New Hope Website (redux)

Frank Johnson, of Strategic Digital Outreach, has a different take on church websites.  He believes they should be aimed at the unchurched, not the returning customer.  If this is the case, it dramatically changes the focus of the website and its content.  Here is an eye-opening perspective on why an unbeliever is not going to stay at our homepage, and what kind of content might keep the unchurched around.  You can read all of Johnson's provoking thoughts, and see a sample of the kind of page he envisions here.

Johnson writes:

Consider the following premises which, although they may be shocking to
some, reflect what I believe is the common perception unbelievers have
about today’s church:

      -People don’t care about your service schedule or calendar of events
      because they don’t plan on attending your meetings.
      -People don’t care about your statement of faith because they have
      little to no desire to become affiliated with your organization.
      -People don’t care who is on your pastoral staff because they don’t
      anticipate any occasion when they might meet those staff members.
      -People don’t care where your facilities are located because they
      can’t foresee a time when they would set foot in those facilities.
      -People don’t care what this week’s sermon title is because they don’t
      plan on listening.

A Question: If the above premises are true, why do so many churches make
these the most prominent pieces of information on their websites?

What DO People Care About?

      -People today care about the stories of other people - people with
      similar interests to their own, people with similar life experiences,
      and people with similar problems.
      -People today care about relationships with people who have similar
      interests and life experiences.
      -People today care about the thought of a possibility of unmerited
      love revealed in the midst of true community.

Should these thoughts impact our presence on the web?  If so, how...what does it look like?  Thanks for your feedback.

Comments

[melanie]

hmm, interesting.

i guess the most important thing that one has to consider is really the target group. although a church's aim may be to reach unbelievers, i think one must also remember that believers are going to check out church websites too. i know i do, and frankly, i check out statement of belief, location, calendar. that said, i don't think those items should be totally absent from the page. maybe just in links on the sidebar or something.

i agree that most folks (believers and unbelievers alike) are interested in meeting people who have similar interests. i'm all for one-on-one relationship-building with people. he definitely has a point there.

maybe an idea would be to have a number of committed people from church who would maintain blogs. these blogs could all be accessed through a link on the main page. that way an unbeliever could get a better idea of what kind of people he's going to encounter at church if he decides to visit. that would also give these bloggers an opportunity to be a witness, yet show that they are just normal people, possibly with similar life experiences and interests.

just an idea. one of my thoughts while writing this was, "well, where are you going to find those committed writers?"

[Scott M]

I agree... blogs are a great way to get inside the minds of the church people. But as you've probably noticed... it's hard to get a lot of people to post comments. I think probably a combination of some well written static content coupled with discussion pages would achieve a good balance. Also, the idea of having two different portals to the site - one for unbelievers, and another for believers - might be a good idea. Of course, you can't just say, "If you're an unbeliever, click here... and if you're saved, click here." It would have to be more creative and less offensive than that (perhaps two pictures... one of a sheep and one of a goat?) Just kidding! Anyway, the believer would go directly to all the doctrinal statements, etc... while the unbeliever would be directed to more of an outreach-based, seeker-friendly page.

[Phil]

When I moved to a new area recently, it was very important for me (a believer) to access the information that Mr. Johnson said was not important to unbelievers. Most people have some small link to these things on their opening page. The rest of the opening page could be something that appeals to a wider audience or channels people to one of these other areas.

[Joel]

Tozer has something worth adding -
The temptation to gear our lives to social consequences is frightfully strong in a world like ours, but it must be overcome all the way down the line. The Christian businessman when faced with a moral choice must never ask, "How much will this cost me?" The moment he regards consequences, he dethrones Christ as Lord of his life. His only concern should be with the will of God and the moral quality of the proposed act. To consult anything else is to sin against his own soul.

Again, the pastor when facing his congregation on Sunday morning, dare not think of the effect his sermon may have on his job, his salary or his future relation to the church. Let him but worry about tomorrow and he becomes a hireling and no true shepherd of the sheep. No man is a good preacher who is not willing to lay his future on the line every time he expounds the Word. He must let his job and his reputation ride on each and every sermon or he has no right to think that he stands in the prophetic tradition.

