[Electrophile]

I'm not sure why you feel the two to be mutually exclusive. Incidentally, that was actually why I stopped going to church for a year or two. I dislike the attitude of trying to "reach" as many people as possible just by sheer numbers and then once they are saved, moving on to the next group like a swarm of evangelistic locusts for Jeeeeeezussss. When people are in a crisis, they don't need a Bible thrown at them and to be told to pick up their cot and walk. They need compassion and people willing to serve so they can get back on their feet again, whether it be spiritual crisis, financial, relationship, whatever. Certainly, we need to shine as a light before all men and make disciples of all nations, but I am discouraged when I see churches putting an incredible amount of time and resources into pure evangelism and little into discipleship, learning WHY we believe what we believe, and encouraging people to serve and be served once they've made that declaration of faith.

I don't see much difference in finding fault with seeker driven churches versus wanting MY particular interpretation of Scripture followed to the letter. Both are very me centered ways of looking at things. But the seeker is allowed to go after milk first instead of meat. Those who have been around awhile shouldn't sit back and wait to be catered to on every possible doctrine of theology as the deciding factor of the worth of a church body, but instead look at how they may best serve. I love a good theological debate (I do have a masters degrees in biology, a bachelors in religious studies with a minor in history, makes for excellent evolution and stem cell/cloning debates), but too much of this is just divisive and not Christ-like. Goes back to the old joke of putting only the *insert denomination in here* in a single room in heaven because they'll think they're the only ones there anyways...

[Go Ne]

Originally Posted by ehenningsen

The worst direction I have seen lately is where the church is trying to establish their religeous laws into our nations or states laws..

They need to understand that while it is great they have their life and they aid the lives of other people according to their beliefs, but why are they trying to tell people who are not in the church how to live?

Actually, most of the religious laws are already laws.

[kdbrich]

2 comments:

1. ehenningsen: You mean like laws about lying, stealing, murder, etc? You're right....the church has no business telling us how to legislate. (sarcasm).

2. Electrophile: Actually, I agree with you. There should be a medium that is reached. The early church, as described in the book of Acts, certainly didn't cater to the non-believers...but they were also aware that there were unbelievers among them. Yes--we should evangelize--but evangelism is more than inviting someone to church.

A non-believer that wanders into our church should be welcomed, and allowed to observe. But we shouldn't necessarily devote our Sunday morning worship service toward reaching them. Sunday morning is for edification of the church--not growth.

Remember--what we reach them with we have to keep them with. If the non-believer is converted via an entertaining service with a light show, clever topic, and a latte in the lobby, is that for the right reason? When the novelty wears off they will leave. I'd rather be part of a church of 100 people who want to learn what the Bible says (believers and non-believers alike) than 1000 people that are there because of the coffee, the rocking sound system and the warm feeling they get from the pastor's "uplifting" message.

As for your personal experience? I'm sorry that you had the experience you did.

[ehenningsen]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

2 comments:

1. ehenningsen: You mean like laws about lying, stealing, murder, etc? You're right....the church has no business telling us how to legislate. (sarcasm).

2. Electrophile: Actually, I agree with you. There should be a medium that is reached. The early church, as described in the book of Acts, certainly didn't cater to the non-believers...but they were also aware that there were unbelievers among them. Yes--we should evangelize--but evangelism is more than inviting someone to church.

A non-believer that wanders into our church should be welcomed, and allowed to observe. But we shouldn't necessarily devote our Sunday morning worship service toward reaching them. Sunday morning is for edification of the church--not growth.

Remember--what we reach them with we have to keep them with. If the non-believer is converted via an entertaining service with a light show, clever topic, and a latte in the lobby, is that for the right reason? When the novelty wears off they will leave. I'd rather be part of a church of 100 people who want to learn what the Bible says (believers and non-believers alike) than 1000 people that are there because of the coffee, the rocking sound system and the warm feeling they get from the pastor's "uplifting" message.

As for your personal experience? I'm sorry that you had the experience you did.

Kdbrich, you know what I am talking about.. If you don't then go back to burying your head in the sand...

[ehenningsen]

I promise that I will drop it..

It hurts me to drop something without resolve, as I am somebody who works till my soul gets burned out, but I need to let this one go..

So, I am dropping it and could care less what you think I should be able to do or not do..

[kdbrich]

so it's a double standard? it's ok for SOME laws to be influenced by religion...but not all.

[ehenningsen]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

so it's a double standard? it's ok for SOME laws to be influenced by religion...but not all.

No, however, there is a difference in creating laws to prevent somebody from harming another and then creating laws against somebody's will despite no harm being done and potentially degrading one's quality of life by saying some of the most god-awful things like gays are child snatures, and that we recruit people and are the cause of america's moral decline..

I wonder how long Texas and Missouri had laws where law enforcement would invade gay people homes and book them for polygamy...

The US sepreme court struck down that texas law and there was a public outcry..

But, as a country, we can be proud that we tried to stop people like myself from my horribly country destroying, child destroying and marriage destroying lifestyle...

[kdbrich]

We could probably go on for at least another 5 pages on this one. If you want to discuss it, feel free to start a new thread...but we're probably not going to accomplish anything here.

[FightinPhils]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

I just don't believe that we should gear our services toward them. Can you imagine the apostles in the first century having their worship meetings geared toward the non-believer? Paul warned that we should be aware of a non-believer entering our services (specifically on the issue of tongues), but nowhere is the idea that we are to do the services FOR them.

.

Didn't Jesus himself say something to the effect of that its the sick who need a doctor, not the healthy? It seems you would rather that church give you the teaching you want, at the expense of potentially converting unbelievers to Christ.... The church's mission according the Jesus is to bring people to Him...not to entertain people who are already believers on Sunday morning. Just an observation.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by FightinPhils

Didn't Jesus himself say something to the effect of that its the sick who need a doctor, not the healthy? It seems you would rather that church give you the teaching you want, at the expense of potentially converting unbelievers to Christ.... The church's mission according the Jesus is to bring people to Him...not to entertain people who are already believers on Sunday morning. Just an observation.

Yes, He certainly did.

And we should evangelize the "sick", but read 1 and 2 Corinthians, and the other letters that Paul wrote. Sunday morning is not to be the primary evangelism tool--it's to worship God and to edify the church. We should be going out to find the non-believers and sharing the good news. If a non-believer should enter our Sunday morning service, they should certainly be comfortable, and should be welcomed. But the service is about worshiping God--not the entertainment of the un-churched. Why would you focus an entire service on 10% of the people and leave the other 90% starving? Teach solid, Biblical teaching--and you'll reach both types. If the seeker is truly seeking, they won't be turned off by solid teaching.

Read the Book of Acts, or 1 and 2 Corinthians. Do you honestly feel that the early church was as focused on using their Sunday morning worship meetings for evangelism as what we see today? The trend lately is to go all out nuts about "reaching the lost", but when we do reach them we either leave them lost (but entertained), or they never grow past what they were at the initial conversion. There is no excuse for a person who has been a member at a church for 10 years and not have a life that shows it. I'm not suggesting that they put on a false holiness...but people should know them by the fruits of their life.

Any way you look at it, you'll see that our seeker-sensitive churches are full of people that are people that are converting--but not growing. We get 100 commitments for Christ in a month, or baptize 20 people, and we think we're accomplishing God's mission. In actuality, these people are either staying immature, baby Christians that are incapable of growing, or they're reverting back to what they were before they walked in the door. Our churches need to encourage growth--not just provide good music and a 20 minute topical sermon that'll "help you during your week".

It's not just what I want--it's the fact that the people are starving for solid teaching. People don't want the watered down stuff they've been hearing.