MAYBE THE TERM 'DE-CHURCHED' IS UNSUITABLE

Today, I have repackaged several insightful points written by respondents to my earlier post. Those points infer that the terms 'de-churched' or 'no longer churched' are unsuitable expressions to apply to a person who has made a difficult decision to no longer attend church. I am unsure what term fits the Christian who no longer attends church, yet loves God, reads the Bible, shares faith with others, hangs our with other believers at occasional events or studies or house parties, displays the fruit of the Spirit and serves other people. Perhaps there is no need for a term, since that Christian is doing everything that God expects of a follower of Christ who is a member of the Church.

Okay, she was a founding member of the church when it met in a school, gave her money, energy and time to help build the church with seating for 300 people, but she became disillusioned by prevailing models of church, and left her church, choosing not to attend a church any more, but she is still an integral member of the Church.

We use the same term 'church' to denote several dissimilar concepts, the local congregation, the people of God worldwide, the institutional church, and the church building. That may lead to unfortunate assumptions about people. Leaving a local congregation is not synonymous with leaving the Church. No longer attending the 10 am Sunday worship service is not synonymous with leaving the Church. Available programs and meetings at specific times on specific days do not define 'Church.’

Church life as we experience it institutionally today has been shaped by paradigms developed since the apostles obeyed Jesus to carry the good news into the world. Church has taken on organization and constitution, bylaws, governance, ritual, schedules, property, programs, departments, technology, specialists and debt. It is possible that those of us who are most heavily invested in and committed to Christian gospel, and service and church, innocently, unknowingly accept what is and continue to interpret church primarily in terms of the building. "Come to church this Sunday," the sign says. "We missed you at church last week," friends say. "The church construction costs will be $18 million dollars," That is the largest church in the city.

I am pleased that my pastors deliberately remind us each Sunday, "good morning church." There is a consciousness that the church has gathered and when we have worshipped God and enjoyed one another, the church leaves the building. Then back to the diligent believer who decides no longer to attend church. Our opinion must be that a member of the Church has left a specific building but continues as a member of the Church, God's Church.

I am still bothered by a couple of things. I appeal for understanding for the person who is done with church. Yet it is clear that church implies community/fellowship, and that is one thing this person is leaving behind. What will this person do for community? The person may claim that 10am on Sunday with 300 people hardly felt like community or family in an intimate sense. Being associated with the church's small group ministry offers a more predictable community experience. One would think that for the values and benefits of the Christian family of God need to occur somehow for the person leaves church. Another matter that bothers me, is the need for a personal plan of how spiritual strength and health and growth is to be nurtured if it is outside the context of the organized church. That must surely have to be considered, otherwise the departure seems selfish and futile.