sbc IMPACT!

By Tony Gulbrandsen on Apr 17, 2008 at 5:34 am

Interesting point. I have talked in other venues about the “consumerism” in churches today.

For the discussion: Is highlighting doctrinal differences also being judgmental against those who hold to different doctrine (i.e., infant baptism, speaking in toungues, etc.)?

By David Rogers on Apr 17, 2008 at 5:58 am

If you could somehow teleport believers from the 1st Century Church to our time, I am quite confident this is one of the aspects of our American Christianity they would find most surprising and most scandalous. Yes, each individual congregation should do the best job they possibly can at making disciples and ministering to the needs of the community around them. And God gives different gifts and ministries not only to different individuals, but also to different congregations. But, beyond this, our essential unity as one Body of Christ, both in our local community, as well as around the world, is a fundamental aspect of who we are as the Church.

I believe the situation in which we find ourselves can be attributed to primarily to 2 things:

1. Our “free church” ecclesiology, which, while rediscovering some very important long-lost elements of the church, such as the priesthood of all believers, regenerate membership, etc., but has had trouble in expressing biblically the unity and catholicity that was regarded as the foundation of the early church;

2. the saturation and embracing of the consumerist values of the American culture that surrounds us within the church.

By Tony Sisk on Apr 17, 2008 at 6:17 am

Tony,

Highlighting doctrinal distinctiveness, in my mind, would not necessarily be judgmental. My point in bringing that up is that churches separated along those lines at one time and that can be accorded as biblical. However, much of the “differences” that we see marketed toward a target audience smacks at the unity of the body–they’re arrogant, we are not; they don’t emphasize the family, we do; they are judgmental, we are not, for example.

Biblically speaking, there are some lines I believe that we should be judgmental. As a pastor, I will not baptize an infant and that is a doctrinal stance, not a personal one. However, even if the church down the road is an arrogant bunch of folks, I will not highlight that as a draw to increase attendance at the church I serve. That is sinful, in my estimation. Rather, I would like to be more concerned about seeing that body healed and restoring health to that body.

David,

You were one of the Impact contributors that I was referring to in the post, so I am glad you have jumped in. There is a balance that we as the universal body must strike in order to preserve that unity of the Spirit.

I think in no other way American culture has subtly infiltrated the church than in the area of marketing.

By Bob Cleveland on Apr 17, 2008 at 7:05 am

Come to think of it, I don’t recall a time in scripture when ANY church talked about themselves.

By Tony Sisk on Apr 17, 2008 at 7:30 am

Bob,

Good point!!!

By volfan007 on Apr 17, 2008 at 7:38 am

tony,

dont you think that this mentality stems from the numbers game that a lot of sb churches play? could this not be a result of the more numbers the more “successful” the church is…..and, the more success that pastor is?

also, dont you think that this stems from our embracing the madison avenue marketing techniques to church growth?

oh, and btw, my church has better music than the other churches around these parts!

:)

david

ps. you bring up some very good points in this post.

By David Rogers on Apr 17, 2008 at 7:42 am

Back several years ago in Spain, they came out with a common logo, and a standard plaque for all of the evangelical churches, containing only the words “Iglesia Evangélica” (evangelical church). Many churches of all evangelical denominations, though not all, put up this plaque at the entry of their church hall. Some also have other signs identifying denominational affiliation, and the name of the local congregation. And, some, only this generic sign.

I know it is only a small detail, and largely symbolic. But I do like the thought behind this: putting across the idea to the public at large that, in essence, we are all part of the same “outfit,” and we share a common base.

By Bernard Shuford on Apr 17, 2008 at 8:00 am

Competition is deadly.

I think churches need to make HIGHLY intentional efforts to work with other churches and help avoid the syndrome.

Of course, this opens up the “who can we cooperate with” debate, but I’m personally kind of sick of “a different kind of church” advertisements. HOWEVER - I do think that we need to be aware of that “need” in society. There is justification to the fact that many people are highly disappointed in church - not in Christ, because they very likely do not know Him, but in CHURCH. We would do well to pay attention to THAT, and perhaps even OFFER a “different kind of church”, but saying that doesn’t need to be our main focus.

