We could probably write a book on having relevant methods in the church today with all the discussion here. However, over at Slice, Ingrid writes an article against some new ideas for attracting men to church at churcformen.com. Church for Men is a program designed to make church more balanced when it comes to femininity and masculinity. Isn’t Ingrid always complaining about how effeminate the church is?
Churchformen.com has some great ideas for new sermon series and special days geared towards men and helping them connect to a community of faith. In classic Ingrid ranting, she writes
While this group never addresses the real cause of absent men in church, unregenerate hearts, they are big on ideas to lure males to church
I am always floored when I read things like this. That statement really is at the crux of modern reformed theology. It basically says,“They are unregenerate trash, and we shouldn’t make any attempt to save their unelect hell-bound souls.”
Even the unregenerate hearts would be attracted to a car show in a church parking lot. And the goal at churchformen.com is not to start a big fraternity and have car shows. The goal is to attract men to car shows and present the gospel to these men, who would probably not step foot in a church. Furthermore, they would probably not step foot in a church not because they hate God, but because the church does a really bad job at presenting the gospel to unregenerate men. Most unsaved men out there think that church is for girls and weird guys.
The fact is, every church is “marketing†themselves to someone. That is inevitable. If a church sings hymns from hymnals, sits in pews, has a 1980 Lifeway poster of Jesus in a gold frame, and everyone wears a three piece suit, they are attracting and marketing to a select crowd. They have made the marketing choice to attract people who are attracted to those things. A church that has lots of media, modern music, uses themed sermons and wear jeans and t-shirts are marketing to a whole different crowd. I am not saying either is good or bad, but both churches have selected a target audience and are marketing to them. Both can preach the same message, but will have two different groups.
The fact is, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only thing that saves. But, you have to attract people to hear that gospel. And I will do whatever it takes (within biblical moral bounds) to attract a group to share that gospel. If I have to build a NASCAR bathroom to attract NARCAR fans to hear the gospel, I will. If I have to play hymns on an organ to seniors, I will. If I have to build a skate park for teens to come and have the gospel presented I will. It’s not unregenerate hearts that are keeping people from church, it is the church that is keeping people from church.
52 Comments(+Add)
Actually, this is one thing I kind of agree with Ingrid on. I understand what you are saying in that every church makes decision on stylistic things that have a potential to draw some people and push away others. I guess my feeling is that we are still operating out of the paradigm of a church is the building and what happens there on Sunday morning is the most important thing. Ideally the “church” meaning the Christians in a local should be all the “marketing” that needs to happen. If unbelievers see people whose lives are genuinely changed, then that will draw them to Christ.
I fear that even in “Emergent” circles, people are falling into the same trap of placing style over substance. Personally, I am almost at the place of giving up completely on large gatherings on Sunday because I just do not see them being a good way of encouraging spiritual development. Rather than trying to skaters, goths, hipsters or whatever subculture to come to us, why aren’t we actually brave enough to go to them? And not just go to do an evangelistic event, but honestly become their friends?
Good point Phil. However, I would say that emerging church are moving away from an importance on Sunday morning services and a push towards relational evangelism. At my church, we always say that Sunday morning is just a commercial for what takes place all week in our community of faith. That Sundays should simply make people hungry, not the place where they come to be fed.
Having that said, Sunday morning gatherings should never be a cross cultural experience for the cultural majority. We should try to remove every non-essential barrier between a person and Christ. I am not talking about creating a style for style’s sake. I am saying to create an environment that attracts people so they can hear the content.
Good points tough!
“It’s not unregenerate hearts that are keeping people from church, it is the church that is keeping people from church.”
This is the height of new evangelical Biblical ignorance: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’ They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. 2 The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, To see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God. 3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one” (Psalm 14:1-3).
I get it… so we need to turn our backs on these corrupt fools. They are obviously unable to understand, so why do church at all? Why even preach if no body will get it?
I actually agree with all scripture, including this one (and I am part of the emerging church!). All I am arguing for is that we create space for the unregenerate to come and hear the word. It doesn’t hurt if that space is attractive to them.
BTW Phil, a new book just came out called Peppermint Filled Pinatas by Eric Michael Bryant on that subject. It is pretty good.
Nathan,
I completely agree on the style vs. substance issues, but I would echo phil’s comments on the church being the people and not the building (or the events). While I believe that this side of the coin (the ‘internal’ church focus) is important, I see that the opposite side of the coin (the ‘external focus) is often neglected – or worse, done badly.
As Christians (”little Christs”) or Christ-followers, we are to be enough like him that others see the difference he has made in our lives as the ‘marketing’ for the church. Everything else is window dressing if this is not done. Otherwise, we’re like the guy standing beside the marathon route either shouting hell and damnation or clapping for the runners, but doing nothing to really help them in the race.
