Say What?: Which Statement is More Outlandish?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, June 04, 2008
- Viewed 48
- (16) comments so far
A little more background… you can read all of the first statement, in context, here. Here’s the second one...
Your thoughts?
OK... a little game today... I will provide you with two quotes I found this week on the internet. You vote (in the comments section) and tell me which statement is more outlandish. (OK... some may think these make total sense, I'll listen to you too). Here are your choices:
"Why would a minister or a member want to grow their church? The reason usually sounds something like, “because we want to share the Good News of Jesus with as many people as we can” and at first blush that sounds good and noble, but it’s regurgitated tripe. Most people hear that explanation and think “Hey, that’s a very Christ-like attitude.” But it’s not. And what’s more troubling is that at best this attitude is a front, a farce, a play-show, and at worst it’s an excuse to be either an egotist or greedy."
OR...
Willow Creek "didn’t make disciples - they made dunces. Very simply they made secular people even more secular. Rather than leading people to worship Christ they led them deeper into worshipping themselves. This should be no surprise: if you gear a church towards the consumer preferences of a fallen culture you will produce a fallen church. Why would anyone think that catering to man’s fundamental sin problem would do otherwise? Liberals say there is no sin, and church growth says sin is no big deal. The very heart of the gospel tells us otherwise: sin is real and its the main problem we must address. Any church that fails to address this will fail too."
OK... what do YOU think of these two statements?
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.
Bill on Wed, June 04, 2008
Both statements reflect an accurate understanding of the Gospel.
The first one is a reminder that the purpose of ministry is to grow people—we are to measure up to the stature of Jesus.
The second one is a little over the top. It blames one church for the sins of the many (including, to some extent, the church I am part of).
Big Chris on Wed, June 04, 2008
The first comment has some teeth. Some people really are putting on a front when it comes to growing their church. The writer’s problem is the implication that this is always the case. But there is a nugget of truth there for some situations.
I’m far from being a Willow apologist, but the second quote is the “regurgitated tripe” the first one was referencing. Willow Creek Community Church was/is/will be making disciples. What the Reveal study showed them was that those who they had gotten to the point of long term disciples were not being challenged enough to continue on with growth. The church hasn’t failed them, it just hasn’t done what they thought they were doing, or at least not at the level they thought they were doing it. Willow preaches sinners need to repent. I have a DVD of one of Hybels’ presentation of the Gospel and it is one of the most powerful presentations I have seen. While it isn’t a weekly turn or burn session, it is being done, so the author clearly hasn’t done their research and is regurgitating tripe.
Big Chris
http://mrclm.blogspot.com
Brad on Wed, June 04, 2008
Both statements seem to be quite the popular conversation to have. The first is the common cry of the american church, isn’t it? The metrics that we use most to gauge church growth is pure numbers. However, the statement, “to share the good news with as many people as we can.” seems to only half-echo the great commission…enter statement #2.
I spent years working with Axis & Student Impact at Willow and spent a good chunk of my churched life there and I can attest that they haven’t truly put the emphasis on making disciples…not that this excuses them, but how many churches in America can say that’s what they really do?? I mean, isn’t the American church service generally one where people come, they receive, then they leave. It doesn’t seem out of the ordinary that churches across our nation are realizing that they’re not making disciples. I think Churches at large are realizing the entire paradigm of church has to change.
Lori on Wed, June 04, 2008
At first glance, there is truth in the first comment. But having read it in context the author loses credibility. He is pushing that the ONLY model of church is the “house church”. I find that those who have this mindset are zealots. I’m not saying house churches are wrong - simply that they are NOT the one and only model or that the NT advocates only doing house churches. If it meets your needs - great.
The second, I think blames others for one’s own mistakes. Mega churches are not the answer everywhere. Many churches made the mistake trying to emulate them in areas where they were not feasible. But that mistake can be made about every new idea that has come around for 2000 years. This comment seems to be a lot of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” I’ve seen plenty of “innovative” churches that are preaching “sin, salvation, and sanctification”, without compromising sound doctrine.
