ChurchRater.com: How's Your Church Doing? » MondayMorningInsight.com

ChurchRater.com: How’s Your Church Doing?

Posted on February 09, 2010
Viewed 2246 times
(48) comments

For example... here are some examples of what was written about one church.

Free juice. Free coffee. Sometimes free pastries. Free internet. You know, to check your email while worshipping the Lord.

It's like everyone is encouraged to consume caffeine during the so-called service, confusing the "presence of the Lord" with drugs.

Leather sofas, fireplaces, a coffee-shop area with high-top glass tables. Flatscreen monitors to see what's happening inside, in case you just can't pull yourself off the sofa to make it into the so-called church.

The "sanctuary" is really as state-of-the art soundstage, with jumbotron screens, movie theater seats, and cup-holders for your coffee.

By being so plugged into secular culture, the place is -- by definition -- unholy. By using the worst of consumerism to allegedly make a point about God, churches like Crossroads Community church do nothing but propagate blind acceptance of the status quo.

This church earned one star.

But, you can also respond to the ratings, as did one person to the rating above:

It doesn't take much of a read to discover that "XXXXXX" is a disturbed individual at many levels. There is a huge lack of self-awareness with this person. A read through his bio makes it clear that his self-image is shared by him and, I suspect, no one else. If he is a "writer" - then where has he been published outside of the internet - a place where anyone with a desire to type some words and hit send can be "published." Someone in their early 20s is not equipped to make the scathing, sweeping theological indictments he readily dishes out to churches he visits one time only in the XXXXX area. "XXXXXX" if you read this, get some therapy. If you can't afford it, check out county services for decent free options. You will discover that therapy plus meds can work wonders for those suffering with grandiosity.

So... what do YOU think about this church rating website?

BTW, you can visit it here...

Todd

Comments

if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, your picture will displayed on any website that supports gravitars.

Helen on Wed, February 10, 2010

David and Peter, have you actually read the ratings on the site? When people talk about whether the sermon is Biblical, etc, do you really think that’s consumerism and man’s desires?

Yes there’s a mix of content on there but it’s simply not true that every rating is “all about me” rather than “all about God”.
Peter Hamm on Wed, February 10, 2010

Helen, actually we will target visitors as much as possible to get this info, but need to hear from our regular attenders as well.

Also, whether the sermon is biblical? Sorry, but in my experience, that’s often a smokescreen and a cop-out. Like the guy that argues that unless the preaching is expository it’s not biblical, when in reality, much of the preaching (think of Jesus here) in the New Testament is not expository at all. With all due respect, too many are judging whether the preaching is biblical with no real idea of what that actually means.

I hear your side of this, but predict the site and the service will become the opposite of what you actually want it to be.
Helen on Wed, February 10, 2010

Peter, I’m glad you are interested in visitor input also.

I see your point about a comment saying “the sermon is Biblical” but couldn’t you similarly discount all the feedback you get from people in your own church evaluation with “they don’t know what they are talking about” or “that’s just a cop-out/excuse”?

Implicitly you are pointing out (I think) that ratings are subjective and questioning whether something that subjective has value. However the feedback you’ll get in your evaluation will be equally subjective. I’m curious why you think the input on ChurchRater is worth less than the feedback you’re going to collect at your church. If you’re targeting visitors then it can’t be because you know the people giving you feedback better than churches are likely to know the people rating them on our site.
CS on Wed, February 10, 2010

Peter:

“Also, whether the sermon is biblical? Sorry, but in my experience, that�s often a smokescreen and a cop-out.”

I disagree with this point. In my experience, I’ve found that there are so many sermons that avoid any semblance of the Gospel that they could have been preached by a motivational speaker or life coach like Tony Robbins (e.g. Joel Osteen).

I believe it’s a legit complaint to say that a sermon is not sticking to the Bible or trying to jam something in that isn’t there in Scripture, and I’d rather get a warning from someone on a site such as this than go, attend, and find out the hard way that the church isn’t really a church at all.

—
CS
Peter Hamm on Wed, February 10, 2010

Helen,

It’s useless because of it’s prospective “me”-focus and its wacky random-ness. What I’m doing is evaluating whether or not we’re accomplishing what we set out to do. What you’re doing is launching a public forum for a lot of disgruntled people to b**** about their church. Sorry, but I’m convinced as the feedback piles up that that’s all it will be.

