A Christian man was invited to come to a bar by a freind..

The man said “sure, I’ll come… but first they will have to stop serving alcohol, and maybe serve cool aid, cause I will want to bring my family… then maybe they could turn on the lights… bars tend to be really dark… they would have to turn the volume down on the music, so that we could talk a little without yelling… maybe they could also put some family friendly stuff on t.v., and have some of the young ladies cover up a little, I don’t want my little girls too influenced by that example…”

The friend laughed and said, “then it wouldn’t be a bar…?”

Expanding God’s Kingdom,

Benny Perez

(a) Respect: as in respect the people that are coming to your gatherings. Greet them. Talk with them. Ask them questions. Give them useful and helpful information. Pray for them. I don’t think anyone would refuse someone’s genuine care for their well-being, regardless of a gulf in religious belief.

(b) Education: for the people leading a gathering, don’t assume everyone knows the lingo. I tend to hang in heavily charismatic circles, but one thing that drives me nuts is when people assume everyone there understands what’s going on and what’s being talked about. Just because I might know what an “impartation of the manifestation of the glory of the angelic hosts surrounding the throne room of the seven-fold Spirit of God” etc. is doesn’t mean Joe Sixpack has a single clue. (Yes, that was an exaggeration…sort of… ;) )

So either be careful how you use your Christianese or take the time to explain what you are saying so that people who aren’t “in the loop” don’t feel completely out of it!

Thanks for the great post. It’s a challenge, to be sure!

In my mind it rings much the same way as manipulation.
I’m certain you don’t mean it that way and I’m fairly certain this is the language of LC that you are using. So I don’t take it as ill intent on your, or anyone else’s behalf. But it would help me to know what you mean by that.

If you “do” evangelism well, you will by default be “doing” discipleship well. You can’t have one without the other.

In other words, the best way to disciple someone is to get them reaching others.

If we “are” the church, then we were created to Go there fore..reach, teach and baptize…” Therefore the church is for……

It seems we are asking is how we “do” church should either be directed towards those that proclaim faith or those that may not be convinced. I would say rather than an “either or” approach, that we consider a “both and.” What this means is that we should not look at it along dichotomous terms (for the “believer” OR “for the unbeliever/seeker/etc”). I have too often seen churches that tend to lean towards one at the expense of the other. Yet, it seems that when we proclaim the message of Jesus, that is enough to confound both the believer as well as the unbeliever.

In our church, our “tagline” if you will is “church for all who believe, doubt, and seek.” We don’t have a section for believers, one for doubters, and one for seekers, but assume that we all have these perspectives and that the message of the cross is perplexing and beautiful at the same time to speak to you wherever you may find yourself.

We need to rethink 21st century American Christianity.

I disagree with this. The church is for believers. We need to meet together as a body, hear God’s word, and be encouraged (Hebrews 10:24,25)

However, this in no way takes away our obligation to the lost.

Churches should be equipping their people to confront culture and clearly explain their need for Christ’s forgiveness. I fear, somewhat, that we are avoiding this responsibility by only equipping church members to invite the lost to fill the pews.

What we want them to desperately to hear “in here” should be first shared “out there”.

I am trying hard to listen to the leaders that are here, and trying to see what God is doing… I am hearing from their experience very similar things as they grow… hopefully I can glean early…

I guess what I meant was that we can have the right design, target market, and demographic, and still be a Christless church…

On the other hand some of the most powerful churches don’t have any of that…

The difference is the presence of God in the people I think…

I guess the last couple of weeks of blogs on this site have shifted my perspective a bit… that’s the perspective that the vein comes from, at least where I’m concerned… and I guess the reality of ministry experience…

I get what your saying though…

There is a church I fell in love with because of their heart for the lost. They prided themselves on reaching the unchurched. I loved that about them. It didn’t matter what color your skin was, what you were wearing, or even what you had done in your life. They would embrace you and show you what God’s love looked like. Many lost people found Christ through the work of this church.

On the other hand, they were neglecting those who had already been adopted into God’s family. I know several people who were “caught” sinning, and were kicked out of the church. There was no offer to help them, no counseling recommended, no pastoral care. They were simply told to leave and find a new place to worship. In my opinion, they didn’t know how to minister to these people because they had put every bit of their focus into evangelism and reaching the lost.

I think there has to be a middle ground. You have to be able to take care of the lost and the believers. I think there may be damage done when you go to one extreme or the other. It makes for a very unhealthy church family.

Let’s take Lifechurch as an example. Do you not think they’ve designed their church to be a certain way? Do they not have God given goals that they mean to achieve, an atmosphere in worship that they think and does attract a certain kind of person and not others (for instance I bet you their major demographic is not 60+ and I bet they’re fine with that) and can a church not be designed to reach out to a certain generation or even people of a certain faith? Ask Bill Hybels if he had a certain kind of person in mind when he designed the Willow Creek format all those years ago.

I think far too often we want to think of how the church should be rather than how it is. We need to always be looking at how is God moving…not how do we think it makes most sense for God to move. Far too often our good ideas are not actually God ideas. We should be looking to be characters in the story God is writing and not editors of the story itself.

I am not sure the “Church” can be designed Scott…because it is built by Jesus….

It isn’t a building, or a function, or the place where people get together on Sunday… its a group of believers called out of darkness into marvelous light…to worship the only true and living God…

I think the church building can be a place where non-believers go to find God dwelling in the people… (His “Church”)…

Being mission minded is great, it’s the commission, but the “Church” needs to be single-minded… and invite those who aren’t to “come”… to meet with God…

When that is the mission.. the rest is just frosting on the cake…

I think the building can be inviting… and inclusive… but the “church” is for believers only… we need to express both the inclusivity of Jesus, and the exclusivity of Jesus as ambassadors…teaching all that He commanded, going out preaching the gospel to every living creature, and making disciples of all the nations…

If first things stay first… then I think it could…

And yes… some churches have become consumer driven first, and spirit driven second…

Some have also become cold and superficial…

But “Tis Gar Plen’… the question we need to ask ourselves is in the presence of God, what kind of church are we, and are first things first…?

Its wise to look at other’s mistakes, but only if we are willing to learn, and grow for the glory of God…

Hope this came off right… :)