By Tony Sisk on Apr 17, 2008 at 8:02 am

David (volfan),

I would concur on your point that numbers have too much sway in SB life. I care very little for what I call the “tattle-tale” board at the front of a lot of traditional SB churches. I think it shows us where our hearts are and that a high number does not necessarily mean that a church is healthy.

I would concur on your second point as well, that secular marketing techniques fuel church competition. Its not about leading folks to a deeper walk with Christ, discipleship, and equipping the saints, but causing them to want to buy a particular product we’re pushing.

David R.,

That is a telling detail about Spanish churches. I like that idea as well and in a way, I do “sell” (for lack of a better word) that idea, that we are all part of the same outfit, and that as long as the Gospel is the core, then that should be the base. In our community there are Methodists and Presbyterians that are just as evangelistic as I am and it is those subtle doctrinal distinctives where we differ; not that that church is “holier than thou”.

By Tony Sisk on Apr 17, 2008 at 8:05 am

Bernard,

Competition is deadly! And especially among churches. We have had the “with whom do we cooperate” discussions here at Impact, but it is still a conundrum that needs to be addressed. I simply make the Gospel the core–we should agree on the tenets of the Gospel; otherwise, the only thing we can rally around really are humanitarian causes, like disaster relief.

I do have one

By Cam Dunson on Apr 17, 2008 at 8:07 am

While I don’t think that I’d like to go to the church in the picture (for fear that chip would fall off their shoulder and knock me upside the head), I think that most “church marketing” is not done in a spirit of competition with other churches.

Maybe I’m just naive, but I think the motivation behind most church ad campaigns is to draw in those who don’t want to be in church for “X” reason. “Church isn’t authentic,” “Only old people go to church,” “Church is full of judgemental people,” “Church isn’t for me,” etc. I think what most of the churches doing “marketing” are trying do is debunk “X” reason, whatever they think it is.
Then again, I was in full-time Christian PR in another life . . .

By Tony Sisk on Apr 17, 2008 at 8:09 am

Bernard,

Sorry, my fingers got happy…I’ll pick up where I left off, and Geoff if you’re attending unto comments, perhaps you can edit these two and make one.

I do have one quibble; I don’t really see the need to say it at all. I agree there are a lot of people that are sick of church, but not Christ…how many books have been written now to that effect???

I believe that a church that is really being a church, per NT principles, there will be no need to do any “advertising” simply because the Holy Spirit will do it for us.

Great observations, everyone!

By Tony Sisk on Apr 17, 2008 at 8:14 am

Cam,

I respectfully and humbly disagree. The basic assumption of the post is still smuggled into your comment; that if a church is whatever characteristic you describe, it is marketed as antithetical to another church, or at least a preconceived bias. “You will want to come to our church because we are not what that other church is.”

Nevertheless, the church is a local body, and any judgments made about other churches are going to be conceived, at least in the community in which I serve, as indictments against another local body. Perhaps it is different in your community.

By Geoff Baggett on Apr 17, 2008 at 8:20 am

Fellows,

I quite agree that the marketing of some churches has devolved in many of its extremes. But I don’t think we need to throw out the proverbial “baby with the bathwater.”

Cultures throughout the world are vastly different. All of them are quite different from the cultures that we see illustrated on the pages of our New Testament. Sadly, much of our culture is reached through and driven by advertising. To even hint that all marketing of the church in our various U.S. subcultures is inherently wrong or evil is a bit simplistic.

Think of how many of our churches have signs out front (many equipped with those horrendously sub-witty messages), ads in the yellow pages, and blurbs in the local newspapers.

Unity such as David describes would, indeed, be nice. But far too many people (and churches?) have been extended the middle finger (instead of the right hand) of Christian fellowship … even (perhaps especially)in Southern Baptist life. I and my church happen to be in that unfortunate boat.

The sad reality is that there are great multitudes of people who have some measure of church experience, but because of that experience, have no desire to be a part of the church. I know, because about 50% of my people come from such a background. They are “de-churched” people that God has allowed us to recover. And do you know what they always (and I mean - always, always…) say? That our church truly is different.

It’s not about the numbers. It’s all about people.

We have used marketing in the past, and will continue to do so on occasion. We don’t accentuate any differences. We just clearly communicate who we are as a church. I am resolved to believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There are people out there looking for something. If they find that “something” by hearing one of our radio spots, or reading a press release about one of our ministries in the newspaper, or on our monthly full-color mail-out to newcomers in our area, or on the back of a bulk mail card … then God be praised!

