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)
Another problem that arises out of a discussion like this is that every one of us has a different idea of what "emerging" churches really are. When I watched the clips on this website, I didn't think of an emerging church. I thought more of a modern church, and I see "emergent" and "postmodern" more commonly being linked together.
I'm with a few of you on here. I agree with some points and I disagree with some points. I was weirded out by how the time of worship music was a little too heavy on the rock concert side of things, a little too showy. Being a worship leader myself, I don't like being paid that much attention to and becoming a distraction to what's going on so I try to avoid being paid attention to. I guess it helps that I'm not much of a 'stage guy' either and I don't really do much TO distract whether I'm trying to or not.
On the other hand, as a musician, I was really impressed by the quality of their music and the technology they use in the services.
All of us have different backgrounds and different ideas about what church should be like, and that's what makes discussions like these beautiful. The church I attend here in Nashville and the church I attend back home are completely different. They are nothing alike. But they are both authentic and both exist for the same purpose.
If this is what connects people to each other and to the gospel and spirit at this church, then I am all for it. If the purpose is to "win souls" and impress them, then I am not all for it.
I'm with M. Smith and Dr. Olds above. Word, Sacraments, Prayer. And like M. Smith said, these essentials, these marks of the true church, will give shape to the rest of what the church is and does.
I take the view that when these things are in place, public assemblies take more of the form of a covenant renewal service than anything else (rock show, altar call, whatever). God comes to us in his word, confronts us in our sin, calls us to repentance, renews us in faith in Christ, and confirms and ratifies his promise to be our God and to have us as his peculiar people in the Holy Sacraments. Pepper this flow with the prayers of the saints and you've got public worship.
I see a lot of churches bending over backwards to make nonbelievers comfortable. To some extent that's good, but where does it stop? As my brother pointed out in a recent conversation, if you don't know Jesus and you hear the truth, you should be very uncomfortable.
Personally I think it's cheesy to do a church service based on a popular TV show. And what is the lasting value? The gospel is eternal, and the sermons of great preachers - I'm thinking Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, and the archived work of John Piper - are still moving and edifying many years later. Imagine reading a sermon from the 1980s that was based on "Miami Vice." It would be as outdated as the show.
Another problem with bringing in pop culture is purity. If you base your services on "24," you're telling everyone that you think it's a great show. What happens when the kids want to watch? "But mommy, the pastor loves it!"
My feeling is that if people show up to church, they are not going to be surprised to find that it looks and sounds like church. The world is always trying to be flashy. For me, coming into a place of reverence is a wonderful change. If people are hungry for the presence of God, let's not distract them with the pop culture they will get thrown at them as soon as they get home.
I liked that Matthew.
Let me reiterate that I love this dialogue. I've seen so many websites and blogs that brainlessly bash what we are doing. But this is a very honest and open conversation.
Just an additional thought...
We don't view our Sunday morning services as church. If you've grown up in the church, it is a hard concept to get your mind around. For us, the weekend service is a "crowd" that we are trying to turn into a church. There are several purposes outlined in the New Testament for a church, and we only accomplish a couple of them on Saturday night or Sunday morning. We don't determine success on weekend attendance alone. No, rather it's how many of those who are attending can we turn into disciples? How many are taking steps toward Christ? How many of them are investing and inviting others along the journey? So we do some things on the weekend to draw a crowd...so that we can introduce them to the gospel and start them on a journey toward becoming a disciple? Do all take the next step? Nope, but hundreds do every year.
Some say that having a cover band play Vertigo or doing a spoof of 24 doesn't seem like worship, but who says worship must happen on Sunday morning? If I visited a church on a Tuesday night and walked into a business meeting, I could judge that church because they didn't include worship in any portion of that meeting. But that would be crazy, because who is to say they aren't engaging corporate worship at another time? We choose to have a service for believers with in-depth Bible study and extended corporate worship during the week. We keep our service for the weekend crowd focused on helping people take their initial steps toward Christ. It's not right or wrong...it just might be different.
Thanks again, Andrew, for launching this conversation and keeping it focused.
