“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2)
The church growth movement has been marketing the plans of several megachurches as the ideal method of evangelism. For example, one church planting team sent a questionnaire to the “unchurched” within their community with the following questions:
- Do you actively attend a local church?
- Why not?
- What is it that makes it difficult for you to attend?
- If such a church existed that was not like this, would you be interested in attending?
- If we start such a church, may we call you?
At first glance, this strategy seems to have worked, for it has produced one of the largest churches in the country today. So what is the problem?
The ineffectiveness of the church growth movement has been chronicled for some time now on this blog as well as in others. While these types of strategies may increase attendance in individual cases, it is clear that very little true conversion is taking place. John MacArthur laments concerning the worldly methods invoked by the church to reach the “unchurched”:
“That is precisely my concern about today's pragmatic church-growth strategies. The design is to attract the unchurched. For what? To entertain them? To get them to attend church meetings regularly? Merely "churching" the unchurched ccomplishes nothing of eternal value.
Too often, however, that is where the strategy stalls. Or else it's combined with a watered-down gospel that wrongly assures sinners that a positive "decision" for Christ is as good as true conversion. Multitudes who are not authentic Christians now identify themselves with the church. The church has thus been invaded with the world's values, the world's interests, and the world's citizens.” (Ashamed of The Gospel by John MacArthur)
The problem is that this approach treats the church like any other organization. In this case, evangelism is being confused with church marketing, and this it’s methodology is rooted in the premise that “if we give the sinner what he wants in the church, he'll come.” As a result, the church is failing to change the world. Instead, in direct violation of Romans 12:2, the church is conforming to the world in the name of “relevance” (“Relevance” is simply another word for “worldly”). The world is dictating to the church how it should worship. It’s telling the church how and what to preach, and how to evangelize.
"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:13-16)
Jesus was very clear. The church is supposed to influence the culture, not try to imitate it. Therefore, it’s no wonder that church attendance is on the decline. Afterall, why go to church to get what the world offers? In this contest, the church is out of its element. The world does worldly things better than the church does. Robert Godfrey draws the clear line between worship and entertainment.
“The call for entertainment in worship in our time is often cast in a particularly seductive form. Entertainment is often sold in the name of evangelism. We are told that we must make worship interesting and existing for the unconverted so that they will come to church and be converted. At first glance that argument is very appealing. We all want to see many brought to faith in Christ. Who wants to be against evangelism? But we must remember: entertainment is not evangelism, and evangelism is not worship. People are evangelized, not by a juggler, but by the presentation of the Gospel. And while evangelism may occur in worship as the Gospel is faithfully proclaimed, the purpose and focus of worship is that those who believe in Christ should gather and meet with God.” – Robert Godfrey
The Scriptures give clear instructions as to how the church should evangelize, worship, and what to preach. Any attempt to “improve” upon God’s instructions in order to make them “relevant” is not only a recipe for failure, but is strictly forbidden by Scripture (Deuteronomy 12:30-32).
"To worship God - that is the primary reason why the Christian should go to church. In today's church climate this is a radical idea. Nevertheless, Christians should go to church, not to evangelize, not to provide a comfortable "consumer-friendly" setting for the unchurched, not even primarily for the benefit which fellowship with other Christians provides, and definitely not just for lectures and devotionals, but in order to worship God. Christians should also understand that evangelism and the missionary task are not the most important tasks the church has.
Such efforts exist among the nations, as John Piper argues in his Let the Nations Be Glad, only because worship of the true God among them does not! ... For decades now evangelical churches have been conducting their services for the sake of unbelievers. Both the revivalistic service of a previous generation and the "seeker service" of today are shaped by the same concern--appeal to the unchurched. Not surprisingly, in neither case does much that might be called worship by Christians occur. As a result, many evangelicals who have been sitting for years in such worship services are finding their souls drying up, and they have begun to long for something else." (Robert Reymond - A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith)
True revival will come by the Sovereign hand of God when His people begin to obey His Word regarding worship, evangelism, and preaching.
Amen! I wholeheartedly agree.
"[i]The world does worldly things better than the church does[/i]" reminds me of a similar statement by R.C. Sproul (I think) -- "[i]we can do none of these things as well as the world can[/i]".
Yesterday evening I was reading an article by Dietrich von Hildebrand on more or less the same topic, though relevant to another Church.
http://www.catholic-pages.com/mass/hildebrand.asp
As Hildebrand points out, what our culture is suffering from most is a lack of reverence. That is why modern souls are asphyxiated.
Somehow, we only 'revere' sinners without true saintly qualities: pop idols, sportsmen, cynical philosophers, preachers of tolerance...not to mention Barack Messiah.
I see where you are coming from but don't we realize that we are lumping alot of the marketing efforts together when we just toss it all out as "wordly" (I tend to disagree that relevance = worldly).
Yes, there are those churches who implore slick ad campaigns or practice "give 'em what they want to hear" kind of discipleship (mediocrity). That is poor evangelism.
Duct Tape Marketing founder John Jantsch says that marketing is simply "getting people with a need to know, like and trust you." I think there's application when we think about "church marketing" - we know the NEED people really have - it's a NEED for a SAVIOR! We are messaging ourselves, our congregation, our ministry offerings and yes even JESUS to a people who, by far, do not know the REAL JESUS (they only know hypocritical Christians or bad religion). They certainly have a distaste for Christ and couldn't even begin to TRUST Jesus, much less trust Christians. We need to practice "know-like-trust" marketing.
Any effort we can do to build that trust can be part of our marketing efforts. It's not to put together a slick facade with nothing of meat. NO, it's to communicate in a way that breaks down walls. So yes, we communicate to the unchurched in the way that the unchurched hears most of its communication (TV, radio, web, blogs, social netwkng, etc). We are often so archaic in our communication styles. So we don't even get into their radar! You could almost say that we are acting like the Pharisees by acting like people have to speak OUR way in order to be accepted by the religious community. Jesus walked among the crowds in spoke in ways that resonated with them.
We also engage in life-changing outreach into the community so that people see that our actions agree with what we may be communication via various forms of media. I truly believe then as we live and dwell among the nations, and communicate in ways that the masses communicate (isn't this Jesus' parable strategy?), then we are messaging to the masses the GREATNESS of God. It is a first step to reaching alot of people. We've just got to make sure that what people find on the inside is authentic, rich, and life-changing (and yes, that means talking about suffering and persecution - TRUE discipleship!!) If people begin to know, like and trust US (through whom God is wanting to make his appeal; 2 Cor 5), then we lead them to trusting not in sinful people, but in the ONE who is the LORD!
You're friend in Christ in TX.
