“My main question is this: Why? Why does a church spend a very large amount of money to be a cover band?”
Well, go ahead. Answer if you can. Los? Randy? I’m hoping we hear from you.
Andrew Asks Why
Leave a comment or trackback from your own site.
68
Post a Comment
Want your picture next to your comment? Sign-up for free at Gravatar.
About Shaun — Shaun Groves is a communicator who’s known by a lot of titles: Singer/songwriter. Speaker. Blogger. Husband. Daddy. Friend. He feels and thinks deeply and laughs easily. And he’s helping Christians discover what they were saved for, and being a voice for children around the world, desperate to be saved from poverty.
Because innovation and creativity are dangerous. You might be wrong and there’s nothing worse than being wrong. So it’s a helluva lot easier and safer to go with something that’s already out there than to throw a new thing out there. Why risk for “excellent” when “good enough” is well within reach? Oh crap, I forgot about Phil. 4:8…
…because “it’s good enough for gospel.” Because we forget that the Creator is the source of creativity, originality and authenticity. Because we’re too impatient and immature to allow the Spirit to do a new thing in and through us. Because when we are not fulfilled through holiness we strive for fulfillment through the unholy – expecting others to fall into the same pattern of restlessness and mediocrity. Because we’d rather “pitch” than make disciples. Because I get spiritually lazy.
BTW, Shaun, can’t wait to have you in Lakeland, FL on the 10th!
Ok, good article! I agree with you…and disagree. I go to a large SBC here in Nashville. We started an incredible service about two years ago. It is completely contemporary and has a full band, and coffee, and is awesome! Basically after visiting many churches in the area, this is the one we chose, mainly because of that service.
, but really, there was a different spirit. The people who were coming to this service really seem to be coming because of a yearning for Christ, not a superficial Sunday Morning Routine.
Now, was it the swirling lights, the huge speakers, the riffs on the lead guitar that caused us to go there? Maybe a little
Now…fastforward two years later. The service is still awesome and booming, but…The church has gone through some budget problems (like $100,000 under)and still continues to hemmorrage money. Each of those band players is getting paid quite well. I am friends with one of them, and he said this is the best gig he has ever had for service work.
Second money issue: every service, Starbucks coffee is brewed and served. This equates to sometimes in the neighborhood of $500-$700/ service (I have been told by the finance committee).
When suggested to switch to an alternate brand, or have coffee donated, we were told that people would not come if we did not serve Starbucks!!!! Can you believe that?
Back on subject, I can totally see how the “culturally relevant” draws (i.e. Starbucks, 24, U2) seem to be “false advertising” but…
Our culture is ADDICTED to being “sold”. The reason all the advertising and hype and big productions are done, is because it work. People have been so influenced by this stuff for so long, that anymore, it has to be done just to get anyone to show up. It is sad, but we as a society respond to it. Maybe you and I think we don’t, but we still do. We have our own websites, we have our own blogs, promo teams, advertising, all our “peeps.” Because we want to? No, but because we have to to make it out in the “real” world.
The same is for churches. Everyone thinks their church is the best, and wants it to succeed and have everyone else think it is the best. Therefore, we have to have something to draw people into the building in order to show them the real “church” (idealy). And while money is an issue here, I don’t think it is the predominant one. Unfortuanatly, churches still have to run the electricity and also pay the pastor (or pastors).
So, is it a bad thing to use “worldly” tools to draw people in? Part of me says yes, but then I remember about the stripper who came to our service because it wasn’t like all the other places out there, and ended up accepting Christ that day, and turning herself around and I think…when it ends like that, maybe the end does justify the means.
But the flip side to that coin…she was searching, and would find Jesus somewhere.
I guess the jury is still out.
It is all in how success is measured. From a church standpoint in today’s environment, it is all about numbers. If these marketing pitches put bottoms in chairs on Sunday, it is working, because it attracts numbers.
Too many churches today are following this agenda that uses marketing to get people in and does whatever will keep them comfortable and keep them in.
Churchgoers are being entertained instead of being challenged, and being pumped up instead of being taught. The men in the pulpits have become motivational speakers, making people feel better about themselves without actually equipping them to become better.
Instead of equipping the saints to do the work of the ministry, the church is busy keeping them “engaged” so that they will keep showing up, and keeping the bills paid.
This is probably an extreme indictment. In some cases some good is being accomplished in spite of these things. But we are selling ourselves short if we relate success to an attendance number, rather than working to bring change to individual lives.
I’m with A.O. It is lying, and more, it is theft. Ripping someone else’s logo/innovation/creation and twisting it by slapping Jesus on it is theft. It’s the same crap as all those awful Christian t-shirts that rip corporate logos. Theft.
http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/archives/2005/07/the_christian_i.html
OK. Here is my take. I am not a big fan of the “Desperate Houselies” “24” “LOST” series stuff. Actually I think it is kind of lame.