Tim
I live about 30 minutes from GCC and know many who call it their church home, as well as several of the staff there. I am involved in ministry at my home church, so GCC is not my home church, but I visit when I can.
One time my wife and I went to their New Community service on a Thursday evening. After the service, as we were talking to some of our friends who attend there, I saw a guy walking right toward me, as if he really had an agenda to speak to me. As he got close to me, I recognized him immediately. I had grown up with this guy and went to school with him throughout my growing up years.
He had a Bible in one hand and reached out to shake my hand with his other hand. After a little small talk, he told me the story how he came to Christ at GCC after a long time of being far from God. It was the real deal. This was real life-change. He and his wife are now involved in ministry there. God is using them.
The bottom line: Life Change!
Has anyone in this discussion (Besides Tim) actually taken the time to go to Granger Indiana and visit the church and speak with the pastor and staff personally? I have been twice - all the way from Alabama.
If you ever experience what they do and how it impacts people who are far from God it might change your mind. Paul said I have become all things to all men that by some means I might save some. Granger doesnt try to mislead or entice by slick advertising. They simply do everything they can to get someone's attention long enough to tell them about Jesus. I think Paul did that at Mars Hill?
I think Jesus used pop culture to tell stories? In fact I think somewhere the bible says after a certain time Jesus taught only in parables. Who missed the point? The religious people. Who got it? Those who were far from God. Maybe some who question the Granger methods are missing the point?
How much time have you spent this week inviting someone far from God to hear His story?
I wonder how the U2 church would hold baptism? A big pool by a titanic in which youth or kids who arn't serious about baptism climb up to the titanic to get baptized by Rose and Jack. How would they hold communion? Have the decons dress like simon cowell, paula, and randy to pass out the bread and wine.
(if this sounds like a Joke...this is exactly how I felt about the U2 church band...like a joke.) But if you think it Works, More power to you.
From the bestsexever article mentioned above...
"Is this what religion is coming to? Is it fair for a church to use sex in ads like the rest of the known world even if it's with good intent? I don't know, but it definitely proved the adage "Sex Sells."
How Scary is That...
I thank you for your post. I actually attend the church you are talking about and have had many discussions of why we do what we do......The Lord tells us to "Go and make disciples." Some people need the glitz and glamour of entertainment and big screens to see Jesus....is God praised if we have all these things?? yes...if you meet any of the pastors/staff at our church you will see God at work in their life....is God praised if we do not have any of the high tech things and all we have is a small gathering of people with a guitar around a campfire? most definitely. I've just asked people, instead of knocking churches because of the money they spend on reaching the lost, why don't we pray for growth? We have over 6000 people at our church and it's still growing....we must be doing something right. A few months ago after our "Pure sex" series we had like 800 people accept Christ....the fact is, I volunteer and attend a church that is sold out for God and will do whatever it takes to get people to understand God.....no one ever talks about our thursday night services....we all kind of call it "family time." Sundays are definitely for reaching others and bringing them into church, but thursdays are for us...for rejuvination, and being challenged in our faith, and challenged to go out an make disciples. I feel that my church is doing what it needs to help people...isn't that why we are all here? to HELP people?? And also, no one seems to talk about the fact that we have a few hundred churches started over in india and have used many other ways of reaching people in our own community....but people don't ever talk about that...they just focus on all the "stuff" we seem to have....
Post Script....a good friend of mine wrote a blog about this awhile ago...if you want to read his thoughts go here... it really is stellar...you need to scroll down to the one entitled "Defense"
http://www.xanga.com/j_c_myers?nextdate=6%2f13%2f2006+5%3a56%3a58.967&direction=n
I want to echo some of the sentiments in regards to how healthy this discussion is. Not only are these things topics worth discussing, but I really feel as if the nature of this discussion is ultimately one of open-mindedness and love.
I agree and disagree with many things spoken in all of the posts, but I'm only going to comment on one. Amy, I believe many of your points are good, and some could be quite a slippery slope. Obviously the "results" of the church cannot be questioned. However, I think it is always dangerous, especially in the church, to start equating numbers with success. History has shown us, in many different contexts, that simply because something is thriving doesn't necessarily make it right. Just because it is working, doesn't mean it's healthy. We have to make sure we are balancing our consideration of numbers (yes, they are not an evil think) with content, quality, and purpose. Yes, Granger is doing great things, but the moment we start using number-driven results as the PRIMARY measuring stick for the church's effectiveness we will wake up one morning and find ourselves shallow, truly ineffective by kingdom standards, and left wondering why our ministry's are struggling so badly.
