In the "Tithing and Capital Raising Campaigns" thread I said:

"I would like to suggest that we start a new one, based on one of his comments: alternatives for churches when the prevailing community atmosphere is to have "no thought for the kids who have no homes, or on drugs, or are in gangs, or have broken homes." I am outlining a book which I want to call "Guerilla Christianity." The basis of it is the premise that when the traditional, established church organizations are not acting in accordance with biblical precepts, then the local church, to be effective and biblical, must work outside of and independent of the "establishment." This is not to just be an act of rebellion toward the establishment. It is so the local church can act IAW the Scriptures totally, and make an impact on their area for Christ.

What I am looking for in this area are specifics, not broad sweeping statements. The general idea is that of an operations order, not a mission statement. I am open to any and all suggestions."

Let's share ideas.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000

Answers

I've got a question for you.....

At what point does the church become so "worldly"...that it, therefore, no longer offers something contrary to "the world"....but only "the world".....in a Christian wrapper???

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Actually Nate....

It was not a rhetorical question.

It was a serious question to which your "straw man" of "traditionalist" did nothing to answer.

The question still stands...."At what point does the church become so "worldly".....that, it therefore, no longer offers anything that is contrary to "the world"....but only "the world" in a Christian wrapper??

Because, you see, in spite of all the rhetoric about methodology for the X-generation.....the fact is.....than many generation X'ers and others.....are returning to what we perceive to be the "traditional" version of Christianity.

They've tried all the lights and glitter....and are looking for something that is more deeply reflective.

Let me give you a practical illustration.....a number of years ago when the church where I was preaching was offering dual services....one a traditional the other "non-traditional"....it was proven very quickly that our "stero-typical" attitudes towards people had crept into my thinking.

Here is the stereo type....the old people will come to the traditional service.....and the young people will flock to the non- traditional service.

WRONG!!!!

It was just the reverse.

I was curious.....so I asked one of our young people..."Hey....why don't you come to the non-trad. service with the praise band, etc??"

His response taught me never again to stero-type people and to see the validity of the "traditional ways"....even in worship.

He said..."Danny.....my world changes on a daily basis. It is refreshing to know that in my world of change I can come to church and hear the same hymns I heard when I was growing up in church. It helps me to realize that the important things in life.....God, family, and church......never change." (That was a 19 year old.)

Food for thought gentlemen. I think ours is a generation that is always looking for the "new and improved" and in the meantime....we throw out a lot of the good that comes with the old.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Mark....

Thank you for understanding my point.

Also, thank you for bringing out the valid point that if we always pursue the "contemporary".....then just as we catch it....it will be time to move to the "new contemporary."

Nate....your problem is....you assumed something before you knew. You presumed to understand the motive for my question.

Mark listened.....and got it.

Let me help you out some more......my point is this...."tradition" is not a bad word. In fact....in either 1 or 2 Timothy (I don't have my Bible handy right now), Paul tells Timothy to "hold onto the traditions" which he was taught.

Now, when tradition interferes with the proper interpretation or "fleshing out" of the Scripture......than tradition needs to go.

But always throwing "tradition" out for the sake of the "new and improved" is quite dangerous. In fact, I'm aware of some good, older elders, who got replaced....simply because they wouldn't "get with it."

A wise teacher once told me, as in the case of most things...."The truth.....is somewhere in the middle."

Really Nate....you seem to be the one defending an agenda and/or a methodolgy rather than looking for the middle ground. That's how a lot of church splits occur.

By the way Dr. Jon.....I agree with your response to what I said....100%.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

By the way Nate....

I said I only asked one person. But the fact is.....the contemp. service was never attended "in mass" by the younger folks....as we thought it would be.

We had about 60 attending that service....with well at 50% or above being over 30.

The best attended service was still.....the "traditional" with a little bit of the "contemp" thown in once in a while.

Interestingly.....I'm 40....and that's what I prefer. I am very uncomfortable with either totally traditional or totally contemp. services. I like a leader who can bring a good mix.

And I'm for anything, new or old that brings people to Christ.

But here is why we must be careful....."what we win them with....can often be....what we win them to."

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Nate.....

Easy big fella!! ha!!

Listen....and really listen.....I AGREE WITH YOU!!!

As per your comments about the communion table.....I agree....it is silly.

However, Nate....this has been my experience in 18 years of ministry.....

1) Most of that sentiment is the result of ignorance concerning God's word.

2) Most of the times....I can teach those people out of those sentiments.

Roger Chambers use to say...."You can approach ministry in one of two way.....you can "tell" them....or you can "teach" them. If you choose to "tell" them....plan on very short ministries. However, if you teach them patiently.....then they will come to the right conclusions....on their own. It takes long....but it's worth it."

Nate....my experience has been.....this is true.

With this approach I have helped congregations dissolve "By- Laws".....move away from "Board Systems".....develop "pastoring" elders....etc...etc.

Many older congregations will do the right thing we we patienty take the time to teach them.....rather than help them.

With this method....it takes longer.....but the long term effects will probably stay around longer as well.

Thanks for your passion to see all people won to Christ.

Your brother,

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Let me correct one of my last statements.

I said....."Many older congregations will do the right thing we we patiently take the time to teach them....rather than help them."

Duh......

I meant to say....."Many older congregations will do the right thing if we patiently take the time to teach them.....rather than tell them."

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Well.....

Let me put "poo-poo" on this whole discussion.

There is nothing wrong with the kids today. There is no such thing as bad kids.

The parents are THE problem. Plain and simple.

Kids are only the product of their home environment.

Kids say church is boring because that's what their parents say.

And parents say that church is boring because they are undisciplined and ignorant, interested in only getting to Friday night and the weekend.

In Proverbs, Solomon did not say..."Listen to the admonition of your preacher....or youth minister.....my son." He said, "Listen to the teachings of your father and mother."

Where are those teachings today??

Just as parents have abdicated their parental responsibilities to the public school....they have abdicated the spritual training of their kids to the churches.

And I'm sorry.....there is no church around that in, at the most, 2 hours per week.....can change the influence of the parents and the world the rest of the week.

Interesting.....many youth ministers I talk to now say....their biggest job is with the parents.....not the kids.

So brother Kelley.....get all the "Jam for Jesus" sessions you want.....but you will never be able to undo the influence of the other 6 days a week....especially when much of that negativism is from parents.

What I'm suggesting men....and what I've been doing is saying to parents....we ain't gonna do it no more. You are going to take the responsibility for your kids.

"But they'll get mad and go to another church with a great youth program." Bye.....don't let the door hit you in the rear end on the way out.....and don't call me to bail your kid out of jail.

My wife may have chosen the wrong terminology....but her heart was right. It is time for radical change. It's time to quit baby sitting the baby boomers and give 'em a swift kick in the rear!!!

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

Jon, from my experience if any church wants to get serious to minister to the generation X and the 2000 generation, then it must throw out all previous concepts of Ministry that it had learned through the years. They must start over. They must start over by throwing out the By-Laws and constructing new ones (perhaps even shorter).They must allow just the Elders/Ministerial staff to lead rather than the congregation or a board of deacons or just a board. They must reconstruct the worship to flow in a contemporary (rock- pop) format, using drama, videos, etc. They must be willing to be radical in their thinking. Which if implemented in any congregation- majority of the established congregation would crucify you. That is why Rick Warren said it is better to start a Church than to change one. The majority of America's churches are small and refuse to change- they like it the way they do it and if anyone changes it then they are dead meat.

I will give more of my thoughts later.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000

Out here in Portland, Or., some have banded together to form "new types" of churches. For instance, a "skate church". This church meets on a week day evening. Kids have to pay (I think it is around $4-10 to cover expenses/insurance) to come in. They stay for about 2 hours. For 1 1/2 hours, they skate (in line or board) in half hoops, on ramps, etc. to blaring rock Christian music (hopefully that isn't an oxymoron and won't stir up too much trouble on this format). Then for 1/2 hour, they hear the gospel preached to them. Kids are coming from nearly two hours away, to come, pay to go to church and skate. This is reaching a whole section of youth that were otherwise slipping through the cracks.

Other "out of the ordinary" "churches" are growing around other themes (ie. coffee houses, youth rooms [with pool tables, foos ball, video games, etc.]).

I don't know if these "specifics" are things you were looking for, or if I got off track. But I hope these have helped you. Malcam

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000

I'm new here, so for what it's worth, it's been my experience that these kids and even grown-ups who throw off the yoke of tradition need a place where they feel their ideas and input welcome. The early church was very much an inclusive and free-wheeling place. Very flat, organizationally. This type of thing appeals to many, not just the groups you've outlined.

Interesting that you should mention "Guerrilla Christianity." Small groups like this actually look a lot like the small companies today beating the big companies due to technologies such as the Net. No bureaucracy, lithe... frankly such a thing sounds yummy.

I don't know if you've ever read or heard of it, but you might try James Rutz' book "The Open Church" addresses some of these issues and speaks of successes with a more inclusive format.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000

Obviously a rhetorical question Danny... how 'bout another one?