Now. If you go to our church blog You will notice that a few months ago we did a series called “M28:19” Which was a blatent rip off of Mission Impossible.
“But Carlos. Are you not the Creative/Worship guy?”
Um. Yea. I lost. We all lose some battles right?
And I am still going to fight the fight that we need to stay away from the T-Shirt slogan ideas. Why?
Because we are not Hollywood. Nor should we be. Even the churches with the biggest budgets can not even come close to making those kinds of ideas work. It ends up looking like a bad high school drama compared to what the people going every Sunday actually watch on Monday nights.
BUT. I think the music thing is different.
I am sure that Shaun has done some secular covers in his career as cool singer songwriter. The songs speak to the masses. Music can actually be done well with low budgets if you have good players. We do covers at Sandals. We have done U2. The Black Eyed Peas. Even freaking LoneStar. But we don’t blast the community with stickers and postcards of The Black Eyed Peas with my head photoshopped on Fergies hot bod.
We play the covers not to be cool. But to give the church something that they can all relate to and then we teach from it. Because I promise you this. Inside Out might be the cool trendy United tune to do right now, but if my brother who is not a Christian walked in, the song would do nothing for him. Nada.
I’m not even going to reread what I just typed. Probably none of it makes sense. But it did coming out of my dome.
I’ll be in your neck of the woods next week. Are you outta town gigging or intown?
Los
Los, I assume you mean me. Um…I’m in town Feb 5-8 next week. Shoot an e-mail and we’ll grab some grub or something.
As for the thoughts that just spewed from your dome…You know I wondered as I read Andrew’s thoughts whether he sees what he and I do for a living as all that different from what this church’s praise team does. The motives may be different – I’m “targeting” Christians (more on that another time I guess) – but WHAT we do is similar if not the same is it not?
Yea, I’ve done a cover tune or three…almost always as a joke though. Barry Manilow. Semisonic. Joan Osborne.
Guilty.
Ok,
Not to belabor this point, because honestly, I agree with most of you. These T-shirts are offensive and kinda sacreligious in many cases. HOWEVER…
I have a friend who really likes these. We did traveling sales at State Fairs, home shows, etc. He would wear these, and frankly, I was embarrased. (His fav was the God’sWay/Subway one).
But you would not believe how many people came by to comment on those shirts! I mean, Christians and non-Christians both. We would hear, “Hey, I really like that shirt,” or “You a Christian too?” or “So I see that you’re a Christian, what do you have to say about me doing….”
We had so many opportunities to talk about Christ, that honestly would not have presented itself. If we would have stood there and started spouting off stuff about chosing God’s Way rather than Man’s Way, everyone would have thought we were crazy, been offended, and were lunatics-Non-Christians and Christians alike.
So, while it may be offensive to few, in my experience, it isn’t too many.
and about the logo thing being theft, I think that is bit too much. Corny, unwise, and disgusting maybe, but not theivery or immoral. If it was copyright infringement, those companies would be sued. Let me know if that has happened, and I’ll change my view on that.
I once met a “stripper for Jesus” who swore dozen of guys had been “saved” while she did her thing for them. Those are opportunities that wouldn’t have presented themselves otherwise.
I’m off to buy some velcro seamed pants right now. And a good body. Anything for Jesus.
I wanna be cool like Los, so I’ll post this on both blogs too…
I can see value in referencing pop culture here and there as part of Sunday AM programming. But there has to be some balance in this thing, though.
And I think the balance thing is way bigger than whether Jack Bauer shows up, yells “DAMN IT, WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!” and tortures the worship leader.
Rather… I think the balance has to do with what the church’s main mode of outreach is.
If the outreach model sounds like “let’s make church cool so non-Christians will come!” – on it’s own, without intentional emphasis on equipping and encouraging Christians to go out and love on people – then I think the church has missed the mark.
Too often it seems that our programs are built around finding ways to get people to church so our Pastor can tell them about Jesus. I hope for more balance in my own life… I want to show people in my community the love of Christ; hopefully they’ll notice something different in my life, scratch their heads, and say “hey, he goes to church Sundays… I don’t… maybe that’s what’s different about him…”
All that said… it’s cool to be cool… as long as that’s not all we are.
Here are my uncensored thoughts on this:
I’ve been hearing a lot lately about churches being relevant and innovative. I’ve checked out the popular church marketing websites and I’ve seen countless ads and posts about all the “cool” things that churches are doing to bring people in on Sunday morning.
Honestly, I think it’s all a bunch of hooey (yes, I did just use the word hooey.)
I don’t think the church needs to be culturally relevant. I don’t think that we need to do spinoffs of whatever show is the current hit. I don’t think we need to play songs on Sunday morning that Joe Blow who came in off the street can relate to.
