Sorry to not be on topic, but that was funny.

It is increasing with or without your blessing

Rob

I understand the conflict between the young and the old. (I experience it everyday as my “young” mind writes checks my “old” body can’t cash. I also have a habit of repeating myself.) And certainly we can muster up all kinds of examples from both sides. But why is it one or the other? I thought we made disciples “in our going.” It seems to me that as both the young and old “go,” most likely in their particular circles they are reaching both young and old. It should be both/and, not either/or. We need all members of the body to function as a healthy body. We need less “me” thinking and more “we” thinking. Maybe the focus should be church health, not church growth.

Geoff, I think your future prognostication of church assemblies is spot on.

Rob – may your tribe continue to increase

Now that last little barb was not really nice ;( – you knowing my current and ongoing life situation and all – for the uneducated reader – I started family life a little LATE in life – I will watch my children graduate from high school in a wheel chair – and we are destined to be parents again in October – so while most people my age are looking forward to grandchildren (or not) we are changing diapers for our own. It really is not funny when the K-mart teeney-bopper asks you when you are checking out with your box of diapers, “getting some for your grandchildren today?”

Rob

It tripped me out the first time I read it …

Yet I do know, personally, of a handful of churches with less than ten senior adults who hold on … making church expenses off of endowments and bequeathed estates.

I don’t know that Rob intended (nor does anyone serious about church planting) to suggested to “throw them out.” The reason that the church planting emphasis in most places is focusing upon the younger generation is because they are, far and away, the most unreached in our culture. Indeed, in my home community, they are largely absent from almost every church. One can wonder if perhaps this generation of young adults, rather than being thrown out, has been somewhat “abandoned” in recent times by a general unwillingness on the part of the church to reach out to them.

As for your second point … I have often thought the same thing. I have imagined it. And, surely, such will occur.

But I tend to think that, by the time I’m really old, the church will be pretty much relocated back into peoples’ homes … house churches. That’s my prognostication, at least. You won’t have a chance to get old. All of those little ones are going to keep you young for a mighty long time.

1)Keith makes a good point (that is if I have gotten it ) The church is not the building, but the people – even if they are septuagenarians. What is sad is the upcoming generation seems more than willing to “throw them out with the bathwater.” The emphasis it seems in the “church growth” sector is upon a “younger generation” instead of reaching all people with the gospel. These folks do not have idle dreams and of “years gone by.” I submit that Rob has not really talked with them in depth to know.

2)One of these days the current generation will be old – they will continue to sing “God of Wonders” on fifty year old keyboards and reminisce about the “glory days” and quip at their grandchildren bringing their “strange” ways of reaching people for the gospel. Don’t worry. It’s coming.

Rob

I’ve read it a few times. Actually, the more I read Bob’s first paragraph, the less I understand it. Please elaborate.

We should all reread comment #1, paragraph #1 until you understand it…

Notice how often we equate “church” with “building” or “facility.”

This also made me think of the recent Lifeway study on buildings. The money quote for me was “Despite billions being spent on church buildings, there was an overall decline in church attendance in the 1990s.” I had one of those scream at the computer screen moments.

What if we quit equating the “church” with the “building” and instead spent billions on comment #1, paragraph #1?

Please reread comment #1, paragraph #1 until you understand it…

It’s absolutely true that the death of a local congregation does not mean that it was a failure. I sort of alluded to that in my response to Bob.