"Mega-Church" or 'Seeker friendly' churches.

[Spiritus Naturae]

Here in the great state of Texas (ya'll seen "The Alamo" yet?) there are quite a few of what one could call, "Mega-Churches"; That being a church with thousands of members and parking lots as large as many neighborhoods. With massive marketing campaigns, an emphasis on drawing in members and growth, it seems at these churches there is a compromise of certain Christian fundamentals. Repentance and sin, for example, are often left by the wayside on Sundays for messages with a more psychological undertone and a bit of a "self-help", positive thinking bent.

So my question here is, do you denizens of TWeb find that the "Mega-Church" tends to compromise the gospel and Scripture in order to build membership and 'grow'? Do they cater too much to the whim and 'likes and dislikes' of the 'consumer' and not enough to 'harder' truths of Scripture?

Anyone, who attends one of these churches I would definitely enjoy hearing your input.

:innocent:
Jonathan

[themuzicman]

I don't believe that they compromise the gospel. I believe they are using the opportunities available to them in order to bring as many into the kingdom as possible.

My home church is in a poor county with a population of 50,000. Over the Easter weekend (1 service Saturday night, 4 on Sunday), over 3,000 people attended, and about 140 people received Christ.

The real question isn't whether marketing and mega-church principles work in bringing the gospel to the world, but what happens after they receive salvation. The church does have a responsibility to reach out to these new converts and disciple them, and the mega-churches that I am familliar with do that, as well.

One thing to keep in mind is that "gospel" is literally translated "good news." Presenting a message of good news to a dying and hurting world is precisely what the bible prescribes. If the world around us is hurting and dying from failed marriages, parent-child relationships, the emptyness of wealth, and such, then the church needs to present the good news that Christ has the answer for them, and tell them what they answers are, starting with salvation.

I believe that those who tend to oppose the mega-churches overemphasize the "self-help" aspect of topical preaching, and are ignoring that the solution to the world's problem start with Christ.

As for churches appealing to the consumer, we're in a consumer age. Paul said that he would be all things to all people so that by all possible means he might save some. My guess is that he'd use consumerism, if he thought it would bring people into the kingdom.

Michael

[Spiritus Naturae]

One thing to keep in mind is that "gospel" is literally translated "good news." Presenting a message of good news to a dying and hurting world is precisely what the bible prescribes. If the world around us is hurting and dying from failed marriages, parent-child relationships, the emptyness of wealth, and such, then the church needs to present the good news that Christ has the answer for them, and tell them what they answers are, starting with salvation.

Agreed. It's all about Jesus and His work on the cross. :wink:

I believe that those who tend to oppose the mega-churches overemphasize the "self-help" aspect of topical preaching, and are ignoring that the solution to the world's problem start with Christ.

Agreed, again. However, while the Bible is indeed a vital, living document and transcends all cultures and time, there are within it's pages some 'hard' things to digest. Teachings that we are to deny ourselves and rejoice in suffering for the sake of Christ, not very popular notions by todays 'feel-good' standards and teachings in my experience I never once heard at the "Mega's" I attended in the past.

I, myself, have my experience in only 2 of what one would call "Mega-Churches", one in particular, Lakewood Church tends to promulgate errors like the 'word of faith' movement and some other strange teachings. They even had 'classes' at one point on 'how to speak in tongues'. An overwhelming majority of the churches one finds on the ever-popular TBN are of the "Mega" classification. I am fully aware that no 2 churches are ever rarely alike so I wanted to hear from all who have had experience in these types of churches.

:innocent:
Jonathan

PS: :hi: Micheal!

[mossrose]

SN, I don't think ALL the megachurches have the problem you are talking about, but I do think that some do. There is a desire, even among smaller churches, to become "seeker-sensitive", by which I mean that they sometimes attempt to make the gospel of Christ more palatable to unbelievers. Which is a wrong thing to do.

If Christ is not attractive enough the way He is, there is nothing we can (or should!) do to make Him more easily digestible. We need to not sugar-coat the gospel.

If I may, I would like to recommend a book that I have read once, and am in the process of reading again......"Hard to Believe" by John MacArthur. It is excellently dealing with this very issue. If you can get hold of a copy, I think you would get some insight.

:thumb:

[Spiritus Naturae]

If I may, I would like to recommend a book that I have read once, and am in the process of reading again......"Hard to Believe" by John MacArthur. It is excellently dealing with this very issue. If you can get hold of a copy, I think you would get some insight.

:thumb:

Thanks, mossrose. I will check that one out. :smile:

[Spiritus Naturae]

There is a desire, even among smaller churches, to become "seeker-sensitive", by which I mean that they sometimes attempt to make the gospel of Christ more palatable to unbelievers. Which is a wrong thing to do.
If Christ is not attractive enough the way He is, there is nothing we can (or should!) do to make Him more easily digestible. We need to not sugar-coat the gospel.

