As I said, I do agree to a point with you, maybe to a significant point.

(I’m a bit behind on going thru my Feedly feeds)

I see this as the normal state of church, especially in the West. Way too much passivity. A false division between professional/laity. A lot of wasted resources. A whole way of looking at and doing things that is not Jesus’ way. There are a few trying to be different than all of that. But the way is narrow and restricting to get there. The easy road is wide and easy to take. Jesus said that. 95% of what calls itself Christian or of our God is not really. And in that nothing has changed since Jesus’ day. Of all the religious authorities only a tiny percentage appear to have not wanted to kill Jesus. That is why I see that much of that is in the process of quickly going bankrupt. What is actually of God will not. Let’s see how much is actually still left in 2030…

We seem to be talking about two different things. This is the type of comment to which I was referring:

“To me it has become very clear over the last decade that church, as we call it, has been about having a good social club with a great deal of passivity, too much expected of the head pastor, and just generally about pleasing someone else who is definitely not God.”

I’m not speaking of surviving financially, which is apparently what you understood me to be saying. No…I am rather concerned with the massive brush with which you paint “church” as being a “good social club”, etc.

Now understand, I share some of your critique and concerns, but I react strongly against ascribing to (apparently) the totality of “church” such inferior and unworthy motives.

I have a background in accounting and have been involved in looking over the financial statements for an international Christian ministry. I had many lunches with a former pastor of mine who was head of the local ministerial association. He kept telling me how many of the pastors were complaining about barely being able to meet all of their obligations. This was before the current crisis. Now they are not meeting and they have no active programs. So please explain to me your own expertise and how you know that most churches are going to survive with what is going on. I am listening…

One thing our church is planning is to go to a Zoom (or other similar setup) permanently. My guess is that a lot of churches will be doing this, so that those who don’t feel comfortable getting out can at least have that experience. That’s a good thing!

My educated guess is that a lot of that is what will be happening. Our church is going from one service to two, with chairs (thankfully we don’t have pews) spaced a good bit apart; I imagine we will be taking some other steps beyond just re-doing the seating arrangements. And we aren’t going back soon; haven’t set a date yet. Yes, you will have some irresponsible people who care more about their rights than their responsibilities, the antithesis of a Christlike sentiment. But I do think a significant percentage, likely a strong majority, will take steps that they think necessary to ensure safety.

You do make some good points there, Mr Jesperson, but if that brush were any wider, it’d have to have a sign on the back and guide vehicles. It’s a little tougher than you seem to make it, to characterize “church, the way we have traditionally been doing it”, particularly that blanket characterization about who it is the “church” is trying to please. No doubt, there is truth in what you say, but perhaps a bit less sweeping an indictment is in order.

Your points are well-taken, though my suspicion is that many/most churches and churchgoers will take a lot of these factors into account. I don’t expect many churches to go quickly back to “business as usual”. The singing thing is what I expect to be most problematic, potentially.