« Building the Perfect Church: The Newberger Project / The Relationship Between the Senior Pastor and Other Elders (Part 2) | Main | Culture Shift: Transforming Your Church from the Inside Out: Defining Church Culture »
Friday, February 25, 2005
The Fellowship Church Epidemic
One of my favorite blogs to read is Terry Storch's. Terry is Chief Operations and Technology Pastor at Fellowship Church in Dallas, (Grapevine) TX; and is part of one of the most innovative and fastest-growing churches in the country. Whether or not you like large churches, Fellowship is doing a lot of things right... experiencing tremendous growth (and not transfer growth); and making a real difference for Christ in the Dallas area. Terry recently shared a post that got quite a few comments at his blog (both good and negative). Here's a little of what Terry said...
Nearly everyone that I ever talk to in the church world asks me this question, "What one thing makes Fellowship successful?" And, as I have said in the past, the standard remark always starts with "It's a God thing." But that is not what they are looking for. Here is an exerpt of The Tipping Point that shows why Fellowship is an Epidemic.
"In epidemics, the messenger matters: messengers are what make something spread. But the content of the message matters too. And the specific quality that a message needs to be successful is the quality of "stickiness." Is the message- or the food, or the movie, or the product- memorable? Is it so memorable, in fact, that it can create change, that it can spur someone to action?" -Malcolm GladwellThe Fellowship Epidemic- Ed is God's messenger. You will hear Ed say that if the message is boring don't blame God, blame the communicator. Ed works very, very hard at his communication and spends almost all of his time focused on honing and improving his communication. Why? The messenger is what makes The Gospel spread. Next, the content. The content is important. God's word... it does not get much better than that. But that is not all. You can not get by with just opening your Bible and expect it to "just work". Why? Well, keep reading... the quality must be at a level that it creates "stickiness". Stickiness will make it memorable, and if it is so memorable it can create change. Life Change! So sticky that the life changing story of Jesus Christ can truly evoke a decision of life change.
The Fellowship epidemic; The Tipping Point (ttp), the wave of life changing stories revolving around a church that God has touched.
The Messenger Matters.
The Content Matters.
The Quality Matters.
The combined must create "stickiness".
Great stickiness will spur action.
I've read Gladwell's book as well. It IS a great read. Of course, it is primarily a book for business; but it is more about how things work in our society... how things become popular, how things attract people, how things gain momentum, how things succeed, and how things thrive. If you haven't read this book, I highly recommend you get a copy and read it.
Now I know that many people think that the church already takes too much from the business world. I know that some will say that Ed Young, the 'creativeness' of the communication, or even the quality of the communication will make little difference in the success of Fellowship Church. After all, if they just preached the Bible, people would come. (sarcasm intended) Terry, I think, has given proper credit to God for their success... but he also recognizes how organizations thrive in our society. As with any entity, there is a 'tipping point'. When you reach that 'tipping point', you'll find that the hard, difficult, long, tedious work of building starts to pay off. You begin to see the payback. And it is at this 'tipping point' that things get fun... things take off... things grow... and in ministry, you start to see unbelieveable results. That's pretty much the concept of Gladwell's "Tipping Point" book. He tries to explain how this phenomena happens. And when it happens inside the church structure... watch out!
What are your thoughts? Has your church reached the tipping point? How did you know you were there. And for all you nay-sayers, I'll be glad to hear from you as well... just be kind. :)
Have a great weekend!
Todd
Add Your Comments and Ideas now...Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts
February 25, 2005 in Leadership Issues | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451dafb69e200d8343c45bd53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Fellowship Church Epidemic:
Comments
"And it is at this 'tipping point' that things get fun... things take off... things grow... and in ministry, you start to see unbelieveable results."
Man, I hope we get there. Ministry, being a pastor, and church life in general is anything but "fun." Please, don't start in on "I bet it wasn't fun for Paul, or Peter, or James, or ad nauseum." I know they had a hard time paving the road we walk on now, and I don't expect ministry to be a bag-o-laughs all the time, but this just plain stinks right now. I have a hard time getting out of bed in the morning.
Anyways, I love what Ed Young is doing at Fellowship. I just bought the DVD of the series called "The Table" that he did. It gives a glimpse at how he (and his creative team) prepare the weekend talks. Awesome. Absolutely outstanding. Ed makes it clear that he spend 80% or better of his time preparing messages.
By the way, if you have a hard time with "stickiness" when your preaching is concerned there are some great resourece at CreativePastors.com. I am going to by the Pastor's bundle for the "Table" series and do it here soon.
Posted by: Art | Feb 25, 2005 12:05:23 PM
Our tipping point came at last summers work and witness trip. Things were not going so well up to that point. The teens and I were having a hard time connecting. Part of it was I had only come in April, and I was not being myself around them yet. Another problem was the guy before me did a wonderful job, and many of my teen leaders missed him and wanted him back.
