Who is the church for?
My cousin Mark wrote recently of the purpose of church meetings. From his knowledge of the Bible he cannot see that church meetings should have evangelism as their main purpose.
In response to his entry, I’ll talk first about evangelism. The word comes from the Greek word “evangel”, which means “good news”. Evangelism is therefore defined as “bringing the good news”. Christians believe that non-Christians fall under God’s righteous judgement; they also believe that there’s a way out. That is the good news which Christians are commanded to “bring”, or “tell” to others (Matthew 28:18-20.)
One of the current trends of a lot of churches is to give “seeker-sensitive” services – in other words, to create services that are comfortable to non-Christians, or services that are specifically aimed at non-Christians. The services may have shorter talks to stop people switching off; they might hand doughnuts around afterwards; they might have really modern-sounding music, or snazzy technical effects and visual aids.
While there’s nothing wrong in any of these things per se, what happens is that it is these things that end up attracting people. The Bible teaches though that it’s the gospel (the good news) that wins people for Christ; it’s the good news about Jesus that leads to people becoming Christians. In a way, this should be obvious. A lot of Christians seem to be embarrassed by the gospel though; it’s almost as if they’re tricking people into turning to Christ by neglecting the hard parts of the Christian message. Telling people they’re doomed – tactfully – is hard (yelling “you’re all going to hell!” generally isn’t effective, even though Christians would hold it to be true…). It’s not something we can gloss over though, and if we believe in the gospel then we should believe in its power to change people’s lives.
Back to church services. Setting aside a particular side of service (or creating a particular kind of church) to be particularly “seeker-sensitive” suggests that we have something to be ashamed of in our normal services. It’s almost as if we’re hiding something. Could it be the message of judgement? No, even that seems to have left many normal church services. People don’t like it – even Christians.
We have nothing to be ashamed of in our church services – or rather, we should have nothing to be ashamed of. If a friend is interested in Christianity yet you don’t want to invite them to a church service because it might “weird them out”, maybe there’s something wrong with your church service.
Every church service should be seeker-sensitive. That doesn’t mean that every talk or sermon should be aimed at the non-Christian – far from it. If an A level student goes into a university lecture to see what it’s like, he doesn’t want the content or approach changed just because he’s there. He wants to see what it’s really like; what the students really do.
This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place for evangelistic events. Evangelistic events have their place; the apostle Paul speaks evangelistically on many occasions, for example. Where are evangelistic events without the gospel though? Often we only hear it watered down in seeker-sensitive services – somehow “made more attractive” for those who don’t want to hear about their eternal destination.
So who is the church for? Mark quotes William Temple, the Archbishop of Cantebury at the time of the Second World War, who says “church is the only organisation that exists for sake of its non-members”. While possibly not the only organisation that does this (and theologically not even an organisation), it is otherwise true. One of the purposes of the church (Christians as a collective body) is to tell others about Jesus. That is just one of the purposes though, and certainly doesn’t refer to the church meeting. As Mark rightly says, church meetings in the New Testament are for the purpose of building up and encouraging each other (Hebrews 10:24-25 for example). The major growth of the church seems to be caused not by non-Christians coming along to meetings that were specifically designed for them. The growth seems to come from Christians, fired up for God, telling others the gospel. Why were they fired up? They were encouraged by each other and by the word of God. This is the centre of meeting together as Christians. While the church is for the non-believers in that it encourages believers in evangelism, it is mainly for Christians. Churches (as collections of Christians, rather than the church as a whole) can certainly evangelise – but not at the expense of neglecting to teach and encourage those who already believe.
Matthew @ 17:27, February 21, 2005 to Discussions | Comments (6)
Comments:
Verity
Oh Matthew, much as it pains me to post something so blatantly irrelevant in a comment to a post, but I must ask: were we in the same GCSE English class? I can’t remember and it’s driving me insane for some reason :S
Comment added at 20:03, February 21, 2005
Matthew
Yes we were, with Mrs Parish. It intrigues me as to why this should be bothering you, but never mind.
Comment added at 07:54, February 22, 2005
Julie B.
I think there is a fine line between “dumbing down” the message and making services accessible to people without a church background. Some things I think are good—eliminating phrases that only have meanings to people who have spent a lot of time in church. I’m not a fan of shortening sermons, however. I’m absolutely not a fan of every sermon being about the need for salvation—but I don’t think that’s a feature of seeker-sensitive churches.
Perhaps one reason the Bible doesn’t speak about using meetings as evangelism time is because non-Christians wouldn’t have come to meetings of Christians. I’m comfortable in believing that had Paul had the equivalent of an Easter service where a large portion of the congregation is there because “it’s the thing to do” he would have preached a salvation message. :-)
Comment added at 03:53, February 23, 2005
Matthew
Eliminating phrases that only some people understand can be good, but then again, they’re almost got to learn what they mean at some point. It’s much harder to give a sermon on the end part of Daniel for example without mentioning apocalyptic literature. And surely a good proportion of sermons would suddenly become much more verbose if we had to spell out what grace meant every time it was used? Liturgy, however, I think is often off-putting – but that’s my personal opinion and not necessarily a biblical view.
I feel sure that Paul would have preached a salvation message had he had the opportunity, but at the same time I can’t think of a better time to preach it even for Christians.
Comment added at 09:32, February 23, 2005
Julie B.
It’s more than just phrases—I think the core is eliminating superfluous practices that are off-putting to unchurched people. For example, a practice that has gone by the wayside is having visitors stand up during the service to be recognized and “greeted.” Another simple change is clarifying before passing the offering plate that the offering is not intended for visitors, hopefully alleviating the “the church is just after my money” feeling. Some churches have given up passing the plate entirely.
I think production values also are important.
Some of my neighbors started attending our church recently. We’ve made changes to become more seeker-sensitive, but we don’t have a separate seeker service like Saddleback, for instance. They came away wanting to attend again (and have.) The husband really liked the organization, professionalism and the children’s programs (he hated church growing up because it was so boring—no children’s programs.) He even liked our cafe. ;-) The sermon, however, was absolutely intended for church members—where we wanted to go, how to grow, etc. I was worried about that, but he was more than okay with it. Interesting.
Comment added at 16:09, February 24, 2005
Matthew
“Greeting” visitors sounds terrible! Our church sometimes has a time just to chat to the people around you – whether they’re new or not. (Our church is so big it’s often impossible to tell…) We also stopped “passing the plate” a couple of years ago for that very reason.
I think my church is pretty good to bring non-Christians to in everything but the music. The lyrics to a lot of the songs we sing are just poor.
I think we often think that for us to bring non-Christians along the talk should be specifically aimed at them, whereas a lot of the time they’re perfectly happy to hear what goes on normally. That’s the core of what I’m saying I guess – we shouldn’t have to change our services to attract non-believers (or rather, we shouldn’t have to have different services aimed at the different groups).
Comment added at 11:14, February 25, 2005
Post a comment:
Most XHTML auto-generated via Markdown. Email addresses are required but will never be displayed. If you have a website (or want to link to someone else's) please enter it in the URL field. Otherwise, leave this blank.
If you have a TypeKey identity, you can sign in to use it here.