Thursday
Feb012007
U2 Church, Part 1 : False Advertising
Thursday, February 1, 2007 at 01:57AM
Ok, so here it is. I've got a couple of opinions about this, but I'm not, again I say I am NOT claiming to be right. I can be convinced. I'd really love discussion about this, because I just don't get it. There are three main things here that I see: False advertising, Idolatry and Money. Today, I’ll discuss the first one.
I linked the other day to this church where you can find these video clips. The ones I first saw were the "U2 Christmas" clips, but they also have Switchfoot, McCartney and Coldplay covers, as well as a few of people acting like the Blue Man Group.
I posted this link and was surprised by some of the comments. I figured a lot of people would dog it, and a few did, but a lot of you said good things about it, whether for the production values or the apparent ministry or other reasons.
Now I have no idea who this church is, but I know I've been to about a thousand like it, so this is BROAD and not SPECIFIC about these people. Some of "those" people may be you, and I'm seriously asking here.
************
My main question is this: Why? Why does a church spend a very large amount of money to be a cover band? Is it to bring people to church who otherwise wouldn't go? Is it to be culturally relevant?
What's the first thing you see when you click on that church's website? The logo for the Fox TV show "24". Why? Turns out they're doing a series based on it. But, not really... They're doing a series based on what the life of a 24/7 Christian looks like. It has nothing to do with the TV show, except for the stolen logo. So why did they do it? Is Jack Bauer preaching? Do they think that I'll see the ad for their "version" of the show and I'll go to their church?
I maintain that this is false advertising. They are obviously using "24" and U2 as advertising. They have graphics and logos and I imagine they're printed up and hanging all over the church, as well as the website. But it's not "24". The pastor isn't disarming a bomb while torturing deacons for vital information. He's talking about Jesus. And I don’t doubt that He is. I've read everything on their site about the beliefs of this Church and they're wonderful. The notes on the services are full of Scripture. Their mission statement is doctrinally sound and well-written, so none of that is the issue.
The issue is that they're lying to people so they can tell them the truth.
Again, the message being preached is NOT a rip-off. But the methods are sketchy. I found this article from the satirical Lark News that illustrates my point. People are coming because of an ad campaign based on a half-truth.
*************
Curt left a comment containing this quote from a wonderful movie called The Big Kahuna about a salesman who's evangalising instead of doing his job...
“It doesn’t matter whether you’re selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or ‘How to Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down.’ That doesn’t make you a human being; it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are–just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it’s not a conversation anymore; it’s a pitch.�
***********
Is the Church a venue or a community of believers? Does seeing your pastor dress up like Bono and shout "Uno, Dos, Tres, Catorce!!" bring you further into your community? It might for you, it really might, but it definitely doesn't for me.
I’m a storyteller. I have no problem with using pop culture as a reference. Illustrations are valuable, and U2’s songs are full of great ones. But do you really have to copy the band’s staging (the red open heart) so somebody understands the spiritual longing in “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For�? If it’s that great of a song, the point is probably made without the light show. In fact, seeing your pastor huffing it around the stage dressed like a rock star makes the depth of the lyric a little harder to focus on, I’d imagine.
*************
It’s the thing to do these days to make the church look like a rock show, but really, that’s ridiculous.
I was in Atlanta at a YouthSpecialties conference with Caedmon’s a couple years ago. 7000 or so youth group leaders and pastors were there to catch up on the hottest tools and trends. Cliff took a moment to point out what should be obvious. “We will never be as cool as MTV,� he told them. “They set the definition of cool, and we spend too much time chasing it. What MTV doesn’t have is the love of Jesus.� We were told we’ll never be asked back by YouthSpecialties.
But that is the truth. MTV may have cool, but it doesn’t have the love of Jesus. Every single person in this world lives near somebody else. It doesn’t take a lot of cool to love my neighbor, but it often takes a lot of time and effort, (and it’s never as glamorous as 15 minutes of getting to be The Edge.)
For 2000 years people have been coming into their local church meetings. Every soul has a void and a longing for the world to make sense, for the pain to be healed. The Church has what fills that void. We can cover U2 to fill some seats, and Kiefer Sutherland could baptize people on video screens, but it doesn’t matter. People will come to Church because that’s where they look when they want to find Jesus.
What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Am I missing something important? Has your life been changed for the better by things like this? I've got opinions for days, but it doesn't mean they're always right...
