How Comfortable Is Your Church?

Thanks

One of the reasons why I am at the church I'm in now is because my wife and I were positively mobbed by other Christians when we visited the first time. I had all kinds of people coming up to me and introducing themselves and asking if we were new to the area and other questions. Then the next week, some of them already knew my name and were geniunely concerned about how we were doing (we'd stayed behind to talk a bit once the service was over - they had a newcomer's lunch that day, IIRC).

A lot of the other questions that Connie asked were answered positively by the members, but that first impression (that we were welcome0 was what really struck us. I'm glad to be a member at that church.

With that kind of reception, is it really any surprise that we stayed? Or that we invite others to come?

This is an excellent post and wake-up call for the church today. May I repost this on my site?

While I appreciate the sensitivity and skill of discernment, there are (obviously) some other factors to consider as well.

I wonder how the church I serve in would have done? I only hear back from people who tell me how warm and friendly our church is. The people who don't find us that way never tell me. They're probably gone by the time I make it out to the foyer after service. I fear I'm left with only hearing one side of that matter. And even if they did tell me we were unfriendly, I might not accept their testimony and chalk it up to them being somehow defective. I can be that way.

And then there are those folks who come but give non-verbal cues that they don't desire human contact. We've all learned to read them - looking down, emotionless face, moving away from people, not moving toward them, etc. I encourage our folks to be sure to meet those they don't know, but sometimes the person who is visiting makes it clear they feel uncomfortable. Should our folks see past that? Yes. But do they? Not always, right?

Then again, so much of this is entirely subjective. We are called to go to church. Not to observe, but to worship. Church looks different depending upon where the visitor is coming from. Those who come to observe find themselves in the seat of judgment and evaluation. Those who come to worship Christ are grateful for any good thing they might catch falling from the Master's table.

Along this line, we are called to go to church and render worship, not experience worship. Prayer, singing, giving, listening to God's word - these are activities offered to the Lord by worshipers. We are also called to serve, and it impossible to guess at how deeply a single body of needy believers could have served over the course of more than a year. It may well have rendered eternal reward.

Clap, clap, and many more claps! Too many congregants are entombed within their church walls to understand the needs around them. Actions like Mrs. Fink's, inspire us to get out of the building, recognize the needs, pick up our towels, and start serving others for the sake of the Gospel. We don't need to get into carnal comparisons between churches but we do need to sharper our iron together as the churches and seek the Lord for renewal.

This article is worthy of printing, copying and passing out at the church prayer meetings that take place this week. I am glad SI makes it easy to print and Jayne, my secretary, already has it copied and ready to pass out tonight.

A visit is even less than a snapshot- it is maybe the bottom right hand corner of a much larger picture, but if one's spiritual discernment is thoroughly exercised, I think the instinctive response can be fairly valid. I think the outline given is reasonable and helpful, and would be beneficial for every church member to file in the For Future Reference area of the subconscious.

Connie, thanks for posting.

Got a vacation coming myself soon. I used to pretty often line up pulpit fill on the returning end of the trip then go visit an area church. Haven't done that in years, though. Not sure what changed. But I'm planning to get at least one visit in on this next trip. I can't think of any time when I've done that when it failed to be informative... though some of the churches are not ones I'd recommend to anybody.

Article fixed with text provided by Connie.

Sorry about the dropped text. We did a scan and convert and sometimes something goes into the ether. Thanks for catching it.

The article itself concerned me, particularly its incongruity with both reality and practicality, but even more so the license it took to make judgments that simply are not ours to make. While I believe the author, Connie Fink, certainly had good intentions and have no basis for indicating otherwise (hence anyone objecting to my position please be advised in your possible zeal to rescue a damsel, her intentions, motives nor person are in view with respect to the critique of the article), I believe her article which describes a mission of visiting churches, contains some harmful and objectionable elements that need to be identified.

As I read the article I got the impression that as she wrote, Fink was mixing real things that she observed or experienced with ideal things that should be present in a congregation. That is, the narrative is was not wholly literal; rather it was constructed from both the real and the ideal.

Here is what I mean. It is quite believable that Connie Fink visited a church and someone said hello and invited her to sit with them. But I find it implausible that upon a single visit (or several visits) she ascertained whether people participated to please a personable Pastor or not, while making all of her other observations. It is worth noting at the IFCA/Voice website there is a category devoted to the criteria of a healthy church (Vital Signs of Health Churches) which she says she was able to determine in a visit.

