Question about "mega" churches

I appologize if I seem to be judging motives, that is not my intent. I don't feel I have yet called their motives into question. We can have good motives and still make mistakes. The only thing I have tried to call into question is their actions. Motives and actions are not the same thing.

I don't think it is all about methods. My point is that we should not be trying to use "man made methods". Of course we have to use language, etc., so of course we are going to speak with language that people will know and understand. That is my point with the mustard seed thing also. Of course Jesus used language they would understand, but I doubt Jesus would advocate what we use to "bring" people into the church. I don't think making an analogy between faith and a mustard seed is the same thing as using animatronics to bring people into the church. As such, truly apples and oranges!

Of course I am not suggesting that only 5-pointers plans produce converts with real fruit, however, if you compared the ministries of, for example, Charles Finney and Asahel Nettleton, the stats would not be about the same.

Of course Spurgeon has been wrong before (but not this time! )

The goal sure looks like entertainment to me.

My question is who should be the one being entertained? God or us? No, people should not be bored. If we were truly meeting and worshiping God in our churches, we would not feel like we need animatronics. We are bored in church, not because the service is not exciting enough, but because we do not have a Biblical view of worship. It is not about you or me, but about God. We go to church to entertain Him, not to be entertained.

Now, do we get anything out of worship? Of course we do! But it is as a result of us entertaining Him, not a great multi-media presentation.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris

[ October 01, 2002, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Music Man ]

 

Jonathan: The real indicator of a church's health should be its growth: 1. Spiritual. Are the current members growing in the faith? Could one track this growth, say, from one year to the next? How are individuals held to account for this?

Norm: When you mentioned, "held to account," I said, "yikes." If a group of people are going to hold itself and others to account for spiritual growth, then it behooves said group and others to spend a little time in construct development to ascertain what it means to assert "spiritual growth." Then, once it has been established, further attention needs to center on the invariance of its claim. Goodness, once this has been established a group of people then have the fun of trying to determine the rate of change that is acceptable, thus what is not, and then on how many dimensions of spiritual growth said change is to be expected and by what time frame. Gads. Likely in most churches none of this will be considered and thus "policy" which proceeds from its beliefs will likely cause a good deal of trouble, and those that have problems with said policy will likely be dismissed as being troublesome individuals, unfortunately. I recommend that we encourage each other (i.e., become priest to each other) and assert soul competency and priesthood of the believer.

 

You know, the Mormon church is growing like weeds right now. I am not so sure numerical growth is an indicator of a healthy church. I think spiritual growth by itself is a good indicator.

SDG,
Chris

 

You know, the Mormon church is growing like weeds right now. I am not so sure numerical growth is an indicator of a healthy church. I think spiritual growth by itself is a good indicator.

SDG,
Chris </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sure that you can comprehend better than this. Numerical growth is one indicator. If the other indicators are off, pure numerical growth is not indicative of health (I'm thinking of a cancer).

 

Being held accountable for anything is uncomfortable...especially those qualities that should be closest to us. But this doesn't negate the need.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me...pretty reasonable and pretty involved. Goodness, one might think that there is actually some sort of expectation of fellow member of a group having a divine mandate.

Sounds good. Now how might we evaluate if we are becoming this priesthood in a manner that is encouraging? At some point, church health must be quantified. Otherwise, all you essentially have is a fraternal organization with a pretty good non-tax gig.

Now this may be all that some want. Possibly fodder for a new topic.

 

Are you suggesting that when you say they are doing it for entertainment purposes that you are not questioning their motives?

I never said it was all about methods. I merely said methods are the means by which the message must be communicated. You can agree or disagree with what methods are appropriate, but whether we should use "man-made methods" or not is a moot point. Everyone is using some type of method. The real point is where to draw the line. For some like you, the line is drawn in a different place than others (like FBC Springdale). It doesn't make either party right or wrong. It is merely a decision of which methods to employ. We should be clear that unless a clear biblical principle is being violated, methods are amoral to this discussion.

You contradict yourself here. You admit that Jesus employed an understandable method to communicate the gospel. The bottom line is you disagree with the method employed. So again I simply ask what grants you the right to be the authority on right and wrong methods?

