Andy Stanley Is Mistaken, Part 2
Jun 23
So now that I laid the groundwork for my disagreements in the last post, I’ll get into the disagreements themselves.
In summary, I believe the best way to fulfill the Great Commission isn’t by doing all you can to get the unchurched to show up at church, but rather to get the churched to go out to the unchurched.
Andy Stanley says that if your church really is passionate about the Great Commission, everything at your church will be centered around making the unchurched feel at home, rather than making the churched feel at home. While I agree with him that church should not be about keeping churched people happy–and that this is what so many churches do–it is equally wrong to make everything about church for the unchurched.
That would be like saying that we are trying to attract as many children into our home as possible who need adoption, but once they get here, we don’t care about them any longer, nor do we care if they feel at home or not. We’re just constantly looking for more children to adopt, so we’re going to make our family as appealing as we can to outside children who have yet to be adopted.
This is the problem I see with churches like Andy Stanley’s at North Point or Bill Hybel’s at Willow Creek. In the end, you really can’t be like that. (And I’m guessing their churches in reality aren’t.) You’ve got to acknowledge that we’re not about attracting seekers to Christ, but making disciples of Christ. Part of this process is reaching the lost, obviously.
Yet I question how much these “seekers” really are seeking after God, if it requires so much effort and money to get them into our doors. We have moved from trying to reach the lost into trying to attract the lost. What I mean is this: I’m afraid what “seekers” are really seeking after is solutions to the problems in their lives, not God himself. So these churches have determined that they will do all they can and spend all the money they can to convince people that they need to come to church to find the answers to their problems. As a result, coming to Jesus becomes a selfish thing.
Now, let’s be honest. When anyone comes to Christ, it’s because of our need. And for sure, that’s not a wrong thing–it’s a good thing! But if I’m coming to Christ because I want to have a happier marriage or get my finances in order, there’s a problem. Because in real life, coming to Christ may mean we may be required to give away all of our money, or lose a spouse who refuses to believe in Christ and thinks we’ve lost our mind.
As a result, I’m afraid that seeker-driven churches often present a false picture of the Christian life. Most of the time, these churches have attractive, affluent, super-happy, perfect family, American-dream people leading their services, who then tell the seekers that everything they’re looking for can be found in Christ. Technically, that’s correct, but the way the seeker is processing it in their minds…well, not so much.
The message they hear is that because of sin, we’ve messed up our lives. Come to Jesus, and He’ll forgive you of your sin. If you live as a Christian should, your life will be straightened out again in time. Yet every example I see in Scripture, people who come to Jesus are just messed up from that point on. It’s as if they already had a decent life put together, but Jesus rocked their world and turned it upside-down. Now, they’re persecuted, destitute, sacrificing everything, living as if this life on earth doesn’t really matter to them at all–it’s all devoted to Christ and reconciling the world to Him. Now that’s a disciple.
Now, if our church is simply devoted to getting seekers to accept Christ, and then we move on to find more seekers to accept Christ…how do we expect those who have accepted Christ to move to such a place? I believe this can only happen through intentional discipleship.
Here’s a dream of mine: A church full of Christians who have willfully surrendered to Christ and His teachings so much that they are willing to obey Him by reaching out to their neighbors, co-workers, friends, and family. These people come together every week to be equipped, so that they can be sent out yet again. That church, rather than trying to amass as many people (even unchurched people) to attend and become a mega-church, instead is trying to pump out as many disciplers/leaders as possible to start new ventures for Christ. They hope that more and more churches can be started in their area, and rather than keeping all the best people for themselves, they are sending out their best people. As a result, instead of one star-pastor preaching to 1,000 lost people every Sunday, there are thousands of disciple-makers preaching to 10’s of 1,000s of people every single day of the week. And there are thousands of churches reaching 100’s of 1,000s of people–and it exponentially grows.
This can only happen when the church stops forcing everything to go through its own process in order to grow itself, and frees people to do what Christ commanded us to do out there. We can only be free to do so, if we have been encouraged and equipped by our leaders to do so.
Right now, it seems as if you can only reach seekers if you’re super-savvy, hip, attractive, intelligent, and an extremely-gifted speaker. What about Jesus’ disciples who were fishermen? Couldn’t they share the gospel too? Why do we feel like we have to spend so much money to reach the lost? Why do we feel like we have to hire super-talented staff to reach the lost? Doesn’t this make the average guy feel inadequate for such tasks? We average folk learn that our job in the process is simply to invite people to church, and then let the professionals take over.
