New Hope Website (redux, redux)

A couple weeks ago on the blog we had an energetic discussion around the purpose of our church website.  This was sparked by a little recognition we received for the quality of the site by a group called Strategic Digital Outreach.  The goal of SDO appears to be evangelism through the creative use of technology.  Though our site is well-designed, the intended audience is the faith community (both the Church and our church).  Our debate began around the creation of a website designed specifically to reach the unchurched, and then morphed into a series of replies about the role of the church and the Christian in the broader culture.  I purposely let that discussion unwind without chiming in overmuch, but I would like to pick it back up again with a few observations.

1.  I don't think we can debate SDOs original point that the typical church website is not appealing to the unchurched.  Many surfers hit both the blog and the website via google or some other search engine, but they don't stay around long.  That's OK.  Our electronic presence is really designed to reach our church community, or minister to the Church-at-large.  We also hope to reach believers moving into our neighborhood who would like to find a church home.  This is what sparked my observation that every visitor in the last few months either found us on the web, or visited the website before they visited the church. 

This reflects a tangible trend in the way people in our culture "church shop."  I don't think we are an isolated example.  Churches ignore this to their peril, and that is one of SDO's points.  A church's presence on the web should be characterized by the same degree of excellence they expect in their corporate worship, or any other area of ministry.  It is a reflection of their ministry priorities. 

2.  Whether or not we should design a site, or a site portal, aimed specifically at the unchurched is another animal.  I think it is an intriguing idea and worth pursuing, but I don't believe it should be one of the main focuses of our ministry.  Here is why--we emphasize natural, relational evangelism in our spheres of influence external to the church environment. 

Natural, relational evangelism:  Granted, relationships can be built on the web.  Blogging makes this particularly possible.  I like the idea of several bloggers in one church forming a blogging community that has the potential for external focus.  This might work because those particular bloggers have a desire to reach the unchurched.  However, one can only go so far to establish trust in an electronic environment.  It is far better to build a relationship in which both parties interact with one another in a variety of life settings. 

A natural relationship is not forced or artificial.  I do not build the relationship so that at some point I can share the Gospel.  I simply love the people God has placed in my world...passionately, pointedly, and with the purpose of glorifying God.  I have taken numerous evangelism classes, listened to countless sermons on evangelism, and learned several methods for sharing the gospel.  I have become rather dubious of them all.  The most genuine converts in our congregation have been born by God out of a significant relationship with another believer over the long haul.  This is not to say there are not many other ways God draws people to Himself, but it is a scriptural model that bears fruit.  We resist programmatic methods, either for evangelizing the lost, or edifying the saints. 

In our spheres of influence:  A believer should be concerned about the eternal destiny of every person God places in their life.  Beyond that, the believer should be creatively building other relationships as they have the time and energy.  We only have so many days and hours.  Our relationships to God, spouse, children, immediate family, extended family, co-workers, church family, and neighbors are consuming.  If all the members of our church were simply faithful in loving these people, then we would come very close to meeting our obligations to evangelize the lost.  I refuse to lay a guilt trip on our congregation for "evangelizing" beyond these realms, because evangelism beyond our spheres of influence tends to get programmatic and methods oriented (this does not mean we should stop "lifting up our eyes and look at the fields white unto harvest"). 

External to the church environment:  The faith community is absolutely unique when they gather together to worship God.  The Church is a theocentric community that jealously guards against the natural tendency to be anthropocentric, and thus idolatrous.  We are focused on worshipping our Creator in praise, confession, adoration, supplication, and word-focused devotion.  All of these things are foreign to those who do not know God, and this is exactly why what the believing community does in public worship is Gospel proclamation.  One aside here, our blog readers should take the time to learn about the regulative principle of reformed worship.  Though I am not a strict constructionist in this area, I tend toward choosing those methods of worship which God has ordained versus dabbling with those He has not specified.

We reject the culture of marketing, success syndromes, and seeker orientation within the church.  We do not weave the fabric of a secular culture into the worship of a God who is wholly other.  He alone ordains how He is to be worshipped, and it is primarily in the spirit of holiness.  However, and this is a big however, getting the gospel right inside the church is not an excuse for not getting it outside the church.  Somehow, all of our devotion at worship must overflow into relationships in the world.  I don't know why this does not happen more, unless our public devotion on the Lord's Day is simply feigned, or misguided.  Growing Christians should reproduce themselves. 