I apologize..."think" should be "thing". Apparently my computer thinks it's "replace G's with K's day".
Pastor Stevens (or others who might understand),
Do you think that there should be any normative continuity between Old Testament Sabbath worship, 1st-C synogogue Sabbath worship, ealry Christian "Lord's Day" worship (moved to Sundays), church history's tradition of worshipping on Sunday, and the 21st Century American church's pattern of worship?
Even if you don't agree that Scripture binds us to a particular sort of gathering (ie., not a mere "crowd," as you put it) on a particular day, then I'm curious why your congergation and, it seems, many others, would choose to have the official worship services during the week instead of on Sunday. What makes Sunday a better time for drawing an inquisitive crowd than Wednesday night?
The only answer I can think of, off the top of my head, is that when inquisitive non-disciples decide, after all, to finally darken the door of a church, they would obviously find out what time this or that church has its services on Sunday, because that's "church day" or whatever.
But if that's the basic idea---that inquirers are coming on Sundays because they know Sunday is the day that Christians assemble for worship---then why not give them what they themselves actually think they're in for? It seems like the OT, NT, and church history seem to witness to the fact that inquirers are indeed expected to do their inquiring on the Lord's Day, and that the church should be conscious of that. But OT, NT, and CH also testify that the church's knowledge that there are inquirers and outsiders in their midst is a call to have worship be pure but glorious, for preaching to be challenging but clear, and for outsiders to feel both welcome and yet still have a sense that they are, until they become disciples, very much still on the outside of something quite peculiar, namely the communion of saints.
If any of you coming from the Granger Church perspective could comment on these observations of mine, I would be very interested. Thanks.
I've attended Granger Community Church several times over the past few years. I pastor a church plant in a town just over an hour away, and my wife and I love to get over there on a Saturday night when we can.
Matt Banker expressed his opinion that "I don’t think that the U2 church really brings in that many non-believers." If he was talking about GCC, he's quite mistaken. :) They've gone to the trouble to ask their attenders about their spiritual backgrounds before coming to GCC, and they have a good percentage of the several thousand people who attend each weekend who were "non-believers" and not connected to any other church before coming to GCC. Those numbers Tim Stevens was quoting earlier are real.
I, too, have a STRONG dislike for the cheesy "Christian" mimicry that is exemplified by "Christian" T-shirts. I received a sweatshirt as a gift years ago that has angelic versions of the Budweiser talking frogs on it, saying, "God's... Wise... Er." Gag.
Fortunately, Granger isn't like that. When they make pop culture connections, they do it well, in a way that shows appreciation for the creativity of the original artists and for the skill and dedication of the artists bringing it to life in their services. The only cheese I've ever seen there was intentional, for the sake of humor, and it worked wonderfully. :)
They also look critically at pop culture, often at the same time as they are making those connections. They recognize that God is often at work in the hearts and art of artists outside the church, whether they realize it or not. So they point out where God is working and where those artists express the cry of the human heart, and when they do, they help us see it for ourselves. We live in a media-saturated culture. I'd rather see a church build bridges to the culture in which we live than see a church rail against the culture in ways that demonize or condemn.
That's already more than two cents, so I'll stop there...
I thought I'd really dig what they were aiming to do with the Grainger / U2 thing, but I was kind of let down when I checked out the vids just now. No, I wasn't there, and no, I do not attend.
Quality? Great. Presentation? Great, as well.
Sadly, those in the congregation did not seem as plugged in as the band. They were sitting - as I would been - politely listening to a very good cover band. I would have been wondering when "we" get to actively participate in worship?
