[Shredcheddar]

I want to raise a discussion in this forum about this particular topic, which I will explain in just a few moments. First, however, let me fill you in on a little background which has inspired my considerations on this issue.

This particular example takes place in my church youth group. For seven or eight years, the youth ministry has been under the leadership of Youth Pastor Brian, who was always around and organized events as well as taught Wednesday night bible studies. He was always very flexible and focused on discipleship and unity, things like that. Well, about a year ago, he brings Matt, a youth assistant, on staff to help handle the growing youth ministry's needs. As the year has progressed, I have seen much more of Matt and much less of Brian. Now, understand, Matt is the more popular of the two: he's much younger (still in college), a more charismatic personality, and a more dramatic speaker. But lately, as Brian is on the verge of announcing his resignment as youth pastor (he is getting old), Matt has been implementing some change that we as a youth group are not neccessarily used to.

Now, I'm not here to criticize change, I'm here to raise question as to the attitude behind it. Here's what I mean. Lately, Matt has been changing around Sunday morning schedules and order of events to try and maximize the impact that the ministries have; all this assuming that shuffling around corporate worship and bible study will make a difference. He has explained his reasonings behind it, and has been speculating constantly about what we can do logistics-wise to improve the "impact that our ministry has on the students". Also, Matt is much more evangelism-driven and usually considers the viewpoint of the visiting non-Christian when considering any changes that may be made.

Here is my question: is too much emphasis put on how the order of service is run, and how hot the coffee is, and how putting "fellowship time" after bible study will increase the impact of the lesson? Also, are too many of these logistics decisions based upon reaching unsaved people, when the time spent making those decisions could be made considering what each individual could do to improve the job that they are doing? Is the emphasis placed too heavily on evangelism when the church's primary function is to disciple Christians? This may or may not be a trend in your church, but I have heard the "Why aren't you inviting three people to church every week so they can get preached to about salvation?" sermon way too frequently to not wonder: do we have this all wrong? What is your opinion on the church's role in evangelism?

[georgeo]

I feel like I should give an in-depth response to this topic. My youth group went through a similar thing last year, so maybe I have a little bit of wisdom I could share with you. I'm going to think awhile before I really talk, though.

[psalm63adam]

Hmmm. Interesting topic. I will have to think about it as well. Maybe over a Chipotle burrito.

[georgeo]

Originally Posted by parkway

Hmmm. Interesting topic. I will have to think about it as well. Maybe over a Chipotle burrito.

Someday, somehow, I want to sit down to a Chipotle burrito with you.

[psalm63adam]

Originally Posted by georgeo

Someday, somehow, I want to sit down to a Chipotle burrito with you.

Definitely.

I think there's a church I'm looking at that's in the Chicago suburb area...

[georgeo]

Preface: I don't mean to come of as judgemental in any way. I don't have this concept nailed down by any means. If I word something poorly and it offends you, please, let me know, and forgive me.

Originally Posted by Shredcheddar

This particular example takes place in my church youth group. For seven or eight years, the youth ministry has been under the leadership of Youth Pastor Brian, who was always around and organized events as well as taught Wednesday night bible studies. He was always very flexible and focused on discipleship and unity, things like that.

This sounds much like my situation in high school. For a long time, there was a Sr. High Pastor whom all the students loved, and did a good job. There were other problems, but one no one addressed is how comfortable the group was becoming. This problem manifested itself in the form of extreme cliques. It was not a very friendly group to new people.

Well, about a year ago, he brings Matt, a youth assistant, on staff to help handle the growing youth ministry's needs. As the year has progressed, I have seen much more of Matt and much less of Brian. Now, understand, Matt is the more popular of the two: he's much younger (still in college), a more charismatic personality, and a more dramatic speaker. But lately, as Brian is on the verge of announcing his resignment as youth pastor (he is getting old), Matt has been implementing some change that we as a youth group are not neccessarily used to.

This, too I can associate with. We had a new youth pastor my senior year, and he started shaking things up. He didn't do it perfectly—he made a lot of people angry, some people left—but it was generally for the good of the group as a whole. Change is neccessary.

Now, I'm not here to criticize change, I'm here to raise question as to the attitude behind it. Here's what I mean. Lately, Matt has been changing around Sunday morning schedules and order of events to try and maximize the impact that the ministries have; all this assuming that shuffling around corporate worship and bible study will make a difference. He has explained his reasonings behind it, and has been speculating constantly about what we can do logistics-wise to improve the "impact that our ministry has on the students". Also, Matt is much more evangelism-driven and usually considers the viewpoint of the visiting non-Christian when considering any changes that may be made.

This, too, sounds familiar...

