I’m confused. Just when I think I start to figure things out, God says, “Calm down Michael.”
As many of you know, I often like to take a break from my church and explore what is going on in other places. Today was one of those days. Due to my confusion, I don’t have a pulpit with me right now. Therefore, I am comfortable revealing names and places. I went to Life Church today. This is not so unusual as I have been there before. The main campus is just a couple of miles down the street.
Life Church is one of those things that makes someone of my tradition scratch their heads. I have scratched a big portion of my hair out today. Life Church is somewhat of a phenomenon. It has become quite legendary due to the way church is done. They are more technologically savvy than Paramount pictures. Let me just briefly describe the service today to help you out.
This summer the theme has been “Life Church at The Movies” (or something like that). When you walk in there are huge posters that are done in the theme of Toy Story. These are the kind of posters that we would have to create a separate line item at the Credo House to cover. They were visually stunning. But that is not even half of it. In the lobby, everything is decorated according to a movie theater/Toy Story theme. “Decorated” is a bad word as it was much more than just decoration. It was a movie theater entrance. And a nice one at that. On the other side of the lobby, there were artifacts from the Toy Story set. You would not believe it. They had a twelve foot etch-a-sketch. I think it actually worked! Andy’s room was set up perfectly in a separate roped off area. They even had an eight foot tall game machine like the one that the aliens were taken from in Toy Story 1 (you know . . . those guys who say “you have saved our lives, we are eternally grateful”). I could go into more detail, but you get the idea.
Wait…I have some pictures.
Etch-A-Sketch to Left
Alien Game to Right
The idea during this movie series is to show twenty or thirty minutes of an inspirational movie and then draw lessons from it. Today the movie was “The Blind Side.” Last week it was “Walk the Line.” The messages were great. The typical motivational seminar type stuff with some Christian justification behind it. Not too much scripture. Certainly not any expositional preaching.
Now I need to back up a bit…
I am from a tradition that is in a love/hate relationship with this kind of stuff, with hate tipping the scales more often than not. Its called by many names: “seeker-sensitive,” “seeker-friendly,” or the more pejorative “seeker driven.” I went to seminary when all this seeker stuff was hotly debated. Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church was the book to read and your spirituality was based on how much you hated it. The biggest and, for many, most definitive criticism of the “seeker” mentality is that while there is evangelism that happens, discipleship can hardly be found. Like a friend of mine often says, “Tastes great, less filling.” Michael Spencer used to call this movement the “Evangelical circus.”
Now, I have to come clean and admit something here. There is a sense in which those like me actually want these type of churches to fail. That is hard for me to admit. In fact, I am thinking about taking that line out. But it is true. “See . . . I told you so” are words that are often on the tip of my tongue ready to be interjected at the slightest hint that the “seeker” churches have compromised or failed. What a terribly sinful entanglement that I have. I admit it. There is no justification for that.
Okay, back to the story…
I sat down by some big biker dude. He was awesome. Long hair, bandanna, and long ungroomed beard. For a moment, I thought he might be a prop for the set. Then I looked across the church and saw that he was not so uncommon. None of these people looked like “churchy” people at all. The majority were under forty and dressed in the same thing they were going to wear for the rest of the day (or the same thing they wore last night). Did I mention flip-flops? Lots of flip-flops (including mine). Concerning my biker neighbor, I did not know anything about him. I did not know what sins he struggled with, how his marriage was, or what he did the night before. However, I could tell that he was glad to be there and he seemed to really love Jesus. I was glad he was there too. In this place, for better or worse, the curtain between the church and the culture was wrent in twain. The atmosphere was one of grace and excitement.
Was the lesson impactful? For me, it was a 3 on a scale of 10. Sure, I felt a bit of conviction “to go,” as the message said, “and find someone in need and be an influence upon them.” But it is one of those things. In order for it to really have any chance of lasting beyond a fly in the ointment of my conscience for the day, the conviction level must be above a 6. Otherwise it is just one-day-guilt. I normally respond better to those messages that are grounded in Scripture and illustrated by a movie rather than grounded in a movie and illustrated by Scripture. (There, got my one cheap shot flowing with snarkiness out. I feel a tincy bit better.)