But before elaborating any further, allow me to pepper my response with some examples of my objections and why:

1. Saying hello. Every question Fink asks here with respect to questions one should find answered in the affirmative in order to “make the list” all have valid negative responses as well. For example, someone asking “what brings you here today” might be considered by some thoughtful minds to be rapidly intrusive or a rude imposition. They may respect the privacy of others and thereby display a certain “hospitality”.
2. Personal contact. Not all elements here are objectionable but the expectation that someone be asked to lunch on their first visit as a valid example is. This may sound good in a story but in reality people have the biblical right to guard their environment and not knowing someone is a valid reason to take one’s time to learn who is and is not safe. Citing the “angels unaware” passage is not a carte blanche to demand its prescription in any given situation and access inhospitably when companionship at lunch is not offered. I sense a certain ego-centric theme rising in the basis for evaluation by Fink.
3. I remembered the sermon. Fortunately this essential element to a healthy church was not overlooked and has a value. I favor a preeminence of this in the hierarchy of values when attempting to determine an assembly’s appropriateness regarding my membership, seeing that when the spiritual food is poor, nothing can supplant or replace this and all the personal charm in the world that a congregation has to offer is part of that ineffective substitute.
4. Members brought their Bibles. I chuckled at what I saw here as an unfortunate posture that some might even view as elitist. First, when one enters an assembly, as an observer, visitor or in any role it is never their business what others bring or do not bring. And I cannot recall ever hearing someone proclaim, “I’d come back but not enough people brought their bibles". No one has any idea why people do or do not bring a bible. But more importantly, it is a gravely unwise lesson to communicate here, which is teaching such inappropriate judgments.
5. Reverence for God and the cross. While demanding a show of reverence from congregations, Connie Fink provides no standard by which we are to understand just how she determined one congregation is reverent and the other irreverent. She does allude to “leaders and congregation” being “attentive to and aware God was present”- but never takes us on a tour of just how she went or we go about making such judgments about others or exactly what the criteria are (remember, earlier when I stated she appears to go from real to ideal and here I believe one can observer this transition and the narrative appears to take on the ideal, reflecting more of what “should be true” than what one really could determine in a visit).
6. Prayer was important. Fink was concerned with packaged prayers but does not explain what these are. Hopefully she does not mean pre-written prayers or our Lords prayer (as is commonly called) would be nixed. But oddly she requires that prayer requests be balanced between health issues and spiritual needs. So now we have an assembly’s worth being determined, in part, based on a prayer ratio? I am more than uncomfortable with where such a path leads.
7. People were involved: loved the Lord and others. I simply cannot say anything other than complete astonishment that if one cannot see the utter inappropriateness of this last criterion. Does anyone really believe this is what a visitor attempts to determine in a visit? And am I too really believe that Connie Fink was able to pull off this feat of judgment based a visit to a congregation? How does one come to a point where they deem themselves seriously able to judge, in one visit, the following:

• Did they participate to please a personable Pastor?
• Did the programs meet needs, or tradition?
• Was attendance out of desire, or duty?

These questions were really asked and an appropriate answer determined how? And in one visit? Really? And you feel it is your divine license to make judgments about others regarding why they participate or attend? Really?

And ultimately Fink declares:

• The church where the people participated with passion and courage, according to their spiritual gifts, made the list.

I was catapulted into amazement that she could make such an evaluation in so brief a period of time.

So as I read the article I was struck with the observation that Fink, in a rather unconscious manner, was creating a narrative rather than reporting in a most literal way all the events. Now, it may be that all she said she “observed” and clearly came to conclusions about actually all occurred(seeing that she asked the questions to which she had to answer in order to determine if they were going onto her list or not one must conclude she means to imply it all really happened), so I don’t contend otherwise. But I do contend that questions about is plausibility are valid.

This is why I believe she is writing with a subconscious insertion from the ideal. And if you look at the website it just happens to emphasize the very things that you find in her move from what appears to be real experiences and evaluations to ideal evaluations and determinations that I simply cannot see being made in a single visit, rather they reflect what her groups believes “should be true”.

Now someone might respond with that objection that suppose what I say is true, that she did subconsciously insert some of the ideology in the narrative, so what? It's benign, right?

Well, I’ll answer that. The danger here is that real and ideal are not the same and when we both create and accept a narrative that does not recognize such distinctions we introduce to others a dangerous and damaging precedent that leads them to believe such a mechanism is operable and leads to a fair and enlightened determination. I contend otherwise.

