New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
Before I even start, I fully understand that this is one of those “agree to disagree” topics. I accept that truth. However, I am passionate about this stuff and, being my blog, I’m gonna go ahead and jump on my soap box.
Yesterday I briefly mentioned that I feel churches need to have a relevant marketing strategy if they want to be successful and grow. Many of you disagreed. Like a big boy, I stand by my statement.
As I respond, know that I see this as an opportunity to learn from each other and share what we feel might be the better way to do things. There is an unspoken “I feel” that precedes each applicable sentence to follow. We good? Cool.
Jason, a wise Christian, made a few good points yesterday:
- I think any approach to “church growth” that defins success as the number of people coming to church instead of the number of souls that are being saved, is the wrong approach.
- The Gospel of Jesus Christ is relevant enough.
- Truth should always trump entertainment.
- The world can find the self-help groups, yoga classes, coffee shops, book stores, video game parties, sewing classes, and motorcycle clubs (and the list goes on) outside of the church. So why is the church concentrating so hard to be in the entertainment industry when it should really be concerned with where people are going to spend eternity?
I agree with numbers 1 and 3. I feel differently about 2 and 4.
In order to most effectively reach SOULS, the Gospel of Christ should be presented in a fresh and relevant way. It should meet people where they are, while incorporating modern day mediums,without sacrificing truth for entertainment purposes, just as they did in the New Testament.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is as relevant and alive as ever - I agree. However, the way it’s presented can be dry, lifeless, boring, and quite frankly, DEAD (just like anything else can be made the same)! As I mentioned yesterday, if the presentation of Christ was all that was needed to attract people to church, then every little ‘First Baptist’ church (or whatever you small neighborhood church(es) happen to be called) would be boomin’! We’ve got the best freakin’ story to tell and there are literally THOUSANDS of churches that shut down every month. Why?
“Where do you draw the line?” many Christians, myself included, often ask. Good question! Should we never have translated the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek? Should the New Testament never have been translated from Greek to English? Should the King James Version bible never have been written. Is a church that uses the NIV too trendy? How about the NLT? GOD FORBID I MENTION THE MESSAGE!
How about with music? In the OT people danced and sang and acted like idiots. Should that never have changed? Traditionalists argue that hymns are the only true way to worship, and that modern worship (Tomlin, Hillsong, etc) isn’t true worship. GOD FORBID I MENTION GUITARS…AND DRUMS…AND LIGHTS.
What about youth services? Are they not essentially church services targeted marketed towards a certain demographic?
I’ve so tired of these arguments. As a member of a megachurch and supporter of many of the “big name” modern day pastors (Stanley, Bell, Noble, Groeschel, Driscoll, Warren, Batterson, Furtick, Surratt, etc), I’ve heard it all. Believe what you want, guys. Go to whatever church you may want. Me, I’m going to the church who casts a vision I 100% support. I’m going to the church that is passionate about telling people about Christ, making the message easy to understand (what a simple message it truly is), and making an impact on this world. Big, small, black, white, who cares. Let’s reach people!
I simply don’t understand how people could want to put a cap on God/the church! Why is it so horrible to find an effective medium to reach people if the message isn’t sacrificed? Shouldn’t Christians be HAPPY when a church is reaching people? Don’t even start with me on the “you’re reaching them with the wrong message” bologna. If the church makes the message of the Gospel clear, then it is the responsibility of each INDIVIDUAL to be involved for the right reasons. You’ll find bad eggs at EVERY church you go to. Some just do a fantastic job hiding the REAL THEM behind a freakin’ fantastic facade. I want a church that tackles REAL stuff and is HONEST about this GARBAGE world of sin that we live in.
I’m passionate about this stuff, guys. I know, freakin’ first hand, what it feels like to be the product of a church that was/is passionate about reaching a young(er) generation. And if anybody dares tell me that I’m saved for the wrong reason, missing the truth, confused, unsure of what I believe in, etc, cuz my church has a band that plays modern worship (AND traditional hymns), my pastor wears jeans (not always), or is considered a MEGACHURCH, well, they can go fly a kite. I’ve seen LIVES CHANGED. I’ve seen RELATIONSHIPS RESTORED, I’ve known people who have died and will spend ETERNITY in Heaven…ALL PRODUCTS OF THE MODERN DAY CHURCH.