Anyhow … that’s my 2 pennies worth. Putting on my kevlar. :)

By David Rogers on Apr 17, 2008 at 8:22 am

Cam,

I sympathize with the basic thrust behind your comment. There definitely are some negative connotations out there among the unchurched that we do well to try to overcome through the way we present ourselves. Call this marketing, if you will. In that sense, I agree, there is a legitimate place for “church marketing.”

The problem is that the side effects of the medicine, in many cases, have become worse than the illness. Unchurched people are also turned off by the idea that what we really want is to get our numbers up, and getting them into our doors is the way to do it.

Perhaps, at the core, this is, more than anything else, a matter of the heart. We ourselves need to search our hearts, and ask ourselves what message are we really trying to get out to the unchurched, and what is our real motivation for getting this message out. I think that a Christ-honoring, biblical approach to “marketing” will naturally flow out of a heart that is in tune with God’s heart for the world, and with God’s heart for the unity of His Body.

By Bernard Shuford on Apr 17, 2008 at 8:27 am

Tony - Isn’t “word of mouth” the BEST advertising?

As far as “saying” it, I understand, but if we want to INTENTIONALLY be a church which concentrates on a certain type of people - and I understand that is yet another debate - I think the conversation has to occur at a certain level.

I’ve been a part of a church in my life that believes in very little to no “marketing”. It results in a church that is very inwardly focused. I think we have to intentionally direct our efforts to people, and I believe that God gives certain churches a genuine burden for a certain type of people.

There are “country music” churches where no self respecting goth would ever show up. But these churches have a very powerful capability to minister to cowboys and farmers. I think it’s most appropriate to use that to encourage as many cowboys and farmers as possible to come to a church that understands them. Likewise, those burned by improperly governed churches sometimes need a home that understands them.

I maintain that churches have different callings. Maybe even more than Christians have different callings. The first is the call to an area. The second, in my opinion, is the call to a group. That group definition may be wide, or it may be narrow. It may be primarily college students, or it may be primarily young families, or it may be as wide as “the people of the community”. It may be as bizarre as “the people who have previously rejected church”.

All churches should be willing to minister to anyone that God brings their way. But I don’t think it’s “wrong” to have a focus. That focus may change throughout the life of the church, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t exist.

Now, if we just want to be a general purpose, do all, please all type of church, if that’s what God calls us to, that’s great too. But we, as the “all purpose church”, are really doing exactly what you say NOT to do if we criticize those who are being specific. Instead, I maintain that the “do all” church should be in continual prayer for, encouraging support of, and in some cases, even monetary support to, those churches that are almost serving as a mission to a certain group of people.

While I see your point that the Holy Spirit should be our main advertisement, I would counter that, if we take that to full extent, we shouldn’t have church websites, list our events on community service sites, or even do VBS mailings. I personally believe that advertising has a GREAT BIG place in the ministry of the gospel, but I DO stop short of some of the “shock tactics” that are becoming popular today. I don’t like to just criticize other ministries, but I do “evaluate” what they are doing to see if I would recommend such a thing to my pastor or even if I would do it in their shoes. Sometimes I say YES!! and sometimes I say “I don’t think so, I’m sorry”. Sometimes I even say “I think this is damaging, but I’m gonna trust the Holy Spirit to use it as He can.”

My opinions :) Just thoughts.

By David Rogers on Apr 17, 2008 at 8:34 am

Another thought about all this…

A typical marketing ploy is to pitch your product as over against another product. Let’s face it. Competition really does sell.

In Spain, the evangelicals have traditionally “pitched” themselves as over against the Catholic Church. That, in some respects, has helped to unite them against a common “foe.” More and more, though, this tactic is losing effectiveness at winning new people, and has made some largely adopt a defensive mindset towards life and the world in general.

In the States, this same attitude is taken up largely between different evangelical denominations, different movements or networks within and across denominational barriers, and between different individual congregations.

Maybe the answer is in identifying correctly our “enemy” and “pitching” ourselves as over against our real enemy.

By Bernard Shuford on Apr 17, 2008 at 8:41 am

David says - “Maybe the answer is in identifying correctly our “enemy” and “pitching” ourselves as over against our real enemy.”

