New Church in Anderson?
Snips from a recent article in the Anderson Herald Bulletin:
Jeremy Nivens is replacing scriptural analysis and pipe organ hymns with Disney-themed plays and alternative rock bands.
Opening Oct. 1, Lifeway Community Church will offer a contemporary and accessible alternative specifically tailored to those who may be uncomfortable with traditional practices and liturgy, Nivens said.
“Our target is reaching the over 80,000 unchurched in Madison County,” Nivens, lead pastor at Lifeway, said. “We’re contemporary in style but conservative in theology.”
A Pendleton native, Nivens said the county is in need of churches that attractively present Christianity to people who are unfamiliar with its message. So when the Greenfield church where he was associate pastor suggested “planting” another non-traditional, nondenominational church in Anderson, he jumped at the chance.
Here we go again. Two years ago we got a coffee shop church in town because someone said we needed a more attractive church for the world, now we get a Disney church to further attract the world. It is not that I am not concerned about reaching the lost, but I am more concerned about what this is doing to God, Church, and God’s deserved worship.
Several Question:
1. Will this really be a church? A very basic definition of a church is a body of believers who meet to worship and practice the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Table. The goal of this work appears to group a bunch of non-believers. Therefore, isn’t calling this a church a bit of a stretch?
2. What are they attracting the world to? I know that Christ will be presented somewhere in the service, but according to this interview they want to attract people to the body of Christ with popular music, popular movies, a theater, etc.. Isn’t this close to trying to trick people into liking Christ? I nearly take offense at one line in the article, “the county is in need of churches that attractively present Christianity to people who are unfamiliar with its message”. Would this suggest that the majority of the churches in the county, including ours, unattractively present Christianity simply because we don’s use pop music and movies? Attract the world with what they already love so that maybe they will somehow end up being attracted to and loving Christ? Let them see Christ clearly, so they can love Christ fully. I know this is a bit of an extreme statement, but why not just let them go to a “positive” rock concert or a “positive” movie and tell them they have been to church?
3. Will what is done be worship? By what is contained in the article, everything done will be focused on making man feel comfortable, happy, and entertained. Worship is what man does to make God magnified, glorified, and hallowed. This is what is meant by the statement, God is to be the object of worship.
4. Will it attract people and why? Yes, if it is done well it will attract people. Deep down man knows that he is created to worship God. If he is offered a way to fill this void by going and hearing secular music, watching secular movies, and taught positive principles mixed with some presence of Christ, while being told it is church and worship, then he will fill the void this way.
Print This Post
September 12th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Andy - Very thought-provoking and insightful blog on the “seeker” driven “church.” Once again, I appreciate their motives but cringe at the methodology. It’s one of those times when ignorance is dangerous. Have you read this related link: http://reformation21.org/Reformation_21_Blog/Reformation_21_Blog/58/vobId__4085/ ? Later brother.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:36 am
I guess making you “feel good” is more important than preaching on sin and the need to be born again.
September 14th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Very thoughtful questions Andy…..we all know that God has used other seeker-driven churches for his glory and i will pray for this church that as they remain faithful to God he will bless them.
By the way, Steve, how are you making the jump from because they are wanting to make people feel comfortable with the methods they use that the pastors preaching on sin and being in a right relationship with God will be less important? Have you talked with this pastor to see what he feels about sin and coming into a relationship with God? Do you know that if it came down to it…he would place feeling good over the need to get right with God? Just questions.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
TR:
As a church musician for over 20 years, I can attest that there is an inherent “mood” created by certain types of music or worship style, and it does contribute to how the messages spoken within that context are perceived. If a worship service is full of jocularity or “feel-good” upbeat tunes, then it is very difficult to transition from that to a sermon using sin and the law of God to convict someone of their need for Christ. Imagine if Jonathan Edwards “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” were preceded by a pop-rock song and hand clapping. The mental gymnastics to put someone in the frame of mind to hear that sermon would be overwhelming. On the other hand, it would not be that difficult to transition from that type of worship style to a superificial sermon that emphasizes the love of God to the detriment of His justice, or “God has a wonderful plan for your life”. And that is exactly what happens.
I am not saying that certain types of music are inherently immoral. I am saying that music has a powerful impact on one’s state of mind and in the context of a church worship service, should be chosen in such a way to prepare the heart of the listener to receive the preaching of the Word. That is why I try to choose offertories and preludes to dovetail with the theme of the sermon. You cannot do that with any integrity, however, in a seeker-sensitive worship service because you have jocular music being chosen for a so-called Gospel call to repentance. You will inevitably have a watered-down sermon. Even if you chose the right words, it would not register in the mind and mood of the hearer, especially if they are “unchurched” and have never worshipped God before.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:01 am
Hi Andy,
Like your web -site - just happened across it while I was surfing during lunch.