And the same principle is binding upon the religious writer and editor. The scribe who will trim his copy to hold his job is unworthy of public confidence. The editor who will reject an article or a paragraph of an article because he is afraid to accept it is standing in the shadow of the fear of consequences. The publisher who allows desire for profit or the fear of losing sales to decide what books he shall print is on a moral level not too far above the money-changers Christ drove out of the Temple. All these examples point up to a grave modern evil, permitting temporal consequences to decide eternal issues.

[jon]

Melanie: I like your "linked blogs" idea. Like you, I am not sure how to generate the commitment for such a task. It would be great if a number of New Hopers decided to take up blogging. We could create a little cyber community. But as Scott noted, it is hard enough to get posters.

Scott: There must be a creative way to create an outreach page. I am just not sure how you get people there.

Phil: Yes. This is why the traditional, informative format has to stay. It is for believers who are looking to narrow their search for a church, and it is for members to participate in an online community. I like Johnson's concept, but it can't replace what we have; it must be in addition to what we have.

Joel: What in the world are you talking about?

[Scott M]

Joel... are you saying that by changing the approach by which we attempt to evangelize the lost that we are watering down the message? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you're implying that if we approach people first on the basis of their needs or attempt to reach them on a level which they can understand (rather than jumping right into doctrinal statements and the Romans Road) that we are sacrificing the gospel in order to achieve temporal results. If this is what you are saying, then my reply would be that while we are considering alternate methods of delivering our message, the message has not changed.

Most churches have already begun rethinking other areas of evangelism. For instance, when's the last time a group from your church went street preaching or on door-to-door visitation with any kind of success? It simply doesn't work in our 21st century society. This is not the 1950's, where 99% of the population has at least a basic knowledge of the Bible and biblical truth. There is a much longer bridge that must be built today to even get the average unbeliever to a point where he will engage in a frank spiritual discussion. Obviously the Holy Spirit can work in miraculous ways despite our methodology... but I don't think that excuses us from the responsibility to find effective ways to reach people. I think what we're talking about is "how do we bridge the gap?" Once the bridge is built and we are on firm footing with someone, then we can get into the meat of the message. Just my two cents. Maybe I completely misunderstood your comments.

[jon]

Scott, I thought that was where Joel was headed, but I'll wait to see it from his own computer before I skewer him. All in good fun, of course.

[Joel]

I thought that Tozer's comment was pretty good and to the point for this reason: the business of the church and what a church does is not something that market research can understand. The business of a church and what a church does is not something that an unbeliever can understand. They view the goals and purposes of a church, at best, obliquely. For this reason, what they say is not a consideration. Their thoughts should not impact your presence on the web.

So, here is the question you can use to skewer me:
Is there a timeless method of evangelism - or should it change? My answer is that the scripture gives all the method - and it is foolishness to the marketers of 1st Century Corinth and of 21St Century Columbus. It is proclamation of the Gospel. We announce it, we don't jazz it up with music, or bring it home with sentimental inviatations, but we rely on the method God gave, knowing that the only persuasion is a Divine and Supernatural light imparted directly to the soul.
By changing the approach, whether we water down the message or not, we disobey.

By the way Scott, if you think that 1950's evangelistic methods are what I'm advocating, then you are wrong. I think, on one level, fundamentalism is the marriage of Christianity and popular culture and that is the great problem. Some want to go on with popular culture, some want to stick with popular culture - of a bygone era, and nothing is more ridiculous than that. What needs to go, is the popular culture. The trouble is that we think the alternative to be the secular high culture - the marriage of which, to Christianity, is aa way of describing theological Liberalism.

