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)
I am uncomfortable with all of the various U2cerist type services that I have seen pop up lately. I have always felt a strong spiritual connection to all types of music but especially U2. I also recognize that this spiritual connection is so abstract that it really isn't the gospel, thogh more likely an interpretation of lyric and personal circumstance that I am illustrating myself. The purpose of church is to further our understanding of God, family and love for community. Music such as U2 can be tools but should not be the main attraction of a service. The church you linked seemed to be using several gimmicks as their main attraction thus I agree...false advertising.
When I want to hear U2, I pop in a cd or DVD. When I want to watch 24, I turn on the TV. I don't go to church for those things. Sure, quote them, draw from their themes, but don't pretend to be somethings you're not.
In the grand scope of things, who gives a dudu about "entertainment" one way or another? If I felt a void in my life and I knew it needed to be filled I think I would go to the first church door that was open or to church with the person who listened to me an showed the Love of God to me through their actions rather than some verbal or Youtube advertisement about some new cool light show. But then again I'm old. Kids like that stuff.
In the end people come to church, from boring old piano and organ to the Cirque Du Solei church, for something else. The rest of us are just kidding ourselves if we think they are coming because we are cool or anti-cool. Love can dry-up in the apathy of a old-coot-church or the vanity of a American Idol set with a disco-ball pulpit.
However, "being yourself" isn't actually an epidemic the church has suffered in the past 10 years of so. And when a blatant knock-off is successful it is always because of the right intentions, i.e. Love and not to fill the seats with an audience so that you can live out the dream that you had as a 12-year-old in your room when you played air-guitar to "Where the Streets have No Name" (Meanwhile the pastor's eyes flash green as he drools after the guilt buckets filled with money.)
So why not be original in the first place if its not YOU that people are coming to see? But then again, I've never heard of a U2 Church until now so could that not be original in some way? And seriously, who REALLY has an original thought anyway? We all have our influences. As long as they are INFLUENCES and not Karaoke night.
I posted this over at Shaun's blog but thought I would share it here as well since you asked the great question...
OK. Here is my take. I am not a big fan of the “Desperate Houselies� “24� “LOST� series stuff. Actually I think it is kind of lame.
Now. If you go to our church blog You will notice that a few months ago we did a series called “M28:19� Which was a blatent rip off of Mission Impossible.
“But Carlos. Are you not the Creative/Worship guy?�
Um. Yea. I lost. We all lose some battles right?
And I am still going to fight the fight that we need to stay away from the T-Shirt slogan ideas. Why?
Because we are not Hollywood. Nor should we be. Even the churches with the biggest budgets can not even come close to making those kinds of ideas work. It ends up looking like a bad high school drama compared to what the people going every Sunday actually watch on Monday nights.
BUT. I think the music thing is different.
I am sure that Shaun has done some secular covers in his career as cool singer songwriter. The songs speak to the masses. Music can actually be done well with low budgets if you have good players. We do covers at Sandals. We have done U2. The Black Eyed Peas. Even freaking LoneStar. But we don’t blast the community with stickers and postcards of The Black Eyed Peas with my head photoshopped on Fergies hot bod.
We play the covers not to be cool. But to give the church something that they can all relate to and then we teach from it. Because I promise you this. Inside Out might be the cool trendy United tune to do right now, but if my brother who is not a Christian walked in, the song would do nothing for him. Nada.
I’m not even going to reread what I just typed. Probably none of it makes sense. But it did coming out of my dome.
Los
A central issue, in my mind, is a lack of creative thought in "the church" and generally in the Christian subculture. It is largely a reactionary culture- ie:we need to be cool like MTV. Or on the flip side: we need to stage a boycott. It frustrates me that so much of Western Christian culture is a direct ripoff of an idea someone else has already proven to work. I believe that loving God with all your mind includes thinking creatively, not creatively using another's thoughts.
"They'll know us by the t-shirts that we wear..."