I can understand how this ‘Disney’ styled church gives us issues. I guess we would worry whether it would put more effort into it’s style rather than it’s substance and message.
Regardless of that - living in the UK, it is my experience that most unbelievers won’t worry about the style of the church, becasue they just wouldn’t go - because it is church. So I think over here we have learned that the thing that counts, the thing that is likely to get someone into church in the first place is our own personnel witness and the way we live our lives. This is more likely to bring the unbeliever to a place of questionning, where perhaps you can take them to church. Once there if the gospel is proclaimed in a clear way then the work of the Holy Spirit will do the rest. Jonah is an encouragemnet to all preachers - he probably preached the lest seeker friendly and grumpiest message ever, and yet through him and that message a whole city turned to God!Catch you later
September 18th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Matt,
Thanks for your post. While not agreeing with all of it, I did appreciate your thoughts. There were a couple of troubling points however. First, there was no thanks or prayers concerning how God has used (whether we may like, or agree with them or not) seeker-sensitive models. Second, there was no mention of the Spirit.
I agree with you that music has much power. And this is both a wonderful and dangerous thing. And I agree that if a service is JUST filled with up-beat songs than that service does and will lack something. I know a church that starts out using more upbeat horizontal songs (though not all horizontal songs are up-beat) and then the closer they get to the preaching part of worship they very powerfully move into slower, more vertical (though vertical doesn’t necessitate slower) singing.
You wrote, “then it is very difficult to transition from that to a sermon using sin and the law of God to convict someone of their need for Christ. ” This is odd. While God certainly uses the message to accomplish things…i always understood conviction to be a work of the spirit alone (albeit through various mediums).
You said as well, “I am saying that music has a powerful impact on one’s state of mind and in the context of a church worship service, should be chosen in such a way to prepare the heart of the listener to receive the preaching of the Word. That is why I try to choose offertories and preludes to dovetail with the theme of the sermon. You cannot do that with any integrity, however, in a seeker-sensitive worship service because you have jocular music being chosen for a so-called Gospel call to repentance. You will inevitably have a watered-down sermon.” Perhaps seeker-sensitive models try to manufacture some things….but it sounds like you are trying to manufacture some things as well, just from the other end of the spectrum.
It is also interesting that you say, “for a so-called Gospel call to repentance.” First of all, that is a pretty bold statement. Second, read the gospel of John again…. no where in there does Jesus call anybody to repent. I agree with John Calvin that repentance flows from forgiveness and not the other way around. If it were the other way, repentance would be a work. So while some seeker-sensitive sermons are watered-down, I agree, are you saying that YOU create an atmosphere musically that will aid the listener so that the PREACHING convicts and that the listener may repent BEFORE he/she believes? The other side may be watered (certainly true, at times) but it sounds like you are presenting something that you do, without any regard to the Spirit and being dangerously close to presenting a work based faith (repent then believe).
Finally, you wrote, “On the other hand, it would not be that difficult to transition from that type of worship style to a superificial sermon that emphasizes the love of God to the detriment of His justice, or “God has a wonderful plan for your life”. And that is exactly what happens.” While I agree that God’s justice, holiness, etc. must not be neglected or downplayed I have no problems with people who emphasize the love of God. If this is how John defines God, “God is love” why wouldn’t we want to emphasize this? And dare I say, emphasize it more than a number of other things? Not to the exclusion of the other aspects of God but if God by His spirit told John, “listen, tell people that ‘I am Love’” then I feel okay highlighting that same truth.
I believe that as people see that God is love and because of this love….and so on and so forth that they will respond much more positively than ‘here are all the things God doesn’t like about our lives and how we are living….now turn to God.’
Just some thoughts…
September 26th, 2006 at 8:18 am
TR said,
“we all know that God has used other seeker-driven churches for his glory and i will pray for this church that as they remain faithful to God he will bless them.”
Valid point that God uses seeker-driven churches, but if we look a the model that is set up here in the paper can it remain faithful? God uses the Catholic church to save some, in fact one could even argue many. God uses wrong theology to save people. Or we could say that God saves them in these places in spite of the theology, but this does not make the practice of the theology right. Can we pray for the Catholic Church to be faithful, or do we have to pray for revival? If the foundation is faulty, can the building stand firm?