“Stop, drop, and roll doesn’t work in hell!”

There’s a great big smile on my face as I tease you (and Tony, the big church sign guy…) with this….

By Tony Sisk on Apr 17, 2008 at 8:54 am

Bernard,

I said I had a quibble, not a vehement disagreement. :)

I think we are missing one another somewhat. There are going to be churches that reach a certain crowd of folks, cowboy churches for instance. What I am particularly talking about are those judgment or values statements that set churches apart for whatever reason against another local body and then exploiting that for gain.

If I may, I will reiterate one of my main points at the conclusion of the post: There is no need to smear the name of another local body of believers in order to attract more religious consumers.

Advertising that you are a “cowboy church” to continue using that analogy, is in no way a bad thing. And again, your last full paragraph I would agree with. Those things are inherently neutral; of course we should “advertise” VBS and what-not.

Geoff, though accusing us of being simplistic and throwing the proverbial baby out, has inadvertently proven the point. There is no problem in the church being different, but Geoff made the statement that I have been trying to get across here;

And do you know what they always (and I mean - always, always…) say? That our church truly is different.

We have used marketing in the past, and will continue to do so on occasion. We don’t accentuate any differences. We just clearly communicate who we are as a church.

Isn’t that what I have been getting at? Marketing is like any other tool; it is a tool and can be misused and abused as is often the case.

By Bernard Shuford on Apr 17, 2008 at 9:12 am

Tony - True dat. Often I find myself prattling endlessly about something that interests me to the point where I appear argumentative, even when I’m really only meaning to be conversational.

I just think this is a great topic and was meaning to discuss, not argue.

After all, you’re within 10 miles of my church, but I bet you’ve never heard of it except for your contact with me. In fact, you live less than a half mile from my pastor. So, my point is, Crossroads isn’t advertising too well :)

By Tony Sisk on Apr 17, 2008 at 9:17 am

Bernard,

That raises a question–is Brother Daryl H. your pastor? I drew his name at the weekly pastor’s conference and have been praying for him this week.

I was just ribbing you. Plus, I’m probably within ten miles or so of you and I wouldn’t know you (cough, cough) if you came to church on Sunday.

By Bernard Shuford on Apr 17, 2008 at 9:22 am

Tony - that’s him. He lives off Lanier Drive. Cool. As a bivocational guy in his first church, he would definitely appreciate every prayer.

By volfan007 on Apr 17, 2008 at 9:35 am

i would agree that all advertising is not bad. we do it here at my church as well. we always try to gear it to reach out to the lost…never to attract others church members. we also have a church sign. the next one will read…”no perfect people allowed here.” but, some are so into it(advertising)… and adopting the world’s way of doing it… that they malign other churches in order to advertise.

also, i have to disagree with david rogers, unless i’m reading you wrong, bro. i hope that we never water down our beliefs to the point that we couldnt tell the difference in a methodist church and a baptist church. while i would call a methodist or a presbyterian member a fellow christian, i would not want for all of us to be so much alike that we would just be “evangelicals.” unless, of course, you mean that the methodists and the presbyterians and the nazarenes and the pentecostals and the other “evangelicals” have adopted southern baptist doctrine as the truth. now, if they all come in line with southern baptist doctrines as the teachings of God’s Word in belief and practice, then halelujah! that’d be great. but, if we are asked to give up eternal security of the believer, or immersion, believers baptism, or the trinity doctrine, or something else important like that…then i dont want to be evangelical. and, i dont want to be joined with people who do deny these great truthes that southern baptist embrace and hold dear. i used to be methodist. my grandparents were church of God on my mom’s side. on my dad’s side, there was lot of church of Christ(campbellites). i love and respect the different groups that are there…if they believe the essentials of the faith. but, i dont want to be methodist anymore, and i dont want to be church of God, either. and, i sure dont want to be a campbellite. i came to the sbc because they held so closely to the Word of God. the very reason my family left the methodist church and joined bellevue baptist church when i was a teen was to get into a church that believed the bible and had a wonderful pastor(adrian rogers) who preached the bible. and, we grew to love the fact that southern baptists are so close to the bible in belief and practice.

may the Lord keep us from ever slipping into mudy, fuzzy “evangelicalism” where people accept everything and anything as ok.

david

By Keith Price on Apr 17, 2008 at 10:23 am

I’m not against advertising just like I’m not against church buildings. Both are tools, both can be useful and the excesses of both make me ill.