Hey Bryan, I can't believe you called me a Pharisee. ;)
Using something in culture to make a point that relates to a spiritual truth is one thing. Using illustrations is one of the most effective ways to communicate. The problem I have with this isn't the use of 24 as an example in a sermon, and I don't really think it's fair to call this a "bait and switch" approach either because nobody's going to go into a church thinking they won't hear a sermon.
My concern with this is the "we need something other than the Bible to get people into church" attitude. I think it's wrong.
I can see value in referencing pop culture here and there as part of Sunday AM programming. But there has to be some balance in this thing, though.
And I think the balance thing is way bigger than whether Jack Bauer shows up, yells "DAMN IT, WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!" and tortures the worship leader.
Rather... I think the balance has to do with what the church's main mode of outreach is.
If the outreach model sounds like "let's make church cool so non-Christians will come!" - on it's own, without intentional emphasis on equipping and encouraging Christians to go out and love on people - then I think the church has missed the mark.
Too often it seems that our programs are built around finding ways to get people to church so our Pastor can tell them about Jesus. I hope for more balance in my own life... I want to show people in my community the love of Christ; hopefully they'll notice something different in my life, scratch their heads, and say "hey, he goes to church Sundays... I don't... maybe that's what's different about him..."
All that said... it's cool to be cool... as long as that's not all we are.
I think a dangerous thing to think here is that a church is either equipping its members to be witnesses in the community OR is putting on a hip show so non-church people come. I think a majority of churches that use the show still encourage their people to live and love in community. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt there. That is all...
I would definately agree with your thoughts on this. It's something i've been bothered by for quite some time now. I've heard from quite a few missionaries that North America is the only place in the world not experiencing revival right now. Maybe that's because revival usually requires a return to the stripped down, simple faith. Thanks for the thoughts!
Andrew - good point. I would agree that this is generally not an either/or equation.
So I guess I could've done a better job at making my point; whatever it was... lemme try again.
I don't think there are many churches out there who intentionally set out to be all hip, all the time and say "To heck with equipping them... let's just be cool!". Certainly people don't set out to do that.
At the same time, in my own personal experience, which I won't bore you with, I've seen the emphasis on equipping believers for personal, relational evangelism fade (unintentionaly) to the shadows.
At the end of the day, for me, when the main avenues (intentionally, or not) for evangelism requires people to set foot in the church, it just feels as though it's at odds with what I've seen in scripture.
Or, as I said before - it’s cool to be cool… as long as that’s not all we are. Intentionally, or not...
I'm holding out for and Elton or Beatles Church. Then I'm in.
A few related thoughts/opinions:
1. It is our job to be incarnational. In becoming a human being, God communicated to us in the most tangible way possible. Our job then, is to communicate the gospel in a way that people can understand, that is relavant to them. This does not necessarily mean that we use pop-culture to do so. It does however mean avoiding words like propitiation when speaking to the unchurched.
2. Knowing our culture and interacting with what is out there is important (i.e. being able to interact with things like the Davinci Code, helping people to see where it differs from the Biblical witness and answering questions they may have).
3. There is a terrible mentality today in terms of church. We tend to have a consumerist mentality when we think about church. We say things like "I don't like the worship" (meaning music) or "I don't like the preaching," etc. However the goal of a church service should not be for us to feel good or be entertained, but for us to be transformed and to grow in worshipping God in all of life. I'm not saying that we should throw out our personal preferences for preaching or music, but the goal is so much greater and we should be fighting the consumerist mentality both in ourselves and in our congregation. God has perfect pitch and is the only perfect preacher, and is only concerned about how the community making up his bride is reflecting his image to the world.
4. We need to have our idolatry challenged, not fed. We should always be asking ourselves whether we are feeding into the systems of idolatry that we set up for ourselves or are we challenging it? The most pervasive example of this in the U.S. is materialism.
5. I have been thinking a lot recently about how we have forgotten the gospel's first word...Repent. Repentance means challenging our idols, turning from our sin, and turning to God. Somehow this has become too offensive for us to preach about. We think that if we preach this way, we will scare people off. The gospel always finds acceptance and takes root with some while others sneer. That is what we should expect. If we don't see both of these responses, we should ask ourselves if we are really Biblically preaching the gospel.