With that said, though, I agree with the sentiment that we have to be willing to bend our own stylistic preferences on “internal externals”. Our worship leader has a list of songs on the ‘x-list’ for Sunday morning worship as being too feminine.
There are a number of studies which have shown that a family in the church without the father of the family have a much tougher row to hoe in raising spiritually healthy children. Also, stylistically, women will not be distracted by more masculine worship style and events, whereas many men are avoidant of feminine worship and themes. This is not “marketing God”, but helping to cultivate the soil in which he plant the seed. By all means, He does not ‘need’ us, but He has called us to serve. When we are so selfishly – and slavishly – adherent to our own comfortable norms (like three-piece suits, organ music, etc.) that we insist the norms be followed as if they were part of scripture, then we truly are the church getting in the way of the church.
Ken’s reply, in a nutshell, sums up the lie that is the death-knell of irrelevancy in the ‘traditionalist/fundamentalist’ movement. Either you believe that there is – on some level – free will to accept God’s grace (and that it was God’s soverign permission given to make that choice), or you choose to isogete as Ken has chosen to do (thus giving yourself free reign to tell the world that it is going to hell with no need to lift a finger to do anything about it).
If – on some level – man may choose to accept God’s grace (which, yes, comes first – and which choice was given by God), then being relevant is important. If, though, man has no choice and the elect are the elect and the unwashed can just merrily go to hell, then irrelevance is a badge of honor.
Ken,
I do not mean this a challenge, but as a genuine question. Do you think that the method of presentation of the Gospel matters at all, or are the Elect going to be saved no matter what Christians do. Based on your comment here and others I’ve seen, it seems like you have a very fatalistic view of things.
I guess this is the part where I have a hard time understanding the Calvinist mindset. They say we are supposed to evangelize out of obedience, and God will call those who are Elect. OK. But what if the message a Christian gives is not given correctly? Can God still work past that? Or does that just mean that the person who heard the Gospel presented incorrectly was never Elect in the first place? In the end, what difference does it make, then?
phil,
“I do not mean this a challenge, but as a genuine question.” And I will answer genuinely.
“Do you think that the method of presentation of the Gospel matters at all,” Of course I do. I not against way more methods than you might think. However, the message cannot change and IMO the new evangelical message has. This is what I personally would be against.
“or are the Elect going to be saved no matter what Christians do.” The problem here phil is that this question is actually phrased incorrectly. The elect are going to be saved because God causes His elect to do what must be done for Him to work through them that others who are chosen will come to Him.
“Based on your comment here and others I’ve seen, it seems like you have a very fatalistic view of things.” This is also a common error attributed to “Calvinists.” My personal view is that it is really quite exciting to have the Lord place within me over time (e.g. Psalm 37:4) whatever He wants me to do to play my part in how He is causing the grand scheme of His will come together.
So far from fatalism, it’s an every day gratitude that by His grace and sovereign will an unworthy man like me who was dead in his sin is allowed the privilege to be even the remostest part of God’s plan along with the expectation that He will use me toward that end in some way. Trust me, I don’t want any kind of big ministry. God knows that I’m really quite happy in the back of the spiritual bus. Cuz at least it gets There!
“we are supposed to evangelize out of obedience,” Correct, the foolishness of preaching.” “and God will call those who are Elect.” Correct.
“But what if the message a Christian gives is not given correctly?” In the end it can’t be. However, there’s nothing that prevents me – or anyone else – from messing up at times since I am but a jar of clay. However, God will sovereignly use that mess up as He later brings those people into contact with other people God’s prepared to not mess up.
“Can God still work past that?” So, of course He can because the Lord would already know what He would be later working past before He allowed it.
“Or does that just mean that the person who heard the Gospel presented incorrectly was never Elect.” Now I think you might see the answer to this question. Also, one who is not among the elect will not respond even to Christ Himself which is painfully evident from the Gospels. I pray this helps.
Ken,
I’m a lurker for the most part (here and elsewhere), and I just want to say thanks for explaining what you believe without resorting to name-calling or sarcasm.
This is the kind of conversation that I think many people here would love to engage in. Honest discussion, openly communicated. I know that I don’t see eye to eye with a lot of people, but I think communicating in this regard can at least produce understanding, if not some changing of minds.
Thanks!
kyle,
No problem. And thank you.
Ken,
Thank you, as well, for the coherent, thoughtful response. Despite the contorted phrasiology, I think I agree with you, for the most part.
Once again, the crux of ‘relevancy’ seems to sit on the existence of ‘free will’ (not apart from God, but from God), which says “I (God) could make the choice for you, but I am allowing you to choose”. If there is an element of ‘free will’ (as such) involved in following Him, then ‘relevancy’ in method should be, well, relevant to us. If there is no element of ‘free will’, then it really doesn’t matter what we do, and choosing to be relevant or irrelevant is irrelevant.