Also, this does not mean our worship should not be contemporary.  By contemporary, I do not intend to advocate a particular style of worship.  I mean worship should be expressed in words, praise, hymnody, psalms, prayers, confessions, sermons, etc that are authentic expressions out of a culture at a given point in time.  For example, our music is a not a collection of the top 40 worship hymns of the mid-20th century.  It is, however, our best attempt at acquiring music, written at any point in church history, that is God-centered, theologically accurate, characterized by beauty and excellence to a significant degree, and sung in a style appropriate to the occasion.  I do not pray with words that reflect the English language as it was spoken 400 years ago, nor do we read a Bible that was translated in 1611. 

3.  All of this talk about the use of a weblog to reach the lost also generated a discussion around the church's general inability to meet not only the spiritual, but also the physical needs of others, build relationships outside of the community of faith, and be more creative in our evangelistic methods. 

We should be careful that we guard against pragmatism in the work of the ministry.  "If it works, do it," generally does not "work" in the worship of God and the business of the church.  Generally these words are spoken in the context of "getting results," numbers, or "being successful." 

Often the medium or method is the message, or distorts the message.  When I see someone try to put a gospel (it is certainly not The Gospel) on their t-shirt, or the bumper of their car, I cringe.  This kind of methodology actually cheapens, and I would argue changes, the message.  The method must be in harmony with the message.

The message of the Gospel is that God sent His Son to die on a cross so that lost sinners might have life and ultimately glorify Him.  This message is best proclaimed in the context of a loving relationship that demonstrates that love in tangible ways.  If that means churches, or individual believers, are led to run soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and pregnancy centers, then more power to them.  But most churches do not have those kinds of resources. 

God has placed most of us in small communities of faith in which we are challenged to be authentic followers of Christ, no more, no less.  We gather to worship Him and edify one another.  We leave to be salt and light in the world.  God help us to worship Him with all of our being, and to love others as He has loved us. 

Comments

[Joel]

I've been waiting for this for so long!

I like the regulative principle very much. I was arguing for it, except when I endorsed Anglican polity. Here's my question for you though. The trouble I have with the regulative principle is that I find the New Testament deliberately vague when it comes to church polity - the government of the church. Do you think so too? Or do you think it gives us the locked down way of doing that also?

With regard to worship and culture, I don't think you'd say a culture is neutral, so there would be things to avoid. If we call the things we use from a culture, cultural forms (the rock ballad, the cantata, the talk show), then what forms would you get from Popular culture, if any; from High culture, if any; and from Folk culture, if any? Or would you divide culture otherwise - Islamic culture, Chinese culture, Western culture?

Tozer also had a good quote on churches who want to whip up evangelism and missions giving etc. He says that since they are the marks of a healthy church, we try to fan ourselves into doing them in our churches. But the trouble is that it is like asking a man with tuberculosis to go play football. Just because he's sick and needs to recover health, doesn't mean he has to recover his health by doing what a healthy man can. Rather, we need to nurture our relationship with God. - did I alredy put this one in? I read Tozer stuff every day on this site. http://www.cmalliance.org/devotions/tozer/tozer.jsp That's where I got the quote that fanned the flames early on.

[jon]

First, I agree the NT is intentionally vague regarding some areas of church polity; however, I do think there are some clear key principles. First, the NT model supports a plurality of leaders under the lordship of Christ, not a single shepherd at the top of the hierarchy. Second, the leadership is pastoral, not executive. Third, it is male, not female. Fourth, the leaders must meet certain character qualifications, not earn tenure or be successful in their private endeavors. Fifth, the leadership must be servant like, not lording over the flock.

This is a summary of Alexander Strauch's five key points under Part One of Biblical Eldership. I don't care if the church leaders are called pastors, elders, or deacons, these are the principles. That being said, any form of church governance can "work" with good men, and even the "right" form can fail with bad men.

Second, I will post a lengthy reply to the culture question on the blog tomorrow. I need to go back and take a look at Ken Myers, Marva Dawn, and C.S. Lewis. I love this topic.

