[This will most likely be a multi-part post, but I welcome your thoughts all the way through the journey]
Back at the beginning of January I was invited to join a discussion about the effectiveness of the church. There were some good comments and a pretty good debate going, but most of the suggestions were mostly cosmetic in nature. Meaning, how should the church service look in order to attract people who have no relationship with Christ - logistical changes, more or less, and the term "rebranding" was thrown around. I enjoyed that conversation. The blog is owned by a particular church, and I truly believe that they are desirous to see changes that would lead and/or draw "non-believers" to their community. I'm writing this here so as not to hijack their foum. ;)
But conversations like this and others that I've had along those lines often leave me wondering, Is this enough?
The debates over style, tradition, presentation, etc. are important - vital, even. We often hear ourselves say, "The delivery changes, but the message stays the same."
I think a lot of people and churches really get the ball rolling on modifying their appearance in a sincere but perhaps misguided effort to reach "the lost." And, again, that is necessary. However, most times it ends up that we're repackaging the old traditions that we're rebelling against or reforming into new traditions. In essence, we're saying the same things that our parents and grandparents said, only we're wearing jeans and they had on 3-piece suits. And still "the lost" don't show up on Sunday. Why? I don't know. Why don't our evangelism tactics, no matter how cutting edge, or simple-step-ey, or air-tight-logical-reasons-to-accept-Jesus-Christ-as-your-personal-Lord-and-Savior-ey they are, get anyone "saved"? I have no idea. Why don't our programs work? I'm not sure, except that maybe our programs are aimed at people, not machines. And people don't respond the way that machines do.
So we seek to change the method of delivery. The problem is, maybe the method isn't necessarily the problem... maybe its the message itself. Maybe it's our theology. Maybe what we believe is the problem.
What do you think?
2 comments:
Wow. I just wrote out a long response and the internet ate it. Sigh. I'll try again...
If we look back at the New Testament, we see that the "sinners" of Jesus' day voluntarily followed him around. Not because he was implementing programs or trying to be really cool and interesting, but because there was something about him and his message and his life that was attractive to them. Obviously it's an imperfect analogy because, well, he was God in the flesh and we're just screwed up human beings ourselves. But I think there's still something important there. My personal opinion is that people were attracted to his genuine love; he wasn't loving people with an ulterior motive-- he was just loving them, period.
I'll admit I'm not sure where you're going with the statement "maybe what we believe is the problem," and I'll definitely stay tuned in to find out. If there's something that the Christian community believes that is a hindrance to others, I want to know what it is so I can do my part to change it.
I'm looking forward to the discussion. And I really hope my comment gets posted this time, lol.
Hmmm...interesting POV. Maybe I gotta say I question this often...especially every time a question is raised from one of the "lost" people... It's good to know what you believe and why. Maybe it's not necessarily the theology itself as it is so much the variances in doctrine from church to church? Not saying for sure...just getting the question out there.
Post a Comment