Ken,
OK, another honest question: I tend to lean more toward iggy’s understanding of grace and salvation than the Calvinist perspective. I also consider myself leaning more toward an emerging (read: not postmodern, not emergent) point of view (like many of the contributors here, I imagine). In many of your writings, I feel like you focus a lot on the differences we have, rather than where we come together to serve and honor God.
So, I was wondering if you feel there are things that we would find agreement on. Things that, as you read and research, you would be cool with.
I ask because, while I disagree with much of what you write, I think there are some things there that are valid, although perhaps delivered with a little more hyperbole than what I would use (i.e., I’m not a fan of the PDC approach, but I wouldn’t fault those who are). Just wondering if you there is any common ground from your side of the fence, so to speak.
I’m back, and already banned by the sedevacantist’s blog, a badge of honor indeed.
The issue is God’s foreknowledge. He is either completely prescient, or He is not completely omniscient. That would mean he is not God. If God foreknows all who will say “yes”,
then He knows/foreknows all who will say no. Since He does have such knowledge, and if He never attempts to alter the circumstances of those who reject Him so to cause them to reverse course,….. then what do you call that?
The other issue is free will. As I said before, “free will” is limited by the available choices, so if the gospel and Jesus presented is not the true gospel and Jesus that Paul spoke of, well….. figure it out.
So Paul says to those who ask the question “why does he still find fault, for who can resist His will?”:
“who are you oh man?” (What an emergent guy he answers a question with a question!!)
This is Paul’s way of saying “that’s right who can resist His will, so…quit whining.”
Peter wrote that it is God’s “desire” that none should perish. The word in the Greek for desire, or wish, comes from the same root as “will” in the aforementioned passage that Paul used. However one derivative means desire, and the other means absolute will. So if it is God’s absolute will” that all should be saved, then they are, or will be;for who can resist His will? The answer being, no one can.
Nevermind that this universalist view also makes a mockery of God in Christ on the cross reconciling the world to Himself.
Faith comes by hearing and gearing by the Word of God.
So given the combination of those who are the good ground prepared by the Holy Spirit,. which Jesus spoke of in the sower and the seed, and the Word of God being presented by an actual regenerate son of God, these being the proper environment for one to come to saving faith. I question the reports of all these mass salvations and mega church growth. We have churches full of folks who think that they are alright because they said a sinner’s prayer or have leaders who tell them God loves them “just as they are” i.e. they can continue doing whatever it was they were into before becoming a member of the “fellowship”.
I once read the words “belong before you believe” the “pre-christian” twaddle. To this I say, how do you know to what it is you belong to without first hearing and believing?
Sunday morning is not for evangelism. Get outside the walls.
Even the ecm/emergent crowd has turned the house of prayer into a den of robbers.
People do not come to the Lord because you become their buddy or have relevant services. A temple cleansing is needed.
Chris P.,
“People do not come to the Lord because you become their buddy or have relevant services.”
I will disagree with that statement. Part of my friendship with others is so I can help them on their journey with God, and them mine. In many cases, I get the opportunity to present the gospel because I was their friend first. Even Jesus was called a “friend of sinners”. To what end was he their friend? For what purpose? I’m gonna go with “to seek and save those that are lost.”
If we are to “get outside the walls”, what does that look like? Does friendliness factor in anywhere?
Chris P,
I think you have a very limited understanding of the nature of God and time (which we all do), but you then impose your systematic limitations upon Him. We just choose not to do so. It is clear that He is omnicient. It is also clear that He grants truly free will.
Your ranting aside,
I don’t. I leave that up to God. If He can save 3,000 in an afternoon on the Temple Mount, why can’t he do the same over several months (or years) at a local church?
I have bolded your ’straw man’ here. First, as a member of a ‘megachurch’ and having attended others in the past, this is far too simplistic a view of what happens in one of these churches. It’s been years since I’ve heard someone talk about the ’sinner’s prayer’ – and the churches I am familiar with have classes and discussions around what salvation is and what deciding to follow Christ implies. Similar to Tim Keller’s explanation of “when” salvation occurs, it seems from scripture and from experience that it happens stepwise – beginning with hearing and then belief moving toward repentence – rather than in one ‘magical’ second in which one says the ’sinner’s prayer’.
The language about coming ‘just as you are’ does not imply that “they can continue doing what it was they were into before…” – it is the practice of belief before repentence – which still MUST come. The ‘coming as you are’ is the first step of the journey, not the entire journey. If you believe, then you will repent and walk in a new way of living.
Please stop broad-brush characterizing vast numbers of other Christians.