I linked the other day to this church where you can find these video clips. The ones I first saw were the "U2 Christmas" clips, but they also have Switchfoot, McCartney and Coldplay covers, as well as a few of people acting like the Blue Man Group.
I posted this link and was surprised by some of the comments. I figured a lot of people would dog it, and a few did, but a lot of you said good things about it, whether for the production values or the apparent ministry or other reasons.
Now I have no idea who this church is, but I know I've been to about a thousand like it, so this is BROAD and not SPECIFIC about these people. Some of "those" people may be you, and I'm seriously asking here.
************
My main question is this: Why? Why does a church spend a very large amount of money to be a cover band? Is it to bring people to church who otherwise wouldn't go? Is it to be culturally relevant?
What's the first thing you see when you click on that church's website? The logo for the Fox TV show "24". Why? Turns out they're doing a series based on it. But, not really... They're doing a series based on what the life of a 24/7 Christian looks like. It has nothing to do with the TV show, except for the stolen logo. So why did they do it? Is Jack Bauer preaching? Do they think that I'll see the ad for their "version" of the show and I'll go to their church?
I maintain that this is false advertising. They are obviously using "24" and U2 as advertising. They have graphics and logos and I imagine they're printed up and hanging all over the church, as well as the website. But it's not "24". The pastor isn't disarming a bomb while torturing deacons for vital information. He's talking about Jesus. And I don’t doubt that He is. I've read everything on their site about the beliefs of this Church and they're wonderful. The notes on the services are full of Scripture. Their mission statement is doctrinally sound and well-written, so none of that is the issue.
The issue is that they're lying to people so they can tell them the truth.
Again, the message being preached is NOT a rip-off. But the methods are sketchy. I found this article from the satirical Lark News that illustrates my point. People are coming because of an ad campaign based on a half-truth.
*************
Curt left a comment containing this quote from a wonderful movie called The Big Kahuna about a salesman who's evangalising instead of doing his job...
“It doesn’t matter whether you’re selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or ‘How to Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down.’ That doesn’t make you a human being; it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are–just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it’s not a conversation anymore; it’s a pitch.�
***********
Is the Church a venue or a community of believers? Does seeing your pastor dress up like Bono and shout "Uno, Dos, Tres, Catorce!!" bring you further into your community? It might for you, it really might, but it definitely doesn't for me.
I’m a storyteller. I have no problem with using pop culture as a reference. Illustrations are valuable, and U2’s songs are full of great ones. But do you really have to copy the band’s staging (the red open heart) so somebody understands the spiritual longing in “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For�? If it’s that great of a song, the point is probably made without the light show. In fact, seeing your pastor huffing it around the stage dressed like a rock star makes the depth of the lyric a little harder to focus on, I’d imagine.
*************
It’s the thing to do these days to make the church look like a rock show, but really, that’s ridiculous.
I was in Atlanta at a YouthSpecialties conference with Caedmon’s a couple years ago. 7000 or so youth group leaders and pastors were there to catch up on the hottest tools and trends. Cliff took a moment to point out what should be obvious. “We will never be as cool as MTV,� he told them. “They set the definition of cool, and we spend too much time chasing it. What MTV doesn’t have is the love of Jesus.� We were told we’ll never be asked back by YouthSpecialties.
But that is the truth. MTV may have cool, but it doesn’t have the love of Jesus. Every single person in this world lives near somebody else. It doesn’t take a lot of cool to love my neighbor, but it often takes a lot of time and effort, (and it’s never as glamorous as 15 minutes of getting to be The Edge.)
For 2000 years people have been coming into their local church meetings. Every soul has a void and a longing for the world to make sense, for the pain to be healed. The Church has what fills that void. We can cover U2 to fill some seats, and Kiefer Sutherland could baptize people on video screens, but it doesn’t matter. People will come to Church because that’s where they look when they want to find Jesus.
What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Am I missing something important? Has your life been changed for the better by things like this? I've got opinions for days, but it doesn't mean they're always right...
Reader Comments (77)
Thanks for writing this, I couldn't agree more.
I'm with David. I completely agree.
And to answer one of your last questions, "Has your life been changed for the better by things like this?" ... God used an unbeliever in my life to bring me to Him. I believe that God is sovereign and works all things (note: ALL things) to work out for the good to those who love Him and are called for His purpose. He can use whatever it takes to bring a person to Himself. I have seen that displayed in many many lives. But that doesn't make the tool holy. I've seen people saved in alter calls. I was saved from a guy reminding me of how wrong humans can be. He wasn't saved. I know a girl who looked at a sunset and wept at its beauty and gave her life to Christ right then and there. Amazing stuff. God is too big to put limitations on what can be beneficial in the growth of a person's sanctification, or in spurring salvation.
