How to Grow Your Church?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, June 01, 2005
- Viewed 234
- (54) comments so far
http://www.christianunplugged.com/church_movie.htm
You'll need flash to view this, and it takes a little while to load but is worth it.
I totally understand the idea behind this model. As a matter of fact, I grew up in this model. Here's my main problems.
1. This model assumes that the purpose of what the contemporary church is doing is only to get larger. It takes into account only that churches are culturally relevent to get bigger. That's just simply not true.
2. Rather than concentrate on Kingdom growth of their own, they tear down and criticize those who are experiencing growth; and at the same time, say that the spiritual growth that takes place in these 'innovative' churches isn't really spiritual growth at all.
3. Along the same lines, while this camp (and I'm generalizing here) attacks their brothers and sisters in Christ; most of them show no real model that is working well in their community. Some will disagree and think this point is unfair, but I've asked over and over for an good example and I don't think anyone (thus far) has responded.
Two great examples of churches that are culturally relevant and are growing like gangbusters (and would be great examples of what this cartoon would be against) would be Granger Community Church in Granger, IN and Fellowship Church in Grapevine, TX. These churches are making a tremendous impact in their community for Christ using contemporary music and while making a distinct effort to being culturally relevant while teaching and preaching the gospel. Hat's off.
(another interesting side-note... I don't hear the likes of Granger or Fellowship talking down to their stagnant brothers and sisters telling them to get their act together and start reaching their communities for Christ... I guess my biggest problem with all this is the 'knife in the back', 'shot in the foot' stuff that we do in the body of Christ. Let's rejoice (as the angels do) when one new soul enters the kingdom; whether it's through a relevent contemporary church; or a church that is very traditional. Either way... rejoice!
More on this to follow (I'm sure). I'm interested in your take today. What were your first impressions?
For those of you who have been regular readers of this blog, you know that there has been a running debate among all different types of approaches to how we ‘do church’. We are a broad group of readers here at the MMI blog; and that stems from this blog being an out-growth of the ChurchStaffing.com website. ChurchStaffing has clients and readers all across the spectrum of evangelical Christianity… including people with differing views on everything.
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Ricky on Thu, June 02, 2005
Dean wrote:
“Last time I checked, Jesus had not delegated His kingly role of adding subjects to His Kingdom.”
Oh, but you would think He had!
I spent 2 1/2 grueling days last week attending a “church growth” conference where the majority of speakers spent more time talking about buildings and music than how the first century church was able to see such obvious and sustained growth through just being relational and organic.
No, what you hear from “experts” today is how you need to use mass mailings, cool clothes, great music and PowerPoint to reach people. Then you have to stomach listening to “leadership” principles from people who got them from a John Maxwell book (yuck!).
But not once did I hear a call for people to stop trying to grow something that only One can grow. Not once did I hear a speaker say, “You know what, guys? I’m not going to try and grow something that is artificial any longer. I’m going to just be faithful in ministering and let Jesus build His Church.” How refreshing that would be!
But not in America, where anything less than having a few thousand or a staff member arrested for child molestation will sentence you to obscurity and neglect.
I’ve always wondered, and still do, is where would Jesus attend services in America? Would He be all smiles to sit passively by while being entertained by the professionals? Would He nod in affirmation as the preacher spoke about what God can do for them? And what about the altar call? Would Jesus shed a tear of joy after hearing the recitation of a prayer for salvation?
In reading the Scriptures, I can only guess that He would not be found within the walls of an institution, except maybe with a whip in His hands. But rather, I believe that Jesus would be outside, mingling with the drug addicts, homeless and the forgotten grieving over how those who call themselves “church” could be so detached from biblical Christianity.
Ricky on Thu, June 02, 2005
TWEED WRITES:
“how many people have you personally led to Christ this year?”
If by “personally” you mean having someone mindlessly recite a prayer that you lead them in, then my answer would be ZERO (a fact that I’m happy to say).