One night of our mission trip I was fed up with the way the teens were treating me and my wife. During my devotional time I was going to let them have it. As I started out, God got ahold of me, and I broke down infront of them. I let them know my heart that night. It was if a light bulb came off in their heads, and they realized my wife and I really did love them.
I think we have many tipping points. Once we are in high point somethings happens, another problem comes are way and we get discouraged. We have to trust God, that He did not call us were we are to fail, but He will give us victory in time.
I do not think we ever get to put it in cruise control. The church must always work harder to reach those who are lost. I think if we truly seek God's will in all we do, we will not fail to be the shepherds God has called us to be. We just have to hang in there, and pray.
There were many nights where my wife and I cried out to God, "Why do you bring us here, the teens hate us?" Slowly but surely God has revealed our true purpose for coming here.
When I say true purpose, I mean why God chose me specifically to be the youth pastor here. Sometimes the best thing we can do is pray and follow His will. Enjoy the High times in minsitry, and treasure the low times that God carries us through.
With all respect.
Posted by: Jade | Feb 25, 2005 12:21:48 PM
How true are the statements regarding the message and the messenger. It is always a challenge to make the message "fit" into our lives daily and to make practical applications that work for the hearers. The neat thing is to see people become doers and not just hearers.
I remember my roommate in college, Pete, whose father was a famous evangelist who also ran a youth ranch in the summer and a great work for the deaf. The evangelist wrote in one of his books how he had graduated from Moody Bible College and prayed that God would make him a preacher that people liked to hear.
It is sad when the pulpit is diminished in importance..."God ordained that by the foolishness of preaching men would be saved."
But the creativeness of the messenger must be worked at...the message of the Word is the same for every age and culture....
I am 61 next week and have been preaching since I was 16. I am still learning the trade...We just started using PowerPoint and I am learning to use it in my sermons/talks/lessons. It is helping my discipline and keeping me on target...If it makes me more effective, so be it.
Again, the tipping point doesn't always come as quickly as we would like it to...but if we work as if it's up to us and pray as if it's up to God...MIGHT JUST HAPPEN!
Posted by: Wayne Cook | Feb 26, 2005 5:36:37 PM
Posted by Douglas Wilson at:
http://www.dougwils.com/
How the Cow Ate the Cabbage
Topic: Postmodernism
Evangelical postmodernists luxuriate in the sensation that they are on the bleeding, cutting edge. They feel that they have the "out-there-ness" to really make a radical statement to our times. In reality, their story is about as interesting as the one about how the cow ate the cabbage.
By now, I have read a goodish bit of their stuff, and the excited breathlessness over a bunch of nothing reminds me of a story. It is not exactly a metanarrative, but it serves a purpose. I have two uncles who have an impish streak, one of them a minister and the other a psychologist. One time they decided to do something that would illustrate the power of jargon, and the experiment succeeded nobly. They took a bunch of vocabulary from a piece of clinical psychology, cut it all up into individual words, and put different kinds of words in four different cans. The nouns went in one can, the verbs in another, the adverbs in another, and the adjectives in the fourth. They then sat down to "write an article." Typing "The," they then reached into the appropriate can, pulled out the kind of word they needed and typed it in. One of my uncles said that the scary thing was that the article they wrote this way hovered perpetually on the threshold of sense. when my other uncle gave it to a colleague, asking him to review it for him, the response he got was, "Harold, that's deep."
In dealing with all this deep postmodern stuff, it is hard to escape the notion that a goodly number of people involved have been educated beyond their intelligence. They don't see that heaps and piles of jargon reveal nothing more than heaps and piles of jargon. And those who are not in over their heads are sinister. Try this one on from Raschke's book. "Just as Einstein's construct of 'curved space' within a space-time 'continuum' resisted common sense, yet worked well mathematically, so Deleuze's suggestion of 'curved concepts' within a plane of immanence may function more felicitously than any paradigm of predication."
Exactly. I myself have had it up to here with infelicitous paradigms of predication not stepping aside to curved concepts when they want their turn on the plane of immanence. Also, I don't like how ice cream cartons tear off when you try to open them, leaving little strips of paper lying on the ice cream. You know?
Posted by: Dustin... | Mar 3, 2005 10:04:38 AM
Todd,
Since you are opposed to differing views taking up bandwidth, why not delete my last one by Douglas Wilson too? It is a more subtle rebuke, but a rebuke nonetheless.
Dustin...
Posted by: Dustin... | Mar 3, 2005 1:19:35 PM
For those of you just tuning in, Dustin has found himself in the position of having some of his entries deleted from the blog here. These were done (as I've communicated to him privately) because:
1. There were multiple posts to the same blog entry.
2. The posts were drifting off topic
3. The posts were attacking this blog owner.
Those of you who are regular readers of the MMI Blog know that I do encourage all viewpoints to be free to give their opinions, but do step in time to time when things either turn terribly nasty or when comments become off the main subject target. As blog owner, that's just part of being the moderator.
