David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, unChristian: What A New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity and Why It Matters (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007).
How do people outside the church view those inside it? If you’re talking about Americans between the ages of 16 and 29, the answer is, “Not favorably.” Americans in this age range view Christians as hypocritical, too focused on conversion, antihomosexual, sheltered, too political, and judgmental. Reflecting on these results, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons conclude, “Christianity has an image problem.”
Kinnaman is president of the Barna Group, a research firm that studies trends in American religion. Lyons is founder of Fermi Project, a network of emerging evangelical leaders who are trying to positively impact American culture. Fermi commissioned the Barna Group to study perceptions of Christians among Americans in the older Mosaic (born 1984-2002) and younger Buster (born 1965-1983) age cohorts. The resulting book book, unChristian, summarizes the conclusions of that study and provides suggestions for how Christians can overcome their image problem.
According to Kinnaman and Lyons, the key to changing young adults’ perceptions of Christianity is learning “to respond to people in the way Jesus did.” This does not entail giving up or watering down key convictions about Christian faith and practice. Just because young adults view Christianity as antihomosexual, for example, does not mean that Christians should stop teaching that homosexual acts are sinful or that monogamous heterosexual marriage is God’s will.
What responding to people as Jesus did means is, first of all, having the right perspective on their criticism. “[W]e should consider whether our response to cynics and opponents is motivated to defend God’s fame or our own image.” Second, it involves connecting with people. “[T]he negative image of Christians can be overcome, and this almost always happens in the context of meaningful, trusting relationships.” Third, a Christlike response requires creativity. “We cannot ignore the importance of breaking through the ‘been there, learned that’ perspective young people have about Christianity.” And fourth, we must serve people. Young American adults view the church as irrelevant and uncaring. To respond as Jesus would, “we must cultivate deep concern and sensitivity to outsiders.”
Of course, we ought to do these things because they’re right things to do, not simply because they’ll help improve our image among young adults. And doing these things does not guarantee that young people will become Christians. What it will do is change the perception about who Christians are, what webelieve, and how welive. In a culture for which perception often is reality, changing the way the church is perceived goes a long way to solving humanity’s basic problem: our separation from God, and our need for salvation.
How do people outside the church view those inside it? If you’re talking about Americans between the ages of 16 and 29, the answer is, “Not favorably.” Americans in this age range view Christians as hypocritical, too focused on conversion, antihomosexual, sheltered, too political, and judgmental. Reflecting on these results, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons conclude, “Christianity has an image problem.”
Kinnaman is president of the Barna Group, a research firm that studies trends in American religion. Lyons is founder of Fermi Project, a network of emerging evangelical leaders who are trying to positively impact American culture. Fermi commissioned the Barna Group to study perceptions of Christians among Americans in the older Mosaic (born 1984-2002) and younger Buster (born 1965-1983) age cohorts. The resulting book book, unChristian, summarizes the conclusions of that study and provides suggestions for how Christians can overcome their image problem.
According to Kinnaman and Lyons, the key to changing young adults’ perceptions of Christianity is learning “to respond to people in the way Jesus did.” This does not entail giving up or watering down key convictions about Christian faith and practice. Just because young adults view Christianity as antihomosexual, for example, does not mean that Christians should stop teaching that homosexual acts are sinful or that monogamous heterosexual marriage is God’s will.
What responding to people as Jesus did means is, first of all, having the right perspective on their criticism. “[W]e should consider whether our response to cynics and opponents is motivated to defend God’s fame or our own image.” Second, it involves connecting with people. “[T]he negative image of Christians can be overcome, and this almost always happens in the context of meaningful, trusting relationships.” Third, a Christlike response requires creativity. “We cannot ignore the importance of breaking through the ‘been there, learned that’ perspective young people have about Christianity.” And fourth, we must serve people. Young American adults view the church as irrelevant and uncaring. To respond as Jesus would, “we must cultivate deep concern and sensitivity to outsiders.”