These are just some of my thoughts, and I may need to be corrected, but I think we need to ask ourselves these questions when we consider all that we do, but specifically what our services and advertising look like.
This is a great discussion... I have been thinking about this kind of stuff a lot lately. I think that both sides are "right" and heres why...
I've been thinking about the arts and the gospel - how at one point our church was at the forefront of creating culture. As we all know, it's not there now. Hollywood, music companies/radio, publishers hold that position. We're forced to at least be exposed somewhat to what they push. Some of it's good (as in funny, exciting, worthwhile) while a lot of it rots. The churches position for so long has been to ignore, hide, ridicule, complain about our culture... It's gotten old and forced the church to become less relevant. The 1st step might be taking things from the culture and using them as "jumping off points" for a spiritual discussion. The next best step would be for people in the church to do get back to creating the culture. I'm an artist and love the challenge of being true to my artistic sensibilities while being true to the Gospel. (That's actually what I love about CC and your music - the passion to do something exceptional musically while focusing on God-life). I think that Relevant Magazine is a 1,000 times better than MTV because it successfully raises questions, glorifies God, and is "cool" but seemingly not at the expense of real people and relationships.
The other side, as discussed is a fear of being duped or going too far... with deemphasizing the need of real relationships, nature, true beauty, etc. It's easy to spend too much on trying to be the culture and one could wonder who is caring for the poor of the world? Something that would be really ironic in the U2 case, lol.
Anyways, thanks for helping me to think - look forward to the next posts : ).
Why is it that being "relevant" often translates as being more like X demographic?
Isn't everyone, regardless of what they sing or how they speak relevant to someone? Is it possible to be irrelevant - relevant to no one?
Is it possible to not be in culture? To not be aware of culture? Why does the word "culture", as in "being aware of culture" and "using culture" always seem to be referring rather narrowly only to the bits of culture that spew from television shows, silver screens and radio's?
Is "culture" and "relevance" more than this?
I love this. I love the discussion. I love that one of the pastors stopped by to discuss why they do what they do. It convicted me, because I was blasting them the other day. If 800 people came to know Christ, they're doing something right. I guess that just because someone doesn't fit into my mold, it doesn't mean they're not following Christ's call on their lives. I think I judge because I personally don't like it. Well, my dad can't stand the fact that his pastor doesn't do altar calls anymore, but he still goes to church and supports his pastor. Different doesn't mean wrong, except in essentials. I think Augustine said something to that effect: unity in the essentials, charity in the nonessentials. Amen. I think it was Augustine...but I have an 8 month old, so my brain is not what it once was.
Bobes, I couldn't agree more with all 5 of your points. You voiced things that are bouncing around my head, but I can't figure how to get out. Repentance and turning from idols is very rarely taught today, and this country, nay, this world, is in dire need of both. As am I. My idols may not be wood and gold, but they're idols nonetheless. I struggle everyday to lay them down and follow Christ. I pray that we'll all have the courage to do so.
Three questions I ask myself in ministry, most of which have been discussed.
1. Is it wise to contextualize the gospel to such an extent?
2. Is it ethical for a local body to forsake her true identity for a bridge-builder, only to later recant the facade?
And, last:
3. Is attracting unbelievers to worship a biblical method of evangelism?
For a short but compelling book on the topic of church+the pursuit of relevance, check out "Prophetic Untimeliness: A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance" by Os Guinness. Good, good stuff.
Without being overly simplistic, what we are discussing comes down to personal preference—not essential theology. The point of my Danny DeVito quote, which may have been lost on Andy Stager—was not that one approach to worship is right or wrong. To the contrary, whether it’s music selection, jeans or no jeans, art or no art, and other more trivial issues, most of it comes down to what we “like.� And we should closely guard against selling such personal inclinations as essential tenets of our worship from afar, particularly when the local Body is far more connected to the local community than a believer that lives in another place (literally and figuratively).
Paul spends a lot of time in I Corinthians talking about liberty and I think the context is relevant to this discussion:
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.