Here is my question: is too much emphasis put on how the order of service is run, and how hot the coffee is, and how putting "fellowship time" after bible study will increase the impact of the lesson? Also, are too many of these logistics decisions based upon reaching unsaved people, when the time spent making those decisions could be made considering what each individual could do to improve the job that they are doing? Is the emphasis placed too heavily on evangelism when the church's primary function is to disciple Christians? This may or may not be a trend in your church, but I have heard the "Why aren't you inviting three people to church every week so they can get preached to about salvation?" sermon way too frequently to not wonder: do we have this all wrong? What is your opinion on the church's role in evangelism?

Here's my general take on the order of things: Within a church service, I think the order can be much more important. The Church has a history of liturgy, and even if most churches today aren't liturgical, the order is still important. I've always found the sermons about bringing people to church or youth group were funny. How would you feel if you were visiting and the pastor preached on that?

I think churches should have services that disciple christians, but at the same time, the truths spoken should have an immense impact on the unsaved. Sermons and teachings should all be centered around the gospel—be it a sermon from the book of Matthew, the Psalms, Genesis, or a Pauline Epistle. The Christ-centeredness is, in my opinion, the best evangelism tool. Preach Christ, cruxified and ressurected for our sins.

Beyond that, I don't know how much the order matters. I got very upset my senior year as our new youth pastor switched up things that had been the way they were for a long time. I didn't think what he wanted to do would be nearly as effective. At first, it wasn't. People didn't like it at all. But eventually, we got used to what he was doing, and saw the wisdom that he had. No, his plan wasn't perfect, but there were changes that had to be made.

Should we bring the unsaved to church? By all means, yes. But DON'T bring them to church saying "You should really hear our worship band," or, "Our pastor is cool he does *insert trendy thing here*." The last thing we need is to create more cultural christians who have not experienced the saving grace of Jesus Christ and found their joy in Him. (Granted, if the person has a bad taste from past churches being boring, maybe mentioning the pastor is interesting or the band is enjoyable to hear wouldn't be a bad thing.)

My point to the ramblings: I don't think we should compromise the essential elements of the Church to cater to evangelism or to the needs of culture.

[thud]

This is one of the eternal questions without an answer isn't it? I've been the voice for being more "seeker sensitive" in my church because it seems like we are a lot more concerned with what makes the old-timers happy than with meeting the needs of the community. One of the elders has asked me, "Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't we have both?" I don't know, but what we do typically satisfies neither one.

Right now the best idea I've heard is one from our new youth pastor - one meeting/week focussed on outreach and another focussed on discipleship. I've been lobbying the pastor to have shorter worship services on Sunday mornings and a go-bananas worship extravaganza on Saturday night (instead of half-way going bananas on Sunday morning and scaring the visitors).

[Shredcheddar]

Good posts, guys, I appreciate those responses.

Georgeo, I see a lot of people getting pretty angry or upset over what Matt has been doing as well. I want to thank you for what I take out of it; I hope that I am more accepting of change, myself, ideally to be an example to others that the changes aren't the end of the world.

I want to write more, but I have to go to church now. Thanks for the responses, guys.

[March]

Being seeker sensitive results in most inquirers coming back. But the congregation still has to be reminded time and again to let the things that break God's heart break their hearts too. We can't be dependent on the hospitatility to bring in the seekers and keep them coming without doing our part in building the relationships and sharing our lives, and homes, with those in the community who do not yet know Him personally.

The key is, both are important and both should be done as well as we can. Both must be directed by His Spirit. It's just as important to have loving and gracious people serving the coffee in the lobby as it is for us to be loving and gracious as we live next to, or work alongside, the ones we are trying to reach for the Kingdom.

The church's role is to be authentic in extending caring interest in each one that comes through it's doors, as much as we are able. But it's also vital to be relevant, both in the packaging of the message, and in it's content. Unless we are addressing the questions of life, and doing so in a language to which the seeker relates, he will figure he's just wasting his time.

I don't think God leaves his church bereft of the giftings and passions that are key to putting the Great Commission into effect. Placing people strategically in church ministries according to their passions and giftings will help to ensure that every aspect of the Sunday outreach will be done consistently well. If each one recognizes how vital his role is as a part of the whole picture, from the early recognition of someone that he needs answers, to his decision to come and investigate what church is about, to the commitment of his life to Jesus and the discipleship that follows, then each one can rejoice that his part in the ministry has produced fruit.