That’s not why he came to church and that’s not why he’s going to stay and that’s not how he’s going to understand the gospel and that’s not why his life is going to be changed.
I don’t think an effective church is going to be cool or mod or culturally relevant. Jesus wasn’t.
We need to be relevant to people’s lives and hearts and not to they way the spend their discretionary income (i.e. movies, music, coffee, clothing style).
The gospel is always relevant. We don’t need to dress it up, hide it behind a fog machine or give it an image makeover. The gospel addresses the deepest needs of the human heart and those never change.
I don’t think it’s the church’s (organization) job to draw people in. It’s our job as believers to get uncomfortable and reach out to our neighbors, coworkers, friends and anyone that God calls us to love on.
Because we’re listening….right? Or are we? Or perhaps we just want to put on another program or play or “outreach” because it’s easier and more comfortable. And maybe we’d rather invite someone to an event than to ask them how we can pray for them.
When we try to diguise the gospel we dimish it’s power.
Yes, people are drawn to what is cool, but more than that people are drawn to genuine love and radical lives.
Ok, apples and oranges with wearing a shirt using a logo and a stripper witnessing while she “did her thing.” That is something that goes directly against Scripture.
The Bible clearly tells us our job as the church is to go to all the nations and teach them. Maybe we should be focusing in these discussions more about equipping ourselves to go OUT to the world, not try to get the world “into church.” Maybe we need to take the gospel to them, rather than expect them to come to it.
I want to clarify that my issue here is the STRIVING to be culturally relevant. I think some churches naturally are going to be more “entertaining” than others and perceived to be cooler. That’s perfectly fine.
The problem arises when we kick God off of center stage.
Our methods need to be the result of the hours we’ve spent on our knees and not just in front of the tv.
I guess I think that it doesn’t matter in most cases what churches do to raise interest in their churches. It isn’t my taste to have “theme church” patterned after Lost or 24 or whatever. The fact is though that it does attract some. What does matter is if the show detracts from the message. I believe it is possible to use something catchy to attract people (even as I am personally moved by this method) and still surround them with the love and truth of the Word of God. If you invest so much energy being a cover band or putting on a big show that God’s love doesn’t get across, than it is wrong. Whatever you use to get people the gospel should be a bridge to the gospel and not a substitution or a distraction from the gospel. I just think there is a line that you shouldn’t cross. Like maybe you can use a U2 song to get a point across but you might want to draw the line at strippers.
Correction: I should have said “even as I am NOT personally moved by this method.”
Andrew, I know. Just messing with you.
I know, I just didn’t want you to spend too much money on those pants and that body! Hate for that to happen
you just listen and obey.
if god tells you to do a mission impossible series, do it.
and if he doesn’t, don’t.
most christians, myself included, need a good dose of this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%201:15-18;&version=51;)
and to just shut up and stop being so freaking cynical.
(this reply is mainly to myself, as i constantly feel the tension in this topic) but there is no solid perfect answer for this…so i encourage myself to just get over it.)
When we disguise the gospel, we diminish its power. I’m not disagreeing with that necessarily, but just want to bring up another take on this thing.
Is it possible to maybe use culture (“relevant” stuff) to reveal the power of the Gospel? Is it possible to use something like U2 and all that stuff, not as a gimmick or draw, but as a connecting point with someone in the church, however they ended up there?
It think that’s kind of like what Paul was doing in Athens (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:16-34)
…I don’t know…am I wandering away from the original topic too much?
Good point, btw, Anne. God keeps using that one to smack me around periodically.
MaTT, I think you raise a great question – one I’ll let other answer. But your Paul example is an interesting one. Um, Paul, failed at Mars Hill. Read that story and you see Paul deciding to change his M.O. The smart guys standing around on the hill talking philosophy thought he was ridiculous. It was an unfruitful method…for Paul at that time.
So, from then on Paul set about planting churches of disciples who then made disciples.
We have to be careful not to endorse an action simply because someone in the bible took it. Did that action produce something worth us replicating? In the case of Paul and Mars Hill, nope.
Thanks. Sorry about that. I had the idea and didn’t research quiiiiiiiiite enough. I’m still curious what everyone thinks about the idea, sans ill-researched reference.
Still trying to understand:
Acts 17:32-34
Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.”
So Paul went out of their midst.
But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
I really, really dislike when someone takes scripture and twists it to prove their point, so let me know if that’s what i’m doing. But, like I said, just trying to understand. Some beleived. Is that considered failure?
This discussion and these questions are really wrestling with in my noggin lately. What’s your take?
I have to disagree with the comment above that says the church shouldn’t be culturally relevant.
I do think the church has to be relevant to the culture around us. We have to be aware of what the culture is to know how to best reach them with the message of Christ. Jesus was most definitely culturally aware and relevant. He went to the people and taught in the streets where they were. He knew the idiosyncrasies of the people and the culture and He spoke in ways that related to them and their situation.