So my vote is that they are equally outlandish.
Leonard Lee on Wed, June 04, 2008
It was so hard to pick which one was most outlandish I had to read the context for both. That didn’t help since both contexts provided for even more outlandish thoughts and phrases.
The first was filled with misnomers about the church that seem to come from 2 places. Immaturity and bitterness. If I only look at the color red, everything I see is red. The young man writing can only see one color and has become “enlightened” because of the color he sees. When you disagree with him it is because you just don’t know what he knows. His 5 whole years in ministry do not qualify him as an expert on how all churches run.
The second guy was just as silly. This quote is hyperboly and stupid. “
“All mega-churches seemed to have accomplished is to kill off smaller churches that resisted the temptation to compromise Biblical Christianity.”
Thanks Todd for ticking me off today (Smiley face here)
Peter Hamm on Wed, June 04, 2008
I thought both were just as outrageous (and ill-informed), but when I read them in context…
they are both as outrageous and ill-informed…
CS on Wed, June 04, 2008
In reading both articles in context, I would say that the first wins for being over-the-top, courtesy such things as vulgarities and the anger with which the article was written. Although the author went overboard, I do see some validity with one of his earlier premises:
“After being in ministry for five years I’ve seen the grim reality that ministers, and especially their church members, don’t care nearly as much about discipling believers or living like Christ did as they do about “growing” their church.”
There was a great radio broadcast I caught recently that talked about how, as ministers, there are no scorecards to tell how well you are doing overall. You preach Biblically and your congregation size increases—are you successful? Conversely, you preach Biblically and your congregation size gets reduced—are you still successful?
With the present focus on church growth as being the measure of success, I agree that many of the discipling aspects are being left out from churches today in favor of adding more people. I saw a church recently that had a ministry fair for people to become involved, but it only focused on things like watching the preschoolers and setting up coffee on Sundays, and nothing like Bible studies, caring for the infirmed, or evangelism.
The second article did have a couple of outlandish thoughts, like, “ All mega-churches seemed to have accomplished is to kill off smaller churches that resisted the temptation to compromise Biblical Christianity.” I would argue that megachurches like John MacArthur’s are Biblically sound. However, I think that author was more on-point and true in his assertions.
—
CS
Kyle on Wed, June 04, 2008
I found the first statement, in context, pretty outlandish. What’s more, a commenter on that blog asked “What are you doing about it?”, to which he replied: “Unfortunately all my schooling is in ministry (I have a B.S. in Family Ministries) and all my professional work experience is in churches. So to some extent I’m stuck in that it would be hard for me to make a lateral change (income-wise) to another vocation, but I don’t plan on being stuck forever.”
When I realized that the traditional church wasn’t for me, I started planting churches. I had a family, and moved from making a decent income to waiting tables. I find it interesting that, while the poster comments on the lack of integrity of the church and those in leadership, he has no problem still drawing an income from these churches. I guess it’s easier to complain than to accept your calling and step out in faith to do something about it.
Bill on Wed, June 04, 2008
In defense of my initial somewhat positive take on the statements, I didn’t read the context until after I posted my comments.
The context of both statements is over the top—a narrow, judgmental take on being a church.
chad swanzy on Wed, June 04, 2008
You’re giving them what they want. They thrive on sticking their finger in anyone’s face but their own. If you call them out on it it validates them because of perceived persecution their position receives. You’re only strengthening them more when you give them opportunity to be scrutinized. They love this kind of stuff.
<br><br>
Position 1 - Assumption of motive and seeded in pessimism (believe the worst about anything not like me, i get to approve of you, and it’s your responsibility to prove yourself to me = guilty to proven innocent)
<br><br>
Position 2 - blowing up an assumption (i’ll take your words and add my interpretation, i’ll then add a position after that that nobody would argue against nevermind the fact that as I state it i’m leading the reader to believe who i am writing about does not believe in that position = i have nothing to prove my argument other than shifting the topic and vilianizing the person first)
<br>
<br>
classic tactics, sensationalism at it’s best, opportunism
John Morris on Wed, June 04, 2008
*yawn*
You know, one of the most interesting things to me about the Acts church as outlined in Acts 2 is a simple fact often overlooked…they were not afraid of numbers, and they seemed to be okay with counting. They LOVED it when the church grew, and all of them worked daily toward the mission and vision of the church.
