What a purpose driven church is not

One thing I see as I just skim over it... the last point..I'd be very careful if I was helping 200 different denominations and associations. I wouldnt help a church that had different views of important doctrine. Not saying PDC movement is helping false doctrine, but if I was in the movement, I would check carefully.

 

My Church participated in Purpose Driven Life, and it was one of the few times I totally disagreed with my ministry staff's choices.

I went into it without any idea what it would be, and saw a video by the author that would have been a great motivational talk at a business meeting.

There was talk about Christ.
There was talk about scripture.
There was talk about how to apply scripture to your daily life.

Thing is - my Pastor does a better of that kind of sermon on his own.

Purpose Driven Life did not touch my heart or soul.

Maybe it reached a different style of people.

I don't recall any doctorinal problems, just - too much marketing, not enough faith.

 

yeah we had a guy come down to a church I was working in as evangelist in trying to plant a ministry outside of town.... the guy comes in with all this multi-media stuff. It was not purpose driven material.. something else.

First day it was great... second day it fizzled, third day, it became old and really the preaching was more of an "end of movie-commentary". It was a motivational type message.
Not good.

 

I struggle with whether the PDC model is really "biblical" like Warren says it is. If you've read the book, he has a chapter devoted to how to put together a seeker service and he actually says to remove the "churchy" stuff to make the unsaved feel more comfortable at church. I don't think the NT church was worried about whether lost people were comfortable. I think their primary mission was sharing the gospel, and that, obviously, didn't make everyone comfortable all the time.

 

I agree with the bolded comment 110%, but I have a question: Should the feel of the church make you uncomfortable?
I have a friend at church now who grew up in very non traditional churches. It took him a while to get past the "churchy" stuff in our churches...when I say "churchy" I mean things like pews (instead of chairs) or even a full pulpit instead of small podium. Nothing to do with the message.

Remember, the first churches were inside peoples homes...what could be more comfortable from a physical standpoint?

 

The temples were very "churchy" back in the old days. God didnt seem to mind what the folks thought.

 

I was very comfortable in churchy places even before I accepted Christ. I was raised in the church and was accustomed to it. Not everybody has that experience.

Again I ask...should the building make you uncomfortable?

 

One is left out that most critics forget -- being purpose-driven is not about Rick Warren.

 

If I went to a church and felt uncomfortable there I wouldn't go back. I'd continue to look for a more friendly church.
I'm not sure, but by 'churchy' would that mean like everything being very ritual like, by the book, nothing out of place? I don't see it as being no worship, no giving, no gospel. Thats what a church is. But chruch doesn't have to feel offical, like testifying before the supreme court or something.
I wouldn't go abck to that church either.

 

Church should be something of an escape from the world. A safe-haven. Sanctuary. If the church looks just like everything else, than there is a problem.

A non-Christian and non-churched person SHOULD feel uncomfortable at church because he is out of place there.

 

Puritan wrote: "A non-Christian and non-churched person SHOULD feel uncomfortable at church because he is out of place there."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm guessing that any visitors to your church rarely return for a second visit.

Why not just post a big "MEMBERS ONLY" sign over the entry doors?

 

Language is always a issue for feeling comfortable.

Some churches use a lot of "church lingo" like theological words or spiritual sounding phrases that have no meaning to those who didn't grow up in that church environment.

The ideas that those words or phrases are trying to convey should continue, but if your doctor only explained your health to you in medical/scientific terms, you wouldn't feel very comfortable with them either, would you?

The least we should do is be aware of when we are using "church lingo" and do so in a way that either newer folks can figure out easily with the context or provide an explanation in layman's terms.

[ May 27, 2005, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

Our activities can also be a source of discomfort. Often we perform ceremonies like the collection of offering or communion that are very foreign to unchurched folks.

I find a short explanation about the what and why of the activity often helps newcomers and serves as a reminder to the "veterans".

 

Church should be something of an escape from the world. A safe-haven. Sanctuary. If the church looks just like everything else, than there is a problem.

A non-Christian and non-churched person SHOULD feel uncomfortable at church because he is out of place there. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, since I am not a non christian, and I am not unchurched, if I go to a church and I am uncomfortable I will not be going back.
I am not sure what you mean by 'looks like everything else'. The very fact we go there to study the bible, worship God, hear His word preached sets it apart from 'everything else'.

 

I certainly agree. Why should we seek to make people so uncomfortable they do not want to come backa nd hear about God. I am not say we should make them comfortable as far as hearing the true gospel preached, we should not neglect the gospel at all. But why should people have to be uncomfortable in church. It makes you feel like you are not welcome, so leave please.

 

A non-Christian and non-churched person SHOULD feel uncomfortable at church because he is out of place there.


I read some things on Baptist Board that make me go "wow I can't believe someone could actually think that way" -- this is definitely one of those statements.

I don't even know where to begin to address the absurdity of such a statement. At the same time I am sure it would be a waste of my time, so I will not even go there. I can only pray you are not a pastor and influencing your people in such a way.

 

Just to be sure that the record is clear, I'd like to point out that DonnA's quote above with my name in it is actually from one of my posts furthur above yet, in which I quote Puritan & then offer my rebuttal. The statement was made by Puritan, not by me. I'm not sure that fact is apparent at this point in the thread.

 

LarryN, sorry, if I did it wrong. I was agreeing with you, I should have checked after I posted to make sure it looked right. My fault I appologize.

 

I clicked the quote button and was unaware I didn't have the whole thing. I must have unknowingly done something wrong.
Here is what I was supose to be quoting