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...

At least, that’s my opinion. We are all entitled to our opinions, and I admit that mine could be wrong. But I don’t think it is… 🙂 Last post, I reflected on how many Methodists approve of Andy Stanley’s methods for church growth, yet reject his message. I, on the other hand, agree with Andy Stanley’s message, but disagree with his methods. Here’s the cool thing–it’s ok if we disagree about methods; we can still work together in ministry as part of God’s family and team. In fact, maybe it takes all kinds of methods to reach all kinds of people. This shouldn’t separate us as brothers and sisters. All of us have different opinions on what methods to use to reach lost people. For example, at my last church, we had disagreements on methods, and that will probably always be the case wherever I find myself, because we all have different opinions. Regardless of these differing opinions on methods, it’s ok as long as we remain united in message. In fact, that’s the mantra of the “contemporary churches” out there: We’re changing the methods, not the message. Even though it can be difficult to work in an environment where there are differing opinions on methods, it’s definitely possible–and even rewarding, from my experience. We learn from each other and begin thinking harder about why we do what we do. We are challenged to test whether our methods are Scriptural, practical, effective, and healthy. Sometimes conflicting methods can both be just as Scriptural, practical, effective, and healthy–it’s just a matter of deciding what methods we want to utilize in our local setting. Sometimes that’s not the case, and we discover a better way to “do ministry” that is more Scriptural, practical, effective, and/or healthy. Either way, I have found it invigorating and healthy to be involved in a setting where there isn’t always agreement on the methods. But what happens when we’re not changing just the methods, but also the message? That’s when unity can no longer happen. It’s why even though I disagree with Andy Stanley, and think he’s mistaken, it’s only on the methods–not his message, and I’m ok with that. It’s why I was originally happy...

Ok, so that’s really a lie. That is, unless you’re a Methodist and you are convinced that you’re a Baptist if you believe that everyone has an eternal destination in heaven or hell, and that it’s the Church’s responsibility to reach the unchurched so that they don’t go to hell–well, then that makes Andy Stanley a Baptist. Because that’s emphatically what he believes and is the sole reason why his church is 100% devoted to reaching the unchurched instead of worrying about trying to keep those who are already unchurched. That’s what he shared in his sermon yesterday. I’m afraid that this is a devastating blow to all Methodists out there who are trying their hardest not to be Baptist, and as a result don’t want to affirm that people go to hell if they aren’t reached with the Gospel. Now Methodists everywhere must make a decision–do I still want to model myself after a preacher whose church is modeled the way it is because he believes people are going to hell? Now they must abandon Andy Stanley–where else can they turn to for a model of ministry? They had to abandon their founder, John Wesley, long ago because he clearly was Baptist as well, as he also believed that the world is going to hell, unless they come to faith in Christ by believing the Gospel. Dear Methodists, Salvation, the Gospel, eternity in heaven and hell–these are NOT Baptist ideas. They are central to the Christian faith. If you indeed choose to continue modeling your church after North Point, don’t just model after the method–which is least important. Model yourself after the message. It’s the whole reason why North Point does what it does. To ignore this defeats the whole point of modeling yourself after his paradigm. If people really aren’t going to hell if they aren’t reached by the church, his church model is clearly pointless. P.S. I know that not all Methodists feel this way. But quite a few do. This post is an example of...

I had a conversation with Audra’s brother a few days ago, in which he said that he couldn’t understand what the point is for a church to exist if it’s not evangelical. I agreed with him. It quickly turns into merely a social institution (and a rather unimpressive one to the world at that). I suspect by the term “evangelical,” he meant a church that takes the Bible literally. At least, that’s my simple definition, although it’s a little more complex than that. By and large, however, evangelical churches tend to view the Bible more literally than mainline or liberal churches. That’s why they evangelize. Yet with words like “evangelical” or “literal,” pretty soon words like “conservative” or “liberal” start coming up, and it starts to sound political. And general lay-folk start to check out as the discussion starts to sound divisive or unimportant. That’s why I’m thinking that in order to avoid such language (which can be misleading or confusing), I propose that we start talking about how “seriously” a person or a church takes the Bible. After all, some parts of the Bible aren’t supposed to be taken literally–they are written in a genre of figurative language, etc. Yet, even parts of the Bible that aren’t supposed to be taken literally–even these passages must be taken very seriously. For example, when Jesus says that it would be better to gouge your right eye if it causes you to sin, so that you go to heaven with one eye instead of hell with two eyes….there are very few people, evangelical or not, who would take this passage literally and walk around with only one eye in their sockets. Yet, this passage surely should be taken seriously. Jesus, while speaking in hyperbole, intends for his audience to take him very seriously. Unfortunately, many churches have decided that the Bible shouldn’t be taken too seriously. For example, they marvel at the beautiful language of the prophets, but they don’t realize that the whole point of the prophets speaking is that the nation of Israel wasn’t taking God’s Word seriously. They felt it wasn’t necessary to follow Scripture, but just to appreciate its existence. The prophets declared, “Since you won’t take...

I’d recommend you check hers out, as her posts will surely be more interesting and concise than anything you’ll find here! www.audrafalk.com Oh, and I’ve added a new feature to my blog–a photo gallery. You can access it from the top menu. I’ll be tweaking it to make it more user-friendly, but it will do as-is for now. Check it out from...