However, there was something different going on there. Something that was intoxicating. Something that my spirit had been deprived of but I failed to realize it until now. A spiritual anti-depressant if you will. It was the power of the Gospel. But not this alone. It was the power of the Gospel as it was proclaimed to so many people who had never heard it. From what I understand, there were hundreds, even thousands, of unchurched people there. Seems right. It is a “seeker” church. That is what all the production is for: to get unbelievers to come hear the message of Christ by whatever means (within reason) necessary. We were informed that over four-hundred people accepted Christ last week during the “Walk the Line” message. Now, I take those numbers with a grain of salt. However, I would not be surprised if there are not a lot of people who are being ushered into the kingdom at this church. Whatever people might think of Craig Groeschel (the lead pastor) and his philosophy of ministry, he gives one of the clearest presentations of the true and uncompromised Gospel that I have ever heard. It is this that is so exhilarating. To witness the evangel (the Gospel) being proclaimed to so many in need is a vitalization, for me, of what we are about. You must understand, being from this part of town and growing up living on the other side of the Christian train tracks, these people represented hundreds of my friends and acquaintances that I grew up with who I could never get to come to my church or show up for a Bible study, but were sitting there willingly listening to what Christ has done for them and how to be forgiven.
It has been a long time since I have wanted to stand up and cheer, but today I jumped off the wagon of evangelical stagnation and was reminded about why we are here. It is this vitalized celebration of my heart that has confused me. I want with all of my stubborn being to say how wrong Life Church, the new Mecca of seeker churches, has got it. But I can’t.
What I have been coming to realize over the years is that there is simply no one way to do church. I think that this is a strength of Evangelicalism. We can stretch in many directions. Evangelicalism has its arms open wide to a varied set of liturgies, from high church formality to Toy Story lobbies. Neither do I don’t think that there is one transcendently right way to do church. I am not arguing for seeker churches, but I am not arguing against them either. They have their place, and I think it is about time to recognize how God is using them in spite of all our “yeah, buts.” There are some churches that are good at the discipleship, but lack in outreach. There are some churches that are good at community, but lack in strong teaching. There are some churches that are good at connecting with the past, but have no connection to the present. And there are some that are good at converting the lost, but don’t know what to do with them after.
I have yet to find the perfect church. I am coming to think that our territorialism is the biggest problem. We want to throw rocks at the church across the street for not having the strengths of our church, while not recognizing our weaknesses. We have a distorted self-defense that clinches its fist when people are not doing things the way we think they ought to. While I think churches should be as balanced as they can, maybe the individual churches should unclinch their fists and begin to hold hands with those who don’t share their strengths but do cater to their weaknesses. I am not so sure that we should see ourselves as “belonging” to any one church.
When Paul would write to the churches, he never addressed any particular group or gathering within the larger whole. He did not write one letter to the “First Baptist Church at Corinth” and one to the “Evangelical Community Church at Corinth.” While I am sure there were many individual house gatherings by that time, all having strengths and weaknesses, he wrote to “the church at Corinth.” No territorialism. No rocks. No preference. Everyone saw themselves as parts of the whole. It is the whole that needed the message. This is how he wrote to all the churches. I figure that were he to write to my church, it would be addressed to “the church of Oklahoma City.” The problem is that we are so busy throwing rocks, criticizing each others’ weaknesses, and territorially worried about our own church’s budget, that we would probably not recognize the other churches and share the letter.
Do churches have gaping holes of weakness? Certainly. Is discipleship a hole in Life Church. I think it is. Does Life Church need to change their style. No. What they are doing is incredible. Where else would my biker friend feel welcome? They, like all local churches, need to recognize that they are only one part of something bigger. Having gapping holes of weakness does not mean that we have to have gapping holes of neglect. If Christ-centered churches saw themselves as a part of a larger community of churches, then we could all work together to provide the balance that is needed. Then people like me could do more celebrating than criticizing.
Today, God helped me to celebrate the “Evangelical circus.”
162 replies to "My Experience Today at LifeChurch.tv"
I can’t disagree with anything in the last 2 comment; however, I think “compel them to come in” refers to the preaching of the gospel, and notice the surrounding…the highways and byways, not the church building 🙂
I think we can agree that there are lost people in church (including people that don’t know they are lost) and the gospel should be preached in church (to the lost and the saved)…it’s really about the time, energy and resources spent to “catering” to the lost to get them to come to the “synagogues” to hear the gospel. Is this the biblical model or is going out into the highways and byways the biblical model? As a matter of fact, I think a biblical argument could be made that the resources spent to “attract” the lost to the building should be spent on teaching, equipping and encouraging the saved…to reach the lost.
