All Things To All Men = Anything Goes Evangelism?

[All about Grace]

J.D. ~ it is difficult to respond to your posts because of your continual blending of "emergent" with terms like "purpose-driven". If you truly understood either movement, you would understand how distinct these two camps are. My emergent friends would blow a candle (a little emergent humor) if they heard themselves compared to the PDC movement.

Also your comments about the PDC have been dealt with exhaustively in other threads. This thread is really not about PDC but contextualization.

By the way, I am a bit of an anomaly in that I consider myself somewhat emergent and seeker-aware. I even have some Purpose-driven influence and to top it off - I am Calvinistic (though I dislike the term).

 

[Hope of Glory]

ooops...posted 2 times

I think maybe it deserved to be posted twice.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello...All about Grace,

1. Obviously churches make mistakes in transitioning. At the same time, any time a church transitions to a more outward focus there are those who seek to find another church where they can be "fed" (whatever that means).

Yes tis true about mistakes. Do not get me wrong. I do not stand against change. I drive a car and not ride a horse as my forefathers. It is all about focus. It is my feeling that those that focus on the world will end up there. My case in point is the YMCA. The Y was set-up to bring in the lost so that they could interlink with those in the church. After they got the world in, they would share the gospel with them. When is the last time you have heard of a Bible study at the Y? I use to produce 2 YMCA newsletters and in 4 years that this ran though my office, I did not see one church outreach on the program. Change is sometimes needed. But what is behind this change? If we change to be like the world, to make the Church act, smell, and sound like the world..I see this as wrong. USA today loves the new changes in churches. This tells me something is wrong. The world will hate us. I didn't say this..Christ did.

2. If a Christian is depending on an hour on Sunday morning - 30 minutes from a pastor - for their spiritual growth. They have more dependence problems and should seek to grow in their own quiet time and personal discipleship.

I'm sure this is not just to me or any others with my views. I understand your point. Tis true if this were the case and would be sad. I can not speak for others. I can tell you about what went on in my church. The ones that stopped bring their Bibles..are still there. The ones that left are smaller few that came to Sunday night and Wed. night service. The church no longer has preaching on Sunday night. They play games for followship. The ones that left were the ones that went on missions trips. No mission trip was needed the last 2 years. I have 3 girls that went though the teen group. This of course means we had teens at our house nearly every night. These teens loved the Lord and would sing songs and read Gods word on their own. This was not church lead. The men that had pray breakfast...half are gone now. The ones that stayed never came to pray breakfast. Mens Bible study on Monday nights has been replaced with basketball. Men that were to busy on Mondays..now find time.

I'm not going to lie to you and say I made every meeting. I did not. But I will say...the faithful that came nearly all the time, the ones that read their Bible each day..many of the men that could have been preaching if they were anywhere else...have for the most part left. I'm not setting myself as ONE HOLY JOE. I'm just saying your point if true would be bad. But I have found this to not be the case.

3. Contextualization has nothing to do with "watering down the message, dropping doctrine, or singing easy songs." It may have to do with how the message is presented, the language that is used, and music that engages the heart and mind. For example, it would be foolish for me to go to a foreign culture and talk about "propitiation" if they have no word system that complements that teaching. I would have to find a different way to communicate the concept (have you ever read Peace Child?). That does not mean I am "dropping the doctrine". It simply means I am aware of the culture and take the necessary steps to communicate that truth in that culture (remember the Unknown God altar in Acts 17).

In the case you stated, it is not dropping doctrine. But when you hid from the word SIN, you are hiding from the truth. Sin is found in all translations of the English Bible, and should be used in preaching. You say.."they do not understand the word"...then it is our job to share what it means. Look,.. if we take the time to share how a computer works, where the file goes when you save it....how to change RAM and how to setup a webpage...do you not think they can learn some Bible words? Is it easy to learn how to program in JAVA? No. But anyone can learn it. I think you may be selling the unchurched short. They can understand sin and even propitiation. Did you know what it meant at age 3? At some point you too found out about the meaning of this word. They can too.

4. No one is arguing worship is not about God. Of course it is.

Some churches has a focus that would say other wise.

You would not disagree it would be appropriate for a church to have an event designed primarily for evangelism. So then, the issue becomes one of timing - when should it happen and how often? Some churches choose Sunday morning at 11:00 am. Nothing wrong with that as long as the church is also seeking to provide discipleship at other times.

