This past week a group of individuals from over 30 "growing and thriving" WELS churches met in Milwaukee to discuss the various methodologies and activities that have seemingly led to church growth in numbers. http://pastorrickjohnson.blogspot.com/
I'm interested in hearing more about this analysis meeting. What was discovered? What have the rest of the WELS churches been doing wrong?
51 comments:
Hey John-- why don't you post some of the articles from the nine-part series about Worship in Forward in Christ? I think the view presented in those articles are more representative of WELS churches than most of what you post here.
Yea! We are tired of hearing about these Rock and Roll churches and hidden communion. Give us some information filtered through the synodical lense.
...filtered through the synodical lense.
Umm... if you are criticizing a church body, wouldn't it make sense to examine what the synod is doing and saying? The blog hasn't held back from posting other things from WELS (call lists, quotes from their website, etc.).
Hey - it was just a friendly suggestion. It is John's blog and he is welcome to do what he wants with it and filter in or out what he wants (and he does so rather liberally).
I have a question for John or Rob, and I am genuinely interested in the answer to this.
Do you believe evangelism, in the sense of going out and trying to reach unbelievers intentionally as part of the church's mission, is wrong or improper?
That's kind of the sense I get from some posters here, and I'm just wondering about it.
I've heard it explained to me that the people often accused of "church growth" methodology do totally rely on the Word completely - they just want to expose more people to the Word. If you don't tell anyone God's Word - no one will hear it, and God's Word will not convert. So is it wrong to consider the best ways to get the Gospel in front of unbelievers?
I'm just trying to understand the positions of both sides.
I've learned a lot by reading here. I've decided to stop trying to use my mind at all as a pastor, since that is not honoring God and giving Satan charge of my ministry. From henceforth, several times a week I'll stand in my pulpit and read the Bible (in Greek) and whoever comes, comes. I'm not using any worship style, since they all have are janed by human touch. I'm just readin' Thanks for reshaping my ministry! And by the way, some of you could learn something about being loving towards others... your arrogrance and lovelessness is numbing.
Anon 8:38, I think you'll find most "confessional crusaders" very much in support of Gospel proclamation to the world. I am. But I don't personally feel called to be a missionary as some most certainly are, nor a pastor as some most certainly are. I'm part of the priesthood of all believers but don't think that eliminates the ordained position of a minister, nor does it make everyone a minister. We're all called to a vocation - be that pastor, pipe fitter, police officer or parent.
The argument you sense is that changing the Divine Service to make it more palatable for unbelievers is disgraceful. Changing it to align with the current culture - which always changes except in its hatred for Christ - is shameful. The changes take away the focus from Christ and place it on ourselves or each other and what we are doing for God. These methods are incorporated across denominational lines against all things traditional. I don't think that should be the case in the Lutheran church.
So the CG methods of bait and switch, social gospel emphasizing, felt need seeking, entertainment bent, pop culture accommodation, relaxed worship with Starbucks and small group conversations, spiritual gift identification, etc. have no place within the Divine Service.
These methods have numerical addition as the measure of success. It stems from an understanding that all things within the service are adiaphora. These methods aren't new and innovative, they're being practiced across American Evangelical churches right now, and have been for years.
I feel faithfulness to the Gospel is a better measure of a successful church - not numbers in attendance or money raised. God gets all credit for saving His elect. He does not need our help, but we are privileged to share in the work and have joy in doing so. Church in America doesn't need to alter the message of the Gospel to a culture worshiping political correctness above all and one that hates the cross.
My disjointed thoughts.
Rob
Anon @ 11/22-8:38PM (and Ben),
You ask a good question (I think), because, as you intimate, those who tend to pursue “Church Growth” methodologies seem to do so out of evangelical zeal. They claim to follow the Word diligently. Those of us who reject “Church Growth” are often, therefore, accused of not being evangelical, and for being Confessional but not Scriptural. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, “Church Growth” is itself unscriptural to the core – it does not constitute diligent or faithful adherence to Scripture teaching, or even a high view of God's Word, given (a) that it forces the Gospel to play second fiddle to Marketing Research, Sociology and Entertainment, and especially given that, (b) in so doing, man's work is thus elevated and used to produce what Scripture teaches us to trust the Holy Spirit to produce through the Gospel alone. Presuming to take on part or all of the Holy Spirit's work in this way is supreme and vaunted arrogance. Assigning the results of man's work to the Holy Spirit, or taking credit for work that belongs to the Holy Spirit, is defined as Blasphemy. Finally, I must point out that accusations suffered by Confessional Lutherans, such as I describe, are misinformed: to be Confessional is, by definition, to be both Evangelical and Scriptural.