-Randy Vaughn
http://www.MarketingTwins.com
Randy,
Thanks for the comment. I have no problem with using our God-given creativity to evangelize. In fact, it is commanded (Matthew 10:16). I also agree that we should use all sorts of means (even blogging) to reach the unchurched.
As far as marketing on the internet, the newspaper, etc. no problem. We should publicize our churches to let people know about us. That said, marketing strategies themselves are great for selling duct tape, but not for building the church of Christ. Christ Himself promises to build his church, not by "marketing", but by the "foolishness of preaching". The reason why marketing the gospel fails is, unlike duct tape, we are presenting something that the unchurched, by their nature, hate. Indeed, the gospel itself is a rock of offense to those who are perishing.
This is even worse when marketing begins to affect worship itself. The gross errors here are as follows:
1.) We assume that the unchurched are seeking God, when the Bible is quite clear that there is none who seeks after God.
2.) It gears Sabbath worship towards the "unchurched", instead of the saints.
3.) It seeks to improve upon God's own methods of evangelism.
4.) It lets the culture dictate to the church how to worship and preach.
Let me ask you, what do you think of the practice of sending out questionnaires to the "unchurched" with a promise of meeting their requests.
Blessings,
PL
You wrote "In this case, evangelism is being confused with church marketing" since you link to me as an example of confusing evangelism, I think you'd at least want to try to understand my perspective before casting aspersions on me. I work in both ministries and I don't confuse the two as you indicated.
Perhaps in the future before you make judgments about who is being "worldly" you might try to contact the person you are painting with such broad strokes, it's more Christian to do so!
For someone who talks about Grace so much, you seem to exhibit so little!
And you seem to be oblivious to the fact that you yourself are using marketing to promote your ideas about Christianity...
Chris,
With all due respect, I looked carefully at your position, which lauds the purpose-driven nonsense of Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. These two men are the posterchildren of what I have written here. In fact, the questionnaire to the "unchurched" came from your site. As a result of this survey, you concluded that "Nearly every church in America has benefited from the research Rick Warren conducted. The results of what Warren learned led him to write the landmark book for reaching the unchurched, The Purpose-Driven Church. Thousands of churches consider themselves heirs to the Purpose Driven paradigm. Thank God, Rick Warren did his homework and shared the fruit of his research with us!"
Are those not your words? So much for holding fast to sound doctrine. All I can say is "no thanks" to a man who will let Barrack Obama speak from his pulpit.
Here are my thoughts on this issue!
http://johnbrimacombe.blogspot.com/2005/04/marketing-your-message-by-john.html#comments
John Brimacombe
If you knew Rick Warren, you would find that he is a pastor who approaches ministry more like a missionary would. He himself says he wasn't trying to be a marketer by taking the survey-- he was trying to be a "good neighbor" by extending them the courtesy of understanding more about them before he starting preaching to them about how they need to change their lives.
Every evangelist and missionary knows that to effectively communicate with people it helps to understand the bridges and barriers to reaching them first. Warren and Hybels did basic missionary research of understanding people in their community before they started ministry. This is an approach that has benefited a lot of ministries because it emphasizes a basic missionary discipline.
It's a lot more difficult to convert the lost to Christ, than it is convert the saved to Calvin.
I see the post didn't link right...so here is something I wrote a few years ago on my own blog! I think that you are maligning good men like Hybels and Warren.
Marketing Your Message
by John Brimacombe
Marketing is all around us. When we drive down the roads and see giant McDonald billboard signs that entice us with Big Macs, or on the radio trying to persuade us about which laundry detergent we should use, or on TV during the Super Bowl alluring us with hotdogs all the way to the kind of jeans we should wear. All of this is marketing. Marketing is being persuaded about the products one wants to share with the world. We value the things we love…and the majority of people love the things they produce.
Have you ever thought about that when it comes to our faith in Jesus Christ that we are also trying to persuade people to love him the way we love him and to see the benefits of trusting in him. The Apostle Paul did and he didn't have one cookie-cutter way of speaking and communicating with people. Chris Forbes (www.ministrymarketingcoach.com) call this a "minstry marketing mindset" when it comes to communicating the gospel. That mindset was to put himself in the shoes of those he was speaking to and adapt the message to their culture in order to communicate more clearly and relevantly.
Peter Drucker defines marketing as "the whole firm, taken from the customers point of view" (Marketing for Dummies, pg. 19). This is powerful because it reminds us that one's view can be so different from another person's view. In communicating the gospel the question must be asked, "how are they viewing or perceiving what you are communicating?" If what you are communicating doesn't even make sense to a person, then don't expect fruitful results. Paul understood this principle and one only needs to look at two passages in Acts to see the different ways in which Paul shared or marketed the Good News to other people in order that they would truly understand.
Paul explains the gospel in Acts 13:13-41 from a more Jewish background because he was speaking mainly to Jews and Godfearers who understood that context. Paul literally gives a three-point sermon starting with the history of Israel, from the patriarchs to the monarchy (vs.16-25); the story of Jesus (vs.26-37); and the conclusion, which revolved around the choice between life and death (vs.38-41) (John Stott, The Message of Acts, pgs. 222-226).
In Acts 17:16-34, Paul had the opportunity to converse with some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. Yet he didn't use the same approach with these guys that he had done earlier with the people in Acts 13. These weren't Jews but Greek philosophers and they needed a different approach. In verse 28 Paul even quotes one of their own philosophers, Aratus, to make his point. Now Aratus, who said, "we are his offspring" was not referring to the true God of the Bible, but was only referring to Zeus, yet we see that "glimmerings of truth, insights from general revelation, may be found in non-Christian authors. (Stott, The Message of Acts, pg. 286).
Rick Richardson, in his book Evangelism Outside the Box calls this a biblical model for awakening souls. He gives four principles of soul-awakening that are drawn from Paul's experience (pg. 78).
Paul connects to and affirms the Athenians' culture and uses their language and methods of communication where he can.
Paul discerns and affirms the Athenians' spiritual interest and search.
Paul challenges their foolish way of trying to fulfill their search and satisfy the hunger of their souls.
Paul gives them some surprising evidence that supports his message and points to an unexpected way to fulfill their spiritual search--through Jesus.
Forbes says that what Paul did here, and what he did in Acts 13, was to position himself. He chose the best position to present the gospel, (although he could have preached from any position), because he wanted to be relevant and effective. You can only do this if you have first-hand information about the people you are speaking to. Missionaries go to other countries to share the gospel. But they don't usually start to share immediately. They learn the culture, language, and customs…and then afterwards they begin to strategize about how best to communicate to the people God has sent them to.