"At what point in time do Traditionalists who care about nothing more than singing all 5 verses of Amazing Grace, making sure the sacred Communion Table is up front and the sacred Pulpit is on the dais so that the preacher has something to bang his bible on (giving the sinner's heads a rest)begin to minister to the lost of this world like Jesus did... going to where they are and ministering to them?"

Hmmm?

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Great question, Nate. At the risk of answering Danny's rhetorical question, I would say that when Jesus Christ is no longer put forth unapologetically, that's when "the world" has crept into the message.

The people with whom I've worked have usually had little problem with the words of Jesus because if they argue with Him, they deny Him, and He's the point of the whole thing. But if they want Jesus, they find that they have to back down from the arguments.

Where they do balk is where the traditions of men creep in. They speak of not wanting to go to church where they can't "dress up" and be accepted. They have a problem with a man, no different than themselves in many respects, being an intermediary between them and God. Often these people have no problem owning up to their own sinfulness; they do have a problem however being loved, which was the whole law, according to our Lord.

Paul seemed to feel that whatever it took to get Christ preached to the lost. Nothing wrong with altering the format as long as the message, Jesus Christ and Him crucified, is unadulterated.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

We are receiving some good answers here. I think my original idea is sprouting from a nagging question I have about our organizational models. I believe that many denominational style churches have become a means to an end in themselves. Because of that, they are ingrown and the focus does not extend to outside their own walls. I personally yearn for a return to the "freedom" I felt as a new believer in the 70s (at the tail end of the Jesus Movement) when it wasn't WHERE you did something but THAT you did something for Jesus.

After being a Christian for 25 years, becoming "educated" and part of the establishment, I am seeing that the real work of Christ isn't being done. Our purpose isn't to build "christian businesses" (which is what an inward looking church is) but its to make disciples.

I think you now can see why I like associating with you here. The idea of "restoring" the original church concept is appealing to me (but still don't try to 'convert' me! ::laffs::) It is my contention that a "new idea" is needed. I am smart enough to realize that I am not the only one thinking this way, which is why I am seeking your input. Many of you may have ideas much better than my own.

Let's keep the conversation flowing!

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Danny -

Good observations, which I have heard elsewhere. I am not seeking to tear down certain traditions. Change for the sake of change isn't the answer. What I am looking for is ways to be EFFECTIVE FOR CHRIST, within or without the existing structure.

Maybe I need to make some important distinctions. Effectiveness for Christ is:

a. Conversion of souls. This is not just numbers. I am referring to individuals who make a serious, lifelong commitment to Jesus Christ in true conversion.

b. Making of disciples. This is not just the forming of a "Sunday School" or having a "discipleship training" class. This is the actual training of the above converts to grow deeper in the Christian life to the point of maturity in biblical and spiritual matters.

c. Training of the congregation to perform the works of Christ. It is my contention that it is the congregation's, not the preacher's, job to do personal evangelism/witnessing, and the work in the church.

d. Raising from the body the next generation of leaders. The above tasks will enable the next generation of leadership to be trained and able to take over the tasks from the preceeding one. This should be a self-perpetuating cycle: convert, disciple, train, raise.

Is this more specific? Views?

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

There are several forms of new "structures" popping up all over the country and have been a couple of books, or parts of books, dedicated to these new structures.

These structures on paper aren't really that much different from some of the old ones, at least at the congregational level (not having ever been in a church that had a formal structure above the congregational level, I really can't speak to that). What differs is emphasis and focus.

The key to these structures, as I have interpretted what is common to them, is the principles behind these verses:

1 Peter 2:9 -- But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Ephesians 2:10 -- For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Ephesians 4:11-12 -- It was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service ...

The common principle behind the first two verses above is that we are all ministers, with work to do. The last verse cited, I see a principle of some disciples' work is to prepare others for work. The emphasis that the new ways have in common is that the elders, etc switch from their old work to supporting the rest in working and didn't try to "manage". In other words: equip them and stand out of the way.

George Barna has studied churches and found that in the typical church, 10% of the people do the work. Many have observed that if 10% working sufficiently meets the internal needs of a congregation (enough for the 90% to stick around) and still gets a little outreach done, what could be done if 50% or more were working? If 10% are sufficient for meeting internal needs, then that 40% plus would be left with impacting the community!

Some of these new models:

1) most famous is Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Church". He calls for churches to focus on the biblical principle for church expressed in Acts 2:42-47, which he extracts from the text as:

i) Evangelism (v 47)
ii) Worship (v42,47)
iii) Fellowship (v 42,44,46)
iv) Discipleship/Maturity (v42)
v) Ministry (v45)

In ministry, Warren emphasizes equipping people to do what they feel lead to -- not creating positions and trying to fill them. It is the point of this model that God will build the ministries of His church in this way. The church I am a member of now follows this ministry idea -- no ministry gets started until a "minister" comes forward to do the work or organize and lead a ministry team.

2) Whatever model is espoused in "Servant Driven Church". I have read this one yet, but from what I read in the cover, this fits this category.

3) CEM - Celebrate, Equip, Minister: I don't know if this one is written some where, I heard it from Stan Freitas, who used to preach at Southwest Church of Christ in Tigard Oregon, and is now leading a church planting effort in S. California. The C-E-M describes the three types of meetings conducted by the church. Sunday morning is a time of Celebration, the worship. Sunday evening is a time for Equipping of the saints and ministry leaders. Midweek, there are small groups meeting around the area that minister to one another and Minister to the community. Stan told a group of us that invited him to speak that "if I come to visit you in the hospital, you are either my best friend, in my small group, or dying".

Stan's work, as he described it, is to preach Sunday; coordinate the Sunday night equipping session and led the small group leaders training then; start small groups, initially leading them while equipping his replacement, then leave it to start new ones; and lead evangelistic one on one studies, in which he always brings along someone he is training to do the same. Everything else is the work of the elders, other vocational ministers, or the members.

I have been in two churches (moved from TX to NC last April) pushing this idea of the ministers/elders/the-like equipping for more than two years now, and it is amazing the amount of ministry being done. Both churches have had phenominal growth rates (both are now two years old, one is 600 attendees (180 members), the other doubled membership and tripled attendance to over 200 from 1/98 to 1/99), and better than 80% of members of both involved in some sort of ministry.

Now, both these churches are doing more different than how they approach ministry, still, I believe their approach to ministry is key to the involvement level in ministry.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Sorry for the format of that last note. It looked good in typing.
Would it be possible to modify this forum to preview our postings? I mean, I know html, but I am making educated guesses on how it will turn out.
Jon, Nice irony that you posted that c) just as I was typing in a note addressing that very issue. As for d), the church in Texas was doing a lot of that. There, the senior evangelist, Ronnie, sees his job as training up leaders. They have a college outreach, and every year, two or three students are picked and given a stipend and "intern" under Ronnie. There is a formal training time on Sunday afternoons where anyone is welcome, and there is practical, on-the-job training for ministry the rest of the week, including one on one time with Ronnie. Additionally, the target is that as growth occurs in numbers and finances, as many of the full-time ministry positions as possible will be filled with members, not hired from the outside. This is as much to encourage members in volunteer ministry (they see that 4 years of college training is not necessary for ministry) as it is a "chemistry" issue (working well with the personality of the church).

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Danny,

I still contend that your original question was rhetorical in nature. Also, you should note that one person in your experience does not a movement make. If you were to provide a clinical study (say Barna) which might prove your point, that is one thing... but to point to one person's "Preference" as a logical movement toward traditionalism, is beneath you. I could just as well say that I've heard (and I have) that adults our age prefer not to attend church because it is boring and too traditional. Who's right? Who's wrong?

What you did was ask a loaded question for which you already had your opinion of the answer. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" I did nothing but sarcastically repeat the same type of question in reverse to you.

A "preference" issue is not a doctinal one. I prefer my steak Medium- rare... how about you? But hey, it's wrong to eat your steak any other way than Medium-rare!!! Here, let me prove it to you... here's argument x,Y&Z.

Am I really watering down the Gospel? What do you think? For what it's worth, I agree with Doc Jon about change for the sake of change is wrong. But our job is reaching people for Christ! Any which way but loose!

Firmly planted in the good news of Jesus Christ!

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Nate, Probably isn't sufficient for you, but about two years ago I read of a study on worship style preferences. I just went to the Barna web page, and couldn't find it there, so maybe it wasn't Barna that did the study. Probably Gallup.

What I do remember of the study was that, generally speaking, 30 and 40 somethings preferred a contemporary service, while 20 somethings preferred traditional by a slight majority (maybe 60%?) -- pretty much for the reasons mentioned by Danny's sample set of one. No mention of what teenagers prefer. Also mentioned was that 20 somethings wanted challenge and "definiteism", that is, in today's society that worships tolerance, those open to the gospel want hard, foundational truth. Society gives them too much wishy washy-ness already, 20 somethings want something rock solid. I have also heard this from one college minister -- as he described it, the students in his ministry lapped it up when he taught them on the hard challenges of the gospel of Christ. Sad thing is, by the time the church adapts to take advantage of these needs, we will be using this information on the next generation, who may be responding to something else entirely. Darrell -- this info of mine is at least two years old. What is it like now?