[melanie]

thanks for clearing up your point, joel. actually, that's what i thought you were getting at with the tozer comment.

and, i have to say that i agree with you about our method of evangelization. ok, maybe this all has to do with the fact that i recently read a book about how God is not pragmatic...

anyway, i hold the opinion that the church is for christians. it is a place where believers are supposed to learn, to be edified, and to become equipped for knowing how to reach those outside the church body. when non-believers visit a church service, they should notice that there's something different about this place and these people. (that is, that it is not specifically targeted towards them.)

of course we as believers have the responsibility to make these people feel welcome. we should not treat them as outcasts. the love of Christ should shine through our lives to them. we should take personal interest them. maybe it will be these things that will make them feel comfortable enough to return and to want to know more.

nevertheless, i believe the church needs to be a haven for believers, a place where they can receive refreshment from the world they've been living in all week long.

i seriously wonder how many christians earnestly follow the great commission and are personally seeking contact with non-believers in order to build trust with them and to share their christianity with them. (i will be the first one to admit that i fail too often in this area.)

or are they just taking the "easy" route? that is, get someone into the church doors and let the pastor preach a gospel message. what's the goal anyway? is it just to get a person into a service, or is it to make the person a God-glorifying disciple of Christ?

i don't think it's wrong to maintain a weblog (uh, because i have one too!) or to have a webpage that could be used as a means to pique people's interests or as a springboard for discussion on spiritual topics or even for unbelievers to become acquainted with a believer. (that's why i think the linked blogs might not be a bad idea--but again, the lack of committed bloggers!) but i don't think a webpage should be a primary means of evangelization. (probably most of you agree with that point anyway?)

i don't want to put words into johnson's mouth, but some of the stuff he said can take a dangerous turn if not being careful. namely, the whole idea of pragmatism infiltrating the church. but maybe he didn't mean it that way...

sorry for this tangent, but this whole seeker-friendly concept has been on my mind a lot lately and frankly i've been convicted about some things i hadn't really considered before...

[jon]

Joel, Of course, this is exactly the direction I thought you were headed. The distinction I would make here is that we are not talking about the method of evangelism. I think we all agree, the method should not change--it is always the proclamation of the gospel. We might also agree that the best context for such a proclamation is a trusting relationship, though there may be others. The portals to the establishing and maintaining of that relationship may differ within cultures. In this culture, a web presence may be a key component of that structure. I think Johnson's point is, don't blow the opportunity by creating a "saints only" presence. Be creative, and build a portal that may be a catalyst to a relationship with an unbeliever. The portal is not the gospel, it is not a method of sharing the gospel, and it is simply a building block to a relationship in which gospel seeds may be planted. I may be giving Johnson too much credit here, but that is my interpretation. It is also why I don't have problem with some amount of energy being expended toward that end.

Melanie, I agree that the gathering of the church is an event intended for the exaltation of God, and the edification of believers. If sinners are evangelized along the way, that is fine and good. But the concept of seeker-sensitive worship or preaching is foreign to scripture. Should we be seeker-friendly? Yes, as you mentioned. But evangelism, gospel dissemination, takes place in contexts outside of the local assembly.

[melanie]

you're right, jon. i couldn't agree more about a web presence as a means to build a relationship with someone, which could in turn lead to sharing the gospel with that person.

and i can see now how the comments (including mine) where sort of overlapping one another with presentation of the gospel through personal evangelism vs. the worship of a local assembly. at least that's how i thought about my own comments after i hit "post"!

i think we're on the same page though. (at least you and i are!) :o) and i do believe that christians in general need to be more aware of the fact that they too are able to be used of the Lord to reach the lost. (that is, that that is not a task merely for the pastor!--this is one of those points that i've been convicted about lately...)

[Joel]

I guess I thought that the guy - way at the top of this long thing - was saying we should tell them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.

[Scott M]

Here goes another dissertation... :-)

I'm still sort of figuring out where I stand on this issue. I've been taught to believe the things you are all saying. Church is for believers... the job of outreach is an individual responsibility... we're not here to be a soup kitchen, etc... But, here's the problem I have: If other churches in other religions are willing to meet physical and emotional needs of seekers, then the seekers will go there instead of to our church (where they can actually hear the Truth). How many homeless people do you know personally? How many people do you know who are chronically depressed? How many unwed mothers? How many searching, hopeless people? How many black people for that matter? Hispanics? Homosexuals?