That is what the church must do as well. We MUST be culturally aware and to be effective we have to understand what is going on around us. How can we reach the people, if we never know what they are going through?
Does being culturally relevant lead to our watering down the gospel? NO – it shouldn’t as long as our focus in on seeing people come to Christ and seeing lives changed.
As we look at the efficacy of this or that church, the underlying question should always be – are people being saved and set free for bondage? Are lives being changed and is Christ being glorified – if the answer is yes…then we are on the right track.
If it is no – then we need to re-focus.
No, no you’re not doing that…well, I don’t think so. But Paul does change his M.O after this. His pattern changes. It’s not the Mars Hill approach bore NO fruit spiritually, but it wasn’t as effective in the end as what he tried next. Of course, is being effective the highest ideal we strive for?
MaTT, I’m not doing anything on this post but getting discussion going. So, don’t mistake any poke at your thoughts as an opinion of my own. Honestly, not sure what mine is. Too much going on today to process such weighty stuff right now.
SG
Soapbox warning! I think that in our efforts to be culturally relevant to reach out to people who other wise wouldn’t set foot in a church, we neglect the follow up (discipleship) once they’re saved. My own church right now is near the same boat Andrew’s is in. We were growing, bringing people to Christ, but not teaching them how to function as part of the body of Christ. If noone tells them that tithing is part of their responsiblity as a “member” of their church, how are they going to know? All the flash & shows in the world aren’t going to pay the bills. My mostly senior citizen congregation doesn’t want the culturally relevant stuff, but they don’t want to close the doors either! Anyway, enough of my soapbox….btw, those T-shirts someone referred to earlier, fed me for near 30 years – my dad’s a salesman for that very “Jesus junk” – his term!
We do a lot of culturally relevant stuff at Sandals. I hear the pastors defend it all the time. I don’t agree with some of it, like “Poker Night.” Is Poker culturally relevant? Or is it just an attempt to be “hip” (please insert appropriate culturally relevant terminology where applicable)?
But just because I don’t agree with it, I don’t go around calling it “lame.” I’m not the standard. I defer.
It kills me how Christians love to bash each other. “Hey, check out the lame Christians with the T-shirts! Hey, World! Those guys aren’t with us! We’re cool over here ‘cause we don’t wear that stuff! We’re all into being creative and like that!”
Good grief.
I’m typing this from my blackberry pearl so excuse the spelling.
Les. The poker youth find esuser has nothing to do with cultural relevance. It has more to do that pastor Matt is addicted to poker. And we raise more money for youth camp by playing poker than selling cookies.
Los
Why is it that being “relevant” often translates as being more like X demographic?
Isn’t everyone, regardless of what they sing or how they speak relevant to someone? Is it possible to be irrelevant – relevant to no one?
Is it possible to not be in culture? To not be aware of culture? Why does the word “culture”, as in “being aware of culture” and “using culture” always seem to be referring rather narrowly only to the bits of culture that spew from television shows, silver screens and radio’s?
Is “culture” and “relevance” more than this?
Not that it matters either way but I live like 20 mins away from the church which ignited the discussion.
My thinking is that if we can bring the unsaved into the church, teach them about God, and the eventually are saved….isn’t that what we are here on earth for. I can’t think of one uninterested nonchristian that would just walk into a church because we had a sign out front that said “Sermon on Sin this Sunday”.
We need to be culturally relevant to bring the people in. From what I hear from local friends, GCC does a great job of supporting the new converts so they can learn to live the new life.
I guess I don’t understand why people are against the thought of using culture relevant topics to draw the unsaved. Shouldn’t it be our life goal to take as many people with us to heaven as possible?!
I, in turn, apologize. I wasn’t implying that you were accusing me in any way. This is a great discussion. Fun to be apart of…not usually the commenting-type.
I think Christians tend to (at least try to) withdraw themselves from culture as if we are not immersed in it anywhere we go.
And, yes, I meant A-(SPACE)-PART of, not apart of. I couldn’t stand to just let it unexplicably stay the same.
What does relevant mean… like everything it comes from good intentions…
At least for me relevant = why?
The Christian subculture wants “why” even more, but then you have a juxtaposition.
The faith of a child vs Getting your head around “Why?”
Throw humanity in the mix, and you start to wrestle with image (just a start).
And besides U2 isn’t relevant, popular yes, but if we are to be “relevant” then we need to head over to the hip-hop, check out the billboard hot100. At 27yo I can’t even recognize half of the songs, so I am not relevant, and besides “how to save a life” by the fray, I would be fired for covering some fergalicious…
Again why is relevant defined by youth culture – popular youth culture – , Loren?