Of course, we ought to do these things because they’re right things to do, not simply because they’ll help improve our image among young adults. And doing these things does not guarantee that young people will become Christians. What it will do is change the perception about who Christians are, what webelieve, and how welive. In a culture for which perception often is reality, changing the way the church is perceived goes a long way to solving humanity’s basic problem: our separation from God, and our need for salvation.
32 comments:
book was boring and a no-brainer. I felt like it played too strongly on the "appeasement approach."
If you love God and love people, and seek to be a relevant member of their lives, you will not have the problems this book seeks to address.
I thought it was a great book. Not only did it address the perceptions that 16-29 year-olds have of Christians, it gave constructive ways we can correct their misperceptions through modifying our own behavior.
I think both "Zorro" and "Reader" are correct in their contradictory responses to unChristian. How so? Well, if you are aware of and sympathetic to the criticisms younger Americans make about the church, then unChristian will strike you as old news. But if you are not aware of those criticisms, then this book will come as a revelation. I posted a "review" of the book precisely for those people who are unaware of the problem. I'm glad that Zorro and Reader are not in the latter group's company.
could it be that the world is so much into the church that the 16-29 years old see themselves in it, therefore, they dont want any part of it?
I haven't read the book yet, but have it on my pile of read next stuff. :) I agree that many of this should be common sense stuff but the fact of the matter the Church (capital C) in America isn't getting it.
What is most interesting is from the reviews I have read of this book, the Evangelical group is the most untrusted group. We have to reconsider why? I think that pablo has a point but our context of the point may differ. I think the world has filtered into the church but not in the context of we need more spiritual gifts but in the context of we are too self-centered and overly focused on the Sunday morning event as the definition of our Christianity and not enough depth or confirmation of our conduct when we leave the building. In other words for people looking from the outside in, why would they want it? What evidence do we have to show them that it works? This generation is looking for spirituality and purpose. People just aren't finding this in the current model of church.
We could have the "fire fall" every Sunday and still be meaningless to the outside because of the proof that our faith works. They need to see it works in our lives, our jobs, our marriages, our families, our church politics (many churches are very much not like Jesus in the way we run our churches in business and the political garbage). They need to see our faith (faith is action not talk) in our love for one another and our love for them.
I was at a young adult service the other night in a presbyterian church, that had somewhere between 700-1000 of mostly this age group in attendance on a Sunday night. It was the second service that evening that reaches that group. Imagine that, I guess nobody told them that Sunday nights don't work any more. :) They are hungry, not for our spiritual gifts and events, they are hungry for Jesus and a life transformed with meaning and purpose.
"I was at a young adult service the other night in a presbyterian church, that had somewhere between 700-1000 of mostly this age group in attendance on a Sunday night. It was the second service that evening that reaches that group."
Uhhh...WOW!!
What the heck are we Pentecostals doing?? Let's get in there are go get'em. (the Lost that is:) )
I don't think the book treated these issues merely as an "image" problem, as if the world isn't perceiving us accurately. I think the book raised the question: what if this is a *reality* problem? How much of what they perceive is actually *true* about the church?
And speaking as an 18-29 year old church insider, I've often guiltily shared those six negative perceptions about my own church family. So I'm really glad this book is sparking conversations about it.
We could have the "fire fall" every Sunday and still be meaningless to the outside...
Excellent point, and difficult to prove to Pentecostal Christians. The only barometer that most have is "did the Spirit move in church today?" If He did, then all is well, and we can go on in ignorant bliss until next time. If He didn't, then there is hell to pay - fire the pastor, get a new worship leaders, sing the old hymns again - whatever will please us, but please don't make us think about reaching the lost who want absolutely nothing to do with us, and because of that, nothing to do with Jesus.
As long as the service is good, well... the world be damned.
I'm using this book next semester with a faculty/staff "ethos" group here at Evangel University. Hoping it will highlight how different the starting place is with this current crop of students we're training/discipling.
a couple of thots as I watch the ice form:
1. "as long as the fire falls..." I wonder if we are being a little too judgemental of the church (with all its flaws) when we consider that Jesus warned his disciples that the world cannot understand us without the Spirits help. Won't there naturally be some tension between the two worlds? And our obligation, as I see it, is not to soften the spiritual side and make it palatable, but to love, relate and bridge that gap. It might not be all the Churches fault!