Third, I appreciate the insight from Tozer. I hinted at my frustration with this issue in my post...the seeming failure of a worshiping community to be consistently externally focused. The tendency is to focus harder on the methods of evangelism, but as Tozer points out, that is not the answer--a better walk with God is. Thanks for that, Joel.

[melanie]

glad to read these comments!

you know, way back when when this discussion was first brought up, i was thinking about the whole "people want to know other people's life stories" issue. i'm pretty sure that that's one of the points which was brought up on SDO. and then i thought to myself, "um, hey--read the Bible!!"

some time ago, i read an article about how great it is that God chose to speak to us through the stories of people in the Bible. something we as humans could relate to. and more than that, He sent His Son in FLESH! what more could folks ask for? Christ identified Himself with us; however, He didn't do it in a way which was sinful or compromising to His perfect nature. i think that perhaps this is really the key in our evangelization today. perhaps we as Christians would do better to really study Christ's life to see how He reached individuals instead of trying to think of a bunch of methods. (something i know both of you guys don't advocate anyway! thank goodness!)

my prayer is that the Lord will help me to be more natural in my evangelization. i've found too that HE is the one who opens doors to speak a word for Him. it doesn't have to be something forced and "unnatural." and i think you're right, jon. we do just need to love the people God has placed in our sphere of influence. if i'm honest with myself, i accomplish this much too little.

have either of you read the book The Insider? i just started reading the german version. from what i know, the book is about building relationships with people already in your sphere of influence and through that being able to naturally share christ with them. (focus on quality instead of quantity.)

and joel zartman, what in the world are you up to these days? i wonder that every time i comment about something you've already commented on! by the way, some of my friends want to know if you have a jewish heritage (because of your name).

[Joel]

Melanie - I'm probably as jewish as the next person.
Jon - I like this natural, relational evangelism. Doesn't it seem, though, that it takes the focus of evangelism altogether? So that to still say you are evangelical and not be so concerned with sharing the Gospel as with making sure your church people are friendly is a bit contradictory?

[jon]

Joel, I said, "A believer should be concerned about the eternal destiny of every person God places in their life." I don't see how that takes the focus off evangelism. It may take the focus off evangelism as a method, but it doesn't remove the essence of being a witness to the gospel--in life and word. I also said, " I simply love the people God has placed in my world...passionately, pointedly, and with the purpose of glorifying God." This goes beyond mere friendliness. I am not advocating non-confrontational "friendship evangelism," or doing things for people so that I can plant gospel seeds. I am suggesting our relationships should be so much more--see my post on today's proverb; however, I can only have so many of these kinds of relationships in my life.

As for the label "evangelical," your point is well taken. I took a look at Noll's book, The Rise of Evangelicalism, in which he identifies two main periods of evangelical history: the historic reformers of the protestant reformation (Noll says protestant=evangelical), and the pietistic evangelicalism that was born out of Britain in the 18th century. Here are their respective emphasis:

Protestant Reformed evangelicalism: justification by faith alone, sole sufficiency of Christ for salvation, once-for-all triumph of Christ on the cross, final authority of scripture, the priesthood of all believers.

Pietistic evangelicalism: conversion, the Bible, activism as especially manifested in evangelism, and crucicentrism, or the conviction that Christ's death is crucial in providing atonement for sin.

Although no movement fits neatly into these kinds of categories, I more readily identify with the Protestant reformers than the pietists. It's like saying, "I am an historic fundamentalist." By sticking the adjective "historic" in there, I am trying to distance myself from the abuses of later fundamentalists. So now I'll call myself a "reformed evangelical." :-)

[Scott M]

I'm going to try to tiptoe into the discussion this time and not stomp on any toes...

It seems we all agree that relationship evangelism is the most natural, effective (if I can use that word) way of sharing the gospel. However, I do not believe that the idea of incorporating knowledge from other areas of study (such as marketing, psychology, sociology, etc) is necessarily antithetical to the idea of relationship-oriented evangelism.

It seems to me that there are various stages of relationship building. Much of the debate has been about how to build a trusting relationship once contact has been established. However, isn't there a primary, more fundamental hurdle to get over before one can build that trusting relationship? I would contend that that initial hurdle is finding common ground... establishing a "first contact" with someone. Think of it in terms of dating (let's just pretend we all agree with the idea of dating and not get into the courtship debate). To me, the initial contact is like the proverbial blind date that leads to the follow-up phone call. Then comes the second date, the third, and then eventually you take the girl home to meet your family (that's like bringing a friend to church for the first time).