We must do the same thing. We must market the message. If you don’t' feel comfortable with the word "marketing" then change it. But remember the words of Paul in I Corinthians 9:19-22, "For since I am free from all I can make myself a slave to all, in order to gain even more people. To the Jews I became like a Jew to gain the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) to gain those under the law. To those free from the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from God's law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law. To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some."
My immediate thought on the title of the article is that it is unsupported by scripture since we see plenty of cases where the unsaved worship, but then as I read the post my irony-o-meter just pegged out.
Let me get this straight, you are marketing the message that marketing is wrong?
Correct me here if I misunderstand. This blog is a marketing (i.e. outreach tool) to promote your message, yet you are saying that promoting marketing techniques is compromising with the world (while you are compromising with Blogger, no less in order to promote this message of "no compromise").
Maybe I need to stop reading blog posts, what do you think?
Rick...I agree! I remember reading a bunch of John MacArthur stuff against marketing and then one day turning the page in a Christian magazine and seeing a whole page ad advertising for his latest book, Twelve Ordinary Men...a book about the twelve disciples. I thought to myself..."that's marketing!"
The irony doesn't stop there Rick, just last week the author took his own poll http://tinyurl.com/6hlyfe about how to interpret scripture. Sounds like something Obama would do!
Woah guys. Let's stop killing the straw men and get to some substance.
First of all, marketing itself was a very small slice of what this post is about. Rick, Maybe you should start reading my blog posts. Can you show me anywhere in my post where I said that marketing is wrong? What I said was the marketing is being confused with evangelism. This is apparent in the fact that more and more of our worship is being geared toward the "unchurched", while the churched are starving. It's not marketing itself that is the problem, it's what we are marketing. Asking the unchurched what they think church should be like is not what we should be doing. We aren't trying to sell a product, in which case we would give the customer what he wants. We are trying to persuade a soul of his need, and the "sunstance" we are selling is a "rock of offense" to those who are perishing.
Second, the fact that worship is for Christians only is supported by Scripture. We can go into detail on that if you like.
Thirdly, without addressing the questionable ministries of Warren or Hybels, there is a difference between effectively communicating the gospel to the lost and changing the gospel in order to make the lost feel more comfortable. Sending out such questionnaires is not a good way to build a church, unless your goal is just to get more people in the seats. On that note, Warren and Hybels are successful, if in little else.
Purtitan Lad,
Marketing is what missionaries are trained to do in most seminaries. They might not call it that, but that's really what it is. Missionaries must learn to communicate and contextualize the gospel so they learn that culture. That is what Warren and Hybels did.
I agree that strictly speaking worship is for believers, but I do think that people can see our worship and be attracted to our God. Why is worship the only thing we say unbelievers can't do? Think about it...our children see us worship in church. We even get them to sing songs about Jesus and God and in essence to worship Him. Eventually, for some, this worship becomes real when they believe the gospel. I think this is what happens in some churches today. In fact I joined the choir of a local church before I even became a believer. It was my way of lurking in the church. I'm glad the pastor and the worship leader didn't tell me I couldn't sing in the choir.
Hybels and Warren haven't changed the gospel. Show me where they have. I think this really comes down to the fact that they aren't calvinists. I think it's time for calvinists and arminians to put down their weapons and get back to the business of proclaiming the gospel and showing love.
You said, "While these types of strategies may increase attendance in individual cases, it is clear that very little true conversion is taking place."
Answer the question for me then, to back up this unsupported assertion, but telling me what percentage of Rick Warren's membership is made up of new converts vs. the percentage that is made up of church transfers, or other previously regenerate members.
Then, just to show me how wrong I am and how right you are, compare that to Johnny Mac's church and show me how much better he's doing at evangelizing than RW.
Now, that's investigative reporting, and I think it would contribute to an informed conversation. Otherwise, you're doing little more than what I'm doing in these comments - just spouting off.
"Missionaries must learn to communicate and contextualize the gospel so they learn that culture. That is what Warren and Hybels did."
I haven't really meant to focus on these two minitries, but rather the entire movement as a whole. In any case, John, I must disagree. Warren and Hybels went way beyond "contextualizing" with these questionnaires. What Warren and Hybels did was to ask goats what kind of food sheep should eat. They are asking the "unchurched" what it would take to get them to church, and then promising to deliver. Take a look at the questionnaire again. I just don't see any other way to interpret it.
"I agree that strictly speaking worship is for believers, but I do think that people can see our worship and be attracted to our God."
There is a grain of truth to that. But we should not try to make our worship attractive to unbelievers. If so, then something is wrong with our worship. We must not ignore the supernatural element in conversion, without which Christianity will be unattractrive to the natural man.
"Hybels and Warren haven't changed the gospel. Show me where they have."
Again, my intent was not to focus on these two ministries, though as I stated earlier, they are the poster children for the failure of modern evangelicalism. I could show you tons of scriptural abuse in Warren's PDL book (a totally different message from the biblical gospel). For the record, I adamantly defends Warren's faith elsewhere on this blog. It's his methods and his message I call into question. Preaching on man's sinfulness, God's wrath, Christ's atonement, and a call to repentance and to forsake the works of the devil are the heart of the true gospel. The "church growth" gospel, however, deals with my self-esteem, my purpose, my plans, my promises, my felt needs, etc. Such messages are great for church growth, but do very little for kingdom growth.
If you want to see a gross mishandling of Scripture by Rick Warren, take a look at how he handles Psalm 2:4 in this article. I've read Psalm 2 many times, and I failed to find God's sense of humor in it.
As far as the Calvinism issues, that is another debate for another time. If it makes you feel better, I would lump the calvinist Robert Schuller in with the same error.
Rick,
You love strawmen don't you. Let me ask you. Do you really believe that the thousands who attend these megachurches are all born again believers? DO you really buy into the numbers floated about by church growth pundits? If they were all born again beleivers, the culture would look much different than it does.
It's time to ask, are we really drawing them to Christ, or are we stroking their sinful egos? James White said it best. What you draw them with is what you draw them to.
I would rather see 1 life truly changed than to see 1,000 people flock to an altar to repeat a prayer.
So you're pretty much telling me that you have no interest in substantiating your assertion? You have no interest in comparing how much Mac's church growth results from dipping fish out of other aquariums rather than direct evangelizing compare to Warren, Hybels, et al.?
Fair enough.
Rick,
Study after study has shown that America is becoming more secularized. (The "church growth" movement is failing to accomplish the very thing it sets out to do.) That has been substatiated. Very little conversion is taking place. Just look at the number of professing Christians who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marraige, etc.
If you wish to study the number of sheep in individual churches, be my guest.