This, perhaps, is the crux of the issue/concern that I had with this 'strategem' of church. Size not neccesarily being indicative of this type of teaching. So, definetely, not all would teach the same way. As you stated, even smaller churches can find themselves in this position. It's important to help believers grow and instruct them towards more 'meaty' matters and away from the milk we are first given, so that our foundation is strong.

[themuzicman]

SN, I don't think ALL the megachurches have the problem you are talking about, but I do think that some do. There is a desire, even among smaller churches, to become "seeker-sensitive", by which I mean that they sometimes attempt to make the gospel of Christ more palatable to unbelievers. Which is a wrong thing to do.

Why is that? Should we make Christ as unpalatable as possible? The gospel is good news not bad news! Each culture, each time has its own needs and pains and hurts, and Christ came to fulfill the lives of hurting people. Why should we be making the good news of their salvation unpalatable?

If Christ is not attractive enough the way He is, there is nothing we can (or should!) do to make Him more easily digestible. We need to not sugar-coat the gospel.

As far as I know, good news needs no sugar coating.

If I may, I would like to recommend a book that I have read once, and am in the process of reading again......"Hard to Believe" by John MacArthur. It is excellently dealing with this very issue. If you can get hold of a copy, I think you would get some insight.

:thumb:

MacArthur may be a good theologian, but he has definately NOT been good for the Christian church in the US on a variety of levels. IMHO, he fits into the category of Pharisee that puts heavy burdens on those around him, and then fails to lift even a single finger to help. The gospel isn't depressing, the gospel isn't heavy burdens. It's good news. It's coming and laying your burden at Christ's feet, because His burden is light!

Michael

[themuzicman]

Agreed, again. However, while the Bible is indeed a vital, living document and transcends all cultures and time, there are within it's pages some 'hard' things to digest. Teachings that we are to deny ourselves and rejoice in suffering for the sake of Christ, not very popular notions by todays 'feel-good' standards and teachings in my experience I never once heard at the "Mega's" I attended in the past.

You probably didn't hear that exact message because that is a message from the past, in a time when people responded to hell, fire, and brimstone teaching. That kind of preaching is as extreme as the TBNs of the world, today. Besides, what worked 50 years ago isn't going to work today. Yes, the gospel is transcultural as is the Word, but the presentation must change as the world around us changes.

Paul said that he would become all things to all people so that by all possible means he might save some. Sounds to me like Paul was into cultural relevance.

I, myself, have my experience in only 2 of what one would call "Mega-Churches", one in particular, Lakewood Church tends to promulgate errors like the 'word of faith' movement and some other strange teachings. They even had 'classes' at one point on 'how to speak in tongues'. An overwhelming majority of the churches one finds on the ever-popular TBN are of the "Mega" classification. I am fully aware that no 2 churches are ever rarely alike so I wanted to hear from all who have had experience in these types of churches.

Well, you can consider TBN to be an eyesore on Christianity, if you ask most mega churches. I don't know Lakewood Church, but if they're a part of the "Word-Faith" movement, you won't find many other mega-churches who agree with them, either. My home church intentionally changed its name to DISassociate itself from that movement.

Michael

PS... If we are to judge by fruit, how fruitful has your church been in terms of people saved in the last year?

[potato sundae]

Alright, here is my two cents...

First, I agree -- we should be all things to all men. But we should not risk comprimising the gospel message to do so. Our "potential converts" should be made aware of all the issues and sides, etc. when confronted with the gospel. For instance, Christ's burden is light, but we are also supposed to stay on the straight and narrow. If we are to focus too much on the light burden, what happens when we forget the straight and narrow?

Secondly, discipileship(sp?). It is one thing for someone to receive Christ as their savior, it is another thing for that person to grow to maturity in Christ. If all we see in these "mega-churches" is sermons on self-help or how to concur debt, then there is definite failure in that church to live out the command of Jesus to "go and make disciples of all nations".

So, mega-churches...woo hoo. A super-community of believers.:smile: I see no problem with them as long as they teach sound things and keep their eye on God.

My two cents...

[elysian]

SN, I don't think ALL the megachurches have the problem you are talking about, but I do think that some do. There is a desire, even among smaller churches, to become "seeker-sensitive", by which I mean that they sometimes attempt to make the gospel of Christ more palatable to unbelievers. Which is a wrong thing to do.

If Christ is not attractive enough the way He is, there is nothing we can (or should!) do to make Him more easily digestible. We need to not sugar-coat the gospel.

If I may, I would like to recommend a book that I have read once, and am in the process of reading again......"Hard to Believe" by John MacArthur. It is excellently dealing with this very issue. If you can get hold of a copy, I think you would get some insight.

:thumb:

I heartily agree. NO sugarcoating the Gospel. If you aren't teaching discipleship- "take up your Cross and follow Jesus" then you aren't preaching the Gospel. But proclaiming the whole Truth is not a dour and sour enterprise, and remember the Psalms tell us that David praised God with instruments and with celebration and joy.