You wrote:
Exactly, but your conclusion is off, possibly because you misunderstand “belong” – First comes hearing, before believing (just as you noted above). In order to hear, one must be in a place to listen. Correct? At some point after hearing, one must make a choice to either believe or not to believe. If one chooses to believe after hearing, then he or she must choose to act on that belief through repentence – an outward sign of an inward change. Then, if the repentence has occurred (at least in our tradition, based on the New Testament practice), it is symbolized in baptism and walking anew on a different path from which you started.
What some ’seeker sensitive’ churches do is not a ‘bait and switch’, but a ‘one step at a time’ approach that meets individuals where they are and deals with each step at a time (hear, believe, repent, baptize, walk anew), rather than focus on ‘walking anew’ at the time of first ‘hearing’ – which can seem overwhelming to a person trapped in their sin. However, I believe, that this was laid out by Jesus in such a way that each step leads to growth, which is the model by which growth continues to occur throughout one’s walk with him – one step at a time in which each one is a sacrifice of individual will that can be understood and acted upon, without having to worry about what happens 10 steps down the road. It is trusting the shepherd to provide with today’s pastures for today’s problems and allowing him to provide tomorrow’s pasture tomorrow.
I agree and disagree. Evangelism is 24/7 in the way we live – including Sunday morning. It begins outside the walls, by all means, and it is most effective outside the walls, as well. However, the world’s view of ‘church’ is that it is a building full of people on Sunday morning – so people looking for a ‘church’ go there at that time. As such, we should be prepared to evangelize when and where God provides the listeners for His message.
I’m not sure why this was tacked on, as it is disconnected from the rest of your rant. Jesus’ cleansing of the temple was because of the Gentiles being pushed out of it to make room for more buying and selling. When, by our actions we get in the way of those seeking to know God – hearing His voice – we are the ones in need of cleansing. While there are faulty tendencies in ECM churches (as there are in every denomination), this is not one of them.
Calvinism is fatalism even if true, but many reformed believers are ardent students of the Word and some like one of my employees is a witnessing Calvinist that is sincerely interested in souls. But the problem with over relevancy is that it can have a tendency to lure the sinner by such clandestine means that it obscures and misrepresents the message.
Not every message is on hell, but the gospel does have a judgment aspect that needs to be presented. Also some sinners are attracted to and accept the gospel on false earthly promises of wealth, health, success, and other self agrandizements.
It is acceptable to make a guest welcome to your gathering, it is not acceptable to alter the teaching to accomodate his cultural and hedonistic bias. And in this western Christian genre, the unbeliever sees no sacrifice or self denial in Christians. And that part of the CHrist life is sometimes purposely hidden from the unbelieving view. Do not hinder the Holy Spirit, but do not usurp His ministry either.
Again, when Ken Silva contibutes as he has in this and other recent threads he is sometimes the most thoughtful and well researched of anyone in the net whether you agree or not. Thanks, K.
Chris L.
Thank you for your response to my “rant”
I have a Bilbical view of God. I don’t care about our alleged free will. It is limited by the available choices. I do put God into any system. All I did was put forth what is in the Word. Funny how no one has ever answered the questions put forth. (This is going on three years asking them.)
I didn’t say I expect everyone to walk perfectly right away after believing. I am talking about what is being spoken as “gospel” before they come to belief. Most of what is preached as the message is not the message. So are they truly born again? As for what passes as discipleship don’t get me started.
If He loves me just as I am, then why do I need to reckon myself to be dead, be born again, become a new creation etc.
I should be able to just continue on as I always did. He loves me just as I am, right?
This is not the same as “coming as you are”. We can only come as we are, dead in our sins and total depravity. He being holy and righteous will not accept anything less than the standard of His Son. He accepts only what he will make us into.
I did not say only the mega churches do sinner’s prayers, and as for “strawman” if you use the word one more time I will be forced to go with Dorothy and ask the wizard to give you a brain.
My statement may be “simplistic” but it is all too common of a circumstance.
Peter preached the Word, and a hard one at that. Convinction came immediately. There are few indeed who would allow Peter to stand in their pulpits.
The process of working out our salvation starts at the moment we hear,receive faith and believe, not before. I was addressing the statement that “we belong before we believe.”
I never said we stop growing in our walk with the Lord bcause we know it all right away. That is a post-modern “strawman” .
I reject the arguments, which are plentiful, that say we will never know, or do not now know, anything.
Evangelization may happen on Sunday morning but the corporate gathering of the church should not be designed to “draw them in”.
“When, by our actions we get in the way of those seeking to know God – hearing His voice – we are the ones in need of cleansing.”
Thank you for making my point.
The ecm doesn’t do this? What a sweeping generalization!!!