Puritan Lad,
Warren didn't do anything that most believers do when they go out and do surveys. I remember going on mission trips and doing "survey work" where we would ask questions and then, perhaps, be able to share with them. Why is this questionnarie so wrong? He took that info and contextualized the gospel to that community. There is no cookie-cutter church, or shouldn't be. Did Paul compromise the gospel when he talked to a bunch of "goats" in Acts 17 by custom fitting the message to these philosophers? He even quoted a pagan poet, literally cutting and pasting a quote that was used in pagan culture and fitting into the Christian message. I see what Warren did as what Paul did in Acts 17.
You say "we should not try to make our worship attractive to unbelievers." So...are we to make it unattractive? I don't get this at all. I am a former pastor. When I was pastoring I thought it would be good to have a contemporary worship service. Well, I didn't do my homework. Most people in my country, backwoods community could care less about contemporary worship music...what they did love was bluegrass. I should have taylored a worship service to reach out to lost people using the music that they listened to. Would we go to China or Africa as missionaries and use bluegrass music? Same with Warren's community. He did his homework and reached a people group by utilizing demographics and surveys.
You say you didn't mean to focus on these two people, Warren and Hybels...but what I find is that most people who attack church growth methods always pull these two guys out of their hats! That's sad!
Warren is not perfect...I've read his PDL and PDC books. I don't see "tons of scriptural abuse." I wouldn't call Warren's handling of Psalm 2 as a gross mishandling either. He didn't even expound on it, but mentions the verse as something that God does. I think that Warren could have gone further with the Biblical evidence for the sense of humor of God. Just look at how God speaks through the prophets to the sinning Israelites and the hyperbole that he uses.
I agree.
What you fail to see is that those stats cover you too. I've not seen any stat that shows the success of "non-growth" churches as stemming the rising tide of secularism. Face it, bro., you're part of the problem, not the solution.
Unless of course you have the stats to show the vast success of Covenant Theologians and Calvinists at converting huge swaths of Christianity from their secularizing ways (or maybe even dribs & drabs). Barna and the Pew forum haven't shown me a single ministry segment that has achieved anything like success that Calvinistic Culture Warriors keep trumpeting.
Basically, you're sociologicl Chicken Littles, blind to the secularism you've already adopted and only critical of those you perceive to be "more secular" than yourself.
John,
The problem with the survey, as I have stated many times, is that it asked unbelievers to dictate how church should be run. Using Paul is a false dichotomy. Paul did not go to the philosophers and ask them "if I can make Christianity more attractive to you, will you come?" That is exactly what the survey does.
Regarding worship, you have missed the point. The purpse of worship is to worship God, not to attract anybody. Regarding Saddleback, this is Baal worship, not Jehovah Worship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBRgOz8kYDo
If you can't see that Warren's handling of Psalm 2:4 was gross, I don't know what else to say. (I agree that God has a sense of humor, but you won't find it in Psalm 2:4)
Rick,
You guys seemed set on turning this into a Calvinism/Arminianism debate. If so, I would be glad to oblige, but that isn't the issue here. I would point out that there hasn't been a revival on this planet in 300 years, and that revival was sparked by Calvinism. In any case, bringing the "secularism" into the church will not help solve it, but istead will spawn it. Revival will only come from God-centered biblical preaching, not the man-centered "therapy" gospel.
The survey asked open ended questions. It hardly dictated anything. Warren was on a fact finding mission...that's all! It was his way of reaching people.
You're right...Paul didn't ask them if he could make Christianity more attractive. He simply made it more attractive by not starting with the history of Israel and Jesus as the fulfillment of that history. To those phiolosphers that would have been totally meaningless. Instead he makes it more attractive by starting where they were...perhaps you could call this a "felt need."
The above link? It's hardly Baal worship! Seriously?? It may be corny and not my taste...but it's hardly pagan, evil, idolatrous false god worship. You remind me of the preacher I once met who told me that Rick Warren was a heretic! I almost dropped the enchilada I was about to put in my mouth.
And you're building a straw man of your own.
RW didn't ask, "How can I make Christianity more attractive?" He asked how to make the church-going experience less unattractive. Now, if you want to equate "Christianity" with church attendance, that's fine, just don't expect me to buy into it.
And yes, the purpose of worship is to worship God, something many lost people have a deeper appreciation and respect for tnan most fundies.
As for no revival in 300 years, you seem to have erred on your dates for Finney, Sunday, and Moody. Perhaps you missed those in your History of American Religion classes (assuming you took such). Or are you suggesting that Edwards or Spurgeon were the last great revivals?
And you are still missing an essential point or two:
Who is succeeding at stemming the tide of secularism? Show me where success is being achieved on anything more than a micro scale.
Second, you are guilty of "secularism" yourself. Secular pundits have blog posts, just like you. Secularists use the internet, just like you. Secularists send e-mails, just like you. I'm guessing you wear American style clothing just like secularists and listen to Western music (i.e. a chromatic scale of 13 half tones over an octave of 8 natural tones)rather than the style of music used in the Bible. Just guessing here. I doubt that your diet is substantially different than most secularists, that your hair style is distince from most Americans, or that your partcipation in the commerce of this world is necessarily distinct from your neighbors. Does your church have an architectural style reminiscent of Bible times or is is more a compromise with Western secular building codes and standards.
My guess is you use a secular calendar honoring pagan deities in the days of the week and months honoring its pagan Roman origin.
Personally, I think "secularization" is a weasel word you use to mean "anything someone else does that I don't like" such as ministry marketing.
Let's just say that the "worship" was fleshly and leave it at that.
Do you actively attend a local church?
Why not?
What is it that makes it difficult for you to attend?
If such a church existed that was not like this, would you be interested in attending?
If we start such a church, may we call you?
This is not what we should be asking unsaved people. We should be asking them if they have considered the eternal state of their souls. We should ask them if they know the holiness of God, and how we have offended Him with our sinfulness. We should then give a call to repentance (a rarity at altar calls these days). We are not to try to taylor the church toward unbelievers, but rather taylor unbelievers toward the church.
Finney? I was afraid you'd bring up that name. A false revival called the Second Great Awakening, out of which came such spiritual movements as Mormonism, Adventism, and Christian Science, just to name a few. I fear that the difference between us isn't our knowledge of Religious History, but rather our definition of "revival".
To answer your question, "Who is succeeding at stemming the tide of secularism?" The answer, "no one". (That should be obvious). We Puritans are too small in number at the present time to have much of an impact yet, though we are growing. The church growth movement, on the other hand, is embracing secularism in an attempt to be "relevant".