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Having been a parent/teacher for almost 21 yrs now you don't know how tired I am of hearing "that's boring" when suggesting Bible study or academics for that matter. It is not a new problem. Charlotte Mason, a public educator, said almost 100 yrs ago that teachers spend so much time preparing a cute, entertaining lesson, present it brilliantly and then wonder why the children still aren't learning. It is because we have cheated them of thinking and have made them passive thru entertainment. Add to that having to cajole, beg, plead, entice with prizes and other gimmicks just to get them to show up. Ours is a society of dumbing down and now it has reached the church. After all the videos, skate parties, and anything else suggested above..Does the child know why he believes what he does, does he know the plan of salvation, can he even find his way around the bible, does he know how to live his life, etc? I'm not saying never have a skating party or never use a video but to constantly have to excite and entertain isn't going to work. You will also burn out your workers cause they will always have to find something bigger and better. I wish you could have seen my 4-8 yr olds on Wed. night. I love that class. I teach straight out of the Bible, I have a few art supplies and a reference book for them. No glamore and glitze. I was there for guidance and to correct wrong understanding but the conversation and perception from those little ones were incredible. Do they think my class is boring? One mother said her little one cried the night she was sick and couldn't attend my class. And these kids do most of the work. Sorry but I won't bow to the entertainment mentality, it doesn't work. Ask the public school that tries some of the same methods...our kids aren't learning.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Jenny...

These are not my words... these are the words of people who are not attending church. Do I think that God's word is boring? NO! But hopefully you already knew that about me. However, I can TEACH someone who is there, while those whose "Perception" that God's Word is "Boring" are no where to be found on Sunday morning or Wednesday evening or at the home bible study. Now you tell me how I can teach them the "Good & Exciting" Word of God? I gotta get them in front of me first!

What is your solution to reaching these hard-to-reach people? Let them go to hell? (No, I am not putting words into your mouth and I DO NOT think that you think this way! I am just frustrated with the "All academic/head knowledge Gospel" to the detriment of "Heart knowledge Gospel.") And yes, I DO believe that there should be a balance of the two.

Doing the best I can with what I have been given...

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Danny...

No agendas for me please! However, you should admit that your question was, er, well pointed.

I agree with: What you win them to...

Please! Middle ground? Here I am!!! About a year ago I read an article in the Restoration Herald from a preacher somewhere in Kentucky who was against my congregation or your congregation removing their Pulpit and Communion Table as if they were "Sacred" Objects... Saying that we should let the Pulpit represent the "Preached Word of God" and The Communion Table represent "The Blood and Body Shed for us" ??? HELLO! Why don't we let the Word of God represent the Word of God and unleaven bread and fruit of the vine represent the blood and body of Christ?

I have nothing against tradition in and of itself, but when we begin to worship tradition, THEN I have a problem. Some folks might even call me a "Traditionalist."

Your experience with the Traditional vs Contemporary is dependant on a huge amount of variables. Is every congregation alike in its personality? Could I find the opposite true somewhere else? What if you were to have switched the times on the T & C services?

Don't forget my background, Acappella CoC... I LOVE Hymns! I can sing all four parts to most of 'em. But again... what are we hear for?

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Dr. Jon,

I love your line of thinking here. You yearn for the "freedom..." - that freedom was found in doing something for Christ. The problem is that what one finds behind the four walls of most denominations and churches is vicarious Christianity, which gets into a bit of what Jenny spoke. She said that if you get rid of all of the fancy preparations by the teacher and allow simple participatory/interactive discourse from the Word of God, people pay attention. They take part! They're excited!

Most believers, no matter how mature in our Lord, yearn to find their ministry and enact it. Yet many don't. They're not doing something for Christ.

I don't know "guerilla" snuck into your thinking for this reason, but large centralized units never accomplish half as much as smaller units. I wasn't in Nam, but when I was in the service, the men who were there told me that the enemy was effective because they were released to do the job in small, mobile groups. Tough to target, fast- moving - as opposed to our men, who were always reliant on "orders from above." You seem to suggest that our ability to move effectively for Christ lies hindered by top-heavy, denominational structures.

How did you arrive at "guerilla?" And how do you motivate the body into doing something for Jesus Christ? I like Jenny's approach and as I said, I love your heart here, Dr. Jon.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Nate, The bible does not need to be "made exciting" or interesting. It already is. The gospel message is simple and beautiful. The goal here is to teach. Entertainment has never been an effective teaching tool. Children learn from what they have discovered themselves. Therefore we must feed them with good ideas, standards, disciplines, etc. It is not what we do to children from without but from within. For example.. We do not give children nutrition by rubbing lotion on them, no, but by good nourishing food that they take inside. Entertainment is like the lotion whereas good sound bible teaching is nourishment. The same is true for adults. Entertainment provides no discovery, no true learning. How to get the people to come to you? I don't know. Generally I have found that using bribes, prizes, gimmicks never teaches anyway even if you draw them in. So you are back to square one....they may come to church for yrs but never really learn anything. It is the mindset you must change and no amount of entertainment will effect that.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Alright, alright....sheath your knives, this is MY thread! ::laffs::

But seriously, you all are saying right things. Here is some more of where I am coming from right now:

a. To answer Brett, "guerilla Christianity" is a phrase I coined while in the Army to represent the kind of action I thought was happening in the book "A Call to Discipleship" by Juan Carlos Ortiz. In that book, he, as a pastor of a large denominational church, had to go "underground" and act completely independent of his own church to raise up real Christians, versus church-goers. He was one of the originators of the "cell group" concept. While I am not in 100% agreement on the role of cell groups, what he did reminded me of what guerilla cells did in the 60s "wars of liberation."

b. Recent studies have shown that (surprise)in churches which are effective at growth (assimulating members, keeping members, discipling/maturing members) the predominate preaching style is EXPOSITORY. Plain and simple Bible is the common denominator here. No gimmicks, just the Bible. The people have to know the Bible to grow.

I agree with Danny again. It is harder to teach than to tell. Teaching takes time...and change in people is not always visible. Now, this is where I will answer the question about "traditional churches." Traditional churches (i.e., denominational or established for a while) are not biblical when they judge the progress of the work being done by modern business-type methods. Which are: emphasis on numbers rather than quality; emphasis on quick results rather than quality results; over-emphasis on things (money/budget, buildings, grounds).

It takes a long time to grow a Christian. In my own church background, for a pastor/leader to do it is almost impossible because of rapid turnover (a Baptist pastorate changes @ every 2-3 years). This turnover is often the result of unrealistic expectations of the members. Remember the thread about Youth Ministers? They have the same turnover time, or less. Unrealistic expectations from a congregation who were never taught correctly what was in the Bible about what a member of a congregation was supposed to be.

I'm starting to digress so I will keep this short ::laffs:: Our jobs as minister is to teach, train, build up. Some of our present organizations don't allow us to do that,so my conclusion was, maybe we have to find another way other than what we have been doing.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Concerning the Contemporary Service One thing that Ben Merold taught me that has always stuck with me is "mix and flow" in your service. I have seen when traditional and contemporary are compared with one another,it is not good. What must be done is teach the older generation to tolerate the yougers music style and learn to appreciate it as with the younger. Danny, what I would like to know is your demographics. Was or is your congregation older, younger, mixed (how much)? What works the best is the Southeast model for mixing the styles together. Or if you are trying to exclusivly tring to reach teens to 20's you might go more rock in music style. But, another thing that Ben taught me is that contemporary does not refer to music exclusively. You can sing hymns without music and still be contemporary. It depends on nontraditional services times, drama, videos, inductive sermons, nopulpit (which I say burn all pulpits),small care groups, etc.

The overall question is, how much are we willing to change in order to reach the youth or even those we normally do not reach? As far as the communion table, nowhere in the NT or OT does it say we must use the table in front of the church. I may be radical here, but as long as we make the Lord's Supper a focal point of why we gather- who cares if it is on a table or brought of of a back room? One thing we have done at the church in which I serve, on Sunday nights we as a congregation worship as a small group setting . Communion is intimate and personal. I give a intimate lesson rather than a sermon and we focus on spiritual growth rather that form and function. We do not water down, in fact we exhalt Christ even more. Rather than the normal check tearing in most Communion times- instead there is deep prayer and reflection.

Another example for you Jon, my first church would always have singspirations on every 5th Sunday evening. No one would come. Only the "faithful few" would be there. The Lord loves a joyful voice, but some of them sounded like a dying cat or cow. I was glad no one came or visited on those nights... it was bad. When I suggested a different format or something new the response was... "If it ain't broke do not fix it!" or "We have always done it this way and we will continue to do it this way!" Then they would often lay a heavy guilt trip on those who do not come as if they were less spiritual. I hope they at least quit doing 5th Sundays singspirations and tried something that was more effective.

That is my two bits.