I agree with your 1st part..there should be times of outreach. I disagree with your 2nd. Not because it is Sunday that has nothing to do with it. I'm saying...worship is all about God...and this is our full focus. Whatever time we set aside for worshipping Him...should be His time. We can have outreach on another day...or night...or on all other nights of the week. One time we set aside to worship out God. Maybe its not weekly. We should bring Him our best. Best music. Best dress. The most honor we can give Him. Nothing else matters but our God. We have lost bring God the best glory we have.

Its just like raiseing your kids. If you keep telling them you will set aside time to take them to the park..and something always comes up..how does this make them feel? You can say..."but daddy has to work to pay for the trip to the park". That does not get it pal. Your telling them you have more love for your job then spending time with them. Your kids want to know where your love is. Sometimes you just need to drop all things and say no to the boss and spend time with your kids.

OK..you read you Bible before you go to work.
You give to the Church...
You helped paint the church gym..
You walk little old ladies across the street..
These are all good things.

Can you set aside TIME to worship....and nothing else..no cell phones? (ouch)

5. Contextualization has nothing to do with trying to "be like the world." Wordliness has nothing to do with technology, etc. It has to do with a mindset where I am more focused on the temporary/here & now than I am on eternal matters. But then again, most people in this discussion know that. It is just easy to throw terms out like "being like the world" to justify one's decisions.

In Christ..James

 

[rlvaughn]

All about Grace, first let me address your question about my statement, “…the culture of gathering believers, which exists outside of and independent from world governments, cultures and standards, is universal and timeless, having neither command to change nor necessity to conform.” You said you would like to know what I mean by the terms “change” and “conform”. When I say there is not a command to change, I mean that there is nothing in the Scriptures that teach the essence of what a church is should change over periods of time – a church is made up of baptized believers who gather for mutual edification and worship. Further there is no necessity for a church to conform their methods and thinking to what the world thinks a church should be or should do. The Bible creates the standard. The first part of the original statement was about outreach and the second about gathering. Ultimately, I think we are working on two very different models of “doing church”. I believe that a body of believers gathers for the purpose of worship, edification, praise, study, etc. Many differ, considering this gathering to be for the purpose of getting lost/unchurched people to come and hear the message of the church. While I do not object to non-Christians coming to church, when that becomes the focus, we miss the Biblical model. The Biblical model doesn’t show evidence of planning the church gathering to appeal to folks to come and hear the minister. The Biblical model gives evidence of the church coming together to prepare all the members to GO and do the ministry. Often churches profess that model and don’t achieve it. It should be the goal. If we settle for something else we lose sight of the goal. You mentioned in one post that I Cor. 14 teaches that believers should be aware and conscious of unbelievers who may be present. I agree, but it is also evident in that chapter that their presence was a possibility but not the focus or purpose for meeting.

As I read more of your statements on contextualization, I see that I disagree more in theory that I originally supposed. When you use the illustration of a missionary going to China learning the Chinese culture and language, I agree. Even old landmarker T. P. Crawford, after being in China awhile, desperately sought changes in the SBC method of working there – from them trying to “Westernize” the people to them sending money to support native preachers in their work. He was eventually dismissed for his trouble.

But as you continue, it sounds like there is much more to it than that. For example, you say, “Being missional does not mean I must try and ‘attract’ or ‘understand’ every demographic in my community” and “I have to focus on those that we are best equipped to reach.” Now I can get this to an extent, as mentioning how we have trouble reaching across language barriers. But it seems this, carried to its logical conclusion, causes a church body to create a church gathering environment to connect with a certain group within the community to the general exclusion of others. On the other hand, instead of calling to a certain demographic, Jesus commands to go and preach the gospel to every creature. This is perhaps excused to some extent by pointing out that every church “contextualizes”, whether they know it or not. Even if we assume this is the case, there is something very different in creating a context intended to appeal to some of the lost and creating a context that is designed for the children of God.

Concerning Paul in Philippians 1 you wrote, “Obviously I do not commend impure motives and selfish gain, but at the same time (as Paul) I cannot be the judge of motives.” I am not sure what you mean with the (as Paul) in parentheses. Are you saying that Paul could not judge their motives? To me, it seems he did. He knew what they were and mentioned it. In spite of that, he rejoiced that Christ was preached. If you only mean you and I cannot judge motives, I agree, in the sense that they are not apparent and we can’t see inside the hearts of others. We can know certain motives are wrong, but can’t necessarily know what the motivation of the heart is. When we begin to consider not seeing into the heart, we might remember this is true of conversions as well. To point to churches seeing people come to faith in Christ (and others not), we must realize we can’t see in these hearts either. So our judgment can be skewed when judging whether churches are really seeing people come to faith in Christ.

