Thanks Rob, for your comments.

My concern with the paradigm shift away from the Bible model has not to do with the use of technology...etc. (In fact I am just completing a multi-media dvd to hand out on our summer door-to-door evangelistic campaign in our city--but in the presentation sinners are being confronted with their sin, need to repent and to embrace Christ as Savior and LORD!) 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.  True, there were some saved in the meetings, but that is a far cry from the mega-marketing philosophy that has completely changed how the church responds to God and to the world...did you read/hear the sermon “Ten Shekels and a Shirt”?  I think Bro. P.R. states the principle of pragmatism well in its destructive influence upon the Church these days...Blessings to you!

Todd asserts:

“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.”

Honestly, Todd, how do you know this to be true?  “Contemporary music” the agent of change?  This is almost laughable.

Has the crime and divorce rates gone down in the respective communities where these organizations are found?  Have the media outlets’ accounts of happenings become more truthful?  What about the politicians, local and state?  Are these organizations really respected by the larger number of their respective communities?

It’s so easy to make claims based upon a biased view, thinking that organizations have the power to transform their communities.  However, practically speaking, those two organizations of which you speak probably are not as well known as you think, particularly if they are located in cities of large populations.

I grew up believing that the megachurch I attended was literally “changing the world.” Afterall, this is what we heard every Sunday morning, especially when it came time for the offering.  It wasn’t until I began asking people from other parts of my state and nation that I realized that the sphere of influence of my once-beloved megachurch was quite small and extended a just little beyond its own walls.

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.

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!

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 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.

“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

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

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.

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.

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

PETE WRITES:
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.

BeHim responds:
Pete, and what would someone who lashes out with name calling be considered?  Consider also, the Apostles and Christ Himself we’re viewed by the Pharisees and Sadducees as “egotistical, exegetical, hermeneutical, philosophical, and nonsensical”.  So if you’re calling us/me that, consider that our Lord and His Apostles and many after them were also called many of those same names and consider what that might make you (or at least what side/position, that puts you). 

Do you consider what we say is NOT Biblical?  If it’s NOT Biblical Truth then isn’t it something that should be discussed and searched out?  I think most of us would be very willing to put our belief to the test of Scripture, I for one want my belief to be based on Biblical Truth, not Biblical Truth based on what I believe to be true.

The REAL point of your entire tirade comes down to this: “Let’s get back to making this a place for people to share how they feel about their situations.”

As though we base truth on how we “feel” about it.  This IS the issue.

BTW.  I do not consider I “know it all” BUT I do know the One who does KNOW IT ALL and I know what He wrote/says is TRUE!

TODD WRITES:
I really want us to get back to helping leaders help themselves not more church bashing.

BeHim responds:
In what way have I not encouraged leaders to help themselves by searching the Scriptures for Truth?

TODD WRITES:
So here we are, playing with the hand we are dealt

BeHim responds:
I was dealt Salvation from hell by the True and Living God because He loved me for no other reason than His Good Pleasure.  I praise God I was dealt that hand!  Why does it seem your not as Joyful with “the hand we (you) were dealt”?

TODD WRITES:
trying to make an influence for Christ however we can. We all go about it in different ways.

BeHim responds:
The problem is the “different ways” (and I’m not talking about using DVD’s, Powerpoint, etc), as though there are different gospels.  You consider this is about methods when in fact it is about message, THE MESSAGE!

TODD WRITES:
(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…

BeHim responds:
This is a great “method” Todd, I encourage you to continue.  When you suggest “let’s lighten up on everybody” does that mean you to?  Lighten up on us?  Also, consider that maybe when we suggest “lighten up” that we’re asking/telling the Holy Spirit to lighten up too?  After all He does indwell us.  Maybe some of the things needing to be said are from Him?  Maybe???

TODD REITERATES:
Like it or not.

BeHim responds:
It’s not whether I like it or not, it’s whether it’s from God or not.  What if God doesn’t like it?  Contrary, what if He does like it?  Either way it really comes down to HIM, doesn’t it?

TODD WRITES:
My mom always said if you can’t say anything nice about someone, then keep your mouth shut.

BeHim responds:
My mom used to say the same thing.  But let God be True and every man a liar.  Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, they all had “cool sayings” too but that doesn’t mean it’s True or Right.  I love my mom dearly but I would never tell her to shut up if she didn’t have something nice to say.  My relationship with my Brethren is closer than any earthly relationship (the relationship of son/father, daughter/mother, husband/wife can be separated by heaven and hell but Brother’s we will be for eternity) and thus, I would not tell you to shut up, even if it wasn’t nice (Jesus telling Peter to get behind him “satan” or you’ll deny me, I’m sure wasn’t nice from Peter’s perspective).

TODD WRITES:
Otherwise, many of use come across as true Pharasees; overly religous, negative, and feeling that we’re always right.

BeHim responds:
Maybe it’s the one calling names and telling people to shut up that is these things you suggest.  Maybe???

TODD WRITES:
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.

BeHim responds:
No Todd, I think it’s more like… you guys go over there and talk about those things.  I want to be comfortable believing what I believe and doing what I’m doing, because I think it’s what God wants ME to do.  It really boils down to… you’re trying to say you (and I for that matter) have the right to do what you/I/we think is right, not matter what I/we/you say or do (you would just rather I say or do it somewhere else).  Does that sound in anyway like Judges 17?

BTW.  Should we support (no matter how much we believe or feel it to be true) something that is not Biblically True?

TODD WRITES:
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.

BeHim responds:
I speak the Truth in and out of season, no matter how it makes a person “feel”.  It’s not because of them I speak the Truth but because of HIM!  Listen/read the sermon PDL posted: “Ten Sheckles and a Shirt”.  It’s not about the congregation, it’s about HIM.

TODD WRITES:
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!

BeHim responds:
Consider just for a moment (just to REALLY - think about - Selah), that maybe instead of doing the work of God by dividing the blogs, that maybe you are hindering the work of God.  I mean really, is not God in COMPLETE control?  Is it by “chance” or “luck” or by some aligning of the stars that so many people found this blog and “seemingly” agree about these things?  Maybe there is division.  Maybe there are disagreements.  But maybe shutting up the Holy Spirit is worse than division and disagreement.  Instead of taking these measures, ask the Lord to do His work in these blogs and you’ll trust Him no matter what is said or posted.  Is this YOUR blog or HIS?  I truly hope Todd, it is HIS!

Don’t forget all, that we are to discern the spirits, test all things, judge with righteous judgement.  What’s going on here is SO biblical! 

I just completed a personal study of Leviticus.  Has anyone read the clean/unclean rules in Leviticus lately?  Note it applies to those WITHIN the congregation and does NOT apply to those without.  It was the priests responsibility (not just right) to determine clean/unclean. 

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His possession, SO THAT YOU MAY PROCLAIM the praises of the One who called you OUT OF THE DARKNESS into His marvelous light.” 1 Pet 2:9

Eze 22:26 - “Her priests do violence to My law and profane My holy things. They make no distinction between the holy and the common, and they do not explain the difference between the clean and the unclean. They disregard My Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.”

Eze 44:23 - “They must teach My people the difference between the holy and the common, and explain to them the difference between the clean and the unclean.”

Discernment is not optional.  It is a command.

Does anyone here honestly think the unclean thing is the professed unbeliever?  No, it is the nominal Christian. 

Re-read Leviticus and delight in His law.