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

I was just at a website called worship.com where I saw an article titled: "Does being seeker-sensitive mean watering down the message? " -- "Rick Warren details seeker approach as guest on radio's 'Bible Answer Man'"

You can find the entire article at: http://www.baptistpress.org/Archive/BaptistPress/view.cgi? file=19991103.html#STORY4

Now I am not specifically a Rick Warren fan. However, I do believe he's got some great ideas for how to reach the lost of this world.

In Him,

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

It's good to see most everyone finding some common ground on this one. I understand where Danny is coming from as I was a part of the church where he mentioned many of these changes occurred. (I too am 40 & preferred the traditional worship with a little added spice.)

But I do feel compelled to comment on one of Dr. Jon's comments. You stated: "Effectiveness for Christ is:

a. Conversion of souls. This is not just numbers. I am referring to individuals who make a serious, lifelong commitment to Jesus Christ in true conversion."

I wholehearted agree with this statement. But my meager experience has bore out the fact that this usually does not occur just because programs and different styles are added. The statement quoted by several "what you win them with, is what you win them to" rings all too real.

Our church & its Youth Program works with a lot of "troubled" teens and has grown a great deal in the past year or so - with many of them being immersed into Christ. Unfortunately we just lost one such immersed young man who now claims that "there is no God". Basically, it appears too much time was spent in "programs" than in church learning the Word.

Let us never forget, "it is by the foolishness of preaching that men are saved", not by programs, music, sleep-ins, or skating.

Just my thoughts,

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

Mark -

I hear you, and agree. Once we make a convert, our content must be challenging and meaningful. That is why my point b) Making disciples is so relevant. The church is not a social organization. The reason kids get into cults is because what they have to offer challenges them, and make the spiritual seem worthwhile. Anthony Campolo makes an observation (whether you agree with all of what he says or not isn't relevant at this point, but this observation is true) that people want to be part of something which is bigger than themselves. This is especially true for youth. The meaning of life isn't to be found in the CHURCH...its to be found in JESUS CHRIST. We must impress on all involved that it is not programs or anything else which is important, but Jesus alone. He is our reason to be. This comes back to the placing of high expectations on the members. Allegience to Christ in NT times meant the possibility of death. Identification as a Christian was not a light thing. When a person is baptized, this is a public declaration of this identification with Christ. We cannot take this lightly, or trivialize it. Our converts must know right up front what is happening. Its not "fire insurance" (how I hate that term!)

Ok, I'll quit because I am preaching ::laffs:: But I totally agree with you there brother.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

I was looking for the Rick Warren article and found this, which is timely for what Mark said:

http://www.religiontoday.com/Archive/FeatureStory/view.cgi?file=200001 12.s1.html

I'll get beat up on this, but it has been my contention for a long time that we have "lost" our youth. They may be in our "institutions" but they are not, for the most part, committed to Christ. This is a sobering article.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

Thanks, Dr. Jon... I'm suddenly sober.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

I'll get beat up on this, but it has been my contention for a long time that we have "lost" our youth. They may be in our "institutions" but they are not, for the most part, committed to Christ. This is a sobering article.

Dr. Jon, Don't know why you think you'll get "beat up" on the above ... the sad truth is, you are correct. A couple of thoughts:

1. In my last pulpit ministry I served not only as the preacher, but as the over all "do everything-er." We had about 10-12 youth (junior/senior high) in the congregation, and it became quickly apparent that they were "lost" in the term you use above. I attribute that problem to a couple of things:
-- The congregation had not met their needs over the past number of years. All that was expected was a sermon on Sunday morning, and teaching on Sunday and Wednesday nights. In fact, when we tried to do other things and tried to get the youth involved, I was told by member and "leader" alike not to bother ... because it was too much of a bother.
-- The youth had a very poor example of how to develop a relationship with the Lord ... and it started with the poor example their parents gave them. The teenage boys would not sing, 'cause their fathers didn't sing. At one PA teen convention, the male sponsor who attended with us told the guys they didn't have to sing if they didn't want to, since "real men don't sing in church." Besides that, the parents generally showed that they didn't have a clue what a real relationship with the Lord was all about. Show up on Sunday, put in your time, and get home. How sad!

2. I have been involved with campus ministry here at Indiana University of PA since June '99. I see example after example of young people who show up on campus having graduated from high school, thinking the have graduated from church and the Lord. One of the great challenges I and the leaders of CSF have here at IUP (and this is true at most campus ministries) is to help instill the need for Christ into the students ... both the lost and those who come claiming to be Christians. I spoke of this problem with one campus minister at WVU whose been at this for years now, and he said he had a better chance of getting students from denominations or from the realm of the unbelievers than he did from Christian Church / Church of Christ background. Again, how sad.

So, I certainly won't "beat you up" on this matter. Sadly, I must agree with you. And I believe we must start our children on the road to a relationship with the Lord much earlier than junior or senior high school ... it begins in the nursery and early childhood classes, as we help to instill a love for the Lord and the need for a relationship with Him ... not just becoming church-attenders.

'Nuff said for now.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

I think we are starting a new thread ::laffs:: but it is a good point.

The best experience of my life was when I joined the Army and was forced away from home. Now, the Army itself wasnt the good experience! But being separated from home was. When I was on my own I realized that I was a good CHURCH-GOER but I wasn't a good CHRISTIAN. The realization that I was lazy, basically "skating-by" in my home church was painfully brought home as my life crashed around me without that support. This experience changed my life and understanding of the faith. Oddly enough, this is a particular problem in "faith only" churches too. Unfortunately, to "decide" to believe doesn't mean that the faith is actively assimulated into lifestyle. I recall at a meeting of the pastor's association in Louisiana the guest speaker, the director of the local Crisis Pregnancy Center, said with sadness that a large number of her clients (unwed mothers) were from the local evangelical churches.

This is what I was getting at in my original post: how we can make people AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANS whose lifestyle reflects it, rather than just getting "decisions?"

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

The problems addressed in this thread have plagued me for several days, actually it is something that has been on my mind even before this thread was started. I believe it is the reason for my cynicism, not just for my future, but for my children and grand children's futures as well. A thought occurred to me though as I reread some of the posts. It seems as if we are starting in the middle of a series of problems and like Martin Luther have not gone back far enough to solve them. What we are discussing are the results of the church that has strayed so far from what God had originally intended for us. We are so ignorant of history that we ( as the church) can no longer distinguish between tradition/creed and what God's word really says. Add that to a world that we can't possibly compete with and a society and a church that is so apathetic and has their heads stuck in the sand. Most people just exist these days. Could it be that we have found ourselves where Thomas and Alex. Campbell found themselves so many years ago? Is it time for another Caine Ridge?

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

Jenny, do you really want another Cane Ridge? I feel you are right, but what happened at there would be considered like what is going on at Brownsville FL. It was very Pentecostal in nature, if you read Barton Stone's autobiography.

Our youth not only will be the church of tomorrow, but they compose the church of today. Yet, what are we doing for them and to them. Our youth need real answers and straight talk. THey need love and compasion. They need purpose and a reason for existance. They need and thrive on real worship that cuts to the heart. In many realms we have blown it with our youth. We have ceased to be effective to reach them.

What can we do? We must totally change the perception of "church" with them and to be radical and do radical things to reach them.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

Its interesting that you should mention Cane Ridge. My personal reading lately has been "America's Great Revivals" published by Bethany House. Cane Ridge is mentioned there. And the brother is right...it was categorized in the same character as what we call the Vineyard/Brownsville/Pensacola things.

The real issue here of course isn't the manifestations. The issue is the "how" this all happened. We have to look at history. The great revivals were started by people with broken hearts over the sins of the nation/community, who banded together in spite of denominational differences to pray for God to move to end the great evils of the day. Do you want a Cane Ridge? Then we have to set aside our prejudices to make it happen. Historically, according to this book, it was not Barton Stone alone doing this work...it was also Methodist and Baptist preachers. (One man cannot minister to that large of a crowd, he had to have help.) All the great revivals in history had NOTHING to do with churches or denominations, but everything with people who sought Jesus Christ and Him only.

I do not think we will ever have a revival on that scale again because no one basically is willing to give up what is "theirs" in order to have the harmony in Christ which is necessary to enable it. When that type of revival did happen in America at Pensacola, what happened? The established churches tried to squash it. "Unbiblical", "pentecostal excess", "demonic." I know that the established Baptist churches spoke vehemently against it. Of course, they think speaking in tongues is satanic deception too.

In the name of "doctrine" we send people to hell. We don't want to get along with this group or that group because of this or that. Do you know what the difference in doctrine is between the Assemblies of God and the Southern Baptist Convention? One point -- ONE POINT -- concerning the Holy Spirit. There is more in common than in opposition. But "those charismatics" are the enemy!

I'm with you Jenny -- I fear for the future. I raised 4 kids. Its not a pleasant thing to consider that whole generations are lost. But they will be lost because of the adults -- us. I'm getting emotional so I'd better quit. This situation again is a result of inward looking churches. (Which is what my original post was about combatting!)