Of particularly grievous offense to me, and others, are unfortunate statements, like a recent statement from Bruce Becker (a known CG advocate and leader of the Board for Parish Services) regarding this weekend's “Leadership Conference,” as follows: “We asked them, 'What factors, beyond the power of the gospel, do you believe are contributing to God's blessing of numerical growth in your congregation?'” (emphasis mine, Read Quoted Article Here). Here our Synod leadership is evidently interested in learning more about which means outside those appointed by Scripture are being used to affect numerical growth. Yes, I know this is only one quote, but over the years I have watched and listened as Mr. Becker has received, and defended himself against, considerable criticism for making evangelism a statistics game. I am comfortable asserting that this quote is a suitable representation of his public statements. But why is such a statement offensive? (1) In conspicuously locating the center of concern with numerical growth, such statements make the Holy Spirit's work of creating faith by means of the Gospel a secondary or background issue, rather than the primary issue. (2) In centering concern on numerical growth, such statements replace Providence with man's organizational priorities. (3) In not only emphasizing, but specifically singling out means other than the Biblical Means of Grace, such statements fail to faithfully represent Scripture teaching, that it is the Holy Spirit, working through the Means alone, that creates faith and builds the Church, and instead expresses dissatisfaction with God's means, methods, and timing, and casts doubt on the efficacy of the Means of Grace. (4) Finally, in assigning numerical growth attributable to the use of means other than the Biblical Means of Grace and assigning the results to God (whose means are not employed), rather than to man (whose means are employed), such statements and intentions in effect assign credit for man's work to God, and border on Blasphemy.
While it is understandable that laymen in our Synod may be overtaken with zeal, and speak or act carelessly, our Synod leadership ought to know better than to make public statements such as these. While I have little patience for such nonsense from those who, in my opinion, ought to know better, I endeavor in all brotherly love to admonish my fellow laymen and to do what I can to re-center them on God's Word and Biblical, Lutheran approach to Evangelism. The Great Commission was indeed given to the Church. Yes is is proper that congregations endeavor, in all Evangelical zeal, to carry the Gospel to their communities and beyond. But we have been given Means for our use (and I am thinking of the Gospel message almost exclusively in this case), and it is on use of these Means that discussion regarding our evangelistic creativity ought to be centered.
In a previous blog post, Ben expressed similar thoughts as yours, asking about evangelism, and whether “church marketing” (a definite Church Growth method) is an appropriate evangelism/outreach method. I compiled a response for him, but by then the discussion had moved in a different direction, so I didn't post it. Since it seems to contribute to this discussion, I append it below. I know that this adds to an already lengthly post, but hopefully this provides some food for thought/discussion. I do advocate doing more than having church services on Sunday, and I do advocate a study of one's community and congregation to determine where congregational talents can most efficiently be put to use. Hopefully, this doesn't land me on everybody's crap-list...
---------------------------------
Ben, You also ask about “marketing.” In a paper I wrote for my congregation earlier this year, I addressed this point a little bit. I have provided some excerpts, below. First, a little background. The paper was issued at the end of a six-year overhaul of our Board of Evangelism. The issue for us concerned Evangelism in a corporate context. The issue in corporate scale evangelism (as opposed to individuals engaging in evangelism in the context of the ministry of their personal lives), is one which seeks balance in the propagation of the Gospel between mass-appeal and individual communication, in a way that maximizes both while making the most efficient use of limited resources. The most efficient method of propagating a message is mass appeal. The most effective method of communicating a message is individually. Both methods have been employed by the Church since the beginning, especially in Apostolic times, so this is not new or innovative. The objective for us, however, is doing all that we can to ensure that the Gospel message is received by those with whom we share it. The Holy Spirit does the rest.
Finally, as a forewarning to those who may otherwise be shocked and dismayed, our Congregation did take part in the School of Outreach, and we did derive benefit from it – although we did not do so uncritically (not only was I, and others, uncomfortable at times, Pastor was rather fidgety the whole time...). Unfortunately, some filtering was required...
Excerpts follow...
Preamble...
