Questions the unchurched are not asking
I understand the CGGC is seeking to plant more churches (and rightfully so); while at the same time we are wrestling with 'We Believe,' and apparently there is some kind of "missional" document being discussed by some of you. I thought this post from Perry Noble, "Ten Questions That Unchurched People Are NOT Asking" seemed a little relevant. What do you think?
Ten Questions the Unchurched Are NOT Asking:
- "What do you do to disciple people?" (This question is usually asked by people who want to 'microwave' spiritually, not understand that they themselves actually became mature in the "crock pot.")
- "Who is speaking this weekend?" (They usually don't care about the WHO... it's the WHAT that matters).
- "Are you reformed in your theology?" (Most of them have no idea what in the heck this means!).
- "Is your church spirit filled?"
- "What version of the Bible do you use?" (Many unchurched people don't even really know there are different versions!).
- "What denomination are you affiliated with?"
- "How many different activities can I sign my family up for in order to add to the insane schedule that we already have?"
- "Does your pastor teach exegetically through the Scriptures?"
- "Are there lots of crosses and pictures of Jesus in your church?"
- "Are you pre trib, mid trib, post trib, or partial trib?"
posted by dan at 11:02 AM
17 Comments:
Does you church sing "the old hymns?"
Are you guys missional, Emergent, emergent, or something else?
Lance Finley
I don't understand - how are these "questions that the unchurched are not asking" relevant? I don't follow. If someone could explain this, I would appreciate that very much.
-George Jensen
Enola, PA
George,
Wow, man, good question.
I think they are relevant because everyone has questions and if:
1. You are answering different questions than I'm asking and
2. I'm answering different questions than you are asking
We will never communicate meaningly and we will never have the basis for relationship.
George gets the great question award and Bill gets a great answer reward.
Here are the questions I do get asked often.
1. What denomination are you? (seriously-I get that one a lot).
2. Do you like gay people?
3. So what do you talk about?
Now for the question I get asked more often than any other....
4. How much do ministers make?
George,
In addition to what Bill said, the reason I said this was "relevant" was because I think it is easy to get distracted from God's great commission. I believe we ALWAYS need to be concerned about those who don't know Jesus; in everything we do.
I am not saying anyone is NOT concerned about them, but I do know of church plants whose goal seems to merely be having a 'cooler' church for churched people to be part of, rather than trying to reach the unchurched. I have written previously on here that I think the 'We Believe' is important, but even there, I think it's important that we take into consideration the not-yet-christians in writing things like this. And, while I don't really know what is going on with the missional document that was spoken of on this blog - but which I also support - even in all things "missional" it can be easy to forget about taking Jesus to the lost (I don't like using the word "lost", but I'm in a hurry and can't think of a better way to say it right now).
My feeling is... evangelism and evangelical have become such "dirty words" anymore, and I think that is a shame. I understand why, but I wish it were not so. Because Jesus still came to "seek and to save the lost"... and I think it's something we can easily forget to do when we get all wrapped up in "church stuff." Not that I'm saying anyone is... I just thought this post by Perry Noble was a nice, sort of indirect way, of pointing that out.
Does that help?
I also get asked 'what denomination we are' a lot (by unchurched people).
Dan H said,
I have written previously on here that I think the 'We Believe' is important, but even there, I think it's important that we take into consideration the not-yet-christians in writing things like this.
Dan,
You are pointing to the gravest of the sins of WE BELIEVE from the persective of John Winebrenner. Winebrenner issued his 27 point description of the faith and practice of the Church of God 'pro bono publico'--for the public good.
The idea that we'd have an internally focused faith document would break his heart.
Any document we have that would receive the seal of approval of those who participated in the Church of God when it was a movement long before it became the CGGC institution would have an external focus and have the purpose of extending the Kingdom and the making of disciples.
In pre-marital counseling, I always ask at the beginning, "What is your relationship with God?" They never have words to articulate it. They never mention Jesus.
So I try to make it easier. "Has Jesus done anything for you?" They answer, "I was in a car wreck, and I should have died, but Jesus saved me."
You can see that as a failure of the church to teach appropriate doctrine but on the other hand don't miss the experiential aspect of how they feel about Jesus.
Interestingly, one of the last brides I talked with confessed, "I'm getting more out of Buddhism right now than Christianity."
Why is that? It is because Buddhism is essentially spiritual, while much of Christianity is doctrinal and rule based. Though... it doesn't have to be.
Thanks, Guys. I honestly didn't follow. I appreciate the clarification.
-G. Jensen
Dan,
In reference to the quote here:
"I think it is easy to get distracted from God's great commission. I believe we ALWAYS need to be concerned about those who don't know Jesus; in everything we do.