I left your first post, Dustin, because it was your first post here. To be honest, the topic had not much at all to do with "tipping points" or "eipidemics" but more to do with "evangelical postmodernists" who "luxuriate in the sensation that they are on the bleeding, cutting edge." Not really on topic; but rather looks like an ax to grind. (But that's my personal read).
I'm open to more discussion on the subject of epidemics and tipping points if anyone's interested.
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Mar 3, 2005 1:42:12 PM
And Todd, you said (privately) that this was an issue of methodology and not theology. I said to you (privately) that you are wrong. What is it that drives methodology? Theology! Alas, the two are intertwined and cannot be divorced. So, it is my opinion, albeit seemingly worthless here, that this *is* in fact an issue of theology which drives methodology.
Dustin...
Posted by: Dustin... | Mar 3, 2005 1:45:50 PM
Thanks, Dustin... we can agree to disagree. I would be totally on your side if I thought that churches like Fellowship have forsaken the gospel. But I just don't see that. I might not necessarily agree with all of the methods they use; but if they are preaching Christ crucified, risen, and coming again; and the message of salavation, then I can look past some of the methodologies. I don't see that their theology is any different than mine, but their methodology is. This is not true for all mega-type churches, to be sure.
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Mar 3, 2005 1:48:57 PM
Thanks Todd. But again, methodology and theology walk hand in hand across the surface of God's creation. So while Fellowship may preach "the gospel," one has to ask, "What precisely is the gospel?" More, has the definition of church and evangelism become muddied in the postmodern waters? Has the role and function of the saints gathered together for fellowship been replaced with evangelism for the sake of success that is measured by numbers?
Dustin...
Posted by: Dustin... | Mar 3, 2005 1:53:57 PM
Todd wote:
"and is part of one of the most innovative and fastest-growing churches in the country. Whether or not you like large churches, Fellowship is doing a lot of things right... experiencing tremendous growth (and not transfer growth);"
I think Dustin is taking issue with the idea that "numbers growth" is something to crow about. It could be superficial. It is, I think, in many large churches... don't want to offend the congregation, so keep it light...
Todd, you said:
"and making a real difference for Christ in the Dallas area."
Can you explain what brings you to that conclusion? Is it solely the numbers, or was it something else? If something else, what?
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Mar 3, 2005 11:25:26 PM
Bernie,
First, let me say that I have not personally attended Fellowship Church; nor do I know Ed Young personally; although I have heard him speak to a group of pastors at a conference last year. I guess I will have to say that I was quite impressed with him; with his honesty, spirit, and just the way he conducts himself. I've heard him preach; and each time have personally have found his messages to be thought-stimulating and gospel-filled. He is part of the "Fellowship Epidemic" as we are discussing here. And as Terry mentioned... this doesn't always come easy for Ed... he works hard every week to communicate God's Word to literally thousands of people. I guess I base my "making a difference" comment on the fact that (from what I've read) much of the growth is from new converts rather than church-switchers. They just opened two new campuses this year (2005) and had nearly 3,000 people in attendance the first day.
I would agree with both you (Bernie) and Dustin in saying that growth and numbers alone are not primary indicators of church health; or even God's work. But numbers also can be an indication of God's blessing as well; and when I see a church that's growing tremendously, it makes me take notice, because one of two things are true:
1. Either they are doing something right in evangelizing the lost and God is using them in a great way OR
2. They are preaching a false gospel and part of the fulfilment of prophecy about end-time false preachers.
I'm part of a group of people who would say that if Christ is being preached, and people are responding to that message (and being added to the church and kingdom daily) that this is a good thing... that a healthy church is a growing church.
For this reason, I just don't see the point in arguing the 'growing church' argument. Of course numbers don't obviously mean that everything's hunky-dorey.
My Bottom Line: Do you think Ed Young speaks for God and do you think that God is using him in a great way to further His Kingdom? Forget about the numbers; and (Dustin, this is where I would separate methodology and theology-- which, I know, you don't think can be done). Is Fellowship Church a legitimate part of the body of Christ? Are people coming to Christ? Even if you hate large mega-churches? Even if they pay their pastor too much? Even if you think their methology is too glitzy in it's presentation? If so, then why all the criticism? Why all the guff? Why all the whining?
Dustin's post said, "Evangelical postmodernists luxuriate in the sensation that they are on the bleeding, cutting edge. They feel that they have the "out-there-ness" to really make a radical statement to our times."
Actually, quite the opposite was true at the beginning of this post. These were the points:
The Messenger Matters.
The Content Matters.
The Quality Matters.
The combined must create "stickiness".
Great stickiness will spur action.
There is nothing bleeding or cutting-edge that's been mentioned. The message does matter. So does the content, and the quality. There's no luxuriating here. No pompous attitude. No 'I'm right and you're wrong'.