Tell McClaren and the others to quit writing books, speaking at conferences, and receiving a fee for doing so.
It is always assumed that the den of robbers and the pharisees are those who stand on the scriptures alone, another “strawman”. Jesus quoted the word as He drove them out.
I am completely friendly to all “outside of the walls” and to the newly converted. I do not hold truck with those whoclaim to be longtime believers. They should know better; especially those in the blogworld.
I understand Jesus was called “friend of sinners”
He was addressing the pharisees and religious who were actually the ones who gave Him that designation.
Jesus came to SEEK and save indeed.
John 6:
67So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve?
They believed because He chose them, and had the Words of eternal life, not because He had them over for dinner.
Too much emphasis on our methods and such takes the focus off God’s sovreignty.
HenryRick mentioned the gospel has a judgement component. That’s true…the component is:
that we are all already under judgement.
It made me think…
The problem is not judgement. The problem that gets rightly critcized is the presentation that makes it sound like the presenters are The Judge and not humble, heartbroken, honest messengers who gently speak hope in the face of judgement that even they themselves are under.
No matter what anybody says “in theory”, I’ve had too many experiences where in reality, after taking the time to build a relationship and earning the right to be heard, people feel safe enough to admit their brokenness and sense of desperation in the face of what they themselves cannot make right or fix (in traditional language: dead in sin). It is there that the hope of the Gospel can be shared. What God does next is up to Him. And many times, God moves in the heart and a life is changed forever!
I think that too often the tone and means is not recognized as the hindrance or help that it can be.
If you come across as an angry, controlling jerk who needs to “be right” and win a theological argument, then you make your claims about God’s redeeming love a lie in the ears of those listening. If, in your need to convince a person of their sinfulness, you undercut their human dignity as imago dei, then you have sinned even as you proclaim freedom from sin.
If people get the sense that you care more about getting a convert than actually loving the person in front of you, then the undeserving grace of God makes no sense. An intelligent listener will see this. It’s just not good enough to excuse bad behavior as some thing that doesn’t matter because of the doctrine of election.
To be sure, God uses us all in our imperfection, but I still don’t see how it is a betrayal of the Gospel to call people to be careful and mindful in their proclamation. This does not mean that we cannot be confident and bold, but boldness doesn’t have to mean being Balaam’s ride. =)
For me, that’s the value of the emerging church.
It was in those conversations where it was ok to really think out loud about the “how” of mission.
The other theological stuff is really just indicative of specific people’s own journeys. They don’t speak for me and never have. People who try to appropriate their own spirituality vicariously through the writings of McLaren or Tozer or Spurgeon or whoever step on the slippery slope that leads from valuing the insights of mere men and ends in enshrining their perspectives as some gold standard of knowledge. It’s a well intentioned idolatry that keeps people from owning their own walk with God. Take what is good from them, leave what is bad. If you don’t know how, ask for wisdom and God will give it. This “democratizes” our faith in a way that scares people who need control or need to see communities that feel “controlled”.
“and as for “strawman†if you use the word one more time I will be forced to go with Dorothy and ask the wizard to give you a brain. ”
Chris P., that is a great line, yours?
Another Nathan, no one gives the exact, personal perspectiveless, presentation of the gospel. That is where the Holy Spirit comes in and spiritually presents it to the person’s heart, not just his ears. Some give it too harsh, some too bland, some too easy, etc..
But what we must avoid is offering what Christ doesn’t offer and in so doing elicit a lustful response to an earthly desire and not a surrendered trust to the divine sinbearer.
HenryRick…
beautifully stated:
…what we must avoid is offering what Christ doesn’t offer and in so doing elicit a lustful response to an earthly desire and not a surrendered trust to the divine sinbearer.
Nathan you said: “The fact is, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only thing that saves. But, you have to attract people to hear that gospel. And I will do whatever it takes (within biblical moral bounds) to attract a group to share that gospel. ”
Let me ask you to do one simple thing Nathan, as you encounter your “Christian” brothers and sisters for the next week ask them this one simple question, “I’ve got a knife in my back and 3 minutes to live, what must I do to be “saved?”
See how many provide you with a BIBLICAL answer to that question that makes personal the sinfulness of your sin that you might understand your need for a savior and the only provision for salvation which is repentant faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I know from my own experience asking this question that the vast majority of those who profess Christ, know not Christ, because they haven’t even the slightest idea what are the most elementary elements of the gospel message. I submit that for a person to be saved they must first hear the gospel message, secondly they must UNDERSTAND the gospel mandates – repentance and trust in Christ alone, and thirdly that we would be fruit bearing sons of God we should be able to share that gospel message. My thoughts, but please take a week to quiz your friends and fellow church members and get back with me, see how many think it’s that you must “ask Jesus into your heart” or “it is about God’s wonderful plan for your life” or that you must simply “pray the Sinner’s Prayer” or something wholly unscriptural as any of those. My guess is that, if you’re honest, you’ll be quite disappointed at weeks end and recognize the high number of misguided so-called Christians that fill the churches week in and week out.