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

Tell it Danny!!!

Our generation is personally responsible for everything that is happening right now. We allowed the filth on TV and in movies. We allowed the garbage on the radio. We allowed everything because we never said NO!

None of this is new. All that is happening is that American society is reaping what it sowed in the 60s and 70s.

You are right Danny -- we as parents blew it big time. And it is we as parents who can fix it, IF we will do what is required.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

I guess I assumed too much and therefore no one got my point, not even my husband. My reference to the Campbells was made because we need restoration not reformation. Those of us in the Christian church appreciate Caine Ridge not for the pentecostal aspect but for the part it played in the Restoration movement. I won't go into a history lesson here. Finally, our society and the church is hanging by a thread...dare I say we are on a sinking ship. You are right Danny in that I was suggesting radical change but in order to do that we need to go right back to the beginning and find out what it is God's word says, period. Hope that makes it a little clearer.

-- Anonymous, January 24, 2000

It was late last night and I really did not articulate my thoughts as well as I'd hoped. I'll give it one more shot, and be brief, hopefully. For centuries people have diluted the gospel in order to make it "more acceptable." I can have the most brilliant methods in the world but if my message is wrong none of my efforts will be blessed by God. Thus we come to this huge mess we find ourselves in today. My only reason for bringing up the Campbells, Caine Ridge is that it is an example of what can be done. Please don't try to pull me into a tangent arguement about everything that was wrong with the early efforts of trying to restore NT christianity, it wasn't my point. But it is the one thread that I cling to, on what I perceive to be this sinking ship we are on. They can do it, so can we.Only when we present an undiluted gospel...what is the undiluted gospel? Well, thats another thread...but anyway only then, is when we will get out of this dilema. Until then discussing methodology is a waste of time. I felt as if we were futilely trying to fix the symptoms when we need to be curing the disease. And please don't see me as being combative or mean , I am just very passionate on this subject. Thanks guys.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2000

No offense was taken for anything you said Jenny. What you are saying is what I was originally getting at. (No, I am not being coy here...all our discussion is helping me to clarify what I need to be thinking.)

The problem as I see it is how we can preach/teach/exemplify the truth and true Gospel message IN SPITE of our present organizations and mindsets. That is the GUERILLA aspects. We have to make end runs around it. We have to do "unofficial" things, like what Juan Carlos Ortiz did. The "offical" establishment really doesn't want us to be biblically effective -- status quo keeps people employed and empowered.

I want desperately to be part of a "New Testament" church. I believe my calling is to lead one. The problem then becomes 'who's interpretation of New Testament.' We already see that on these boards. Those of you IN the "restoration movement" don't agree -- so how can an outsider like myself fit in? If we cannot agree on basics, then how can there ever be a revival? I don't think there can, not from what I understand about history.

Once again we have gotten waaaay off the original basis of the thread. This was supposed to be practical, not theoretical! So I pose again, with a little modification, what can be done to have a scriptural work which impacts the local community for Christ in our established churches? Or is the answer ultimately that only a new work can accomplish this goal?

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2000

Or is the answer ultimately that only a new work can accomplish this goal?

Dr. Jon -- you may have answered your original question with this one. While there may be some congregations out there willing to make the changes needed to reach this lost world as the first century church did ... sadly many of the established congregations are NOT willing to do what is needed.

To reach the lost takes Christians understanding their role as ministers ... and most are not only willing, but would rather have "THE PREACHER" do the work. We have multiple-staff congregations where they shouldn't be needed ... provided the congregation would get involved.

It takes a radical view to accomplish this ... not a radical view of doctrine, but a radical view of the work of the ministry. And since most congregations refuse to go this way, then it is time to start congregations that WILL do the work of the Kingdom ... including every member as a minister.

You might be interested in reading "HIGH EXPECTATIONS: The Remarkable Secret For Keeping People In Your Church" by Thom S Rainer (c. 1999 Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, ISBN 0- 8054-1266-2 (pbk). Rainer has found what they call a "secret" to keeping people in the congregation ... expecting great things from them. (Of course, this is first century Christianity, so it's not a real secret). While the focus is keeping folks from heading out the back door, what he says in this book is true to this thread: get folks involved in the ministry and work of the Kingdom. Don't just ask them to be involved, but EXPECT them to be involved. Good stuff.

I was at a recent missions board meeting, and one of the preachers there stated that you can't expect the same level of committment from volunteers as you would from someone getting paid. While the $$$ is a great incentive to get the work done, I don't believe I agree with his statement. We CAN expect those in the congregation who are "volunteers" to reach a high level of performance for the Kingdom. And if we expect anything less, we'll get just that! And folks, that is what it is going to take to get this thing called Christianity headed in the right direction. Once the people are involved as they should be, we wouldn't be able to stop it if we wanted to!!!!

This is going to be a major focus point in the establishment of a new congregation here in Indiana, PA. Yes, it's hard to get folks that have become pew potatoes to get cranking for the Lord, but with a new work the people will start with high expectations, and continue from there.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2000

Jon, you say: "I want desperately to be part of a "New Testament" church. I believe my calling is to lead one. The problem then becomes 'who's interpretation of New Testament.' We already see that on these boards. Those of you IN the "restoration movement" don't agree -- so how can an outsider like myself fit in? If we cannot agree on basics, then how can there ever be a revival? I don't think there can, not from what I understand about history."

I too desperately wanted to be a part of a "New Testament" Church, and just a few short years ago was an outsider like you looking in. I can assure you that it can be done!! Not just because a group calls itself a Church of Christ, Christian Church, or claims it is a product of the Restoration Movement though.

Do we all agree? No, you are right about that. Let me ask you does anyone in any group agree with the others 100%? No.

The key to being a "New Testament" church is looking at the BIBLE. The agreement we must have is with God. The key is looking at God's word in those basics you speak of.

The most basic problem I see is that we have a problem with salvation. Some say a prayer, some sprinkle their infants, many believe that all roads lead to Heaven even if Christ is not involved. Some believe moral goodness saves.

This basic problem is a big one yes! But not one that can't be overcome. The answer is there if we will look hard and long enough into God's word:

Mark 1:15; Acts 11:21; John 3:16; Eph. 2:8; I Peter 1:3-5; Lk. 24:46- 47; Lk. 12:8; Rom. 10:9-10; Acts 2:38; I Peter 3:21; Acts 22:16; Col. 2:12; I Cor. 13; John 15:12-14; Gal. 6:9; Mt. 10:22.

Jenny is right when she says that until we present the undiluted gospel we waste our time in the methodology.

The problem on doctrinal basics can be overcome. Forgive me for repeating myself here...again this is done ONLY through the Word of God. If you Jon, believe all God says about salvation and are motivated to be obedient because of that faith and love for Him, and I do not...of course there will be a conflict because of these opposing views. But I ask you, who is correct in their beliefs?

I hope we here in this forum can be practical in helping you in this dilemma. You say: "If we cannot agree on basics, then how can there ever be a revival?" Can you be specific and list these basics we are having trouble agreeing on? Maybe then we can come to a Biblical solution.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2000

Danny, I do not argue your point... it is valid concerning the adults. But, on the flip side- kids have been fed so much garbage that they reject the truth. Many of the X generation not are in their twenties- as I am. Many are rejecting Christianity for Satanism, New Age, far eastern religions, and or nothing at all. Many of the youth are drug and sex driven. An example would be the youth of a suberb of Atlanta (I forget the name), it was the same school that a student opened fired on his classmates. I saw a PBS special about a sex scandal that was going on before the shooting. Over 200 students contracted syphilis. Appearantly there was a masive sex ring in which students were having mass orgies. It is true that many of the parents did not care and left many teens unattended.

Everyone must take responsibility. Not only is it the parents fault but also the kids fault if they so choose to partake in sex or drugs. As with Columbine, many blame the parents, many blame society, and still many blame lack of gun control. But the ultimate blame goes to those two teens who pulled the trigger. They could have said no to Satan, yet they did not.

I was in a courtroom were a 10 yr old entered in chains. He had committed some hanis crime. Was it his parents sole fault. No, I feel it is many factors that play in... but the # 1 responsibility rest with the individual.

I would encourage any adult to sit down with a note pad and watch MTV's sitcoms, they are sex and drug driven. There is not any consideration of sin or what the outcome might be toward actions. I will agree adults do let their kids watch this filth. That is were proper training from the church must be sought. To train both parents and teens. We cannot take the approach that if they do not like it they can leave! We must use whatever means we can to reach both sets (adults and teens). We must focus on making the scriptures real and motivating to teens and at the same time teach parents to train their children in the Lord and to spend not just quality time with them but quantity as well.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2000

Sorry type'o- many x'ers are NOW in their twenties.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2000

Jon:

I have read your words and respond with the intent to be helpful to you. Your words were:

"I would like to suggest that we start a new one, based on one of his comments: alternatives for churches when the prevailing community atmosphere is to have "no thought for the kids who have no homes, or on drugs, or are in gangs, or have broken homes." I am outlining a book which I want to call "Guerilla Christianity." The basis of it is the premise that when the traditional, established church organizations are not acting in accordance with biblical precepts, then the local church, to be effective and biblical, must work outside of and independent of the "establishment." This is not to just be an act of rebellion toward the establishment. It is so the local church can act IAW the Scriptures totally, and make an impact on their area for Christ.

