“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (NIV)
I often think of this verse when I hear about the newest church growth method or witnessing technique that just came out. There is often a strong emphasis on the methodology of the business world. The pitch is centered on the success achieved at other churches. To help learn the particular approach, there are usually manuals, videos, and special edition Bibles available for purchase.
I do not think the problem necessarily lies with trying to develop a system for attracting people to the church. It is the pragmatic philosophy and emphasis on the method as the means of success that is dangerous. It is not the power of man and his abilities that change people; it is only the power of God (and yes, God can use purpose driven churches).
Comments
I was going to comment on the previous quote, because I had such a mixed reaction to it. I couldn't understand how meeting people's needs could be a problem. (Acts 2:42-47, Acts 4:32)
But, reading the quote next to the comments above, I see that the need being discussed is 'the need to be entertained' or something like that.
I still have a question, though.
What do you make of the 'inscription to an unknown god' thing in Acts? It is often used as a case for being culturally relevant while sharing the gospel. (Though I have read that Paul was disheartened by the response of the intelligensia of Athens; hence all that berating of man's wisdom in the letter to the Corinthians! Maybe he quit quoting pagan poets after that, I don't know...)
Posted by: kiki on Tuesday, May 24, 2005
James 2:15 is another relevant verse that I like.
I really should have included more context information with that quote. The distinction that Os Guinness is trying to make is between meeting the needs of people for the purpose of growing the size of a church and meeting needs to glorify God. As to the definition of 'needs', it is more than the traditional food, clothing, and shelter. It would probably include providing daycare during the week for the two-income families, having weight loss support groups, a gym for a men's basketball league and so on. If providing those services is essential to attracting and retaining people, the emphasis is switching from God to man - that is the consumerism that I mentioned in my comments on the previous quote. I will post more comments later.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Two of the most popular business techniques borrowed by many churches are strategic planning and advertising (gotta sell the product!). In strategic planning, a corporation develops a vision for the future that includes purpose statements and goals. Part of the process is defining objective criteria to measure progress toward those goals. Where the process fails (or where the people implementing the process fail) is that achieving the numerical goals becomes more important than anything else.
The widget manufacturer Acme wants to increase their profit by 20% in two years. There are good ways and bad ways to do that. For Joe Manager, all he knows is that his bonus is tied to meeting the goal. Firing all his customer support representatives and out-sourcing it to India is a quick way to cut costs and so increase profits. Of course, it can hurt Acme's business in the long run because its customers get fed up with not getting a native English speaker when they have problems. This gets repeated again and again in the business world. The method of strategic planning is not a panacea. (In education, teaching to the test is a similar problem.)
Take these same methods and apply them to the church and you end up with churches that set goals for attendance or the number of ministries or the number of baptisms. It is easy to measure those quantities. It's much harder to measure the amount of spiritual growth in the church's members. Just as with businesses, there are good ways and bad ways to achieve the goals. It can be very tempting to use the easy ways and then justify it by being pragmatic.
I'll leave cultural relevance for later...
Posted by: CJ Costello on Thursday, May 26, 2005
cultural relevance?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Thursday, May 26, 2005
Absolutely amazing....hard to believe he is actually serious in that article.
Posted by: Shannon on Friday, May 27, 2005
As you plan your next lesson in Corinithians, keep in mind I have a monk's robe that easily doubles as jedi garb!
Seriously, I guess I'm not sure what "cultural relevance' means. An example, as I've mentioned, could be Paul quoting one of their own poets("in him we live and move..") while preaching to the Athenians.
Maybe it's something like this: Realizing what a person is steeped in, what his thinking is being shaped by, and then (instead of completely trashing it, which he'd likely interpret as trashing him) finding truth in it, and using that point to bridge to better ideas. (The Star Wars thing-- seems like they're more excited about the 'bridge' and not excited enough about the destination!)
I will also add that everything above pertains to evangelism. The saved person is obviously different--he can see! So he is excited about the Word of God and things of God; he is learning how to be 'in the world but not of the world'...
Posted by: kiki on Saturday, May 28, 2005
I agree that this idea of cultural relevance should mainly be applied to evangelism for the very reason you give. A follow-up question is whether a Sunday morning service of a church should be focused on the possible unbelievers present or on the church members (evangelism versus teaching/worship or is it possible to do both?). For many churches, the Sunday morning service is the only time the entire church body is gathered together (maybe that's a problem). Is evangelism primarily a personal responsibility or a corporate responsibility?