- If you like hymns, please, go to a church that plays hymns and get your praise on!
- If you like expository preaching, go get your learn on!
- If you like modern worship, go get you some!
- If you like a applicable, tangible style of preaching, find it and use it!
The message is clear: Christ died for you and me. He is the only way to heaven. Accepting Christ and repenting of your sins doesn’t translate to happy days, winning the lottery, and picnics in the park, it translates to spending eternity with God.
Shout it. Sing it. Dance to it. Play your instrument to it. I don’t freakin’ care.
You’re crazy (I use ‘you’ in a very general way) if you think I’m gonna sit down and be quiet. I want to reach PEOPLE. NUMBERS of people. GENERATIONS of people. Fill up a building! Play hymns, play rock, wooden pews, chairs, beanbags, jeans, suits, young, old, I DON’T CARE! REACH P-E-O-P-L-E!! Find a way, an EFFECTIVE way, to tell the Good News of Christ.
Many traditionalists will hate this blog post. I don’t care. I have one rhetorical question for you, though. How can you justify watching a generation go to Hell, as you so eagerly love to point out, as you sit there and do nothing about it. It’s almost as if you enjoy it! It’s almost a bit Pharisee-ish if you ask me. Just saying…
Will we ever see eye-to-eye, my traditionalist friend? Prob not. We’re on the same team, though, let’s not forget that.
Jason, this is by NO means an attack against you. I have tremendous respect for you and I greatly value your input. You just gave me a great place to start.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Loading ...
Bill:
To be honest with you….I can’t agree with this post more…That may seem strange to you based on my post yesterday, but it is the truth. My thoughts are that as long as the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not sacrificed in the medium that we use to spread it, then I stand behind any church! Jeans, sideburns, coffee, small groups, soul patches, youth groups, motorcycle clubs, softball teams, sewing groups…and the list goes on!!!!
Your point was great about the early church and how they did meet people where they were, to present the Gospel in a fashion that would resonate with those groups…Peter ate pork with the Gentiles and refused to do it with the Jews. That was effective evangelism, but the Gospel was not “changed” to make the people feel comfortable where they were [in their sin]…The Gospel was instead used as the center piece, and it penetrated the hearts of the lost just like it does today. We may have different styles of “church” but the point I was trying to make was, Jesus Christ and His message of love and Grace are enough…Now, like you said, it’s up to the Church to find a way to get that message out to the world!!!
My problem is when the TRUTH is sacrificed to make people more “comfortable” where they are. When we sacrifice the life changing power of the Gospel to prevent someone from getting their feelings hurt, that’s where I feel the church has failed the world.
BTW, this topic was an awesome spring board for our Internet broadcast last night. So, thank you for the topic…and thank you even more for your love and passion for Jesus Christ our Savior and Lord.
For His Glory,
Jason
Bill, you know what? I completely disagree with you but it’s really refreshing to see someone so enthusiastic about something that they believe in. Keep it up and long may the enthusiasm remain.
Either the gospel is worthy on its own merits or it’s not.
Dressing it up in fancy music, flashy church buildings, and other marketing ploys does not make the message more relevant. It just makes a better club.
But I don’t think changing the kind of music that’s played or wearing different clothes constitutes marketing. That’s just personality. This is a discussion that I heard in the 1970s and 80s. Is it really true that the church hasn’t moved beyond arguments about whether guitars or organs are more anointed?
Personally, I don’t believe the message any more. I don’t need salvation; there is no heaven or hell, yada, yada, yada. And I find evangelism flat out offensive, whether it’s called witnessing or marketing.
