One of my favorite stories was about the sun and the wind. Basically it went something like this:
The wind and the sun argued one day over which one was the best/most effective. Spotting a man man traveling on the road, they made a bet to see which one could remove the coat from the man's back the quickest. The wind blew strong gusts of air, so strong that the man could barely walk against them. But the man clutched his coat tight against him. The wind blew harder and longer, and the harder the wind blew, the tighter the man held his coat against him for protection. The wind blew until he was exhausted, but he could not remove the coat from the man's back. It was now the sun's turn and he smiled kindly on the man. He gently sent his beams upon the traveler. The sun did very little, but quietly shone upon his head and back until the man became so comfortable and warm that he took off his coat and enjoyed the beautiful weather.I love that story. I haven't heard it in probably 20 years, but yesterday it popped into my head out of nowhere! Then I had an epiphany (I think this may be the first time I've ever used that word!). I think it could be a parable for the Church. Let me explain:
Imagine that the man is an unbeliever and his coat is his defensive barrier he puts between himself and Jesus (just like the coat was really a defensive barrier between the man and the weather). We in the Church desperately want this man to find the love, grace, redemption, and satisfaction that only comes through Jesus, but we can't get through to him because of the shield he holds up because of his negative perceptions about Christianity. At this point I believe there are 2 schools of thought/methods to help this man drop the "coat" so that he can find the love of Jesus.
#1 - This group of churches are like the wind. They try to knock the man's coat off by telling him
he's wrong for having it, and they come at him with all the force they can muster! They don't even attempt to make him comfortable because "he's a sinner and he shouldn't feel comfortable in his sin. When he comes to this church he needs to feel convicted!" Instead they are harsh. So, each time they see a new guy with a "coat" on they try to rip the coat off & tell him he needs Jesus and should become a Christian! The problem is, the harder they "blow" the tighter the man holds his coat on. He walks out the door never to return to that church and his barriers and negativity against Christianity are even stronger now.#2 - The second group of churches are like the sun. They try to make the man as comfortable as he can be. They are really nice to him. Believers make friends with him (not just to "convert"
him but to love him like Jesus does). He has relationships with these people, so he keeps coming back and hanging out with them. He's really comfortable there... he likes it. After time goes by the HOLY SPIRIT convicts him. One of his Christian friends who has had a relationship with him for some time now gets to talk to him about it. He's so comfortable talking with his friend that he takes the coat off. He has no need for it. The conviction doesn't feel condemning or mean or harsh... it's more like love. So, why would he need the coat? The guy believes the great story about Jesus and he is never the same.I love something I heard Jeff Henderson from Buckhead Church say a few months ago = "Comfort and Conviction go together." I had always heard the opposite. If we hold back and try to be nice and put them at ease it's like compromise. Conviction only comes when the person is hit harshly with something - that's what I used to think. what about you?
I think it's obvious that when someone is convicted in an atmosphere that is not comfortable they automatically hold the coat on tighter and get "offended" (not at Jesus but at our method) and walk away. Conviction is easier to swallow & is MORE EFFECTIVE in a comfortable context! And I think you will agree that a relationship is the most comfortable context there is!
Put yourself in a similar situation. Imagine you just bought a new shirt. You love it! You think it's
cool. In fact, you know it's cool. Imagine a complete stranger comes to your door and says to you "The shirt you're wearing is the most out of style, ugly, and ridiculous shirt I've ever seen! I really hope you don't wear it out in public because people will think you're out of it." You would totally be thinking "who are you again!?!?!?!?" I think that's exactly what unbelievers think when we "proselytize" them without a relationship. They hear some preacher making them uncomfortable and trying to convict them (instead of letting the Holy Spirit do it) or some guys they just met at church tell them they need to change & need to accept Jesus and they're like "who the heck are you!!?!?"Now imagine that you're wearing that same shirt and your spouse of 10 years or your best friend says to you, "I know you love that shirt & you think it's cool and all, but I think you got some bad information. It was cool like 7 years ago. I'm only telling you because I'm your friend and I don't want you to look dumb." Now, that's never fun to hear but you must admit that your reaction to your friend/spouse will be WAY different than to a stranger.
Unbelievers can be convicted by the truth through either of these methods. I simply think that one of them is very effective and the other probably does more damage than good.
*The Sun told the Wind that gentleness and friendliness are always more effective than fury and force.*
[the whole connection to the children's story was just a random thought that hit me yesterday, so i didn't take any time to perfect it or craft the way i said it. maybe i will do that sometime. for now it makes sense in my head, so i hope it makes sense in yours.]
Posts
33 comments:
great thoughts. im gonna steal em!
i like it bro. i'm definitely on board with method #2. one loving concern...i smell some pragmatism. i know you have a tendency to lean towards whatever works:) lets make sure scripture precedes pragmatics. i'm trying to think if the "comfortable" concept is a biblical concept?? not sure?