If your advertising attracts someone that has already been in church or already tried church and “likes” the product church they will be more forgiving if your claim of being a “different kind of church” is more of the same old stuff in a brand new box. They will move on until they find one they like. Americans are expert consumers and we have trained them to consume church as well.

However, if the person trying “church” for the first time and comes away with a bad taste, it will be a long time before they ever try church again…maybe never. (Or they wind up at Geoff’s church!).

The best advertising is word of mouth and the “product” being of high quality and doing what it claims or more than what it claims. The best selling technique is “relationships” and “integrity.” “Selling” is about people. Wait…I’ve got to stop this conversation…I feel a rant coming on. We are talking about the church, the body of Christ, not some breakfast cereal. If the church is being the church, the body of Christ, that is the best “advertising.” Anything less than that is junk mail to be shredded without opening, or a televangelist to laugh at, cry at or be ignored.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming…

By Geoff Baggett on Apr 17, 2008 at 10:28 am

Tony,

An accuser I am not. ;)

Just trying to show the other side of the coin.

For instance …

When we launched our church six years ago (hard to believe that much time has passed), we sent out a bulk mail to every household and business in three ZIP code. The mailer was called “Church Clothes”. It had a pair of jeans on the front. I wrote the message on the bask, which was something like, “God doesn’t require a suit and tie for worship, so neither do we. So put on your favorite pair of jeans, get comfortable, and come on down to worship with us.”

We never mentioned any comparison to any local church, but such was implied. We tried to accentuate a subtle difference that would stand out to the average citizen / non-believer in our area.

It worked. people responded to it, walking into our church on that launch Sunday with card in hand. Can there possibly be any sin in highlighting such a simple difference?

Of course … I also got about three months of anonymous hate mail from church folk in our community. Horrible, hateful stuff. Go figure.

I guess my point is … if there are no differences among our churches, then why not just have one for each community … like the Catholics do?

I simply don’t believe that clearly drawing and casting your identity before your community is an inherent act of disunity toward the other churches there.

Believe me … all you have to do is plant a new church in a small community and you will learn some long, hard lessons about how dis-unified local congregations truly are.

By Brad Guenther on Apr 17, 2008 at 10:32 am

How does the situation change when the churches down the street are generally mainline protestant churches that have in some way compromised the Word and the Gospel? Is there ever a right time to draw a clear and public distinction between them and you?
I’ve struggled over this quite a bit. Generally, I allow the distinction to be made by those who visit our church with one of those church backgrounds.
God has been teaching me that God has a lifetime of work to do just straightening me and our church out, and that I should worry a lot less about what they are doing.
I also agree that it is largely the outgrowth of Evangelical consumer mentality. Our goal should be to reveal how great our Savior is, not how great our children’s program and worship team are.

By Tony Sisk on Apr 17, 2008 at 10:51 am

Geoff,

I guess in making my point once more, I am not advocating that there be “one church” for each community. I do not think I have said that nor alluded to it. My point is that some advertising is harmful and detrimental to other churches and when the tool is used in that way then it becomes in my mind, inappropriate and can even lead to sin.

Should a church plant advertise? Of course. But do I think it right to advertise at the expense of another local body? No way. If wearing jeans is your draw, then fine, just state it as fact (which is what you have done, I think) and leave it at that. To say something along the lines of, “Come to our church, we wear jeans whereas that stuffy church up Allens Creek wears coats and ties.” Then I think you have crossed the line.

I realize that much of the “accusation” that X Church is not like Y Church is implied in the advertising; but I think churches should take a long, hard look at themselves before launching some kind of advertising campaign, targeting a group of folks, and then magnifying one particular point about their church.

By Keith Price on Apr 17, 2008 at 10:56 am

Brad:

I think your approach to the man down the street is best. Bad-mouthing a competitor almost never works. People don’t like negative advertising. It does make the folks in your camp feel good, but it ticks off the competitor and they will counter with some bad mouthing of their own. Everybody else looks on and says “what is that all about?”