Terry Storch started this blog post with this, "Nearly everyone that I ever talk to in the church world asks me this question, "What one thing makes Fellowship successful?" The answer was his attempt to give an answer. And I take it for what it is... an honest attempt to humbly explain why God is blessing and using a church like Fellowship Church.
Have a great weekend,
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Mar 4, 2005 9:58:20 AM
Bernie,
Actually, my concern isn't numbers. This has almost nothing to do with numbers.
My emphasis is on the redefining of a Biblical absolute, i.e. the role and function of the church in its 2 settings - local gathering of believers committed to Acts 2:42; Hebrews 10:24-25; 13:20-21, and evangelism as commanded in Matt. 28:19-24; 1 Cor. 9:19-27. A primary concern that is a fundamental cause of the effect (redefining of the church) is the postmodern mind-set which embraces the "seeker sensitive" mentality. The maxim within this mind-set becomes "Might makes right." In other words, if our "truth" is mightier than yours (which is normally judged by numbers which, they say = success), then our truth is mightier than yours, and thus, right. It's a very slippery slope.
Dustin...
Posted by: Dustin... | Mar 4, 2005 10:01:24 AM
Todd,
Thanks for your thoughts. Truly, they are appreciated.
You say:
I guess I base my "making a difference" comment on the fact that (from what I've read) much of the growth is from new converts rather than church-switchers. They just opened two new campuses this year (2005) and had nearly 3,000 people in attendance the first day.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Notice your focus - the difference is proven or validated by converts which = numbers. Now, you qualified the remark by stating that #'s don't prove anything, per se. However, this is the focus.
But here's the issue, preaching to non-believers within the "church" setting is not who and what the "church" is. It's a fundamental and theological issue which drives the methodology. The church (ekklesia - called out ones) has always been made up of believers who are gathered together for the equipping of the saints by the word of God FOR the purpose of living out lives of holiness, which is evangelism. This is the testament of Scripture.
So why have "seeker sensitive" services? Paul says in Romans 3:10-11 that NO ONE seeks for God. Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:14 that the unbeliever doesn't even understand or accept the things of God. In fact, he/she cannot. So why gear the service around them. Incidentally, when we gear the service around the unbeliever, but still try to pepper it with a little depth for the beliver who is intermingled with the unbeliever, the message becomes innocuous. This is a travesty. It's totally unnecessary. But sadly, it's an effect of redefining who and what the church is and what her role is Biblically.
Dustin...
Posted by: Dustin... | Mar 4, 2005 10:15:44 AM
>> 2. They are preaching a false gospel and part of the fulfilment
>> of prophecy about end-time false preachers.
Did you have this in mind?
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
2 Timothy 4:1-5
You mean a time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching ("doctrine" in the NASB)? You mean a time is coming when people will accumulate teachers for themselves (contemporary mega-churches?) to suit their own passions (entertain me and tell me about me; how can I be successful in business, marriage, and parenting)?
>> ...a healthy church is a growing church.
Growing how? Let's see stats for E2, Power Source and HomeTeam enrollment.
>> There is nothing bleeding or cutting-edge that's been mentioned.
Actually, it's implied:
Terry wrote:
>> The content is important. God's word... it does not get much better than that.
>> But that is not all. You can not get by with just opening your Bible and expect
>> it to "just work". Why? Well, keep reading... the quality must be at a level that
>> it creates "stickiness". Stickiness will make it memorable, and if it is so
>> memorable it can create change.
You can't just preach the Bible. That's boring! It won't work. You gotta "Pimp My Ride" the B-I-B-L-E. Pour some syrup on it. Get some big screens, some gadgets, read business and marketing reports, focus groups. Jesus is cool and if you believe in Him, you can be cool too. Hey look at me, don't I look cool?
I think this is dead on:
"Trying to make Jesus hip or cool is not good marketing. Distorting who or what you are is dishonest, inauthentic--and it sucks."
SOURCE: http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/archives/2005/02/a_cool_jesus_su.html
"The Church will be least relevant when it is caught in the act of reinventing itself to gain more friends."
SOURCE: http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/archives/2005/02/the_relevant_ch.html
And that's what Fellowship is all about - reinventing itself to gain more friends. From the clothes to the building decor, it's about selling a product. Don't believe me? Go look at the books Terry Storch (pastor at FC) is reading on his blog (http://www.terrystorch.com). Is this a "God thing" or the manipulation of people? Is this the "real deal" or the Purple Cow (http://www.sethgodin.com/purple/)?
Posted by: Pilgrim | Mar 4, 2005 11:06:00 AM
Thanks Dustin,
A few comments:
1. Would you consider there to be a difference between "seeker-sensitive" services and "culturally relevant" services? To me, seeker-sensitive is old jargon. But it's important that we're both talking about the same thing here.