And to assume what Jesus would and would not do if he walked the earth today is mere speculation. What we can know is that while he was here he, at times, taught in an applicable, relevant fashion.

Woman at the well -- living water
Hungry crowd -- bread of life
Agricultural society -- sower and seed
etc.

There is no way for you to know how many of Finney or Nettleton's converts were legitimate. The point is: God uses people and methods with which I may disagree. That is why I must be careful when I am saying what is appropriate and what is not. As you have repeated, God is the one who blesses, and from what I have witnessed, He blesses all types of people, denominations, methods, ministries, etc.

But you are not judging motives

God is the object of our worship, but this is a different topic altogether.

Opinion noted.

The cutting edge methods these churches are using are not designed to create worship. They are tools employed to reach kids on a level they can understand. We live in the PS2 day and age and many of our churches are still trying to use Pong methods (hope you understand the video game analogy). These churches have decided that they want to create an atmosphere where children can hear the gospel on their level, and that is what they have done. I applaud their passion to share Christ in a relevant fashion.

I agree with most of what you are saying here. Again, God is the object of our worship and if you attend these churches, you will find a very Christ-centered approach to adult worship. Worship is not the issue here. The issue is methods. Can modern day methods be utilized to communicate the gospel in a relevant fashion? My answer is yes.

 

Well, I'm not sure that comment was necessary!

I don't think numerical growth is ever indicative of health, even when put with spiritual growth. I don't think it trustworthy. God may choose to add people to the church, or He may not. It ultimately is up to Him.

SDG,
Chris

 

Well, I'm not sure that comment was necessary! </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry about that one. It didn't sound as harsh as it read.

I don't think numerical growth is ever indicative of health, even when put with spiritual growth. I don't think it trustworthy. God may choose to add people to the church, or He may not. It ultimately is up to Him.[/QUOTE]

I would disagree with the view that numerical growth is never indicative of health for the mere reason that there will have to be some amount of growth to get the kingdom from here to where the Great Comission has been completed.

That said, I do believe that numerical growth is only one indicator and can only been seen as an indicator of health within the wider context of how church health is evaluated.

 

I am questioning the method, not the motive. Actually, I am questioning the use of any method.

I am afraid you did:

Man, stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I am the authority on right and wrong methods. But, that does not mean I dont' have the right to call methods (or the use of methods) into question.

I don't think you are understanding my point. Using language is not using a method. How else are we to get the message out? We are commanded to preach the Gospel. You preach with words, so of course we have to use language. Using animatronics to "bring" people into the church, IS using a method, a man-made one. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!! Jesus did not employ those kinds of methods (remember, I am saying language is not a "method") to get His message out.

Exactly! Jesus used language to get his message across. Did he use the latest in technology to "draw" those people to where He was so He could teach them?

I am not saying we should not teach in applicable and relevant fashion. But we need to understand the needs of the people to whom we are speaking. The last thing lost people in America need is more amusment. I think Spurgeon was right when he pointed out that we are supposed to be salt, something the world will spit out, not swallow. I think providing animatronics in order to "draw" people into the world is trying to be something that the world "will swallow".

Actually, we can get a pretty good idea. I will find the book which gives the results of research done, and let you know.

And therein lies the problem! What was Jesus' ultimate goal in Evangelism? He says it in John 4 when talking to the woman at the well. God is seeking worshipers. Our goal in evangelism should not be for more converts, but rather for people to worship God. It seems everything we do (including worship) is designed for the purpose of evangelism. Worship is not a means to an end. It is an end, in and of itself. I think the best "method" we have for evangelism is true worship. I think all this stuff we try to do as evangelism distracts us from our ultimate priority. (Understand, now, I am speaking of churches in general, I am not speaking of any church specifically. Just trying to cover my backside )

Don't get me started on worship. That IS a whole other ballgame!

We may just have to agree to disagree about the use of "methods" in evangelism. I guess the bottom line is we just need to be certain that all we do is done to the glory of God. (And of course, I am not saying that that church or you or any of your family or friends are not doing things to His glory ).

Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris

 

Once you stated that they were doing this for entertainment purposes, you crossed the line from method to motive. Method = Toon Town ~ Motive = for entertainment purposes

Questioning ANY method is an invalid point b/c every church employs some type of method (even if it is as simple as using hymnbooks).

Thanks for pulling my words out of context. My words "it's all about methods" were used in the context of the fact stated above. The fact your church meets in a building, and the people sit on pews, and listen to the preacher over a PA indicates that every church utilizes some type of methodology.

A blanket statement suggesting all methods are to be questioned falls into the category of self-contradicting absurdity.

I didn't mean to suggest that you think you are the authority on proper and improper methods. My whole point is that you are NOT the authority, thus you need to be careful about determining which ones are legitimate and which are not.

You do have the right to call them into question just make sure you can support your accusations with biblical principle and pragmatic reality.

So now anything that falls into the category of "language" is legitimate and anything that falls into the category of anything else is not?

Language questions:
Are jokes legitimate?
Are illustrations legitimate?
Are practical application points appropriate?
What about language/words on a screen (such as PowerPoint)?
What about gospel tracts?

Anything else questions:
Should a church have signs in the parking lot for visitors to park?
Should a church give out visitor cards for the purpose of follow-up outreach?
Should a church use a sound system?
Should we have padded pews and air conditioning?
Should we have nurseries so parents can hear the message?
Should we use Sunday School material?
Should we use bulletins?
Should we have children's church or bus ministries or gymnasiums?

I will stop for now b/c my point is clear: we all use methods of some sort. And only the Word of God stands as the authority as to what is legitimate and what is not. So until you show me book, chapter, and verse where methods are condemned, your proposition that all methods illegitimate crumbles and falls.

Yes. Jesus used cultural objects to communicate his message in a relevant fashion.

This is totally your opinion. It is not about amusement. It is about relevance and application.

Opinion noted.

BTW, Spurgeon's exegesis here is not that solid (as can often be the case with Spurgeon). Do you really think Jesus' primary point here was that the Christian is to be "hard to swallow"?

Also I would say when Jesus told the woman at the well he would give her living water that would quench her thirst that he was appealing to her at a level that was not "hard to swallow."

I can agree with you here. The ultimate goal of evangelism is to create more worshippers. This is not the issue. I believe in Christ-centered, Christ-honoring worship. It is our top priority when we gather.

Once again however, your illustration of the woman at the well does not fit here. Jesus only addressed worship in answer to her attempt to change the subject from eternal life. His primary purpose seems to be to grant her eternal life not teach her a lesson on worship (we just happen to be the benefactors of a rabbit trail ).

Here we can agree as well. All things are to be done for his glory.

I'll just be waiting for that text that condemns methods

 

How about "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." [1 Cor. 9:20]

No wait...that supports methods.

 

So, can I have an opinion or not? Can I not look at a situation and have an opinion about how it appears until I do extensive research on the subject? I just don't think it belongs in the church, whatever the motive. I think it is a waste of money. I don't think it is necessary. What is wrong with that? Come on, give me a break!

Dude, are you reading my posts, or just reading what you want to read? So we should not question any method? Or just not the ones you like? So, any "method", as long as my motive is to win the lost, is fine?

Well, no duh!

Well, now you are being ridiculous! Again, trying to compare apples and oranges. Well, show me in Scripture where it says we should have gymnasiums, or bulletins, or SS material, or nurseries, etc., etc. I also don't think Jesus told jokes, though He did use illustrations. I could be wrong but I don't think he had powerpoint, or gospel tracts. My real point was that what Jesus did with the woman at the well or His use of the mustard seed analogy is not the same thing as having a fire engine baptistry. NOT EVEN CLOSE! Having a fire engine baptistry is not being culturally relevant, but rather it has the appearance of being influenced by the world (in my opinion of course, is that ok?).

I think that is one of His points, yes.

It wouldn't matter if He said it to a tree. It would be no less true.

As soon as you show me the text that condones a fire truck baptistry, animatronics, or any other "man-made "method".

Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris

 

How about "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." [1 Cor. 9:20]

No wait...that supports methods. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, what method does that support, exactly? Fire truck baptistries or animatronics?