...not trying to be a baptist legalist:)
Paul said that he would not have known grace without the law. I agree Patrick that there are way too many "Wind Churches" out there. But the fact that sin is ugly and disgusting is a fact of the gospel. Not all, but some "sunshine churches" are trying to soften or hide the truth of sin. Paul directly stated that the sin that come from are mouths alone are like rotting graves. (Romans 3:12) I don't know if that provoked a warm and fuzzy feeling.
great analogy by the way
I agree that the church should be more loving or inviting to non-believers but I have a problem with the context of it being in the church. I don't have a problem with outreach services that are specifically for reaching out to the community and they should be comfortable because that's what the world associates with, but I think there should be a clear distinction between outreach and church.
I seem to hear a lot about the church and about being comfortable in the church and playing secular music in the church and making sure everybody feels good, Christian and non-Christian, and that our main concern is to be "relevant". Since when has the church been "relevant" in the world, just doesn't make sense. I tend to disagree with this concept, because I think the Bible is pretty clear that church is "fellowship of believers" and I recall several times in the Bible where people who are rebellious are kicked out of the church in order for them to see their sin and come back to the church.
Please understand that I believe that there should be church organized "outreach" that should be comfortable, etc. Because, we obviously have to reach the world on their level. I just have a problem with it being in church fellowship where the purpose should be encouragement/growth/etc.
I don't claim to have the answers, these are just my issues with the comfortable church.
while it seems that the sun made him comfy, the truth is it made him uncomfortable enough to take off the coat. no need to whine about not making people uncomfortable enough. the gospel does a good job of offending people whether we speak softly or scream. our responsiibility is not making lost people uncomfy in our church services (maybe more later on how ridiculous the notion is that we should separate church life from secular life...). the gospel has its own offense when understood properly. upbeat music and a preacher who isnt screaming is hardly compromise or pragmatism. Titus 2:7-10, Paul exhorts Timothy to tell servants to make sure they are making the gospel attractive by the way they speak and by their actions. I do not deny the fact that some may not be preaching the gospel, but for those who are preaching the gospel, it should be adorned (KJV for made beautiful) by our lifestyle and by our speech. comfortable may not be a term usually associated with the gospel, but when sharing our faith or sharing our worship services with them, the gospel should be the only thing that offends them, not our actions, not our tone, not any other barrier (KJV, suits/ties/dresses, etc.) that prevents people from understanding or accepting the gospel message.
Not to mention, Christ himself became relevant to his world and is to ours today. Its not about just finding anything that works and manipulating the gospel, as much as it is finding the gospel message in any context, culture thus making it relevant.
my questions are:
what makes a church service comfy or not?
how can u call the church a "fellowship of believers" when there is no way to tell who really is a beliver?
why would you have a "problem with a church service being more loving and inviting" -scott?
why have organized outreach? seems like a cop-out for people who arent relevant(yeah i had to throw that in there ha) enough to reach their world (neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc.)
oh one more thing, and ill leave u alone :-) im sitting here at work typing these comments between calls ha
being relevant is more than just adding a few illustrations to our pretty gospel package so that people can understand the concepts involved. being relevant, is meeting people where they are and starting worship cummunities in that culture/subculture. its not about taking people out of their culture and making them church-friendly so that our white, midclass, republican church members wont be disgusted when they attend. dont they need to know that they can serve and worship God in their culture/community?
one of the main points of the Gospel is that God is calling men to a relationship with him... how can we truly understand a realationship with him if we dont have one with his body (church). we make the gospel most relevant when we share it in the context of a relationship, when we show them what it means to be reconciled to God, when we show them the grace and mercy that God has shown us, things like this make the gospel relevant and this should not be "clearly distinct" from our church services.
i could be totally off here. whatdyu think?
patrick man some thinking process u got goin on there. very profound, true, and logic in my very small human and finite mind. That was a sweet comparisoon! But also agree with Ethan. Get some scripture maybe with Christ's ministry and u could be starting a new movement!