2. I, too, have big concerns over the seeker-sensitive movement IF that is the only thing the church is doing. I've long had a slight problem with Willow creek touting attendance in the tens of thousands while their 'believer's service' is just a fraction of that size. Something seems a bit off there... that if that theory really worked that maybe their believers attendance would lag a little behind their seeker services (by a few months or so) but that both would continue on the same growth continuum.
3. Two examples of culturally relevant churches that I am aware of are Granger Community Church in Granger, IN; and North Coast Church in Vista, CA. They are examples of churches that are (I think) both culturally relevant and bible-based. I have experienced both.
Granger -- As far as culturally relevant goes, this church is 'out there'. They do themes based on current secular movie releases; sometimes utilize secular songs; and base their services themes revolving around scripture. But the message of the service is anything but watered down. The Biblical teaching is in-depth; and I found that it was of such depth and quality that it would be stimulating to either a Christian or non-Christian. I don't think these things need to be exclusive of each other.
North Coast - is popular for their video venue format (that has received much criticism from people as being impersonal and watered-down. What many people don't realize is that the messages aren't watered down; and a full 80% of North Coast'regular weekend attenders are involved in in-depth growth groups that dig it deeper throughout the week in homes through-out the community.
My point-- it is possible to be culturally relevant, even seeker friendly, WITHOUT being seeker-DRIVEN.
Back when then the seeker-sensitive model came to be, it was associated with modern music, short sermons, and watered-down content.
But what you see now in many churches are the same contemporary worship music (you know, Christians like contemporary music too). That's where I think some of the rub comes in... it's still an issue to style.
I'm 40 years old, and I prefer contemporary music. I love old hymns, but I 'prefer' contemporary music. Sometimes I think many automatically assume that if a church features 'contemporary' music that the church is a watered down, seeker sensitive church. Not necessarily true.
4. Why is it, with over 300,000 churches in the US (many in tremendous risk of closing) do we hear all the talk about 4 or five churches that we deem successful? Because they stand out. There are many churches that meet to edify believers... thousands and thousands of them; that aren't carrying out the evangelism part of the equation. Where is the criticism of them? There have a lot more hold on the american church than any Fellowship or Saddleback or Willowcreek.
5. You wrote, "Notice your focus - the difference is proven or validated by converts which = numbers."
Isn't that one of the signs of a healthy church? This sounds like converts are a bad thing. That's the point I don't get. Why is it invalid to look at the number of converts as a sign of health, or, for that matter, God's blessing? I have four kids. Four converts is a good thing in my family. :)
Just some random thoughts... whether or not they make sense.
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Mar 4, 2005 11:31:04 AM
Pilgrim,
You wrote, "You mean a time is coming when people will accumulate teachers for themselves (contemporary mega-churches?)"
Come on. Just as I'm accused of using numbers as showing God's blessing, you're using numbers to say 'contemporary mega-churches' are all simply tickling ears. I'm trying to be reasonable here... but this comment has to bring out some deeper feelings here: either you've been burned by a 'contemporary mega-church' or there might be some jealousy involved. Really.
You wrote, "You can't just preach the Bible. That's boring! It won't work. You gotta "Pimp My Ride" the B-I-B-L-E. Pour some syrup on it. Get some big screens, some gadgets, read business and marketing reports, focus groups. Jesus is cool and if you believe in Him, you can be cool too. Hey look at me, don't I look cool?"
Again, reality check. Terry was saying that creativity and communication skills were important when communicating the gospel. There are thousands and thousands of churches that are preaching the Bible while their communities die and go to hell. Why the animosity toward someone who's creatively and/or effectively communicating the gospel? I know that you would probably feel that the Gospel at Fellowship and the Gospel you're preaching are different. I really doubt the tennants of the faith of you both are different at all. What is different is how they do it; and, quite honestly; the scale and effectiveness of how they do that.
"Trying to make Jesus hip or cool is not good marketing. Distorting who or what you are is dishonest, inauthentic--and it sucks."
I don't think that Fellowship (and many other mega-churches) are dishonest or inauthentic. And they would be the first to tell you that they do what they do, not to make jesus look hip or cool, but to reach people. Really, I think we just fool ourselves if we think that the people we do reach through personal evangelism are going to come to a church that uses overhead projectors and sing songs that are 400 years old. Being relevant is not an attempt at making Jesus look 'hip' or 'cool'; that's just communicating effectively in our culture today.
"And that's what Fellowship is all about - reinventing itself to gain more friends. From the clothes to the building decor, it's about selling a product. Don't believe me?...Is this a "God thing" or the manipulation of people?
Again... come on. What's the purpose of gaining more friends and selling more product? Do you REALLY believe that's what Fellowship is all about? Again, here's where we started. Here's what Terry said:
The Messenger Matters.
The Content Matters.
The Quality Matters.
The combined must create "stickiness".
Great stickiness will spur action.
Here's what Terry did NOT say:
The product Matters.
Sell more product.
Make Jesus look hip.
Sell more product.