BTW – the whole “whatever it takes” approach is the mantra of those who have no idea what they are endeavoring to do. It feigns surrender yet screams of the ignorance of those involved.
As to “attracting” people to hear the gospel, I can bring up the gospel in any conversation I am in regardless of the environment (work environment courtesy and compliance aside – I would not disrespect my boss or another’s and expect God’s to honor that sinfulness) because I have trained myself up in just such a thing. To make the church more like the world with NASCAR bathrooms and worldly events like “Desperate Household’s” sermon series’ or Spiderman 3 “Bible” studies is to bring low the perceived holiness of God and undermine or really to underestimate the power of God to save through the foolishness of the gospel which is the power of God to salvation. It also shows a church body that is refusing to fulfill their call to be “reconcilers” – a ministry given to ALL who call themselves Christians, not just some, but ALL. The other side of that is that it makes incredibly prideful the “pastors” like say a Perry Noble or other who continually command that the body simply invite people to church to be saved and in so doing envision themselves as the only powerful means by which many will be saved to that body of believers.
Summation:
1. Know the gospel. If you are unsure and need a refresher try http://www.needGod.com
2. Read your Bible daily and do what it says. Ask God for wisdom to understand what it says and get sound Godly preaching from someone who exposits the word of God, like say a John MacArthur, Jeff Noblitt, Paul Washer, Steven Lawson, etc…
3. Share the gospel with others and answer God’s call to be a “reconciler” of men to God. 2 Cor. 5:17-21
That is all….for now.
Bill – A good experiment. But if a person who is asking is a Calvinist or reformed the 3 minutes to live is irrelevant. The time frame has no bearing on a person if he is or isn’t previously elected. So that is a good Arminian question. Thanks.
“The time frame has no bearing”
Rick, with all due respect this is true whether one is Arminian or Calvinist because both agree that God is sovereignly in control. Not a sparrow falls apart from the will of God. So my brother, please don’t go out of your way to be critical.
ummm…knife in my back, how do I get saved?
call 911.
=)
Just kidding.
I do agree we should get into the word, I just don’t think that expository preaching is the highest or only way to be in the word.
Could someone explain to me where this insistence on exposition comes from? I see its value, but to believe that it will render the “truest” readings of Scripture just isn’t born out by virtue of the FACT that in the wake of “exposition” we have more commentaries with competing takes on the very same passages than every before.
I know, I know, people will advocate for the “plain meaning of Scripture”, but the “plain meaning” tells us that all we need is the Spirit as our Teacher. I don’t understand what appears to be idolatry of particular preachers/writers and then the incessant criticism of the same if it’s not preachers/writers you like or agree with.
I’m not trying to pick a fight…seriously.
I just don’t understand that stuff…
“don’t go out of your way to be critical.”
hmmmmm….
I wasn’t being critical, i.e. “good experiement” and “thanks”, I was being observant. An Arminian would be energized by the ticking clock because he would believe that the person to whom he was witnessing indeed had an fleeting opportunity to be saved.
A Calvinist would realize that whether this person had three minutes or three years or three thousand years is irrelevant, God would save him if he was chosen and wouldn’t if he wasn’t regardless.
Even if the Calvinistic view was correct this still would be true.
And the Arminian was going to save him by his witness? Wow, that’s a lot of pressure I don’t want. People ending up in Hell because of my inability to witness correctly. “If I’d have only done this, or if I’d only done that…” No thanks.
I agree with Ken on this one.
I remember on a “missions sunday” at my last church we had the most horrific sermon. passionless, dry, not inspiring to consider the profound work on the mission field and how it calls us to live missionally here at home.
Then, they played a video of the song, “Reach one more for Jesus” from saddleback. Rick Warren telling the story of his father’s last words, etc. Then this song plays…minor key, it was like a funeral dirge.
Reach one mooooore for Jesus, before we close our eyes…
it was burdensome and guilt driven and not hopeful or joyful.
to make matters worse, the worship team got up and made the congregation sing it. After a coma-inducing service, it was the last bit that made me want to go walk out into traffic.
It’s like that silly song, “Thank you” that was played over and over and over again in the late 80’s to 90’s. (Ray Boltz sang it, I think.) Besides being theologically offensive it was just straight up cheesy aesthetic dreck.
The main point though:
No one will be thanking ME in heaven. They will only be praising God for what God has done in us.