And to maybe agree with kris that our church's need to be COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE as much as we can get it without comforming to the world! Why else would paul say to "be all things to all men"? I guess i have really taken that scripture to heart in the last 6 months. When i was at pcc i would ask questions on this topic and in my social ethics class my teach would just tell me that i need to minister to people without even getting close to "the sin line", but in my cultural anthropology class, carlson would tell us that we need to completely adapt to their culture without sinning. To me those are standards. The key word being STANDARD. i believe paul was very clear when he said to be all things to all men but i also think that God will give us all different standards and convictions based on our own lives. So to say that a "comfortable church" is the wrong way or that it is the only way is in my opinion completely false. i think paul was really talking about balance. my church has many old, legalistic power-driven people and even though i want to shove the bible down their throats it's not the answer. and neither is catering to them completely either. The key is to establish a relationship with them and to serve them with my whole heart. that's what Christ did throughout his whole ministry. And again to agree with kris, the gospel is offensive in and of itself so lets make people feel as comfortable as we can by establishing relationships and love them and let God do the judging/blowing
This is my opinion on the opposite side of my last comment. When I worked at a youth camp all summer in 05', the camps goal was to get those kids out of their comfort zone completely. i bring this up because i stand on the point of making people feel as comfortable as possible. But at this camp i saw more kids lives changed than prob any other camp or counseling method. The only catch to this was that when they took them out of their comfort zone, they did it in a manner of excitement (activities, separation from friends, games, devotions, etc.) So if we are going to take the approach of taking people out of their comfort zone (which i would be fine with), i think we need to make it subtle by making them feel as comfortable as possible (if that makes any since at all). it does in mine but i'm pretty jacked up:)
awesome fellas... lovin' the discussion goin' on here. love to see you guys interact with each other even more. I plan on interacting with each of your comments, but I've been building stage sets ALL week & haven't had a free moment. This week I'll share my thoughts about YOUR thoughts and then you guys can interact with my thoughts some more...
peace
So, I had this full comment to leave, in answer to some of Kristopher's questions, but then it got deleted when I sent it?!?! So, I'm gonna leave the short version.
My main point in that whole ridiculously long email I sent the other day is that our "focus" shouldn't be on being comfortable. I do believe a "comfortable" church is doing much better than the KJV church/legalistic, etc, because they are more conducive to openness and mercy.
But, my thought about being comfortable, is that is the exact opposite about what a believer who is seeking God with his/her whole heart should be concerned about. And isn't the MAIN purpose of the church for fellowship of believers and growth/discipleship. And what I mean by fellowship of believers . . . is just that, people who are believers of Christ and who are continually seeking Christ's will in their lives.
And if we talk about segregation, Kristopher you mentioned churches that lean toward white/republicans. Wouldn't church be even MORE segregated if we focused on music and preaching that we "preferred" rather than what we need? My main issue with focusing on making it comfortable is that . . . that's not what the Christian life is about at all.
Secondly, let's be honest that music has influence over a person. I don't just mean words, I mean the beat and rhythm. You or anyone else could try to convince me that the beat and rhythm have nothing to do with "good" music and it's only important the words, but, you and everyone else would be totally wrong. I've been playing music since I was 11 and singing since I was 5. I've seen many musicians who have been overcome by the music they play and have lost self-control, patience, etc, all because of the influences of their music and the kind of people that were influenced by their music. So, music does have a big deal to do with the service.
One more thing, in regard to it being ridiculous that we separate church from secular life, I TOTALLY agree. But, music that I listen to on my free time may not be truly appropriate for me. So, when I go to church . . . or we should call it, corporate worship, which again, is meant for growth and discipleship, it's probably not the best thing for me to be influenced by the beat that I like to listen to because it isn't the best for my self control, patience, etc. Instead, it is music with a beat that I don't really care for, but, is good because it is separate from my flesh. And, wouldn't it be less segregated if we focused on music with less focus on beat and more on what is appropriate for weak and strong believers alike?
I totally agree with you on Titus 2:7-10, but remember that I don't see church as being for "fellowship of nonbelievers and believers". I see it is a place of growth and fellowship/discipleship for those who are continually pursuing Christ and seeking to deny themselves.
What is the passage about, whatever is lawful is not always profitable. What if we focused on this in our corporate services as well as our lives.
Please understand, I don't pose these comments or questions to belittle Patrick or say that we shouldn't go with change or new ideas. Because, I fully believe that the comfortable church is doing a better job at some pivotal things that the legalistic church is doing horribly, like, mercy. But, why shouldn't we keep striving for the "perfect" community of believers, conducive to growth, and one that we can go out from among each other and be a light in a dark place.
I by no means am a KJV/legalist person. I wear tshirts to church, I have a secular job, I go to the bar with my friends who booze it up the whole night while I drive them home as the designated driver. And, these guys, who are no-believers, why would be play a secular song in church in order to bring these people in? Wouldn't the only reason they would come, is if something was different about the church, something unique about the place? I mean, if they wanted secular music, they could go to a bar.
I agree with you Kristopher, I think that we should be 100% real in and outside the church, but I'm always wanting to continue to pursue the best possible "fellowship of believers" and the best place for rehab of believers who seek growth in their lives, the most unsegregated church possible, and a place that a strong Christian isn't pulled down because the church's main concern is for everyone to be comfortable, when, if that is their main concern, then, really, it would be best for them to go somewhere else because being comfortable is SEPARATE from the Christian life. And, your church may be different than mine, but all the ones that I know, there are ministers on staff who talk about how we get more people in the church, that's all I hear about . . . we need to make the church more comfortable so we can get more butts in the seat? Isn't something wrong with this? Where is the scriptural basis for this, he hasn't EVER given us a scriptural basis, he's just said, that this is what God has called him to do? I hate to be mean, but, God has not spoken anything to him. He's come up with what sounds good and that's what he wants to do.