September 27th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Andy,
Thanks for your thoughts. I think, however, that remaining faithful to God is a prayer that we must all pray. I think if we are all honest there are cracks in all of our theologies. Someone may say of your church, “well, they have a near-sighted, perhaps wrong theology, about such and such but God will still use that church for his glory.” I think that it is somewhat ironic that you were a little upset that this pastor criticized churches in your area, including yours - because he felt how you were doing somethings wasn’t helpful, or maybe even right. And now you are turning around doing the same thing to this church.
Do I, personally, have some issues with seeker-driven churches? Sure. But I think if they can stand with me in affirming the essentials of the christian faith (virgin birth, deity of Christ, etc.) then however much I may disagree with some of their methodology - I would be very hesistant to say they have wrong theology. Which, in appearance, is you saying that your theology (and by extension, methodology) is the correct one. However good or right yours (or mine) may be…we still all see through a glass darkly. I pray for their church, your church and the church I am involved with that we all remain faithful to God. I mean isn’t it possible to admit that what some of what this church is doing is actually a good thing (while other aspects may be faulty) and at the same time realizing that what you are I do may be good (while other things (whether aspects of theology or methodology) may be faulty and lacking?
Again, just thoughts. I do appreciate what you have to say!
September 28th, 2006 at 7:16 am
TR,
I am not arguing that I don’t have any faults or even that my theology is perfect. The argument is not over a flaw here and there, but a faulty foundation. Is this a Church? And yet it acts as a church.
We have to have some basis for right and wrong, scripture. If I am fundamentaly flawed then it should be able to be pointed out, but what you have done is throw darts in the wind, saying, you are probably wrong somewhere, so you have no grounds to say anyone else is wrong. The ground we have to say what is right and wrong has to be scripture.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Thanks again for the post…i think perhaps i was a little unclear in my post….i was not arguing that i thought you were coming across, personally, as having no faults…and my apologies if that is how you took what I was saying.
I agree that to say, “well, you are wrong somewhere so you don’t have a right to say anyone else is wrong” would be illogical and unattainable. Perhaps I communicated that in my post but that is not what I am saying (or wanted to say).
In my post I stated that if someone could agree to the basic (or fundamental) tenets of the faith then I would be hesistant to say that they have a faulty foundation no matter how much I may disagree or feel uncomfortable with some of their methodology or doctrinal positions on some issues.
So while I may be wrong in some areas of theology that doesn’t mean that I can’t say someone else is wrong - it just means that we must remain humble enough to admit that we don’t have all the right answers and am I saying someone’s foundation (to me, the basic tenets of the faith) is wrong because they may approach church, worship, preaching, etc. a little different than myself.
I wholeheartedly agree that Scripture has to be the final word. But we don’t come to texts without biases or experiences that, whether we like to admit it or not, shade how we view and understand that authority. So we go to an understanding through church history but does this help a lot? Somewhat, yes. But whose tradition of how things are done do we follow? Of course the RC’s would say they are the ones. Gene Edward Veith in his book, “the spirituality of the cross: the way of the first evangelicals” would say that the Lutheran approach is the right way. Do we say that Anglicans are right? Have to believe John Stott and his tradition, right? Or the Baptists? Or the Reformed tradition. I guess what I am saying is the way you were making your argument is that there is only one right way. But if these groups (or churches, individuals) can agree with the basic tenets of the faith…then I think their foundation is solid, though I might not agree with the construction of their homes, ie - the frame of their house may be built wrong in some places.
Ed Stetzer, missiologist with the SBC in his comments on the emerging church (different, I know, than seeker-driven, but I think is quote is appropriate), says there are three types. Relevants who, “take the same Gospel in the historic form of the church but seek to make it understandable to emerging culture.” They want to hold on to the old story but retell it in fresh language and with a different approach to worship, preaching or how a church works. They distinguish between primary and secondary issues. Reconstructionists take, “the same Gospel but question and reconstruct much of the form of church.” Example - house churches. Is a foundation cracked because thousands or even hundreds come to a church instead of following what seems to be more of a 1st century understanding of church - a house church concept? Is that same church wrong if they perhaps have small groups but don’t allow those small groups to celebrate communion together? Does a church have a wrong foundation if people who aren’t in a relationship with God are there on a sunday morning, night and communion is celebrated? Your first question about this church really troubled me…so they may reach out to non-Christians, but it would be more of a stretch to assume that no Christians will be there. And if 2 or 3 are there in the context of worship (song and preaching/teaching, communion, etc) then doesn’t that reflect a church?
Anyway, sorry so long…thanks for your posts…as always…i enjoy it.