Methodist Church kicking out Seniors!

I think this is about A Methodist church.... ONE congregation.


I think it's NUTS but then it's not my parish.

Lämmchen said:

I think about all the churches I used to attend and how much money that the older members contributed to build those churches and keep them afloat. Nothing reeks of a smack in the face more than kicking out the senior members who probably are the reason that particular congregation exists in the first place. I hope someone talks some sense into the people making those poor decisions.

Click to expand...

Why would anyone re-apply to this congregation for membership who is iver 60 years of age? The church is not allowing the 60+ crowd in, so how would they fit in with the new church structure? From what I read in that article, this church has been making grave errors for years. They fired the pastor and turned the sermons over to the laity, with a different person delivering the sermon each week. This church will not have to worry about closing, the sheer amount of lawsuits for ageism will close this church for good.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Lämmchen said:

I think about all the churches I used to attend and how much money that the older members contributed to build those churches and keep them afloat. Nothing reeks of a smack in the face more than kicking out the senior members who probably are the reason that particular congregation exists in the first place. I hope someone talks some sense into the people making those poor decisions.

Click to expand...

My church is very much a "gray church" - many of the members are older. We really need to attract more young families to ensure the ongoing survival of the church, but not at the cost of getting rid of the existing membership. It seems to me that what young families want in a church is a church that will feed parents and children. There's no reason why a church with older members can't do that. It seems awfully fickle to assume that young people will be driven away by the sight of a gray-haired couple in one of the pews. If the church is so full of gray-haired people that it feels like they are an overwhelming majority then kicking them out seems like a sure fire way to kill the church completely and ensure it doesn't minister to anyone.

Disclosure - I have more gray hairs than I care to count.

Why do some churches think old is bad? What, pray tell, do they have against seniors?

IMO, there are churches that are gifted and excel in ministering to certain groups: Middle Class whites, African Americans, Asians, Gun owning Trumpers, rockers, Millennials.... and what's wrong with that? Aren't they loved by God? Isn't Jesus also their Savior? Don't they need Law and Gospel?

Why are seniors the bad people? Why is it bad for churches to have a special heart for seniors?

Josiah said:

Why do some churches think old is bad? What, pray tell, do they have against seniors?

IMO, there are churches that are gifted and excel in ministering to certain groups: Middle Class whites, African Americans, Asians, Gun owning Trumpers, rockers, Millennials.... and what's wrong with that? Aren't they loved by God? Isn't Jesus also their Savior? Don't they need Law and Gospel?

Why are seniors the bad people? Why is it bad for churches to have a special heart for seniors?

Click to expand...

Old isn't bad, but at least some churches that are predominantly old are slowly dying as the members die. Unless the people who die or stop attending due to sickness or infirmity are replaced the church dies. If you can replace the old folks with new old folks the church may work. There may well be churches out there, that aren't based in nursing homes, that do a very good job of ministering primarily to older people. There are also churches out there that desperately need new members as the old folks die off and aren't getting them.

Aside from the church mentioned in the OP I don't think anyone is saying that seniors are bad. Personally I'm not sure it's healthy for a church to focus on too narrow a group of people - Jesus didn't call us to divide into groups of people who are Not Like That Other Group and form our own exclusive little huddles. One thing I like about church is the way old and young, rich and poor, black and white, liberal and conservative, can come together because what unites us is stronger than what divides us.

tango said:

Old isn't bad, but at least some churches that are predominantly old are slowly dying as the members die.

Click to expand...

.... then I'd SUSPECT that church isn't good at evangelism.

I'd suspect there are churches with middle aged folks that are slowing declining in membership, too. Is the problem because most of the members are MIDDLE AGED or because that church isn't incorporating new people?

If a church has a special love for seniors.... and is good in ministering to seniors..... I suspect it would be a growing church but MAYBE those members aren't effective in reaching out to other seniors, and the church needs to put in place more effective outreach ministries. SAME is true of a church with Millennials or Blacks or whatever that is loosing more than they are gaining.


PERSONALLY (and it's JUST me, the same ME that likes Mexican food more than Thai food, NOT claiming one is better than the other just that I personally LIKE one better).... I like small and diverse churches. BUT I recognize, no church can be good at everything for everyone, whether they planned it or not, churches develop their own gifts and hearts and "personality". Churches can be like the parts of a body, different but all good and important. My bro goes to a huge mega non-denom with LOUD contemporary music and maybe half the membership under 30. They are good at this... and while they loose HUNDREDS of members every year (huge "back door looses") they gain even more - it's a fast growing church. They have a heart for young people and they are good at ministering to them (if NUMBERS is the sole criteria for that evaluation).


Here is just one example of a church I know about: It is an LCMS church where not one member is under that age of 65, not one out of over 700.... and it is thriving and it is growing.... as a church with a heart for seniors. http://colchurch.com/






.

tango said:

Old isn't bad, but at least some churches that are predominantly old are slowly dying as the members die. Unless the people who die or stop attending due to sickness or infirmity are replaced the church dies. If you can replace the old folks with new old folks the church may work.