Again Rick, if you want to discuss Calvinism, you'll find appropriate posts from October 2006. That is not the issue here.
You said: "A false revival called the Second Great Awakening, out of which came such spiritual movements as Mormonism, Adventism, and Christian Science, just to name a few." I see your grasp of history reflects that of your sociology. Yes, millennarian movements did spring up in the 1800s. Did they all originate from GA2? Only in the same sense that the "Reagan Revolution" sprang from the Carter presidency, i.e. it was a reaction against the movement, not as an outgrowth of it.
Also, thank you for confessing to your own ineffectualness at implementing solutions to the "problem of secularism" that you've identified. Tell me again why we should listen to what you have to say?
"thank you for confessing to your own ineffectualness at implementing solutions to the "problem of secularism" that you've identified. Tell me again why we should listen to what you have to say?"
You don't have to listen to what I say, other than this is my blog, and that you post here with my permission ;)
But you should listen to what God has to say regarding how to battle secularism.
"For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17)
We'll never win a secular world with a secular church. We need to get the church back to God-center Bibical Theology and away from worldly pop-psychology.
By the way, Charles Finney was a Pelagian heretic. He flat out denied the doctrine of original sin, the atoning work of Christ, and taught jusfication by one's owm righteousness. You can read more about that here.
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
The entire second great awakening was bad? Interesting!
Never said that John, though you will hard pressed to find anything good from it. Maybe Nettleton's small meetings. In any case, the second Great Awakening can hardly be called a revival, unless you like cults.
You guys seem to love strawmen. "Church Marketing is bad". "Your Computer is Secular". "Everything is the Second Great Awakening was bad". etc.
The point of this post, and I stand by it, is that the purpose of the church and it's worship is to glorify God. What we have cannot be marketed to the unsaved without severely altering the product. Sadly, this is what we have done.
"The point of this post, and I stand by it, is that the purpose of the church and it's worship is to glorify God. What we have cannot be marketed to the unsaved without severely altering the product. Sadly, this is what we have done."
Um. When has it not been thus?
The church you are attending now is the product of marketing forces from the turn of the century onward. Do you use a hymnal? What kind of hymnal do you think they were using 400 years ago? Do you read an English Bible? Before Wm.Tyndale, there was barely and English language, let alone a Bible in the vernacular. The English Bible is a cultural artifact that is a response to changing market forces, i.e. there was consumer demand for such and Tyndale, Coverdale, et al. responded to it.
What do you think marketing is, if not responding to shifting demographics? Show me a time when the church was NOT influenced by the culture. You'll have to go at least some place before Acts 15 when the Jerusalem council capitulated to the infusion of Gentiles into the church and allowed them to worship pretty much as they pleased - uncircumcised, eating non-kosher meat, insensitive to high days on the Jewish calendar, etc. - with only a few proscriptions.
"Show me a time when the church was NOT influenced by the culture."
Whenever there has been revival, like the First Great Awakening. It is the church that should be doing the influencing, not vice versa.
Let me be clear, one more time. It is not "marketing" itself that is the problem. It is what we are marketing. Asking unbelievers what they want in a church is not a valid way to grow a church. Unbelievers are not consumers, they are blind.
Oh? The church should be influencing and not vice versa? How does that square with Acts 25?
You said in your original post:
"True revival will come by the Sovereign hand of God when His people begin to obey His Word regarding worship, evangelism, and preaching."
Maybe you need to get on the stick. Since Warren, Hybels, et al. are not "His people" because of their secularism and presumably you (and Johnny Mac and Piper) are then it's clear YOU GUYS are to blame. What are you doing wrong? Why isn't there revival if it's not because those of you that are His are screwing up?
And if you're not screwing up and you are doing everything right, then why no revival? You can't blame the unregenerate because they're not capable. You can't blame the apostate because they're irrelevant. That only leaves the faithful which is you, right? So what are you doing wrong?
What? No Finney???
Rick, You sound like an angry Arminian who is desperate to get your anti-calvinist plug in. Maybe you are upset because I won't bite and take this discussion in that direction. Like I said, there are places on this blog for such a discussion. Please reply to my October 2006 posts for this.
Where did I ever once say that Rick Warren and Bill Hybels were not GOd's People? What I said was exactly what you quoted. Why do you insists on putting words in my mouth?
The real question that we should be, which church glorifies God more? Which church is obeying the biblical commandment to "hold fast to sound doctrine"? In fact, the Bible says more about sound doctrine than it does about evangelism, but you only want to focus on the latter.
TO answer your question about what I'm doing, I'm only doing my small part to get the church to stop trying to be "relevant" and start being "holy". Once we reform the church, we can focus on the world.
Now do you have anything besides your own rants to write here. Like I asked before, please use the substance of this post for this discussion, or else respond to one of my Calvinism posts for that subject matter.
I left this once...but it didn't seem to post. Here goes again.
You did imply that the 2GA was bad when you said, "A false revival called the Second Great Awakening, out of which came such spiritual movements as Mormonism, Adventism, and Christian Science, just to name a few." Why call it "false" if you never said that?
You are building the strawmen by such statments above. What we have should and must be marketed to the saved or you and I would still be lost in our sin. I think this is what is called incarnating out the truth. Marketing to unbelievers has nothing to do with changing the gospel.
I think it's naive to think there has only been one great awakening. There is ample evidence to suggest there's been 3 or 4 and that there was good and bad with each. I would say that even with Calvin, as great as he was, had flaws which is evident with his heavy handed eccliesiology and burning people at the stake! There were pockets of revival even in the middle ages!
John,
I'm not sure what your objection is to my labeling the Second Great Awakening a False revival. It was an age of cults, it's star evangelist was a heretic, and there were very few true conversions with nearly zero cultural impact (Christian, that is.) Revival is not a "church" event. It is a national (or even multi-national) event where the culture itself is impacted fo Christ. While some love to prompt it up as a true revival, it clearly was not.
As far as your statement "Marketing to unbelievers has nothing to do with changing the gospel", how I wish that was true. The true gospel is very rare today, especially in megachurches who bow to the "felt needs" of their community.
To exhibit what I'm talking about, check out 1-888-NEED-HIM. Tell me. What do you think of this site?
Puritan Lad,
I think all ages are an age of cults and heretics. Again, there was good and bad with all of these Great Awakenings. Look at the early church. It didn't take long for false teaching to creep in...but there was also much good.
Conversion is in the heart and I don't think you can say there were very few true conversions. Your example of a heretical website is weak. There are many ways of communicating the gospel. I haven't looked at the entire website, but I didn't see any major red flags. Here's an example. What do you find wrong with this or the entire site?
So how do you turn toward God?