Performance vs. Involvement - one perpetuates the MTV mentality you talked about, Andrew, the other does not.
i appreciated so much what you posted that i posted your words and your link on my own site. i hope that is okay - all the proper credit was given and i think it will spark a great discussion and send people over to your site. Thank you for your thoughtful words.
natalie
Drew - they dont worship to the U2 songs - but they do have great worship opportunities. Also I thing you presume people cant worship while sitting and reflecting quietly on what they are hearing.
My church - crosspoint community church in Decatur Alabama (www.crosspt.cc) did a cover of a Hoobastank Song this weekend.
The service had 2 smokin hot worship songs
Salvation & Make a Joyful Noise
It was very participatory. People had the opportunity to express themselves however they felt. Im sure the non-christians in our service thought we were a little weird with all the clapping and shouting.
Then we sang a song called Everything Glorious by David Crowder Band. It was more subdued and reflective. It was awesome.
After a report from our youth retreat weekend we played the song "First of Me" by Hoobastank.
We didnt want people to sing and worship while we played that. We wanted them to listen to the words (and we showed them on a projector so they could see them too). The idea was to get them thinking about how we can be very selfish people if we follow what everyone else is doing and fill our shelfs with the empty things money buys.
Hopefully the words of the song resonate with people - there are two paths - one leads to me - the other someone else. Later in the service I explained that God is the someone else and following God's principles and the path that leads to him can lead to incredible financial freedom etc...
We followed that up with biblical teaching on God's principles for sound financial management and used several multi-media clips including a "cheesy" spoof of the lending tree commerical "im in debt up to my eyeballs". You can check it out here on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPsuCJvRxqY
This is all done as a Series that we lifted from Pop Culture - Deal or No Deal-Winning the Game of Finances.
I even shaved my head, got a nice suit (I usually preach very casual) and grew my soul patch so I could mimic Howie Mandel.
We took something from culture and used it as a metaphor (a parable if you will) to teach people how to handle their money from a biblical perspective.
I bet if you will examine your own churches - your teachers quote other people, make references to things in secular culture, and your church uses things in the culture that are not specific to the church to deliver the message. Lights, PA Systems, Printed Bulletins with pictures on them, web sites etc...
Everything Granger and other media driven churches (for lack of a better phrase) does is simply a tool to present the gospel and teach biblical principles through easily understood and recognizable metaphors.
I cant tell you how many people have said this series has changed them - i even had a guy who doesnt go to our church and listens to our podcast contact me and ask if he could come to our budget seminar - he needs financial help.
I think what we should all be asking is not does this church do it right or is that church doing it wrong - but ask am I helping my church get it done regardless of style or delivery. Do what works for you the very best you can and we will celebrate together the lives that are changed.
Andy
You are correct - even people who don't go to church regularly expect church to be on Sunday - so you go for the most likely time for them to be there. Effective churches like Granger who have a lot of resources dont limit themselves to Sunday. Saturday works very well for them. They even offer a wi-fi download of the notes during the Saturday service and I think they serve pizza.
There is a competition with culture for people's attention. If most of them are home watching 24, American Idol, LOST or Grey's Anatomy and have kids to get ready for school and soccer practice to attend then its not smart to try and draw your crowd then. You draw the crowd when and where they are available.
Jesus drew crowds when he wasnt supposed to - and even healed people when he shouldnt - it sure made some religious folks mad - but he said he didnt come to save the religous. He came to save sinners.
Two excellent quotes, from Dave:
"I think what we should all be asking is not does this church do it right or is that church doing it wrong - but ask am I helping my church get it done regardless of style or delivery. Do what works for you the very best you can and we will celebrate together the lives that are changed."
and this one ...
"Jesus drew crowds when he wasnt supposed to - and even healed people when he shouldnt - it sure made some religious folks mad - but he said he didnt come to save the religous. He came to save sinners."
There's a quote from the late, great Mark Heard in which he responds to Christians becoming aware of the "Secular" thought forms around them? I think it's instructive in this discussion in several ways. Do note, Heard is not referring to worship, per se'.