Why can't the leaders of the church main purpose, or thing that he RAVES about, or focuses on, be that we as Christians be stripped of what we want and given what we need which is more biblical than bringing people in. Not a church that seems to focus on the amount of attendance or making sure we have food for people to enjoy and good coffee. Why don't we get rid of the coffee, get rid of the fancy lights. Instead, we could use the money that we use to be "comfortable", and go at 1 p.m. after the service is over (a service that we have been stripped of our styles and our preferences) and use that money to do something for people who need it?
So, as you can see, I like to go on rabbit trails and maybe this one will load this time so you can see it. So much for a short comment.
One more thing, I love good ideas and new thoughts, and change for the church and anything else for that matter, I mean, why in the world would I be friends with Patrick, the #1 idea man I know :) But, I tend to be discerning when someone brings me a new idea, an idea that I think about, why in the heck are we doing something different, let's diagnose the reason behind it. Some people don't like me for it, but I think it's better to be overly discerning than to accept things without thinking.
Hopefully I've answered some of those questions you had in this long rant.
Our first interaction with unbelievers should be demonstrating the love of Christ, should it not?
The church demonstrates Christ's love to the world and as we show the love of Christ, we are able to "tell them their t-shirt is ugly" to use patrick's analogy.
We can't, however, continue to use the word "church" to describe the building or the place where we meet. We are the church, we are the body of Christ. How in the world can we separate outreach from the church. Aren't they one and the same?
We are the church, we are called to share the love of Christ. And, when we do interact with unbelievers we should desire for them to find life in Christ.
So, numbers do matter!! Because each number represents a person who is either going to heaven or hell. We don't want them to go to hell, but to spend eternity with Christ.
And, of course we should be relevant to the culture. But, I think some Christian leaders have grossly misused this term. Relevant simply means going into a culture to share Christ, not asking people to come to your culture. Hudson Taylor did this, changed the way he dressed so that he could reach those in China.
Honestly, it seems like the devil has done his job. He was thinking, hmm, how do I distract Christians from converting unbelievers? Oooo, I know, I'll get them wrapped up in talking about music or other issues that they think are crucial instead of them being in the world and talking about Jesus. And, it seems he's done a good job. It's ridiculous that we still discuss music or relevance while the number of believers in the United States is constantly on the decline, attendance at churches continues to slide, and we are becoming less and less effective at taking Jesus to the lost and dying world.
I agree with Scott’s comments. I think that to be more balanced, we should not only question why we are changing, but in many cases the church could benefit from asking why we should stay the same or at least we could question both. Great thoughts guys, ive been challenged to think through some of these issues more deeply as a result of this discussion.
These are some more thoughts I had (and I promise they are not entirely directed at you, Scott. Smile just food for thought and just adding to the discussion.) It is true that churches are too segregated, and usually the segregation has to do with cultural issues such as dress, music, location, bible versions, and the rest of the crap we argue about. My biggest concern is not that we are segregated in terms of these issues but that the church is segregated in terms of ministry philosophy. The ministry philosophy for most traditional churches is, as scott rightly observed, a “bring-them-in” mentality. In other words, we are too often focused on whatever it takes to bring them in to the 4 walls of our building. in fact, we would rather go door-knocking and reach very few if any, instead of spending that same amount of time with families we Know need our help by ministering at battered women’s shelters or children’s hospitals…. Places where we know people need us and places where we can be more of an example of Christ to them. Our discussion of music, dress, etc. is not an issue of relevance to the world around us. People don’t sit in the park with their families on Sunday morning thinking to themselves, “u know, if that church had some cool music we would love to go.” or whatever else we think needs to change to “bring them in”. They don’t care if we change the rules and style. This discussion is not valuable if we are only trying to find ways to adjust our services so that people will come. That is hardly the point. We should not endeavor to create a “church experience” that doesn’t segregate. That kind of non-segregation comes as we start our own Christ-centered communities in the homes and areas around us – outside of our church buildings. To create a church service that is non-segregated is impossible and silly to try. While some churches have more diversity than others as far as race is concerned, no single church service can be effective at reaching every genre, style, culture, whatever. That isn’t the point! It’s not about organized church services for everyone. It’s more about believers creating communities of worship in their own spheres of influence. In this sense the church becomes non-segregated by going out to the world around them and engaging the culture/sub-culture of those around them. The individual gatherings can’t reach everyone but as one larger body reaches out to the community in many smaller gatherings; here the church becomes all things to all men, namely, relevant. This is definitely a different model of ministry than we might be used to, but I don’t see it as too far from where the church started out. But now, thanks to our catholic influence, we think one man should be in charge of a church; we think one version is good for everyone; we think in terms of who’s in and who’s out; we find buildings highly attractive; we think unless we all clean up our act and start listening to the same music wearing the same uniform and talking the same lingo, you cant truly be a Christian, or at least – said with a self-righteous smug – you’re not a mature one.