1. Admit your spiritual need. Admit you are a sinner.
2. Believe that Jesus Christ died for YOU on the cross.
3. Receive Jesus Christ into your heart and life, by choosing this relationship over your current life of sin and separation from Him.
4. Repent and be willing to turn from your sin.
Sounds pretty basic and orthodox to me.
You wouldn't make it very long as a missionary in another country because you can't get past the one paradigm you view things through. The message is eternal...the methods are always changing.
Puritan Lad,
Try this site out! I'm curious what you think of it!
http://www.mostimportantthing.org/
Rick,
I'll check it out tomorrow. However,
"The message is eternal...the methods are always changing.
"
I would disagree slightly, but the problem with the churhc growth movement is that the message has clearly changed. Ultimately, this is my main beef. We keep hearing over and over again that "we aren't changing the methods, just the message". Unfortunately the rhetoric doesn't match the reality.
Gone are they days of preaching on man’s sinfulness, God’s wrath on the wicked, the atoning work of Christ, or the need for repentance. Instead, we are inundated with a plethora of messages on how to build your self-esteem, how to be emotionally healthy, how to have better relationships, how to have better sex, etc. Instead of preaching the glory of God, holiness, and obedience, we are being taught sermons on how to find MY purpose, MY plan, or MY “best life now”. In short, the Biblical gospel has been replaced by baptized existentialism, and the message of the eternal hope of a changed life replaced by short-sighted psychological remedies for our temporal problems. So let us rid ourselves of the delusion that we are only changing the methods. The message has changed, and the church at large is the worse off for it.
Puritan Lad,
It wasn't Rick but me, John, who posted that last post.
This is your assestment of the situation, that is, that the message has clearly changed. This slaps in the face of almost every Christian church. The message has changed for some, but not for the majority! Almost every evangelical, protestant church that I've come into contact with proclaims the message. I'm afraid that for those of the more reformed mindset it seems to have changed...but it hasn't. It is your opinion or interpretation of the reality...but not the truth. Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and yes...should I utter the name, Billy Graham have done a tremendous amount of good for believers.
It is your distorted perception that gone are the days that people don't preach on sin, wickedness, atonement, and repentence. It just isn't done your way. Even the website that you sited as an example of heresy talked about sin and repentence.
I'm not denying that some go to far with the whole self-esteem thing...but I see Jesus offering hope to people who needed a boost to their self-esteem! God actually values people so much that he sends his Son...this is a boost big time! People need to hear that they are valuable to God! Yes...I agree that God is the ultimate, supreme purpose in life! But I also think that John 3:16 implies that there is value in people in the eyes of God.
Unfortuanately, some people, are making terrible accuasations against those who are really trying to reach the lost. We, as believers, have bigger fish to fry rather than Hybels and Warren. People on TBN give Christianity a bigger black eye then Warren ever could!
Seems a false dichotomy here.
Are you suggesting that a message of repentance from sin and escape from the wrath of God will not lead to better, "...self-esteem, how to be emotionally healthy, how to have better relationships, how to have better sex, etc."? Or do you believe that these beneficial effects can only be obtained through pop-psychology rather than repentance from dead works?
You said, "Instead of preaching the glory of God, holiness, and obedience, we are being taught sermons on how to find MY purpose, MY plan, or MY “best life now”."
Does that mean that focusing on God's glory, God's holiness, and obedience to his calling and election in our lives will NOT lead us to find our purpose in life? That with these things we are still cast adrift without discovering God's plan for us? That a life in conformity with the character, nature, and will of God is not going to result in our "best life now"?
I will concur with you that focusing on the results without focusing on the means to those results is deluded and misguided, but I'm not yet willing to say, as you suggest, that these things are evil in and of themselves, even when they come from the pulpit or printed page.
Oh, Billy Graham.
I'm glad you mentioned him. He's one whose message has definitely changed.
See BILLY GRAHAM SAYS JESUS ISNT THE ONLY WAY TO GOD
can you say heresy? (Oh, I know, I'm just a narrow minded Puritan with no use for pluralism.) I also read the Purpose Driven Life. Yes guys, the message has changed.
"People on TBN give Christianity a bigger black eye then Warren ever could!"
No argument here.
Rick, that is exactly what I'm saying. Like it or not, there is a cross to carry in the Christian Faith. More often than not, life gets HARDER as a Christian. Becoming a Christian can cost you your job, hurt your relationships, and ruin your marriage. Yes, Rick, that's reality, but that's not a message that people want to hear, so we tickle their ears with lies about "your best life now". That will get them into church, but will never confront them with their sinfulness or of GOd's Judgment. It will never lead to repentance (and the Purpose Driven Life certainly doesn't.)
As far as self esteem, the Bible knows nothing about it. It is an invention of Pop-Psychology (Necromancer William James). A true covert will not feel "self-esteem", but will be like Job "I abhor myself and repent in the dust and ashes", Isaiah "Woe is me, for I am undone", and Paul "I know that in my flesh there dwells no good thing...O wretched man that I am. Who will save me from the body of death?"
Self-esteem??? You're kidding, right???
For real preaching, the kind that bring revival, check out Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God". I'll guarantee you that you won't hear that at Saddleback or Willow Creek.
Yes, the message has changed.
Self esteem -
So why didn't you keep right on quoting Paul?
"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
If that doesn't give us a boost, what does? You go ahead and focus on the Law and Sin and Death. Have fun with that. When speaking to people who are already saved, I'll go ahead and speak of Grace and Rigtiousness and Life.
Rick,
Is there some self-esteem is that passage? I must have missed it. Help me out.
Boost, yes. Self-esteem, no.
AS far as the focus on "law, sin, and death", that is necessary in order to the sinner to see his need for "Grace and Rigtiousness and Life". (Besides, how do you define Righteousness without the Law)?
If we haven't made the sinner aware of his sin, and that the wrath of God abides on him already, we have not evangelized? What are they being "saved" from? Why should they be "saved"?
I'm sorry. I thought I was talking with someone who knew the Bible. When you ask, "Besides, how do you define Righteousness without the Law?" you display an ignorance too great for me to tackle in this blog.
Clearly Romans 10, 2 Corinthians 3, Jeremiah 31, Galatians 3, and many others are not part of your scriptural repertoire.
At the very least, I would suggest a study of the Sermon on the Mount and see what it means to "fulfill" the Law - it isn't just "keeping" it as the Pharisees did, but living it to the full, going above and beyond, to a righteousness that makes the law irrelevant. Of what need is a law against committing adultery to a man who keeps his heart from lust? Do we not see the superfluity of a law against murder for the man who is never angry without cause?