As a matter of fact, I’m sure that plenty of churches would be happy with their congregations if all they did was give 10% and continually be bringing new people into their doors. That’s all we ask of people. Yet, are we really making them disciples? Is this what Jesus wants for them? Sure, as long as they give 10% we’ll always have the resources to expand our church. And if they keep inviting people, our church will continue to expand. And then we can tell everyone how much we are fulfilling the Great Commission by making so many disciples…except…what are we really doing?
Are we just creating services that appeal to the lost, and honestly, to the average church-goer? I have to admit, as a life-time church-goer, I’d love it if my church had state-of-the-art equipment, comfortable seating, entertaining worship services, engaging sermons, the best music, drama, excellent children’s ministries, a brand-new facility, friendly greeters, etc etc etc. And I’d love it if all Jesus asked me to do was to give my money to my church, so that they can reach the lost, and I could enjoy these things for myself at the same time!
It’s almost as if we are convinced that having the right talent, a streamlined process, a great facility, and a vision/mission similar to a corporation…and we’ve got the recipe for success. The only thing left is to get people to buy into it, and then for them to invest in it. The question is…why are we trusting in these things so much? I’m afraid we start to lose trust in the Holy Spirit and the incredible power of people actually living out the Gospel. Don’t you think that would be appealing to seekers? Seeing Christians actually genuinely live out their faith with unlimited love?
A.W. Tozer said something to this effect: If the Holy Spirit were removed from our churches today, 95% of what we do would continue to go on as if nothing happened, and no one would notice the difference.
Wow. And then he said: If the Holy Spirit would have been removed from the New Testament church, 95% of what they did would have fallen apart, and everyone would have noticed the difference.
For me, church shouldn’t be about attracting unchurched people. It also shouldn’t be about keeping churched people. It should simply be about honoring and exalting Christ, and making disciples. If you do that, you probably won’t keep everyone who’s already in your church. You’ll lose some. But those who are eager to be disciples will be reaching the unchurched, and together we will be doing it all for the glory of God. Not for our own church.
I could say a lot more, but you know that already. I’m sure I’ll follow up on future posts. But to conclude:
It makes more sense to me that church is about infusing disciples who are determined to reach other people for Christ. Rather than feeling like reaching the lost means to do and spend everything to get them within the four walls of our church, why don’t we start pushing people who already attend to take it out there? Why don’t we stop making that an option, and mandate it like Jesus did? Why don’t we make that everything our church is about? Then we’ll see how many of the thousands of people we feel we’ve already reached “for Christ” (cuz they’re sitting in our seats every Sunday) are really serious about this Jesus thing. Are these people we’ve “reached” really worthy of calling our ministry a success?
It’s time church leaders stop making their local church the center of everything. Stop trying to grow a mega-church that has the applause of your peers. Start investing into the lives of those eager to be Christ’s disciples. You might only have 3 in your congregation of 50, or 20 in your congregation of 500. If that’s the case, quit feeling like you need to grow your church of 500 to 1,000. Instead, realize that you’ve got 480 people who are already coming to your church that don’t get it. I believe that if you invest in the 20 who do, and keep spreading the seed for others who will be shaken up by the Holy Spirit, who knows all that can happen for the kingdom of God??
I totally agree with the last paragraph, but I disagree with a lot of everything else. If these churches that are seeker-friendly are trying to attract people who don’t know anything about Jesus, then those people don’t know (at first anyway) that Jesus is about more than having a happy marriage or better finances, etc. They aren’t going to learn about truly following Jesus until someone tells them. I think your method is to disciple Christians until they feel comfortable and qualified to tell others about Jesus outside of a church setting, while apparently Andy Stanley’s method is to make church attractive and non-threatening enough so that his congregants feel comfortable inviting others to church where, one would hope, they will be told what it REALLY means to follow Jesus.
Both methods, if done properly, are probably successful. I know that if you have a seeker-friendly church there is the strong likelihood the church will function more as a social organization than a place to follow Jesus. There are probably drawbacks to your disciple-making method as well. Why can’t we have some of both? I think individual personalities must play a role in some of this as well. Some people are naturally inclined to be more outgoing and some less outgoing. Obviously shy people don’t get a free pass on evangelism, but it’s good to try to work with a person’s natural tendencies instead of trying to constantly make them work against how they are uniquely wired.
I think most of us feel like our natural tendencies are to not evangelize. That being said, you are right that some of us are more extroverted than others. My main beef is that everyone is enamored with churches like Willow Creek or North Point because they think churches like this must be so effective, since they’re reaching so many people. I’m questioning how well these churches are really making disciples for Christ. Are they really much better than anything else? The average church doesn’t have the money, resources, or talent of these churches. Why do church leaders feel like they need all those things to effectively reach the lost? Something feels wrong about that picture to me.