The Holy Spirit works by Means of the Gospel in Word and Sacrament to produce and strengthen faith. This is what we believe, teach, and confess. It is what we live by. So when Christians consider evangelism, what we are concerned with is that the message of Law and Gospel is received by those with whom we communicate, that the Holy Spirit may work in them through His message, and draw them into relationship with Him. As a congregation, our further concern is that we use our resources in the most efficient way possible, to meaningfully carry this message to as many people as possible. Indeed, this is the commission Christ left us, it is the reason we gather together to be equipped and emboldened, that together we may carry out this task for the sake of Christ... Following the example of the Apostle Paul, who studied the people and culture of Athens before addressing them at Mars Hill, the start of this project was the culmination of nearly two years of research and assessment regarding the nature of our congregation and community, and also regarding past and present changes and future trends in our community and congregation. It was also the culmination of study and application of Christian teaching to the question of leading a congregation in the task of evangelism. Such study was intended to help us determine what, for our congregation, (a) constitutes genuine opportunities for evangelism in our community, and to (b) develop a strategy for exploiting those opportunities at the corporate level, that (c) would also remain valid going forward. The result was a three-phased approach attempting to balance mass appeal methods with individual contact that functions well in a corporate setting...
Concerning Mass Appeal (mailings)
...Then we considered the question of what to communicate. The objective we settled on was to communicate a clear, complete, yet concise Law and Gospel message. Our hope with this objective was to put the Means of Grace – the Gospel message – in the hands of everyone who received communication from us, that the Holy Spirit might work through this means to create or strengthen their faith. This was especially critical to us. Given that we were expending resources that God had provided us with, we considered that communication attempts devoid of the Gospel’s message, or providing an unclear or incomplete message, would have been a wasteful use of these resources. Given the likelihood that most, if not all, recipients would at most only read the message, or only part of it, we considered, and concluded that merely sending invitations to join us in worship (where the recipient would have to respond ...before s/he benefited from the Holy Spirit’s work through the Gospel), had a much lower likelihood of accomplishing our goal, which was to meaningfully communicate the Gospel to as many people as possible. That is, while we could eliminate or significantly reduce our communication of the Gospel via this postcard medium, and instead replace it with content about our congregation, like our helpful ministries, our adult and youth programs, our meaningful worship experience, and, of course, our special people, we could probably draw more visitors. But far fewer people would actually receive the Gospel in a meaningful way. No, this is precisely the type of Church Growth strategy that we consciously chose to reject. Such a strategy requires us to make the Gospel a secondary message, while making Us the primary message, drawing people to Us on false pretenses, based on what they stand to gain by association with Us, rather than with God. It significantly reduces our representation of, and actual communication of, the Gospel. It is not Biblical evangelism. Direct and consistent use of Law and Gospel is, however, and it is this approach we embraced and have maintained. Knowing that the Holy Spirit would work through the Gospel to produce or strengthen the faith of those who receive the Gospel, it was our hope that He would also draw them into a relationship with us. Whether or not this would happen, however, it was still our Joy and privilege to share the Gospel with them.
Concerning Mass Appeal (Church Logo)
Note: This seems to thread the needle of acceptability. Today, I think that I might err on the side of a more conservative approach...
With all of the various forms of public communication that the Board of Evangelism was doing, developing, or about to do, it became readily apparent to us that we needed a way to unify this communication ...to improve our credibility as a source of this communication. We needed to develop a Church Identity, a graphic image, or logo, that would be placed in standardized location on all visual forms of public communication: letterhead, envelopes, postcards, business cards, website, video, and marquis. Our hope was that with such a logo, the various ways in which we publicly communicated Law and Gospel would more naturally reinforce themselves, and readily point those we communicate with back to our congregation as a credible source, would point them to the other forms of public communication we use, like our website and video recorded services, and invite them to further inquire with us. This was an important principle we learned at the School of Outreach. A professional and more unified message is perceived as a more credible message. A message that consistently points those who receive it back to its source is perceived as a more credible message. The more credible a message is, the more readily it is received. And this is our primary interest – that the people we communicate with receive our message. Borrowing from this fundamental marketing principle can be dangerous, however, if we are not absolutely clear on what we are trying to accomplish. Nike, with its trademark “swoosh,” and McDonald’s, with its trademark “golden arches,” both capitalize on the marketing power of “branding” – but their objective is not to promote their message, it is to promote the source of their message and increase patronage of that source. Christians correctly borrow from this principle only when they deliberately make strict and narrow use of it – when their motivation is to improve their credibility as message bearers, to increase the likelihood that the message they carry will be received. Christians are interested in promoting the message of the Gospel, not in the patronage of the source of that communication...
