, seeing as you asked…

I do value denominations. I am very hesitant to get involved in a church that does not have strong oversight, and I find that this is more likely to happen in a denominational church than an independent one. I do however decry the number of denominations out there and am very appreciative of the number of movements encouraging them to work together.

You note that you don’t see “see church growth as any kind of indicator of a church’s spiritual health”. I agree up to a point. I think a lack of growth over an extended period of time does show that there is likely a spiritual issue that needs to be addressed. Why are we not fulfilling the great commission?

My biggest concerns with small churches, is that they can have a tendency to burn people out. I was in one small church where I was an elder, on the search committee for a new Pastor, worship leader, youth group leader, and Sunday school teacher. This was not healthy for me and my family. Yet, no matter how hard we tried, because of a lack of common vision, the church did not grow. I thought many times how much more effective I might have been for the kingdom if my energies were used elsewhere in a larger church.

It is basically the same theology, in a different package.

I think that is more accurate.

Non-denominationalism is dishonest from the git-go.

They are saying that they do not stand for anything? They value nothing?

To denominate is to place value on something.

The Baptist Church is honest anout their free will, decision theology. They are honest that they do not value infant baptism or believe that the Lord is actually present in the Sacraments.

Non-denominationalism believes those things as well. But they won’t call themselves Baptists (even though that is their theology).

They are selling themselves as anti-tradional church. But they hold most of the same traditions as the Baptist Church. Almost every non-denom. church (in my area anyway) had its roots as a Baptist church.

Personally, I despise denominationalism… it is the same divisions that Paul was fighting in the Corinthian church. I also don’t see church growth as any kind of indicator of a church’s spiritual health, positive or negative. The true indicator of a church’s spiritual health is the maturity of the individual members. Now, you can make some gross generalizations that if a church is bursting at the seams with thousands upon thousands of members that quite a few are going there to feel “religious” or “spiritual”, but that is a generalization and assumption.

For too long people have focused on church growth and the size of congregations rather than on the spiritual content of said church. That being said, I would be very interested to hear your opinions (beyond simple organization strategy, of course) regarding your findings.

I take no offense whatsoever with your remarks.

I do believe the mega-churches make compromises that they ought not.

The church ought be counter-cultural and the mega barns make an effort to look just like the culture.

When you go to church, the last thing you need is to have ‘yourself’ handed back to you.

They feel (I believe) that if you just get them in there, then you’ll have a chance to give them the gospel, but in getting them in there you are already placing the emphasis on the ‘self’ (a stage show entertainment atmosphere that plays on emotions and energy).

Then the law is watered down and used as biblical principles for living (more focus on the self). The Sacraments are no longer, but become merely symbols and tools for your seriousness.

Christ’s forgiveness now has a condition placed upon it, and that is your acceptance of it.

All these things are a distortion of the Word (Christ for us, and to us) and turn the Word into a co-operative effort.

Many of these places become a cult of personality, where the pastor reaches celebrity status and everything revolves around him or her.

When a church is faithful to the Word (strong law) and strong gospel without strings attached to it, you will actually not be very popular. Look at Jesus’ own ministry and the ministry of Paul. Totally unsuccessful by mega-church standards.

So, if a church is faithful to the Word, it does not matter how big or small they are. The Word will make it’s own way and God will work ion that Word to accomplish His purposes on whatever scale He chooses.

I know that is not a popular view. it never has been, and probably never will be.

Thanks, Mike!

If my post came across as dissing small churches, I apologize. There is nothing wrong with small churches. In fact most of the past 14 years I have been in churches less than 75 people. There is also nothing wrong from my perspective with vestments, liturgy, sacraments, no big screens, and no rock bands.

I do take issue with your following two statements, you are ascribing motivations to mega-churches that I think few would hold, certainly not the ones that I have had contact with. Your final line reminds of a statement that was told to William Carey, the father of the modern missionary movement:

“Sit down, young man! If God wants to save the heathen, he will do it without your help or mine!”

What does it mean to you to be “faithful to the Word” when it comes to evangelization and reaching out to those beyond your church walls? If these things are an integral part of being “faithful to the Word” are you seeing spiritual growth as an outcome?

Not trying to be argumentative here, but rather would like to hear you elaborate further.