Not against “relevant”. Asking for a better definition.
maTT and Bryan,
I see what you’re saying and I think we’re on the same page essentially.
matTT – my issue isn’t with BEING culturally relevant, it’s with STRIVING for it. I think we need to be real, be who we are. Some churches are artsy and filled with “cool” people. Others aren’t. Perhaps we should just be who we are because we’re “relevant” to those like us – cool or not.
Bryan,
I do think the church should be able to relate to society, but I think that we’ll naturally do that because we’re a part of society. Now, the Amish, may have a more difficult time, but for the average denomination (or non-denomination) I don’t think being able to relate to people around us is an issue.
“He went to the people and taught in the streets where they were.”
That’s sort of my point. If churches are going to clubs and playing U2 covers with light shows etc, that’s awesome. The problem is that so many churches seem to be trying to do “indraws” instead of “outreaches.”
I think Anne hit the bottom line, though. If God says it – do it. Poker night. U2 cover. Broadway musicals. That’s fine.
Listen and obey.
It just seems like we as a church, because we as a people, are listening more to great pastors, cool preachers, hip artists and programs that fill the sanctuaries more than we listen to God.
I’ve always thought we’re called to be peculiar rather than popular.
Great point, Kat—couldn’t agree more.
To the question “is it possible to be irrelevant?” I think so. I’ve seen a church on the brink of death partially for this reason. they wanted to be the same way they were 40 years ago and that wasn’t attracting or keeping people.
Then again, maybe if they bussed in the rest home, they would be relevant again, so maybe you’re right.
“Relevance is a term used to describe how pertinent, connected, or applicable some information is to a given matter.” – according to wikipedia.
I guess I’d say the gauge as to how “relevant” something is would be dependent upon who you’re talking to. If your speaking English to guy who only speaks spanish, you aren’t very relevant. So relevance might be defined by popular youth culture if that’s who you’re target is.
On that same note, I would say that there are some churches out there that make themselves extremely relevant to Christians, but not at all relevant to those who don’t know Christ. Bummer.
Perhaps we should just be who we are because we’re “relevant” to those like us – cool or not.
My name is Shaun and I’m relevant despite my irrelevance. I don’t have cable. I see two movies, approximately, a year. I don’t have a smart phone. I have the free phone that came with my plan. I don’t know what’s on the top ten music charts. I shop at Target and Old Navy almost exclusively. I don’t know who half the faces on the cover of People are. I read textbooks…for fun. I don’t know who my Senator is. I don’t watch sports. I like NPR and AM and AAA radio. I drive a minivan. There are stickers on its windows…Elmo stickers…and three car seats inside…and lots of goldfish shrapnel scattered throughout. My hair is quickly graying. I’m unattractive unless Photoshopped…especially when naked. I get called “Sir”…often. Someone tells me how to cut my hair and reminds me to do it. I know basic html. I own one pair of shoes and three pairs of jeans sans holes in the knees – holes which I get from crawling on the floor with three little people. I was in gifted classes in school. I play the saxophone. I’ve worn braces…twice. I have a retainer. My body weight is comparable to that of a sixth grader…a female sixth grader. I’ve only attended two concerts ever that weren’t classical, jazz or Kenny Rogers. I’m not fond of Bob Dylan or Sushi or golf.
And somehow invisible God makes Himself visible and meaningful to others through me.
What the?
Thought I’d butt in after reading several of these discussions over several blogs…isn’t the point of church to equip those attending to go out and minister? To be “relevant” where they are when they’re not at church? I paraphrase from someone else: “the most spiritual moment is when the back doors of the church open after the sermon, when the people go out to their lives.” I don’t really think it’s enough to ask “why aren’t people coming to our church?” but rather “how are our members ministering?”
Glad to be able to contribute to such a discussion.
Good point…maybe we should throw relevant out the window…I hope the magazine isn’t reading this… I guess as humans we want to quantify and rank things, my church is more relevant than yours thing… we can try to put a metric on church “effectiveness” but even though Barna makes a living off it, we all know measuring God is an oxymoron…I am back to square one..can I still at least pretend that I am relevant…I’ve got a subscription.
Shaun… do you want my “GodIsWiser” t-shirt that looks like the Budweiser logo? I feel dumb for having it now.
Give me a break! Like there’s no way to reach young white middle-class Americans already familiar with the church, (Yes, Shaun, that’s what relevant means in this context. Let’s not fool ourselves that we’re broadly talking to anyone else. The exceptions are just that – exceptions.), without stealing other people’s ideas and trying to let them do half the work for us. Why else use 24, LOST, and U2? Who do they market themselves to?
This has nothing to do with being “cooler” than other Christians or bashing anyone or trying to be perceived as “creative.” It’s acknowledging that that crap doesn’t square with Scripture. It falls short of Phil. 4:8 in every way and it is theft. How is copyright law our moral standard? It is written to protect those who innocently innovate similarity not those who deliberately use text and images to conjure one image to mind and then slip another one in. But the same law protects them both. That doesn’t make it any less theft. It’s intellectual theft, but theft all the same. Tell me the people who make the “GodIsWiser” shirt don’t want you to think about Budweiser first and then flip the thought on you. Tell me the “GodsWay” shirt isn’t supposed to make you think of Subway. Theft.