Today at our church we had baptisms. One of the new converts was a former Sikh. One a former Hindu. One had followed Jainism. And one was from a Roman Catholic background. The guest speaker we had was a former Sikh. He challenged us to pray that God would break our hearts with those things that break His heart. He challenged us to pray with weeping for the lost God has placed in our sphere of influence - our sons and daughters, our neighbors, our co-workers, our friends. Lately we are finding that we have connected with more seekers as a church than we have Bible Teachers to disciple them. But it is still only a handful of people who are actively reaching out and sharing their lives with the lost.

Being an immigrant city, the one-on-one relationships, with hospitality, is vital to evangelism. Being Canadian, we are reticent to open our lives and our homes to the stranger. We have to change. The harvest is obviously ripe to be harvested. May God forgive us for our refusal to be vulnerable, for our refusal to obey His Spirit's call.

[guitarfreak217]

Well, let's see, the role of the saved and the Church as stated by Christ in the Great Commision were to go out into all the ends of the earth to reach the lost. Yes, I do believe that the Church should also be a place for the saved to go to experience spiritual growth through being taught. The problem with the Church today is not wanting to reach out because they feel nice and comfy in the bubble that we've built for ourselves.

My take on the whole thing is that there should be another service for those that are saved because we need to experience intense Biblical training and a chance of more free worship. But a lot of people are trying to turn the seeker service into this. The problem is that the average seeker generally has no real understanding of what is happening during a service intended for believers, although that service is a very good chance for a person to come to Christ.

I personally think that getting angry over petty issues like where in the whole order of the service the fellowship time happens is a big waste of energy because once tension has begun, then the service has a hard time happening. And I also do believe that having a bit of a fellowship time afterwards can help the impact of the lesson depending on the age group that you're dealing with.

And I am going to flat out say it that you guys are blessed with a youth pastor who puts a high priority on evangelism because that is what the Church should be about, other than discipling the saved, the Church's main priority should be reaching the lost.

[Shredcheddar]

Originally Posted by guitarfreak217

Well, let's see, the role of the saved and the Church as stated by Christ in the Great Commision were to go out into all the ends of the earth to reach the lost. Yes, I do believe that the Church should also be a place for the saved to go to experience spiritual growth through being taught. The problem with the Church today is not wanting to reach out because they feel nice and comfy in the bubble that we've built for ourselves.

You're right, but the Great Commission applies mainly to the individual Christian, and is not neccessarily a church responsibility. As for the problem with the church today, I think I disagree... I almost see it as the other way around, that the church is too comfortable with recycling sermons on Christ's sacrifice rather than challenging issues that face Christians other than evangelism. Obviously there is room in the church for both, but what sort of balance should be achieved? I personally think the church is more useful for equipping Christians to be witnesses, because in my mind a personal, one-on-one relationship with a non-believer is so much more genuine than a corporate worship setting asking "Won't you be saved?"

My take on the whole thing is that there should be another service for those that are saved because we need to experience intense Biblical training and a chance of more free worship. But a lot of people are trying to turn the seeker service into this. The problem is that the average seeker generally has no real understanding of what is happening during a service intended for believers, although that service is a very good chance for a person to come to Christ.

But should that be something the church should do? Possibly sacrifice its main role to cater to the lost? True, a non-believer may not understand worship or the ritual of a church service, but is that neccessarily a problem?

I personally think that getting angry over petty issues like where in the whole order of the service the fellowship time happens is a big waste of energy because once tension has begun, then the service has a hard time happening. And I also do believe that having a bit of a fellowship time afterwards can help the impact of the lesson depending on the age group that you're dealing with.

I agree. It does bother me how people sometimes sweat the small stuff. I don't have a real problem with change; I too think it can be constructive. The problem occurs when logistics becomes the main focus, or when money is spent irresponsibly on what one could call evangelism-driven purchases (case in point: arcade games, Xboxes, rock climbing walls). One could also call into question whether these things are even appropriate for a church or not.

And I am going to flat out say it that you guys are blessed with a youth pastor who puts a high priority on evangelism because that is what the Church should be about, other than discipling the saved, the Church's main priority should be reaching the lost.

I don't know. I still think that the church's main priority should be discipleship. Basically this question of balance can be boiled down to this:

Do we support a pro-active church and a more passive church body, or do we support a more passive church in hopes of a more discipled congregation?

[guitarfreak217]

Originally Posted by Shredcheddar

You're right, but the Great Commission applies mainly to the individual Christian, and is not neccessarily a church responsibility. As for the problem with the church today, I think I disagree... I almost see it as the other way around, that the church is too comfortable with recycling sermons on Christ's sacrifice rather than challenging issues that face Christians other than evangelism. Obviously there is room in the church for both, but what sort of balance should be achieved? I personally think the church is more useful for equipping Christians to be witnesses, because in my mind a personal, one-on-one relationship with a non-believer is so much more genuine than a corporate worship setting asking "Won't you be saved?"