The Gospel is about balance, in my understanding it is the balance between Law and Gospel, and knowing that it is only in Christ that we have the grace and the power to do His will.

My church is not a "mega-church" - it is a large church, and very Lutheran despite the fact that we are a rag-tag bunch: ex-Catholics, new Christians, old-school traditional German Lutherans. But if you look at the Lutheran tradition (not ethnic preservation) you will find Luther was incredibly bold in proclaiming the Gospel and getting the Word out:

Through technology- in Luther's day it was the printing press. Today it is the Internet, and the use of technology to enhance worship and teaching

Through outreach- not just being hearers of the Word on Sunday morning but by being do-ers of the Word all week

If we are going to do as Jesus did and reach people where they live we have to go where they live! If we want to reach "skate punks" we go where the "skate punks" are. If we want to reach young adults we go where they are. Ministry and outreach today does involve risk, and going to places that we wouldn't normally think of - for instance coffee shops where teens hang out, or even to the skate park. What kind of people did Jesus target?- Zaccheus the short tax collector who climbed a tree, the Samaritan woman who had been married five times and who was collecting water at a well.- He came to save sinners, not just the fine, upstanding conservative Republicans among us.

Being "seeker-friendly" has dangers though, the most obvious being either watering down or dumbing down the Gospel. We should meet people where they are, but challenge them (and ourselves) not to stay there. We need to be challenged in our journey, which is where the idea of becoming disciples, as living as followers of Christ comes in. A church that offers the opportunities needed for individuals and communities within the church to grow in faith and grace in their journey as disciples is following the Great Commission. But neither compromise the Gospel nor allow people to become stagnant and complacent!

[mossrose]

Why is that? Should we make Christ as unpalatable as possible? The gospel is good news not bad news! Each culture, each time has its own needs and pains and hurts, and Christ came to fulfill the lives of hurting people. Why should we be making the good news of their salvation unpalatable?
MIchael, I didn't say that we should be making the good news of salvation unpalatable. I don't believe it is unpalatable. It is beautiful and life-giving. It is complete in itself. But, you must admit that some teachers and leaders think it is unpalatable to the world. And, some pastors and churches will do almost anything to get people into the church. Agreed?



As far as I know, good news needs no sugar coating.
I agree, completely. However, some, many, people think it DOES need to be made more attractive to the world. Many church leaders think that the church should be giving the world what IT wants, a shorter service, less formality, not so "boring", bring in a football star, or a rock star, etc.

Don't make the message confrontational, or judgmental, or exclusive, or scary. Let's make it POPULAR!! Let's not worry about the glory of God, but let's make sure all the people we want to bring into the church are satisfied, and that no one goes away "offended" by the gospel we preach. If the world likes us, then they will like Jesus.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a matter of opinions or what the popular new author might be saying we should all be doing. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a matter of truth. It is what it is. It is hard. Jesus taught us that the world would hate us. Because of Him. He told us that our families would be broken apart because oh Him.

Telling the truth of the gospel without managing to offend anyone is tough to do. But it MUST be done.



MacArthur may be a good theologian, but he has definately NOT been good for the Christian church in the US on a variety of levels. IMHO, he fits into the category of Pharisee that puts heavy burdens on those around him, and then fails to lift even a single finger to help. The gospel isn't depressing, the gospel isn't heavy burdens. It's good news. It's coming and laying your burden at Christ's feet, because His burden is light!

Michael
How can he be a "good" theologian and a "pharisee" at the same time? Sort of an oxymoron? And, if he hasn't been good for the church in the US, then maybe the church should be sitting up and taking notice. I certainly don't feel that MacArthur has put a burden upon me, or anyone else that is familiar with his teaching. In fact, I find his teaching liberating, because he DOESN"T knuckle under to the popular opinion. And I know he gets plenty of flak for it, too.

I absolutely agree that the burden of the Lord is light......but the right and true burden MUST be taught.

Peace?

:hug:

[themuzicman]

MIchael, I didn't say that we should be making the good news of salvation unpalatable. I don't believe it is unpalatable. It is beautiful and life-giving. It is complete in itself. But, you must admit that some teachers and leaders think it is unpalatable to the world. And, some pastors and churches will do almost anything to get people into the church. Agreed?

I disagree. I think pastors do what is necessary in today's culture to bring people to a place where they can be presented with the gospel and that they will hear the message. The gospel is timeless, but the presentation changes with the times.

I agree, completely. However, some, many, people think it DOES need to be made more attractive to the world. Many church leaders think that the church should be giving the world what IT wants, a shorter service, less formality, not so "boring", bring in a football star, or a rock star, etc.

Jesus did the same thing. He spoke in local cultural terms and used local cultural customs and events to preach to those that were around him. Paul did the same. He became all things to all people so that by all possible means he might save some.