Anyway, I'll probably start rambling soon. And my thoughts are unorganized right now. Its late. I appreciate the post, Andy.
I can't say that I agree or disagree, but I can say that you have a great point. Maybe I'll wait until the end of this series of post.
Anyway... let me talk about Caedmon's Call and YS.
I've been listening to Caedmon's tunes for over 4 years now. Since I'm from Brazil, it is a bit hard to find CC's Cds here, but I managed to get 40 Acres, LLoL and Share the Well.
One thing that I love about the band is the lyrics. Lyrics always comes first in a Christian band.
CC's lyrics are doctrinal rich and profound. When Derek was in the band, and his theology was pouring out from his lyrics, I must say, they added a lot to my christian life, and still do. Sometimes I have to let the "modern worship" playlist and dive into the CC / Derek Webb playlist.
I became a reformed christian through the help of some great books and CC's songs. Seriously.
Now... I've done a few searches... and turns out that YS is releasing books from "emerging" authors... on the likes of Rob Bell and Brian McLaren. I don't want to raise any discussion here, but that says a lot about you're not being asked back there.
Thank you for your post, and sorry about the english. I'm from Brazil, :)
OK, now I'm really looking forward to parts 2 and 3 of this topic. :-) I think you're right on, brother. Cliff hit it right on the head, too. The church is in a fruitless chase if it tries to be as "cool" as 24, U2, and MTV. It can't happen. It shouldn't happen.
It seems to me that when we try to be that "cool", in essence we're saying "hey, our message isn't palatable, so we'll try to lure you in with something you'll like better." Not only is it false advertising, but it sure makes it sound like we believe that our message isn't compelling by itself.
I'm glad this church in question has a solid doctrine and mission statement, but then for God's sake (literally), just share that message! The timeless Gospel doesn't need to be dressed up in Jack Bauer's suit or Bono's sunglasses to be relevant to us today.
As others have said, I think this post is spot-on. Can the Lord use these wordly marketing ploys for His good - to bring people into a relationship with Him? Absolutely. I'm sure that church you wrote about (and others like them) have their heart in the right place. But the Lord is about honesty, He is truth and therefore we should use that truth in ministry.
Oh, Eduardo - after I became a follower of Christ, I owned the 40 Acres cd before I owned a Bible. I learned a lot of scripture and theology from there as well.
You're right.
I don't totally disagree, but I don't totally agree. I am a worship leader at a "seeker" church. We do similar things as were listed here. The #1 purpose of of those message series titles that bite off of pop culutre and the songs that people know and hear on the radio covered in church is to get unchurched non-believers in the door. So maybe Eduardo is right about "reformed" being the opposite of "emerging." I work at an "emerging" "non-traditional" "progressive" church. I am not reformed, however I do love the music that you "reformed" artists create. Can we please just support each other without critizing each others motives? I know the motive and vision of my senior pastor is to transform lives of lost, unchurched people into the likeness of Christ and I follow that vision through reaching out to them in whatever way will connect.
I agree. My philosophy is that the church's function is to recharge believers and that believers should reach out (take the evangelism responsibility).
This is the classic Lighthouse vs. Powerhouse argument.
Andy, I think you're spot on, and I think it's a result of the professionalization (that was an awesome amount of syllables) of the ministry. We're training ourselves to be programmed for Ministry (or Outreach, if you prefer) happening on the stage. Traditionally the meeting of the Church was inward focused (building up believers, preaching the word, developing community) so that during the week, the members of the Church could be equipped for ministry.
We've flipped the equation. We want the people we pay to do ministry, and, if possible, we want to be entertained at the same time.
But then, what do i know?
I concur with Cliff's comment! We should get past all the hype and labeling and look to Christ. Jesus alone SHOULD be enough. I will say that it is at times profoundly difficult to love people sometimes, but that is my prayer in that God would teach me to love like Jesus does. Tony is right in that God is too big to confine into our limited knowledge.