And if we need t-shirts so that people can pick Christians out of a crowd, why not just one that says, “I’m a Christian”? (Yes, I’m being a smart ass.) I’ve never read Scripture, Church Fathers, other early Church writings, or any credible theology that tell us to dress a certain way in public so that we may be known by our appearance, image, or marketing. Quite the contrary, we are to be known by our love.
“My name is Shaun and I’m relevant despite my irrelevance…”
Genius.
I’m not relevant either. I have on cheap Levi’s and a flannel today. It’s tucked in because I’m at work. I’ve even got a belt on.
I just try to be nice to people. Sometimes they ask me why; so sometimes I get to tell them about Jesus. Some of them listen, others don’t…
Los:
I’m not bashing poker night. I’m not bashing T-shirts. I’m not bashing tracts. I’m not bashing bananas. I’m not bashing culturally relevant anything anywhere, music or otherwise.
I totally support Sandals 150% Even poker night which I personally don’t agree with. My point is we set ourselves on levels of superiority when we criticize the “witnessing” preferences of others.
I’m sure there is a line. I condemn harshly the act of standing on the street corner screaming “WHORES!” at all the women who walk by. I condemn those who hold signs proclaiming “God Hates Gays.”
But commercialism is not the demon it’s always assumed to be. So someone sells T-shirts with Jesus’ name on them. That’s automatically assumed to be lame without a rational explanation as to why? I’m not cool if I don’t think that’s lame?
I’m just a little fuzzy on the bashing part. Poker is no big “deal” to me.
A wise man once said:
“they’ll know us by the t-shirts that we wear
they’ll know us by the way we point and stare…
when love, love, love
is what we should be known for
love, love, love
it’s the how and it’s the why
we live and breathe and we die…”
That’s my take on it as well. Glad to see that Andy’s discussion has made it’s way over here!
I think most here agree that they’ll know us by our love. How does that speak to this issue? If I’m wearing a T-shirt or handing out tracts I’m not loving? How does one negate the other? Why is that exculsion automatically assumed?
How about if I wear a T-shirt that says, “I love all of you”? That’s all, just that. Then everyone will know I’m a Christian, right? Furthermore, how does a T-shirt contradict Phil 4:8? (Assuming it is NOT a stolen copyrighted logo)? Can I not still think on those things?
Finally (yeah, right), the text says they (the world) will know us by our love for ONE ANOTHER. Not just some general warm fuzzy aura we exude, but for how we treat EACH OTHER. Christian to Christian. If we’re blowing it, that’s where.
Christians are an easy target. We don’t hit back. (You put a crucifix in urine, call it art, and Christians protest. You draw a cartoon of Mohammed and people are murdered all over the planet.) But we are especially prone to self-mutilation. We don’t just admonish one another in love, we deny each other with a generous dollop of venom.
Hey, look, a dead horse!
To the question “is it possible to be irrelevant?” I think so. I’ve seen a church on the brink of death partially for this reason. they wanted to be the same way they were 40 years ago and that wasn’t attracting or keeping people.
Thanks for joining us. I have a question ferya that I think gets nearer to the core of the issue for some of us – for me anyway: Are Christian churches to “attract” non-Christians? Why do you think so?
And another: In a post-Christendom America is it possible to “attract” non-Christians to our faith via…attractiveness (aka relevance)? Pragmatism/effectiveness seems of paramount importance to one side of this discussion so I think it’s fair to ask just how effective/pragmatic it is in our society, a post-Christendom society, to think we can attract a group of people who, for the most part, don’t notice us or look to us as an authority or credible source of truth. Can “attraction” undo this? Why do you think so?
More thoughts on this issue. And 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 more. We’ve talked about this here before…just a little bit.
Brody, I’ll take that one.
Shoot!
my veri word is “Hell24.”
Thought that was ironic.
Seth, if you register there are no more veri words to enter. Just a tip. I won’t spam you, I promise.
Yeah right. That’s what you said about that miracle toe cream and the cloud insurance.
P.S. what you talkin about willis? where do i find this “sign up”?
more irony. word ver is “lost67”
Go here:
http://www.shaungroves.com/forums/
At the top of the page it says “register.”
Maybe we need a button for that when people are commenting. Hmmm Wonder if kat could squeeze that in before the baby shows up and steals her from me..I mean makes her life worth living etc etc.
“Are Christian churches to ‘attract’ non-Christians?”
Sure…why not. Are we meant to go out into the world and minister there – absolutely. But why does that have to be mutually exclusive to inviting people in as well? Yes, there should be something “attractive” about our community that would make others want to see what it’s bout.