Now, if you're not lucky (or unlucky) enough to have friends that set you up on these blind dates, then you have to actually go out and find people that interest you. You may visit singles groups, open online personal ads, spend time roaming the supermarket aisles, whatever... the idea is you're looking for someone who peaks your interest. You may hang around a book store if you're looking for bookworms, or at the gym if you're looking for the athletic type. Bottom line is that you are searching for that initial contact that may lead to a relationship. You are marketing yourself.

If you think about it another way, marketing is just a means to establish contact with a potential client and lay the groundwork for a relationship that can only then be fleshed out through a long-term trusting exchange. The flashy commercial may be enough to get you to test-drive a Ford, but the quality of the product, the interaction with the salesman, the service department, the customer service reps, etc is what will keep you coming back. Yet, it was most likely the commercial, not the service department, that first drew you to the dealership. If marketing strategies can help us make the first contact, then I believe psychology and sociology can aid us in building the relationship.

Psychology tells us about behavior. It teaches us how people in different walks of life tend to act and think. What are their triggers? What worries them? What interests them? Aren't these the types of things that are important to know in building a friendship? Certainly, as Christians, we understand that a person's sin nature influences his behavior. But I don't think you can argue that a person's depravity is the only factor influencing his actions. There must be other factors at work... which psychology can help us understand.

Sociology, on the other hand, gives us in-depth knowledge about cultures, societal trends, group behavior and mind-sets. Imagine you want to try to get to know your East Indian coworker. You might want to know a little about the culture he grew up in. How does it compare to yours? What types of things do you take for granted that might be foreign to him? What types of cultural baggage does he carry with him? If this type of information is important to understand on a personal level, why not on a corporate level?

I think the problem with most evangelism methods is that they seem to imply that by following a particular formula you can increase the likelihood of a person coming to Christ. I agree that this is wrong thinking. But I do not agree that secular wisdom is useless for establishing contact with unbelievers and aiding in the growth of relationships that God can use to bring them to conversion.

On the topic of God speaking to us through the stories in the Bible... I agree that the Bible provides great insight into everyday Christian living. But don't you think those stories were so much more rich and meaningful to Christians in say 100 AD than in 2005 AD? There is a great cultural divide between then and now. A story about wineskins doesn't quite have the meaning today that it did back then, for instance. I think that finding contemporary real-life stories that mirror biblical stories can be a very effective tool in bridging that great cultural divide.

It seems to me that even a study of Christ's ministry can lead to an empty methodology. If you take the scriptural accounts, boil them down to a 5-step approach, memorize the steps and then attempt to apply them to every situation.... you have a formula... you could call it the "Jesus Method". I think what Jesus's ministry teaches us is that he didn't evangelize according to a formula at all. Each situation was unique as each person is unique. He, of course, was omniscient. Since we are not omniscient, I think we ought to use everything at our disposal to understand those to whom we are ministering. This includes scriptural as well as secular wisdom.

[Joel]

I think you are saying that Evangelism is a part of life and so, therefore, all the parts of life come to bear.

I mistrust sociology and psychology because they make a science out of what is not a science. They take what belongs to the humanities and try to quantify it.

I think this is unnatural and I've got a boss with a degree in psychology to prove that they do not have a clue about human relationships!

[jon]

Scott, I don't think I said "that secular wisdom is useless for establishing contact with unbelievers and aiding in the growth of relationships." Perhaps it would be helpful to make a distinction between the means to establishing contact/common ground with an unbeliever, and the means to sharing the gospel with the same unbeliever.

First, The doctrine of "common grace" demonstrates the gulf between our two worlds may not be so wide. Instead of being so radically different from a sinner that we can barely break the ice, we discover that in some ways we are so alike we could live in the same skin. We are both created in the imago dei, and though my friend is yet in his sin, he possesses a will, intellect, emotions, and body like mine. To some degree he may pursue, or even love: peace, joy, companionship, fulfillment, etc. He may be a better worker, husband, student, or father than I am. This not to deny that he is utterly fallen, but God's common grace (versus saving grace), is experienced by all to lesser or greater degree. He is even capable of discerning the self-revelation of God in creation and natural law.