Chasemonkey---I'm sure everyone here would want to make it clear that no one is attacking motives. I along with a lot of people here would say that the seeker and emerging churches actually have some great motives---getting people in the door of a church, getting people to trust Christ as their Savior. Those are admirable ends, certainly. Its the method of doing that that is being discussed here. At some point, though we can all give each other some latitude here, the medium shapes the message. It does. Bear with me on this harsher point: If the medium shows that we believe that Christ needs the "propping up" of His Church with arena rock, then that is going to be the perception of the unbeliever. And if they are truly redeemed in the process, that is probably the sort of Christianity that they will initially be "saved to". Christ is bigger than our methods, yes, but the method shapes the perception of the audience about what is being communicated. In today's world, using U2 is, at best, confusing to the audience, and at worst, a slick distortion.
Another point---and I only bring this up because there has been a contrast set up between Reformed and Emergent/Seeker. Its the theological understanding of salvation of the Reformed person that doesn't move him towards using those sorts of methods. If Christ is the "evangel" and a better "evangelist" than any of us could be (ie: He does the calling), then all people really need is a sincere and warm appeal to trust Christ, while dealing with their very real intellectual barriers in the process. That does leave church a lot simpler looking in the end---but if its "authenticity" you are after, then the historical/biblical church does a pretty dang good job of offering that.
I'm sure there are things that I could have communicated better here. But those are my initial thoughts.
This is really what's at the heart of the emerging church conversation. David F. Wells has written 4 great books on the topic from the reformed evangelical position. Do we really have to become entertainment based in order to reach the Post-modern world? The emerging church conversation believes we do and the reformed evangelical church believes we don't. I think that as brothers and sisters in Christ that we should be holding each other accountable. If the emerging church begins to lose the truth in the midst of all the show, someone should speak up and point that out. And if the reformed evangelical church fails to reach out to unbelievers in our post-modern culture, someone should point that out. In the end the question is: Is the Gospel of Christ's death and resurrection being proclaimed to the Glory of God? If the answer is no then that church is failing it's purpose and it doesn't matter if it is reformed evangelical or emerging.
Great point, Mitch.
To be fair in regards to my earlier post---emerging churches at the core of the movement really tend to be against "the show" of seeker churches. That partly why emergent "emerged". But in the process, I think that both varieties---the older 70's and 80's seeker churches and the newer emergent churches are mirror images of one another. They both come at church with the assumption of the "experience"---whether arena style or even Orthodox liturgical style. Certainly all SORTs of churches are guilty of this, absolutely. More could be said. Just wanted to clarify.
To fully disclose, I'm one of the pastors at the U2/24 church we're discussing. You should know that I love this type of dialogue. It is an issue I wish more churches and followers of Christ would wrestle with. You are asking great questions, and you don't come across as brainlessly criticizing...but genuinely looking for an answer.
In my mind, it's not an either/or. It is a both/and. It is about helping believers become more like Christ AND introducing people to Christ. Alot of people have given up on the organized church for reaching new people. They think that you go to church to be focused and built-up and strengthened so you can go OUT and reach people. I still have great hope for the power of the church and the gospel to reach people. I've seen it work. I've experienced it.
Jesus and Paul show us some great examples for how they used their culture to connect with people. They didn't shy away from finding something that everyone knew about, everyone was talking about, and using that object or poem or icon to talk about the truth.
We're taking an icon of today (like U2) and unpacking the spiritual issues. We've seen over and over again how hundreds of non-church-goers will come for a series because they have an interest in that piece of pop culture, and they will stay because the gospel connects with them. All the time, they are enjoying themselves. They are seeing humorous video vignettes (purposely cheesy) from 24, they are seeing short TV clips from 24 used as message support. It's having fun at church while hearing the truth of the gospel.
If you watch us over time, you'll see us focus all of this toward a commitment weekend. Last May, after several such series in a row (Mad Money, then Pure Sex, then Unlocking the DaVinci Code), we saw over 800 people give their lives to Christ in one weekend, and then over 500 follow through with baptism a few months later.
I don't think you'll hear us saying we're trying to be as cool as 24 or U2. We just want to connect. We are in a community where tens of thousands of people have given up on the church. The church is totally irrelevant to them. We're producing services that make it very easy for someone to invite a friend. Then we are telling them how much they matter to God. Then we begin the fun of helping them grow in their faith and continue to take steps toward God. It's what I've given my life to.
Let the dialogue continue...