I’ve got that down and I’m no Calvinist or Arminian. =)
If Jesus Christ is being proclaimed, if men are being discipled, if men are finding home churches, if men’s lives and hearts are being transformed why aren’t all of use cheering and encouraging these ministries?
Philippians 1:18 (The Message)
So how am I to respond? I’ve decided that I really don’t care about their motives, whether mixed, bad, or indifferent. Every time one of them opens his mouth, Christ is proclaimed, so I just cheer them on!
Mike, thank you for that. You would think this would be the case ( I certainly am). However, most of the watchdogs at these sites think that unless hell and brimstone is proclaimed that a person really isn’t saved. They really do have a bad case of the “us four and no more” syndrome.
another Nathan,
the fact is, people’s salvation should be something that is a huge burden for us as believers to care about. If we have any part in helping someone come to Christ then it should be on the forefront of our hearts. The problem today is that the church is so apathetic to this cause (ken and Ingrid for example). They would much rather sit around a campfire and sing coom-bay-ah than go out and share the gospel.
I agree that God will be one who receives all the glory for salvation. Yet, He still says how will they hear unless someone goes to tell them. We do play a part in the process.
I think it strange that Ingrid and Ken are opposed to someone “witnessing” or sharing the gospel with another.
It is not about ME saving anyone… in fact it is about ME doing what Jesus told me to do and that is to proclaim the Gospel of His Kingdom and of God’s great mercy and grace to those who need to hear.
WE play a part of the ministry of reconciliation and it is a privilege that we can share in this… but WE do not save anyone, only Jesus does this.
So, being Arminian, or being a non Calvinist/Calvinist like Ken, one must still understand we are the ones that proclaim the Gospel to others…
Blessings,
iggy
i don’t deny our privilege of being part…
I just don’t like the dreary, guilt driven tack of motivating a person…
“If Jesus Christ is being proclaimed, if men are being discipled, if men are finding home churches, if men’s lives and hearts are being transformed…”
“Church for men?” In this new evangelical religion of pseudo-Christianity “a” Jesus Christ is being proclaimed, I don’t see real disciples being made, men find country clubs and self-help gripus as well, and I do see of love of mankind itself transforming into the old liberal social gospel. Nah, no cheers coming from the Lord on that, rather His wrath s coming…get ready…
nathan,
“They would much rather sit around a campfire and sing coom-bay-ah than go out and share the gospel.” Dream on…
Iggy,
“I think it strange that Ingrid and Ken are opposed to someone “witnessing†or sharing the gospel with another.”
I think it strange that people let you teach them because the above brings into question whether you can even read.
Ken,
I would assume that you have done extensive research into the church for men ministry and have evidence to prove that you “don’t see real disciples being made, men find country clubs and self-help groups as well, and I do see of love of mankind itself transforming into the old liberal social gospel.” You wouldn’t make claims without hard evidence would you… nah, you would never do that
I read the 19 page PDF first, then read Ingrid’s article. During the PDF several things really struck me. The first is that a men’s only theme is supposed to be held only 4 times a year. So the program isn’t about running a men only church.
The second was that at least they are doing something about it. One of Ingrid’s points is that the reason that there aren’t men in church is because of unregenerate hearts. Does that mean that God is out to save more women then men? The program actually addresses the fact that a lot of churches decorate towards women. Taking a fresh look at decorating is a good idea.
The third thing that struck me was that it seems like a giant VBS program geared towards men. The majority of people here are guys, so if any of you have read the paperwork, would you be interested in going to a VBS just for you?
The fourth thing is a pet peeve of mine. As the mother of two boys, it seems like art/culture/the world is portraying men as stupid. It is in commercials, sitcoms and in children’s programing. Over and over the “Action Plan” called for announcing that the sermon would be shorter or that the message would be only 10 minutes. Are guys really that stupid that they can’t focus longer than that? The Plan seems to indicate that you are. The church I attend usually has a 45 minute message, and my husband and friend’s husbands have no trouble listening, in fact, we have long discussions about the message after the service and throughout the week. The issue isn’t the length, it is the message, presentation, speaker, and the listener. The program reinforces the idea that men are like little kids, which is not true. I’m kind of surprised that no one here was insulted by the actual program.
I actually found some of the decorating or object lesson ideas to be interesting and I love the idea of handing out something like a stone at the end.
I kept trying to picture what this would look like if they did a program like this for women, and I don’t think I would be interested in it.
This is one of the articles where I have to admit that Ingrid has some valid points. I simply wish that she wrote it in New York Times intelligent prose rather than in National Inquirer side-show promotion.
Deborah,
I hear what you’re saying about men being portrayed as stupid in the media. It seems TV shows will go out of their way to show women as the level headed one and the man as the stupid buffoon.