Let me say that the title to your book is creative and it does catch ones attention. For that very reason it is difficult to criticize it. But there is no doubt that the problems that you describe are in fact caused by the counterfeit Christianity that is found among the sectarian denominations that value the traditions and creeds of men over the word of God. Those who are more concerned about building what would be considered great churches" in the eyes of men. This means that the churches are not considered great unless they have a huge edifice with some kind of program suitable to the needs of every diverse group. They are busy entertaining" with musical Groups instead of evangelizing with the blessed gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Their religion is set up to please men rather than God. They are converting men to their church or denomination instead of converting men to Christ our Lord. They are preaching the great insights" of their most motivational speakers who entertain, soothe, and move them with emotions based on shallow gimmicks intended to bring tears or laughter and have a trail of mindless, purposeless, meaningless responses that make these preachers look great and powerful. All of this nonsense in the place of preaching the word of God that immediately engages the reason and trains the conscience with the unadulterated truth. It is this truth that brings genuine emotions from hearts that for the first time in their lives realize that the inspired word of our Great God has greater force than the insights of our so-called great men.

For that reason I recommend Genuine Christianity as opposed to Guerilla Christianity as a solution to the problem. All you need to do is teach the word of God and nothing else. You once suggested expository preaching. Now that was the very best suggestion that I have read in the entire list of responses to your thread. I also recommend doing only that which you can find explicitly commanded or approved by precedent, or necessarily implied in the word of God. When you chose this course you will find many sectarian, denominational, traditions of men melting away from the original, pure, and true Christianity. And you will see for the first time the genuine faith once delivered to the saints which has been covered by thousands of years of human traditions and reasoning. This process will make it shine again in its glory for all to see. Gods word will not return unto him void. We do not need to help God. We must obey him. Preach the word! Reprove rebuke and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine Give heed to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine. Those who are not satisfied with Gods simple plan of salvation will ostracize you. That plan is that one should hear the pure gospel (Romans 10:17), Believe in Christ (John 3:16), repent of their sins (Acts 3:19) confess Christ (Matt. 10:33,34; Romans 10:10) and be buried with Christ in baptism for the remission of sins. (Mark 16:16; Matt.28:19,20; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:25-40; Acts 22:16; Gal. 3:26,27; Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:3-5; Heb 10:22; John 3:3-5; 1 Peter 3:21). Urge them to know and accept the COST of believing in and being obedient to Christ our Lord. Luke 14:27,33.

I once talked to a friend of mine who had not become a Christian. He was still believing that faith alone could save him. I had already taught him that James made it clear that faith alone cannot save. (James 2:24). He had just attended a great Billy Graham Crusade. He raved on about Billy. It was oh Billy is Great, Billy this and Billy That until I stopped him to ask,  John, while you were at the crusade I know that you saw Billy Graham. You have spoken of absolutely nothing else. I want to ask you; however, during the entire time that you were there did you see our Lord Jesus Christ. For you have not mentioned him once. I have already therefore drawn the conclusion that He was not there! My friend got the point. I talked with him further about obeying the gospel of Christ. He was baptized that same hour of the night. I baptized him myself. I did not call for some Pastor Minister or any so called clergy to do it. For we are all, as Christians, priest unto God. (1 Peter 2:9) so why should I call for a priest when I am one!? My friend has talked of Christ ever since that day and you will never hear him get all worked up and excited about some great preacher. He has not mentioned Billy Graham since except to explain to others that Billy promotes himself instead of preaching Christ. Now I offer this only as a means of explaining that if I had followed the traditions of men I would have been just as excited about Billy Graham as was my friend. If he had wanted to be baptized I would have made him wait until some clergy had arranged a baptismal service. And We would have spent days looking for a church that was convenient and suitable to him. We would have searched for one that had programs available for persons in his age group and from the same generation. In his case it would have been the baby boomer generation. How stupid would that have been? Instead, I baptized him into Christ our Lord and commended him to God and the word of his Grace, which was able to build him up and give him an inheritance among all them that are sanctified. (Acts 20:28.)

Let us understand that Gods word will reach all groups of men. It is the same message for the so-called X generation" that it was for the first generation of men who ever heard the Gospel. The problem, sin, is the same. The Savior, Christ, is the same. The message, the gospel, is the same. The method, preaching the gospel, (1 Cor. 1:18- 21) is the same. There is no need for us to try to improve on Gods solution. We need to simply follow what he has commanded us to do. Go ye therefore and preach the gospel to every creature he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved he that believeth not shall be condemned.  Mark 16:16. Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. Go, Teach, baptize and teach. That plan is simple. Follow it. Have faith in it. Do not say, but we need a special program or a special method of getting their attention. Ha! If you want to get peoples attention today all you have to do is stand up in front of them and preach the blessed gospel of Christ. You will have their attention because it commands attention in itself.

Can you imagine the Apostles having a discussion similar to this one that we are having in this thread? Can you see them asking,  what kind of program do we need that will help us reach the Roman gladiator population? How can we reach the younger generation of citizens? Maybe we need to sponsor chariot races and when they attend we can begin the race with prayer and hand out copies of the scriptures. Some congregations are actually having gladiator training conducted by some of our Brethren who were once famous gladiators. This should strike their interest! Maybe we could have a small-scale gladiator event only we will de-claw the lions and pull their teeth so that we can be realistic but safe. Then the younger generation can get a sense of the type of commitment that our martyrs have shown so that we can thus install a similar commitment in their hearts. Then we can talk about the crucifixion of Christ and they will have a better chance to understand. We also need to adjust our worship to have a musical format similar to the popular music of the day. If we adjust our worship so that it is more to the peoples liking we can reach more and have more in attendance and build great Churches. Let's gather all the idea's that we can from the people on how to further promote the gospel. The reason that we do not read of such nonsense in the scriptures is because we are not commanded to "promote" the gospel by human strategy but to preach it in obedience to God's command. For we "plant and our fellow christians water, but it is "God who gives the increase".

I hope you can see my point, Jon. We are doing things today that no genuine Christian would consider! We do not need these ridiculous Elvis impersonators, Worship services that mimic pop rock culture, or skate churches", coffee rooms, foos ball, blaring rock Christian music. All these things are not only attempts at accommodating the gospel to men but bringing Christ down from the throne where he is now seated. You see we are not trying to convert people to Christ we are trying top convert Christ to the people! We are trying to make Him and His word more palatable and more acceptable to various generations and groups as if they are any less LOST than any previous generation or any less disposed to hear the gospel. We appear to think that these groups have particular obstacles that God did not anticipate when he simply told us to preach the gospel to them. Christ did not tell us to go and make the gospel more acceptable. He told us to preach it. Period! There will all ways be reasons for men to reject the gospel. Paul did say, Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men. But Christ said for us to preach it.

I understand your desire to get around this unscriptural sectarian denominational nonsense that stands between the sinner and his Savior. I commend you for it! But the answer is not to start a different unscriptural, though less cumbersome human tradition. For it too will prevent men from coming to Christ. The only thing that will ever work is a return to preaching the original gospel of Christ and following nothing but the word of God, and worshipping in spirit and truth without all of this human nonsense of rock groups and Elvis impersonators and other incomprehensible forms of entertainment that I am still shocked to see among those who would be "Christians only". The very idea of a skate church where we charge the public to attend as if the glorious church of our Lord is nothing more that one more entertainment center for teenagers. WE must also leave all human creeds and have no creed but Christ.

I have an aversion to your creative title to your book. There is something very incompatible with guerrillas and Christianity. I know what you mean, but this is just more of the same. We do not think that the gospel in its purity and simplicity will appeal to readers so we seek to entice them with catchy phraseology for we just do not think that preaching the gospel will work.

Jon, I recommend to you Genuine Christianity instead of any subversive guerrilla Christianity or any other human system.

It is my prayer, Jon, that not only you, but that all of us will have faith in Gods plan. It does not need our innovations to succeed in this or any other generation. God has promised that His word will not return unto him void but will accomplish the purpose for which it was sent forth. Read Eph 3:10-20; Col. 1:24-27.

Your Friend in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2000

Bro. Saffold,

You said...

"We also need to adjust our worship to have a musical format similar to the popular music of the day. If we adjust our worship so that it is more to the peoples liking we can reach more and have more in attendance and build great Churches."