CS,

In my experience, people say something isn’t “biblical” if they don’t like it and often for no better reason. I’m not disputing that there are churches out there that downplay or ignore scripture, though. Unfortunately, our decisions about churches are often made for some bad reasons. And our decisions about what is “biblical” are often, again in my experience, the same.
Tyler Mahoney on Wed, February 10, 2010

Hi Peter, that you for your feedback. This is valuable stuff.

You said “What you�re doing is launching a public forum for a lot of disgruntled people to b**** about their church. Sorry, but I�m convinced as the feedback piles up that that�s all it will be.” Your right if the site is left to it’s own proclivities there is a possibility that it could slip into this. But saying your convinced it “will” go this way is a logical fallacy. Have “faith” in us Peter, we work really hard so that doesn’t happen.

Read this link, the churchrater team is trying to dialogue in as many conversations as possible so it doesn’t turn into whining or churchvertizing. This was just yesterday.
http://churchrater.com/churches/first-congregational-church-0
Helen on Wed, February 10, 2010

Peter, all I can say is, if what’s on the site now doesn’t convince you that many raters don’t have a me-focus and they aren’t all disgruntled ex-members complaining, the future ratings won’t either.

Imo many of the ratings I’ve read on ChurchRater don’t fit either of those descriptions and I see no reason why that would change in future as people continue to add ratings.

I hope your internal/visitor targeted evaluation is helpful to your church. I was interested to see (on your site) that you like the Bach violin concertos. I do too and the Bach double violin concerto is one of my favorite pieces of music.
Peter Hamm on Wed, February 10, 2010

Tyler and Helen,

Thanks for engaging, I do appreciate it, despite my “negative tone”.

As long as I’ve been and worked around church people, to have “faith” in the integrity and honesty (to others and self) of the kind of person who is going to post negative comments about their church on our site… is simply foolishness… and I think I can even cite quite a few biblical passages to that effect.

And I also do not have faith in the average churchgoers ideas of what the church is even designed by God to accomplish.

What’s on your site now is a very tiny sampling of what I imagine you hope will be there.

And lastly, when people are confronted in the New Testament by others (think Peter and Paul), it is a confrontation between two people who have a relationship. This kind of feedback site encourages relatively anonymous “non-relational” feedback which might not be biblical, but certainly isn’t very helpful in directing a church to do God’s work. You’re basically encouraging what should be a “leadership” discussion in a more public forum.

I continue to think it’s a bad idea.
David Buckham on Wed, February 10, 2010

Jim, glad to have you on the forum. As a former Cincinnatian, welcome!

For what it’s worth, I am 31 and was ordained to the ministry 10 years ago this June. I am young, I will make mistakes. I am young, my ideas and understandings of the scriptures will evolve as I grow and study. I have not met a minister from any denomination that says “we don’t preach the Bible here.” Every church says, in some way, they stand on God’s Word. So biblical preaching is a cop-out. So what I say is biblical preaching others may disagree with.

Jim, I know that when you were at the Vineyard you would say you preached God’s Word, yet you had many retractors. I went to what was Cincinnati Bible College and I heard many students in the music and preaching departments applaud you and many students in the theology department dismiss you.

As for taking the “Jesus approach” I don’t think Jesus ever used an “outsiders” opinion to craft how we are to worship. He was only concerned about the things God was concerned about, regardless of what man thought. And he would never “play favorites”, that is to say Jesus died for all…unless of course you take a Calvinistic approach and say he died for the elect. That is another discussion for another forum but it goes back to the “I preach Biblical” argument.

Will I ever see a church like what Jesus wanted? A church that is truly all about Christ? I hope so but I don’t know. That should not give reason to look at the desires of man. That’s like saying just because I can’t do this I will do this.

God does have certain expectations in the way He is to be worshipped. It has nothing to do with our stuff (ie sound system, coffee, Bible translation, church programs), it instead has to do with our heart, soul, mind and strength.

As a minister, I do everything I know how to transition to that. Because I don’t know it all, have not the wisdom to do it, have not the strength to get it done, I fall short of His expectations, and I know I fall short of man’s expectations, but ultimately man’s expectations are not my goal. As I said before, I believe that by going after God’s heart and God’s desires, the saint will be edified and the lost will be found. It just takes time to get there.

Helen,

I have taken the time to read through some of the reviews and skim through some others. I did that before I posted. The site comes off as a place for man’s opinions and wants in worshipping God.

I’m not attacking the website, nor do I think I have been accused of that. There is some great things can come from it. But overall, I don’t see the site as a Godly tool for ministry, I see it as a tool for man. I have been a fan of Off-the-Map in years past. I have loved and taught others about Ordinary Attempts at evangelism and have a lot of respect for Jim and some of his experiments.