Finally, I found Fink's view that she was acting truly as a visitor, insufficient and contradictory. As described above she considered, pursued and judged things unlike any visitor I have ever met. While there might be a few points upon which one can say, "Yes, I remember a visitor once saying this or that", her overall agency was not that of a visitor or observer, but far, far more as an inspector and judged. As well, the criteria seemed to be quite self-centric or ego-centric. She never viewed herself as part of either the problem or solution with respect to her objections as most adults do upon reflection. Finally, she never had any intention of joining any of the congregations she visited so her detachment was exacerbated to an unreal level. Hence any remedy we may attempt to produce when addressing a church's experience for a visitor, I do not believe is going to benefit from this narrative.

OK, Alex. Nits officially picked, dissected, and pulverized.

All articles have to make some assumptions. This one assumes pretty much ordinary regular folks visiting a church and what pretty much ordinary regular folks should do in response to make them feel welcome... along with some non-visitor-related signs of good health. (It also assumes a common sense reading)

Well, you certainly are welcome to use the indiscriminate language of dismissal and minimization in response to my objections and their developed arguments. Obviously it serves some purpose for you.

As to the article assuming "ordinary regular folks visiting a church" and "what pretty much ordinary regular folks should do in response to welcome them", though the article contained this assumption it extended far beyond that to a great deal of prescription.

As to your final parenthesis where you state "It also assumes a common sense reading", I agree and common sense tells me when there are incongruities and concerning precedents and views being forwarded they should be addressed.

The objections and their arguments remain with all due respect to the author of whom I am certain had good intentions and desire.

Let's all find something in this article we disagree with or find not universally true in our experience. Then let's detail our disagreements to display our theological acumen and superior reasoning. That way, we won't have to actually examine our own ministries and see if there's something we could be doing better or how we could otherwise benefit from a different perspective. Be sure to use terminology and syntax that properly conveys the gravity of the situation. (Typing with brow furrowed may be helpful to some.) GO!

One of Fundamentalists' strengths is certainly our ability (and eagerness) to articulate all the things we disagree with and oppose. If only there were some way to learn from or appreciate someone who doesn't think about things exactly as we do...

(*removes tongue from cheek*)

1) I speak as a fool and I speak to myself. I benefit greatly from forums such as this, but just like everything else, my flesh likes to get in the way and I need reminded. Does anyone else find yourself looking primarily for things to disagree with, rather than things to learn and grow from? Are we here to sharpen and be sharpened, or do we just like the sparks flying around? "Who will deliver me from the body of this death?"

2) Connie, thanks for sharing your thoughts, and for your labor of love for the betterment of your husband's ministry and all of ours.

FWIW

Spoken like a moderator!

And apparently a Canadian

Thanks Alex!

Well, as I mentioned above, we were in a situation where we knew no one and had no recommendations to go by. And, I don't believe there is one hard and fast list of criterion....since some of it may be based on opinion. We would also make multiple visits before making a final assessment, unless something is really over the top (like the church that had a preacher who threw hankies, raved, stood up on pews, and would lay down in the aisle). What we looked for (in random order) was:

• Friendly atmosphere (are we well received, or does it feel like "us four and no more"?)
• No drum set on the platform (we are just not into that)
• A bulletin that indicates the church is active and reaching into the community
• Is there an evangelistic emphasis? (are tracts available, are folks encouraged to invite others?)
• What is available for kids? (this is a plus, but we would not dismiss a church that does not offer Jr church or an Awana-type program)
• Does it seem to be an every-member-participation type of organization, or is the pastor the head honcho in everything?
• What type of Bible is in the pew rack, if there is one?
• What type of hymnal is used?
• Is the preaching substantive and biblically based? (the pulpit is not used for rants, current events debates,story telling or emotionalism)
• What are the people drawn by (is it a very "entertaining" service, or is the Word the focus?)
• Have they done away with the walk-around-and-shake-hands song? (ok, another preference....and we would not write off a church if they do it )

I agree.

My husband and I like to visit other churches in the area to get to know a bit more about what is going on spiritually in our community. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we all engage in a certain amount of thin slicing, which is IMO a valuable tool- it just isn't the only tool. We ask ourselves all of the questions that Connie did, but tend to focus more on the content and focus of the service than what the people themselves are like. For starters, we don't know without a significant amount of 'investigation' who is and isn't a member, how long they've been attending, or where they are in their spiritual growth. For instance, the church we recently started attending is in a state of flux, so there is no way to really 'critique' this church except to ascertain the goals of the pastor for his flock and how we intends to get there.