This makes some of us who believe in total depravity uncomfortable, but it is a reality. As one theologian said after 40 years of study, "I am sure there is such a thing as common grace, but I really don't have a very good idea what it is."

This is simply to make the point that human being to human being, it is not hard to establish common ground. It simply requires dying to self and loving another person. No doubt, some common interests, skills, hobbies, social standing, etc., can help, but we can love someone radically different than us, even our enemies, if we set our heart and mind to it. I would contend we sometimes love ourselves too much to try.

So go ahead and learn all you can about how human beings think and socialize. The sociology section is one of my favorites at Barnes & Noble. All of this knowledge is acquired by sinners and saints graced with God's common favor. It may very well enable you to build a conversational bridge, and it will certainly cause you to marvel at the immensity of God's creation, but it is not necessary to establishing a redemptive relationship.

Second, I am uncomfortable with attempting to evangelize the same unbeliever with methods built on a foundation of psychology and sociology. I reject any kind of marketing strategy or technique when it comes to gospel proclamation. So on the one hand, I am OK with distributing flyers to a targeted community in our area to establish contact with the unchurched. However, I am decidedly opposed to blanketing that same area with a troop of church members doing a bait and switch survey in order to share the Roman's road. The technique cheapens the message, or even becomes the message.

Regarding biblical stories, you might illustrate a biblical story with a contemporary example, but the biblical story is THE meta-narrative. I believe Christ rose from a tomb over 2000 years ago, and that because He rose, I will as well. Nothing is more rich or meaningful than that.

You are dead-on regarding the Jesus' method. Just go to your local christian bookstore and you can find Jesus' five easy steps to friendship, discipleship, cooking, fishing, and walking on water. Ugh.

[jon]

Mels, I have not read "The Insider," but I think you mentioned it on your blog. I assume from your post that it has been published in english?

[mels]

Jon, I actually haven't mentioned anything about The Insider on my blog--yet. The German title is (surprise, surprise!) Der Insider. I just got the book for Christmas, so I'm not that far into it. The book was published first under the English title in 2003. Authors are Jim Petersen and Mike Shamy.

I'm not sure if you guys were referring to my comment about observing Christ's ministry in your following comments. Just in case, I wasn't advocating that we come up with a method from Jesus' "method." Because I don't think He had some sort of 3 or 5 step method either. In fact, if you take a look at how Christ ministered to others, it wasn't always the same way. (I think you touched on that point, Scott.) And that's what I meant--that we can't deal with every person the same way, either.

The thing that sticks out to me over and over again in the Gospels is Christ's compassion and really His patience too. And if I'm correct, these are the ideas which Jon keeps hitting on. I agree that we definitely love ourselves way too much and don't love others enough. I least I do. And I think that's probably even because I don't meditate enough on who I really am before God and what Christ did for me so that God sees Christ instead of Melanie.

And about the stories of Scripture... Jon, I think you fleshed out my idea there well. The Bible is full of stories of people who were afraid, bitter, treated wrongly, without children, terrible sinners yet forgiven by God--the list could go on. People are people and will always deal with these things. I believe that we can find great hope in the stories of Scripture because they teach us about a God who worked thousands of years ago and hasn't stopped working in lives in order to glorify Himself. Surely biblical accounts can be paralleled to stories of the 21st century, especially because the same God is at the center of them.

[Scott M]

Thanks for all the great followup! Pastor, I agree with you that using some kind of marketing approach to the actual presentation of the gospel is a bad idea. It becomes an awful idea when you use a questionable marketing tactic like bait and switch.

As an aside, it's funny to me to observe how different people look at the same topic. As someone who works in marketing for a reputable company, my view of marketing is that it is an essential business function rooted in honest, reliable communication. But when many of my friends think of marketing, they think of telemarketers and infomercials for kitchen gadgets, which conjures up negative feelings. Marketers are sometimes thought of as the used-car salesmen of the corporate world. I'm not saying this is your view... but it seems you're a little more wary of marketing concepts than I am. Try to keep in mind that good marketing is based on ethical practices and is not entirely pragmatic. (You should see the list of rules I have to abide by!)