The problem is that 95% of us work in white collar jobs with successful, middle-class, white-collar friends. Most of them grew up in some kind of religion. Yes, they need reached too. But who's reaching the people outside the work place... or outside our normal spheres of influence? What is wrong with being available to people who seek us out? If we don't make ourselves available to help... then we are essentially picking and choosing those who we feel are worthy of our time. It is unlikely that any one of us is going to have the opportunity to reach people from all the groups I mentioned above. But a church can. And we don't necessarily even have to go find them. If we make ourselves available... if we extend the invitation, people will come to us. Whether we like it or not, most people think that when they are in spiritual need, they should seek out a priest or a rabbi or a pastor... or at the very least go to a church. They may try other places first... psychotherapy, social workers, etc... but eventually if they don't find some other solution, they will seek out the church. I think we need to stop worrying about whether that's the way it's supposed to be and just realize that that's the way it IS.

Ask a church to rally around a missionary... spend time shopping for and buying goods for an orphanage... write letters, etc... and people get excited. They get involved. They reach out as a group to people on the other side of the globe. Sure, there's personal involvement outside of the church doors... but there's also organization and a feeling of being a part of something corporate. That orphanage in Mwanza is going to meet physical needs. It's going to radically change the lives of needy kids. And it's a church-sponsored ministry.

I would argue that the gospel is not the how, it's the what. Methodology is the how. John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, Jesus... they all had differing methods. They spoke in different ways to different types of people. If the message of the gospel stays the same... then I say put it on a billboard, post it on the web, heck... put it in a bottle and toss it in the sea, if that will work. God knows who he's going to save... and he has a plan for that to happen. But unfortunately, we don't get to know that. So why are we limiting who we reach and how we reach them? God isn't pragmatic in how he reaches people. He doesn't need to be... he is omnipresent and omniscient. But we aren't. So maybe a little pragmatism in delivering the gospel is not a bad thing. Maybe God wants to use our blog or our soup kitchen or whatever method we choose to use for evangelism to reach people. Is that being seeker-sensitive? Sure. Does it mean we have to water down the gospel once we've figured out a way to deliver it? No. Not in my opinion.

And here's one more argument to stir the pot. Is God honored if you meet a physical need of a person and never even get a chance to talk with him about his spiritual need? I think yes. "What you did to the least of these, you did to me." A kind act... no matter how small, may be the seed that, when watered, eventually leads to spiritual life. We like to think that the "seed" needs to be a complete presentation of the Romans Road. I think that is the ultimate pragmatism. We think that the preaching of the gospel is what saves people. If we can only figure out a way to give people the right formula... and get them to really pay attention, they will be convinced of the truth. Maybe we would reach people more effectively if we just showed God's love in tangible ways... and then made ourselves available if they choose to come and ask questions about the Truth. I think it takes more faith to hand a homeless guy a cheeseburger and trust God to somehow use that cheeseburger than it does to hand the guy a tract and hope it's written well enough to illicit a response. So why not take that to the corporate level and offer hope and help and tangible love as an organization?

[Joel]

Oh dear.

[melanie]

scott, your dissertations are good. they always make me think! :o)

first of all, i think you bring up an important point about who usually ends up belonging in our circle of evangelization. i believe that perhaps part of the problem is that folks don't like to step out of their comfort zone. and building relationships with people takes time and work. basically, we're all pretty self-loving and don't want to put in the effort to take interest in people who are different from us--whether they belong to a different religion, race, or status.

of course that is wrong and very unChristlike when you think about it. Jesus always showed compassion towards women, foreigners, and the outcasts of society. but you're right, we may not even know people who fit into the categories you described above. i think there are a lot of christians who are quite comfortable in their christianity and being involved in their little church programs and ministries (which naturally are important as well!) that they don't even take time to get personally involved in the lives of others.