@ writerdd:
My argument is not the type of instruments that are being used in church. Churches should have the ability to change with the times as long as the Gospel stays the same. My attack is against any church that makes a blatant attempt to “water down” the truth in hopes that it will bring more people through their doors, and not offend their lifestyle choices once they’re there..
The Gospel is meant to offend. It is meant to make people feel “uncomfortable” with the sinful lives they live. If you take away from the truth, then the message is lost.
What if this [evangelism] is called Darwinian-evolution? Is it still offensive?
Just a thought.
Jason, I don’t think your question makes sense. Only religions evangelize and look for converts. Other people might try to convince you that one idea or another is true — this happens in all kinds of areas: politics, brand loyalty, and so forth. But religions try to tell you that you are going to hell or that you are a bad person if you don’t believe their stuff. It’s a totally different ballgame.
@writerdd:
In response to your comments:
1. Only religions evangelize and look for converts.
That statement is intellectually dishonest. I believe we are all looking for the same thing. Truth. Therefore, simply trying to convince someone, through rational thought, that your way of ‘thinking’ is true is an attempt to change or influence what someone believes. In essence, it is the same thing as evangelism; we just call it a different name. You were correct in saying that this happens in many areas other than ‘religion’ and I think it is unfair to say that only religions are trying to convince people of truth.
Another point is that evangelism and seeking someone’s conversion are (2) distinctly separate things. Evangelism deals with what we as Christians are instructed to do by Jesus, which is to go and make disciples [students of the Gospel] of all nations, while the other deals with changing someone’s mind [or heart].
The role of a good evangelist is not to ‘convert’ people at all. In fact it is impossible for a man to truly change another person’s hatred for God into a love for Him. There may be some pretty persuasive things that people can due, but for a genuine conversion it takes the work of the Holy Spirit. The true role of an evangelist is to speak the “TRUTH” and live out that truth in their daily life. It is up to God alone to soften a hardened heart.
2. Religions try to tell you that you are going to hell or that you are a bad person if you don’t believe in their stuff. It’s a totally different ballgame.
Although I don’t speak for all [or probably even the majority] of ‘religious’ people, I will say that telling someone about the reality of hell is only part of the story. I do believe that hell is real, and I also believe that it is a ‘just’ punishment for our selfish and unrighteous actions against a Holy God. But to simply speak of hell without mentioning the rest of the story is dishonoring to the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Jesus did not come to condemn the world; He came to set them free. The world was already condemned because of sin. Jesus came to pay the price for those sins. Jesus didn’t come to tell people that they were ‘bad’ for not believing in Him, and to be honest people don’t go to hell for not believing in Jesus Christ. People go to hell because they have sinned, and because they have rejected God’s gracious offer of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. We are not sinners for simply not believing in Christ. We are sinners because we continue to sin against a Holy and Righteous God who demands perfection from all of His creation and justice for all unrighteousness.
What I have just shared with you is the “TRUTH” and yes I am trying to convince the world of that very thing. In fact, I’m trying to convince the world that it is the most important thing. But I fail to see how my passion for the truth of the Gospel differs from someone else’s passion for anything else — ex: evolution, politics, brand loyalty, and so forth? Why does trying to convince the world that there is a Creator we will all face someday automatically make my message offensive?
Is it the really the messenger that you have a problem with, or is it the message?
Jason
Jason, I wrote an entry on Atheist Evangelism over on the eBay atheist. A lot of it is just definitions but the important point is this:
How can I [as an Evangelical Christian] replace your way of living with my own? How would I be able make you decide something that you don’t ‘want’ to do yourself? You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
I agree with your point that the Gospel offers a ’solution to a problem’ that we all face, but I don’t agree that an individual doesn’t have a choice to make with the evidence that is given.
You also said that “zealous atheism…offers only evidence of the perceived error and allows for a person to decide for themselves how to correct it.”
I don’t think I agree with that statement, because it’s not an honest description of atheism. By definition, atheism means exactly this: No God. The word stems from the Greek words alpha (the negative) and theism or Theos (god). Someone who calls themselves an atheist is affirming [absolutely] the non-existence of God. How is that, as you say; only offering evidence of the “perceived error” and allowing for a person to decide for themselves how to correct it?
