In yesterday’s post, I posted a quote from the book “Simple Church” that was fairly condemning towards churches that were unwilling to change. When I first read the quote I completely agreed with the authors’ sentiment. “So many churches are becoming irrelevant and it doesn’t seem as if they care. Why don’t they wake up and take a look around them,” I thought to myself and now have written on my blog.
But today, I’m wondering if perhaps I need to evaluate the word “ineffective.” When churches take a look around them, they likely see an older, content, loyal group of members who have been a part of their congregation longer than I have been alive. The church is anything but ineffective to those individuals. The church is hardly irrelevant to them.
This concept of ineffective is a pretty selfish concept really. Simply because a church doesn’t meet my needs or isn’t reaching out to me in cool and meaningful ways doesn’t mean that they’d rather die than change – it just means that my needs and my desires aren’t their priority.
And that’s OK.
But, it also means that those congregations unwilling to meet the needs of a younger, changing demographic will one day die. And, as my good buddy Brad said, that’s OK too. (By the way Brad, when are YOU going to start a blog?)
So, my question today is: Should congregations that minister to a primarily older demographic continue serving them with a healthy understanding that their future is uncertain at best OR should aging congregations attempt to engage younger individuals in hopes of sustaining their local gathering of Christ-followers?