You actually said a lot more than that but I shan't quote all of it. :-D

I want to start by say that as usual you have the unmitigated gall to bring us back to the gospel everytime we think we've shook it once and for all! You have over and over again dragged us back, kicking and screaming, right to the Father's Word. You're nothing but a no- count tattletail in reverse! Instead of telling Him how wrong we are, you simply shake your head and tell us! Of all the nerve! Who do you think you are? ...And on top of it all, you call youself a priest! What kind of priest are you anyway? Where's your collar? What about your clergy credentials? I'll bet you don't even wear black! You are usurping the authority of State of Alabama by practicing the clergy without a license! You are the REAL "Guerrilla Christian" here sir! You claim your right by the Holy Bible and yet you didn't mention George Wallace even once! Shame, Shame! What kind of Alabamian, uh, Alabamin, hmm, RC-&-a-moonpie-ite are you anyhoo?

Actually, I want to thank you for once again, another well-thought and written piece. It is very true in the premise' it makes. However, I do want to bring to your attention my lack of understanding in some of your thoughts. In the quote above, I find some difficulty in understanding your viewpoint concerning the music issue. If you are saying that we shouldn't adjust to the popular music of the day... what should our music look like? 1st century music? 1860's music? 1940's music? Or should we just lag behind the rest of humanity by 20 or 30 years musically? (I know I am straying off course here, and I mean not to take away from your message, one iota but...)

I guess that musical styles and "contending for the faith once delivered" are synonymous in your book. If you change one, you will surely change the other? Now I know that you do not believe that and I am simply being adversarial. However, it SEEMS to me that you closely tie these two things together and yet I see that you teach in english rather than the greek the NT was written in. I would also note that I once heard it told that a believer once said: "I will never change the Bible I read from the King James Version to any other version because (and here's the kicker) If the King James Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul, its good enough for me!" That person also closely tied the "use of the KJV" and the "Gospel" together so that if you used any other version of the Bible other than the one he grew up with, then you were (in essence) adding to the Word of God and therefore condemned.

Am I condemned because I can worship my God and Father above better in a comtemporary style sometimes? I can also worship my Father with hymns... Cappella or A-cappella. Do I have a sincere heartfelt desire to reach the un-churched? You bet! Will I try to draw others to God by my style of music so I can relay the Gospel to them, You bet! Unwatered, unfiltered, RAW Gospel. Right out of the (gasp) NIV! Do I hold people to the accountability of the gospels? I dunno, you tell me.. hopefully you've read enough of my posts, and therefore already know the answer.

-OR-

Is this simply an issue to say that we "agree to disagree" on?

:-D

I love ya brother!

In Him,

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2000

Lee, I agree with you to a point. But, you must realize that when you make a statment about 'rock" music then it is in the realm of opinion. For example, I see nothing wrong with churches using rock music in the format of their service. In fact, at Cornerstone (the church in which I minister), we are inviting an alternative praise rock bank named Phatfish to play at our crusade.

I have come to appreciate your no nonesense approach, and I greatly admire you for it. But, you brother are making wide general statements as fact that are not so. One of the many ways that we can reach this MTV generation is through music. You can deliver a gospel message through song, just as well as from the pulpit.

Also, you do not have to compromise the gospel message in order to deliver it in different was. Sermons do not have to be expository all the time, but can be topical, textual, or even inductive in nature (which Jesus used in Parables). For example Paul's method was different when in Athens than in Rome. Or his method was different in Jerusalem than in front of Agrippa. Yet he never wavered in the message. The same is with youth activities or music you can be relevant for today and modern yet still hold true to the biblical doctrine.

Still, another example is the various versions of the Bible. Many are very loose in translation but many others are more true to the manuscripts than the KJV, which is extremely outdated. See, the message does not change but the language does. The key is trying to find ways to deliver the gospel message through meaningful ways that effect the listeners. You may love non instrumental hymns or southern gospel music, yet others love rap, sca, alternative, rock, jazz, pop, etc. Is there any right or wrong music? No. Why? It is a matter of personal taste. Please do not make your taste in muscial styles a test of faith. You may not be able to worship in a church with music... that is fine for you. But, I on the other hand can worship not only with music but LOUD music. But, let us not make the scriptures say something that it does not. God gives us the freedom.

I thank Jon for allowing us to vent our frustrations or our helpful suggestions on this thread. But, one thing that I have stated over and over that needs to be clear. In my humble opinion... we need as churches to get more radical in ministry. We need not compromise or delute the gospel message. But, we need to reach today's youth for Christ. Perhaps that means being different from any other church around. Perhaps that means using different styles of music or sermons. Perhaps it means sticking dynamite in the organs and blowing them up into toothpicks (which I would love to do). But, we need to do radical things in order to reach our youth. The passion to reach a lost generation must spur us on. In the name of our Lord Jesus... we can do it.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2000

This is embarrassing. Either the churches I grew up in and have been a part of for the last 25 years were ignorant of Restoration Movement history, or did not think it worth teaching to their congregations. I know a lot about church history from the first through the fourth centuries, but until this very moment I had never even heard of Cane Ridge. I had to do a search on the Net to find out what you guys were talking about. And I found a lot of conflicting reports, most of it unflattering. This is probably another thread though ...

-- Anonymous, January 27, 2000

Just a thought; a question, perhaps ... In another thread it was pondered why emotionalism was looked down upon in a lot of our churches ... could Cane Ridge possibly be a root of this? Sorry, don't mean to get the thread off-track (like it isn't already).

-- Anonymous, January 27, 2000

Uh... since we're a little off track anyway, and nobody has responded to my other post... Do any of you guys have "The Church on Purpose" by Joe Ellis?

I need the "Lifeboat Crew" illustration found near the beginning...

Anyone?

-- Anonymous, January 27, 2000

Brother Kelley:

I appreciate your response to my remarks concerning this thread. I know that you and others are very much aware that I do not believe that the use of instruments of music in the worship of God is authorized in the scriptures. I have not sought to enter a discussion of this issue with anyone in this forum at this time because I am more concerned with dealing with false doctrine such as that mentioned by Brother Demastus in his thread entitled "Garrett Theology". Someday it may be profitable for us to discuss that issue. For that reason I do not attack the many references to "instrumental music" in this forum. But when I mention even once that there might be a problem connected with the use of instruments of music in the worship my main point is suddenly pushed to the rear and this "issue" takes on a life of it's own. This is especially true if they are being used along with several other items that I mentioned as "entertainment" rather than spiritual worship. You are quick to make sure that your "liberty" to use instruments and employ musical groups is not threatened. This you do without seriously considering my point that they are contributing to an atmosphere of entertainment rather than evangelism.

Now you are correct that I believe that the use of instruments of music in the worship of God in the church is completely void of any scriptural authorization in the New Testament. It is not being done to obey any command, follow any approved precedent, or it is necessarily inferred in the scriptures that we should practice it. I understand that you and others in the Christian church practice it's use in the worship because you believe that you have the "liberty" to do anything that is not expressly forbidden by the word of God. While I believe that we can only practice such things as are specifically authorized by the New Testament.

Now I know that you disagree with my position concerning instrumental music in the worship. I respect that and I still intend to avoid a discussion of it. Because I do not want to detract from our efforts to encourage others to return to the New Testament and by following it and leaving the creeds of men work to restore genuine Christianity in the 21st century.

However, I believe that you missed my point about this "rock music" which one could agree with even if he believed that the use of instrumental music in the worship of the church was right. For this point applies with equal force to those of us who do not use instruments of music in worship. I have witnessed this exact same problem among us. My point was to condemn "Entertainment" as opposed to "evangelism". I have prayed for your upcoming meeting. I pray fervently for it's success because I know that your goal is to preach the gospel and reach the lost for Christ our Lord. I believe that you would be wise to work hard to ensure that evangelism is the sole thrust of your effort rather than entertainment.

If you will read closely my words which I now quote again you will see that the primary objection that I pointed to with these "musical groups" was their "entertaining instead of evangelizing".

"They are busy "entertaining" with musical Groups instead of evangelizing with the blessed gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Their religion is set up to please men rather than God. They are converting men to "their church" or denomination instead of converting men to Christ our Lord."

I have seen this happen among those of us who do not use the instrument in worship to God. I have seen choral groups being brought in to sing songs that I personally enjoy very much but the problem with this is the same as that which I am condemning in my post to which you refer. They were entertaining us rather than admonishing or evangelizing, and they were certainly not worshipping God.

So someday, if you like and it is considered important and the time permits and the timing is good, you and Brother Nate can "straighten me out" on the instrumental music issue. But this issue was not even in my mind when I wrote my post. I am merely warning of an ever- present trend toward the Church becoming just another place for people to entertain one another rather than "admonish one another". And for evangelistic efforts to become nothing more than a glorified "road show" designed to "entertain in the name of Jesus rather than evangelize.

In either case one cannot find anything in the New Testament similar to an "Elvis Impersonator" or any singing groups like "Phatfish" whether using instruments of music or not. This is not something that has its inception based upon anything found in the word of God brother.

Then you tell me: "But, you brother are making wide general statements as fact that are not so."

Now Brother Kelley that statement is extremely "wide and general". You do not specify nor do you offer any evidence of such general statements that are not true. I do not doubt that I have made some such statements and I will correct any that you specify. If they are also untrue I will change my thinking and make public correction. But I cannot do anything about a broad sweeping generalization that merely asserts that I am making some statements that are not true. No one could do anything about a statement so wide and general and most likely "not so" as this one written by you.