There comes a time when you should make distinctions, they should be clear, and the folks in your church should know them (that is a public place/distinction by the way). The real question is how public do you make them. I think you can be very counter-productive if you get into a shouting match with your “neighbor.”

By the way, I like Geoff’s “Church Clothes” mailer. It was simple and clever. Draws distinctions, but doesn’t hammer the folks down the street because they baptize babies. But, it wouldn’t work in our area (rural NW). Almost everybody dresses down here.

By Tony Sisk on Apr 17, 2008 at 10:58 am

Keith,

Expert consumers…that is another good point. It describes many American Christians too well. Church shopping isn’t anything new, is it? Feel free to rant on, brother.

Brad,

I feel like I have already answered that question in an earlier comment. Our churches should be doctrinally distinctive; its when those divisions are made along personal lines that it needs to be watched very closely.

By Geoff Baggett on Apr 17, 2008 at 11:20 am

Keith,

Everyone dresses down here, too. Just not for church. :) At least, until we showed up…

By Keith Price on Apr 17, 2008 at 11:55 am

Geoff:

First time I preached here I had several folks tell me to “lose the tie.” But I occasionally will wear a jacket or a tie (or both) just because…

By Kevin Peacock on Apr 17, 2008 at 2:26 pm

I have noticed a difference in the “loyalty factor” between church members who “joined” and those who were won to the Lord. In our context someone who was led to the Lord through the ministry of a certain local church found an almost undying loyalty to that congregation. Those who had “joined” this congregation from another congregation are far more liable to “join” another one — as soon as they become disillusioned with the reasons they joined this one. I believe that much of the marketing mentality in areas where there are so many evangelical options for local congregations is greatly based upon several cultural factors — factors which are not present in many other cultures.

First, we define a strong church according to its size. I have nothing against large churches — in fact, some of the most God-focused churches I have ever been a part of through my life have been quite large. But I have noticed that there is a distinct difference in “church members” and “growing disciples,” even though I thought they should be one and the same. As I read the Bible, Jesus desires the latter, not the former (John 2:23-25). The vital presence of the Holy Spirit in a congregation, no matter the size, is more important in God’s eyes than a large congregation where His vital presence is not felt.

Second, what is the primary means of “church growth” — transfer growth or evangelizing pagan lostness? As I have stated in another post, I am not convinced that heaven rejoices when someone joins your church. I know heaven rejoices when a sinner repents and is added to the kingdom (Luke 15:7, 10, 18). It is this transfer growth phenomenon that I believe David Rogers may have been referring to when he stated about the first century Church being surprised and scandalized by the church of 21st century North America. I sometimes get the idea that a church is more delighted with a family joining their congregation than that they reconcile with individuals in their previous congregation. If they have broken relationships that need to be reconciled, they need to do that first before they even offer their worship (Matt 5:21-24). In other words, God won’t receive their worship until they do. What if they are sinful and have been expelled under the discipline of their previous congregation (Matt 18:15-20)? Would the new church be delighted to receive them into membership? In the first century “transfer growth” happened when someone moved to another location. Departing from one local fellowship to another was virtually unheard of.

Third, what is the primary means of our evangelism? It seems that the thrust of most North American evangelism efforts is in the context of a worship service. While I have no problem whatsoever with someone preaching the gospel (both believers and unbelievers need to hear it regularly), I find little biblical evidence for evangelism being done in the context of Christian worship. The closest I can find is in Paul’s discussion on tongues when he spoke of “unbelievers” who enter (1 Cor 14:23). Nothing in the text makes these unbelievers the focus of the gathering. By its very definition, unbelievers cannot “worship,” because Christian worship is Spirit-led (John 4:23-24). Christian worship is for “Christians;” unbelievers can attend and observe and to some extent try to participate, but the service really is not for them. It is to our detriment when we take the focus off of God, the audience of our worship, and place it on unbelievers.

The thrust of evangelism is different. Its focus is on the unbeliever to exhort people to come to faith in Christ (Acts 2:40). It takes place primarily where unbelievers are — out in the world, not within the walls of a church building. Members of a body should be actively bearing witness to Christ (Acts 1:8), playing their part in leading lost souls to faith. [In reality, if someone is not "fishing," then they are not really "following" (Mark 1:17). And if they are not "following," are they truly a "disciple"?] As these souls are led to faith in Christ through the ministry of the members of that certain congregation, they will be baptized, added to that body, and discipled to full maturity (Col 1:28). As such, a built-in loyalty to that congregation results.