Don't make the message confrontational, or judgmental, or exclusive, or scary. Let's make it POPULAR!! Let's not worry about the glory of God, but let's make sure all the people we want to bring into the church are satisfied, and that no one goes away "offended" by the gospel we preach. If the world likes us, then they will like Jesus.

You're putting logic into the mouths of these churches that they do not use. The idea is that you bring people to a place where they can be presented with the good news of the gospel, good news that has the answers to the pain and questions in their life, and that good news starts with Christ.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a matter of opinions or what the popular new author might be saying we should all be doing. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a matter of truth. It is what it is. It is hard. Jesus taught us that the world would hate us. Because of Him. He told us that our families would be broken apart because oh Him.

But is the gospel of Jesus Christ really changed? Last I knew, they were all teaching salvation by grace through faith. There is no alteration in the truth at all. It's simply a presentation that the world around us can understand as good news.

The world does hate us. Families are broken because of Him. That hasn't changed.

Telling the truth of the gospel without managing to offend anyone is tough to do. But it MUST be done.

Oh? Where does the bible say that?

How can he be a "good" theologian and a "pharisee" at the same time? Sort of an oxymoron?

No. Pharisees were excellent theologians.

And, if he hasn't been good for the church in the US, then maybe the church should be sitting up and taking notice. I certainly don't feel that MacArthur has put a burden upon me, or anyone else that is familiar with his teaching. In fact, I find his teaching liberating, because he DOESN"T knuckle under to the popular opinion. And I know he gets plenty of flak for it, too.

As long as you agree with him, you're OK. However, if you disagree, suddenly you're of the devil. No thanks.

I absolutely agree that the burden of the Lord is light......but the right and true burden MUST be taught.

The heavy one that offends? Or the good news? Remember what MacArthur's book title is?

Michael

[potato sundae]

I disagree. I think pastors do what is necessary in today's culture to bring people to a place where they can be presented with the gospel and that they will hear the message. The gospel is timeless, but the presentation changes with the times.


Whats more important: presentation or content? We tell the people about salvation etc., but we leave out death to self. We offer them sugar, but forget to tell them to be salt to the world.

No. Pharisees were excellent theologians.
Excellent as in skill, but drastically off in their interpretation.

The heavy one that offends? Or the good news? Remember what MacArthur's book title is?
I thought it was neither...I thought it was a message of foolishness to the gentiles and stumbling block for the Jews.

[Jezz]

[On the Pharisees] Excellent as in skill, but drastically off in their interpretation.
The Pharisees weren't even that far off in their interpretation. Theologically speaking, the Pharisees and Jesus were quite close (which is why most of the confrontations in the Gospels were between Jesus and the Pharisees). But it's one thing to know all about God (an "academic" theologian), and another to actually know God through experience (a true theologian).

This is why Jesus likened the Pharisees to "whitewashed tombs". They looked alright on the outside (in that they did everything that they were supposed to do to serve God, and had the right doctrine) but they were dead on the inside (their hearts weren't in it).

Ok, back onto the main topic...

As for churches appealing to the consumer, we're in a consumer age. Paul said that he would be all things to all people so that by all possible means he might save some. My guess is that he'd use consumerism, if he thought it would bring people into the kingdom.
I have to disagree with this line of reasoning sharply. Yes, Paul said that he would be all things to all people, but you have to take this in context. Paul did not mean that he would become something that was contrary to the Gospel in order to win people to the Gospel - that would defeat the purpose. For example, Paul would not have become a prostitute in order to win prostitutes. Likewise, he was never short of moral commands to give to the various congregations in his care - he told them how to behave, and expected them to behave that way on pain of excommunication.

I happen to believe that consumerism is largely contrary to the Gospel. Consumerism is all about shopping around to get what I want, what is best for me - ie, at its heart it is driven by selfishness. The Gospel of consumerism is the "prosperity gospel". The Gospel of Christ is completely the opposite, as it is all about the selflessness and obedience of Christ, and our duty to behave likewise. (elysian explained the difference well in this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23669).) Relying on consumerism to bring people to the church is to be bringing them to the wrong church.

Which is not to say that all mega-churches are guilty of selling out to consumerism, of course. But I think many are.

