“Cool! Your church has funerals”

Jim, I agree! Do you see this as working both ways? We have several churches in our area that intentionally “pander” to an older generation and aren’t really interested in young people. While they’d be happy to have young people come, they’re not interested in changing anything to do with the preferences of the older generation. What do you think? Both ways?

The Harrisburg, PA newspaper recently had an article on the “Lives Changed by Christ”-it is a church, but they don’t want to be called a “church.” The article also mentioned that they prefer to speak of their “auditorium” rather than a “sanctuary,” and their “gatherings” rather than “worship services.” I understand that crosses and pews don’t matter a hill of beans, but avoiding words like “worship” and “church”? They want to emphasize having a personal relationship with God, but how can such a relationship be meaningful apart from understanding that your services are to be “worship” and that Christ to save His body-the Church?

Christ dies to saves His body-the Church.

[Jim Peet] Segregated in a Whole New Way

“It’s unfortunate enough that many churches tend to be populated by people of the same race or socioeconomic group. But to intentionally segregate worship by age makes things worse. Scripture tells us not to scorn the experiences and wisdom of our elders. Proverbs 16:31 teaches that ‘gray hair is a crown of splendor; it is attained by a righteous life.’”

I’m afraid grey hair to me is just another reminder of the curse of sin, a symptom of the ageing process. There are plenty of grey haired rogues around who haven’t led a righteous life. In having private womens and pastors forums are SI not guilty of segregating? Not that it bothers me any as I tend to think that the more groups a church has, or this forum even, that at least it may be indicative of some life in the church.