When we opt out of that biblical model for church growth or evangelism, then we tend to look for the best ways to gain sheep from other flocks.

By David Rogers on Apr 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm

I guess I am the one who introduced the concept of the “one church” in a given community. I admit that I am opening up a can of worms here. But, it is something I personally believe in, and for which I think there is a biblical basis.

Having said that, I need to clarify what I mean and what I don’t mean. I don’t mean, as David Worley insinuates, “watering down our beliefs” or “giving up eternal security of the believer, or immersion, believers baptism, or the trinity doctrine, or something else important like that.” Far from it. I think we all, as individuals, and as local congregations, should know what we believe, and why we believe it.

Neither am I talking about a hierarchical church, a la the RCC, in which we are all joined organizationally, or in a “connectional” sense. I am talking about a spiritual landscape in which each individual congregation maintains its own beliefs, convictions, and practices, but at the same time recognizes, in attitudes, words, and practice, and in the way it presents itself in the community, that, in essence, at the core, we are all really “one church,” together with all those who submit to and embrace the same basic Gospel message, with all those who are truly born again and are preaching a Gospel that leads people to be truly born again.

However, I don’t think that the label we wear, that we use to identify ourselves in the community, and “sell our product” as over against another “product,” needs to be a secondary point of doctrine or practice. If that were the case, then why not also call ourselves the “First Dispensational Pre-millenialist, No Women’s Pastors, No PPL, We Don’t Smoke, We Don’t Chew, and We Don’t Go With the Girls That Do, Baptist Church”? You may well be a Dispensational Pre-millenialist, No Women’s Pastors, No PPL, We Don’t Smoke, We Don’t Chew, and We Don’t Go With the Girls That Do, Baptist church in your belief and in your practice. And if that’s where you are at, so be it. But, I think most of us would agree that it is generally not a good idea to put names like that on our church signs and other publicity. Why not? Because it would be unseemly. It would be sending out the message: “Wow, it looks like those folks have some real issues.”

My point is, if 1st Century Christians were to come to our time, and see the way we “do church,” they would tend to see the signs, labels, and denominational names by which we identify ourselves much the same way we would tend to view the hypothetical “First Dispensational Pre-millenialist, No Women’s Pastors, No PPL, We Don’t Smoke, We Don’t Chew, and We Don’t Go With the Girls That Do, Baptist Church.” They may (or may not, that is a legitimate point of debate) agree with our doctrine and practice. But they would think the way we present ourselves, as Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. etc. was unseemly.

The name “evangelical” at least focuses in on the key thing that sets us apart: the Gospel itself.

Now, Geoff brought up an important point when he said that in our contemporary American culture, it is pretty much just a given that we are going to use marketing to present ourselves, etc. That is precisely the point I was making a couple of weeks ago in my post about American Culture & Church Marketing (http://www.sbcimpact.net/2008/04/01/american-culture-and-church-marketing/). Is it really good to let our culture steer the way we do things to this degree? Are we not blind sometimes to the extent that what we do is not driven so much by biblical convictions as it is by cultural expectations? Has consumerism in general so permeated our culture, and our church culture, that we just accept it as a given? Is it too much to dream of and pray for another Reformation in which our churches are not so driven by consumerism and competition?

By Geoff Baggett on Apr 17, 2008 at 3:31 pm

David,

It’s not so much that we are driven by culture. Rather, we adapt to it and capitalize upon it.

We have multitudes of our churches that generally disregard and disengage from culture. They are dead and dying (plateaued and declining).

By Geoff Baggett on Apr 17, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Wow. 100,000 page views. Completely awesome.

By David Rogers on Apr 17, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Geoff,

Of course, we can’t over-generalize. There are some churches that are “driven by culture,” others that “adapt to it and capitalize upon it,” others that “disregard and disengage from culture,” and all shades in between.

My point remains, though, that often we are more driven by culture than what we realize. If we were able to ever truly take a step back, and look at ourselves from an outsiders point of view, we might be surprised at what we see.

Don’t take this as a criticism of the way you do things at Crossroads. In what you have written here, I don’t really see anything that necessarily goes counter to what I am saying.