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.

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).

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?

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.

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…

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

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.

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.

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.