But if by “personally” you mean by living the life in as truthful and biblical way as possible, through the Holy Spirit and without the trappings of so-called “church” and “christianity,” then my answer would be “I don’t know.” That’s because the moment I begin to fixate on numbers then I cease being led by the Spirit, worrying more about how to get more notches on my belt than in living in a way that best exemplifies the life and death of my Master, Jesus Christ.
Ricky on Thu, June 02, 2005
SPCT wrote:
“Jesus said, “You will be my witnesses.” Not, “You will be my evangelists.” Think about it. There is a subtle difference but it is a difference nonetheless. It implies that in our witness to His very existence we would manifest the love of Christ so completely that people couldn’t help but ask about God. Not that we would go forth and cram a feel-good religion down people’s throats.”
Precisely! We have become so fixated on the so-called “Great Commission,” which was given only to the apostles and not to us in toto, that we have become bogged down trying to do something that was/is not ours to do.
Instead, we are called to be “witnesses” (not to be confused with “witnessing,” another programmatic way of evangelism), which is accomplished only through the power of the Holy Spirit. After His resurrection, Jesus told His disciples that they would receive power to be witnesses. What does this mean?
I think it means to live with our fellow brothers/sisters in such a way (afterall it takes the Spirit to get along with diverse types of believers) that the love that is shared among His children would be the lure for the world to draw closer and to inquire. This simplicity of life, i.e., caring for one another’s needs; praying and sharing meals together, all for the purpose of seeing that each other is honored, is what led to people being added daily to the Church.
However, in our corporate-America mindset, we think we have to complicate this lifestyle in order to attract people. This dichotomy is what has led to impotence in the institutional church; the marriage of business with the Body.
SPCT also wrote:
“Think about it. Making the gospel “culturally relevant” and palatable in order to suck em in and then supposedly to save them reeks of the work of men and of deception. Is this what Jesus did or would do?”
Brilliant observation.
We think “cultural” means adding the same bells and whistles (i.e., high-tech services and jamming music, while dressed in an Hawaiian shirt and jeans) in hopes to attract people through gimmicks.
But what is more relevant or cultural than love and living in such a way that is distinctly different than that of the world?
Wonderful post, SPCT! God bless!
Todd Rhoades on Thu, June 02, 2005
Nice to have you back, Ricky! http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
LD on Thu, June 02, 2005
I would agree with Todd that it is nice to have you back Ricky. Now if only Bernie would come back! As Randy Alcorn states in his latest book “Heaven” only two things endure forever, the Word of God and people. I am looking forward to meeting the people I have met via cyberspace someday in heavenly space! God bless you all!
pdl on Fri, June 03, 2005
Hi Rob (and all)
I mentioned the use of technology and remaining true to the methods and message of Christ. Go here to see an example…feel free to send this link along to family or friends who are connected to broadband cyberspace—it is an intense 8 min. presentation…(if you want a dvd copy…e-mail me and I’ll send it to you)
http://www.dvdsolutions.biz/evangelism/movie.htm
pdl
Ricky on Fri, June 03, 2005
pdl states:
“I am grieved at the philosophical move from the house of God being dedicated to discipleship to seeker attraction. You will not find that model in Acts or anywhere else in the Bible.”
Boy, this comment places me in somewhat of a quandry.
It does so because I believe that pdl’s heart is right in being concerned that seeker-sensitive services are, at best, non-scriptural.
My angst comes from the term “house of God” as if God inhabits a building (read Stephen’s words concerning the temple, which led to his stoning). No, if there is a “house of God” it is a spiritual house that comes together whenever God’s people meet under the Lordship of Christ.
Therefore, you will not find any mention of “the house of God” in Acts, as in some type of model, because upon the receiving of the Holy Spirit, the believers knew and grew into the knowledge that God never intended to inhabit a building, but the very hearts of men.
The use of such terms as “house of God” when referring to “church” is from an ancient Jewish mindset that placed a perverted emphasis on the temple and later the synagogues. It honors the building more than the people for whom Christ died.
Because of the fact that organizations and their buildings are wrongly called “churches,” the use of the building is a non-issue. In other words, if people gather to watch a secular movie in a “church building,” I’m convinced that God is not offended at all.