Joel, I perceive that you are of the Jay Adams (perhaps Greg Mazak?) school of psychology. I agree to a point with that thinking as it applies to counselling and treatment of so-called mental illness. But I'm talking more of the segment of psychology that deals with testing and measurement of behavioral trends, interests, etc. I believe much of that can be quantified. I reject the definition of psychology as the "study of the mind" in favor of the definition "the study of human behavior." In college, I did a psych project in which I asked 100 students to complete an anonymous survey dealing with moral dilemmas. (If you found a $50 bill lying on the ground outside the snack shop, what would you do? How would you react if you caught your classmate cheating?... stuff like that). The idea was to try to measure how the average student reacts to difficult moral decisions... whether their thinking is biblically based or rationally based. The multiple choice answers were crafted so that all but one contained flaws. Only one choice was based entirely on biblical principles. From the data, I was able to determine trends and correlations and break them down by different demographics (Female underclassmen are more likely than male upperclassmen to lie about the $50, etc). That's just one simple example of using psychology to quantify behavior and make general observations about morality. How does that study tie in with relationship-building? I have no idea... maybe keep your eye on your wallet when you're around women? Then again, I could have told you that without the study. :-) lol

Mel, you made a great point about Christ's compassion and patience... and you touched on having a humble view of our own standing before God. That's the one characteristic of Jesus that is so hard to emulate -- his humility. It's sometimes easy to reach out to someone who is obviously in need and make some gesture of compassion. (I picture a rich man handing a few bucks to a starving homeless man.) However, it's infinitely more difficult to put yourself in the place of that needy person... to get right down there in the gutter with him (literally or figuratively) and recognize you are no different or better than he. The contrast may not be so stark between us and our unsaved friends and neighbors... but don't we often think of ourselves as better than they? Our compassion, our kind acts, even our evangelism tends toward condescension, because we think so highly of ourselves in comparison to those "sinners." Without humility, an otherwise charitable act may turn to sin because of our pride. So I agree that the most important aspect of our relationship-building is a right view of God and a right view of ourselves. If we have those two things straight, then we will deal with others genuinely and with true compassion without compromising truth.

[jon]

Melanie, Thanks for clarification on the book; I'll look for it. I guess you had mentioned a couple other books about the time you had gone to a conference or some such thing.

I agree with your movement toward the life of Christ as a model (not method) for evangelism.

As for the biblical stories, they are timeless. That is the beauty of a story, particularly a well written one, which scripture is. Therefore, they speak to any human beings of any era, and will continue to do so. I like the emphasis on narrative in the postmodern era (if we really are postmodern). I enjoy preaching in a narrative style, even more than a didactic one.

[Joel]

I may be of the Adam's/Mazak school. I don't know very much about it having shunned all the practical courses I could. I know little about BJ except that they are frequently very ridiculous. Because I like the regulative principle, and because I believe the reformed model of sanctification to be a good one, I probably come close to where they are on many of these things. Another way of stating the regulative principle is to say that the Bible is your sole authority for faith and practice. That is why, when it comes to counseling people, Presbyterians and Baptists (who are serious about their denominational distinctives) are not keen on including secular insight. If it is formed from an perspective that is anti-supernaturalistic and beholden to the farce of evolution, why should they?

I don't believe that most of these social sciences are able to be extracted from the irrational naturalism and deadly materialism from which their idea comes. And I’ve read quite a few respectable sources with qualms about these things - CS Lewis type of people, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute type of people, Touchstone Magazine type of people.
Alvin Plantinga has a lecture online where he talks about the Christian university. His conclusion is that before we can have Christian scholars in the disciplines of a university, we need to have Christian cultural criticism because in the academy there is a conflict, which at heart is religious. We can’t take on all the disciplines simply the way they are and have Christians do them as they are done. Some questions only arise out of a certain worldview, and carry it along. We can’t assume the methods of these disciplines are neutral. We must determine if the methods of these disciplines are legitimate.

I know that in Fundamentalism we have heard many dismissals that were unfounded. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t good foundations for the dismissals after all.

But my antipathy toward the social science approach to things, statistics and all that, is probably due to my love for the humanities, and my ineptitude for mathematics!