#1. I like all the comments but I just want to add that we need to remember that the church is not 4 walls, it is people.
Patrick, I am totally against thought number one and am all about loving people where they are just because we love them not because we have an agenda. The exception is preaching at church and 3000 come to faith. The rule is that people come to faith one heart at a time... Christians making relationships with people in there lives and them seeing the love of Christ through it.
I think maybe the way you worded some things with being comfortable came off the wrong way.
jim, thats exactly my point. the church is not a building but a people.
but its not like any of us have never heard that before... the problem is that our ministry philosophy and church mentality contradict what we say. in other words, what we say and what we do contradict each other. we say, "the church is not the building", but we practice as though it is.
for instance:
• We encourage our people to witness on a daily basis, but emphasise the Sun. morning service so much that they spend more hours praying for Sunday morning service than they do praying for opportunities to invest in someone’s life every other day of the week.
• The anticipation is that you should bring your friends so they can get saved at church… Church should not be the primary place where souls are being saved! Souls will be brought to know and love God in church, but each member should be ministering, investing in friends, neighbors, co-workers and seeing them saved and changed in their homes and around dinner tables. Our system does not create opportunities or aid in this process of evangelism. It is much easier to organize and effort to meet random strangers at their door, invite them to church, and let pastor do the work of the ministry.
• The high-pressure sales pitch at the end of most services gives the impression that God does his best work in the 10 minutes following the sermon. And, the greatest part about it is that the sermon doesn’t even have to make sense or give the people ONE clear reason to come forward. “If anything I have said today hits home, come forward... Now!”
• We encourage the people to find a place to serve in the church. Whether we mean to or not, we directly imply by that statement that they should be doing something within the four walls of the church building. Once again creating a misleading misconception: The church is the building. No wonder we spend so much time trying to make it clear that the church is the people and not building. We are sending conflicting messages.
People should know that you care about them first. After that you can talk to them about Christ. You have to build a bridge before you can walk across it or else you will just fall down and then you look like an idiot. And at the same time you will look like an idiot if you build the bridge and never walk across it.
You can't just have love and no harshness toward sin. You have to have both. It is like running a successful offense in football. You have to have a running game if you expect to be able to throw the ball and vice versa.
In response to kristopher:
You can't limit the salvation experience to the living room. There's nothing wrong with someone receiving Christ at a church service, didn't this happen when Jesus preached? and when Paul preached? Sure, I understand the concept that churches have emphasized the service too much and forgotten about relationship building, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
thanks for the reminder jaybee. i certainly agree with you. i didnt intend to imply by whatever i said that people cant get saved at church. and i dont recall limiting salvation to anything, any place.
i dont want to throw the baby out with the bath water... i just wanna make sure the baby's real clean before i drain the tub.
whatever that means :-)
hey scott, just a few questions cuz im probably not quite the musician you are:
i wonder if you can give me some clear examples of ways that music has caused you to lose self-control or patience or whatever? - specifically, ways that can't be tied to any other factor. and what types of music cause this?
im asking because i see alot of fat preachers who have apparently lost self-control and they are pretty conservative with church music. of course, there's no way of knowing whether they are rock stars in the closet. they also have little patience from my experience.
(maybe this should be discussed in another post...)
First off, everyone can stop saying that the church isn't a building because I'm pretty sure everyone in this blog understands that. Also, I agree with most of your ideas Jaybee, but there is a clear distinction between the church and outreach, in my opinion. Maybe that's why there seems to be this confusion as to why everyone keeps reminding everyone that church isn't a building. Church is people who are professing believers who are seeking Christ's will. Outreach is reaching out to . . . anyone, aka, the community and non-believers and believers who are and who are not seeking God's will, etc. So, Jaybee, numbers do matter in regard to outreach, but if we're talking about fellowship of the believers which we could also call "church" which we'd like to think is about encouragement and growth, then numbers should not be near the focus or the gauge of our success.
But, I love your definition of relevant. And I agree that music should not be something that pulls us apart but let's face it, music does have an influence over people and so it should be discussed. I don't like saying it because I believe that some conservatives take it too far and expect us to listen to renaissance music when no one's ever heard that before and there is no association with it at all. That's definitely ridiculous. But, if you want to discuss something with me, I would suggest you read my earlier messages and if you have a comment regarding them then you should reference it so I know what you're referring to, otherwise, I'm gonna assume it's not to have any dialogue with me.