“…to think we can attract a group of people who, for the most part, don’t notice us or look to us as an authority or credible source of truth. Can ‘attraction’ undo this? Why do you think so?”
Undo it in the big picture…not likely. But it can be undone a little bit at a time. This is where I stop getting theoretical and speak from my experiences. I am at a church that definitely has a desire to equip our people to minister effectively in their context, and I think we have done a fairly good job.
At the same time, we also have NO problem “marketing” our church extensively in a number of ways (yard signs, ads, vehicle, etc.). We hope that when people get to the point in their lives that they want to visit a church, they will know of us and feel comfortable coming to us. I’m ok with this for one primary reason: I have seen it work.
I’ve seen people hear of our church through different means and show up and have Jesus radically transform their lives. I’ve seen marriages restored and drug habits kicked. Yes, many of those people were also invited by someone they knew, but some were not. And in a lot of cases even the invited once may not choose to come if our church didn’t look like place they could enjoy.
Do we have it all figured out? No way! Believe me, we have more than our fair share of issues and I don’t agree with everything we do by any means. I just knw that there was something that “attracted” those pre-Christ followers to our gathering, probably multiple things, and this was just a part of it.
Don’t know if that all made sense, but I’m gonn go ahead and hit submit and figure it out later. (Or I’m sure someone will let me know if it didn’t.)
geez louise-
I’ve got to find me one of those megachurches that pays their musicians!
We’ve got ten people on our really large, really cool worship team (including an amazing 12 year old conga player) and none of us has ever gotten a penney. Nor do we want to be paid. We just love Jesus and His church.
hmmm…maybe I can get them to pay me for teaching that 8-10 year old sunday school class no one will take.
It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to attract people to a church. But we have an important role to play as well. When someone reaches a point of intense pain in their life, I want them to be drawn to Sandals at that point. I want my church to come immediately to mind.
It’s great to make a church contemporary, relevant, whatever. What’s most important is that everyone inside WORKS to create an environment where the wounded and broken, who have recognized their wounds and their brokenness, can feel safe from condemnation; where they don’t fear the exposure of their wounds. Where, indeed, they are willing to allow their wounds to be exposed, cleaned, and healed. There are not many churches with this as a mission.
Too many people who feel the weight of their sins don’t feel worthy to go to church. Many who finally screw up the courage to come in the door, still feel unworthy to be sitting there. It’s like sitting in a hospital and thinking, “I’m way too sick to be here. I need to wait until I’m better, then come back.”
If those people do not sense an atmosphere of safety and healing from the members on the very day of their visit, they will not be back.
What makes a church attractive is not it’s flash or media props, but it’s ability to connect to the breadth and depth of real human pain.
I’m ok with this for one primary reason: I have seen it work.
Why am I tempted to bring up that stripper again?
Kidding aside, good comments from all sides. I have no super airtight thoughts on the validity of the various methods of attraction being discussed here so far and on Andrew’s blog.
My one solid conviction on all this is that majoring on “attraction” at the expense or total neglect of making disciples that make disciples is obviously counter-biblical. EThe two do not HAVE to be mutually exclusive or at odds, but, in my experience they often are.
In dealing with literally hundreds of attractional churches over the last six years (as their attraction) I’ve observed that in general they spend the bulk of their efforts, talent, money and time on the Sunday morning event (or concert, and whenever the event happens) and very little if anything on making disciples that make disciples.
Does God use just about anything we can imagine to communicate Himself to mankind? Sure. But spending a quarter of a million dollars on having the best Sunday morning show in town while neglecting to ask the “What next” questions, is negligent and ultimately weakens the spiritual potency of the Church.
“What’s next” questions are things like: IF we attract a crowd of non-Christians and IF one or all of them decide they believe what we believe about God, what then? What role do I as a pastor, I as a fellow believer in this person’s community, what role do I/we play in this person’s spiritual maturation process? How invested am I in their spiritual development? What specifically will I do and say and be to participate in forming a follower and a community of followers out of this believer and people like him? What’s the plan for transforming this person’s finances, family, occupation, friendships, goals and values into what God will’s them to be? What do we tell and model for this person about how life is to be lived from now until they die? And how do we incorporate this person’s all into our community’s/the Church’s efforts to make peace (shalom or wholeness) here and around the world in a way that proves God’s existence and displays His character?
Seriously, how many churches putting $250,000 sound and video systems into their sanctuaries/worship centers are asking these questions? (How many churches of any kind?) In my experience – which isn’t proof of anything really – not many. I’ve only started asking these questions in the last three years. And I don’t have many answers. But knowing the difference just asking has made in my thinking and living, I’d like more people to ask them. Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you like questions bigger than “How do we get more people to come to us?” to be asked in your church?
Well, be the first to ask.