I might not want to attend that church every Sunday myself but I think that their heart is definitely in the right place with this:
From their website:
“By leading people to become fully devoted followers of Christ. That’s the driving purpose behind everything we do.”
It’s quite possible that they do a great job of getting new converts into discipleship groups.
As far as the ‘NT model’ goes they didn’t have big church buildings then…except the synagogues. Jesus went to the synagogues to preach the gospel. I think that we tend to drift from the central mission of the church which IS: To proclaim the gospel! Both in our buildings and out of our buildings. Both to crowds and one-on-one. We tend to be far too ingrown and introspective. We need to be taught to look to the masses of humanity with compassion as Jesus did, and Paul and the apostles did….remembering always that they are headed for Hell without Jesus.
@hmkjr: My point is that we often see “church” as being for the chosen – the invited guests as it were. We are the bride and it is for us. But the parable of the great banquet has to mean *something*. As Matthew 22 says, we should invite those outside to “Come to the wedding banquet”. It isn’t an occasion just for the bride. They went out and invited “all the people they could find, both good and bad.” Yet today, many have the attitude that “they” are not invited, this is a private party, and if they show up we shouldn’t even feed them. I disagree with that. I think that attitude is what is portrayed in the parable preceding this in the first part of Luke 14 where we see the folks showing up and taking the seats of honor. I don’t think it is for us to choose the priorities there.
Daniel
Good point, Daniel. Actually, our pastor preached on the parable of the great banquet yesterday. We are to invite all!…even those we are not drawn to…those who cannot repay…those who will not help our own status etc. It seems to me that Lifechurch has got THAT right!
I will go back and read that parable, but I still think that the “inviting” refers to the actual “preaching of the gospel”…not going out and inviting them to go come somewhere and hear the gospel. I think we are to share it with them ourselves where ever we come into contact with people…we have then invited into the kingdom by presenting the gospel…not invited them to hear the gospel. I’m thinking the point of the parable is being missed by using it to support what has been described in this blog post, but I could be wrong.
…I believe if you have invited someone to church, you should have already shared the gospel with them and they know exactly why you are asking them to church – I’ll have to work on the scriptural support for that one 😉
How many of you have had people coming into your church carrying a Joel Osteen book? While his theology is bunk, we have had people come in saying, i watch JO, I read his books, and he says I need to join a church. How would you respond? JO is ****, or just say welcome and thanks for coming today?
As bad as JO is, I believe that there are a number of believers (and know some) who started their journey by listening to him first. I know that watching the Crystal Cathedral on TV first drew in my mother in law.
I don’t think we should ignore there theology, or be afraid of talking about it. I do think we should accept that God can work in many ways, and be greatfull when people come to him, even through those “wrong” or “bad” teachers
hrkjr,
I believe you are right about the parable in Mt. 22. This banquet was a wedding banquet. Remember there was a man that came to the banquet without a wedding garment on. And he was cast into outer darkness where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth. Doesn’t that mean that he was not prepared to the banquet–that he was not a Christian?
So if this parable means that we are to invite people to church, it also means that anyone that comes to church and isn’t a Christian is to be kicked out!
I don’t think that is the proper understanding of the parable. I agree that the Biblical model is to reach people where they are and not specifially to make church fit what will appeal to them and invite them there to be reached.
I have no problem with evangelizing crowds. As has been mentioned the apostles preached to crowds. The Day of Pentecost was preaching to a large crowd. Spurgeon, Whitfield etc, etc. spoke and preached to large crowds but I doubt sock puppets, gymnastics, or magic tricks were part of the program to draw the crowd in to hear the gospel preached. It’s demeaning both to the gospel and the seeker, IMO. Joel Osteen too, I have no problem in that he addresses the crowds or if he would do the work of an evangelist.
Cheryl, I was referring to Luke 14:12-24
And yes, it does have to do with evangelism…inviting people into God’s kingdom…whether we do this by sharing with a person one-on-one or whether they hear the gospel while sitting in a church.
What were Paul’s words? “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I might share with them in its blessings.” I Cor 9:22-23
Susan,
I agree that it has to do with evangelism. But I don’t think that the great supper in the Luke passage is being invited to come to church either. It is being invited to come to Christ. And from what I see of the New Testament church in action and the instructions given for the church in the New Testament, that was not done by making church a place to appeal to the unsaved to get them throught the doors, but by going out and reaching them where they were and by what God was saying in the church if they did come there.
@Cherylu & hmkjr: How do you explain the going out and “making” both the good and the bad to come in? It doesn’t say go get them and wash them up and make them all good before they come in. If you look at Luke 14:23, it looks like the ones being denied are the ones that were initially invited and didn’t come at all or didn’t come the right way. I don’t know that we can really apply those getting kicked out as anyone but the bride.
Michael, I think Daniel hit the nail on the head when he said, “I have been leaning more and more to the stance that Sunday morning service is not to be an outreach ministry, but a gathering together of believers to worship the LORD.” I came to the same conclusion after entering and many years later, exiting a seeker church.
The primary reason we gather is to worship God. Thus I must ask myself this question. Who can worship God? I believe the answer is: Seekers don’t worship God – they don’t know him yet.
Conclusion: church is for the collected body of believers to unite in worship of God. Seekers certainly are welcome, but they should not be the focus of a worship service. The focus of church should be the presentation of the gospel message, preached faithfully and fully each time they meet. It is God’s word that speaks when it is proclaimed.
Are we trying to sell Jesus by the methods of Life Church? Would Jesus feel honored by what is being sold? Is there anything in our services that could be considered idolatrous? If so, would that honor God in our worship of Him? I know that when I was up on that stage in the worship band, for me personally, it began to feel as if I was participating in something that caused others to idolize both myself and the music I presented. So I had to stop.
I am extremely evangelical but I believe evangelism follows the preaching of the gospel. Romans 12:1-2: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable.” The renewal of our mind (believers) has to happen before we even know how to be evangelical.
Daniel,
There is a difference between people coming to church and people coming to Jesus. I believe these parables pertain strictly to people coming to Him. Once they have come to Him then they are officially part of the Chuch–His body.
I don’t believe He is calling us to bring all kinds of people, Christian or not, into the church which in the New Testament is His body and is to operate as His body. It is not the building on the corner where we meet. And people are not really a part of that body until they really know Him.
The purpose of that body is to go out to those people and “compel” them to come in and be an actual part of the body.
That is how I understand it.
Right , Cheryl, it is about being invited to come to Christ….but that can take many forms. Many people hear the gospel in church services and respond to it, just as many people hear the gospel preached by an individual where ever they are…away from a church building.
I Corinthians was written: “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”
I Cor 2: 2 “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified…”
If you read the beginning of I Corinthians it is clear that Paul prioritized the preaching of the gospel to the church.
Susan and everyone,
Again, I am not saying that I don’t believe the Gospel needs to be preached in churches. What I am saying is that I believe the primary purpose of the church meeting together as I understand the New Testament pattern, is for the benefit of those that are already Christians–for their learning and growth–and for the worship of God. I don’t see that meeting together in the NT as a time that is to be geared to making the unbeleiver’s come through the doors by appealing to whatever appeals to the culture at the moment. The main outreach of the church was done outside of that meeting together as a body as far as I can tell.
@Cheryl: It wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong. 🙂 Getting into the proper understanding of the parable may be a bit outside of the scope of CMP’s post though. I created a topic to discuss it over on Theologica (http://theologica.ning.com/forum/topics/the-parable-of-the-great)
Daniel
I think one of the biggest problems with having these type of discussions is that most start from their own church culture. In this church culture church is a place you go to one Sunday mornings and sometimes Sunday evenings. When we start there, we will be confined to this idea of what the “sunday morning service” is supposed to be.
I think if we back up, we will find that the principles don’t constrain us in such a way. We are commanded to gather together. We are commanded to preach the word. We are commanded to evangelize. We are commanded to have sharing fellowship. We are commanded to reprove each other. We are commanded to love the brethern.
None of these commands necessitate a certian structure. We need to move beyond the idea that Church is something we go to once a week. Church is something we are (organically) and we do (functionally). Church can be done in many ways.
Having said that, I think that the Sunday morning service is fine, but it is not all there is and it does not really accomplish THAT much of what we are supposed to do.