i don't even think it's necessarily wrong for a church to be involved in the community and to have a positive influence. i just believe that the corporate body needs to set priorities for this. i'm also not completely sure what i think about this concept.

however, i think what joel (correct me if i'm wrong here, joel) and i are talking about is the danger of the attitude of focusing all of the church's efforts on giving people what they want and not what they need. maybe there's a misunderstanding of "need" here because there are all different sorts of needs...

at any rate, what i meant about my whole pragmatism comment was that there are church leaders out there who are asking themselves, "ok, how can we pack out our churches and get the lost people in here? (lost people=needy people)" although i'm sure that a number of them have good motives, i'd like to know to what end and at what cost?

i daresay some leaders may just want the pretige of being the head of a mega-organization.

and i suppose others are willing to compromise and to water down the gospel to the extent that there is practically no biblical teaching. no teaching=no growth=a church full of baby christians. that's not good. nevertheless, they measure their success not qualitatively but quantitatively. lots of people=success=the end justifies the means.

but isn't quality better than quanity?

not only that, but sometimes they end up hiding the truth from people: "oh, we can't mention the word sin because folks won't come back again." or "we can't admit that Christ is the only way to heaven because they might think we're intolerant." or "we can't mention the fact that maintaining good works and keeping the sacraments won't save a person because we might offend someone with a catholic background."

john the baptist (matthew 3), peter (acts 3), stephen (acts 7), Christ (john 4)--none of them were shy about telling others the truth. i think one of my all-time favorite passages about melding compassion and truth is found in what paul says in i. thes. 2. that is a great chapter and one i go back to quite often. i think also because it mentions the part about not trying to manipulate people either. (another problem in some modern-day fundamental christian circles--and a point you also brought up scott!)

so now to that issue: that other mentality in the church which says, "hey, follow the romans road or the abc's of salvation and you're a christian! walk the aisle, pray a prayer, and heaven's secured for you!" although believing what those verses have to say and a prayer of repentance are necessary, there are also folks out there who put all of their trust in those actions. and what's worse is that some people just stop there and don't even care about what it means to be a disciple. that's also basing christianity on a(nother man-made) method which many believe "works." but we must never forget that christianity is not a how or what.

it's a who: Christ.

something else which really struck me a couple of months ago is this: why is it important for people to become followers of Christ in the first place? because they are "needy"? because they need to be freed from their bondage to alcoholism, pornography, eating disorder, etc.?

i submit, however, that those are not the main reasons. salvation is all about God getting the glory. another believer on this earth is another person who will bring glory to Him.

and that doesn't mean that we totally discount people's physical and emotional needs. by no means. i've been reading in matthew lately, and it's so clear to see how Jesus healed people's physical and paid attention to their emotional needs and had compassion upon them. but then you can also read that the end result was so that people would glorify God or recognize Christ's Sonship (see matthew 14:33; 15:31).

one last thing... (see scott, you're not the only one who can write short novels!) i agree that you don't always have to hit people with the gospel the first and every time you meet with them. our lives are supposed to be a living gospel anyway, and i think our actions often speak louder than words. i'm pretty skeptical when people (particularly strangers) try to force anything on me, whether it be a newspaper, a flyer, or a conversation. therefore, i tend to not approach others with christianity that way. my goal is to get to know them as a person first and to demonstrate kindness to them and to listen to them. actually, listening helps you a lot because then it gives you a better chance to know how to reach people more effectively.

ok, i'm signing off for now. sorry about my going on and on, but i read those comments before i went to bed last night and my thoughts have been spinning around since then. i've also realized that the conversation has sort of shifted away from a web presence to other topics!

[Joel]

Melanie has a good way of putting it. I'm afraid I've really got nothing to add, but here I go anyway.