But should that be something the church should do? Possibly sacrifice its main role to cater to the lost? True, a non-believer may not understand worship or the ritual of a church service, but is that neccessarily a problem?



I agree. It does bother me how people sometimes sweat the small stuff. I don't have a real problem with change; I too think it can be constructive. The problem occurs when logistics becomes the main focus, or when money is spent irresponsibly on what one could call evangelism-driven purchases (case in point: arcade games, Xboxes, rock climbing walls). One could also call into question whether these things are even appropriate for a church or not.



I don't know. I still think that the church's main priority should be discipleship. Basically this question of balance can be boiled down to this:

Do we support a pro-active church and a more passive church body, or do we support a more passive church in hopes of a more discipled congregation?

Can I have one? Hehe, just kidding. Yes, it is a bit of an odd idea to buy certain things just to draw more people in. Especially game consoles and such, although when I had first started attending my youth group, they had a vintage Donkey Kong that we could play for free. That was good times.

At this point in my life(and it's not saying a whole lot as I'm only 15 and haven't really considered the idea of actually being at a certain level of competence) I think that it is better for the church to reach out to the community because that is one of the things that drives me. Since my first missions trip to Mexico and doing community outreach and being in a church that is working at reaching the community, I have basically wanted to reach lost souls as much as possible.

I feel that a more discipled congregation can come from more of an intimate small group setting like in someone's living room where everyone can discuss what they interpret from the Bible study. Because that is building a community and friendships. This can give off its own problems though because of the issue of cliques. But, I feel like I get more out of a Bible study with a group of friends than from a power-packed sermon.

[georgeo]

There is a point to which church aesthetics are a good and neccessary thing. Coffee on a Sunday morning could be a great thing for fellowship. Having some video games around might not be the worst way to make a youth group room seem friendly. But ultimately, do these things lead to a chance to make disciples? Is the cost of those items paid off in discipleship accomplished?
I don't know that I would take offense to a church having a resturant in it if the church was using that for discipleship purposes. Honestly, most churches that have those, I wouldn't vouch for on discipleship.

[Jesse Joshua]

Originally Posted by georgeo

I think churches should have services that disciple christians, but at the same time, the truths spoken should have an immense impact on the unsaved. Sermons and teachings should all be centered around the gospel—be it a sermon from the book of Matthew, the Psalms, Genesis, or a Pauline Epistle. The Christ-centeredness is, in my opinion, the best evangelism tool. Preach Christ, cruxified and ressurected for our sins.

Beyond that, I don't know how much the order matters. I got very upset my senior year as our new youth pastor switched up things that had been the way they were for a long time. I didn't think what he wanted to do would be nearly as effective. At first, it wasn't. People didn't like it at all. But eventually, we got used to what he was doing, and saw the wisdom that he had. No, his plan wasn't perfect, but there were changes that had to be made.

Should we bring the unsaved to church? By all means, yes. But DON'T bring them to church saying "You should really hear our worship band," or, "Our pastor is cool he does *insert trendy thing here*." The last thing we need is to create more cultural christians who have not experienced the saving grace of Jesus Christ and found their joy in Him. (Granted, if the person has a bad taste from past churches being boring, maybe mentioning the pastor is interesting or the band is enjoyable to hear wouldn't be a bad thing.)

My point to the ramblings: I don't think we should compromise the essential elements of the Church to cater to evangelism or to the needs of culture.

!!!! EXACTLY!!!!

[March]

Evangelism is the whole point of being salt and light. And evangelism can go hand in hand with discipleship.

We think of the seeker in most of what we do, but we also disciple through the sermon at the front, through the step by step learning opportunities we offer. We track each one's progress as the come in the front door, as they are warmly received and choose to come back, as they enter the discipleship journey through Alpha and it's followup, Beta. They are then pointed to level two, precepts Bible studies, as well as options that will help with their lifestyles such as the Marriage Course, Boundaries, Mastering Your Money, Wild at Heart, and Celebrate Recovery. Then they are encouraged to continue on to level three, LifeKeys, where they determine their giftings and passions for ministry. Finally, they take level four, Contagious Christianity or short-term Mission.

Discipleship also happens through growth groups (home Bible studies and fellowship) which are encouraged to invite the seeker. Our growth groups are expanding faster than we have leaders for, which is a good problem to have. Discipleship follows every baptism. And we have a database that keeps track of what step each one is at. It's intentional discipleship, but evangelism is what drives us. What's the point of doing church if we are not salt and light in the larger community? Built on a foundation of prayer, and guided and equipped by the Holy Spirit, it IS do-able. Check it out www.bramaleabaptist.org/alc/