As I have said, I personally think that there are many problems with the seeker model. I would not start a church in such a way. But there are serious problems with other models. When there are gapping holes in fellowship, accountability, worship, outreach, inreach and the like, do these cease to be churches? Well, if you think that the individual church is do be the “be all” for everything, maybe.
Some churches I have been to are nothing more than Bible studies.
Some churches I have been to are nothing more than worship rallies.
Some churches I have been to are nothing more than evangelistic crusades.
Some churches I have been to are nothing more than fellowship centers.
Very few have the ability on their own to provide everything that is essential to the local church.
Some great comments above … One thought: More pastors need to be able to explain Jesus in terms people understand through mediums that resonate and in places where people like to hang out. Life TV seems to do this really well.
We are attempting to reach people that normally would never set foot inside a church as well.
We host our outreach events in wineries, hip restaurants, and the like. We attach a lot of popular secular music and other cultural icons to spiritual points in order to penetrate hearts and convict wills. All the while being rooted in Scripture. (Think of Paul in Acts 17)
We also host luncheons, breakfasts, and after hour parties to teach Christians how to live out the Gospel at work in five area of culture: Arts, Business, Education, Government, and the Media. (History tells us that faith spreads the fastest when Christians working in the secular world are able to share their faith in appropriate and natural ways.) Our desire is to teach people those appropriate and natural ways.
I get challenged regularly that we need to do one or the other but I remain scripturally convinced that healthy well-balanced churches need to do both … evangelism and discipleship.
Good thoughts, Michael. I’ve never been to Keller’s church but I get the feeling that he is very skillful when it comes to preaching the gospel to the unsaved and feeding the long-time believers on a regular basis…from ‘the pulpit’. A guy from our church just married a woman who came to know Christ at his church.
Michael, some of us have been in many, many, many churches – trying to figure it out. Both denominationally and non-denominationally. I don’t even think those are words! Some of us weren’t raised in a certain denomination and have had to figure it out the hard way so we have seen quite a variety.
“I think if we back up, we will find that the principles don’t constrain us in such a way. We are commanded to gather together. We are commanded to preach the word. We are commanded to evangelize. We are commanded to have sharing fellowship. We are commanded to reprove each other. We are commanded to love the brethern.
None of these commands necessitate a certian structure. We need to move beyond the idea that Church is something we go to once a week. Church is something we are (organically) and we do (functionally). Church can be done in many ways.”
Yeah, I agree with that. I agree we don’t find pews or hymnals in scripture. If you want grass and guitars that is okay with me, (as if anyone is asking) I would be fine with grass (as in lawn) and guitars too. Wouldn’t bother me to change from Sun to Sat, if the motive was right in reschedueling. Have church in the park, out in the open where walls would not prevent people from seeing the fellowship and worship of the saints. That the preaching and aroma of that would draw them to take a look, That is all okay with me..I just can’t figure out what “Toy Story” has to do with it.
Toy Story is a bridge. Cadis, I get what you are saying though. I went to a church where there was an elf greeting the kids. Try as I might to link it to Lord of the Rings or Narnia, it really bothered me for a while.
However, like I said in the blog above, I have rethought a lot of this lately. I did not mind the Toy Story stuff at all after I saw who was showing up and how strong the Gospel was being presented. God has really softened me up to that.
(Although, I have to admit, I am a little mad about the elf thing still. Not because of the elf, but because at this particular church, the Gospel was almost non existent. It put a different spin on the elf if you know what I mean.)
@CMP, I was once in a church where the kids were met with a dude in a real astronaut space-walk outfit. The theme was from that kids Sunday School song about “Somewhere in outer space, God has prepared a place….” Don’t know if you know that one or not. The kids really wanted to see the astronaut though. The doors into the kids area were filled with cardboard cut-outs that looked like you were crawling into a space ship. The lesson picked up on the part of the song about trusting and obeying Jesus and got into a story about the “Old Man” and the “New Man” and which one you were going to let sit on the throne in your heart. I’ll never forget the date. April 2, 1967 – the day I gave my life to Christ. And I’ll forever be grateful that someone thought outside the box and made church something that was reaching the unsaved with something relevant in the culture at the time and did not limit themselves to the equipping the already-saved. I’m sure the old flannelgraph lesson has been replaced with something on hi-tech video, but those reached by something that are interested in at church are no less reached than those that were reached by some evangelistic team knocking on their door. When we start suggesting that the reaching should only be done on the outside and the inside stuff is for us, we’ve created a recipe for a dwindling and failing church. It makes no sense to me that we’d have a special “Children’s Church” or special lessons for kids to try to bring them to Christ and yet suggest that the real purpose of the church doesn’t include reaching the adult that may be visiting. Just my two cents…
David Zook, sounds great!