Considering the “judging” factor, when we think we see God bring someone to Him by a certain “method” (which may tend to give it credibility), the following thoughts are worthy of consideration: did the person really come to faith in God, or only appear to; and did God bring them to Him because of that or in spite of it? We might be judging incorrectly.

 

[All about Grace]

I do not stand against change. I drive a car and not ride a horse as my forefathers. It is all about focus. It is my feeling that those that focus on the world will end up there. My case in point is the YMCA.

Would you say the command to go into all the "world" was a focus on the world or God so loved the "world" was a focus on the world? I am not sure what you mean by "focus on the world" but I am assuming that you mean adopting "worldly" practices. If so, you are speaking in categories that are irrelevant to the discussion. Again the gist of the discussion here is methods that contextualize the gospel without compromising it.

And the path of the YMCA has nothing to do with a local church. The YMCA was a parachurch organization that does not reflect how a local church should function.

But when you hid from the word SIN, you are hiding from the truth.

I can't comment here other than to say we do not shy away from the word "sin" and neither do we hesitate to explain what sin is in terms that connect to our hearers. Neither do we hesitate to explain terms like "propitiation" in a way that helps our hearers understand them.

I would suspect you are largely dealing with straw men here.

I can tell you about what went on in my church.

I have no clue what happened in your church so I will not comment on your accusations. What I am sure about is there are always 2 sides to every story.

Not because it is Sunday that has nothing to do with it. I'm saying...worship is all about God...and this is our full focus. Whatever time we set aside for worshipping Him...should be His time. We can have outreach on another day...or night...or on all other nights of the week. One time we set aside to worship out God. Maybe its not weekly. We should bring Him our best. Best music. Best dress. The most honor we can give Him. Nothing else matters but our God. We have lost bring God the best glory we have.

I agree. Worship should be about worshipping God.

I am not sure what "best dress" has to do with that. We take more of a "come as you are" approach because that seems to be the biblical example.

 

[All about Grace]

When I say there is not a command to change, I mean that there is nothing in the Scriptures that teach the essence of what a church is should change over periods of time – a church is made up of baptized believers who gather for mutual edification and worship.

I actually wrote a paper on a "theology of change" a couple of years ago and presented it at a state-wide meeting. There is definitely a precedence of change in the Bible from the opening chapters of Genesis where God introduced creativity, change, and development.

Change is a necessary must. Even refusing to change is a change in itself in that a church changes who it will reach from a certain generation to another.

Further there is no necessity for a church to conform their methods and thinking to what the world thinks a church should be or should do.

You subtlely miss the point here of contextualization, which must be viewed primarily from the church's perspective and not the world's.

I believe that a body of believers gathers for the purpose of worship, edification, praise, study, etc. Many differ, considering this gathering to be for the purpose of getting lost/unchurched people to come and hear the message of the church. While I do not object to non-Christians coming to church, when that becomes the focus, we miss the Biblical model.

Evangelism is a purpose of the church. How that is fulfilled varies from church to church and culture to culture.

The Biblical model doesn’t show evidence of planning the church gathering to appeal to folks to come and hear the minister. The Biblical model gives evidence of the church coming together to prepare all the members to GO and do the ministry. Often churches profess that model and don’t achieve it. It should be the goal.

Which model would that be? The model that saw thousands of unbelievers come to faith in Christ on a daily basis?

There is no either/or paradigm in Scripture. In other words, there is no place in Scripture that says when the church gathers x,y, and z should take place but evangelism should not. Also there is no place in Scripture that says do not gather people together for the purpose of presenting the gospel. Of course the church goes into the world to evangelize, but that evangelism takes many faces - including inviting unbelievers to come to a place where the gospel will be proclaimed.

We do not focus on nonbelievers. We focus on people. We recognize 40-50% of our audience will be nonbelievers on a given Sunday, so we make sure we are good hosts and hostesses. But we do not design our worship services exclusively for unbelievers. Again contextualization is the key here.

But it seems this, carried to its logical conclusion, causes a church body to create a church gathering environment to connect with a certain group within the community to the general exclusion of others.