Thanks Tim, I really appreciate your taking the time to write, and you make some good points. I'll probably have to read your comment a couple of times today to process it all. For those of us that have issue with these methods, are there questions you have to ask us about why we do the things we do? Part of what you're doing is a reaction to the traditional church model, as you've stated. Are there any specifics your church is reacting to? Thanks for entering in the discussion.
andy, i think you make some good points. as far as the False Advertising goes though, i think you're stretching it a bit. Noone really believes that Jack Bauer is going to be pikcing off terrorists from a sniper's perch in the balcony or that the pastor is going to torture an unsuspecting layperson within inches of their life. Let's be honest, the Church is not advertising that and noone comes expecting that.
What the churches (i believe) are trying to do is bring the good news of God reaching out to man through Jesus. They are choosing to do that using stories, anecdotes, and analogies that relate to things from our current culture. And as someone engaged in our culture, i am interested in that.
In fact, i think you could argue that Jesus did a similar thing with the parables and stories he told. He spoke in the terms of his culture talking about plentiful harvests, trees being known by their fruit, lost sheep, sowing seeds on soil, filling lamps with oil, vineyard laborers, and such. Those themes appear to very culture specific to me. (though i admit i dont know what percentage of folks bcak then were farmers, shepherds, and the like).
Look, some people are intrigued at how a pastor can weave timeless truths in with stories about "24". Some people think it's the dumbest thing ever. He might hate me for quoting him on this but like Derek says, "you go in through the door, i'll go in through the window", as long as we're seeking to love people and help them connect with each other and with God.
yeah, i go to a "24" church, as you might suspect. and i'm not convinced everything we do is right, either. but i know my pastor's heart, and i've seen the changed lives, and i know i want to be a part of that.
great discussion...i love it.
The church I am currently at, it seems at times is trying to be a church like this one. I don't like it too much. But the church has a great heart and they have encourage me and a few others to plant a church, which we are in the process of, and we don't really want anything to do with this model for church. It can work for some, but it seems like too much of a production, and we want church to be real, not that these aren't real, but to some it won't appear to be.
It is tempting to want to do things like this church because it is "cool" but if you ask me, cover bands are never "cool"
These are interesting points. I am from the reformed/evangelical "side." I find Tim Steven's and bryan a's points to be very good. I have another question for thought though,
How does the world view the churches who put on services mimicking a U2 concert or trying to be as cool as MTV? Lets say an unbeliever will never go to church in his life, and he's heard about these Christian churches, what would you think he thinks about them? I'm not being facetious, I am actually asking. Does it matter what he thinks? Is it "better" for him to see Believers try and reach out outside of the church environment? Or is it more beneficial for him to see these types of outreach opportunities. Like I said before, God can use anything to bring a person to Himself, but I just thought I'd throw out the question.
And is it really an either/or like Tim said? I don't have the answer. But is it possible that Christ really did design the church to simply be a place for believers to be reminded, built up, sharpened, convicted, encouraged, challenged, etc? It seemed to be that way in "Bible times." But I know of many amazing churches who have regular unbeliever attenders who profess their unbelief while "being on the verge" of salvation but can't make up their mind. The church is a place or refuge for them as well. This is stuff I haven't thought about until recently. What do you think?
The church I belong to has a bent on pop culture references in the title and little interludes. And we've done pop songs that have crossover appeal. My pastor believes that these often serve to disarm new people who would otherwise feel like outsiders. I have to admit before he said that I questioned the approach myself, but when I heard the approach, it made sense to me, and I realized that my gut and limited view is not the only right answer.
I think Tim Stevens gave an excellent explanation of their churches approach. While we all knew their motive was pure, I believe Andrew is calling into question their approach. In short order, you are accusing this type of church of a bait and switch tactic. At some times I would tend to agree, but when I have the opportunity to hear Mr Stevens' response to it, and see that:
1. It is not a bait and switch, it's using pop culture references to entertain and disarm, all while giving the Good News to those who attend.
2. People realize they are not going to see 24 or U2, there is no false advertising there to the contrary.
3. It works!
I think that people like yourself, Andrew assume that #3 is the only reason they do it, and without regard for the fact that people are smarter than we tend to give them credit for. People can actually appreciate satire (as your reference to the lark site shows) and people can appreciate pop culture references without being tricked into becoming a Christian by them.
I just think that using the term false advertising was a bit of an exaggeration. Though in the last weeks you have certainly had a penchant for false advertising titles so maybe that was by design ;)
I remember the first "Christian" t-shirt I saw. It was a total rip off of the Pepsi logo and it said "Jesus - the choice of a new generation" (or something along those lines). This U2/24 thing (with my apologies to the pastor) gives me the same sick feeling I had when I first saw that t-shirt.