2. Evangelicals the most untrusted group? I don't beleive that on its face. Frankly, Americans as a group don't trust much of anyone, be it church, Catholic or Protestant, Government, car salesmen or scientist. Why should we be exempt. There is an epidemic of suspicion (I even see it on this blog! GASP!)
Recently I read another book similar to this that supposedly would help christian leaders "understand" an outsiders perspective to the church. Like several other books that everyone said I should read, I was overall disappointed. Although there were some interesting insights I couldn't help but feeling that if we are "seeking the Lord" as a church, He will take care of the transformation we all want to see happen. One of the major problems I think with all of this dialogue is that we have missed the point of why we gather together to worship. If you go back and read Acts 2:42-46 you will notice that the early church was not to worried about what outsiders would think. In fact in verse 43 it says "fear came upon every soul". What would happen if a person came into our church and experienced the "fear of the Lord"? When is the last time that happened in our churches? If it did we would probably form a committee quickly to remedy this problem. After all we can't have people "fearing God" (tongue in cheek). As long as we continue to be motivated by the "fear of man" rather than the "fear of the Lord" we will not become the church Jesus wants. As long as we continue to focus on "pleasing man" rather than focusing on "pleasing the Lord" our efforts are in vain.
Anonymous talked about the early church in Acts 2. I agree about seeking the Lord through prayer and powerful spiritual experiences. Where I differ on my opinion is to the purpose of the gathering on Sunday. The early church gathered with believers to seek and prayer and get filled to then go out to seek the unbelievers. The filling was for the going (not the feeling or being). Cliche type phrase but it fits.
Evangelism happened outside of the services not inside the gathering. In fact if I remember my history correctly, unbelievers weren't allowed in the the early services (gatherings for prayer and communion) because of the fear of persecution. I didn't confirm this just going off of what I remember reading somewhere.
AJC, I understand what you are saying. I don't have any desire to water down God or the spiritual parts of being a Christians. But I think there is still something fundamentally wrong with our approach and mind set in what the church is suppose to be, in what the experience of the spirit actually is.
Sometimes I feel that our expression is counterfeit by the way I see people react to it. Every time we have visitors and someone feels the need to prove how spiritual we are and show them God by our tongues thing, they never come back. If it was truly God moving and an event so powerful to cause the sinner to repent, then I would expect the appropriate reaction from the sinner. Over the last 20 years of my experience of listening to our expression and watching what happens afterward, to me it doesn't resemble anything like what I read about in Azusa Street or in Acts for that matter.
If people were honest about how they feel about this stuff I think there would be many that feel this way. I believe our doctrine. I really do. I just don't think that what we experience in most churches these days of the gifts has much to do with God or the Holy Spirit. Yes that is a brutely honest answer and I have my flame suit on now. So flame away. Just looking for answers like everyone else.
This next generation is seeking something real. Real spirituality, real faith that works. I think that the future looks exciting indeed. I just think the future will be very different from our past.
If you really want what happened in the book of Acts then you better not worry to much if people come back or not. I'm sure a lot of people didn't come back after Pentecost or the incident with Ananias and Saphira for that matter. Talk about a "real" spiritual experience. Not sure if it "works"...whatever that means.
Chad:
You wrote this of the early church: "Evangelism happened outside of the services not inside the gathering." I don't think that conclusion can withstand scrutiny. How, after all, would you explain Acts 2, in which the believers in the upper room managed through their prayers to draw a large enough to result in a church of 3000 by the end of the day?
GPW
I've got two thoughts on this. First, I wonder how many of those that perceive the church in this negative light also call themselves Christian. A large majority of America says that they are Christian, but only a small minority say they believe what it teaches (see other Barna studies). So, when people say things like "Church-goers are all a bunch of hypocrites", I wonder how many people they are thinking of actually go to church. Just to be clear, I do think there are issues with the Church that need to be addressed, but I wonder if they are as systemic as we might think at first glance (note: I haven't read the book so they may address this worry, if so, my apologies).