Or, you could just wear a T-shirt with your church’s name on a Pepsi logo.
How about another question: If a church is wholly focused on making disciples, and are helping the people there to grow deeper in their faith, but puts no time, energy, or resources toward reaching new people, is this ok? Does the one completely outweigh the other, or is it a both/and?
Shaun – bingo… you hit it on the head. I spent 5 years as part of the “attraction” as well, and have spent the last 7 helping churches get financing for bigger and better buildings (products).
You’re right; the two approaches – attraction vs. discipleship/evangelism – do not have to be mutually exclusive. But they often are…
Bobby – re: both/and…
I’m a bit confused by the question re: wholly focused on making disciples but no energy towards reaching new people…
I guess I think that the church who is wholly focused on making disciples CREATES people who look to reach others for Christ…
YES!!! Tony nails it!
Bobby, maybe I’ve misunderstood your question but as I understand it I think Tony answers it well. I’ll elaborate…cause it’s what I do.
A disciple is someone who imitates Christ: believes what Christ believed, loves what He loved, hates what He hated, lives as He lived. Or aims at doing so.
One of the things Christ did was replicate Himself – make disciples. So, if we are disciples we will do the same. AND WE WON’T PUT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DISCIPLE MAKING ON THE PROFESSIONAL EVENT CREATORS.
Making disciples is the egg from which more disciples come. An attraction doesn’t negate this, but also cannot replace this. This is what I believe to be a spiritual law, like gravity is a physical law. We can’t get around it with blockbuster films, better tracts, t-shirts, cool music, blogs, better preaching, better sound, more publicity. Disciples are only disciples if they make disciples because that is part of imitating Christ.
Does that address your question, Bobby. or have Tony and I misunderstood your question? Thanks for asking it. It cuts to the heart of this issue for me.
Sorry, been away for a while.
To show my hand a bit, I don’t really disagree with you. I anticipated the answer of true disciples wil reach out also.
But I also think we are missing the boat if we don’t seek to find creative ways to rech out as well. There are people that those who attend our church will reach through relationship with them that the church organization would never reach. There are also people that will be reached through efforts of the church that could not, or may just have not, been reached by individuals.
I think we do need to take the culture we live in into consideration as we figure this out, whether we like it or not. For example, in todays culture the #1 entry point into the church is the Sunday morning service. This means that we should put a certain amount of effort into Sunday morning in order to present something that will bring people to stay and give us the opportunity to disciple them.
Where that level of presentation is I’m not sure. That’s something I’m still trying to figure out. Truth is, this is all stuff I’m trying to figure out. I just think we too often have swing the pendulum all the way to the other side when we see something we don’t like and it shouldn’t be that way. Yes, many places play to the attraction factor at the expense of the discipleship, but not all. And instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, shouldn’t we work to be effective in both methods and be as well rounded as evangelists as possible?
IMHO… the idea that the top entry point into the church is the Sunday morning service illustrates part of the problem.
Personally – certainly not the last word; just one man’s take – the idea of using Sunday morning as an evangelistic tool just doesn’t resonate.
This is probably a semantic thing but I don’t really care what people’s entry point into “the church” is. I don’t care if they come to my church, or any church. I just hope to share the love of Christ with them… whatever happens, happens.
My 9 year old daughter is kicking @$$ at this right now. The families of her two best friends at school (NOT church-y types) all visited our church a couple weeks back. We never even invited them. One of the dads told me that there is just something different about our daughter, and they want to know more about our family and what makes us who we are as a result.
My daughter’s never been to an evangelism class, and we don’t have Jack Bauer at church or anything… they just see the LORD’s love in her.
Again, I don’t have all the answers, just throwing stuff up at the wall.
This is a great conversation and a good question to ask. We just did “Revolution” by the Beatles at our church. The message was on changing the world, and hey, “we all want to change the world.”
accounting-construction-dog figurine
|
actor dakota dog fanning hound in |
animal baldwin dog park pound shelter |
animal castaic dog shelter |
asahi dog rocket shoes |
australian cattle dog illinois sale |
bake dog homemade recipe treat |
bargain hound dog crate |
bath cat dog england japan tub uk |
beneful dog food |
bernese dog health mountain |
bernese dog mountain price |
best dog groomer pa sharon |
big dog 95 9 |
big dog 97 9 |
blue tick hound dog breeders |
boarding deluxe dog facility |
boot dog lift rocket ski |
bowsers dog bed |
that was quite a read. .
i think i’m allergic to church.
just the thought of ‘church’ confuses, angers and saddens me.
i’ve been in and now i’m out. i don’t know if i will ever want to be ‘in’ again? a small area in my heart wants to believe in the concept of ‘church’. . very small area.
One of the dads told me that there is just something different about our daughter, and they want to know more about our family and what makes us who we are as a result.
Good article ! and I agree with you .