I would proceed with caution in regards to this site because the internet never forgets and is not capable of forgiveness. People and churches can and do change, maybe someone goes to a church on a “bad” week or a “great” week…that could affect the outcome of what is posted and what is read and what is believed about a particular church. Imo, the site does nothing to promote how to “better” a church either.

all about Christ,
David
Jim Henderson on Wed, February 10, 2010

David

Thanks for taking time to read some ratings before you responded and also for your thoughtful insights.
Helen on Wed, February 10, 2010

Thanks for your response to me David.

I think it’s interesting that you like some of Jim’s ideas - like OAs - but not ChurchRater, since I see all Jim’s ideas as having the same underlying ‘otherlyness’ theme one way or another.

OAs are all about listening to others, giving attention to them and doing small doable kindnesses for them. This is ‘otherly’.

Similarly, I see leaders listening to the feedback of non-leaders/outsiders as ‘otherly’. ChurchRater gives leaders the opportunity to do that. If they dismiss it as worthless then they are in danger of implying that feedback is worthless to them. If they’re preachers/teachers they’re are in danger of implying “I think my words are valuable to you but yours have no value to me”. These implications are the opposite of ‘otherly’.

Maybe you don’t know what it’s like to be disenfranchised. The ChurchRater will do their best to keep personal attacks against pastors off their site. At the same time, when I see those I wonder what the backstory is - is this person posting their hurt here because no-one in their church reached out to them? I wish someone in their church, leader or otherwise, would have helped them so they weren’t left to post their hurt on ChurchRater.

Yes, not all feedback is balanced or reasonable or rational. Yet you seem to be saying nothing on CR is worthwhile, which I find very hard to believe. Even though it’s all subjective.

Also, a need is not the same as a sin. Peoples’ needs can be legitimate. Even Jesus had human needs, according to the gospels. “It’s all about God” sounds good, perhaps, but that’s not where most people live. Many people have struggles in their lives and when they come to church they are hoping to encounter some human ‘otherlyness’ as well as God. Is that so wrong?
David Buckham on Wed, February 10, 2010

Just to clarify. I don’t care half as much about a Pastor getting attack as I do about someone attack, belittling or discrediting the Bride of Christ. Someone can talk about me all you want. It hurts but I live. I ain’t that good of a preacher. That’s okay, I can grow and learn. But mess with the Bride and I get ticked. It’s just the way I’m wired.

As I understood it, OA was not just about listening to others, but it was about listening in the name of Christ. It’s not an ordinary attempt at conversation, we have those. OA is an ordinary attempt at evangelism.

Let me give you an example of where it starts to part ways for me. I enjoyed the I Sold My Soul on eBay book. I was even interviewed by Suzanne Saddleine from WSJ in regards to the story when it broke (I guess Jim or Hemant passed my info on as I had emailed them both during or right after the process). My ultimate walk away from that experiment was “great, I know what a friendly atheist likes and doesn’t like about churches, but what does God like and not like, that part was left out.”

Input from the outside is important, but it’s not the ultimate answers we are looking for. That part seems to have been left behind.

I have always signed off with “all about Christ,” because that is my goal in the ministry. I use that sign off as a way to remind me before I hit send. I won’t hide behind anonymity either, if I say it, I own it, but that is for another post. All about Christ, God, the Spirit, those can’t just be relegated to pie in the sky utopian church ideas…they have to be the target we as ministers and the church aim at.

all about Christ,
David Buckham
Helen on Wed, February 10, 2010

David,

You said you care about the Bride of Christ. Yet the Bride of Christ is human beings, some of whom are posting on ChurchRater and you said their input there is useless.

Help me understand how you can care about the Bride of Christ and at the same time write off its input as useless.

Did you mean something other than I did by the Bride of Christ? My definition is the one in the Bible isn’t it?
Leonard on Wed, February 10, 2010

Do you guys at churchrater have a filtering system you use? Do you let people just go off on churches or do you have some kind of screening of peoples ratings?
Tyler Mahoney on Wed, February 10, 2010

We have a team of atheists and Christians who actively review posts daily in order to stay on top of mission and policy. So yes, the site is monitored; that doesn’t mean that we are just going to bend to any church that wants to rid of a bad rating. We also aren’t going to let people who have an axe to grind get away with it all the time. Go to the site and read some of the recent dialogues.