I like your thinking Mr. Falk. Perhaps we (hybels and Stanley) are championing and propogating white middle class culture rather than biblical Christianity. And perhaps when we replace the miraculous with a business strategy we close ourselves off from the power of the holy spirit. Thanks for speaking to these issues.
Hey Tim! Means a lot that you appreciated this. I hope you and Summer are doing well. How is the church/ministry going? I’d love to hear about it.
Just so you know, anytime anyone says anything positive about the “former youth pastor, Tim” at St. Mark, I assume they are talking about me. If it’s something negative, I assume it is you. Am I right about this?
It seems you have put a lot of thought into this topic, but please forgive me, while you may have personally experienced the black-and-white of seeker vs. discipleship, I see it as much more of a grey area.
In my experience from churches I have attended, pastors and leadership have striven for discipleship, in creed, motto, mission statement, and even practice. However, I’ve noticed that it’s the complacency of the individual church-goer (or congregation as a whole) which tends to stifle the drive and passion of a church. While leadership has every intention of keeping their church Great Commission oriented, they are forced to lean towards being more seeker friendly, if only to indoctrinate more seekers with discipleship values. Just like Audra said, there can be a mixture of both, and it usually ends up in an ebb and flow pattern. One or the other will sometimes win out, but God has a purpose for all different types of churches, and it may not be for us to know the reasons why.
Like you said, everyone has their own opinions, and this is just the way I’ve seen and experienced these things.
Hey, Aaron. Glad to hear from you again! How are things going?
You are right that the complacency of the average church-goer is extremely high. I wonder, have we stopped to consider why that is? My concern is that I’m afraid church leaders are gearing their worship services to cater to these people (who will continue to be largely ineffective for the kingdom), rather than truly pushing us forward and using the time we have together more wisely and gearing it for those who are willing to go to the next level. (I don’t think all pastors are catering to the complacent church-goer, but quite a number of these newer “models” of church might just be doing this more than we realize.) This doesn’t mean that I think we should have to go super “deep,” as to leave those out who are just starting on the journey. Rather, I think it’s possible to gear our worship gatherings toward those who are ready to take the next step–whatever that may be the first step or the 100th. Let’s leave the rest to wallow or fade away. After all, as leaders, we can’t force anyone to go with us. If they are unwilling to take the challenge, that’s their choice. As leaders, I think we should see the crowd much as Jesus did–it can come and go, and we don’t really care all that much. Unfortunately, I think church leaders put way too much of their energy, effort, time, and money into appealing to, maintaining and expanding the crowd. After all, in today’s world, a church leader is considered successful by his peers the larger crowd he can amass. As a church leader, I want to spend most of my time into people who are truly seeking God–even if they’re not Christians yet. But those who are complacent, as you have indicated (which I fear is the vast majority of Christians in the US)–I am afraid so much of our time, money, and resources are being spent on people who just refuse to continue following Jesus past simply going to church and throwing a few bucks in the plate.
You definitely threw in some things that Andy Stanley doesn’t believe or teach.
Keep in mind, their evangelism strategy is Invest & Invite. Invest means investing in the lives of unchurched people, outside of church, and then eventually inviting them to church. Maybe you lead them to Christ before inviting them, maybe you invite them and then they are lead, either way it’s both/and, not either/or. I think both/and is good.
Also, I think any church should be loaded with talent, because we’re created in God’s image and gifted through his Holy Spirit. The larger the church, the more talent, simply because there are more Christians. Nothing wrong with that.
Thanks, Nick. I’m sure you’re right. Surely I’ve inadvertently threw in some stuff by inference, and I’ve misunderstood at some level–I’m basing most of this post off of a recent sermon I heard by Andy Stanley. The sermon can be found here: http://mediasuite.316networks.com/player.php?p=hhaclzik
(It’s Part 23 of Monday night.)
Although I appreciate Andy Stanley’s heart and ultimate goal to see the unchurched become believers in Christ, I personally think that he’s mistaken that if a church is going to be all about the Great Commission, it must be all about attracting the unchurched. In other words, I think the mistake is in elevating this paradigm of attracting the unchurched as a more effective way of making disciples (which is what the Great Commission is really all about–not just getting people to come to church and make a profession of faith).
Instead, I propose we look at how many leaders our local churches are raising up and sending out to new communities or ventures, instead of how many unchurched people are now church-goers to our church and make a profession of faith. The kingdom of God is much bigger than the growth of our local church. Our picture should be much bigger than that. When does a local church just become bloated?