I think cultural relevance, being in the world but not of it, the boundary between sacred and secular - those are all related and difficult issues. I think we should strive to make thoughtful, articulate arguments for our views on the issues of the day. We should be producing quality literature, poetry, music, and art that incorporate Christian themes (forgiveness, salvation, etc.). We should be actually living a life that demonstrates these ideas to those around us. By doing this, we are hopefully preparing those around us to understand the "language" of the gospel.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Saturday, May 28, 2005
The last paragraph--what an excellent charge!
(Speaking of paragraphs, is it easy to indent/skip lines in these posts? Maybe that is what 'HTML tags for style' means?)
The follow-up questions you raised seem key. Are they unanswerable, or do church leaders determine the answers for their 'flock'?
Posted by: kiki on Sunday, May 29, 2005
The last paragraph is based on some thoughts I have had about God and the Israelites. I am still working through this. The main idea is that when God made Israel his people, he created a Christian culture. It was Christian in that sin, redemption, salvation, et cetera were concepts that were well understood by the people; they were essentially embedded into the culture. The sin offerings and the Passover celebration among other things made sure of this. It allowed them to understand the sacrifice of Christ - even if many did not.
This is very different from what I usually hear as the definition of a Christian culture. It is focused on morality; its primary distinguishing feature is the observation of the moral law. I think the Pharisees demonstrated that outward compliance to God's law does not get someone any closer to understanding salvation.
Regarding formatting, two "returns" gives you a blank line between paragraphs. I guess the blank lines are not showing up in the preview. I'll have to fix that. I don't know of a way to indent a paragraph with HTML. HTML tags allow you to be bold. Maybe I should include a list of tags and how to use them.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Monday, May 30, 2005
Christians aren't the only ones claiming Star Wars as their own as can be seen here.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Tuesday, May 31, 2005
I guess I still owe you an answer on your last question. While there is probably not a universal answer, I do think it is an important question for churches to consider. Otherwise you end up with a church service that tries to accomplish everything but accomplishes very little.
There are plenty of people that would claim that preaching for the edification of the church body should be central in a Sunday morning service. I don't think you can trace that back to the Bible or even the early church. It was during the Reformation that preaching took preeminence. Before that the Mass was the central part of any church service and any attempt at edification was through the priest reading (sometimes mumbling) Latin. I suppose the best argument for this viewpoint is that the apostles' teaching is mentioned first in Acts 2:42--not very convincing. Perhaps focusing on the unbeliever/seeker came out of revivalism.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Wednesday, June 1, 2005
CJ said, "There are plenty of people that would claim that preaching for the edification of the church body should be central in a Sunday morning service. I don't think you can trace that back to the Bible or even the early church." I would kindly have to disagree with you on this point based on 1 Cor. 14 where the assembly meeting is in view and "oral gift" is linked with edification for believers. Only as an exception (14:23-25) is an unbeliever seen coming into the gathering of the saints. Remember Paul wrote to the believers, that is, the Corinthian church (1:2) and that they were baptized (1:13-14, Acts 18:8).
This is not to say that an unbeliever cannot hear and be saved in the assembly (again, see 14:23-25), but it seems that the ORDER of the assembly convicts the person as he sees brother after brother standing up and glorifying God or prophesying, so much so that he falls on his face and says, "Truly, God is among you!"
"How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together [in one place, 14:23], each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification" (1 Cor. 14:26).
Posted by: David Wolfe on Thursday, June 2, 2005
David, thank you for your comment. I think you offered good justification for what I was saying about the effectiveness of a church service that tries to both edify believers and convict unbelievers with a culturally relevant approach.
What I was trying to say with that last paragraph is that I don't think a church would be breaking any Biblical precept by having a Sunday morning service where the focus is on inviting friends and neighbors to hear a presentation of the gospel. The problem, as I see it, is when this is combined with the edification of the church. The teaching and preaching becomes watered down for the sake of the unbelievers (who can only hear through the working of God anyway). The argument that Sunday must be set aside exclusively for the edification of the body is built mainly on tradition. It is a strong argument. The writings of Justin Martyr are a good example. It has been my experience that many liturgical services are structured just as Justin describes here (I almost feel like I should call him Mr. Martyr.).
Of course, one could argue that evangelism should be a personal responsibility and so churches should not hold services aimed at unbelievers. What do you think about that?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Thursday, June 2, 2005
If we look (sincerely) at the example left in Acts of HOW the gospel was spread it seems that personal or itinerant evangelism dominates the Book. I'm not saying that a gospel outreach meeting by the assembly is 'wrong,' but is it to the hurt and malnutrition of the believer? Perhaps this is why many of the older assemblies held such a "meeting" on Sunday night after the Lord's Supper and an open meeting in the morning.