Consciously or unconsciously, every church does this.

The goal is not exclusion. The goal is understanding your mission field and knowing that the decisions you make on how to "do church" will naturally attract some and repel others.

On the other hand, instead of calling to a certain demographic, Jesus commands to go and preach the gospel to every creature.

Which we do - but knowing that the way we present the gospel will not engage every hearer (for example - English presentations do not engage Spanish speaking people). I am going to assume your church does not reflect completely the diversity of your culture - meaning if you have those in your community who speak another language, you probably do not attract them to your church. Does that mean you are not preaching the gospel to every creature? No. It means you are making cultural decisions regarding the people you will engage.

Even if we assume this is the case, there is something very different in creating a context intended to appeal to some of the lost and creating a context that is designed for the children of God.

Which is why we create both environments.

Are you saying that Paul could not judge their motives?

What I am saying is that regardless of the motives, Paul rejoiced that the gospel was preached. He did not spend his time discounting the results because he was convinced the motives were impure (which evidenced themselves by the way through attacking Paul's ministry).

To point to churches seeing people come to faith in Christ (and others not), we must realize we can’t see in these hearts either. So our judgment can be skewed when judging whether churches are really seeing people come to faith in Christ.

You can see the evidence of people are truly coming to faith. Are they growing in their faith? Are they following in obedience through baptism, church attendance, etc.? If a church is seeing thousands come to faith in Christ but they have 50 people on Sunday, then the evidence contradicts the claim, but on the other hand if a church sees hundreds come to faith and the church grows and people are being discipled and sent out and they are planting churches, etc., then the evidence is there.

Transformation stories are evidence regardless of church size.

did the person really come to faith in God, or only appear to; and did God bring them to Him because of that or in spite of it?

Or in most cases, in spite of a LACK of it ...

Evidence will usually reveal whether the faith was real.

Only God knows the answer to question 2.

We might be judging incorrectly.

Which applies to both sides of this discussion.

 

[rlvaughn]

When you say change is a necessary must, I'd like you to clarify if you are actually applying that to the essence of what a church is, or are you just speaking in general? No one denies that change takes place. I deny that the essence of a church is different in 2006 that it was in 101. It must relate to the peoples of the world, but the church is its own culture of baptized believers in Jesus Christ who are committed to Him and one another.

While I may subtlely miss the point of contextualization, I rather think I deny that the church's perspective can be correct unless it is Biblically based. When our "context" is not based on God's word, then it is conformed to the world's thinking, whether obviously or not.

Certainly evangelism is one purpose of the church. But when the church gathering becomes evangelism, then the task of preparing the church for the work of the ministry is sidelined. Whether a church is centered on evangelism or teaching, the total mission is missed. This not about condemning a church for being evangelistically successful, but about accepting less than the ideal God has for us -- every member a minister. I'd say both sides fall far short of that, but is that a reason to not reach for the goal?

I understand that there is no deliberate goal of exclusion of certain people (at least in most cases). But when "doing church" becomes the mission field, it will, as you say, naturally attract some and repel others. I don't think it follows that if we don't speak another language or something like that, we are necessarily making cultural decisions regarding the people we will engage. If we decide we will forget about them because we don't speak the language (we can find someone who can), they arent' the right color, are too old, too young, whatever, then we are making a decision.

I agree that we can see the evidence that people are truly coming to faith -- if we are talking generally (we can sometimes misjudge the fruit) and over a period of time. This is something that is mostly observed by an obedience lifestyle on the part of those who profess faith in Christ. You correctly write, "Transformation stories are evidence regardless of church size." My point on the "judging", though, is this: Seeing someone at a distance hold a "Nascar revival" (just using that expression since Nascar was mentioned) and hearing that many came to faith in Christ is not real evidence that God has approved that method.

Concerning contextualization and I Cor. 9, I assume that you interpret "all things to all" to define contextualization. What interpretation of the entire passage do you follow to arrive at this conclusion? Further, if all the churches are to contextualize themselves for their situations, why would Paul urge the Corinthians' practice to conform to that of all the churches (e.g. I Cor. 7:17; 11:16; 16:1)?

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello All About Grace...

And the path of the YMCA has nothing to do with a local church. The YMCA was a parachurch organization that does not reflect how a local church should function.

Very true and yet the goal was the same as many churches today. Will the end be the same as the Y? We shall see. I hope not.

