When Did We Lose “Sexy”?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, February 26, 2009
- Viewed 173
- (39) comments so far
Your thoughts? When did we lose sexy? Where did he/she go? And how did the church find him/her?
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.
Scott Hobbs on Fri, February 27, 2009
Wow. Touchy subject. Certainly there is something for discussion here, but it does make me want to shout, “same team, same team!”
Seriously though, I think we do press so hard sometimes as preachers to give a “fresh” word that it becomes more of a process of “one upping” the last one we did, than simply delivering what the community of believers simply need to hear. No matter what the package is wrapped in, at the end of the day it is the content of that package that is most important.
Am I a fan of crass or suggestive branding? Nope. Do I believe that our creative packages can mislead or mis-communicate the message? Yup. However, taking the message we have and presenting it in an engaging way that speaks the language of a culture (local, regional, or international) is not only wise but can be very effective. The truth is, making disciples (prime directive here - see Matt. 28) dosen’t happen from the pulpit anyhow. It is a daily intentional process of walking out faith in the context of Christian community. The pulpit gives us an encounter/starting point with people.
I have heard it said, “All good preaching is plagiarism, God wrote the book.” http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
carl thomas on Fri, February 27, 2009
Really appreciate your comments Scott.
I am not for the crass or suggestive branding either. People pick on them because they are easier to point out than the uninspired, nonanointed, and completely useless “3 points and a poem” sermons that are preached week in and week out the world over.
And no doubt, some of those sermons are plagiarized!
and Todd, are your comments normally this acrimonious? The waters are pretty bitter here.
Scott Hobbs on Fri, February 27, 2009
Just further food for thought . . .
Philippians 1:15-18 (New International Version) (Cut and pasted from http://www.biblegateway.com http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif )
15It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.[a] 18But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
Here is a link to a good article from the Stewart Avenue Church of Christ related to this passage:
http://www.sedaliachurchofchrist.com/index_files/Page470.htm
Leonard on Fri, February 27, 2009
Sorry Todd, I am not helping discuss bringing sexy back, But…
My use of the word ignorant simply means without information. It is not an insult, it is a simple way of saying the statements Jud made about pastors and the use of others sermons are coming from a bias that lacks information.
Sam, please do not twist my words…I did not say plagiarizing is okay, I said nothing about Tadd. I did however say that to copy was okay but lying about it is wrong.
So if you want to respond to what I said, at least have the integrity to respond to something I did actually say. Thanks.
To use another persons sermon has no biblical restriction whatsoever. The apostles used Jesus sermons, they simply spoke what they saw and HEARD.
You guys simply come from an uninformed (ignorant) bias. You make huge assumptions based upon your disgust with pastors and churches that are uninformed. Your history of interaction here has gotten both of you blocked before, yet instead of learning a more civil way, you just keep coming back to attack.
This article is not about plagiarism, CS brought that into it. This article is about a series that I think all so far have said in one way or another “I don’t think so…”
Jud, you use the actions of one pastor (Tadd) to attack many pastors. That should stop or go away. to another site where you can all attack and pat each others backs.
Sam, I don’t have the power to give Tadd a license to do anything. I think he was wrong, apparently so did he because he went back and said so. His apology was probably good enough for his church and I am certain it was good enough for Christ, why isn’t it good enough for you Sam? Two words Sam, IGNORANT BIAS.
Scott and Carl, I apologize if my interaction with Sam and Jud seems harsh. These two tend to seize every opportunity to attack pastors, large churches, leaders and to twist the words of others. If you were to read through the posts where they have interacted you would see this as a fact of their interactions. You would also know that each has been blocked in the past for that. To get blocked from this site takes a lot as Todd has a pretty gracious approach to letting people interact and respond.
CS on Fri, February 27, 2009
Leonard:
“His apology was probably good enough for his church and I am certain it was good enough for Christ, why isn’t it good enough for you Sam? Two words Sam, IGNORANT BIAS.”
I listened to the apology. It sounded more like Grandstaff was saying, “I’m sorry for not citing my sources,” instead of saying, “I’m sorry I took this guy’s story of what happened to him as a kid, and said it as though I had lived his life directly.” It was tangential and not direct, and I could see why some people would still call it into question.
It was like a man who committed adultery saying, “Honey, I’m sorry I haven’t been sleeping with you,” instead of saying, “Honey, I’m sorry that I cheated on you and committed adultery.” And that isn’t a complete apology at all.