[nomad]

i'm not a fan at all of seeker-sensitive churches whose services are targeted at evangelism. most of it's already said, so i won't add to it.

but, for the mega-church...i don't think size is really an issue. and mega-churches, when organized properly to do all their real functions (discipling the sheep), are efficient. maybe many of them haven't figured out how to deal with the increased size yet. but the world has learned that consolidation leads to efficiency. some complain of the size of the building and parking lot etc... but if such a church has 3000 people, how much money, space, and time would it take to build 10 churches with 300 people each? you're building 10 separate buildings, paying 10 different electric and water bills, supplying 10 different sound systems. not to mention running the place... the last church i was in had 6 kids in the first through third grade class, but someone had to be in there to teach them. take 3 of those classes, merge them, and you free up two people (or at least one, or you get better education) to do something else. you need 10 different music groups, as opposed to maybe one big better one etc... not that a 300 person church is a bad size either, but that the advantages are not all one-sided towards smaller churches. and churches can be too small too... it does take a while to get a new church going. but if a church has been there a while... it seems to take a critical mass just to keep the church running and get all the 'basic' programs going, and some churches either don't or just barely have it, meaning they don't have much time to spend elsewhere.

this is one of my pet peeves. the church really needs to learn how to pool its resource, human and material. i still get mad sometimes when i see every church in town doing a christmas play... and know that for many of those churches, it will consume most of their free time for a couple months. what else could they be doing with that time and money? note that i'm not complaining about *what* they are doing, the church should be finding creative ways to promote the gospel. but duplication of effort can be very wasteful, and wastefulness is the enemy of effectiveness.

[Spiritus Naturae]

i'm not a fan at all of seeker-sensitive churches whose services are targeted at evangelism. most of it's already said, so i won't add to it.
but, for the mega-church...i don't think size is really an issue. and mega-churches, when organized properly to do all their real functions (discipling the sheep), are efficient.
this is one of my pet peeves. the church really needs to learn how to pool its resource, human and material.note that i'm not complaining about *what* they are doing, the church should be finding creative ways to promote the gospel. but duplication of effort can be very wasteful, and wastefulness is the enemy of effectiveness.


The key is indeed what is being taught, complete and without compromise. As far as efficiency (reminds me of my first apartment...perhaps 'rat-hole' is more appropriate) in the 'church', I believe the best way to achieve this was hinted at in another thread http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22947

A 'larger' church offset, if you will, by smaller "House-Churches" or "Cell-Churches" seems most beneficial and effective in discipling new and mature believers. Developing a sense of community and closeness that carries us on through the week and not just on Sundays.

[Spiritus Naturae]

You probably didn't hear that exact message because that is a message from the past, in a time when people responded to hell, fire, and brimstone teaching. That kind of preaching is as extreme as the TBNs of the world, today. Besides, what worked 50 years ago isn't going to work today. Yes, the gospel is transcultural as is the Word, but the presentation must change as the world around us changes.

Believe me, I am not looking for hell-fire and brimstone but more of a balance. Extremism is not what Christianity is about but rather, a sense of symmetry and order. While Jesus does indeed love us all, He still pleads for us to repent.


Well, you can consider TBN to be an eyesore on Christianity, if you ask most mega churches. I don't know Lakewood Church, but if they're a part of the "Word-Faith" movement, you won't find many other mega-churches who agree with them, either. My home church intentionally changed its name to DISassociate itself from that movement.

Perhaps, then, the name of this thread is a bit misleading (The "Mega-Churches" portion). I am not a fan of huge churches as I do not see them as capable of discipling all those believers onward to maturity, not that they are solely responsible for the growth of the individual. That responsibility rests with the individuals themselves. The teachings of the 'seeker-friendly', marketed church is my main subject of 'investigation'.

PS... If we are to judge by fruit, how fruitful has your church been in terms of people saved in the last year?

:wink: We have outreach groups at my local church and while we do not "rake 'em in", I know that we have had lasting impact and definetely won quite a few souls for Christ, especially our outreach to the 'chemically dependent' segment of our city.

:innocent:
Jonathan

[nomad]

The key is indeed what is being taught, complete and without compromise. As far as efficiency (reminds me of my first apartment...perhaps 'rat-hole' is more appropriate) in the 'church', I believe the best way to achieve this was hinted at in another thread http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22947

A 'larger' church offset, if you will, by smaller "House-Churches" or "Cell-Churches" seems most beneficial and effective in discipling new and mature believers. Developing a sense of community and closeness that carries us on through the week and not just on Sundays.

well i totally agree on that one. i was part of a small group for a couple years (until i moved away), and it was great. and i also agree that it's a good model that matches efficiency with maintaining personal connections on a meaningful basis.

although... let me just say that my small group leader (who, while i was part of the group, finished up his credentials after a severe back injury and became an associate pastor of my church), taught things that were against the 'official' beliefs of the church (and even the senior pastor, afaik)... it wasn't major, basically he was post-millenial and the church is pre-millenial. but if you ARE going to focus on 'complete and correct teaching', i suppose it might be an issue if you have divisions within on what exactly is 'complete and correct teaching'. fwiw, i agreed with him ;)

[nomad]

PS... If we are to judge by fruit, how fruitful has your church been in terms of people saved in the last year?

btw, i hear this a lot... but i don't believe that this is anywhere intended by 'fruit'.


Mat 3:8 "Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance;



Mat 12:33-34 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. (34) "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.



Gal 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, (23) gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.