I might suggest, since you've clearly not given yourself to reading the Bible, that you at least pick up Jonathan Flavel's "The Keeping of the Heart" and see what a righteousness without the law looks like.
Puritan Lad,
Go watch a classic Billy Graham crusade sermon. They're on all the time! He preaches an orthodox message. Graham has obviously softened somewhat, but I attribute that to his age. I've seen that video and read some stuff about Graham before. I even wrote the Billy Graham organization and they assured me Graham believes in the exclusivity of Christ.
How has the message changed in PDL? That's your read of it, not mine! Warren is a consitent evangelical who stresses the cross of Christ, repentence, forgiveness, etc... You can find his book in Costco or Sams, or Walmart...what a great witness that is when a lost person can pick up that book and hear the gospel.
What Rick Warren does, I'm convinced of, is apologetics on tv. When he is on Larry King or Fox News he is being an apologist and you don't have to be obnoxious to do that. Edwards was a great man, but his style was for his day...you need to be able to see that.
I agree that one needs to feel in their sould a sense of sin and guilt...but I also think people need to hear that God loves them and values them. Isn't that the story of the lost coin, sheep, and son?
"I'm sorry. I thought I was talking with someone who knew the Bible. When you ask, "Besides, how do you define Righteousness without the Law?" you display an ignorance too great for me to tackle in this blog."
I must say that I'm pleased to have a Bible Scholar like you taking the time to interact with me. Please take the time to tackle it Rick. This ignorant Puritan is willing to learn. How do you define Righteousness without the law? My bible defines sin as the transgression of the law. How does your define it?
I have done a study of the Sermon on the Mount, and have read Flavel. I can see no place where the law is irrelevant. Again, I am willing to learn.
John,
I love classic Billy Graham. Unfortunately, that Billy seems to have died in the early 70's. I know he is an American folk hero, but what you saw in the video was his own words. I didn't make them up.
Certainly if you watched classic Billy and this newer one, you can see that his message has definitely changed.
Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of PDL with me at the present time. I'll follow through. But "repentance" in the PDL? I'm not sure the word even appears in their. If it does, I certainly overlooked it.
Let's be clear. "I" don't define righteousness apart from the Law, the Bible does that.
Let's start with Jeremiah 31 becuase it's simplest:
33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Jeremiah tells of a day (that the author of Hebrews declares to have already come) when the law ceases to be an external set of learned precepts and instead becomes an inward compulsion of the natural character of a person. We call this "walking in the Spirit" in Romas 8. One is not walking after the Law to establish one's own righteousness as the Pharisees did, but instead walking in the indwelling and empowering of God as a natual impulse, i.e. those who walk after the spirit stop fulfilling the lusts of the flesh.
Therefore, according to Jeremiah, it is no longer necessary to teach obedience to the Law, becuase it's part of the inward man. And so the writer of Hebrews says, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."
So it is not I that have established a righteousness without the law, but it was Jesus Christ who did that for us. You might brush up on Hebrews 10 for a look at how he accomplished this. Nor have I made the Law irrelevant, but the blood of Christ did that for us - Romans explains that in the first 8 chapters. The law served it's purpose, but once we belong to Christ, it's about as authoritative as a dead husband to a widow (Romans 7).
I will put my "what???" in their inward parts?
I agree that we cannot keep the law in our own self righteousness. Nonetheless, the moral law is the rule of life for believers "until heaven and earth pass away", not to earn our salvation, but because we are saved. The blood of Christ did not make the law irrelevant. He did not come to annul the law, but to fulfill it.
But the law is a mirror of our own sinfulness, and thus should be preached to the lost in order to convict, and thus point to Christ. Without the law, the sinner has no need of a Saviour.
BTW: You really don't believe that the law is irrelevant either. Rather, I would guess that you would pick and choose which parts are still relevant.
"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." (Psalms 119:160)
Puritan Lad,
I don't recall how many times the word "repentance" is used, but I'm sure that the idea is. Warren is always stressing this aspect in the pulpit and in other ways. A book like PDL may reach a segment of the population like "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God" could never. I love the sermon...it's a classic! But people are different and you have to use different ways of reaching them. What's interesting to me, if I remember correctly, this sermon of Edwards wasn't typical of his style.
The Law is about as relevant as a dead husband's authority over his widow (Romans 7)
The Law is about as relevant as a schoolteacher's rules over a pupil after graduation (Galatians 3)
When one's righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, where is there room for the law?
Rick,
You are correct in the circumcision, animal sacrifice, Jewish dietary laws (which is what Paul chastizing the Pharisees for in Galatians 3) are dead to us, not because of their irrelevance, but because of the New Covenant. This has no bearing on the moral law, which I have already shown to is to last forever.
As to your question about our righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees, I ask again, what is righteousness? How is it defined apart from the law? We have to have a clear definition first.
When Paul exhorted the church to "flee sexual immorality", what exactly did he expect them to flee from? He commands this over a dozen times in the New Testament, yet never defines sexual immorality? What is this Rick? Without the law (Leviticus 18), Paul commandments are empty. This is why he writes "What then, shall we sin because we are under grace and not under the law? God forbid!!!" He then explain how he would not know sin, except by the law. Therefore, the law is hardly irrelevant, but is the rule of life for the believer.
For more, see Dispensationalism and the Law
John,
Does a book like PDL really reach people for conversion? Tens of millions have read it, and even liked it, but are they being converted by it? That's where I have my doubts, as this, at best, is a watered down gospel (if the gospel is even presented in this book).
You alledge that we need a clear definition of righteousness and I believe we already have that. Matthew 5-7, Hebrews 1, Romans 8:1-2. But then if you cannot see that, then further discussion will be fruitless.
Simply put, righteousnes apart from the law is defined in the person of Jesus Christ.
And then you betray further ignorance by asserting that sexual immorality would not be known apart from the law, ignoring that the same Paul you cite to buttress your position also said that when the Gentiles do the things that are contained in the Law, even though it was not given to them, that they both reflect the law of God written in their hearts and become a law unto themselves.
Puritan Lad,
You simply cannot make an assertion like that! How many have been converted because of PDL?? Who knows! You keep saying it is a water down gospel...I say it is a contextual piece for this period. At the very least it provides a witness to millions of people. Here's the purpose driven life website. http://www.purposedrivenlife.com/en-US/Home/home.htm Click on "What does it mean to be a Christian" I think this is a fine presentation of the gospel. It's ludicrous to say that PDL or RW presents a watered down gospel!
We've been talking about Warren...here's a video of Bill Hybels presenting the gospel!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz9OylwjFK8
John,
I've made no assertions. God can use even the worst presentation of the gospel to convert. I've simply asked a question that few want to ask. What the PDL is, is a "gospel" without addressing sin, judgment, or repentance. Such a gospel, however, popular, is not "contextualizing". It is no gospel at all.
If one has not repented, he is not saved.
And that is your opinion! You have presented several websites for me to visit, yet you haven't commented on one that I have sent! (You really think Warren's video gospel presentation isn't worthy of your approval?)This seems to be a very one-sided conversation! You seem to think that your way of understanding is the only way of understanding! Good luck with all that! You have maligned men of God and strategies for reaching the lost! That is sad and unfortuanate and reflects the one paradigm you view everything through!
What's my opinion? Can you be saved without repentance?
I will visit your sites, when I have the ability and time to do so. At this time, I do not.
And Warren would agree! But somehow I feel you won't believe me! Oh well!
I look forward to your critique of the websites I've posted!
John,
The Most Important Thing site is much better than the 888-Need-Him Site. However, I must say that the gospel presentation is still incomplete. Maybe that is an unfair assessment, seeing as how I didn't explore the entire site. But I did spend quite a bit it time on it.
First of all, a minor point, What is the most impportant thing? I can assume it's Christ by the content of the site, but the question is never directly answered.
But even more so, some serious questions are never answered, at least directly. Why should a person believe in God? The site says, "Not believing in God is the worst mistake anyone can make. It's sad when people turn their backs on God in a terrible situation, because they miss out on the most wonderful thing in life: feeling God wrap His arms around you and give you comfort and peace in spite of the horrible thing that is happening."
There is some truth to that, but what do you have to offer to sinner who isn't facing a terrible situation? What about the sinner who is happy, has all the money he needs, has all the friends he wants, and is living an all around good life. The site goes on to state, "The only real uncertainty is whether you want to live the kind of life Jesus lived -- or whether you'd rather stick with the lousy mess you've been living." Again, a grain of truth, but why is the person's life to be considered a mess. Contrary to the idea being pushed today's evangelism, not all sinners are down, distraught, miserable people. In fact, the majority of sinners in America today are quite satisified with their life. Why should they run to Christ? While our modern evangelism tends to focus on the drunk in the homeless shelter (and rightly so), we tend to ignore the drunk in the country club. The promise of a better life on earth does nothing for those whose life is already pretty good (not to mention that becoming a Christian can make one's temporal life a mess as well). That's why we are commanded to deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and follow him. Self-denial is not the message that people want to hear today (try to "market" that one.) Yet on this point, Jesus was most adamant, stating that whosoever doesn't do this "cannot be my disciple".
So why should we turn to Christ? The answer is simple and direct. It is Christ alone who can free us from sins, enabling us to repent. Failure to do so will result in our being in Hell for eternity. (Why can't we say that anymore? I know, "contextualizing" for the community). I like the method that Paul used better. "Therefore, knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men".
Again, I haven't read everything on this site, so I'm open to correction, but I didn't run across any mention of man's sinfulness, God's judgment, Or a call to repent. That's my beef with the modern "gospel". Without these things, you have not evangelized, and the soul has not converted.
Sorry to be "nitpicky", but indeed, the message has changed.
I'll check out the video later. In the meantime, let me know what you think of my gospel presentation.
A Call To The Unbeliever
Elements of the True Gospel
Puritan Lad,
If you click on the CROSS presentation you will see a more complete presentation. The Most Important Thing website is a site where hundreds of people put their personal testimony online and share it with people. If you keep hitting the refresh button you'll see a new name pop up everytime or you can enter a name if someone invites you to the site. Yeah...you need to explore it a little more. Here is the CROSS presentation. There are also other articles about the Christian life and walk.
CROSS
You can know God loves you because of the cross. The word CROSS will help you discover how you can have eternal life.
The C in the cross is for CHRIST
Christ, the Son of God,
died on the cross.
The Bible says, "But God demonstrates his own love for us; While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8)
There are three things we need
to remember about Christ:
First, the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is God. Jesus forgave sins, healed the sick, raised the dead, received worship and after he died on the cross, he rose again just as he promised.
Second, Jesus was sinless. The angel Gabriel told Mary that the Holy One to be born would be called the Son of God. On one occasion Jesus asked the religious leaders if they could prove him guilty of sin. They could not. Jesus was sinless all the days of his life.
Third, Jesus died on the cross.
The R in the Cross is for REASON
Why did Jesus die on the cross?
The reason Christ died is for sin.
"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous (that was Jesus) for the unrighteous (that was us) to bring you to God. For all have sinned and have fallen short of God's glory."
(1 Peter 3:18a; Romans 3:23)
The O in the Cross is for OUTCOME
The Bible, our conscience, and the Law of God (Ten Commandments) testify we have fallen short of God's standard. All are guilty before God.
The outcome of sin is death.
The Bible says,
"For the wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23a)
Wages are what we earn. Wages are what we deserve. If someone hired you to work one day for $100, at the end of the day, he would owe you $100. That is what you earned and that is what you deserve. The outcome or wages of our sin is death. This is bad news.
The S in the Cross is for SUBSTITUTE
Jesus was our substitute on the cross. Jesus' sacrifice displays God's loving mercy and his righteous justice as no other action could.
"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
(2 Corinthians 5:21)
Jesus paid the sin-debt that we could not pay. God then raised him from the dead to demonstrate that the debt was paid and that Jesus is exalted as Lord over all.
Suppose you received your credit card bill and it was so large you could not pay it. Suppose your creditors took you to court and the judge found you guilty and sentenced you to prison until the debt was paid. How is the debt going to be paid while you sit in jail?
Then, just when all seems hopeless, a stranger walks up and asks the judge if he could pay your debt. The judge lets him pay and you go free. How would you feel about this person who paid your debt?
When Christ became the substitute for sin, he satisfied the righteousness and justice of God and demonstrated the love and mercy of God. Christ's resurrection displays the power of his Lordship, Jesus offers what he has done as a gift from God. how do you feel about Jesus Christ in light of what he has done? This gift, like any gift, must be received. That brings us to the last S in CROSS.
The last S in the Cross is for SALVATION
Because Jesus is our substitute, he is the only one who can offer salvation. Salvation includes forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life.
But how is this possible?
To have forgiveness and eternal life you must believe and receive.
To believe, the Bible says, "That if you confess with your mouth, that "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9). To confess Jesus as Lord means you turn from sin (repent) and surrender control of your life to Jesus. To believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead means you are trusting in all that Jesus Christ is and has done for you.
To receive Christ by faith is simply trusting Christ alone for salvation. The Bible says, "...To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12).
Post a Comment