Replies

I have some missionary friends who frequently go to minister to the poor churches in Africa. There the people think nothing of attending church for 6-8 hours without air conditioning in very primitive conditions. "Comfy" churches are a pretty poor testimony to us.

You got that right.

I notice Rick doesn't say "make sure no anti-Christian people are waiting outside your church to blow up you and your congregants in the middle of worship" as might apply in other countries.

Unfortunately, there aren't too many poor 3rd worlders making decisions about which US church to attend.

You are dealing with people who have a minimum of 2 cars, 2 tvs, 2 cell phones, 2 computers, 2 refrigerators, central air, and overstuffed furniture throughout.

I'm betting that any Christian of US persuasion who currently attends the air-conditioned church of their dreams will intentionally leave that church if the church deliberately turns off the air conditioning and vows never to use it again as a show of solidarity with their sweaty 3rd world friend .

You and me included.

"Comfy" churches are a pretty poor testimony to us.

God forbid we get the message out. Maybe we should do away with the gospel and have beds of nails to sit on for hours to show how religious we are.

You said it. So much of American Christianity is spoiled and bratty. I find it annoying.

"Comfy" churches are a pretty poor testimony to us.

I had someone on the north side of Chicago say that we couldn't get many more people into our church because it wasn't large enough (though only about half the seating is occupied) and newcomers won't want to sit right next to strangers. I said that night clubs downtown are often violating occupancy regulations because that's where people want to be. If they really want to be in a particular church, they will go there even if there is almost no seating. It depends upon what's actually going on in the church service. Over the past couple of years there has been a move on to "promote flow" as a way of keeping newcomers coming back, to make signage that will promote "brand awareness" in those who drive by the church, to have "briskly flushing toilets", and ADA-compliant facilities to attract the handicapped, to have a nursery that is big and state of the art with video monitors of the service, etc., to attract families with small children, to air-condition the building (which would require about a bazillion dollars), to provide all those creature comforts that "people on the north side expect". It seems that most of what's being done is attempting to manipulate physical variables in order to stimulate an increase in attendance or giving.

Your mentioning Africa reminded me of what I wrote several years ago with respect to a financing scheme some people in the church had of using now-valuable church property to fund the building and operation of a plush new facility so they wouldn't have to "depend on" the giving of the constituents. They figured that appeals for giving would drive new people away and that the new building (and community rec center) would draw people from the surrounding area into the church. One woman was even talking about using some of the largesse to have a juice bar in the church.

People will also have to stop their magical thinking that if they build a building, it will fill up with people. This may work for certain species of birds. But it didn't work for the cargo cultists of the South Pacific trying to lure the cargo-laden W.W. II aircraft back to their island and it won't work for them. If a congregation renting space from [our church] is larger than [our church's] congregation, then this gives the lie to the assertion that the size of the present building is what is limiting the size of the ___________ congregation.

Besides, when there are churches in Africa and elsewhere bursting at the seams in horribly primitive buildings or meeting in illegal home churches in China at the risk of their freedom and lives, saying that we can’t expect our pews to be packed because people won't want to sit that close is saying that something other than Christian conversion and fellowship is controlling what's going on at [our church].

And the people who won't come because a place is crowded and because they won't want to sit close to others they may not know well are not the people who are going to be interested in giving because they're not interested in belonging. People who have to be coaxed in by soft seats for their butts, pleasant music for their ears, and a “feeling of flow" for them to mistake for the Spirit's leading, aren't interested in a church; they're interested in a church experience. They aren't interested in being spiritual but in feeling spiritual. The latter is a lot easier and less expensive. And isn't that just more cost-effective? For them, at least?

When some churches are happy just to have benches without backs and a corrugated tin roof for their meeting place, it's unconscionable for a church here in the States to claim their society can't support itself or grow without being able to extract money in a way forbidden by church rules from a "resource" which they themselves did nothing to create and to which they have no corporate title. "Hey, you guys over there in Kenya with your dirt floor and open-air air-conditioning, don't you wish your property happened to have become valuable real estate like ours did so you can "utilize" it and not have to depend on people carting in a sack of maize or some scrawny chickens or something else voluntary and, hence, something that cannot be counted upon to bring in the income no matter what? We're just so PUMPED over the way God has so richly provided for our tiny congregation [about 80-100] to have all the possible creature comforts we could want and not have to worry about how to pay for it! Is this Providence or what! Oh, and if our scheme goes through, we'll increase our level of "sacrificial giving" to the [denomination's] World Mission so you can rejoice with us."

The original scheme was voted down by the church membership; the most common reason voting no was "we'd like a new building, but not financed in this way". So the people who were pushing the first scheme started pushing it again but with slight changes. When asked by a board member why they were trying to do what the membership had voted against, they replied "Oh, that was for doing it this way; we're going to do it that way," the difference being that between a Lincoln and a Cadallic.

I've seen people walk two hours to get to church in Mexico.

Maybe set up some massage stations in the foyer?