To the paragraph about minorities and homosexuals etc.: I live among them. I don't live in any nice, white neighborhood or anything. We live in apartment complexes that are full of every conceivable minority and white people are in the very small minority. As for work, I work with unwed mothers, and homosexuals and all the rest (even an ex-fundamentalist). But that doesn't put me in the world any more than the folks from the suburbs who work with people like themselves. We are in the world, we can't avoid being in it. We are around sinners all the time. Even if we have Christian school and all the Christian activities, we rub shoulders with unbelievers - I never did any less when I was in a Christian school - we can't avoid the world, we are in it. So this talk about going out to the and finding the spiritually needy because they are not rich white people like us will not do. It is condescending and fatuous.

The second point is that we view the great commission as something to approach with reluctance, to the detriment of the business which is the business of the great commission. Against the world and its rulers who had seemed to won the victory, Jesus gives the words of eucatastophe (if you are wondering what that word is, read Tolkien's long essay on Fairy Stories, it is really worth it)- All authority on heaven and earth is his. The joy of being a disciple is something we can share. Take away all the stupid and awkward cold turkey evangelism stuff. Take away, even, the idea of hijacking relationships for the purpose of witnessing (they can tell when that stuff is coming, people want to be friends with people because they have care about them as people, not as potential converts). What I think you have left is not the Romans road or other overt outreach, what you have is friendship with the Weight of Glory in view (CS Lewis has a great essay called the Weight of Glory that explains the term). And you have the confrontation of Christianity and the World, for they are in deadly opposition (I understand Kierkergard has a lot of good stuff on this. I recently read an article on First Things by Neuhaus on Kierkergard for Grownups that has some of these ideas - makes one interested in Kierkergaard).

Another consideration is I Cor 1-3. When I read this passage I get the sense that Paul is afraid to detract from the power of the Gospel. He fears that he can take away from the efficacy by detracting from the Glory, so he refuses all the plausible accretions of the others. He wants to keep it simple, to keep it plain, to keep it foolish in the most natural view of it. Because the power of the Gospel is supernatural. The Glory of conversion is reserved for God alone. I don't think we understand the importance of the Glory of God nowadays very well (of course, the person to read on that would be John Piper, or better, Jonathan Edwards). Everything exists for the Glory of God - it is the End for Which God Created the World (Edwards). It is the purpose for which God accomplished justification, redemption, sanctification and every aspect of our Salvation. Were we to be so overwhelmed and overawed by the great glory of God and the gloriousness of the Gospel as we have received it - and let any who preach another be accursed - then perhaps we would fear to tamper with what God has given us. We would at least ask, does the medium affect the message? And then we might think of the words of Paul and wonder at his fear in 1 Cor.

As for the church and physical needs - the church's business is with the soul of man, as the hospital's business is with the body of man. I do not say there is no overlap where meeting a physical need might not impinge on the soul of a man, clearly it does. But the Church has to stay focused, more than a hopital does, because the stakes are greater. The church exists for worship (Piper again, and the Bible of course). Evangelism exists because worship does not. The ultimate and overriding concern of the church is worship - it is more permanent for one thing! When evangelism is over still we will have worship. That is because we exists to bring God glory. If our chief end is to bring God glory, then it stand to reason that the most important thing we do as individuals, but especially as a church, is worship. That is where our focus should always be. Not on soup kitchens, not on orphanages or any other good-seeming social outreach. For, I believe, Jesus was a platonist in his epistemology. He told us to seek the Kingdom and the righteousness which makes it attractive and glorious, and when we seek that one thing, all the rest fall into place (CS Lewis explains this in Till We Have Faces - my favorite book).

So, I don't say don't blog, I just say that when it comes to the business of the church, market research is something I eschew. There are great volumes of theology and devotion that will give us better stuff. The market research that is good is like a relatively unmuddy puddle, and drinking out of it might be better than drinking out of a really muddy puddle, but we have the clear and deep streams of Scripture from which to drink, and all the deep pools of theological reflection from ages past.

[Scott M]

Joel and Mel... good points. I think you are both probably much more wise and studied than I. But I still have trouble with how we in conservative evangelical circles define worship and the role of the church. I do not suggest that we throw out worship in favor of outreach. And I do not suggest that we tell people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. I simply believe that we've made Christianity a bit of a good-ole boys club... a members-only social hour where we gather together to hide from the world. Worship isn't just something that occurs between 9:30 am and 12:00 pm on Sunday mornings.