SDG,
Chris

[ October 02, 2002, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Music Man ]

 

3000 people were added to the Church in one day in Acts.

Sounds MEGA to me

 

Now we are getting somewhere. Basically you have admitted that your entire point is based upon your own personal peferences, which was my point from the beginning.

Any method that does not clearly violate a biblical principle and can be used to communicate the gospel in a clear and relevant fashion.

You are welcome to question any method you desire. Just recognize that it boils down to your own personal preference and not what is legitimate or illegitimate (which is how this discussion got started).

You prove my point very nicely. It is ridiculous to begin setting personal preferences as guidelines for what is legitimate or illegitimate. My point remains the same: methods are being used in every church. And where you draw the line is up to you, but don't criticize those who draw the line in a different place.

It does not say in Scripture we should or should not have gymns, Toon Towns, hymnals, SS literature, animatronics, etc. My point is proven again. These are all merely means to fulfill the purposes of the church.

Thanks again for clarifying that this is your opinion. It is my opinion that what Jesus did was very analogous to what cutting edge churches of today are doing: he used culturally relevant means to communicate a timeless message.

I don't even want to begin to list the things in church life that could be misconstrued to having the "appearance of being influenced by the world" including the clothes we wear and the car we drive and the buildings in which we worship (actually this last one may be less of a problem in churches that have the mentality you have shown ). Since when is doing things first class equivalent to being influenced by the world?

I never suggested it was not true. I simply said it was not his primary purpose of confrontation, which was to grant her eternal life.

Sorry but the burden of proof rests with the accuser not the accused

Isn't this fun???

 

As soon as you show me the text that condones a fire truck baptistry, animatronics, or any other "man-made "method".

Uhhh, organized religion in itself is a man-made method, so I'm not sure why one would condemn one man-made method as unbiblical without condemning all manmade methods as unbiblical.

 

How in the world does a fire engine baptistry communicate the gospel?

Isn't our pupose worship? How do we worship with a fire engine baptistry?

What does a fire truck say about the gospel? It is my understanding that these "amusements" are used to draw people into the church? What did Jesus use to do that? That is why I say they are not the same thing.

agreed. sad isn't it?

Forgive me, but I am not sure I understand what you mean.

Sorry, but since when is having a church that looks like a video arcade or Chuck-E-Cheese doing things first class, much less Biblical?

There is no verse that says you shouldn't use fire engines in the church. And, I guess since we disagree on exactly what is a method and what isn't, it is pointless to say that Jesus, or anyone else in Scripture, never used such man-made methods, isn't it?

That being said, let me get this straight. The reason that it is ok to have fire engine baptistries and animatronics in church is because that is supposed to be culturally relevant, and Jesus, when speaking to people, was culturally relevant with mustard seeds, etc.? Is that right? I think that is a bit of a stretch for Biblical support. It is my contention that since nowhere in the Bible (that I know of) does anyone use such "amusements" in order to present the gospel, or even draw people to the church, it is therefore not acceptable. I could be wrong. I have been before, at least once or twice.

SDG,
Chris

BTW, have we gotten off the original subject of this thread or what?!

 

Is organized religion a man-made method or an institution? I don't think they are the same thing, sorry.

And, I do think all man-made methods used for evangelism purposes (which is what we are talking about) is unbiblical. It is a vain attempt at adding to the gospel.

SDG,
Chris

[ October 02, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Music Man ]

 

How about "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." [1 Cor. 9:20]

No wait...that supports methods. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, what method does that support, exactly? Fire truck baptistries or animatronics?

SDG,
Chris</font>[/QUOTE]Well, what did it mean to "become like a Jew", or to "become like one under the law"? Paul doesn't specify methods so much as he specified targets.

So, when I was a child, one of the methods used flannel graphs, another used crafts at VBS, etc...

The texts allows for "methods". We can discuss the validity (or wisdom) of using various methods but we can't condemn methods with Scripture.

 

So, which one is it? I can't tell that Paul specifies any method, unless you say becoming like them is the method. In which case, that is a great method (in that it is Biblical, not man-made), but I am not so sure fire engine baptistries could fall under that same category. Am I wrong?

SDG,
Chris