My concern, and it seems to be yours as well, is that we are trying to get people into church to get them saved, appealing (as a general rule) to their flesh in order to attract them to a spiritual need. (Isn't this folly?!) The growing problem though is that many people who are brought into the church erroneously think they are Christians (because they go to church). The statistics in the U.S. are staggering. Polls I've seen show that anywhere from 70-80% (or even more) of Americans identify themselves as "Christians"--a shocking slap in the face to the Lord Jesus' words in Matt. 7:13-14, where He said that FEW are saved and the way is narrow.
The Bible shows quite the opposite in Acts 2 as people were added to the church UPON being saved (that is, the Divine order is 1) Gospel preached, 2) Person is saved, 3) Person added to church-Acts 2:47 NKJV, KJV). Anyway, just a few thoughts...
Posted by: David Wolfe on Thursday, June 2, 2005
I think the statistics you quote are a result of the Christian veneer that is gradually wearing away but still exists over American society. George Barna frequently has interesting surveys related to this (usually interesting in a depressing way). He uses doctrinal beliefs to categorize people and finds that only 7% of people in the United States fit his definition of evangelical. Seeker-friendly churches are a part of that 7 percent. The vast majority of the approximately 80% who identify themselves as Christians are non-church attenders or attend one of the mainline denominations that are struggling over their view of the Bible. In a way, that 80% statistic confirms the words of Jesus about people claiming the name of Christ but not being saved.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Friday, June 3, 2005
The ideas about the surveys are interesting!
My ideas are kindergarten-esque compared to the scholarship evident in the posts above, but I'm still posting them!
I was thinking about the 'Divine Order' idea... that the account in Acts is a 'prototype'or formula somehow for how church should structure their weekly service. It reminds me of my AoG friends who use, coincidentally, the same chapter in Acts to talk of the divine order of getting baptized in the Holy Spirit. (1. Person is saved. 2. Something Else Happens: hands are laid on this person or they are water baptized. 3. The person is baptized with the Holy Spirit, evidenced by their speaking in tongues.) Yet, I don't have the gift of tongues, and I have learned elsewhere in Scripture that I received the Holy Spirit upon my conversion.
So, I was wondering about using the text in Acts in this way. We just read through Exodus, and God can apparently be very specific about how he wants things done regarding worship, down to colors and materials. The lack of very specific instructions in the NT can't possibly be an oversight. Maybe formulas aren't as effective for "worshiping in spirit and in truth"?
Posted by: kiki on Friday, June 3, 2005
Kiki, I completely understand what you mean in your AoG comment. Interesting, isn't it? For in other places in Acts when people are saved there is no mention of tongues or the Holy Spirit coming upon them. And in reading 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 you will find that the gift was not "universal," and further, that the gift is useless unless there is an interpreter (14:19). In Paul's mind, a gift of the Spirit has absolutely no value IN the assembly unless it builds up.
Regarding your comment about 'order,' I wasn't trying to say how a church should structure its services, that is, the method of meeting together (as very little is said about this in Acts, save that the church was together in one place and of one accord). All I'm trying to say is that there is a definite timing in God's plan of salvation, and being part of God's church does not come before salvation. A person isn't added to the church unless he/she is first saved. The RCC and other false religions have reversed this order, saying that you must be part of their church to be saved (that is, become a member and you will be saved). God says be saved (by faith in Christ) and THEN you will a part of the true church.
I understand, CJ, that God can use seeker-friendly churches. But catering to the flesh of a person by making him feel comfortable in the church is certainly unbiblical! Can you imagine the apostles going around and trying to draw a hearing with entertainment, games, prizes, worldly music, etc.? Can you imagine Paul saying to the Corinthians, "OK, saints we have to do everything in our power to get these unbelievers into our church, and we need to make them feel comfortable...unthreatened"? Can you imagine Peter saying, "I want you to feel good about your self, and so does God. We'll get to the cross and death of Christ later, but let's talk about how desperately God wants to use you in His plan"? Note it, God's Gospel (Good News) as fully laid out in the book of Romans begins with man's sin and that he is guilty before a holy God...Otherwise, why would he need a Savior?
Posted by: David on Saturday, June 4, 2005
In order to dispel any notion of scholarship on my part, I will now retell a story that I read in Reader's Digest several years ago. Ahem...
A young woman, recently married, was preparing her first Thanksgiving meal for her entire family. It was a complete traditional feast with turkey and stuffing and cranberry sauce and all sorts of vegetables and certainly many pies. The young woman took the turkey out of the freezer, put it in the sink to thaw and then covered it with the dish drain. Her mother walked in, noticed the turkey and asked her daughter why she had covered it with the dish drain. The daughter was surprised by this question and told her mother that she had observed her do that same thing for years. Her mother laughed and said "Yes, but we always had a cat in our house and you don't!"