Hey Kristopher, I can tell by your comment, you got what I was saying because I TOTALLY agree. I also agree that the churches are too segregated but there are a whole lot of factors that go into that and I don't know if we can ever expect every culture to be in perfect harmony enough for everyone to be fine with the same church. I guess it's possible but who knows.
As far as music goes, I know personally, some music can calm me down, others can get me pumped up. As far as what is right and what is wrong, I think everyone has an opinion on that, but, I think people often ignore their conscience on this subject and just say everything goes. I think, to agree, you can listen to any kind of music and not be affected on a "deep" level. But, obviously, people's actions have to do with lots of different things combined. And, I do think, like Jaybee said, people get too caught up with this aspect, and you can't tell people what they can and can't listen too like some churches tend to do because that is such a gray area. But one thing is for sure, music affects you. Don't remember the reference, but the passage about David playing the harp for Saul, and it soothed him after he had been angry. I just want to point out that, contrary to popular discussion and opinion, music does affect the way people react, and I think, when discussing believers who are intending to uplift each other, it is important to atleast point that out and let everyone's conscience work it out on their own. Because as you pointed out, a pastor you know will listen to hymns or whatever in a service and listen to whatever outside. You can't "convince" someone that they're wrong, because it is stupid to argue opinions. But, scripture is clear that music affects a person's actions, how much, we don't know exactly, and it is clear that we should be concerned about self-control/patience/ therefore we should be considering the music that we listen to and make sure it is encouraging these things, and let everyone decide for themselves what that means, because the bible tells us to be "without a doubt" in our own mind.
I like your analogy...like a lot. You weren't saying try to hide or stave off sin, you just felt like comfort in a loving relational way will eventually lead to it coming off. Getting convicted in church and "making a decision" is a very wonderful thing. I think it is very emotionally driven though. I've seen time after time people make decisions and then completely fall off the decision boat and then go back to living pre decision lives. The false fire that men create in church never will equal the power of the conviction of the Spirit. But, like you said....let's love the heck out of them and I don't know do something radical like pray for the Spirit's guidance in our interaction with them in person and on stage in church and leave the rest to God. I have to remember these are unbelievers in sin NOT believers in sin. Anywho, there are my 2 cents.
i love Jesus!
... and i love ethan, and ben, and kris, and scott, and patrick, and jim, and jaybee, and travis, and even glenn reed. but exspecially Jesus!
kris, maybe u could elaborate on ur comment "In other words, we are too often focused on whatever it takes to bring them in to the 4 walls of our building. in fact, we would rather go door-knocking and reach very few if any,"? I struggle greatly with this comment only because of the lives i've seen God change through our door to door ministry. And I know we (church as a whole) all could do better at building relaionships with our co-workers and the rest of the world but to say that we put too much emphasis on it seems a little harsh. Don't get me wrong. God has changed my views about the church extremely and I am 1000 percent in favor of building relationships in and out of the church. That's what Christ's life was all about. But it was also "all about" witnessing to a complete srranger. As long as u agree that there just needs to be a balance i'm fine with ur comment. just am not ready to throw that out. And isn't it safe to say that each city and community is completely different? Everyone keeps going round and round about methods and the dangers of them. Again they can be good warnings as long as we also keep in mind that everyone is different! Just like my parents treated and disciplined me differently than my brother because we are 2 diff. people. Different people need different methods. And Yes I believe that the Gospel stays the same! So as much as i hate the "conservative church" with conservative old fashion music, and as much as i want the comfortable church to be applied to my churh, i know that God is completely sovereign and is in complete control.
And just to prove that i'm not a "the church is a building" junkie, i love what my brother says about ministering in a "church"; "how do u minister to someone when ur starring at the back of their head?" Meaning that its hard to really dig deep into a relationship with someone for 15 before and after church!
Just my belief. correct me if i'm wrong - please feel free. my scripture would definitely be to "be all things to all men" meaning every man is different so u will need to minister one way with one man but totally different with anotherman.
haha, you guys are like the energizer bunny - which is totally cool. i've finally had a chance to read most of your comments.
i plan on sharing my thoughts about all your thoughts THIS WEEK. hopefully sooner rather than later!
*just have to share 1 thought on the most recent comment right now - caleb (j-soda) = actually, when you talk about door-knocking - COLD HARD FACTS/statistics/ research shows that stuff like that does like 3 times as much harm & is what turns people further away from Jesus - in OUR generation anyway. and across America, like less than 1/2% of people actually come to Christ like that. So, I'm not denying your experience that people's lives have been changed thru you knocking on their door, but that's not the norm & most Christians are actually doing damage to Jesus' name when they do that! just something to think about...
i can say all that bkuz i got my tux fitted finally :) lookin' forward to the bachelor party bro. peace
hey caleb. great thoughts and i appreciate your concern to find balance and your point that different methods will reach different people. i agree. i also agree with patrick's response to ur comment. i think that while you and other good hearted people have seen results from door-knocking, this method is easily abused and often proposed as the only and best method of "soul-winning". its def not the only and certainly not the best in my opinion.