Second, I think Chad may be on to something. I think we can make sense of the 3000 coming to the Lord in Acts 2. First, I don't think it's likely that this was a church gathering. At this point, the church was just getting going. This seems to be an instigator of the Church, not a regular meeting of it. Second, I also don't think it's likely that they were gathered together as Christians apart from the non-Christians. It's remarkable when a pastor has a church that seats 3000 today. I'd be very surprised if the apostles happened to meet in a 3000 seat sanctuary when this came about. Instead, I think this happened in a market-type setting where unbelievers could witness what was going on. Someone could verify this by looking at some decent commentaries, I just don't have mine with me (but if memory serves, this is correct).
I don't think Chad (and I certainly don't) means to suggest that it's an "either/or" situation but more of a "both/and". I don't think we should exclude unbelievers from our services, but I do think it odd to focus an entire service on the 5-10% of attendees. Instead, why not focus on the 90-95% of current Christians and teach them how to go into the market and truly evangelize. I think much of our current evangelism is focused only on "Come to church with me." I guess I think I it should be a "both/and" with more of a focus on existing Christians learning deep truths about God and how he wants us to interact with the world.
A common objection to this view is that Christians should be able to "feed themselves" and focus Sunday morning on serving unbelievers. Well, if we want to keep our church as close as possible to the early church (which us "tongue talkers" often do), then I think that's misguided. Early Christians had no access to the NT because it didn't exist. They had to gather together to listen to the word being read. Once the NT was compiled, most Christians couldn't even read it. They still needed to come and listen. If they didn't, they simply had no way to grow. But we all know that people still converted. How? Probably because they learned how to live a consistent Christian life and witnessed to those they came into contact with during their daily lives. I know that we now have the NT and most people can read it, but my point is that if we want to stick to the early church model, then it's not likely the leaders of the early church expected their constituents to "feed themselves".
Just to reiterate (I've been misinterpreted many times before), I think we should make unbelievers welcome when they visit our churches. I just don't think we should stop teaching current Christians the difficult things about God and his word just because there are visitors in the room. If they are confused or don't understand, well that sounds like a perfect over-lunch conversation to me.
George,
I see what you are saying. Let me help define what I mean.
Temple worship: structured, organized, everyone comes to the temple to find God. It is the center of all spiritual existense. All resources and efforts flow towards the maintaining of the oragnization. Today this would be the church service.
The apostles went for worship in the temple but their focus of evangelism was not to plan a "service time" where the people would all file in to get God. They lived their faith where ever they and the unsaved happend to be. Evangelism was not the outflow of the temple. Evangelism was a way of life. Resources and effort flowed to the need of the people. If I remember right the actual first "Christian" church building wasn't even built until around the second century.
Peters first sermon was in response to the prayer gathering. It wasn't an event planned to preach the gospel to the unsaved. It was a time to pray and wait. The unsaved weren't at the prayer time, they weren't even invited, they were going on about their normal lives.
The people gave themselve to the Apostles teaching (discipleship), fellowship, prayer and the breaking of bread. the routine was build the community and believer (daily) and then take it to the unsaved (daily) not wait for the unsaved to venture in to the one service planned for that purpose.
Look at any church budget. What percentage goes toward the welfare of the people and what amount goes to the continuance of the organization? How many or our attenders wouldn't feel right about missing Sunday morning service? How much of our faith is dependant upon the experience received during the worship service? Do members talked about the context of their faith primarily in the experience of Jesus and living their faith or do they talk about the context of their faith always based on the activities or the "spirit moving" on Sunday am?
Anonymous: If the spirit moved and took the life of those withholding from God, it would most certainly be something real happening. We would have a lot less people gathering and a lot of people to bury. Our real experience with God will come by teaching our churches and people to seek God with all their heart, mind and soul and have God become the central part of their lives DAILY. Wherever they might be found on any given day is just as... if not more... important than the experience they have on Sunday AM.