“Jud, copying another sermon is not wrong, however lying about it is. “
I disagree with this statement. If you did not have permission to use the content of another person’s sermon, that’s theft. In academia, doing something like that would get you kicked out of school and banned. If you use the content and do not attribute it to the person who came up with it, that is bearing false witness. It’s tantamount to saying that you innovated something when you really didn’t. Both are morally wrong actions, and I hope this is not present in your sermons.
I would rather that pastors do much more study on their own than using these off-the-shelf, sermon-in-a-box kits that are so widespread nowadays. It helps prevent plagiarism, and forces them to get into the Word to see what the Holy Spirit would have them to say. And, it also stops these stupid sermon series like, “Bringing Sexy Back,” from circulating around so much.
—
CS
sam on Fri, February 27, 2009
Leonard, using another person’s sermon does have a biblical restriction. it is called “bearing false witness” and it speaks to the biblical requirement of a pastor of being above reproach. Maybe you are just “ignorant” about these biblical requirements about delivering a sermon.
If a pastor chooses to use another person’s sermon then he should tell the congregation that he is doing so. This removes any reproach that may come his way and keeps his integrity intact. There is nothing wrong with using resources but just cite your sources. The expectation of the normal congregation of a pastor is not someone that comes in and downloads a sermon and reads it to them. Most expect the pastor to be in the Word preparing what God has in store for that particular local church.
My “assumptions” on plagiarism come from an informed point of view because i was a member of a church where it was found out that the pastor for 3 YEARS was downloading Rick Warren sermons and then passing them off as his own as well as using personal illustrations in first person that NEVER happened to him. This means he was lying on a regular basis. Preparing rehearsed lies and delivering them twice on Sundays. When this pastor was caught, he said he did nothing wrong and continued in a pattern of lies, deceit, and manipulation that led to his resigning after 3 months. So, Leonard, please stop patronizing me.
Tadd, only apologized AFTER he was caught. It wasnt borne of conviction. Like a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He had little choice BUT to apologize. How many times has he lied to his congregation in the past? He has biblically disqualified himself from the role of pastor. But yet, it is his congregation that is “ignorant” of the biblical qualifications of a pastor. Shame on his staff as well. But they dare not say a word or they will disturb the gravy train. AND you dont know if it was sincere repentance on his part and therefore you have no idea what his standing before Christ on this issue is. Neither do I. So lets not make “ignorant” statements about Tadd and his apology.
Leonard, I was never blocked. Again, your “ignorance”. I willingly disengaged in some discussion per others requests but i was never unable to post on here.
I guess it is your “ignorant bias” on display that causes you to think otherwise
carl thomas on Fri, February 27, 2009
Here is my last comment on this thread.
Leonard, I was not referring to you.
Sam - Did you really make a judgment about whether or not Pastor Tadd Grandstaff was under the conviction of the Holy Ghost? Has he submitted to you or is this a position you have exalted yourself to? I hope this was a slip on your part and not really the uncovering of your true heart. If it is, public repentance is in order beginning with a letter to the one you slandered.
Andy Wood on Fri, February 27, 2009
Hey Todd! Somebody hijacked your post! http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/grin.gif
Original material, I’m sure.
Peter Hamm on Fri, February 27, 2009
Back on point.
I think the billboard is a bad idea. And my back isn’t very sexy either.
I’m forcing myself to avoid all the other stuff said here, for the benefit of all.
sam on Fri, February 27, 2009
Carl,
I didnt slander anyone. Just stated what happened.
1. Tadd prepared a sermon by using a lie. He rehearsed this lie and then delivered it to his congregation
2. Another blogger discovered Tadd’s lie and exposed it.
3. Tadd apologized but like CS said he was not totally forthcoming with his apology. Tadd, in his apology never said that he lied just that he didnt cite his source.
In conclusion, Tadd lied but only confessed to said lie AFTER he was caught up in it AND he did not totally confess and acknowledge his lie to his congregation. This kind of behavior is not consistent with true repentance borne out of conviction
Todd Rhoades on Fri, February 27, 2009
Got it Sam.
Got it again, Sam.
Reminds me of a story. When I was little, I went to VBS…
Really, we got it already.
Go pick on someone your own size.
Sticks and stones, and all that stuff.
Todd
Jud on Fri, February 27, 2009
Leonard,
I speak from first and second hand experience. I speak from living in a town where only certain zip codes were INNONDATED with church plant on top of church plant many even sharing the same location. I speak from the perspective of routinely having my mailbox filled with expensive and flashy mailers that are designed to appeal to fleshly “felt needs”. I speak from the experience of perusing a multitude of web-sites, blogs and books and listening to sermons that are oriented around PRAGMATISM, ear tickling and what seems to be self-promotion.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I know of many pastors and churches that are lazer focused on preaching the Gospel and serving their communities.