CMP said “However, like I said in the blog above, I have rethought a lot of this lately. I did not mind the Toy Story stuff at all after I saw who was showing up and how strong the Gospel was being presented. God has really softened me up to that.”
I admit, nothing brings me more joy than to hear a solid gospel presentation to the lost. I will not rule out the chance that attending something like lifechurch would change my mind about this topic…with the solid presentation of the gospel being the key – but I have this phrase ringing in my head…”what you attract them with you ultimately keep them with.” But if they truly got saved, thier affections would change.
What might be an example of a “bridge” used in the NT?
hmkjr, read Paul Copan’s last three blogs for those ‘bridges’…relavant to the culture…then and now.
@mbaker: you say, “I understand how you say it’s about the larger church, and appreciate that, but yet you seem to agree we should apply more unorthodox ways to reach the lost.”
I would absolutely agree that we should find unorthodox ways to reach the lost. Scripture gives us a lot of freedom in that area, I’m sure you would agree. If a “Toy Story” set that is inviting and culturally relevant to the nonbeliever is outside your box, perhaps your box needs inspection.
As Michael said, Craig is not shy in his presentation of the gospel each week. It is straightforward and pointed, he does not water it down and shares it boldly. If it takes a Toy Story styled lobby to get someone into that seat to hear the gospel accurately shared, so be it. How can you be against that?
Awesome.
Michael, great post. I’ve enjoyed reading all the comments.
The ‘seeker friendly/driven/sensitive’ movement has always seemed off to me. Not so much functionally but more theologically. It’s more the premise of the movement I take issue with rather than the methodology.
Everytime this subject comes up the statements that ring in my ears are: Jesus saying that he came “to seek and to save the lost” thus making Him the seeker and humanity: unregenerate and lost, are the “no one seeks after God” crowd- Paul quoting Psalm 14.
In essence: I’ve always struggled with this notion people have that there are all these people out there who are wanting to know God but our methodology is somehow standing in the way of God being able to save people. I just don’t buy that.
That being said, I do believe that God can and will save many in spite of our methodology but not because of it.
Michael,
I’m guessing you had to be there then, and I’ll take your word for it, I guess I’ll just try to ignore the giant Etch-a-sketch. 🙂
Mike,
Perhaps I should have said gimmicks instead, which was more what I am thinking along the lines of. My objection is that we shouldn’t have to run our churches along the line the lines of an amusement park, or movie set to attract people people to the gospel.
I’ve ministered in the streets to prostitutes, hardened criminals in jailhouses and to people in rehab with serious addictions, so I’ve seen it all. Folks might be drawn temporarily by such trendy things, and if they are saved in the process, praise the Lord. But, we don’t need to make it a practice by making people think culturally relevant religious worship is about more about who has the best entertainment. The church, after all, is not Disneyland.
mbaker #81-
It is about balance. Being grounded in the essentials, encouraging and equipping the believers, and reading the cultural context to reach the unchurched.
Do you feel the same frustration about churches that have run coffee houses in, or next to, their facility?
Rick,
Balance is always my goal. Certainly if folks feel a church is more user friendly for them, that’s fine.
Cultural context is effective as long as it doesn’t get to the point that it’s the main direction.
Luke 15:3-10
Some of you would be scolding the shepherd and the woman because of how they searched.
No doubt the angels of God tone down the party a little if the repenting sinner is drawn in by a “gimmick.”
mbaker-
I think we are on the same page then, and I think Michael was trying to point out that Life Church is still trying to make Christ the main thing.
As I mentioned earlier, I am leaving one such church because the “extras” have become the main thing, or at least enough so that it is a problem. However, I am heading back to a seeker church, even though at a distance, that keeps Christ the main thing (and although the senior pastors do events together and share ideas, it does not have a lot of the extras you might see at Life Church).
Tell me something, which culturally relevant gimmicks did Jesus use to draw sinners, unless you consider His miracles and healings on the same level of Etch A- Sketches and Toy Story sets?