I was at first going to object to #4- "Members brought their Bible", until I read the accompanying description. Our family tends to leave our 'church' Bibles at church, and we have study Bibles at home, so we don't always carry Bibles into church. However, the question was more about whether or not people USE their Bibles, which is a better question- but again, I pay more attention to how much the preacher uses his Bible than whether or not the congregation does. I've been in too many services that were little more than the reading of 1-3 verses and 45 minutes of personal anecdotes or the grooming and subsequent steeplechase of their favorite hobby horse. I also heard it said a few too many times that if you come to church and don't feel like you've been fed, then the fault lies with you, because you should be able to get something out of every service. But quite frankly, I'd rather go home and fix my own meal than spend an hour dumpster diving for a Chicken McNugget. If a preacher doesn't lay out some decent grub, then NO- it is not my fault that I leave church without 'being fed'.

I think several missed this, Eric. I enjoyed the irony of your post. I pretty much expect that I'm going to disagree with one thing or another in everything I read that isn't the Bible. When it comes to front page material that folks have graciously shared with us, I am probably a bit too sensitive about negative analysis of subtle nuances of minor subpoints. I'm more comfortable with folks picking apart my own writing.
But I think your post is good encouragement to folks to simply be generous readers. Assume the best angle on the ambiguities, look for the best insights, appreciate the spirit of it.
(Of course, that can be tough advice if you're reading Mein Kampf, but we're not likely to post that any time soon )

I personally found the piece enlightening and challenging in quite a few ways. I'm hoping to put copies in the hands of several folks at our church.

Oh! and 3) In reading Alex's original post, IM(very)H(very)O, I believe he does a good job of qualifying his reasons without being too nit-picky.Oh! and 3) In reading Alex's original post, IM(very)H(very)O, I believe he does a good job of qualifying his reasons without being too nit-picky.

... given the fact that deciding on a church, for the Christian, has got to be up there (above?) with decisions like getting married or finding a job.

Coffee Ammo!? (I'd rather be tar'd n feathr'd)

As an article written for limited space which requires the author to generalize and be brief, I found it to be a well-written perspective, obviously portrayed as the author's own point of view, and not as a doctrinal statement. So I read it with that in mind.

Exactly. Limited space should necessitate getting to the core issues that really matter. Particularly for general readership activity. Again, I have nothing against--in fact found it very useful at points--with my own personal interaction with the article and would even share it IF I could personally talk to each person I shared it with to make sure the multiple variables are addressed/counseled for each particular person/family. I think the author's point of view is fine as long as it's not being used as a general guideline for church affairs--which from the comments and applauds--looks exactly like that's what's happening.

We could say that our criteria was unassailably Scriptural, but we are affected by simple things, such as how people treat us and what we perceive as the general atmosphere/focus.

But shouldn't we do everything to fight against such feelings or swayings if they adversely affect us in one of the most important decisions of our lives?

If a salesman walks into your house, and the entire time he's there your skin crawls, are you going to go into business with him?

Non-nitty response: True, but the salesman is not my pastor leading me through Scripture and church life for the matters in eternity. He's just a guy selling me stuff for money.
Nitty response: IMO, supports my marketing comment.

That's what I'm referring to in my earlier post when I use the word 'thin-slicing'. And we engage in thin-slicing when we enter a church, regardless of our reason for visiting.

Experience does not =the right thing to do. Again, I would not counsel anyone this way and certainly would not encourage anyone to decide on a church this way or even reasons to or not to return for another visit.

I wouldn't recommend it as a sermon outline or the basis for a 9-week Bible study, but food for thought?

Great food for thought for personal discussion when variables and personal circumstances can be addressed. Harder for general guidelines given to general readership on how to find a church, what to look for in a church, or how to be a church worth looked at.

On that basis, I would love to see more discussion on this forum on some of the important criteria for your spiritual growth and ministry. Thanks, Connie, for this exhortation!

I do not recall anyone demanding it be an exhaustive theological treatise or evaluating its validity because it was not that or a theological "journal" so I see no one who has judged it to that standard. I have seen others imply this is what was attempted by those offering an evaluation that was not overwhelmingly favorable, particularly of me, but of course that was not the case.

My analysis brought into focus the overriding question of the implausibility of your initial claim (bold mine):

And my contention, that it is rather implausible that in a single visit to any church the extensive list of questions could be answered, particularly to the degree you published, remains. However, I did offer the possibility that you had sub-consciously mixed what you believe are important features of a healthy church with some of your experience and your article ending up being a combination of both, however that is not the premise of the article.

I am more than happy to discuss the value of the ideas you presented apart from my concern that such determinations are very unlikely to be properly be made with such a narrow exposure to a congregation. But I will not allow my evaluation to be characterized in a light that does not represent its own premise and the detailed analysis I presented to justify my concern. If you simply wish to discuss such values of a healthy congregation I think it is worthwhile. It was my intention to not revisit my analysis and let it be but since you made reference to evaluations of the article I certainly felt obligated to respond. Your efforts to discuss the topic remain appreciated and your years of ministry experience are acknowledged.