23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
While Paul isn’t discussing worship per se’, he is talking evangelism. And while he isn’t writing of altering or compromising the integrity of the gospel, he is advocating something that all great leaders understand; acting with sophisticated nuance based on the audience at hand. In leading America through the abolition of slavery, Abraham Lincoln used the same mode of communication and leadership. That’s one of the characteristics that made him great. I suspect Granger Community Church is walking a similar path. Doesn’t it seem as if they are bearing fruit?
G.K. Chesterton was once asked by the London Times to answer the question, "What is wrong with the state of the world?" His answer was surrounded by high and mighty quotes from scholars, statesmen and other famous people who expounded on economic inequalities, ineffective political leadership, and more. In stark contrast, Chesterton offered a two-word answer that rang loud and clear: "I am," he said. Chesterton was what was wrong with the world.
What's wrong with the worship at my church? That's simple. Me. I am what's wrong with worship. Every time I allow my prejudice, my past, my own history—indeed, my own personal likes and dislikes to rule the roost and cloud my judgment—I miss out. Am I viciously concerned about every body else’s motivation—while ignoring the persistent black in my own heart? Is my attitude of worship consumer driven, as in “I don’t like the music,� or “I don’t care for the preacher?� Isn’t worship more about giving than receiving?
Something that really annoys me about myself and other believers is the implicit arrogance with which we spout our beliefs. “Seek to understand� is a Steven Covey phrase which, though not necessarily intended that way, is in fact biblical. We must learn to understand the worldviews of those around us and not be so smug in our beliefs. We must seek to understand why the world believes the things it believes. We must go beyond the point of simply condescending and confirming the sin of every man, and acting as the tattletales of the world. Is it any wonder we lose the world’s respect?
Some random thoughts since I can't seem to sleep tonight and I've read through all of the above comments.
I don't think I would call it false advertising because people know they are going to a church. At least, I'm assuming the word "church" is on a sign somewhere outside their building. The idea of using lyrics from a "secular" song to illustrate something in a sermon doesn't bother me. However, the thought of someone dressing up like Bono to perform U2's songs in front of a church body pretty much grosses me out.
As far as "24" goes, I never watch it. I know it exists because of commercials, but I have no desire to watch it. If I went to a church where they were showing clips of "24" each week as part of a series the pastor was preaching on, I would probably stay home until he had moved on to something else. Okay, that's just me. But what if I stayed for the sermons and watched the clips and decide that "24" really is interesting and maybe I should watch it all the time and rent the previous seasons so that I can catch up with all the cultural relevance I've been missing. Would this be edifying to me? I'm only slightly familiar with some U2 tunes. Am I missing something relevant to my life? Should I go out and buy all their CDs and catch up on what I've missed? Will that be edifying to me?
When we bring these "culturally relevant" things into the church, are folks leaving with the gospel, or are they just more "cultured?"
I guess it depends on how the Holy Spirit works in their hearts.
"When we bring these “culturally relevant� things into the church, are folks leaving with the gospel, or are they just more “cultured?�
Why do we separate these things? The Gospel and culture? Is not the gospel a part of our culture? Too often we leave our faith in one segment of our lives, like it doesn't belong elsewhere... When I see a movie or read a book, (whether "Christian" or not) it has the power to speak about life, beauty - and sometimes a theme will remind me of my life with Christ. Good Will Hunting did that - through the swearing and other not so good things, I found a thread of grace, belonging, healing, etc. I didn't think - whoa - these themes belong in church or in my quiet times... and if I'm picking up on these themes and decide to use the movie to highlight these things, isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't we applaud when culture and church run together?
Perhaps the church has taken the "be in the world, but not of the world" as an excuse to be culturally irrelevant. I can be in the world, not of it AND see Jesus in "Christian" things as well as non-Christian things. I'll use Relevant Magazine again - they'll have an article about saving money on a wedding or apartment - and the next one is about how God is using someone in Uganda to bring peace and food. Life is more like that, right? It all runs together.
GREAT discussion! Thanks Andy.
