Donald Sensing has a short post about the wisdom of churches modifying their methods to make non-members feel comfortable. Rev. Sensing recognizes the imortance of accessibility, but most of his commenters are firmly against the idea and seem to feel there's great value in erecting a barrier between the church and non-members, and thus between God and non-believers.
I'm a member of the leadership team at Venice Baptist Church (like deacons, elders, or what-have-you; even the different name reflects the point of this post, heh), and we've been tweaking our accessibility for five years or so now. We never compromise Biblical doctrine, but our goal has been to make our church a place where if people felt uncomfortable it's because of the message of God, not because they don't understand what the heck is going on.
Many of Rev. Sensing's commenters laud the value of words like "hymn" and "sermon" and decry using modern language, calling it "Church Lite". That's the same general arguement used by people who insist that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is the only acceptable translation of God's word, despite the fact that most modern English speakers can't understand more than half the text. Not because they aren't spiritual, but because the meanings of words have changed dramatically in four centuries. The fact is that modern translations are simply more accurate and based on better manuscripts and better scholarship. I grew up with the KJV and have memorized tons of scripture in it, but I don't use it anymore because it's difficult even for me to understand -- and it's easy to get wrong ideas from it because of the changed meanings of words and phrases.
(Plus, Jesus didn't speak 17th century English, he spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, so if you want to be pedantic go learn those and read the Bible in the original languages. Even then you'll have to depend on your language teachers and history books to interpret the meanings of the words you read, so it's not like you'll be getting a more "pure" understanding of the Bible than you do if you read the translations done by teams of hundreds of experts.)
Over the past five years or so we've made a lot of changes to our methodology, without sacrificing Truth. We got rid of our choir and now have a "worship team" that includes (gasp) drums and electric guitars. We sing songs written within the past decade. We have video games set up in our kids' rooms for game time. We use modern translations for our scripture readings (and memorization) so that everyone can understand what God has written to them.
The effect has been substantial. Five years ago the average age of our membership was around 50, and there were zero nursery-age kids. Now our average age has dropped to around 35, and there are tons of babies everywhere. "Oh sure, but everyone's so much less spiritual now." Please. The younger people are invigorating our church's passion for God. The younger people give far more time and money to God than the older people do (or can). The younger people are raising Godly children for the next generation. That's not to say everything's perfect by any means, but our church is on the road to health and growth.
On another note, many old-liners sneer whenever people mention that a church is growing. It's not about numbers, they say. Yeah, sure, it's not about numbers, except for the fact that every person who accepts Christ is one more person who's not going to Hell, you self-righteous twits. And maybe they'll serve God, and maybe they'll tell their friends, and then maybe some more people will escape eternal damnation. Other than that it's not about numbers, you're right.
Jesus was accessible and relevant in his day, and even the exalted King James Version was written in the common vernacular of its time (which is why the Church hated it). Anyone who thinks the pinnacle of Christian liturgical development is back in 1950 is delusional. The message of Jesus must be presented to everyone, in every language, in as clear and understandable a manner as possible.
Update:
I should have posted this passage before. Here's Paul's opinion on the matter.
1 Corinthians 9:19-23
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
I don't know what an anti-spam code is, but I want one.
I couldn't agree with you more in this post, Michael. Rick Warren has an EXCELLENT article on this topic in his most recent newsletter, available here http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/default.asp?id=136&artid=4545&expand=1.
It should be self-evident that growth is a sign of a healthy church, since it presumes the faithful attention to the Great Commission that the Lord commands. As to those who say that numbers don't matter, they need to re-read the book of Acts in which it clearly matters enough to the Lord for Him to inspire Luke to record in detail the growth of the church in Jerusalem upon hearing Peter's stirring and convicting messages.
Blessings to you and yours in the New Year, and keep up the good work here!
Zeb
Thanks, ZT.
The message I am getting from your post, Michael, is that you have a problem with the older generation. The question I have is are you addressing the needs of this older generation as well as the needs of the younger? Because what goes around, comes around.
Numbers may indeed indicate a healthy, growing church. Numbers may also indicate a church that has neglected the truth of scripture so as to appeal to the masses. In of themselves, they are not reflective of the soundness of the teaching within the church.
I'm not in a position to judge what your church is doing, and I rejoice so long as the cross of Christ is proclaimed. I would urge caution, though, to watch for every opportunity whereby true doctrine may be watered down or neglected in order to be less offensive.