Personally, I would tend to believe that Andy’s church really does gear itself to more than just trying to convert people, but also to disciple them, regardless of what he says. I just can’t see any way around doing that. But I do think we need to stop elevating certain churches who seem so professional and successful. We could learn quite a bit by studying some churches who are much smaller, have much less talent, and yet are able to carry out the Great Commission extraordinarily. Instead, we tend to study and emulate churches we deem to have “arrived” when it comes to how well they pull off a produced worship gathering and a system for becoming a megachurch. I just don’t see Jesus or the Apostle Paul being as proud about that as the American Church is.
Hey Tim,
I watched Andy’s talk live on the website that night. I think you’re right, and his church does far more discipleship than we typically notice from the outside. I know this well, because one of our best leaders came to Christ and grew as a disciple at North Point for a few years before moving here.
My hunch is, he believes that Christians, and churches, inevitably lean one way or the other (reach unchurched or disciple the churched). I think, based on Luke 15, he believes God leans toward the lost, somewhat at the expense of the found but in reality a church that really cares about lost people, will probably do a better job of both (discipling Christians and reaching lost) than a church that cares more about discipling Christians. Does that make sense?
I think he would say that focusing on reaching lost people helps keep everything in alignment. Clearly you can drop the ball some in other areas, but keeping the Great Commission front and center is probably the best way to stay focused.
Hey Nick, I agree with you and Andy Stanley about how churches need to be about reaching the lost instead of trying to keep those we already have, which is why before I went into why I don’t think his model of church is really as great as everyone thinks, I made it clear in previous posts that our disagreements are merely in method, which may seem large to some, but in my mind are much smaller than disagreements in message. I am extremely grateful for people like Andy Stanley who are trying different methods, but not dabbling with different messages. In the end, Andy Stanley and I stand united in the Gospel, and that’s the important thing to me.
I also think that if Andy and I were on staff together, as long as we continued to respect one another, both of us would be refined by the other, even though he has been much more successful in many ways than I’ll ever be. He is big on getting the organization where it needs to be–I tend to de-emphasize that, probably too much. As I stated before, my opinions on methods have changed in the past, and will continue to change. Who knows, maybe one day I’ll agree with Stanley’s methods…But I refuse to change my opinion on the Gospel, and I’m thankful that Andy Stanley, Bill Hybels, etc have that same conviction!
I was googling Andy Stanley about something and i got to see this article. I think the title of the article really tells me and describe me who you are as a preacher and a person. Unbelievable. I think you should spend more of time worrying about other people and your congregation other than about telling everybody that Andy Stanley is wrong. My life literally has been changed because of his teachings. You should less worry about what other people are doing and get yourself together mate. You are like the “righteous” son in the prodigal son parable.
I think if I’m willing to say someone else is wrong, I should be able to accept others saying I’m wrong. I’m fine with that–thank you for your thoughts. By the way, were you able to read my previous post? http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/553
That might help you better understand what this post is all about. To be clear, my point in this post is to challenge church leaders to stop drooling over the “success” of church superstars, and to quit assuming that their success means that their methods are better (or biblical). This is not so much about Andy Stanley, as it is about a questionable mindset in the modern American church.
Here are the sad facts about Andy’s churches. In his effort to include and attract non belivers, he has become an atlanta version of joel olsteen. The gospel isn’t preached there, the non believer is led to believe that being good is what its about, thinking positive, and that “only great” things happen to those that believe. This is only what is taught. This flock wouldn’t survive the first hint of persecution. Not to mention, having met many many followers of this church, they don’t even know the bare basics of the christian faith the think they adhere too. I spent many many sundays in the church waiting for a scripture to be read, but it sadly didn’t come. We in atlanta know what his churches are for the most part, sunday bar scenes minus the alcohol. Andy is a great speaker, if only he would preach the gospel. Sadly for perhaps his ego, his church would be probably 1, not 4 and 1/8 the size, but oh how powerful it would be.
Just attended my third service at NPCC. The above post is totally false. Clear presentation of the gospel given and an invitation, too. Now, invitation means exactly that…not 6 stanzas of Just as I Am and an alter call. Absolutley no hint of a Joel Osteen prosperity gospel. Sad to see this posted here.
Steve, I believe you are right. With all of my disagreements about Andy Stanley, I do believe that he still preaches the Gospel, and for that I am most grateful. That’s why I wrote the previous blog entry http://www.timfalk.com/blog/archives/553 before writing this one. That is what’s most important.