I am not saying anyone is NOT concerned about them, but I do know of church plants whose goal seems to merely be having a 'cooler' church for churched people to be part of, rather than trying to reach the unchurched. I have written previously on here that I think the 'We Believe' is important, but even there, I think it's important that we take into consideration the not-yet-christians in writing things like this. And, while I don't really know what is going on with the missional document that was spoken of on this blog - but which I also support - even in all things "missional" it can be easy to forget about taking Jesus to the lost"
I very much agree with you, but I am having a hard time seeing what that looks like. I did not realize it until you wrote those words and I have mulling it over ever since I read them 2 days ago.
In our current structure I see two "churches". There is the Church (capital C) that is the body of Christ, the people who are followers of Christ trying to be disciples and heed the great commission by making disciples. Then I see the church (small c) that is each individual community that had a name a 501c3 and so forth. The church is an institution. Even if it is a house church or a monastic community or missional or emergent it is an institution.
I know that most of us agree that part of the problem is that the Church has been trying to get people to go to church and letting the church do the work of the Church. The other problem is the church has been trying to seek clever ways to get people to go to church in hopes they will one day become the Church, but often, they just become members of the church as opposed to being the Church.
I don't have the ability to initialize a thread here, but I would love to have that discussion as to the church's role in the Church and the church's role in the great commission.
I know the answer I often here is train and equip...but what tools, what training, what goal, and what praxis?
CT,
Wow... now THAT is a great question too! I think I understand exactly what you are saying, but am equally unsure enough of it that I don't even know if I could ask it. I mean, are you basically asking, "How does the church become the Church?"
You know, as I read over the comment I made (that you quoted here), it makes me cringe in so many ways. For one, I have a real hard time separating those who are "saved" and those who are "lost" - in both capital "C" and little "c" church (and I know this makes me a heretic to some, but I think we SHOULD have a hard time - depending on what we are looking for). I'm not sure the message should be all that different for either group; and I'm not entirely sure just how those two groups differ, or if they can even be separated - at least in the ways so many want to separate them.
I also didn't like how I mentioned "cool" church plants. Cool is such a relative word. For instance, I don't have a problem with a church plant that caters more to younger people who have some kind of history with a church, but who stopped being a part. To me this is what a number of emerging churches are (not that this is what defines an emerging church). I am all for "church" in people's cultural language. I have more of a problem with it when it's people who just want better music, better stuff, and where you can do whatever you want.
But as to your question of how to blend church and Church... man... I have no idea what that looks like. Is it something that can even be seen? Just like, can you 'see' the difference between a church member and a human? I would like to think you could, but... I know a lot of non-church people who LOOK way more Christ-like than church people (and vice-versa). It seems to be a real blood and guts thing.
Now you've got me thinking. Great question. Maybe someone else has some insights.
For what it's worth, no asks me what denomination our church is. Part of that, I suspect, is that we don't attract that many churchy people. We connect with a fair number of post-Catholics, who just know we aren't Catholic.
They do often wonder about questions related to their perceptions of the kinds of Christianity out there. For example, they'll wonder what we think of gay people, because they are trying to figure out if we are "conservative evangelicals" (even if they don't know that terminology). My experience here in the suburbs is that many seeking people are vary wary of what they think of as judgmental Christianity, even if they suspect God is what they are searching for.
As for how the church becomes the church, or what that looks like, that is a great question. For me the core of it has been about seeking a good picture of Jesus and what he cares about, and of what I might call "goodness itself", and then leading people toward that. What that will look like will probably depend a lot on who you are reaching (or even who is around you to be reached-age, culture, education, economics, etc).
I also think that it is a continual interplay between the development of people on the inside, and what we encourage them to do on the outside. That's been a tension I've perceived in all the conversations about missional church-- are we just telling people to run off and do the the right things, or are we talking about becoming the right persons? It has to be both, but we leaders are often responsible for where the emphasis get's placed.
Thanks for generating this conversation, Dan-- I've enjoyed reading it all, but been too busy to participate much.
Great thoughts Dan and Fran. Lemme try this again from the angle that is hurting my brain much the same way I feel when I suck down a blue raspberry slurpee too fast.
First my conventions
Church=people, body of Christ, us.
church=institution, the thingys most of us lead that have names and times and websites and stuff.
Beyond exploration of how the church becomes the Church..I wonder 2 other things.
1. Can the church even become the Church, and if it can, how. If it can, should it?
2. How should the church interact with the Church? What is the role of the church to the Church?
In Acts it appears the church was feeding, caring for, sending out, and worshiping with the Church. So is it the Church that fulfills the Great Commission and the church feeds, cares for, trains, and sends out while providing a place to worship communally?