The context of faith will become something that is a part of everything they do, not dependant on how well the worship team plays, or the Pastor's 30 minutes of insight or whether the "fire fell" in the service. Be continuously filled with the Spirit. Don't wait until Sunday to get a little sip.
Our future is bright indeed, we have a generation that is hungry for God. They have a hunger for something that means more then a membership card or the distinctive. They want to give their lives for purpose. In many churches, with our current mind set and program, they are walking away in droves (in the AG too). they are rejecting it. Maybe what we are offering isn't the Jesus they are looking for. Maybe what we are offering isn't Jesus at all, but the experience of an hour of organizational hype. It seems to me we find pockets of gatherings that are filled with hungry young people, desiring spritual significance. So maybe what we find them rejecting in our churches isn't Jesus, but they are rejecting our view of what it means to be a Christian. Maybe we need to rethink a lot of things.
Yes Paul, it's a both/and! But we can't focus 95% of our efforts to only one day. We need to find a way to teach everyone to give 100% everyday!
whew...take a breath now. :)
I agree! Let's give them the REAL Jesus and the REAL Gospel. Let's tell them that Jesus paid an incredible price by going to the cross, then He told His disciples that if they really wanted to follow Him, they would have to take up their cross "daily". Let's teach them that He told them that if they loved their lives they would lose them, but if they lost their lives for His sake they would find them. Let's remind them that Jesus said if they are ashamed of Him before men, He would be ashamed of them before God. I can't see how we can talk about trying to fix this generations misperceptions of the church, while we now have people walking into churches (in America) and killing Christians. What's going to happen when more persecution comes to America? Young people aren't going to be drawn because of our "cool services"...not if it might cost them their lives! No, what will draw them is a desire to "give all" to the One who "gave all for them".
Chad:
Thanks for the clarification! I think you and I agree that we should not so focus the worship service on evangelizing seekers that we (1) fail to glorify God and (2) fail to disciple believers. Regarding that second point, Willow Creek has publicly admitted that 20 years of seeker-sensitive services did not necessarily produce better disciples. There's a balance that ought to be maintained between evangelism and discipleship.
GPW
Chad,
You said...
"So maybe what we find them rejecting in our churches isn't Jesus, but they are rejecting our view of what it means to be a Christian. Maybe we need to rethink a lot of things."
I would propose maybe they are rejecting the Jesus we are giving them. Mabye because many churches are preaching another Jesus and not the Jesus of the Gospels. Maybe we don't need to so much re-think a lot of things but rather get back to the basics of what an authentic follower of Christ looks like. Maybe the answers lie in us as reading God's Word and BELIEVING IT!
If we are presenting the real Jesus and they reject or walk away we shouldn't be surprised. After all Jesus was certainly rejected in many places by many people.
Jamie P.
I am not sure what to thiunk about this site. Are we really so far from the Scripture. It is God who builds the church. Why are we getting so far awy from what the church should be doing? We should be concerned about "is God being worshipped and honored in our services." That's it. Should God's people ever get back to living a life for His glory...it makes us missional in our lives outside these 4 walls. Inside these 4 walls it is ALL about HIM.
we love one another. We meet to study the Apostles doctrines, break bread, pray worship and get encouragement and correction inside the 4 walss of a building and go out to live and share and see peoples lives changed. We are not to be a "playground" for the unchurched. that has NEVER been the Biblical way to grow a church. And it should not be the way now. We are 'emerging' into error and being "driven by strange purposes"! :) (yea, that's exectly what i mean) :)
Can we please stop thinking that God is more concerned about our relationship one with another more than he is concerned about our relationship with Him. If we are right, forgiven and grateful for salvation, humbled by His gift, we cannot help but share that message with others. Of every race, relagion and gender, (and for you emegents...) orientation. God saves through a pure message proclaimed in love. That is what we are to do.