Tim, the problem I have with this blog is that you titled it: “Andy Stanley Is Mistaken.” That is a pretty big swipe at a pastor whom, after reading your blog, you really don’t think he is mistaken about the MAJOR things–like the message of the Gospel–you just disagree with his “methods” of doing church. Really? NPCC reaches thousands of people and many of them have come to the knowledge of faith in Jesus through that ministry. I recall Paul in Phillipians 1 discussing with the believers at Philippi the “methodology” of how Christ was preached, He went on to say, “What does it matter? The important thing is that Christ is preached.” So, brother, I say to you, what does it matter if Andy does church differently then you? You have already admitted your stand beside him on the Gospel message! Is it necessary to then blog your differences over how you do church and say he is wrong? “What does it matter?”
Steve
Of course, the title is meant to be provocative. The reason why it matters to me is because it seems to me that so many leaders are envious of the “success” of Andy Stanley that they buy into the philosophy and methods without considering if they are worthy of emulating. They see the large numbers you point out, and assume it must be “working.” We have become a results-oriented church culture that craves the “mega” and “professional.”
I think if Jesus doesn’t return soon, one day people will look back at this time in church history and feel embarrassed over what we praise today in America as great/successful churches. For a number of reasons, I think that instead of trying to become more like Stanley’s church, we might ought to look at the persecuted church as a better model for making committed disciples of Christ.
Tim…again, It didn’t matter to Paul. It shouldn’t matter to you…unless, all you really want is pumped up replies to your blog…which then, being provocative, really is self-serving to the writer and really nothing about the Gospel. Does what you write really “advance the gospel (Phil 1:12)?…or just a critique of another pastor’s methodology. You stand with Andy on the Gospel message and admit he is effective in spreading it, but hold your nose at his methodology?
So, the real issue then is does NPCC methods produce committed disciples? Rhetorical question, but non the less, important. I wonder who would be an authority to answer that? Not me. I’ll let the Holy Spirit do that.
Great dialog, Tim. Be well!
Steve
Blessings, Steve!
Hey great post. I was digging around because I had never heard of Andy Stanley and he is a major speaker at a large west coast conference happening at my home church which is a seeker friendly church. I am an AV and so I get to sit through a lot of events/speakers and I wanted to know more about Andy.
You echo a lot of things I have personally felt in my short walk as a Christ follower. I’ve been a believer for 6 years, I am 29 years old, and grew up as a liberal atheist. So coming from the secular world into the church community has given me a very interesting perspective.
Here is what I’ve found to be true for me personally. This church that is hosting this large event, which starts with a C and ends with “atalyst” labelled “seeker friendly” certainly was attractive to someone like me who had no knowledge of Jesus, the Bible, God etc. And so it did the job of bringing someone like me to the church. However, as my understanding of scripture grew, as my desire to know the Word grew, I found no answers here. I began leaning towards new age ideas mixed with Christianity which I know now are simply anathema to the truth. That was the place where my questions were being answered or so I thought. It wasn’t until I found a small online community of believers who fall under the category of “alternative Christian media” that I found profound truth, genuine leadership, and fellowship at a deep level. And think about it, it was online fellowship, not even in person. That’s how much this seeker friendly church was lacking in this element of leadership based on sous scriptural grounding. Now as I try to speak to the leaders of my church, they look at me as if I have two heads.
I simply see the appeal to post modern culture to be a bit too compromising to the Gospel. Luke 6:26 comes to mind, “Woe to you when all men speak well of you…” the danger lies in each one of us exhalts the leader above the Word of God. As long as we listen understanding this, I don’t think anyone will fall away.
Overall great post though. Thank you.
Thanks for your response. I agree that one of the roots of the problem here is that we seem to exalt ‘successful’ leaders in the Christian world and then try to imitate them and their methods. I think many church leaders are grasping at straws in their efforts to try to form a successful church.
The issue is that the doctrine coming from Mega Churches is weak and sometime completely unBiblical. Listen to 3 to 6 months of sermons. Do they preach on repentance? Do they preach on Hell? Do they preach the whole counsel of God?
Tim~
I came across your site and noticed that you have chosen to head your articles with the phrase “Out of my Falkan Mind.” To be honest, I cannot reconcile this phrase with someone who is following Jesus. In Ephesians 5:4b, we are told not to engage in “foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks,” so do you think it is wise or Godly to equate yourself, or worse, Jesus, with a pun based upon one of the world’s most vulgar words? Please remember who you represent.
Just read this article today – during a worldwide pandemic – and your words sound prophetic!
I appreciate that you don’t cut down other churches and what they are doing, but point out what we can do better to be the church.
I really dislike when leaders/writers put down what other, clearly, amazing leaders are doing for the Kingdom.