but even thats not my main point in making that statement. i didnt intend to rate door-knocking as successful or not (apparently it is in your case) i only wanted to say that door-knocking is generally a church marketing strategy to bring people in. not that you wouldnt minister to someone at their doorstep if they needed it, just that it should be categorized as more of a "bring-them-in" activity and not a "go-to-them" activity. im thinking going out to the world means more than door-knocking or even more than witnessing to friends, neighbors, coworkers. maybe it means going out into the world and leaving our comfort zones to minister/reach people where they are by creating communities in their culture/sub-culture instead of expecting them to change and join ours. i think it is nice that we want our churches to be freindly/welcoming to the lost, but maybe that isnt even the point... maybe we should be going out into all the world and starting new communities/churches.
I love everybody but Caleb Jones
i don't even read pattick's blog and i'm married to him. you jokers must have way too much free time. and i love all of you (well, those of you that i know anyway!)
crystal
I’ll try to share my thoughts on all you guys’ great thoughts. But since there’s like 31 of them I’m gonna try to be short so I’m not writing for pages and pages. Just remember that you’re all my homeboys too, so I’m not being mean to anyone… just trying to be short. (but it will be long)…
ETHAN – I’m thinking we should all be more pragmatic to accomplish more for the kingdom. I wonder if sometimes Jesus is thinking “Why are they all trying to do stuff just like I did it 2,000 years ago? I gave them brains, I just wish they would use them and get some stuff done.”
Scripture doesn’t talk about everything. Again, God gave us brains. He told us to tell peeps about Him and it only makes sense to do that in the MOST EFFECTIVE way, right? Why would we wanna do it in a way that is less effective. (“That’s like wiping before you poop; it just doesn’t make sense.”) So, I think there are plenty of Scriptural principles for it, but we can’t go around proof-texting everything. We gotta follow THE STORY insteada pulling verses out here and there to back up what we think. I’ve always been the guy doing this in the past, so I’m gonna refrain from doing it now.
Wherever God didn’t tell us the EXACT/SPECIFIC way to do something we’ve gotta just do it the best way. Again, I think the main thing is that we intro peeps to Jesus – let’s just do it the way that works best.
*BEN – I agree that sin is ugly and shows our need of the gospel. I also agree that we need to point that sin out, BUT that we should do it in the context of a relationship where the person is comfortable with us. It’s harder work, but much more effective. If we just confront sin without that relationship we’ll probably just tick them off unnecessarily.
SCOTT – you probably meant things a little different than they sounded here. Surely, you can’t have meant - believers should be loving to unbelievers but NOT IN CHURCH! We’ve just gotta live and love like Jesus all the time – whether we’re at church or not. I’m sure you’d agree. So, we can’t just decide to purposely “not love” or make unbelievers uncomfortable in our “worship services”. Why would we want to do that?
As far as RELEVANCE goes… what could possibly be more relevant than the message we have/the story of Jesus??? THERE IS NOTHING MORE RELEVANT THAN JESUS so if we try to make “church” irrelevant then we’re like almost defaming God! You follow me bro? [we can’t form this little “insider” club where unbelievers come and are totally lost because we’ve put up a lot of stupid insider language stuff]
The only people who are “kicked out of church” are unrepentant Believers and they’re not “kicked out” but treated as unbelievers (so they can still come to “church”) with the whole purpose & hope being RESTORATION for them.
Just the phrase “organized outreach” that you use makes me twinge a little bit… a lot really. If we’re living missional lives like Jesus calls us to we don’t really need to organize anything.
Now, it seems like your MAIN point is the distinction between discipleship/fellowship & “outreach” to unbelievers. I’m assuming you would agree that Scripture CLEARLY calls the church to both of these things… right? So it’s not either/or. As the church we’ve gotta be doing both. From this point methods will differ, but surely we can all agree that no true “fellowship”, community, koinonia is gonna happen in the typical Sunday “church service”. Can’t really happen with 100 or more people in the room. The best place for community, fellowship, and discipleship to happen is NOT on a Sunday in a large gathering. BUT this context is a perfect place to make unbelievers feel COMFORTABLE and give them a great 1st experience with God and return to that safe place to explore and start on there spiritual journey.
(btw – I think the ultimate mission of the church is to spread the fame & renown of God.)
KRISTOPHER – right on bro. obviously that’s what I was saying = let the gospel/Holy Spirit make them uncomfortable… let’s not offend them unnecessarily by being fundamentalist idiots. *And YEAH, I totally agree that we should have NO dichotomy between “spiritual” and “secular” life. It’s all spiritual. Just one life.
CALEB JONES – what do you mean by “conforming to the world”?? what does that look like? Not sure exactly what that is unless you’re talking about sin.
