I hate to start of negative but I think the author builds a straw-man and then tears it down.  I get the principle but I think the point is pointless.  Might be just me so I’ll own that.  To critique the pastor of the contemporary church with statements he more than likely doesn’t make and then to tear him down for those same statements is kind of weak.  I guess this bothers me a lot as you can see because the bottom line is that by and large the traditional church reaches very few people for Christ.

Many quaint churches have no vision to reach the lost, no strategy to engage the culture, no one is coming to Christ in those churches.  The average evangelical church reaches about 3 people for Christ per 100 in attendance each year.  Consider that the average Evangelical church is 120 people and you do the math.  I am sorry but that is pathetic and when my passion flares I even call it sinful.  I grew up in a church that every Sunday the pastor knew by name every person in the service and every Sunday he gave an alter call and every Sunday no-one came.  I cannot remember anyone who came - ever.  I remember walking down the isle once just so he wouldn’t feel bad. 

Too often the quaint traditional church is a quaint traditional church for a variety of reasons.  Sometimes it is because theologically they believe that is “how church should be done.” Other times it is about resources. The honest truth is that it just costs money.  Churches under 300 are almost always in decline and churches over 300 usually grow.  Why?  Not enough resources (people and money) to sustain growth.  Another reason quaint churches stay quaint is they have some ruling families that “like it that way.” I have been to this church and the statement is, “As long as I am alive, we will never have guitars on this stage.” Get a few of those families together and you have a powerless pastor and a stagnant church. 

It might be time to quit pontificating and go reach some people for Christ. I think I will.  Sorry if I come across cranky but this one hit a button.

Wow, where do I start..I have been hearing a lot of talk about the church being relevant and that the style of service determines if it is relvant or not...I disagree...it really doens’t matter to me if the service is conservative (organ music, 3-point message, etc) or cutting edge (full band, dramas, videos, etc), if we depend upon a service to reach people then we have missed it...the service, whatever it looks liike sould be empowering (training,teaching,etc...) the church (the poeple) to live their faith outside the walls of the church building, truly living it with their within their own home, with their neighbors and friends, their co-workers, etc...this should have the greatest impact for growth...and should bring people into your church building....don’t totally depend upon a service or an event, but do depend upon the empowering work of the Holy Spirit within us to go out and make disciples (relationships) with all in our cirlce of influence and beyound....it’s not the “service”, it’s “our service” to Christ that matters most.

Well, is a church like this unusual?  No.  But the things listed are all important to folks in the community who might consider visiting… Do some churches have boring pastors?  Yes.  Do some churches have boring music, Yes.  Do some churches go out of their way to avoid offending anyone?  Yes. 

Hopefully we are not inviting folks to church because the church they attend is boring. We are inviting them because they don’t attend church.  When you invite unchurched people to church, I don’t think there is anything wrong with describing the distinctives that make church an enjoyable experience. 

A conservative, suit wearing, hymn singing church is going to have their own set of distinctives that they are going to use to invite folks.  In my neighborhood, one of these traditional churches purchased a bunch of billboards saying in effect “Your church sucks, come to ours.”

Churches shouldn’t be competing with one another.  We should be cooperatively seeking the lost.  Some churches reach certain demographics more effectively than others.  So long as the church leads folks to a saving relationship with Christ, we should celebrate success of every church.

Here’s my take-away from Rick’s article - churches ought to be careful how they describe themselves to a watching world.  There’s not much worse than walking into a church whose website (or Yellow Pages ad) says, “we’re the friendly church” and then being completely ignored...especially when the pastor asks everyone to stand and introduce yourself to someone!  Maybe it would be helpful for a church to ask its visitors how they would describe it.

The key is not so much in whether you have a band or a pipe organ, play contemporary music or hymns, wear ties and dresses or shorts and flip-flops.  The key is if you are playing an integral role in building the kingdom and transforming lives for Jesus’ sake.

Excellent article.......and definitely (IMO) right......I am so tired of hearing about churches that are “relevant” and “contemporary” but when I visit they are just another “traditional” order of worship (you know 3 songs, prayer, special music, a funny skit, sermon, committment time, offering and announcements) with a band and a few “contemporary songs”.....Then I discover the service is either a) more interested in “how much WE look like we are worshipping” than in being servants and leading the congregation to worship or b) so interested in being the hippest band with the latest and greatest new songs sung exactly like the performer on the latest CD rather than finding songs with great texts that lead a congregation to worship......

When are we in the American church going to understand that we are (like the early church prior to the 4th century) defnitely called to be “counter cultural”.......we live in the world, but the world is not interested in us, UNLESS we can demonstrate to them that Jesus is real in our lives, and life in Christ makes us NEW CREATURES .  When people in our communities see that, they will listen to us.....when they hear us talk about Jesus (the Christus Victor), and see it in our lives, then they will pay attention to us.......whether our church service is traditional, contemporary, culturally relevant, classic, blended, alternative, old time religion, gospel, emergent or any other term we want to us.

Everyone...thanks for the comments, regardless of your take.