Tickle ears through lavish multimedia.
Laugh all the way to the bank.
I guess one day we'll all know each other's motives; and the fruits of all our labors. I must be concerned only with myself... and I want to hear "Well done". I know that's your goal as well. Quite possibly it could be the goal of Ed Young, Terry Storch, and the rest of Fellowship Church as well.
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Mar 4, 2005 11:55:43 AM
Todd,
Great thoughts. I like that there's a focus.
You say:
1. Would you consider there to be a difference between "seeker-sensitive" services and "culturally relevant" services?
What is a "culturally relevant" service? What are the Biblical examples of a "culturally relevant" service? Before I can answer your question about a difference, I have to understand what you mean.
In your post you switch terms to "seeker sensitive" vs. "seeker driven." You say:
My point-- it is possible to be culturally relevant, even seeker friendly, WITHOUT being seeker-DRIVEN.
What is "seeker friendly?" Again, can you explain to me what that is, from Scripture? I see in Scripture (and I've posted Romans and Corinthians as examples) that people do not seek God. God draws men by His Spirit. But draws men how? Does He draw them by means of modeling after the world? Or is the drawing by a means of revealing God's holiness to depraved and dead men so that they see their sin in juxtaposition to a righteous and perfect God? So again, I need you to define what "seeker friendly" is. I don't see that in Scripture.
You ask:
There are many churches that meet to edify believers... thousands and thousands of them; that aren't carrying out the evangelism part of the equation. Where is the criticism of them?
Todd, how can you make that statement? I believe that you make that statement because of a postmodern paradigm that drives your presupposition. In other words, your statement is also an indictment. In what way? Your statement says, "Those churches that meet to edify the believers are filled with people who don't focus on evangelism. And I say that they don't focus on evangelism because they don't have 'seeker sensitive' messages, services, and so forth." But Todd, again, I believe you are missing the point. This is where theology drives methodology. You see, I don't believe your statement is at all accurate. How do you know that those people aren't living lives dedicated to God. By those lives that are lived dedicated to God, others see such a stark difference from the standard of the world, and God uses this to draw people unto Himself by such a witness (evangelism)? In other words, per the Scriptural example we have, these people meet for the purpose of fellowship as described in Scripture, and then evangelize with their lives, per the Biblical example set forth to us. Because of this, growth is much slower. Why is growth much slower, because it isn't focused on meeting the felt needs of people who don't seek after God, but rather, are dead in sins and trespasses (Eph. 2:1-3).
Uh oh, we have a problem though. What is that problem? Postmodernism and the business methodology mind set that has taken over the church says, "Sheesh guys, what slow growth you have. If you'd adopt some of these super cool methods to attract 'seekers,' why, you'd have a gaggle of 'seekers' coming through the doors. Then you can preach less judgmental and Scripture filled messages, because after all, 'seekers' don't respond to such strong messages. The result of such great methodology, converts. Converts = success." It's a mess. It's redefining the purpose and role of the church. It's not what Scripture declares. It muddies the waters of Biblical absolutes.
I know that it's unpopular to think this way. I know that it's counter cultural, but it's what Christ has breathed to us in His word.
Dustin...
Posted by: Dustin... | Mar 4, 2005 11:55:50 AM
Todd, more about youre "numbers = growth" idea.
Look at the story of Jesus and the rich man (Scripture is below). The man left Jesus. He was sad. Jesus didn't beg him to stay.
Now compare that with people who think "numbers = God's blessing." Do you see a difference in the thinking of our Lord versus man's thinking? This man, who couldn't leave everything and follow Jesus, would no doubt be a senior leader in today's churches... just look at the righteousness he had (plus he's rich, which today's churches love in their leaders)!
Matt. 19:
The Rich Young Man
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
18“Which ones?” the man inquired.
Jesus replied, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’[d] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[e]”
20“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
27Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
28Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother[f] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Mar 4, 2005 11:57:08 AM
I offer two quotes from an excellent article challenging the church marketing philosophy embraced by Terry and others.
(1) "The most effective messages for seekers are those that address their felt-needs" (Ibid., pp. 213-214). However, this approach is not drawn from Scripture; it is drawn from market research and the latest in pop-psychology. No one denies that there are many benefits to the Christian life, but these benefits must not be confused with the gospel. The gospel is not about helping Harry feel better about himself and his circumstances; it is about his rebelliousness against a holy God who will ultimately condemn him to hell if he does not repent and trust in Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. The distinction between the market-driven approach and the Biblical approach lies largely in understanding this fundamental difference.
(2) "When we speak of marketing the church, we are not referencing such things as advertising church events, providing excellence in church programming, being kind to visitors, or providing ample parking. No one is arguing the importance and value of such things. Marketing, as defined by the new paradigm churches, goes much further, because its focus is on what the consumer (Unchurched Harry) wants and thinks he needs, rather than on what God wants and what He says Harry needs. In other words, market-driven churches are built upon the foundation of polls, surveys, and the latest marketing techniques, instead of upon the Word of God. In order to market a church to the unsaved, the consumer must be given what he wants.