If so, when was the last time any of us assigned deacons to set tables and make sure food was distributed equally to our hungry congregants or care for our widows (single moms is what I consider the modern widow).
We see Thomas, a deacon, preaching and getting stoned and we also see Peter preaching and we see Paul being sent out abroad.
So we as the leaders of the church need to be out of our offices more being the Church without any hooks to get them to come to our church?
From what I gather from the discussions about We Believe 2.0, many of you agree that what one believes is not enough because if I do not put belief into action, belief is merely an abstract. If I just act like Jesus without a belief, that is not enough either since other people have said the stuff Jesus said and miracles like his were attributed to others. Paul spends so much time speaking of the same thing Jesus spoke of...transformation.
So, as I ramble aloud here I will close with this as my brain continues to hurt ;).
If we are leaders of the church? What is our role to the Church? Do we serve, train, lead? That may seem like the obvious answer, but if the church is dying right now, we have obviously missed our role to the Church and the Church has lost faith in us...so what are we missing and how do we restore it and transform it.
Take your time...I need to get a Slurpee! Apologies for the verbose and nonsensical ramblings. Blame it on all the Holy Week stuff I have been doing and all the Peter Rollins I been reading.
Sorry....major typo...Stephen stoned, not Thomas.
CT,
Again I have no answers for your questions, but they raise questions which are equally 'brain-hurting' for me. So I hope you don't mind if I just think some of these thoughts out loud alongside yours.
I have heard it said (maybe by Reggie McNeal) something like "The Church is not an institution, the Church HAS an institution (which would be the little "c" church). I think this is something that so many trip over (that the Church IS an institution); Or people want to just have the Church, but not the church. And, really, I don't think you can separate them - anymore than you can separate the Trinity; or anymore than Jesus could separate the Great Commandment (it's a both/and - God and others); anymore than we can separate wheat from chaff; anymore than... well, you get the idea.
I guess, in thinking about *how* the church and the Church are supposed to relate... perhaps it's like in Matt. where the righteous say, "When did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?..." Or... when we don't think about who our "neighbor" is, but we just help those in need. Or we see someone along the way who doesn't understand and we try to explain. Or when we don't understand and we ask for help... Well, anyway, not that it has to be these specific things, but maybe it's one of those things that we can't define "this is how to do it." It just kind of happens in life. Like a seed growing...
I dunno... sorry for the ramble. I know most people probably know this stuff without thinking, but it keeps me up at night.
The only thing I might question... I know many say the church/Church seems to be dying - and maybe it is and I'm wrong - but I don't think it is. I don't think we could kill it if we tried. It may be that some of what we've thought it to be, or made it out to be, is dying. And I don't know that that is a bad thing. Or, maybe it does have to die (or be mostly dead), for it to rise again.
I dunno. Just thinking. Carry on.
this may not be exactly what you're talking about, because it's a bit of a different framework, but i hope it is helpful.
i agree with dan, you can't really separate these two ideas, and i think that's because of how they're defined.
the catholic/universal/big-C Church is all believers everywhere who have put their faith in Christ, been born again of the Spirit, etc. it is spoken of as the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the children of God, among others.
the local/congregation/little-c church is the local representation and part of the greater Body. it is the group of believers who regularly meet for worship and fellowship, who are actively at work in their communities in service and evangelism, and who generally do life together according to the NT commands and model. to go old-school reformation-defined, it is the assembled people of God in a geographic locale where the Word is rightly preached and lived out, where the sacraments/ordinances are rightly observed, and where discipline is rightly administered for the health of the Body and the saving of souls, all to the glory of God.
so in my mind, while a local church, or even a group of them (e.g. network/denomination), may get off course- just as individual believers can- it is essentially the part of the Church that is in a particular place.
and yes, there may be those who aren't truly believers in the local church, and there are "churches" which are not actually Christian at all. so people start talking about the difference between the visible and invisible church, but ideally, and mostly, they are to be the same, one as a building block or basic unit of the other.
so i guess the short answer to the question "how does the church become the Church?" is that it already is. the question "how does the church/Church start acting like it's supposed to?" is essentially to ask "what is discipleship?", which we all know is incredibly nuanced and will look different as culturally-contextualized and even slightly different for every person.
but i think there are at least some basic things that have been at the core throughout history: growing in the knowledge of God through the Word and our siblings in Christ, going to God in prayer and seeking Him in all of life, being filled with the Holy Spirit, and acting out what we know and believe in all that we do. the details are complicated, but the foundation seems straightforward enough to me.
that was rather long-winded, so i appreciate anyone who read that the whole way through, and i pray it was helpful to you.
Post a Comment
<< Home