I appreciate your intention of introducing an analogy but it does not address the issues raised with respect to the plausibility of the questions which were asserted to have been both asked and answered to the detail they were in such a narrow visit. One certainly can visit a restaurant or a church and in the brevity of a visit determine they do not like it, that is not in question, rather the idea determining details of a ministry (and for that matter the analogous restaurant) to the extent that was stated in the article in such a limited context.

No Aaron, I got the point and in fact addressed it in many of the points I covered in the analysis. However along with observing that point I was simply addressing the implausibility of the assertion that all the questions were or could be answered in the narrow exposure of a visit as was the basis of the article.

Your response contains two points I wish to deal with, your ending illustration and your initial question which is critical to the whole issue. First your illustration is very far removed from anything commensurate to what Fink or anyone else has offered by way of real or possible negative experiences. I know of no person, myself, and would challenge any reader here or anyone in their periphery to tell of a time they visited a church where "everyone there" gave them a hostile greeting. That is a rather exaggerated if not all together unlikely scenario. It is much like asking what if I visited a church and everyone there said I was ugly. In both cases I find it to be highly implausible that this would ever occur.

But to the essential point and one that is the crux of the matter. What if you visit a church and don't feel comfortable on that visit? Do the details matter? Of course they do. There are so many biblical imperatives that charge us with just and fair investigation in matters, mature deliberation, careful consideration, and thoughtful exploration before judgments are passed that I doubt I need post such references but by way of record:

John 7:24

We in fact do not judge according to appearance or shallow and limited experiences. That is not to say such narrow exposure won't yield some experience but these are just what they are, very limited and incomplete experiences. As believers we do damage in teaching one another that such fractional investigation is sufficient to make a charge of appropriate or inappropriate with regard to congregations, people and ministries unless the most outlandish and egregious arises which would be rare and if so, it is more than like it would have already come to our attention. If, during such limited frames we believe we have observed something or experienced something that raises a concern we are to apply patience and consideration in waiting to gain further insight into the matter. This obviously would require discovering the details of a matter so that we may rightly understand any misconceptions on our part or the nature of the event itself in light of the rest of the ministry. Yes, details do matter, very much so.

Your comment and the quote are not compatible. The quote was a reference to an earlier exaggerated example of "everyone" in a church treating someone with hostility. Your comment only views portions of the membership and is vague in its attribution as to who actually is responsible. But the issue isn't the quote and its extreme and unlikely scenario, however your general scenario is one I have seen claimed.

And it leads me to a further consideration, namely the inappropriateness of blaming an entire church for such isolated incidents. In counseling people who are not taught how to identify their offenders often over-extend blame or projection onto innocent parties as blame for offenses one experiences is an issue that has to be remedied with learning to blame only those responsible. And here is a good example in the scenarios suggested.

A person did not get a "personal welcome" from the limited people to which he was exposed and subsequently makes the mistake of blaming the entire church. In other words, persons A, B and C did not offer his what he demands as an expected greeting and he includes all others that are members of a church in his disapproval . Instead of saying, "that church" made me feel uncomfortable the person claiming to have been offended should identify only the people that failed to meet his expectations.

Of course it is rather telling of a person's disposition when their chief complaint about a church revolves around their demands that they be greeted in a certain manner or visited without making clear this is their expectation.

But again this speaks to the biblical instruction that we not make hasty judgments, rather that we employ patience and consideration in investigating and discovering the facts as well as avoiding the tendency to "spread the blame" when certain parties are only to blame, and even in the examples such blame appears quite dubious seeing that it has to do with demands of personally tailored greetings and a visit from the church without that person every giving any indication this is their desire.

The first time I visited a large IFB church I was asked to raise my hand and fill out a visitor card. Tuesday night 5 or 6 young men (it was Greenville, SC from the church came to visit. (I hadn't asked for a visit.) Two of these guys had been children together on a mission field and didn't know each other and they were visiting me. It made an impression.

Do you suppose that it's possible for our churches to have a welcome center where church information is available for visitors should they desire? Do you suppose that individual members would recognize visitors and extend them a personal greeting? Do you suppose a visitor could come to church and not be asked to raise his hand, stand up and introduce himself, or remain seated while everyone else stands?

At HSBC, a filled out visitor's card gets you a welcome letter from Pastor Innes. It also puts locals on the mailing list for future events (Christmas, Easter, Homecoming). HSBC doesn't do Tuesday Night Visitation. .