Also, be careful maligning those old-liners... someday you may be one yourself.
I don't have a problem with the older generation at all. All my role models are from one or more older generations. I have a problem with people who don't recognize that their preferences for what they are, and who put their preferences ahead of serving God. This is certainly not just older people, it's just that with this particular issue it tends to be. On the flip side, older people are much mroe committed to mid-week small groups and such, while younger families make tons of excuses for staying home.
GAW: Well the key question is, of course, "Numbers of what?" If you're just counting the number of heads that show up on Sunday morning you're probably not going to get an accurate representation of how "spiritual" your church is. On the other hand, if you never see anyone you haven't known for ten years, you can be pretty sure your church is doing something wrong.
I don't have a problem with the older generation at all.
Yes, you do. You start by saying: I think you folks who are stuck back in the 1950s are missing the boat. in Donald's comments and then here you say: Many of Rev. Sensing's commenters laud the value of words like "hymn" and "sermon" and decry using modern language, calling it "Church Lite". That's the same general arguement used by people who insist that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is the only acceptable translation of God's word, despite the fact that most modern English speakers can't understand more than half the text. and you use phraseology like if you want to be pedantic and many old-liners sneer which tells me that you have some kind of issue here, however small it may be. In the end you are correct when you say:
The message of Jesus must be presented to everyone, in every language, in as clear and understandable a manner as possible.
Which is essentially what I said in my first comment, but I'll state now that it includes room for "hymns", "sermons", and the KJV. And, I'll reiterate what GAW said:
[..]be careful maligning those old-liners... someday you may be one yourself.
We have done the same in our church in Rhode Island. It is the next generation that we need to reach out to, as they will begin to replace us in ministry (I lead a single parents ministry myself) in time to come. But now and then, we get an impromptu choir together to help the worship team, who are all accomplished musicians with their egos at the door.
I'm with Michael on this one. I'm older, and I don't see that he has written anything disparaging of we from earlier generations.
I studied math using a slide rule. But we have calculators now.
Many of the old hymns will stay with us. But unless we are going to have a worship service that is 2-3 hours long or a hymnal/songbook that is two feet high, something of the old must go to make ready for something of the new.
I use the KJV for funerals, psalm readings, but generally I prefer the NIV.
Tradition is good, but not at the expense of creativity.
I do have a concern with some contemporary Christian music in that if one isn't careful in its use, too much focus can be placed on praise songs, neglecting songs of repentance, community, and service.
amazing what some new blood will do. it's encouraging that the oldsters had the foresight to realize that they're dying off. there HAS to be new blood, or the church WILL die.
I work with youth at one that seems to be dying on the vine,
(presbyterian)
And do sound stuff at one that definitely is not dying.
(foursquare)
(www.caeaglerock.com)
...and to think i went to a southern baptist bible school...
My church is going through a big change period right now as well... I joined because the pastor I grew up with was asked to take over here (Methodist church, they move the pastors around all the time) and I'm in town for college. When I started going there were maybe 40 regular attendees. That number has almost tripled in under a year. It hasn't been easy for some of the older generation to admit that change is necessary, but my pastor can be pretty blunt when the occasion warrants. I think we're still moving in the right direction, though we haven't scrapped all of "the old" for "the new."
S3: There are plenty of older folks who are on borad with more modern approaches. And I even know some 20-somethings who refuse to sing anything by hymns with organ music. It's not about age (although there is certainly some correlation).
I think that during the "sexual revolution" and all that went with it the church turned inward and away from society, to the detriment of the cause of Christ.
People who are already Christians should be willing to make any sacrifice necessary to win the lost.
Amen.
Michael,
There is nothing wrong with changing with the times, so long as good fruits come from it. Long ago, "hymn" and "sermon" were new and exciting, because when you went to church, you understood nothing of what the priest was saying. The service was in a foreign language.
"The Great Awakening" scandalized people then, too. Its detractors would say, "Where is the fire and brimstone? People will fall into sin unless you constantly remind them that they are bound for hell."
Any honorable method that persuades people to listen is justified.
I suggest that you ask your detractors to look up Luke 8, "the parable of the sower." We cannot know how people will take the word of God. But, how can we find good soil unless we broadcast jesus' message widely? And in a form that people will respond to?
Reminds me of one of my favorite passages in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 2:1-5.
I'm new. I like old. But whichever conveys the Word most effectively in given circumstances...