Do i care that Maddona hates the church...not really. I care that she is lost and will pray for her like the rest of the world that needs to find salvation through the atoning work of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Harry:
I honestly have no idea to whom you're addressing your comments. No one on this site that I know of has suggested that the church should be a "playground" for the unchurched. And if you think pursuing worship, fellowship, discipleship, evangelism, and ministry entails being "driven by strange purposes," then your problem is with God, not Rick Warren.
What I hear coming through strongly in your post is the desire to win souls to Christ. That is our purpose too. In fact, the point of the book "unChurched" is to help us better understand how to win the souls of the emerging generation, which has very negative images of Christians. I honestly believe that if you read the book, you would see that your heartbeat is the same as that of the authors.
George
RE: HARRY...
Worship, instruction, fellowship, evangelism, ministry--Acts 2:42-47 and the other six summary statements in Acts (6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:31) affirm that these purposes lead to growth in the church.
Like it or not, one of the missions of the church is evangelism. Pentecostals have always evangelized the lost inside and outside the church walls (Remember the 6pm Sunday Evangelistic Services?).
Jesus thought so much of the concept that it defined his mission: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (Luke 19:10). He also suggested that it be a priority for churches: "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?" (Luke 15:4)
Additionally, RIGHT relationships with BOTH GOD and with MAN are to define churches: "Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Mat. 22:37-39).
Paul sets the tone for our ministries both inside and outside the church when he spoke of his single-minded focus: "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." (1 Cor. 9:19-23)
Oh we can say, "We are to cater only to the needs of the already convinced every time we open our doors--100% of the time." But to do so will be to close the door on many who are desperately trying to find their way to Jesus. Why create an either/or situation when it obviously is a both/and endeavor. We build up the saints and we reach out to nonChristians in ways that effectively communicate the truth of the gospel.
One things for sure with your approach, not only will Madonna not be attracted, but anyone who looks different, thinks different, acts different, or worships different than your little group will never darken your doors...SAD! I think that if the Apostle Paul were working the 21st Century fields in the US he might add: “To those in LA an NYC who are high profile media types, I shape my message in a way that challenges the deepest needs of their hearts (the ones they sing about and portray on the big screen), so as to win them too to the heart of Jesus.”
I did not clarify myself that well. No my problem is not with Rick warren. My problem is with all these books I find myself having to read that do nothing but criticize the church. We criticize (with some merit) to a point where some of us pastors feel lost. I am still considered GEN X and I feel very out of touch. My last "great" read was "everything must change" my Brian McLaren. If that is what must happen...I don't want the church to change.
I don't need more "this is why we are disliked"...I get that. My point is how do we show people love without polluting the churches purity. (I don't mean street people coming in)I mean not compromising. Why are we not looking to guys like Chuck Smith WHO have seen the culture change and did not seem intimidated? Calvary Chapels was formed. A great "cooperative fellowship" like ours arose..
Yes we are to evangelize...but our sheep need to know WHAT to say, not just things to do. Hybles just discovered that. Discipleship is more than felt needs. It is more than people being comfortable.
Jesus drew big crowds, but a crowd is not a church. (they yelled "be our king: and then crucify Him" 5 days later!)
We need to go back to being more concerned about how God thinks the church is doing, not the world.
We can feed, clothe and give our budget to every needy person. But the point is clear and Jesus said it best. "You cannot see the kingdom of God unless you are born again." So what are we trying to show people that cannot see? Spiritual blindness can only be healed by the touch of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual death can only be brought to life by the Holy Spirit. God builds the church. Our clever ideas and "draws" may be doing more damage than good.
I am really concerned with the lack of theology discussed and the emphasis on "ministry philosophy."
Any tool is a good thing if teamed up with correct theology. But we are relying too much on the tools.
Repentant Harry:
I agree with you, although I would state things a bit differently. Theology (1) determines the end the church shoud pursue and (2) delineates what means are proper in pursuit of that end. (Not everything that appears to be seeker-friendly is God-glorifying.) Church growth tools help us effectively pursue the end. Good theology underlies "unChurched," and it also provides what I judge to be theologically appropriate suggestions for building relationships with unbelievers. That's why I recommended the book.