Would you say the command to go into all the "world" was a focus on the world or God so loved the "world" was a focus on the world? I am not sure what you mean by "focus on the world" but I am assuming that you mean adopting "worldly" practices. If so, you are speaking in categories that are irrelevant to the discussion. Again the gist of the discussion here is methods that contextualize the gospel without compromising it.

YES, I'm really saying that the WORLD should never be our main focus. I use to think that missions ...or sharing Gods word should be the main focus of the Church. I now see that I was wrong in thinking that. Should we think of this.. "God so love the world?"..yes by all means. But this is 2nd to our worship given to Him. If our main focus is on the world...or our work AT the Church...or anything that is placed about our worship of God. This is what I believe..

If we worship God...we will witness.
If we worship God...we will read our Bibles.
If we worship God...we will give to our church.
If we worship God...it will show in our love for others.
If we worshop God...we pray
If we worship God...?????

But...we can witness and not have time to worship
we can give to the church...and not even go to church.
we can read our bibles....and stay home. In the end..we will leave our 1st love.

So I mean in EVERYTHING ..it is my deep feeling that worship should be placed about all other matters. Even "go into all the world" should be under...our need to worship God. God is always our 1st focus.

I can't comment here other than to say we do not shy away from the word "sin" and neither do we hesitate to explain what sin is in terms that connect to our hearers. Neither do we hesitate to explain terms like "propitiation" in a way that helps our hearers understand them.

I would suspect you are largely dealing with straw men here.

Lets not forget who 1st talked about the unchurched not understanding the word. humm yes i do see a staw man, but it just came up in this around the world talk, unless you can show me other wise.

I am not sure what "best dress" has to do with that. We take more of a "come as you are" approach because that seems to be the biblical example.

I had a idea that this one may get to you.

Let me put it to you this way. If you have a meeting with the leader of the free world who happens to be GW Bush and it was your goal to show him how much you respected him as your leader, would you take the time and put on a coat and tie, if you owned one?

or...would you just go in your shorts and a ZZ-top t-shirt?

When we worship God..I think we need to bring our best....if its better to see the pres this way....why not God?

Do not get me wrong. A tie is not needed in Church. All i'm saying...why not dress up if you can? If the ZZ-top t-shirt is your best shirt...wear it. Why would any preacher say...

oh don't worry about it...its only God...don't do anything great...no big deal....just come in your PJs...??

We do dress up for others. Is this not showing more respect for a man..then God?


All about grace...it is not my desire to change your views. I'm sure you are at peace with God with the way you run your church. I have said what I wanted and see no need to go on. We will disagree on this. I have seen many good churches change and I fear in 20-25 more years these same churches will be closed. I do hope I'm wrong.

At any rate...God bless you


In Christ..James

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Let me put it to you this way. If you have a meeting with the leader of the free world who happens to be GW Bush and it was your goal to show him how much you respected him as your leader, would you take the time and put on a coat and tie, if you owned one?

I have never understood this mindset. The same people that argue you should not use the world's methods for evangelism, methodology, etc use the very same mindset in determining a standard for dress at church. So the world's standards for dress works?

 

[Jarthur001]

I have never understood this mindset. The same people that argue you should not use the world's methods for evangelism, methodology, etc use the very same mindset in determining a standard for dress at church. So the world's standards for dress works?

Hello Pastor,

As it turns out, we do not have to set a standard for worshipping God. It is set for us. Malachi 1 tells us God is not happy with 2nd best.
Verses 7 says...no polluted bread should be given.

Verse 8...No blind sacrifice
no lane sacrifice will do..
no sick sacrifice

12..profane sacrifice are evil
no contemptible meat..

14...corrupt is everything that is NOT the best.

in 14 God says again... LOOK GUYS...I am YOUR KING!~!!!!! and you give me 2nd best??

God wants our 1st born......in other words...our best.

now do you understand pastor?


In Christ..James

 

[PastorSBC1303]

So the worlds standard is the best?

 

[Jarthur001]

So the worlds standard is the best?

Hello Pastor,

It is you that keeps placing the word "world" in the statement of best. The mindset that I keep stating is very simple. Your best. One can think that a line green shirt with red dots is his best shirt..and the rest of the world may hate it. What you deam as your best has nothing to do with the world. well...in this case anyway.

Being that it seems the coat and tie is not your thing...lets go back and visit Bush. Would you dress the best that you can if you met with Bush? Or would you just wear your garden work jeans with holes in them even though you had some new clean dockers in your bedroom?