No. They are saying they don’t believe there is a God. Does theism affirm [absolutely] the existence of God?
Jason, your etymology is quite correct though the meaning you have for atheism is not quite right. It has evolved somewhat in the last few thousand years. There are two modern definitions:
1. the belief that there is no God
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
The difference isn’t great and I think you’ll find that most atheists use the second one due to the lack of positive evidence against the existence of God.
An Evangelical Christian, such as yourself, expresses a positive message for their own belief system. I think we can agree that this is the case and I think we can also agree that atheists who choose to do so can often do the same. However the Evangelical Christian has additional firepower at his (I’ll stick to the masculine for simplicity sake) disposal because he has the message of Hell. Hell is there for anyone who does not agree with the Evangelical Christian. That is what I mean when I say that an Evangelical Christian tries to replace the way of living with their own.
Hellfire and damnation draw on fear and insecurities to enhance the message. Atheism has nothing to compare because atheists believe that you’re dead when you die whether you’re an atheist or not. Honestly, I think that the “do it this was or else” message is a big turn off for a lot of people especially when you really start to think about it.
Hoverfrog:
I understand your point, about the message of hell, but I still don’t see why the same couldn’t be said for the atheist who tries to convince the Christian that there is no God? If you try to convince someone that when we die we become dirt, you are then trying to change their belief in the existence heaven. It may not seem the same as ‘hell’ but to be honest, the idea is similar in nature and it does have the ability to convince one to live their life differently.
I understand that telling someone about hell may seem threatening, but it should never be used that way. Hell is not a place that you go for simply not believing in God. It is the place that you go for sinning against that God. People go to hell because of their sin. On the contrary, people go to heaven because of their repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
If telling someone about the reality of hell is a threat, then you should say the same about the doctor who tells a patient about dangers of obesity, smoking, drug use, or illicit sexual activity. Does the doctor tell them these things to ‘scare’ them into changing their ways, or does he tell them to warn them about the dangers of their lifestyle choices?
How about this analogy? A man sees a blind person unknowingly walking towards a cliff. The man runs over to blind person to warn him before he plunges to his death. Do we call this person offensive or do we call them a hero?
What is the difference between the examples I just used and telling someone about the Gospel of Jesus Christ? If each is done out of love and compassion for the other person why would one example be labeled threatening and the other simply a warning?
I understand that not every “evangelist” spreads the message in love, and for those who don’t, shame on you. These people are not good ambassadors of Jesus Christ and how he brought the message of repentance and faith to the lost. However, for those that do present the Gospel in love, and are simply trying to warn the world of the judgment to come, why the hostility towards them?
Again I pose the question. Is it truly the messenger that you don’t like or is it the message they bring?
Ben:
Yes it does. Does it mean it’s true? That’s for time to tell.
Jason
You appear to be a fine fellow, and I would surely enjoy getting a cup of coffee with you and discussing music, literature, world issues, the adorableness of small fuzzy animals, the benefits of being ‘green,’ etc. We’d simply have to agree to disagree on religious (and as a byproduct some political) issues.
I like you as a person, I just disagree with some things you have to say. I hope you feel the same way. So in that sense, yes, it’s the message and not the messenger. Same way you might say “hate the sin not the sinner.”
I don’t think anyone is out to get the messenger here, on either side.
Both sides are clarifying their cases, and perhaps each other side is taking these clarifications as attempts to convert, which may or may not be the case. I have no intention of turning you into an atheist. Clearly, that’s not going to happen, and any attempt would be futile.
I’ve never had the impression that Bill is using this site as a way to turn people into Christians. I do, however, get that impression from you. Maybe it’s just your choice of semantics, or maybe that actually is your goal. I don’t know.
No one is attacking you, directly and specifically, as a person (with a message). It’s just that as we would like you to understand why we think the way we do and that we’re not changing our minds any time soon.