Andy,
I agree with much of what you said. I have served in a church similar to the U2 church for more than 4 years, only smaller, therefore without the good show. Some of what we attempted I liked and still think was useful. Some was over the line. I do appreciate those who will ask the tough questions, and force me to analyze.
I have skimmed some of the previous comments, but didn't want to be overly influenced by what others think, so I apologize if this is the 23rd time this has been said.
I think the issue in question here is balance. Cultural relevance is necessary. And everyone has their own version of culture to which you can be relevant. However, relevance should be balanced out by truth. By that I mean, we must be truthful regarding our motivation (butts in seats or souls or "because it works", etc.). We must be truthful in what we present to the world, and the manner in which we intend to seek their attachment to Christ (are we depending on the light show to keep people interested in Jesus or are we simply setting people free with Him that is true and watching them come back hungry for more?)
I think is it completely true that we cannot out-cool MTV or any of the rest of the world (especially Clay Aiken). What we have to offer is the truth. I'll do whatever it takes (within the bound of reason and scripture) to open a door for truth. On the other hand, I must admit that for me it is easier to open that door with jokes, a funny story, and a video clip, than it is with a can of soup, or an apology. But as I look at it plainly, I think I know which one better opens a heart. The problem is, its dirty, and messy, and not nearly as easy.
On a side note, I was at that Youth Specialties Conference where Cliff spoke. I have been a fan of Caedmons for years. I was not there for the latest download of coolness. I was there to get better at loving teenagers. I had no problem with the content of what Cliff said. It was his assumption that we were all there "to catch up on the hottest tools and trends" that offended me. It was very clear in the compassionless manner in which he spoke. I was hurt for the hundreds of people who paid a lot of money out of their pocket with a motivation similar to mine and this was their exposure to Caedmons. Cliff would have been much better served to just say "thank you for doing a job/ministry that most people dread." I have read your blog and have talked with you and Cliff and heard your music. I know your hearts are different than what came across the PA that day. I just wish the other 7000 folks could have heard it.
Blessings,
Ryan
I find this discussion to be very interesting. Just today I went out to lunch with some guys from the office and ran across a new billboard campaign that one of the churches here in Tallahassee, FL is running. One of the guys used to attend the church in question and it was interesting to hear his viewpoint. The billboards all around town have a picture of two pair of feet sticking out from under the covers of a bed. To the right of the picture in big letters it states: http://bestSEXever.org and then at the bottom it has the website address for the church. If you go to the address above it will play a short flash video and then re-direct you to their website. Even if you go to the link for their current sermon series, it just leaves me scratching my head: http://www.genesischurch.tv/Default.aspx?p=9145
I can just imagine driving my 9 year old daughter around town (ie., who reads anything she can see) and having her say: Daddy, why is that church doing a sermon series on having the best sex ever? Maybe I'm just getting old, but this seems to cross a lot of lines, yet this church just started about 4-5 years ago and I believe averages somewhere around 1,000 members.
Chris
Just found out that this whole topic made our local newspaper website. It's interesting to read the thoughts of the reporter and then view the responses below the article by people in the community:
http://www.tallahassee.com/special/blogs/2007/01/sex-and-sanctuary-church-ads-get.html
I think this short statement by the reporter sums it up:
"What brilliant advertising though. I probably won't be going to their church (mainly because I don't go to church), which is located right here in Tallahassee, but I had no problem remembering the web address Bestsexever.org and had to check it out. I forgot GenesisChurch.tv five minutes after I passed the sign."
Chris
I once had dinner with a very wise Christian man named Dr. Olds, who thinks deeply and writes about church issues. A friend of mine asked him what he thought about the use of visual aids/art in a worship service. Dr. Olds replied "Prayer and sacraments."
In churches that do elaborate presentations like this (I don't know about this church particularly), they have token prayers and the sacraments (i.e. baptism and communion) are absent in most services.
Rather than debating about the specific use of 24 or U2, I think it's best to ask "Are the basics getting done?" When we focus on those basics, they tend to rearrange the rest of our priorities.