That aside, maybe I should try and answer the questions…
I find the second statement more offensive than the first. Here was his closing paragraph:
“A Biblical church rejects innovation in favor of faithfulness. God has given us a specific mission and a specific message, and He has not made what He wants in a church a secret. Being successful according to Scripture comes not by embracing a fallen culture but by embracing Biblical directives. If you encounter a church driven by anything else take my advice: find another church. And whatever you do don’t drink the Kool-Aid.”
To make the statement “A Biblical church rejects innovation” is a pretty unbiblical statement. There is no church more biblical than the church in the first section of the book of Acts. And, in Acts 6, they innovated. The apostles didn’t reject the need to innovate in favor of faithfulness to their traditions. They created a whole new scope of ministry that is still around today, at least in name, if not in function. It is because they innovated that we have the notion of what deacons are and what they do biblically. So, biblically, at least in my opinion, innovation is okay and necessary. In all fairness, most of what we do today isn’t innovation…it’s copying models from other places. So, maybe what we need is some real innovation to spotlight the difference between innovation and adoption of models/philosophies in a “one size fits all” world.
The first guy…I dunno. I don’t want to challenge someone who has that big of a chip on their shoulder. It’s like trying to talk to my former co-workers about Jesus. Techies often have a superiority about them that makes them come up with wild and sometimes compassionless ideals about stuff. This guy seems to be very intellectually engaged in Christianity, and I’m sure He really loves The Lord. Maybe he got really hurt and he’s operating out of that hurt. He didn’t use the word “unbiblical”, which makes me think it’s coming from more of an emotional and “felt” place than from a well-reasoned, documented perspective. Maybe he’ll find some healing for it someday, when he deals with whatever ticked him off. Of course, to be fair, I think it’s okay that the church of Jesus today has some business-like trappings. If I’m funded by tithe dollars, you bet I need to have good business practices so that money is used with integrity. Once again, the church of Jesus in Acts 6 acquired the services of seven men to oversee the resources and the distribution of the collection. It is good and healthy for the business of the church to be strong and well-organized. So, I agree with the guy that the church in some instances is, and NEEDS to be a little business-like. Just my $0.02!
RevJeff on Wed, June 04, 2008
“The problem with a good lie is that it sounds so much like the truth.” - Patrick Morley
The problem with regurgitating someone else’s opinions on other church’s attempts is that they often cover our own feeble attempts to acomplish the great commission.” - Me
I tire of the finger pointing and though I have some very good friends who have left the “structured church” for some other model (STRUCTURE)… I pray mostly that I can stand before my Creator someday and hear His approval for me, not what he says to Hybels or ....
Kevin Bussey on Wed, June 04, 2008
Why do people feel the need to police every church? I was in Chicago 5 years ago with our youth on a mission trip. A lady walked up and wanted to know what we are doing and got excited that we were on a mission trip. She said, “I’m a fully devoted follower of Jesus.” I asked her if she went to Willowcreek and she asked how did I know. I said because you have bought into their mission.
That lady was no dunce. She was/is a disciple. They seem to be doing a good job in my opinion.
Ricky on Thu, June 05, 2008
Truth is only “outlandish” to those who can’t deal with it.
Both statements are true, whether or not the results were intended.
Truth is toxic…to those who embrace the lie.
Peter Hamm on Thu, June 05, 2008
Ricky,
I’ve gotta ask, are you even involved in a church in such a way that you would know the truth or untruth of statements like that? Or do you, as it has seemed to me, only throw rocks form the side (because that is all you’ve done here… ever)?
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Post a Comment