Since unsaved consumers do not desire God, or the things of God, they have to be enticed by something else. Thus, the temptation then arises for a church to change, or at least hide, who they are so that they appeal to Unchurched Harry. Additionally, the church is tempted to alter its message to correspond with what Harry wants to hear and thinks he needs. The end result is a felt-need gospel that appeals to Harry's fallen nature in an effort to entice him to come to Christ, the ultimate felt-need supplier, so that he is fulfilled and feels better about himself. But, "Can churches really hide their identity without losing their religious character? Can the church view people as consumers without inevitably forgetting that they are sinners? Can the church promote the gospel as a product and not forget that those who buy it must repent? Can the church market itself and not forget that it does not belong to itself but to Christ? Can the church pursue success in the market place and not lose its biblical faithfulness" (Losing Our Virtue, by David Wells, p. 202)? The answers to these questions are self-evident."
The article can be read in it's entirety here:
The Market-Driven Church: A Look Behind the Scenes
http://www.rapidnet.com/%7Ejbeard/bdm/Psychology/cgrowth/mkt.htm
A response from market-driven proponents is welcomed and encouraged.
Posted by: Pilgrim | Mar 4, 2005 12:02:45 PM
Bernie,
Great thoughts. So much could be expounded upon from that pericope of Scripture. For example, 1. the idea that the moral law is still binding for the believer, 2. the moral law is what was being taught, 3. sanctification, 4. blunt truth.
Christ didn't try to meet the felt needs of the rich young ruler. Christ didn't try to sway the man with eloquent speech. Christ didn't try to change the blunt message by focusing on culturally relevant methodologies to convey a deeper truth.
Dustin...
Posted by: Dustin... | Mar 4, 2005 12:16:58 PM
>> Just as I'm accused of using numbers as showing
>> God's blessing, you're using numbers to say
>> 'contemporary mega-churches' are all simply tickling ears.
I didn't say that. It's a question that needs to be asked.
>> I'm trying to be reasonable here...
So am I. How are these questions unreasonable? Are market-driven churches a collection of teachers who are out tickling ears with a felt-needs gospel?
>> but this comment has to bring out some deeper feelings here: either you've been burned by a 'contemporary mega-church' or there might be some jealousy involved.
No, I have not been burned by a mega-church and no I'm not jealous. I'm not on staff at any church. I'm a member at Denton Bible Church (Tom Nelson). We're a growing church, not because our membership is expanding numerically or because we have a new building (both are true), but because of our focus on the equipping of the saints, missions, Bible studies, and discipleship.
>> Again, reality check. Terry was saying that creativity and
>> communication skills were important when communicating
>> the gospel...Why the animosity toward someone who's
>> creatively and/or effectively communicating the gospel?
I have no problem with creativity. I'm a creative person. My job centers around being creative. And yes, effective communication is important. However, Paul instructed Timothy to preach the word when it's cool and when it's not cool. He said he didn't come with fancy words or with the wisdom of the world.
>> Really, I think we just fool ourselves if we think that the people
>> we do reach through personal evangelism are going to come to
>> a church that uses overhead projectors and sing songs that are
>> 400 years old.
This is probably where we disagree the most. You see, I go to church to worship God and not out of a love for self. If a person comes to church looking for an experience or to be entertained, then that person is in the dark and FC and everyone else has failed to preach the gospel. When a sinner comes to the realization that he was lost, dead, and condemned, but now is found, alive, and forgiven, projectors and hymns mean nothing. God is what I want. Let me praise Him. Let my heart give thanks and rejoice in Him. Be it in a home, a church, or a rented out hotel conference room.
Posted by: Pilgrim | Mar 4, 2005 12:37:19 PM
Pilgrim,
Amen and amen!
Dustin...
Posted by: Dustin... | Mar 4, 2005 12:42:42 PM
I must be short. While I really enjoy great discussions and debates like this... I can't justify all day responding. :)
First Bernie,
Just as you think I make assumptions (numbers = God's blessing), you do as well:
"This man, who couldn't leave everything and follow Jesus, would no doubt be a senior leader in today's churches... just look at the righteousness he had (plus he's rich, which today's churches love in their leaders)! "
You assume (actually you say 'no doubt') that the rich man would be a mega-church pastor). You must have a hyper-amplified Bible. :)
I'm not saying that growth = God's blessing. Sometimes growth can = false teaching with a lot of glitz. But other times, many people following Christ at a certain church I think DOES show at least one sign of how God blesses churches today, just as he did in Acts where people where added daily to their number. I don't think either one of us can reasonably use blanket statments. And I think God is happy when one soul comes to him, whether it's someone from your influence that makes it into the Kingdom, or someone from Ed Young's.