Can we not just preach the word anymore? Is a Bible study on walking the Christian life no longer any good unless is coupled with a spoof about a popular TV show?
It's a good thing when a church tries to bring in the unsaved, but I'd say that should be more of a community outreach thing than a spoofed marketing campaign. But maybe that's just me.
Mitch...THIS is was awesome:
"I think that as brothers and sisters in Christ that we should be holding each other accountable. If the emerging church begins to lose the truth in the midst of all the show, someone should speak up and point that out. And if the reformed evangelical church fails to reach out to unbelievers in our post-modern culture, someone should point that out. In the end the question is: Is the Gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection being proclaimed to the Glory of God? If the answer is no then that church is failing it’s purpose and it doesn’t matter if it is reformed evangelical or emerging."
Wow. Thank you.
I think that we as Christians underestimate people. I don't think that the U2 church really brings in that many non-believers. People (especially young people) have very strong BS sensors. And no one wants to be duped into buying a lesser version of the real thing, which is what the U2 church is.
U2 writes and performs those songs in the context of the life they are living, to take it out of that context lessens the songs. I believe that it stems from a belief that art is only valuable as a means to an end, not as a complete and possibly holy thing in itself. We think that since people like 24 they will like a sermon loosely based on the 24 model, and since people like U2 people will like it if we pretend that we are U2.
But again I don't think that non-believers are buying it. We, as a Christian culture are buying it because it makes us feel cool. Cliff was right on with saying CC never be as cool as MTV, but I think we are offended by that because we want to be cool.
I am very tired of Christians taking something that is popular in the culture at large and making a Christian version out of it. It often cheapens something that was good in the first place.
We as Christians need to consider the act of creating art to be a sacred endevour and stop being a coverband of the rest of the . There isn't a single coverband that has ever been significant in the history of music, why should we believe that we are being "relevant" by copying something else.
Sorry I accidentally submitted the last post before I finished it.
I believe that it stems from a belief that art is only valuable as a means to an end, not as a complete and possibly holy thing in itself. We think that since people like 24 they will like a sermon loosely based on the 24 model, and since people like U2 people will like it if we pretend that we are U2.
But again I don't think that non-believers are buying it. We, as a Christian culture are buying it because it makes us feel cool. Cliff was right on with saying CC never be as cool as MTV, but I think we are offended by that because we want to be cool.
I am very tired of Christians taking something that is popular in the culture at large and making a Christian version out of it. It often cheapens something that was good in the first place.
We as Christians need to consider the act of creating art to be a sacred endevour and stop being a coverband of the rest of the . There isn't a single coverband that has ever been significant in the history of music, why should we believe that we are being "relevant" by copying something else.
Heres a humorous link on Christian versions of http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/reverse-incarnationalism-the-boars-head-tavern-contest" rel="nofollow">popular things.
I just want to echo the previous comment about not including emerging churches in the same category as seeker churches. While there is of course a wide variety with those who call themselves part of the emergent movement, I would say much of it is as much a reaction against the philosphy of seeker churches as it is against evangelicalism.
Ron, you said "Can we not just preach the word anymore? Is a Bible study on walking the Christian life no longer any good unless is coupled with a spoof about a popular TV show?".
Don't take this the wrong way, because it is just in the spirit of this argument,but can't you totally see the Pharisees of Jesus' day saying the same things about what Jesus was saying? "This man comes around with His stories and parables. What, is the Torah not good enough? Does he need to answer every question with stories?"
Again, I'm not calling you a Pharisee, Ron, I'm sure you know that. And i hear you're tall and can beat me up. And part of me wonders the same thing you wonder. Is all this extra stuff taking away from the Gospel even though it is attempting to draw people to it.
I just think that we need to realize that when Jesus came on the scene he used similar methods to preach God's truths. When he told folks about what soil is good for seeds and soil isnt, and then later explained that he was REALLY talking about spiritual principles, could folks have accused Him of bait and switch? Was that false advertising on His part? Maybe it was. But he was talking to them in a language they understood, using pictures and examples they were very familiar with to convey those truths.
I think that churches that are doing that today for the sake of conveying God's truths are doing a good thing. I think that churches concerned with outdoing one another over who has the bigger venue, more expensive sound system, and Edgier worhsip bands and completely missing the point and maybe doing more harm than good.