Scott,
As far as the passage with Paul talking about people preaching the Gospel with improper motivations and God still using that for His good and Glory.
The key there is that they are STILL preaching the Gospel !!! I hear sermon after sermon after sermon where the Gospel simply is not preached. That is not exhalting Christ at all is it?
A couple years ago there was much rejoicing over what was and still is one of the fastest growing church in the south east. Some weekends HUNDREDS were making decisions for Christ ! After listening to the messages I was shaken to hear the Pastor appeal to this massive crowd with a gospel without REPENTANCE. Instead the people were being offered “life change” through various topics such as their family life, their finances, their job satisfaction etc. In the end they were then asked to “accept Christ” for a new life.
This church and this pastor are now influencing church planters all over the region, even all over the Nation. This is just one example. There are multiple clearinghouses of pragmatism like this in every region.
Because I’m not a pastor or a church staffer doesn’t mean I don’t have a clue. As a part of the Body of Christ my gifting is no more important or less important to the Kingdom than that of a pastor. No disrespect intended.
Peter Hamm on Fri, February 27, 2009
Does anybody even want to talk about whether or not this kind of church “marketing” is useful or effective or something Jesus would do?
Okay, the guy lied, okay, he didn’t “apologize nearly right”. Okay, I got it. Now let’s move on…
Leonard on Fri, February 27, 2009
CS,
I disagree with your take on using others sermons. As a pastor and one for many years, I just do not know any right now who see a sermon as their own property. I certainly do not, nor do any of the hundreds maybe more that I know. When I use other peoples materials I site them as a source or will say we are using a series that we got from…
Originality is not really possible. I will speak on a subject and then hear someone else speak on the same subject and discover that we said the same thing and almost in the same way. We never connected but had the same thoughts… hmm could it be the Holy Spirit? CS, when you sit down to study and use a commentary and that commentary becomes a tool for shaping a view point, you do not always site your source. Are you lying? Are you telling us or representing to us that you arrived at this position by yourself, therefore bearing false witness? No, because the assumption is that you gathered information from several places, people you heard and people you read.
When a pastor reads a commentary but does not site the source is he lying and leading people to believe that he is a Greek scholar who only gets his information from the Boss Man in the Sky. Should he every Sunday put a bibliography in every sermon, after all wouldn’t want someone confusing us with Luther or Calvin.
To take a sermon word for word and not site that it came from or is word for word… again that is lying. To use other sermons, well I simply do not believe as you do. I wrote a post here some time back at MMI, maybe Todd would repost it so we can discuss this there instead of here.
Peter, stop trying to get us back on track… that is wrong and I wont stand for it. I expect a public and sincere apology that we can ALL ascertain both your contrition and humility.
It seems to work because it does draw people. I think the danger in it is it gets us thinking edgy for edgy sake rather than edgy for kingdoms sake. Personally I would never do advertising like this. For the simple reason it might feed my pride rather than feed humility in me. It might feed pride in our church community in our own cleverness rather than the strength and beauty of Christ. I AM NOT saying this is happening in these other churches, but I could certainly see it happening in mine, maybe we just have a really weak pastor.
I am an extremely creative person. They say 15% of people are genuinely creative. I am in that 15%. I also reject fundamentalism as a whole with its suspicion of most things creative. Striking a balance between engaging in the LANGUAGE of our culture creatively and not imitating our cultures senselessness is tough and easy to throw stones at as we have seen here at MMI time and time again.
CS on Fri, February 27, 2009
Leonard:
“CS, when you sit down to study and use a commentary and that commentary becomes a tool for shaping a view point, you do not always site your source. Are you lying? Are you telling us or representing to us that you arrived at this position by yourself, therefore bearing false witness? No, because the assumption is that you gathered information from several places, people you heard and people you read. “
That’s the catch. When you use multiple sources to draw from as resources, to make logical conclusions and collaborate evidence, that’s research. When you take someone else’s sermon in its entirety, use a single source for reference, fail to give recognition or citation, and even go so far as saying that someone else’s personal experiences were your own, that’s theft, lying, and deception.
It sounds like you give proper credit and do some research, too. That’s good, and I have no problems with that. I could not infer that from your first comment, though, and that’s what led to my post.
Transitioning back on topic, it’s even worse to see at least two other churches using this same material or hook to draw people in. If I saw a billboard like this, I’d avoid that church because I would deduce that that church does not take Jesus Christ seriously.
—
CS
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 >
Post a Comment