If you look at the model of the early church, you could make an argument that the actual corporate gathering was more for edification than for worship. So I don't buy the argument that we need to somehow "protect" the sanctity of our church services. Yes, an unsaved person coming into our church should see something different... something unique. But that uniqueness need not be aloofness or put-on piety. It should be genuine love for God and others. I don't think the Bible gives a specific formula for worship or evangelism. Joel, you mentioned the Great Commission. The Great Commission says to go into the world and make disciples. It doesn't say how to do that. I think God not only allows variety in worship and ministry... I believe He enjoys it. If he expected formulaic worship, why not spell it out as He did in Judaic law? Instead, He gave us principles and then set us free to live by them under His grace.

I think it borders on arrogance for us to believe that we have the corner on worship or the absolute right view on evangelism... that we've figured out the right way. I think God delights in the fact that we spend time thinking and debating and planning and pursuing outreach opportunities. Obviously there needs to be balance in a church between worship, evangelism, edification, etc. The core aim of all these is to glorify God. (I'm stealing this from Pastor Jon's model). I don't think outreach should be seen as something that detracts from more "important" things such as corporate worship services. I think they are of equal importance. Many so-called liberal churches get out of balance with too much outreach and not enough worship. What I'm reacting to is the fact that conservative churches in our circles get way out of balance in the other direction. We seem to say that corporate worship is more important than reaching the lost.

Sorry... I've gotten way off the original topic of Web pages... but I think all of this discussion kind of ties to the same core question. Does God have a specific will, a pin-point position, on things such as worship, evangelism, personal standards, etc? Or, does God allow us the freedom to make choices in these areas based on biblical principles?

As to the value of market research... I agree it is not a substitute for theology. But I do believe it has value (as do philosophy and psychology) in teaching us about human behavior and social climate. We need to understand society and the people to which we minister in order to reach them effectively. Paul understood this, as did Christ. I do not agree that we are in the world and we can't avoid it. There's an entire city of fundamentalists down south filled with pious people who are doing just that... isolating themselves from the harvest fields. Just being in the same neighborhood as the needy is not the same thing as being engaged and in the process of reaching the needy.

[Scott M]

Oh... one last thing I forgot to mention. I do not think that a church service is the best or even a good way of evangelizing. When I speak of church-sponsored outreach, I'm referring more to the idea of an organized colaborative effort that reaches out to the community. This by very definition would occur outside of the traditional Sunday morning worship service... although I wouldn't be opposed to having occasional worship services that are more geared toward a gospel presentation. Corporate evangelism need not replace personal relationship building and one-on-one evangelism. But I liken the local church assembly to a family. Yes, as an individual you have personal one-on-one relationships with certain lost people. But then there are also those people to whom your entire family reaches out and establishes a relationship. I think we fail in building relationships with the community on a corporate (church family) level.

[Joel]

I don't think fundamentalists have worship down right. I think the Anglicans have it better!
But I am glad to be a fundamentalist because it is a good idea even if there are a lot of embarrasing fundamentalists.
But I don't think it is a matter of balance. If you try to get to the middle, you might just end up with mediocrity, and I definitely think we have the corner on that already!

[joy]

Scott M, hey. I sat by you in His/Civ years ago. Nice to read you. However, I think you've got a fundamental problem with a statement like this: "I do not think that a church service is the best or even a good way of evangelizing."

That problem is that the preached Word of God is God's ordained primary means of evangelism. Granted, preaching is worship and worship includes preaching, but a para-pulpit / para-local-church-assembly's-community is just that -- it's outside/alongside the parameters God has set in place.

That's not to say evangelism efforts outside the milieu of the assembled Body are worthless, but as Piper would say, "missions exists because worship does not." But I think you're treading on some swampy ground to imply that the preached Word and the local Body are a less-than-ideal context for unbelievers to be confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ.