Last post was mainly an email from a friend who does not attend New Life. He thought it was cool to see what several of you had to say in the comments. He emailed me back and here's a portion of his reply:
Thank you for posting up my note, and I read the comments with great interest.
It’s not known enough, I believe that wonderful new Christian leaders (like you) are helping to lead us into this ‘new and very helpful’ realm (one that really gets back to what Jesus was doing -- He did not belong to social club), and that’s outstanding. I hope that this will continue big-time. On the marketing side, I believe it would be most effective for a church to openly promote the ‘come to us as the burdened person that you are, and let’s all help each other lift our burdens, through Jesus’ type of approach to the populace. I absolutely do not see churches expressing this message.
Furthermore, I am seeing a new wave of understanding/expressing amongst the 20-something-year-olds, and it’s refreshing.
It’s not known enough, I believe that wonderful new Christian leaders (like you) are helping to lead us into this ‘new and very helpful’ realm (one that really gets back to what Jesus was doing -- He did not belong to social club), and that’s outstanding. I hope that this will continue big-time. On the marketing side, I believe it would be most effective for a church to openly promote the ‘come to us as the burdened person that you are, and let’s all help each other lift our burdens, through Jesus’ type of approach to the populace. I absolutely do not see churches expressing this message.
Furthermore, I am seeing a new wave of understanding/expressing amongst the 20-something-year-olds, and it’s refreshing.
Here's my reply back to him:
Hey ___, you definitely struck a chord. (Have you ever thought about marketing as a career move?;-)
Honestly, I think there are a lot of on track, authentic, humble, biblical, irked-by-religiosity Christian leaders who are making a splash in the U.S. among people who are unchurched and dechurched. Time mag just put "the new Calvinism" as #3 on its list of 10 things shaping the world today.
Here's a theory I have... Most people's musical taste gets stuck in the era of what they loved from when they were 13 to 25. Then for the rest of their lives, they measure all music by that genre and those bands. Radio stations, as you know, capitalize on this by building station playlists around certain musical genres and periods and then attracting listeners who were in high school and college when those songs first came out. In other words, musically, people stop learning. They know what they like and don't like and that's that.
My theory is that people's conception about church follows a very similar tack. The church experiences someone has from the ages of 13 to 25 are what they know about church and that has become reality. From that era they determined what was good or what was bad about church, why they like the church or why they hate it or why they're indifferent to it. Relearning about church as its done now when they're 28 or 35 or 46 feels unnecessary. "They can't be doing anything much different today. I know what I think about church already. I'll just stick with my currently held view--I'm sure church hasn't changed much."
But maybe, like music, church has changed. Maybe churches that were getting things wrong in the 70's or 80's or 90's (pick your era) are now getting those things right. Maybe every church is not well-represented by the bad experiences one person had with a few churches. Maybe giving a church a real shot--I mean like by showing up and getting to know some people and making a fresh evaluation--would unearth new thoughts and responses to "the Church".
And so as I think about messaging and interfacing with people who don't attend a church and haven't for a long time, I think about the concept of helping people hear new "music"--to revisit a church to gain a fresh view of "the Church". To realize there may be "music" being made today that they like. "Music" that gets them excited again.
Anywho, really enjoying the dialogue with you. I look forward to continuing the conversation on email and the blog.
Peace,
Kevin
Honestly, I think there are a lot of on track, authentic, humble, biblical, irked-by-religiosity Christian leaders who are making a splash in the U.S. among people who are unchurched and dechurched. Time mag just put "the new Calvinism" as #3 on its list of 10 things shaping the world today.
Here's a theory I have... Most people's musical taste gets stuck in the era of what they loved from when they were 13 to 25. Then for the rest of their lives, they measure all music by that genre and those bands. Radio stations, as you know, capitalize on this by building station playlists around certain musical genres and periods and then attracting listeners who were in high school and college when those songs first came out. In other words, musically, people stop learning. They know what they like and don't like and that's that.
My theory is that people's conception about church follows a very similar tack. The church experiences someone has from the ages of 13 to 25 are what they know about church and that has become reality. From that era they determined what was good or what was bad about church, why they like the church or why they hate it or why they're indifferent to it. Relearning about church as its done now when they're 28 or 35 or 46 feels unnecessary. "They can't be doing anything much different today. I know what I think about church already. I'll just stick with my currently held view--I'm sure church hasn't changed much."
But maybe, like music, church has changed. Maybe churches that were getting things wrong in the 70's or 80's or 90's (pick your era) are now getting those things right. Maybe every church is not well-represented by the bad experiences one person had with a few churches. Maybe giving a church a real shot--I mean like by showing up and getting to know some people and making a fresh evaluation--would unearth new thoughts and responses to "the Church".