George
"We need to go back to being more concerned about how God thinks the church is doing, not the world."
Good point. Let's pay attention to how the world views the church, but let's not make that our primary means of determining effectiveness (or faithfulness).
We know as Christians we will be persecuted (or should be), we know that some will reject the truth and despise us. We know some will not want to hear about faith, love and repentance. I think most of us would agree that we don't want to waiver in the TRUTH. We want a strong theology.
I think what we are talking about though doesn't have much to do with rejecting the theology as it does rejecting the people. If we are to be unconcerned about what non-believers think of us then why did Paul write that Elders and Deacons should have a good reputation with those outside the church (1 Tim 3)?
This isn't about a deacons theology, this is about character, work ethic, ability to have a real conversation with people. Not some form of super spiritual nut case that goes quoting scripture at everyone he sees or speaking a christianeese that nobody even understands.
This is about relating to people. If you have ever worked in the workplace outside of the church, those types have no respect and their reputation is tainted. People reject their church and their Jesus because of odd behavior and a condemning attitude.
Styles of services and such will change over time. The goal isn't to teach people how to join a country club and make them a happy experience, it is to give them the Truth in a manner that they understand and can relate to.
That is my whole point. Ministry happens "outside" the walls of the church.
We relate OUTSIDE in our daily lives.
An unchurched person will feel uncomfortable in a church service if they have no idea what communion is. With people praying at an altar. And so on…
The last couple of people that got saved here were so very "uncomfortable".
That is what propositional truth does. The Holy Spirit does His work.
My most current PERCEPT report tells me what I should do. I am in a place of “white Middle American millinenials”...and that does not change the message. It may the time I preach the message. But not the message. I am preaching to the church that is to go out and make disciples. I have a mandate to encourage, correct, exhort and rebuke (if needed) those that want to be in the "church".
But just because they don’t want to be here doesn’t mean the church is bad or doing things wrong. (What if preaching propositional Truth does cause division?)
But the church has “wheat and tares” in it. AND it always will. So will tearing out the tares… (It is the wheat that is suffering and really being torn apart) by all this post-modern stuff.
So live missionally everyday. Get to church and invite a friend that you have been praying for and the Holy Spirit has been dealing with. Then a church will grow.
(Side note: I didn’t enter full-time ministry until 30. Worked full-time secular jobs through Bible school and after…all future pastors should.)
Harry...well said!
The problem with books like these is that it places to much emphasis on churches creating an environment that appeals to man. This is humanism at it's finest. Humanism says that the ultimate purpose of man is his own betterment while Christianity says our ultimate purpose is to GLORIFY GOD! What we forget is that the first and greatest purpose of the church is to be a place where God dwells by His Spirit(see Eph.2:22). We forget that God has requirements upon His habitation. He will not dwell anywhere and neither can we just run into His presence (see Psalm 24:3-6). Our greatest calling as pastors is not to make sure that man "feels good" and has correct perceptions toward the church. NO! Are greatest calling is to GLORIFY JESUS in the church (see Eph. 3:21). You and I can't draw anyone to Christ. However, the Word promises when we lift Him up He will draw others to Himself (see John 12:32). For those of you who read the book "unChristian", I would also encourage you to read "The Jesus Sensitive Church" by Ron Auch. It will provide a good balance.
Jamie P.
I tend to lean toward Zorro's assessment and answer. I also really like what Admin said in the last post. I think above all things our response as a church is to not worry about being relevant or not... Worshiping God and loving people is paramount. We should stop thinking it's our job through programs and enticements to bring the people into the church...they will come....the Holy Spirit will draw them through and to a church where God is being worshiped. I'm also going to take Admin's advice and read that book by Ron Auch.
Ron Auch may have some point...but if all we need to do is do what their doing in So. Korea, India, Latin America, or the African Continent--why aren't we doing it? After all don't we claim to be the ones who sent the missionaries out to these foreign lands to spark the revival? Maybe it's not that easy to reach Americans with the ole' time religion Auch calls for?
Post a Comment