We know what the message is; it’s not foreign to us, and being told again and again in different ways from different people is not going to change anything. Most of us have given this years of contemplation, many of us coming from religious backgrounds such as (or different from) your own, many having “tried out” various religions, and in the end we have come to a conclusion: one that does not include god worship of any kind, and usually also excludes any other kind of supernatural phenomena, such as astrology, ghosts, mind reading, tarot, angels, demons, faeries, etc. God has not been singled out by itself, it is included among these other supernatural forms. I don’t believe in the Abrahamic God just as I don’t believe in the animal guide spirits of my ancestors.
And besides, for many atheists it’s not even about the message itself anyway; it’s about the god. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with a message is irrelevant to believing or not believing in the God of that message. For example: I believe in the man Jesus. I believe he was a good man with a titillating message, an innocent man who was convicted and horribly killed for no reason other than being a peaceful political revolutionary, which is a shame, and I cringe at the thought of the pain he suffered and I sympathize with the pain his death must have caused his friends and loved ones. But I don’t think he was the son of God born of a virgin.
‘Nother example: Many a person out there probably likes the message of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what with the getting to dress up like pirates, drinking beer, living according to The Eight ‘I’d really Rather You Didn’ts,’ and celebrating every Friday as a holy day. But that’s not enough to make anyone actually believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I was Baha’i for about four years before coming out as an atheist, and if I ever believed in God I would be Baha’i again in a heartbeat. I have the highest respect for that religion, its adherents (who are some of the kindest and most serene people I have ever known) and its message of love, inclusiveness, global awareness, acceptance of science and the absolute equality of men and women, the equality of past prophets and and its promise of future prophets. I was satisfied with that for a long time before I realized that just because I liked and agreed with the message, it didn’t change the fact that I did not believe in God.
So I’d say it’s not about the message or the messenger. It’s about the very premise of a supernatural being to begin with, regardless of message or messenger.
My two cents.
Well, probably more than two cents. I’m not counting.
I don’t think I could improve on anything that Sara just said. She’s spot on.
However to answer you specific question:
A doctor or a person saving a blind person from some unscheduled cliff diving has the benefit of verifiable evidence. The existence of a threat in the form of a cliff can be verified by an independent third party and by a whole battery of tests if necessary. Medicine has the same safeguards. A holy book does not.
Jason, I would love to live in a world where everyone lived their lives as Jesus seemed to have indicated. Can you imagine what a paradise we would have if kindness to your fellow was the central credo of humanity? It’d be wonderful. However this isn’t unique to Jesus or even to religion. Evangelical Christianity has a tendency to focus on “being saved” rather than living a good life. i can see why. For a goal oriented culture “saved” is a clear winner over continuous small improvements.
Perhaps if Evangelical Christianity focused on helping others as a goal rather than as a means to saving souls then it would be better received.
Jason, i have a question raised by this…
if one would only be sent to hell for their ’sins’, not non-belief, yet one can only go to heaven because of their belief, where do you believe everyone else (non-sinning non-believers) would go?
Sara and Hoverfrog:
Thank you kindly for your well stated responses. I enjoyed reading both of them and thank you again for the conversation [not the conversion]. As I stated I am not interested in anything more than truth and clarity on the subject of Christianity. I appreciate your willingness to share some of your life and history with us.
Ash:
If you read my statement again, you should see that I said people are not sent to hell for their sins. That puts us all in the same camp, and proves that God is just and not simply mean or jealous.
Romans 3:23 tells us that we have all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. So your question, where do non-sinning non-believers go? I point you to the flying spaghetti monster for my belief in that kind of a person. There is absolutely no evidence that a non-sinning/non-believing person exists.
Therefore, the only difference between someone who goes to heaven and someone who goes to hell is their repentance and their faith in Jesus Christ and who he what he did on the cross.
If you read my statement again, you should see that I said people are not sent to hell for their non-belief, but rather for their sins. That puts us all in the same camp, and proves God is just and not mean, vindictive or jealous.