And so as I think about messaging and interfacing with people who don't attend a church and haven't for a long time, I think about the concept of helping people hear new "music"--to revisit a church to gain a fresh view of "the Church". To realize there may be "music" being made today that they like. "Music" that gets them excited again.
Anywho, really enjoying the dialogue with you. I look forward to continuing the conversation on email and the blog.
Peace,
Kevin
I agree with the image of the church being held with the person's years 13 to 25. So, we have a starting place from which to lead people back to Jesus. But, the job is not an easy one.
I believe that relatively few non-church-goers will be attracted to a "church." They feel that there are a lot better things to do on Sunday. To them, the church is full of rituals (going back to what they saw at that early age)...it's a big waste of time.
Instead, I suggest that the modern Christian leaders and ambassadors should focus on solving the non-church-goer's problems rather on "Sunday, Sunday, Sunday!" Now, I'm on shaky ground here, because as a Catholic, there is a Sunday obligation. And a non-denominational Christian church could have a Sunday obligation as well. By all means keep it going!
My larger point is this: In the Bible, people came to Jesus not because it was a particular day of the week but because He healed them. Well, here is Jesus today, in the church, healing people. He's still doing it! But non-church-goers do not realize that they can be healed inside that church.
A lady who just lost her job does not know that she can attend any one of several meetings that will begin to heal her. Certainly, a Bible study group will help her. That group would be so compassionate to the lady -- that's why there are plenty of tissue boxes always close by.
In short, I believe if the church focuses on addressing problems and the healing power of Jesus to solve those problems, then many more people will flock to the church. Maybe they won't go on Sunday (at first), but they would be interested in a support group. Then, to bounce off of what Kevin is saying, the church is then getting things right.
Posted by: Greg Brown | April 25, 2009 at 11:40 PM
I just have to say one important thing. Non-Christians should feel uncomfortable in the Church. I think that Christians view of Church and Non-Christians view of Church is two different things.
For Christians, if the Church is functioning the way it should be, we would be loving one another deeply (1 Peter 1) because of what Christ has done. We would be bearing one another's burdens, encouraging one another, etc. etc.
Unfortunately one of the problems with the modern evangelical Church is that we try to bring culture into the Church to a fault.
The Church is not for non-believers. It is for the body of Christ. I think that we have lost our vision altogether in so many ways.
If we were doing Church Biblically we would focus it towards the body of Christ, and then the Body of Christ would be made ready to go into all the world and preach the gospel.
I know my points are far from the original issue, but I feel I needed to make the point.
It is sad that during a recent survey, many evangelicals were asked basic questions, like what is the gospel and they could not explain it.
Something to think about.
Coleen Sharp
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/
Brighton, CO
Posted by: Coleen | April 26, 2009 at 01:02 PM
I think Coleen is right. As a Non-Christian, I would feel uncomfortable in church. I don't belong there, and in honest truth I don't want to be there.
It is sometimes hard because I am not Christian, or anything else for that matter, but I have a great interest and respect for religion. Kevin's theory works very well for people who have already attended church at some point in their lives (and more importantly are believers)and maybe have stopped going for whatever reason, but I agree with Coleen-the Church is not for non-believers. That doesn't mean we can't co-exist peacefully or respect each other, it just means that no matter what the Church offers I am not interested in it for myself, and there is nothing they can do to change that. It is because I understand greatly what Coleen says about the Church- "It is for the body of Christ". Even as a non-believer, that's what the Church represents to me.
I am not trying to trivialize religion or the Church. My original comment was from a complete outsiders point of view. Maybe I have no business commenting at all, but I threw my two cents in there because I try to be as impartial as possible. When some people have tried to persuade me to attend their church, they seem to want to dazzle me with all the "cool goings on" and fun that we would have. Yet I know that is not the opinion of all Christians-just a few of whom I know. Growing up and still living in a conservative religious area has both fascinated me and frustrated me. As a non believer the thing that scares me the most is the hard division that seems to be happening between those that go to church and those that don't, and I am not talking about basic beliefs and theology here, but more to the point of belonging to the "right" church. Of course, that would be an entirely different post indeed, so I will leave it at that.
Posted by: Teresa | April 27, 2009 at 11:49 AM
I want to say thank you to all recent commenters. The dialogue has been great and the comments thoughtful. I'm going to post my reply rather than comment at length.
Posted by: Kevin | April 27, 2009 at 04:32 PM