Leonard...you said:

[I hate to start of negative but I think the author builds a straw-man and then tears it down.  I get the principle but I think the point is pointless.  Might be just me so I’ll own that.  To critique the pastor of the contemporary church with statements he more than likely doesn’t make and then to tear him down for those same statements is kind of weak.]

Straw man?  Hardly.  Shoot me your email and I’ll be happy to provide you with examples.

You can send it to

Rick, I appreciated your article and it makes me think, which is always good (some would think it’s dangerous when I think, but that’s another story).

You said:

3.) “Our church doesn’t back down from tackling tough subjects” -

When I see this, I think that they are reacting to critics who say that innovative churches work at watering down the gospel or refusing to deal with issues of sin in order to attract new people.

You are right that not enough churches are willing to deal with the tough stuff of doctrine.  But one question I have about teaching doctrine (and I do believe it should be taught) is this - are you teaching it in a way that (1) makes sense to the average person in the pew who has never been to Bible college and seminary, and (2) actually helps that person become a better disciple for Jesus because they are able to incorporate that doctrine in their Monday through Saturday living?

To me, this is a huge challenge.  For instance, talk about sanctification all you want - that’s a huge topic in my denomination (Wesleyan).  But if all you can do is pontificate about the doctrine without giving some help about how to live a sanctified life, then it’s all hot air.

Take the Trinity: important to believe?  Absolutely?  But show me how that should affect how I live for Christ THIS WEEK.

I don’t think I’m disagreeing with your opinion - just not sure that the objection is being addressed in the right direction (did that even make sense?).

Again, thanks for making me think!

Brian

After re-reading my comment I can say I was a bit cranky but I still wonder the point.  Not because I do not understand the words being said I get the meaning and all.  Rick, help me if you will understand the “Why” of what you wrote. 

Especially in light of having over 300,000 churches in America.  The average size of a church in this country is about 75 overall and 100+ for protestant evangelical churches.  The average church reaches 1 new person for Christ per 85 people who attend and that means there is less than one person coming to Christ per church per year. 

I was in youth ministry for 18 years and have been a Senior Pastor for 10.  My experience as a senior pastor is that of planting 2 churches.  10 years of my youth ministry experience was as a missionary to teens in my city.  In my city I have been to over 100 churches and seen the variety of services.  I also speak across the country and in some other countries of the world too.  My experience is that there are huge differences in churches.  Not all pastors are close in skill or presentation and most churches do not have bands. 

It is not the job of advertising to quantify the words like Dynamic.  Most pastors are easy to listen to?  I did not find that to be true with the students I brought to churches or in my travels.  Dynamic communication happens when a pastor knows the text, the audience, is connected to the Father in heaven and empowered by the Holy Spirit. The top comments from the kids I was reaching for Christ was, I did not believe him or I did not see the point.  You state, if you have to say relevant or dynamic in your bio the chance are that isn’t true.  Stating is has no bearing on its truth.  What if the article said, here is how you make your teaching dynamic and relevant?  And gave some help.  That is why I called it pointless and a straw man. 

Most churches I have attended do not have a band.  They might have a guy who plays guitar and a guy on the piano, but not a band that plays high quality music that is energetic.  Maybe it is semantics but I pastor a church that has a band and I have also pastored a church that had a couple willing people on a guitar or keys.  Vast difference. 

As for tackling tough subjects.  I agree a headline does not mean you tackled anything.  It however means that we might be tacking tough subjects in the eyes of the people who listen or attend.  When I spoke about conflict resolution in the home, people wept because it is a tough subject.  When I spoke about forgiveness it was a tough subject because it is something most people have difficulty with.  Sovereignty is a subject that transcends the whole teaching not just a subject.  It is a question very few ask but need to hear.  Let’s put it in the context of where people live. 

My guess is we probably agree more than these posts would indicate and we are definitely passionate about the church.  For your passion I say thank you and I applaud you.  Please forgive me if my take on your article was harsh or unfair.

Rick, you said:

“I think we’re being lazy when we will not take the time to think through the implication of our theology and bring it to the real world.  Frankly, I’m stumped as to how people can’t see the application of key doctrines.”

I agree, but have a question: who are the “people” who can’t see the applications - the people in the pews or the people in the pulpit?  If you’re talking about preachers, I would tend to agree, unless they have never been taught HOW to see these things.  Unfortunately, they are not always obvious to preachers.  If you are talking about those listening, then I disagree (for the most part) since in any given congregation you will have spiritual babies who can’t handle anything more than milk.  I share your “stumped-ness” if you are discussing those who have been believers for years but seem to have the familiarity with the scriptures that infants have - and the resulting (im)maturity.

Brian

Leonard...WAY too much to respond to.  I’ll leave it at this.  You’re probably right when you say we probably agree on more than we disagree.  I just think “marketing” is a blind spot for the church.  I’m younger than you...so while I defer to your wisdom on many matters, I probably have a little more of a sense as to where culture is going in emerging generations.  I’m not always right...but I tend to be right more often than not.  I’ll give you the answer to your “why” question in that email I’m sending you.  Thanks again for the comments.