CALEB JONES #2 – those kids were believers at a Christian camp. TOTALLY different context and not really relevant to what we’re talking about. + a TOTALLY different type of discomfort too. With the “wind” churches I’m talking about ones who offend unnecessarily = that kind of discomfort. You guys used it like a boot camp to help them grow. 2 very different things.
SCOTT – I think believers should be comfortable in church too.., with all the externals. They should enjoy it. Boring church freakin’ sucks. Why would anyone have a boring church. believers should ONLY be uncomfortable with the Holy Spirit’s conviction. Same with unbelievers which is what my original article was saying. It should be a great environment so that the Holy Spirit is set up to convict.
I’m not so sure about the whole music thing either. I’m not really buying it. Music has to be an amoral thing. But you’re way smarter than me so maybe you could explain it to me sometime. You are familiar with my stellar musical ability : )
And when you talk about “corporate worship” (not really for discipleship… worship is for Jesus right?) I think you’re thinking in the wrong direction with the musical part of worship. Worship is all about giving true admiration, awe, etc… to God & the more true and from the heart it is the more God loves it. SO, if we worship God through the type of music that is MOST NATURAL for us, the music we enjoy most… then of course our worship can potentially be the most true, honest, and passionate. If we try to worship through music we don’t like or that’s unnatural it can EASILY be fake! I think this makes God sick because it’s not natural and not from the heart. Make sense?
I think the something different your friends would want is an AUTHENTIC RELATIONSHIP with a believer… maybe yourself. They don’t want goofy music that they don’t like in a weird gathering place.
What do you mean by “being comfortable is SEPARATE from the Christian life.” ??
KRISTOPHER – I agree that to have a church service that is non-segregated is impossible. & in your next comment – good observations about our screwed up view of “church” being within 4 walls.
GLENN REED – I’m curious what you mean by “harshness toward sin”…
SCOTT – if you understand that the church isn’t a building but a people… then why do you say “there is a clear distinction between the church and outreach”??? How is that possible? How are you gonna separate “outreach” from the people?
Scott I do agree with you in the area of #s. I think if we’re gauging our “success” by using #s then we’re all jacked up. That’s something that’s pretty much out of our control… that’s God’s deal.
TRAVIS – Awesome point bro! That’s so important for the arrogant, tight-wound conservatives to remember! These peeps are UNBELIEVERS in sin we’re talking about. We CANNOT hold them to our standards!!! Why should we expect them to live by what God calls us to? That’s crazy and stupid. They better be living a life of sin as an unbeliever or else they’re really weird! What else would we expect?
Ok, this has been fun. I’m hurt that my wife doesn’t even read my blog… but on the other hand, she must if she left the comment right?
1st i want to say that i agree with kris and patrick when u say that it is a very old method that should be at the bottom of our list. And maybe i need to make myself clear how we door knock. We just moved church buildings and are in a new area. we are simply going around and telling people, "we are a new church in the area and want you to know that God loves you and if we can do ANYTHING for you to please let us know.(finacially, emotionally, spiritually, physically, etc.) And yes this method Is at the bottom of my list for reaching people and establishing relationships with people. how do u build a relationship with someone in 2 min. while standing on their door step? you can't. But i will say that God has used it so much to bring the lost in. We don't have a nice website yet and certainly don't have the financial resources that most churches have. So We are simply trying to take 1 day a week devoted to our neighborhood. And i will also say this to patrick and kris, as much as i agree with ur statements i also again want to make sure that there is a balance in our church. patrick ur church obviously doesn't go door to door. how then do u reach the people that will never step foot into a church? small groups? - great! but those are intended for meeting people (work, sports, school, etc.) and inviting them into an in home fellowship group. Many churches HAVE forgotten about their COMMUNITY because door knocking is old fashion and generally doesn't work. i say these things only so that u know that this is only 1 of the tools we use to bring them in. It has nothing to do with fellowship (at the beginning; only long term) it is merely a tool to help us meet even more people than just the peeps we meet at work and school!
CONFORMING TO THE WORLD - yes should have clarified it as SIN! not dress or hair or lifestye. SOMETHING THAT OFFENDS GOD!
KIDS AT CAMP - i really don't think its any different just b/c MANY are saved. What do u consider the gospel to be? I believe it to be Gen. 1:1 - Rev. 21:22 and on..... I am still living out the Gospel daily. The Gospel is not finished until Jesus Christ comes back for us, and locks satan up for good! The story doesn't end with His ressurection. Unfortunalely we lead people through the "plan of salvation" and only give them some of key parts. and before any gets their panities in a wad, i do believe that in "some cases" it is 100% appropriate to tell people only the part of Christ's death, burrial, and resurrection. but as long as we see that it's not over. So when we talk about the gospel being offensive, i believe its offensive to all! and i believe that the God takes me out of my comfort zone daily through the Gospel!
Post a Comment