Eph 5:9 (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth),



Col 1:10 so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;


etc.

these are the kind of fruit we should be looking for. i understand the sense in which you are using it, but don't really find that very often in scripture. it's more often used in the above sense.

it is God who is responsible for growth:


1Co 3:6-9 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. (7) So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. (8) Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. (9) For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.


iow, i expect that a church who is bearing fruit, would also expand. but i don't see them as synonymous; you may find a church who is bearing fruit, but the effects land elsewhere. and you may find a church who is growing fast, but for non-spiritual reasons (which is pretty on-topic).

[potato sundae]

Originally posted by Jezz:


The Pharisees weren't even that far off in their interpretation. Theologically speaking, the Pharisees and Jesus were quite close (which is why most of the confrontations in the Gospels were between Jesus and the Pharisees). But it's one thing to know all about God (an "academic" theologian), and another to actually know God through experience (a true theologian).

This is why Jesus likened the Pharisees to "whitewashed tombs". They looked alright on the outside (in that they did everything that they were supposed to do to serve God, and had the right doctrine) but they were dead on the inside (their hearts weren't in it).

Ok, back onto the main topic...



My apologies, I knew I was missing something there...:doh:

[themuzicman]

Whats more important: presentation or content? We tell the people about salvation etc., but we leave out death to self. We offer them sugar, but forget to tell them to be salt to the world.

Or is it that death to self today is different than death to self from 100 years ago?

Excellent as in skill, but drastically off in their interpretation.

Exactly.

I thought it was neither...I thought it was a message of foolishness to the gentiles and stumbling block for the Jews.

And a burden that is light.

Michael

[nomad]

Or is it that death to self today is different than death to self from 100 years ago?


how is it different? if it's off topic we can take it somewhere else, but i was just curious, that's an interesting assertion to make.

[themuzicman]

Believe me, I am not looking for hell-fire and brimstone but more of a balance. Extremism is not what Christianity is about but rather, a sense of symmetry and order. While Jesus does indeed love us all, He still pleads for us to repent.

So, what does "repent" mean today? Might it be realizing that humanism and egoism aren't the answer, and giving one's life to Christ in rejection of that is?

Perhaps, then, the name of this thread is a bit misleading (The "Mega-Churches" portion). I am not a fan of huge churches as I do not see them as capable of discipling all those believers onward to maturity, not that they are solely responsible for the growth of the individual. That responsibility rests with the individuals themselves. The teachings of the 'seeker-friendly', marketed church is my main subject of 'investigation'.

They teach Christ and him crucified. They make a very concerted effort to bring people into the kingdom of God. That fruit of evangelism comes from them is something to celebrate, not berate.

The churches that I am familliar with also have discipling, but not in the form of the traditional church. Just because it is done differently doesn't make it wrong. In fact, in changing times, one wonders why we insist on holding on to the ways of the past.

:wink: We have outreach groups at my local church and while we do not "rake 'em in", I know that we have had lasting impact and definetely won quite a few souls for Christ, especially our outreach to the 'chemically dependent' segment of our city.


And thats a very good thing. Small group ministries are wonderful for both outreach and discipleship.

Michael

[Spiritus Naturae]

I happen to believe that consumerism is largely contrary to the Gospel. Consumerism is all about shopping around to get what I want, what is best for me - ie, at its heart it is driven by selfishness. The Gospel of consumerism is the "prosperity gospel". The Gospel of Christ is completely the opposite, as it is all about the selflessness and obedience of Christ, and our duty to behave likewise. (elysian explained the difference well in this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23669).) Relying on consumerism to bring people to the church is to be bringing them to the wrong church.

Which is not to say that all mega-churches are guilty of selling out to consumerism, of course. But I think many are.

This is an excellent point and a part of my concern. The way of the world today, for us in the West especially, is consumerism, materialism etc. I meet far too many Christians who run with the 'name it and claim it' ideaology. Following Christ not because of gratitude but rather expectation; I'm going to get something out of the deal and so on. This to me is the antithesis of what Christ presents to us. 'Man-centered' theology is not the way to go. 'God-centered' is what we should be striving for. 'Self-esteem', 'co-dependency' and a myriad of other psychological terms are heard at sermons these days and in my understanding that misses the mark entirely.

It should indeed be all about Christ, not me.

[Spiritus Naturae]

Or is it that death to self today is different than death to self from 100 years ago?

how is it different? if it's off topic we can take it somewhere else, but i was just curious, that's an interesting assertion to make.


Nawww...that's not off-topic. OK, Maybe just a little but worth pursuing.

[themuzicman]

how is it different? if it's off topic we can take it somewhere else, but i was just curious, that's an interesting assertion to make.

Well, 100 years ago, what was the average American (since I'm here in America) concerned about? What needs was he trying to meet circa 1900?