"That's a good question. How can you explain your frame of reference to somebody if they will only view it through their frame of reference? How can you try to explain a foreign culture to somebody who will probably never understand another culture, primarily due to the fact that he thinks he understands the other culture already? He has a defined niche for it in his present frame of reference and any new information is simply guided to the proper pigeonholes, right beside other particulars which are thought to be familiar and understood by him. Why is it so hard to surprise someone with reality? One should be at times surprised to see it with objective eyes, or another pair than one's own. How can you explain colour to a blind man, especially if he already thinks that he understands the concept of colour? How can you give him sight, surprise him, confront him with the way things are outside his world?
I think it is desirable to be able to see things in more than one way, from more than one vantage point. That is the purpose I think education should be capable of fulfilling, but how do you break down walls gently and properly? You can't tell someone that the world they see is not the real world, after they've believed it for many years. How do you strive to take somebody's mind on a trip so real that they others' thoughts from the inside? It takes a lot of creativity to do that, but that is what must be done if whole people are to be the products of the educational process, and I don't just mean in the school system; our education comes as much from those around us as it does from books and teachers."
Dave, etc.
I appreciate your reply. I'm not sure that you actually spoke to my ultimate question, though: If people are coming on Sunday EXPECTING church, why not DO church? Why consider it a "crowd" and not church? Again, I would be interested in someone wrestling with the biblical texts I alluded to about what the church should do when it knows outsiders are there inquiring.
Hebrews 5:4-11
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame......
9But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.
10For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints.
I think this is where the danger lies...and what i think andrew is trying to get accross. Is the U2 church teaching what is acompaning salvation or in andrews words (equipping its members to be witnesses in the community...live and love in community). Not just a, "come get and awesome experience each week with our cool rock and roll light shows type of thing. But that they would feed the hungry, and dress the poor, as the book of James puts it. To not merly say I'm a christian and do nothing to help our enemy or neighbors. Is the u2 church just giving people an experience or, "enlightment", or doing things that "acompany salvation", as paul puts it?
Everyone,
Really fantastic discussion. I am passionate about this subject; I am in communication arts field as a profession (and calling). More importantly, I am a believer who wants to know Him more and see people come to Him.
I can only add this to the discussion: We must be very careful not to confuse the distinction between methods and motives. You can say you personally do not like someone's methods. Only Christ knows their motives. And knowing the culture you're in is critical. Missionaries study this kind of thing in-depth when they'll encounter a different culture. Maybe this is also becoming more and more locally relevant?
I've been watching Granger for a long time and I believe they are doctrinally tight and forward thinking. I respect what I believe to be their motive (which I don't believe is to entertain).
Again, thanks for these discussions!
Great post, Rebecca. Further, Tim Stevens explicitely noted earlier that in the case of Granger, "it’s not an either/or ... it is a both/and." We might be (probably are?) jumping to conclusions in making a determination that a church attempting to be culturally relevant, isn't feeding and clothing the poor--reaching outside the walls of the church in more tangible ways. In fact, one might make a good case that as curiosity seekers come to church, with benefit of rapport and visible contact--that it becomes far more natural to minister in more tangible, temporal ways.
Hello,
I dealt with this same issue about a year ago at my blog here is the link:
https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18603157&postID=114053211553872413
Hello,
A few thoughts:
I have noticed some have referenced to Paul on Mars Hill during this discussion, a couple of observations about what happened there:
1)Paul was grieved when he saw all the idols in Athens. Are we grieved with the idols we see all around us? Can we even identify them? Are we willing to identify them? I think you will find them many churches are bringing the idols right into theirbuildings and worshiping them.
2)Paul was basically laughed at and only a few followed him. No church was ever established in Athens.
3)Paul quoted a poet but later he changed his thinking about that. His next stop was in Corith, here is what he said to the Corinthians.
1 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power
Paul was a very smart man, well trained and educted in all subjects, King Festus once mocked him by saying all his reading was going to his head. I sense this was a struggle in his ministry as he realized he could "connect" with the culture of his day which were seeking wisdom and knowledge. That same culture of wisdom and knowledge eventually rewrote the message of Gospels (the Gnostic gospels) and even attacked the very nature of Jesus.
I agree with the author of this post when he says, "The issue is that they’re lying to people so they can tell them the truth"
There doing something Paul couldn't and wouldn't do.
My two cents, Ian