Ricky on Fri, June 03, 2005
Rob writes:
“Let’s stop trying to make the world understand us, and lets start trying to understand them—- that’s what I think it boils down to.”
I believe you’ve missed the entire purpose of the gospel.
I hope that you would agree that upon the birth of the Church (approx. AD30), that both it and the message that they lived and preached, i.e., the gospel, were in themselves, anti-society. This is what led to both an initial infatuation with the Church (i.e., people being added daily) as well as eventual persecution and dispersement.
The gospel and the Church was always meant to be anti-societal in order to show the distinct and real differences between the Kingdom of God and that of the world. I would hope that you would agree with that.
However, the crushing blow to the Church and to the gospel came when it was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire, via Constantine (approx. AD325). This move forever changed the uniqueness of the Church and the gospel because now unbelievers rushed into the sparkling new buildings where they were preached at by the officially-ordained class of professionals called “clergy.”
This burgeoning “growth,” if you wish to call it that, did not to lead to the organic growth that the first century church experienced under constant pressure to become like society, but rather it lead to unbelievers being given great influence within the this new institution, wrongly called “church.” Therefore, the “church” became more like the society.
It has continued to today.
While I agree that new generations will speak different languages, as molded by their society, I don’t agree that becoming contemporary is the right answer. I say this because the moment we build edifices and organizations that model those of the world, there ceases to be a distinction between the two, thereby diluting any attempt to minister the gospel.
In fact, just as in ancient times, unbelievers (although not as many as some think) rush into the buildings of today to be entertained and stroked and where they have more influence with the professional clergy than one may think. And, in order to keep them, the clergy must avoid saying or preaching in such a way that would offend them. Hence, you have the seeker-sensitive, Warren-Osteen mutations.
The cultural answer is to stay pure as to the gospel and not allow it to become another store-front building that simply blends into the background, but rather stays anti-societal.
After all, society is going to hell. Do we want to go with them?
Ricky on Fri, June 03, 2005
“The followers of Jesus are to be different, different from both the nominal church and the secular world, different from both the religious and the irreligious. The Sermon on the Mount is the most complete delineation anywhere in the New Testament of the Christian value-system, ethical standard, religious devotion, attitude to money, ambition, life-style and network of relationships, all of which are totally at variance with those of the non-Christian world. And this Christian Counterculture is the life of the kingdom of God, a fully human life indeed but lived out under the divine rule.”—John Stott
Ricky on Fri, June 03, 2005
“In contemporary society our Adversary majors in three things: noise, hurry, and crowds.”—Richard J. Foster
pdl on Fri, June 03, 2005
Ricky
I am intensely aware that the Church is not a building, but a Body…I of course was referring to the coporate meeting of Christians ie the “assembling together” part of discipleship…the biblical paradigm was simple for that setting (Acts 2:42-47). My comments above reflect a concern that there has been a philosophical move away from this pattern to a new model that robs the “assembling together” something other than what God intended…thanks for your comments!
pdl
Pete King on Fri, June 03, 2005
Once again we have a watermelon spitting contest going on here. When I first started reading these comments I remember hearing heartfelt expressions from leaders from all walks of life sharing there experiences and hurts. Now what we have here, is a collection of egotistical, exegetical, hermaneutical, philosophical, nonsensical, verbage that has made me deeply concerned about why we’re even commenting. I include myself in this when I pose this question: “Do we love to only see our words posted with our names on them? Or perhaps we are so passionate about what we say that we genuinely have no clue that our perception is one of know-it-all attitude. Stop the madness!!!!!!! Let’s get back to making this a place for people to share how they feel about their situations. Right now there is probably a person who would love to have someone He/She doesn’t know be used by God to encourage them from their struggles and church difficulties. I realize that we have a Conflict segment posted here on Thursdays but what’s taken place with the rest of Todd’s postings for the week is awful. I think there are some very brilliant minds here who reflect more of the mad scientist rather than the wise old man image. I really want us to get back to helping leaders help themselves not more church bashing.
Ricky on Fri, June 03, 2005
pdl wrote:
“My comments above reflect a concern that there has been a philosophical move away from this pattern to a new model that robs the “assembling together” something other than what God intended…thanks for your comments!”