Concerning Face-to-Face Evangelism
...But why is face-to-face communication necessary to begin with? After all, if our concern is that the message of the Gospel is received, there are many ways for a message to be received that do not require people to directly interface with other people. It must be admitted that this question did occur to us. The answer, however, was clear. While the Great Commission was given to the Church, the task of evangelism was also directly given to individuals. Even in the context of the organization we call “the congregation,” the clear emphasis in Scripture is people personally carrying out this task and communicating the Good News. In addition, while the most effective method of propagating a message is mass appeal (a valid and important tool used even by the Apostles), the most effective method of communicating a message is person to person. Thus, mass communication and individual communication are both methods that need to be used, but which require a balance favoring person to person communication. Even our use of mass appeal should be calculated to favor personal communication – it should be clear that people are responsible for the communication, not just an organization, and the communication should invite further, personal inquiry. Given this, the Board of Evangelism recognized two basic needs ... (1) we needed to make sure that we were equipping individuals for service, and (2) we needed to make sure that we were creating opportunities for those inclined to participate in evangelism, and were planning to use those individuals...
Finally, the conclusion
...With the issue of resource expenditure, the question arises, "What is our measure of success?", "How do we know that we are doing any good?" This is a difficult question to answer, as we must admit that in this life we will never know what benefit, specifically, most of our evangelistic effort has been. Those who hear the Word of God as a result of our effort may be at any stage in the Holy Spirit's process of creating and strengthening faith -- in some cases we may be just scattering seed, in others we may be watering sprouts, and in a few cases we may actually be doing the harvesting. We know that all Scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. We also know that God's Word will accomplish the purpose for which He sent it, that it will not return to Him void. Therefore, to the extent that we use the Scriptures to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ, we can have every confidence that we are doing "some good", employing the Means of Grace and giving opportunity to the Holy Spirit to work. One thing the Board of Evangelism has been adamant about is that correlating success in evangelism to an increase in collected revenue is strictly out of the question. We are engaged in the all important work of delivering the Gospel message to those in our community solely for the sake of Jesus Christ, and we look for no return on this effort – particularly financial return. We also cannot use an increase in congregation membership as a measure of our success. Our objective is not an increase in number, our objective is to joyfully communicate the Gospel as widely and as effectively as possible. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to produce faith through the Gospel and to draw new Christians into fellowship with other believers. He will produce an increase when and where He sees fit. Whether this means increase in our congregation or not, our commission to preach the Gospel remains clear, and it is our joy and our privilege to carry it out to the best of our ability.
Indeed, the Holy Spirit works by Means of the Gospel in Word and Sacrament to produce and strengthen faith. This is what we believe, teach, and confess. It is what we live by. So our concern is that the message of Law and Gospel is received by those with whom we communicate, that the Holy Spirit would work through this Means. Therefore, since our job is communication, it is reasonable to put forth some effort to assess how well we communicate. Do those with whom we wish to communicate actually receive our message? That is the success we desire, and to measure it, we can only rely on feedback from those with whom we attempt to communicate. Whether via telephone, land mail, email, website visit, personal conversation, or a visit to our congregation, whether they provide positive or negative comments, or merely inquire further, all of these measures constitute feedback indicating that someone we have attempted to communicate with has received our message – the Gospel’s message. Communication is difficult, as is reaching our intended audience with a specific message. That is why it is important that all our communication be seasoned with the Good News...
---------------------------------
Anyway, you asked. This may supply some food for thought/discussion. The issue in evangelism is communicating the message of Law and Gospel, not getting people in the pews (that's just the icing on the cake...). In fact, placing methods apart from overt and direct proclamation of Law and Gospel in first position in an effort to draw the unregenerate into Church attendance, by definition puts the Gospel in second position. It is not Biblical Evangelism. You don't herald the Gospel by heralding the congregation or experiences in its place. Dominant in our consideration ought to be our theology, and any evangelistic framework we derive needs to reside squarely within the bounds of Scriptural Lutheran doctrine. Church Growth is not Biblical, and therefore is not Lutheran.
Hope this helps,
Freddy Finkelstein
Freddy,
I hope you can have your thoughts printed in Forward In Christ. This is what I am looking to hear in WELS.
Very well articulated. THANK-YOU for your time and effort.
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
This is the evangelism command from the Bible. With this in mind we each have our vocation. Our vocation is the calling we embrace in our daily life and includes the relationship we have with our neighbor.
I want to take an example and try to articulate both sides in a fair way to see if I understand this.
A church holds, say, a "Christian Parenting seminar" for the community for evangelism.