I do not set your standard of best. To me best is a coat and tie. To some it is only a dress shirt. Still others it maybe a clean shirt. And a few...may only be a shirt, for they only have one. What you see as the "world standard" comes from YOU not me. When you or i say this is ok...and if you have better..its not your best.

agree?

In Christ..James

 

[PastorSBC1303]

who determines that a coat and tie is the best?

I don't see God's opinion on the subject?

If that is your standard, where does it come from?

 

[Jarthur001]

who determines that a coat and tie is the best?

I don't see God's opinion on the subject?

If that is your standard, where does it come from?

Pastor....it is YOU that determines. If zz-top is your best..ware it. man...we have spent to much time on this.

what is your best pastor?? i have no idea. Frankly..i do not need to know. that needs to come from YOU.

I do know what I DEAM as my best..and YOU may disagree with me. FOR ME...and this is me..I determine this with the way it is made, if it is in good shape. I happen to like dark colors in a coat...and all colors of shirts. but... Sinning comes from the heart..not our shirts. You may like light colors...it does not matter. The only reason why we are talking about this...is I say..."give God your best"..in all things even dress when it comes to worship...and you disagree. I have the Bible to back me up.

for the 4th or 5th time...I am not here to tell you what to wear. in your own mind...you must do what you think is best...(yes that is a pun)

I don't see God's opinion on the subject?

on giving your best? i have posted many verses already...did you not read them? I didn't post any on ties...nor will i...for best is what is said. AGAIN...YOU say what is best.

best
best
best

i don't know what else to say pastor. that is how Gods word says it..and that is how I say it

 

[All about Grace]

When you say change is a necessary must, I'd like you to clarify if you are actually applying that to the essence of what a church is, or are you just speaking in general?

I would not say change is a defining characteristic of a church (gathering of baptized believers ...), but I would say change is an essential ingrediant within the function of a church. Change is inevitable. It is merely the difference in definition and function.

I rather think I deny that the church's perspective can be correct unless it is Biblically based. When our "context" is not based on God's word, then it is conformed to the world's thinking, whether obviously or not.

I am not completely tracking you here. Of course a church's purpose must be biblically-based. But "context" has to do with the cultural arena where God has placed me. The only question is how do I respond to that culture. I am a part of it. How do I respond to it? I am sure you are familiar with the Christ vs culture, Christ in culture, etc. discussion.

Seeing someone at a distance hold a "Nascar revival" (just using that expression since Nascar was mentioned) and hearing that many came to faith in Christ is not real evidence that God has approved that method.

But neither is the use of NASCAR an indication that God does NOT approve that method.

What interpretation of the entire passage do you follow to arrive at this conclusion?

I am not going to exegete the entire chapter but it is obvious from the context that Paul is saying he will contextualize the message according to his audience (he will not bring the message in the same manner to Jews and Gentiles). There is no solid scholar that I have read that does not reach a similar conclusion.

Further, if all the churches are to contextualize themselves for their situations, why would Paul urge the Corinthians' practice to conform to that of all the churches (e.g. I Cor. 7:17; 11:16; 16:1)?

Because some defining elements transcend culture.
I am not sure all of the passages you cite have to do with this discussion however.

Certainly evangelism is one purpose of the church. But when the church gathering becomes evangelism, then the task of preparing the church for the work of the ministry is sidelined. Whether a church is centered on evangelism or teaching, the total mission is missed. This not about condemning a church for being evangelistically successful, but about accepting less than the ideal God has for us -- every member a minister. I'd say both sides fall far short of that, but is that a reason to not reach for the goal?

Again you create an either/or paradigm that is unnecessary. I believe the church is called to do both evangelism and discipleship. The how and when is another issue.

By the way, "every member a minister" is a phrase coined by Rick Warren.

 

[All about Grace]

James,

It is obvious we are not on the same wave length regarding the heart of this discussion. It has nothing to do with Purpose-Driven, your experience of not getting "fed", a church becoming like the world and replacing Bible study with basketball, whether we should wear a suit or shorts, or any of the other periphial matters that continue to surface in your posts.

For that reason, you are right that we would be better off to discontinue this discussion.

But you are right in two comments ... you will not change my views and I am at peace with how we "do church".

And yes I am afraid that in 25-30 years many more churches will close their doors, but my guess is that it will not be for the reasons you believe but because of the same reason most close their doors today: they become so inward-focused they shrivel and die.