Thanks for clarifying. I, too, share a great concern over how the Body of Christ has been hijacked by a group of “leaders” who have long left the biblical understanding of what the Church is to be.
Thanks and blessings.
Ricky on Fri, June 03, 2005
Pete wrote:
“I really want us to get back to helping leaders help themselves not more church bashing.”
When I was growing up, I used to get spankings fairly often. And I recall hearing my father tell me, “This hurts me more than it hurts you!” to which I never believed him…until I became a father myself.
What “leaders” need today is a good spanking, especially regarding their understanding of what the Church is. However, instead of taking words that may seem harsh in the context of love, they cry “How can you hit me?”
Many of those who post here and who may not agree with you do so because of their intense love for the Body of Christ and its members. Instead of stroking egos and placating the continuing decline of the Church, many here want to “stop the madness” before worse befalls the Church.
We all need correction. The key is to take it in humility and stop being so personally sensitive but rather discerning as to the truth of what is being said.
Blessings to you.
Todd Rhoades on Fri, June 03, 2005
Pete,
Well said. I like the comment about being the mad scientist rather than the wise old man.
Some, feel so passionate about this subject that I know they can’t help but post. I’m getting rather tired of it. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Like it or not, our churches today are not going to look exactly like the Acts 2 church.
Like it or not, there are church buildings that people attend to get their spiritual nutrition (rather than meeting in a house-church setting).
Like it or not, many churches are being very effective (yes, that’s qualitative on my part) by being culturally relevant.
Like it or not, some churches use Sunday mornings and weekend services as an attempt to fill the great commission. (Those same churches (most all) also have other gatherings for believers throughout the week designated for growth. Some even meet in houses!
Like it or not, there are literally thousands of pastors and church leaders struggling to do their best and to please God; only to be ripped to shreds by their own congregation; then eaten up by well-meaning people here on this blog.
Like it or not, if churches, small, medium, or supersized, preach the gospel of Christ dying for our sins, and that there is only one way to heaven; there will be converts, and those converts will join all of us in heaven.
Like it or not, megachurches, while they can have a multiplied effect only because of their size, do not save entire communities, bring down crime rates, or stop all sinful practices in their area of influence any more than small churches do in their smaller communities of influence.
So here we are, playing with the hand we are dealt, trying to make an influence for Christ however we can. We all go about it in different ways. (One of my ways, by the way is to encourage pastors through this blog; which is not doing a very good job at the present). Let’s lighten up on everybody…
If we think that Sundays are only for the edification and building of the saints, and that evangelization should only happen one on one through the week as we individually share Christ; can we accept those who pour all their time, money and emphasis into weekend ‘outreach services’? While doing so, do what you do best in your structure to make it effective rather than tearing down your brother who takes a different route?
If we think that church’s shouldn’t be run like a business (whatever that means)… can we NOT run our own church’s like a business and withold our derogatory comments about the church we think IS business oriented? Again, making our church the most successful non-business operating church around?
If we don’t care for the culturally relevant style and “gimmicks” some use to attract the unsaved; can’t we be quiet about it and instead strive to make our church the most (whatever the opposite) is?
My mom always said if you can’t say anything nice about someone, then keep your mouth shut. That seems like good advice. Otherwise, many of use come across as true Pharasees; overly religous, negative, and feeling that we’re always right.
For those here that have posted differing views, I’m sure your comments will be that I am avoiding debate; or that I’m a sissy; or that I’m conceding defeat. Nope… I’m just hoping that we can become a community that supports rather than a community that argues.
Quite honestly, I sometimes feel like some of you are using this blog as an outlet; to say and act and do things that you could never do to your own congregation. I hope that’s not the case.
Maybe a separate blog for theological debates would be in order; then we could divide the two. (I for one, love a great debate; but hate a mean fight). I’d like to open it up to you… what direction would you like to see this blog take? What topics would you like discussed? Would you like a separate blog for debate; and one for encouragement? Let me know your thoughts this weekend!
Todd
Page 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >
Post a Comment