I'm not sure I'm entirely qualified to answer that question, but I'm pretty sure that they didn't have a large population of divorced and single parents trying to raise kids on their own. They also didn't have the prosperity that so many of us enjoy, nor did they come to realize the emptyness that welath ultimately brings. Furthermore, the pace of change and life 100 years ago was far slower than it is today. The pressures to keep up and to perform in today's work environ, and the pursuit of "leisure" were quite different, as well.

100 years ago, death to self meant that you went to church on Sunday, you prayed for God to bring rain and help the wife get through this pregnancy, and keep the cows alive.

Today, death to self means admitting that the things you were trying to use to fill that need in your heart aren't working. Drugs, alcohol, work, wealth, sports, leisure, cruises, vacations, etc. don't meet that need. And even though we never miss a meal, have a good roof over our heads, 2 cars, health insurance, and are the wealthiest and most educated people in the world, we have to admit that what we have acquired for ourselves is worthless, and that is death to self, today. It is a committment to put God in the middle of our day planner, and shove other things off. It's a committment to evalute our things to see what owns us, and to rid ourselves of them, in order to live God's way.

100 years ago, we lived in the end of the golden age of the modern era. Christian morality was the dominant cultural morality, and the culture even took to imposing some traditional beliefs (i.e. prohibition) on the nation. Living as a Christian, or at least with Christian morals was expected.


Today, dealth to self means adopting morality that the world finds puritanical. Sexual purity, relational integrity, God centered priorities. And adopting these values costs something. We live in an increasingly post-modern era, which embraces amorality and rejects objective truth. Nihilism is replacing hope.


And, as such, Christian churches today deal with more practical application of the Word to people's lives because Christians values have been abandoned. "Seeker-sensetive" churches appear to feel good because people that come from a world that sucks the life from them find life in a church that says "we understand your needs, and we have answers!"

That's the point of marketing, whether secular or Christian.

My church, which would be called "Seeker-friently" saw 140 people get saved over the Easter weekend. Are you going to tell those 140 people that they didn't really get saved?

Michael

[elysian]

I agree with MM in many ways, that there is a definite necessity for churches to be "seeker sensitive" and also to be hospitable to Christians who for whatever reasons have not been part of a church.

I can't stop being thankful for my church and for the Holy Spirit leading me to such a church, because I'm the kind of person that many churches wouldn't be terribly interested in- I've been divorced and remarried (second husband is not a Christian) I'd fallen away from the church for a number of years after my divorce for various reasons and at one point wondered if it was even possible to return to any sort of relationship with God. I was literally so broken and hurting I couldn't put up a front. There are some churches that I know I would not be welcome in- even some Lutheran churches-either because of my past or because of the ethnic/family traditions in some churches (the closed-society type churches.) But Jesus sought out the most unworthy sinners and brought them good news- this is what Peace Church does. It is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints or a social club or an ethnic preservation society.

So many people at Peace have been brought there by God's provenance and mercy because they have been wounded- mired in the sickness of sin. Some of us have even been wounded by the policies and politics of other churches, some of us are wounded due to family problems or grief at loved ones' untimely deaths, some have been wounded simply by living in the emptiness of worldly living- robbed of joy by the "pursuit of stuff." But through the grapevine people in the community learn "Peace is a safe place." It is a place where by the Holy Spirit's power there is hope, healing and joy in Christ. It is a place where the Great Commission is lived out- but it's not a typical church.

We laugh, we cry, we celebrate, we mourn, we worship and we serve- it's a place and a community in which it is safe to be real, where we are challenged to grow in faith and grace, knowing that we are saved and redeemed in Christ- and that we are on the journey together.

[nomad]

good post. you gave me some good things to think about. and now, i will try to give you some things to ponder.

Well, 100 years ago, what was the average American (since I'm here in America) concerned about? What needs was he trying to meet circa 1900?


most of the same ones, i think. i read church literature from 1800 years ago, and the sins they are talking about then still seem to apply now. sure, the actual focuses of greed and lust may have changed, society is different, the mechanisms are faster and more complex, but human nature still seems somewhat the same. (should have included your quote: that was a good summary of *symptoms*. except for the pursuit of leisure... i think that's pretty much the same :)


100 years ago, death to self meant that you went to church on Sunday, you prayed for God to bring rain and help the wife get through this pregnancy, and keep the cows alive.


maybe... 100 years ago was the middle of the industrial revolution you know. america was moving away from its agrarian roots... but the country is large, and different parts of the country experienced it different ways. it's history, and i am not going to be so arrogant as to say i know any more about it from the small pieces i have read, but let's just say i don't think the america of 100 years ago was necessarily as rosy as you paint a picture of it. for every good example, i could point out others - oppression of minorities, oppression of the poor, the moral decays of the 'roaring twenties' followed by the great depression and the great awakening, the revivals in the 19th century (did you ever wonder what they were being revived FROM?), etc. from what i am reading lately ('the religious history of america', gaustad), there were some moral conflicts even as far back as the 1600s and 1700s.