 

[webdog]

I do know what I DEAM as my best..and YOU may disagree with me. FOR ME...and this is me..I determine this with the way it is made, if it is in good shape. I happen to like dark colors in a coat...and all colors of shirts. but... Sinning comes from the heart..not our shirts. You may like light colors...it does not matter. The only reason why we are talking about this...is I say..."give God your best"..in all things even dress when it comes to worship...and you disagree. I have the Bible to back me up.

So James, your standard of what is "best" for God is not even on par with what the world thinks is "best". Why not attend church in a tuxedo, the "best" there is in formalwear? Are you giving God "second best" with your suit?

 

[Jarthur001]

So James, your standard of what is "best" for God is not even on par with what the world thinks is "best". Why not attend church in a tuxedo, the "best" there is in formalwear? Are you giving God "second best" with your suit?

And this is what "pastor" getting at. Who says a tux is the best? I never said that. You said it. And...your claim is based on..."what the world thinks is "best". right? your words not mine.

Again...it is not that you have to wear just one type of clothing!!!!

Its the mindset.

I want to do my best in my job. ..most do

I want to do my best when I play basketball. and if you love the game as I...you do too.

I want to do my best when I cook. ...anything wrong with that?

Now...i go to church and some say... just go anyway ...no big deal. its only God we come to worship. Why do you want me to stop giving my all when it comes to church when i give my all in outside of church?

Am i working my way to heaven? NO!! Will this get me a bigger crown? NO!! Will it help find favor with God? again..NO!! then why? If i can take the time for other things to do my best...why can't I for God? I think God is worth it. You disagree...that is you.

I have never in my life told anyone what to wear to church..other then my girls. And this stopped years ago. Its not over a tie...or shorts...its over placing God with at very least, the same respect as you would your job, your game, your cooking. Give it your best. If you wear shorts all day, you may go to church in good clean shorts and think nothing of it. If you wake up on Sunday morning and say...oh good its Sunday..no need to put on my tie today..like i wear every other day. Today..its just God..i'll just dress down for Him. That is a mindset. I do not agree with that mindset. You think it is fine.

If you think a tux is best...go for it. I have not told anyone what to wear, but I always tell them to do their best...in all things. For many of you...it seems this is words you hate to hear...when it comes to God.


In Christ... "The Tux-Man James"

 

[rlvaughn]

All about Grace, I finally made it back. It looks like the thread is about played out (had to hunt on the 2nd page to find it), so I'll try to limit my comments.

On I Cor. 9, I don't expect you to exegete the entire chapter. I just wanted to get a feel for how you see your interpretation deriving from the context. As far as what "solid scholars" have said, many I've seen commenting on this make generalized statements that both you and I could agree with. For examples:

"He would not sin against God to save the soul of his neighbour, but he would very cheerfully and readily deny himself. The rights of God he could not give up, but he might resign his own, and he very often did so for the good of others." -- Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

This does not mean "that his conduct was unprincipled...Personal considerations are totally submerged in the great aim of by all means saving some." Leon Morris in his commentary on I Cor.

"It is not the end justifying the means, but adaptability because of love within the Word." Lewis Johnson, Jr. in Wycliffe Bible Commentary

There are several verses in which Paul seems to indicate that he taugth the same things in all the churches and had expectations of similarity of faith and practice from church to church. In I Cor. 4: 17 he spoke of that which he taught "every where in every church" and even seems to chide them for being different (11:36). Further, it seems that if Paul was deliberately contextualizing (in the modern sense of the teaching) he made a few major miscalculations in doing so. One incident that quickly comes to mind is when he healed a crippled man in Lycaonia and in the end barely kept the folks from offering sacrifices to them.

If you see an either/or paradigm, either I failed to explain myself or you misundersood. We agree that the church is called to do both evangelism and discipleship. It seems the how and when is more of the issue.

Rick Warren may have popularized the phrase "every member a minister" in contemporary times, but I've heard it earlier than could have been coined by Warren. I was thinking it went back to someone like Wesley. I'm not sure. Maybe I just heard some old preacher say it. When I looked online to try and find it, the oldest claim to anything similar was by Mormon "Prophet" David O. McKay (every member a missionary).

 

[rlvaughn]

I remembered the phrase of which I originally was thinking was probably "every Baptist a missionary" by German Baptist Johann Gerhard Oncken.