Rick,
Thanks. Just interested in what you consider a ‘seeker’ church? There seem to be lots of different definitions out there.
@mbaker: Something tells me that all those healings and feedings and miracles might very well have been called “gimmicks” by the religious elite of the day. Signs and wonders drew people. The key is to not make it all about the signs and wonders. Just saying…..
Daniel,
Something seems to tell me that there is quite a difference between signs and wonders that were meant to meet peoples’s needs and to prove that Jesus was really God are in just a wee bit different category then a “gimmick” like a Toy Story church service! Kind of like apples and oranges maybe?
Michael,
Best blog post I’ve ever read. Wish we could hang out and have a drink together. Personally been through the ringer on this topic over the past 15 years. Wish Michael (S.) were here to engage it. Convicting…
Keep the faith,
Craig
So just what kind of “people’s needs” did turning water into wine meet? What kind of need was met by walking on the water? I believe the sign gifts were there so that folks would know the apostles were legit. I don’t see where their purpose was stated as “meeting people’s needs”.
Daniel,
You said:
“The key is to not make it all about the signs and wonders. ”
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. While signs and wonders might draw people, so do circus freak shows. Are we going to have a two headed chicken as the next attraction to draw people? The thing is I see such a competition of churches trying to outdo each other in these themed types of thing, they are becoming cliches.
We have THE eternal sign and wonder in Jesus now, why cheapen it with meaningless temporary props which will be forgotten by the time the next fad comes along?
Because those props can have an eternal effect when they open a door to someone’s mind and heart?
Not the signs and wonders, but the illustrations and parables. Camels through the eye of a needle and such.
You missed my whole point – all the “gimmicks” you object to are meaningless in comparison to the soul who moves from death to life. The celebration in heaven over a repenting sinner is not diminished by a giant Etch-a-Sketch. Which is more important and where should our focus be?
And you miss mine, Dave.
Where should our focus be first, on drawing via the gospel or making our drawing card something else, then Christ?
Daniel,
I thought we were talking about Jesus and not the apostles?
When I said they (signs and wonders) were to meet people’s needs I was talking about healings and that type of thing. The others I think were to prove that Jesus was really God.
When it came to the apostle signs and miracles, some of them were to show they were legit, I am sure, as well as to meet people’s needs. They were also to show the power of God to the people, were they not?
Maybe it is just me, but I still don’t think any of this falls in the same category as a Toy Story church service.
I was talking about both. We like to pretend that everything that draws one to Christ should be Godly, but the unsaved world doesn’t even understand the things of God. Sometimes, when you want to draw rats, you have to use things that rats find attractive. I’m not suggesting bait-and-switch, but there is nothing wrong with incorporating something relevant to their culture as an illustration. Christ did it all the time with parables. He used things that folks in that culture were familiar with. We can’t expect the unsaved to be drawn to the same things that interest us. We want fellowship with other Christians and worship of a God we love. We want to take part in the Lord’s Supper. They don’t have those desires yet. In a perfect world, the light would be enough to attract folks from the dark and folks would immediately recognize the Light and be drawn to Him. But the fallen unsaved of this world are not living in “the perfect world” and if we can use anything else to help draw them to the light, there isn’t a problem with it as long as it doesn’t *replace* the light. There is a reason why Paul became all things to all men. It works. If the unsaved guy involved in contemporary music and MTV style graphics can be reached with those tools, we are following in Paul’s footsteps by using them.
Daniel
mbaker, I am not missing your point, I’m challenging it.
Our proper focus? “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”
My take is that you’re trying to play by a set of rules – human rules, as scripture does not contain any “no props” command. As if to say “It must be done THIS way.” Which, in my opinion, really means “It must be done MY way.”
Let me be clear – I have no problem with “making our drawing card something else, then Christ.” But, of course, Paul said it first:
“But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”
As do I.
Exactly! The whole idea that we should NOT do whatever it takes so that all men hear is a totally foreign concept to me.
Daniel
“Let me be clear – I have no problem with “making our drawing card something else, then Christ.” But, of course, Paul said it first:
“But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”
As do I.”
Then let me be clear, Because you obviously think you are right and I am wrong, nevertheless I don”t eschew anyone choosing how they should worship, only the attitude that church has to conducted be by whatever fad is is fashion to be relevant, and the rest of us are automatically wrong because we don’t go along with it.
Big difference!