Dustin,
Quickly... I would define seeker-sensitive to mean that you don't do things in worship that would be particularly confusing to the unbeliever. I would describe seeker-driven as a service that is totally programmed for the unsaved 'prospect'. I do think they are different. I would describe culturally relevant in the use of primarily technology, music style, and overall delivery that would communicate excellence in our current cultural setting. (Please don't pick apart my wording here... I'm writing on the fly) :) I think that culturally relevant services can be either seeker-friendly, seeker-sensitive, seeker-driven, or simply none of the above.
Gotta get.. just time for one more thing:
-----
"There are many churches that meet to edify believers... thousands and thousands of them; that aren't carrying out the evangelism part of the equation. Where is the criticism of them?
Todd, how can you make that statement?
-----
Because many of these churches (realistically, thousands and thousands) are stagnant; losing people; and closing (literally) their doors. Would it be wrong to consider for a moment that a healthy church would at least hold their number of people attending... at least replacing (through corporate and personal evangelism) the number of people who die each year with new converts to the faith?
"How do you know that those people aren't living lives dedicated to God."
I never said that people involved in churches like these weren't living lives dedicated to God.
"By those lives that are lived dedicated to God, others see such a stark difference from the standard of the world, and God uses this to draw people unto Himself by such a witness"
Absolutely... and I hope this is the life people see me leading as well.
"In other words, per the Scriptural example we have, these people meet for the purpose of fellowship as described in Scripture, and then evangelize with their lives, per the Biblical example set forth to us. Because of this, growth is much slower."
Absolutely... this type of 'living the life' is probably the most effective type of envangelism; AND the slowest.
But my problem is that the number of people coming to Christ by this method is (in many many churches) LESS than the number of people dying each year in many churches. Thus, declining church (yes, numberically declining).
I have no problem AT ALL with the scenario you present. None at all. I think it IS biblical. I think where we part is that I think the church collectively can make a major difference in lives as well. Just as the individual spiritual life dedicated to God can reap spiritual conversions, I think God will and can and does bless the dedication corporately of the church.
I say, YEAH! You say (unless I'm reading you wrong)... wait a minute... that's not what the church is to do... the church is to edify and build; and the individuals are to save (with God's help).
I say, we can bring alot more people into the kingdom by being committed corporately to evangelism (as many are doing); you say: hold on... that's not the church's job.
I hope I'm reading you right on this... if not please let me know.
I guess I don't think God is particularly offended if churches reach people rather than individuals. But there has to be a balance. As you very well point out; the church does have also to edify and build up the saints. That is also a commandment. But I think both can be done in balance.
And to criticize you for your personal approach; or to criticize Fellowship for their approach is kind of a waste of time for me. I rejoice with both! God's Kingdom is expanding. Amen!
That has to be my final word. I'm late for lunch!
Have a great weekend guys.
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Mar 4, 2005 12:43:07 PM
Todd,
You say:
Quickly... I would define seeker-sensitive to mean that you don't do things in worship that would be particularly confusing to the unbeliever.
What would be confusing? And again, can you show me in Scripture where Christ and/or the church was ever called to be "seeker sensitive?" This is important for you to do because you have adopted this as a mind set and methodology.
Todd says:
the church is to edify and build; and the individuals are to save (with God's help).
Please, show me this in Scripture. Show me where you see this. Here is another example of where your theology is driving your methodology. It's becoming more evident that I was right in that you cannot divorce methodology from theology. Theology drives your actions. I'll assert emphatically that I think your statement above is Scripturally incorrect in every way. So again, please show me from Scripture how your statement is supported.
Todd says:
I say, we can bring alot more people into the kingdom by being committed corporately to evangelism (as many are doing); you say: hold on... that's not the church's job.
I hope I'm reading you right on this... if not please let me know.
No, this is what I said. You are reading me wrong. I have stated over and over again tha the church has a great commission. It is to GO and make DISCIPLES (not converts) of all the nations. God saves - we disciple. This is our "job" daily. This is our commission throughout the week. This is our passion at all times. But this is not the function of a group of believers gathered together for fellowship, encouragement, and exhortation in worship as ordained by God. Again, this is where your equivocation comes in. This is a product of a postmodern mindset that has embraced what is not Biblical, i.e. "seeker sensitivity," "seeker driven," ad nauseam. There is no such thing as a "seeker." I've made that clear by way of citing Paul who made it clear. Paul made it clear because the Holy Spirit made it clear through Paul. Why then do we have such trouble with it?
What is the balance? The Bible. The very thing that Terry's blog said just isn't enough.
Dustin...
Posted by: Dustin... | Mar 4, 2005 1:39:15 PM
My above post says:
No, this is what I said. You are reading me wrong. I have stated over and over again tha the church has a great commission.
That should have said, "No, this is NOT what I said."
Dustin...
Posted by: Dustin... | Mar 4, 2005 1:41:10 PM