For His Glory,
Jason
This may be a repeat of everything everyone else has says but this is my two cents:
Different methods reach different people. The message stays the same but as people are so ridiculously different, so should the methods. People may not understand the message if presented in such a way they cannot understand. It’s almost like a different language. If I gave someone directions to the freeway in English and they speak Spanish, they won’t understand me. So if you have a rocker, rock out with Jesus. If you have a person who is into nature, show God through nature. Just as long as the message is still more valuable than the method. Don’t freak out if your method has its flaws. The message then shines through that.
Ash:
Just correcting a “typo”
People are sent to hell for their sins and nothing else.
Jason,
your point appears to be that we are all born inherently sinful, and that only faith in Jesus will enable people to go to heaven…is that correct? so do you believe that all good moral people and all babies/children who have no faith in Jesus go to hell? how can you possibly reconcile this with “God is just and not mean, vindictive or jealous.”? and, as has been said before, do you really feel that infinite punishment for finite sins does not display “mean, vindictive or jealous” sentiment?
A: Yes, absolutely correct. (John 3:16-21)
A: I don’t believe in a “good moral person” anymore than an atheist believes in God. They say there is no such thing as God, and I say there is no such thing as a moral person.
- Rom. 3: 9-12
- Isaiah 64:6
As far as children, I believe that there is an age of accountability. I believe children sin, but I also believe that unless a person has the mental capacity to understand their sin/need for a Savior God has mercy on them. Is this Biblical? Maybe. Can I prove it through scripture? Here’s my greatest effort. (Luke 18:15-17)
A: I think the answer to this is very simple. Sin is infinate, because sin is against God.
Here’s what I mean. If I tell a lie to my friend, that is wrong. When they find out they will be hurt, angry, mad…But what if I tell a lie to my boss? Is the penalty not steeper? What if I was to tell a lie under oath? Wouldn’t the penalty be greater?
How about if I threaten to kill a person? That is bad, right? I could be brought up on charges or thrown in jail. But what if I threaten to kill the president of the United States of America? Doesn’t that hold a steeper penalty?
Finally, lets look at murder. If I murder a someone I get thrown in jail. Sometimes for a long time, but usually for 7-15 years give or take. Now what happens if I murder a police officer? I’m thrown in jail for life with no possibility of parole.
You see the action [sin] stays the same, but what makes the changes is who we sin [act] against. You said that sin is finite and hell is infinite. I say that sin against God is infinite and that is why hell is infinite, and therefore just.
You might not agree, but you must admit, the logic does make sense.
For His Glory,
Jason
Jason, 2 parts, coz the first part is a bit of a long one. apologies if it comes off as a rant.
most atheists won’t say that. i’ve never heard that (unless you’re talking about specific gods,in which case “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” Stephen F. Roberts often comes up. right, sorry, it’s just an oft repeated ‘fact’ that comes up too often; an equivalent may be the complaints Dawkins got from christians who objected that the religion he addressed in ‘the god delusion’ wasn’t what they believed.
ok, the rest…
to me, the idea that there are no ‘good moral people’ is 1, not my experience, and 2, just sounds like a horribly negative world-view. it sounds like it devalues human life and could well lead to dangerous fanaticism in some people. if that’s the message, i don’t see it as a desirable one.
except…does then god not have the power to forgive, change the rules, appear to everyone personally, whatever, or is he ‘mean, vindictive or jealous’ and chooses not to?(slight variation on the question of evil).
i think your examples leave a lot of room for intention and degree, therefore the penalties vary. e.g. telling your best mate you saw their other half cheating rightly incurs steeper penalties than pulling a sickie; telling your mate in a bar ‘i want to kill bush!’ is different from approaching him with a gun etc. the other interesting point is that the milder the penalty, the more likely it is to come from an autonomous source. again, is god ‘mean, vindictive or jealous’ or is s/he/it bound to a set of rules, making it…not god?
your logic only makes sense when you accept certain presuppositions, which are themselves logically questionable. it’s like;
#books are true
#the bible is a book
#therefore the bible is true
the logic is undeniable, but that doesn’t make the argument valid.