Click to expand...

Expel some members in order hopefully to attract some younger replacements? I hardly think that such a policy can be described as making the church work.:esad:

It might pay the bills, keep the doors of this whited sepulcher open, or keep the congregation on the UMC's rolls...but it certainly would not amount to making the church work!

Because of an ad pop up I wasn't able to read this article, but if what your saying is true I wouldn't want to be a part of a church like that anyway.

It seems like this church is more concerned with their image and man's opinion over the Word of God. If you asked any of those people pushing for this to point out anywhere in scripture that supports the actions that this church, I doubt you will get much more then crickets out of them. I expect the reason they are fading away is because the are operating entirely out of their own strength as opposed to God's strength hence why they are fading away and instead of seeing it as a call for repentance, they are pushing ahead with trying to win their battles in their own strength and it will only lead to failure and the death of this church eventually.

Ironically, the proposed scheme wouldn't work anyway. What would (or will) happen would include the following:

1. Much of the volunteer work that any congregation needs, as well as experienced board members, etc., would be lost.

2. The already-strapped congregation would obviously see a significant decline in contributions.

3. Anyone considering this church for their own church home would be looking at an even smaller congregation than at present. That doesn't usually attract younger families.

4. It is unlikely that the oldsters would return to their former church after the two years are up. Even if they were not permanently resentful (which is unlikely), they would certainly not simply stay home on Sunday during the next two years. They would instead seek out and start worshipping somewhere else and would be inclined to stay there after the two years had passed.

5. Finally, the problem that the congregation is facing--declining membership and attendance--is widespread in contemporary, Western, societies. The idea of "attracting young people" by playing to them has not been very successful in any of the mainline denominations.

The idea that the younger people, simply by seeing very few elderly people in church, would think "this is for us!" is naive. Only if the entirety of the worship service and everything else that the church does were dramatically changed in the direction of the typical Non-denominational church would there be a chance of that idea succeeding.

Josiah said:

.... then I'd SUSPECT that church isn't good at evangelism.

I'd suspect there are churches with middle aged folks that are slowing declining in membership, too. Is the problem because most of the members are MIDDLE AGED or because that church isn't incorporating new people?

Click to expand...

A key difference is that if you attract people who stay at the church then the church lasts longer with a new group of members in their 50s than with a new group of members in their 90s, simply because of life expectancy. If people leave the church without being replaced the church dies. The older the membership is, the more likely the church will lose people due to death and infirmity as well as moving away or joining a different church.

If a church has a special love for seniors.... and is good in ministering to seniors..... I suspect it would be a growing church but MAYBE those members aren't effective in reaching out to other seniors, and the church needs to put in place more effective outreach ministries. SAME is true of a church with Millennials or Blacks or whatever that is loosing more than they are gaining.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, although if there are only so many members to go round and one church has a higher death rate it's easier to see why that church will be among the first to close its doors. If there are enough older folks to make a church viable, maybe the church can survive as one that caters specifically for older folks. But if it doesn't attract new people fast enough to fill the gaps left by people leaving, it will die out sooner or later.

Albion said:

Expel some members in order hopefully to attract some younger replacements? I hardly think that such a policy can be described as making the church work.:esad:

It might pay the bills, keep the doors of this whited sepulcher open, or keep the congregation on the UMC's rolls...but it certainly would not amount to making the church work!

Click to expand...

Except that's totally not what I was saying. If you read the sentence you bolded in the context of the previous one I'm talking about replacing members who leave because of sickness or death (or indeed any other reason, it's just that sickness and death are more of an issue among older people) . You know, if you start with 20 members, two members die and one new member joins then you end up with 19 members. If that continues before long you don't have enough people to operate the church closes. If you start with 20 members, one member dies and two new members join you end up with 21 members. If that continues you end up needing more seating.

tango said:

Except that's totally not what I was saying. If you read the sentence you bolded in the context of the previous one I'm talking about replacing members who leave because of sickness or death (or indeed any other reason, it's just that sickness and death are more of an issue among older people) .

Click to expand...

First, the bolded part of your post does not state what you now want it to say.

Second, I was commenting on the likelihood of such a policy actually achieving its goals. It will not do so, regardless of whether any of us think it's acceptable as a proposal or not.

I hope this clarifies the matter.




.

It sounds like a spoof.

JRT said:

It sounds like a spoof.

Click to expand...

The thought crossed my mind, too. At first. But apparently it is not.

Albion said:

First, the bolded part of your post does not state what you now want it to say.

Click to expand...

If you pull it out of context I guess you can make it mean something else, if that's helpful to the discussion.

Second, I was commenting on the likelihood of such a policy actually achieving its goals. It will not do so, regardless of whether any of us think it's acceptable as a proposal or not.

Click to expand...

I think we're agreed on that. Getting rid of existing members in the hope of replacing them with more desirable members (however "more desirable" is defined) seems like it's more likely to create a situation where the church closes due to lack of membership rather than turning it all around into a thriving church.