Today, death to self means admitting that the things you were trying to use to fill that need in your heart aren't working. Drugs, alcohol, work, wealth, sports, leisure, cruises, vacations, etc. don't meet that need. And even though we never miss a meal, have a good roof over our heads, 2 cars, health insurance, and are the wealthiest and most educated people in the world, we have to admit that what we have acquired for ourselves is worthless, and that is death to self, today. It is a committment to put God in the middle of our day planner, and shove other things off. It's a committment to evalute our things to see what owns us, and to rid ourselves of them, in order to live God's way.


for some people, maybe most americans, yes. but if you think that drugs (remember the opium wars?), alcohol (why do you think they invented prohibition?), wealth (for those that had it, the 1920s was very similar to today by many accounts, many people got rich in the stock market, and many suffered when it crashed), etc did not also exist as problems 100 years ago, i assure you, they were. it might not have been as common though.

death to self can take many different forms. i find though, that in the text of john cassians 'On the Eight Vices', all forms of death to self are covered, in a way that covers all of time.

practical advice will vary among generations though, if that's what you are trying to say then i'd agree with you. but i still find the writings and life of saint francis, who lived in a decidedly non-industrial time period, still inspiring, and i find echoes of the same failings of today in them.


And, as such, Christian churches today deal with more practical application of the Word to people's lives because Christians values have been abandoned.


actually, i wish that churches did more of this today. i don't see this enough. i wish i had found the philokalia a long time ago. i find a lot more wisdom in it than in most of what i hear and read today.


"Seeker-sensetive" churches appear to feel good because people that come from a world that sucks the life from them find life in a church that says "we understand your needs, and we have answers!"


a future shock gospel for a future shocked generation. they don't appear to feel good because of that, they appear sometimes to feel good because some of them promise that all you have to do is come to god and everything will be fixed. we all know it's not that simple though.

this all goes back to the concept of discipleship, which i won't retread here. i myself am not a huge fan of churches that, in effect, give gospel messages every week, simply because i do not need to hear them, and i don't like wasting that hour a week to find out, yet again, that Jesus is the answer to my problems. but as long as a church has a good discipleship program as well, i guess i don't have an issue with it, and the above objection no longer applies. i just look at them as a sort of 'traveling evangelist' that's not traveling :) and yeah, we DO need you guys...


My church, which would be called "Seeker-friently" saw 140 people get saved over the Easter weekend. Are you going to tell those 140 people that they didn't really get saved?


no, of course not. that's not my prerogative, even if my soteriology is a bit different from yours. but i am going to tell them: they need to hear more detail, more depth if they want to get anywhere as a christian. i want to see all those 140 people still in church and still serving God a year from now. statistics tell us, that's not as common as it should be. next week, will the sermon be on how to get saved again? i have been in baptist churches like that, so i know they exist.

note that i usually give easter (and christmas) a bye, because that is a natural topic for a sermon on that day anyways, and culture has determined that those are days in which many non-christians (or at least non-dedicated christians) show up to church. So most churches, being practically-minded, will try to make the most of it. And i don't care if you want to do an altar call at the end of every service. But in some churches i have been in, there were sermons taught, sermons on death to self and laying down your life, that were for the edification of the christians and would not have been amenable at all to an altar call. And many came forward for prayer, though none for salvation afaik.

i think there is some confusion though. i LOVE hearing about churches like elysian's. but that's not necessarily what being seeker-sensitive means. being Christ focused doesn't necessarily mean seeker-unfriendly. a church doesn't have to offend every nonchristian that walks in the door to be a good one. And I'm sure there is a good middle ground that takes the best of both.

What is usually complained about is people who put the seeker-sensitivity above God-sensitivity. There are some sermons I know i will never hear in some seeker-sensitive churches, because they'd be considered 'offensive' or 'bigoted' or whatever else, and those aren't what will please their seekers. Christianity isn't all a bowl of cherries. Sometimes we talk about the good things, the promises, and these are things that may attract seekers as well. Sometimes we talk about the hardships of Christian life. These are not things that are going to attract many people, seekers or christians.

Now actually, muz, when you talked about death to self, you mentioned a lot of these types of things. Do these actually get taught at your services? If so, i withdraw all my objections. That would interest me. I do think that an honest seeker would be drawn to even those sermons (as would an honest christian), however i wouldn't call it a seeker-sensitive church anymore though.

I am not the only one to make these observation. The best metaphor i have heard on this was by Ray Comfort, and he does it without pointing any fingers at anyone in particular, see http://www.raycomfort.com for the sermon. One statistic he used when he preached at an old church i went to was that in the AG church one year, 275,000 were reported to have made decisions for Christ. After a year, only 10,000 of those people could still be found in the church. Maybe they went to other churches, it's always possible. But that's only 3%. And the AG was one of the fastest growing churches at the time (it isn't anymore)....