As far as going to something like this, I would have no interest. On the other hand, depending on the speaker, there a lot of sermons I have no interest in hearing either. I think everyone learns in a different way, and it’s up to pastors to decide how best to teach their congregations.
Like I said earlier, I don’t think Sunday mornings are the best place for spiritual development to occur. I know that it’s the only time that a lot people give thought to spiritual things, and pastors feel the need to “strike while the iron is hot” in one sense. I just wonder if the Church on a whole isn’t missing the point sometimes.
I’m in college ministry, and I have to say that the old adage that “people don’t care what you know until they know you care” is still true. If I take time to hang out with guys doing whatever, they will listen to just about anything I have to say. If I’m just preaching for the sake of preaching, a lot of my words will probably fall on deaf ears.
nathan,
“I would assume that you have done extensive research into the church for men ministry”
Unless you happen to like the taste of your feet, it would really help if you’d use better inductive logic when you read. I wasn’t referring specifically to “Church for men” in my comment, I was responding to Mike’s assertions in his.
I only began by expressing a question re. the unusal name of his church and beyond that made no further comment. I would humbly suggest that you think through what you read before you write posts attributed to the wrong people and that way you’ll make a lot less mistakes in your responses to people’s comments.
Phil, I agree with you on relational ministry and your experiences in college ministry are like mine in jr. high ministry.
While I think changes need to be made and guys need to be drawn back into churches, it seems that this program is far too infantile to be attractive to men. (I can’t wait to show the website to my husband and get his reaction)
I also agree with you that the church is missing the point. In your opinion which is easier – going into a new church as guest of a member or going into a new small group as a guest of a member?
deborah
“In your opinion which is easier – going into a new church as guest of a member or going into a new small group as a guest of a member?”
Well, it might be easier in the sense of remaining anonymous to go into a big church by yourself, but as far getting plugged in to a church body it’s always easier (and better IMO) to have a relationship with a person beforehand. In our campus church, we actually try to put a more emphasis on the cell groups more than our large group meeting. The kids who are plugged into a cell group are almost always the ones who get the most out of the ministry and in turn contribute the most. It also seems to make them more outward focused.
Ken, you wrote
“Church for men?†In this new evangelical religion of pseudo-Christianity “a†Jesus Christ is being proclaimed, I don’t see real disciples being made, men find country clubs and self-help gripus as well, and I do see of love of mankind itself transforming into the old liberal social gospel.
next comment:
I wasn’t referring specifically to “Church for men†in my comment
RIGHT. And I am the one who needs a lesson in logic
nathan,
Don’t you get tired of being shown to be in error? A pastoral word of caution: Your ego is going to get you into trouble one day.
Mike’s comment is in reference to criticism of the Church, NOT of his local church, which I have never criticized anyway:
“If Jesus Christ is being proclaimed, if men are being discipled, if men are finding home churches, if men’s lives and hearts are being transformed why aren’t all of use cheering and encouraging these ministries?”
And my response to his reference to churches and ministies, after the initial question concerning what I think is an odd name for a church, then goes right through his above comment:
“In this new evangelical religion of pseudo-Christianity “a†Jesus Christ is being proclaimed, I don’t see real disciples being made, men find country clubs and self-help groups as well, and I do see of love of mankind itself transforming into the old liberal social gospel.
way to avoid the truth once again
nathan,
Man, you seriously need to be careful you’re so bent to get me that you can’t see when you are so obviously wrong. Fire away at me all you want but you are shooting blanks here friend.
Ken,
I don’t see how I was wrong here. I cut and pasted your quotes and they stand in direct opposition. It sounds like you are reacting to being corrected.
nathan,
O yeah, that’s what it is. My bad.
apology accepted
Nathan,
I’m a lurker for the most part (here and elsewhere), and I just want to say thanks for explaining what you believe without resorting to name-calling or sarcasm.
This is the kind of conversation that I think many people here would love to engage in. Honest discussion, openly communicated. I know that I don’t see eye to eye with a lot of people, but I think communicating in this regard can at least produce understanding, if not some changing of minds.
Thanks!
Ken,
“I think it strange that people let you teach them because the above brings into question whether you can even read.”
Your kindness is always noted… I collected all the kind things you have ever said to me and posted them here…
“”
They are between the quotes in case you missed them…
It should be an eye opener of YOUR heart toward me… but I suspect you will just rationalize it all away somehow…
People love to hear me teach and they also that their lives are changed… and the also state they now have had the bondage of performance based faith… or the shame based faith which you teach. These people say “thank you” to me, and praise God. They find a deeper walk in Christ… not from me, but from the teachings of Scripture and the truth that is there…
I find it strange that people support ministries that keep them in bondage by their teacihing of a God that hates them unless they tow the line, and feel shame instead of the Love of God.
Blessings,
iggy