Posted by: CJ Costello on Saturday, June 4, 2005
The point of the above story is that cats are more trouble than they are worth. Well, actually, what I want to say is that we must be careful deriving principles and rules from the details of narrative stories. I have seen several examples recently where the order of events or some other detail in a Biblical narrative was used to establish a certain Biblical way of doing things. Some of these can be backed up by other Scripture and others cannot. In either case, the method or principle is described as Biblical and thus must be followed or sin results. I'll make up a humorous example to illustrate: a father should go to the local watering hole to find a wife for his son. Obviously, just because Abraham's servant found Rebekah at a well does not mean that we should all follow in that example. (I guess I could also mention that sometimes we read things into the order or word usage or sentence structure that does not exist in the original.)
Getting a little off-topic, I think that it is a great temptation to turn the Bible into a rigid book of rules rather than allowing it to be the living Word and submitting to the Spirit's guidance on its application.
Back on topic - In David's Divine Order example, I think we can make an excellent case that hearing must come before believing outside of using the order in that particular narrative. Being added to the church after believing is an interesting case.
1) Our idea of being added to a church is probably very different from what happened back then.
2) Is this the Church or the church that they are being added to? I have recently in my reading come across the idea of a visible and invisible church. The idea as I understand it is that there are people in the church organization(s) on earth that are not a true part of the Church - the body of Christ.
In the end, I am probably thinking too much about this. For we are one body and how can an unbeliever be a part of that body. I am sure that is what David was saying and the question is then how careful should we be about letting people be apart of a church organization who may not be a part of the catholic Church. We certainly cannot read people's hearts.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Saturday, June 4, 2005
I agree it is a very slippery business to take details of a narrative to make a method or principle to thus be followed, but if it IS backed up by Scripture, then we need not be afraid to proclaim it in love. For instance, baptism in the book of Acts. From the 12 instances I observe in Acts a very clear and undeniable pattern emerges: 1) Belief (salvation), and then 2) Baptism (immediately). Saul was the only example in which baptism did not occur immediately after (it occured three days later), and this because the Lord had to persuade Annanias to go to Saul and lay hands on the number one persecutor of the church in that day.
"Ah!" you will say. "You can't make a rule of that!" (see CJ's comment above). And indeed I cannot say to someone that he HAS to be baptized upon believing in the Lord Jesus (for forced obedience is the work of a cruel dictator). But our Lord Himself said to His disciples before His ascension, "...make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). Should I not tell the new disciple, "The Lord desires, and indeed has said that you now be baptized to be identified with Him in His death and resurrection," in love encouraging the new disciple to begin a life of faith in and obedience to the Savior? Water baptism is very clearly a Divine pattern that is backed up with other Scripture. Tongues in a believer's life, however, is clearly not.
Posted by: David on Saturday, June 4, 2005
By the way, perhaps I should be more clear about the Divine order, lest I give the impression that there is some kind of interval of time between believing and being added to the church. Being added to the Church universal (the body of Christ) occurs UPON salvation. There is no delay in the process. When one hears the gospel and believes it, he is added at that point to the one true Church (as CJ says the 'invisible' body of Christ).
Posted by: David on Sunday, June 5, 2005
Wow, KIKI, I really liked some of the things you said. I like your point about the Star Wars thing — saved people do see (spiritually). And I would pay money to see CJ teaching in that monk robe! Of course I want to use the idea of saved persons seeing to say we should all be running after the Bible and its teachings with all that is in us...meaning that I always want to see more preaching/teaching, etc.
Maybe the best part about being in church is just being there for the purpose of getting to know God better, with other believers.
I have some general thoughts here about the business approach to church. (This is going to be a very random comment.)
I've been thinking a little bit about the whole evangelism concept. My general impression of evangelism is that it is primarily a work of God. The series of events which led to Peter's sermon and 2000 being saved is a work of God and not of man. That being said, I think our first goal should be to become more like King David...someone who was desperate for God. He thought about God all the time, wrote about Him, sang about Him, meditated on His word. Then, when he came up with a goal — to build a house for the Lord — God led him on that, too. When we seek God, we will find Him, if we seek Him with all our heart. That's a big if!
I guess I'm saying that we should make sure our lives are where they should be, and God will show us the rest.
Posted by: Shannon on Sunday, June 5, 2005
If you're interested, here's a link to a write-up about the latest Barna survey that was mentioned above.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Tuesday, June 7, 2005
The May 23 Business Week features articles about the business of mega-churches. The cover story can be read here.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Similarly, a Biblical review of consumer Christianity can be found by going to:
www.thebereancall.org
and clicking on the "Consumer Christianity" link(s) at the bottom of the home page. Quite revealing.
Posted by: David on Tuesday, June 7, 2005