I agree with you when you say: "You can deliver a gospel message through song, just as well as from the pulpit."

However, I find it interesting that you used the word "song". If you had said that you could deliver a gospel message trough the use of an instrument of music as well as from the pulpit I would not have been able to agree.

Then you say:

"Sermons do not have to be expository all the time, but can be topical, textual, or even inductive in nature (which Jesus used in Parables)."

I have never implied nor have I said "sermons have to be expository all the time." I agree that they do not have to be. But the problem is that we do not have enough expository preaching. In my post to Jon I merely agreed with him about it. I also highly recommend it. I challenge any preacher our there to try it for one complete year. It is the most difficult form to preach but I have noticed that it is by far the most powerful! Yes that I admit is an opinion, which I have never tried to bind upon anyone. I do strongly recommend it and urge preachers to practice it. I believe that it is very good advice.

I just wanted to clarify some of these things. I do believe that my point is being overshadowed by reaction to my words concerning musical groups. I cannot discuss Music in this forum without getting others excited. Rest assured that I am trying to have fellowship with those of my brethren in this forum that use the instrument. I am seeking to fellowship with you in the furtherance of the gospel of Christ. I cannot worship with you while you are using instrumental music but I can work with you in this forum. But what I have said about these things is consistent with what I believe to be "authorized" in the scripture. I believe that even Brother Nate knows that I cannot be justly accused of the ignorant view that ONLY the KJV is the correct translation. Such statements are merely prejudicial except in the case of Brother Nate who is, in my opinion a very talented expert in the art of satire! I enjoy his satire very much! Ha!

I pray fervently for your upcoming efforts to preach the gospel. I pray that our Lord will bless you and your family in the work you are doing. You know that I do not believe that "Phatfish" and musical groups are scriptural. But I pray that you will reach others with the gospel of Christ despite of the "entertainment". I know that they will not be reached "because" of it.

You Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 27, 2000

Lee, thank you for your kind tone in your post. I very much would love to worship with you one day. I have been to many non instrumental churches in my time- some of them I loved- yet some were dead as cold pizza! But, that goes for any church. I hope and pray that regardless of music or not we can worship together. Even though you are under the misdirection that music in church is unbiblical... for that matter so is carpet, pitch pipes, hymnals, etc. You know as I do, that music is an intrical part of worship within the Psalms (Psalm 150 is an example). I do not agree with the separation of OT and NT on this argument.

At anyrate you are right about evangelism on this thread. We need to stick with issues that are a matter of faith. I just pray that instruments is not a test of faith or fellowship with you. I also agree that we need to use music (also lyrics) as a method of evangelism. I am highly evangelistic and I feel that even if a church supper does not evangelize in some way then do not do it. We must always seek to advance the gospel through whatever method employed.

For example I have performed magic tricks since I was a child. In fact I often have preached in churches in a strait jacket! Then I escape to prove the point of Rom. 8. There is nothing evil with illusions or the tricks, but it is how you use them. On illusion in the hands of David Copperfield will bring glory to him, but in the hands of a dedicated Christian it can give God glory and praise.

THe same is with music or anything. I can have a 'Navy Seal' bring a vast assortment of weapons to give a gun safty course to the youth. But, a gun in the hands of a demon possesed killer (as in Texas) they are used for evil. THis is my whole argument.

I do not want to be argumentative, but you must realize that as you feel you have no "authority" on God's word for use of instruments- I feel I do.

But, let us be brothers and let us worship together! I agree that perhaps we need to stop talking about the petty and focus on the major- such as let us do something to reach this world for Christ. Let us get fired up to get the lost saved for Jesus Christ! Win the lost at any cost!

-- Anonymous, January 27, 2000

If we really want to get technical (and that, I think is AKelley's whole point), we need to get rid of church buildings, too. There is no specific New Testament authorization for building church buildings to worship in. The first century church met in their homes, or sometimes borrowed synagoges, libraries, etc.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2000

Brother Kelley and Brother Wilson:

I have already stated my reasons to Brother Nate, Brother Kelley and others in this forum that I am avoiding the discussion of instrumental music in this forum at this time. My point in what I said to Jon had no bearing on this subject at all. Now if you want to engage in a lengthy and reasonable discussion of the Instrumental music issue we can do so. It is not necessary to "snipe" at me with short statements that you know I can answer but that it requires some detailed explanation of the principles involved.

You believe that you can do anything that is not expressly forbidden by the word of God and I believe that we can only practice that which is authorized by the word of God. Now it is not a sufficient response to simply point out that there are some things that we practice for which we have no authority in the scriptures. For that does not settle the issue of whether we must have such authority.

For example, even if your contention were true that we have no authority in the scriptures for such things as "carpet, pitch pipes, hymnals, and church buildings such would have NO bearing on the issue of authority. It would only cause me to tear out the carpet, throw away the pitch pipe, burn the hymnals, and tear down the church building. Such would not cause me to change my belief that we must have scriptural authority for all that we do in the service and worship of Christ our lord because the New Testament is our only rule of faith and practice.

The command for us to sing -found in twelve places in the New Testament- authorizes all that is necessary to the obedience of that command. Singing requires the pitching of the voice whether it is pitched by a pitch pipe, tuning fork, or a perfectly pitched human voice is authorized by the command to sing. The command to sing authorizes songs to sing which includes the words and the tones or music with which to sing it. Understand that there are two classes of Music, vocal and instrumental. Singing is done only with the voice but the notes of the music apply to both classes. Thus the command to sing authorizes all that is found in our hymnals.

The command to come together for worship authorizes a place to come together. The examples of the Church meeting in homes, synagogues, etc. demonstrate that a place to meet is necessary to the obedience of the command to meet together in one place. Now whether it is a rented hall, a home, or on property owned by the brethren on which they jointly have built a building, a place to meet is authorized by the command to meet and is illustrated by the approved examples given by Brother Wilson.

Now Brethren, I have said that I am avoiding this discussion for now. I do so for good reason. But please do not try to take advantage of the fact that I am avoiding it and attempt to leave the impression that these shallow and easily answered arguments that you have made are sufficient to settle this issue. This issue between us entails a far more complicated argument and reasoning than these matters that you have mentioned.

TO discuss this issue we must decide on the principle of whether we are authorized to do anything that is not expressly forbidden in the scriptures or whether we are only authorized to practice that for which we have authority from God.

This would also involve an in-depth study of the scriptures related to "generic and specific authority". This could be an interesting and useful study but not at a time when we need to give attention to the false doctrine being taught by Brother Garrett. This dangerous doctrine of Brother Garrett Brother Demastus has quoted for us in his tread entitled "Garrett Theology" to which I have only in the last few days written a response. In fact, I believe that Brother Danny, Brother Kelley, and myself are the only ones to have responded to his request for our thoughts on those matters. Instead we are sitting here discussing matters that are, at the moment at least, less threatening.

I ask you to go to that thread and Join with me and Brother Kelly, and Brother Danny, and Brother Demastus to refute this pernicious doctrine taught by Brother Garrett. Please do not misunderstand me. I believe that this issue, which does not just involve instrumental music but many other matters, is very important. But lets discuss it in an organized format and after we have dealt with these threats to the truth posed by men like Brother Garrett.

Does that meet with your approval?

I appreciate all of you and I love you in the Lord. We have known for months that I do not use instruments of music in worship to God. I do have very good and sufficient reasons. I understand our differences very well. I respect your positions without agreeing. I accept the NIV translation of the scriptures with the same caution that I have toward the KJV. I use the American Standard Version in my studies. I read the Greek New Testament Daily in my devotions. In that case I am using the "Saffold Translation" which is the one for which I have the LEAST confidence! I say that for those who might take seriously the recent efforts to "categorize" me as someone who believes that the "apostles read the KJV."

Please try to see that my point in my post to Jon was to warn against the doctrines and commandments of men and to condemn "Entertainment" replacing "Evangelism" in our work and worship to God.

I cannot possibly accept the idea of "skate churches" and "Elvis Impersonators".

Brother Kelley, I would not as a former Navy Seal, bring a bunch of weaponry into the Church to teach young people "Gun Safety". I may teach them those things in a different context but the Lord's Church does not have such training as a part of its mission.

I pray for us all that we can have the wisdom to walk diligently after the truth.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2000

Look you need to look to both the Lord and to just encourage others if you seeing something that we should be expressing care about and getting-invloved with, very recently a class__mates H.S. pk that's wonderfullly all growed..up now is speaking of how we can be indifferently ignoring the feel'en others and that is she ( quote ) has stated in the last 4 months ".. because no one seems to want to get involved with a .. " now though a reference to herself not making much sense and kinda nervous about approaching her "with the subj." man try to get help to .. that's all it seems clear to me, I wish I could take steps to make it clear how wrong she is by helping in not saying some just trust THE L o r d but to show it in some appropriate manner, no Amen, no ??? to_guestbook@earthLink,(net)

submitted to Gustbook for the area of askin' this ..

-

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2001