by Tim | Jun 28, 2010 | God, Our Culture, The Church World, The Gospel |
That’s kinda the imagery I think of when I consider seeker-driven churches. It’s this mindset that we have to do and spend all we can to convince/attract/appeal to the unchurched to come to church/God. It’s like our theology of free will propels us to do all we can to get people to choose to come to church or to come to God. It’s why in the past, when we didn’t have problems getting people into church, but had plenty difficulty getting them to make a decision for Christ, we Arminians worked hard to make altar calls as dramatic and compelling as possible. And why in the present (since that’s not effective anymore) we are now looking for the next thing that will be effective at getting people to walk in our church doors, because they’re just not coming anymore. I don’t think this mindset is always a bad thing, except that it seems like we Arminians have concluded that the Holy Spirit really isn’t that effective at drawing people to Christ, so we have to use lots of money, talent, professionalism, entertainment to make up the slack. I know what the rebuttal would be: perhaps the Holy Spirit is using these very things to draw people to God? I think in some churches He is, no doubt. But I question this assertion as a given, as I see that church has become simply a business model that has proven to be effective at growing one’s church organization. In other words, GE can grow a successful and profitable business without the Holy Spirit, and churches can do the same thing,...
by Tim | Jun 23, 2010 | God, Our Culture, The Church World |
So now that I laid the groundwork for my disagreements in the last post, I’ll get into the disagreements themselves. In summary, I believe the best way to fulfill the Great Commission isn’t by doing all you can to get the unchurched to show up at church, but rather to get the churched to go out to the unchurched. Andy Stanley says that if your church really is passionate about the Great Commission, everything at your church will be centered around making the unchurched feel at home, rather than making the churched feel at home. While I agree with him that church should not be about keeping churched people happy–and that this is what so many churches do–it is equally wrong to make everything about church for the unchurched. That would be like saying that we are trying to attract as many children into our home as possible who need adoption, but once they get here, we don’t care about them any longer, nor do we care if they feel at home or not. We’re just constantly looking for more children to adopt, so we’re going to make our family as appealing as we can to outside children who have yet to be adopted. This is the problem I see with churches like Andy Stanley’s at North Point or Bill Hybel’s at Willow Creek. In the end, you really can’t be like that. (And I’m guessing their churches in reality aren’t.) You’ve got to acknowledge that we’re not about attracting seekers to Christ, but making disciples of Christ. Part of this process is reaching the lost, obviously. Yet I...
by Tim | Jun 22, 2010 | God, The Church World |
At least, that’s my opinion. We are all entitled to our opinions, and I admit that mine could be wrong. But I don’t think it is… 🙂 Last post, I reflected on how many Methodists approve of Andy Stanley’s methods for church growth, yet reject his message. I, on the other hand, agree with Andy Stanley’s message, but disagree with his methods. Here’s the cool thing–it’s ok if we disagree about methods; we can still work together in ministry as part of God’s family and team. In fact, maybe it takes all kinds of methods to reach all kinds of people. This shouldn’t separate us as brothers and sisters. All of us have different opinions on what methods to use to reach lost people. For example, at my last church, we had disagreements on methods, and that will probably always be the case wherever I find myself, because we all have different opinions. Regardless of these differing opinions on methods, it’s ok as long as we remain united in message. In fact, that’s the mantra of the “contemporary churches” out there: We’re changing the methods, not the message. Even though it can be difficult to work in an environment where there are differing opinions on methods, it’s definitely possible–and even rewarding, from my experience. We learn from each other and begin thinking harder about why we do what we do. We are challenged to test whether our methods are Scriptural, practical, effective, and healthy. Sometimes conflicting methods can both be just as Scriptural, practical, effective, and healthy–it’s just a matter of deciding what methods we want to utilize in...
by Tim | Jun 15, 2010 | Hell, The Church World, The Gospel |
Ok, so that’s really a lie. That is, unless you’re a Methodist and you are convinced that you’re a Baptist if you believe that everyone has an eternal destination in heaven or hell, and that it’s the Church’s responsibility to reach the unchurched so that they don’t go to hell–well, then that makes Andy Stanley a Baptist. Because that’s emphatically what he believes and is the sole reason why his church is 100% devoted to reaching the unchurched instead of worrying about trying to keep those who are already unchurched. That’s what he shared in his sermon yesterday. I’m afraid that this is a devastating blow to all Methodists out there who are trying their hardest not to be Baptist, and as a result don’t want to affirm that people go to hell if they aren’t reached with the Gospel. Now Methodists everywhere must make a decision–do I still want to model myself after a preacher whose church is modeled the way it is because he believes people are going to hell? Now they must abandon Andy Stanley–where else can they turn to for a model of ministry? They had to abandon their founder, John Wesley, long ago because he clearly was Baptist as well, as he also believed that the world is going to hell, unless they come to faith in Christ by believing the Gospel. Dear Methodists, Salvation, the Gospel, eternity in heaven and hell–these are NOT Baptist ideas. They are central to the Christian faith. If you indeed choose to continue modeling your church after North Point, don’t just model after the method–which is least important....
by Tim | Jun 13, 2010 | God, The Church World, The Gospel, The Scriptures |
I had a conversation with Audra’s brother a few days ago, in which he said that he couldn’t understand what the point is for a church to exist if it’s not evangelical. I agreed with him. It quickly turns into merely a social institution (and a rather unimpressive one to the world at that). I suspect by the term “evangelical,” he meant a church that takes the Bible literally. At least, that’s my simple definition, although it’s a little more complex than that. By and large, however, evangelical churches tend to view the Bible more literally than mainline or liberal churches. That’s why they evangelize. Yet with words like “evangelical” or “literal,” pretty soon words like “conservative” or “liberal” start coming up, and it starts to sound political. And general lay-folk start to check out as the discussion starts to sound divisive or unimportant. That’s why I’m thinking that in order to avoid such language (which can be misleading or confusing), I propose that we start talking about how “seriously” a person or a church takes the Bible. After all, some parts of the Bible aren’t supposed to be taken literally–they are written in a genre of figurative language, etc. Yet, even parts of the Bible that aren’t supposed to be taken literally–even these passages must be taken very seriously. For example, when Jesus says that it would be better to gouge your right eye if it causes you to sin, so that you go to heaven with one eye instead of hell with two eyes….there are very few people, evangelical or not, who would take this passage literally...
by Tim | May 28, 2010 | God, The Church World |
A few posts ago, I linked to an article from christianpost.com about First Baptist Church’s (Dallas, TX) mega-building campaign. In contrast, read this other article from the same site, spotlighting the Church At Brook Hills here in Birmingham, AL. Linkaroo I especially like what David Platt had to say about measuring the effectiveness/success of a local church. Isn’t this a better approach for measuring success vs. how great of a building you can build or how many people attend worship? Sadly, too many churches tend to evaluate success based on how much money comes in, how many people attend, and how cool the building is. All of a church’s energy goes into increasing the Three B’s: Building, Bucks, and Butts. I’m afraid that so many church leaders today (I’m referring to pastors in particular) are lost on this one. Rather than try to convince them otherwise, maybe a better approach is to invest in upcoming leaders who are younger and aren’t so set in their ways. After all, when you try to reason with those who have this disposition and have already been in leadership for awhile, it quickly becomes apparent that the argument is going to go nowhere. Oftentimes, the response one will hear back goes something along these lines: “You’re too idealistic. That will never work. We can’t risk losing members or money toward our budget.” or “Easy for you to say–why don’t you try those sort of things as the pastor.” Funny, no one seems to be willing to step aside and let me try. 🙂 Seriously though, if someone isn’t willing to try themselves, why...