- You, (Freddy, Rob, John etc.) would say this is improper because it is a church growth method in which the church is not leading with the Gospel to reach souls.
- The other side would say that this is a way in which to build relationships and opportunities to tell the Gospel message to these people that one might never otherwise encounter.
Is that a fair assessment?
There most likely aren't just two sides to this issue. And, though, I agree with John and Freddy on many if not most things discussed so far, I can't answer for them and I'm sure we have some areas in which we don't agree. But, my answer to your question would have to start by clarifying that my posts have all been against changing what is done on Sunday during the service to attract and/or make unbelievers and non-Lutherans feel more comfortable. I don't believe the worship service is the area to make such accommodations.
My pastor asked me a similar question when we discussed these issues. I told him the same thing. With regards to activities in the community, I'd have to agree with Freddy's post in here in asking some questions before your begin. Is the attraction to you or to the Gospel message? I'm not a fan of the we'll do such and such activity "with hopes of sharing the gospel with them later."
As far as your parenting class scenario, my own questions would be: What qualifications does the church have to offer the seminar in the first place? What is it that people need to hear most? I'd say Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins. Isn't that the primary role of the church? Is the Lutheran identity being hidden? What types of materials are being used and who is instructing?
If the goals is just to get butts in seats and then spring the truth on them, I have my concerns. But that's just me.
I see a church focused on preaching Law and Gospel each week (ideally, administering the sacraments weekly), catechizing the members, offering a Christ-focused worship service, equipping parents with the knowledge they need to instruct their children, etc. as being a faithful church to the commission to preach the Gospel.
My thoughts.
Rob
I'm not sure if a Christian Parenting seminar would be CG or not, but it would definitely be manipulative. It's a classic bait-and-switch con. It's something a sleazy salesman does. It's not something that the Christian Church ought to be doing. The only reason a person would feel the need to trick people into hearing the Gospel would be if that person didn't trust that the Gospel had a power of its own.
"A church holds, say, a Christian Parenting seminar' for the community for evangelism."
Yes it is wrong if you try to con parents of the community into coming to your parenting seminar and then give a membership pitch to these unsuspecting parents about your church.
Many WELS churches are using love and logic. A secular parenting program for this reason. To me it is a matter of vocation. I don't believe that it is the pastor's calling to use a love and logic approach to evangelize. Now if the church decides that it wants to support its families and offer them guidance and advice in this process of raising children a parent mentoring program would be great. (this love and logic secular program is horrific)
I think that we often miss the boat by not tapping into the wisdom of our elders. I think this should be used also in helping parents understand the importance of having children in the worship service rather than shipping them down to the daycare in the basement.
To Freddy:
"What qualifications does the church have to offer the seminar in the first place?"
Perhaps there is a Christian family psychologist in the congregation qualified to hold such a thing. Or perhaps the pastor himself would know Christian parenting principles.
Re: "Bait and switch" by anonymous and "unsuspecting parents" by John
If you go to a Christian church offering a Christian parenting seminar -- wouldn't you expect to hear a Christian message (Law & Gospel)??? How is that bait and switch? How is that tricking and manipulating?
Anon @ 11:05,
I think you mean to inquire of, or respond to, Rob... In any event, his question is relevant, given that whenever the congregation issues a Divine Call to someone that will minister in such a capacity, it is necessary that they exercise scrupulous diligence regarding Approval criteria. The qualifications you cite may satisfy such criteria.
I am composing a quick response to Anon @ 11/23-11:24PM, and will post it shortly...
Freddy Finkelstein
Anon @ 11/23-11:24PM
Permit me to recognize that you have presented a carefully parsed assessment. Your first point (“church growth method [is improper because it is a] method in which the church is not leading with the Gospel to reach souls”), is only roughly accurate. More precisely, I would state it as, “Church Growth is improper because it emphasizes numeric growth over sharing the Gospel, but more importantly, presumes to use man's means to mimic results that genuinely belong only to the Holy Spirit, who works only through His appointed Means.” If the Means of Grace are not used, we have no Scriptural grounds for saying any results are attributable to God's work, unless we point to God's Sovereignty. For Church bodies who reject Scripture doctrine regarding the Means of Grace and instead embrace the false teaching of Immediate and Particular Grace, and who elevate Sovereignty over Grace, Church Growth methodologies may be theologically defensible. Such are the Reformed. Or they are Arminian. They are not Lutheran. It's not a matter of merely leading with the Gospel. It does not reduce to a matter of evangelical style. For the Holy Spirit to produce His work, we must use the Means of Grace. If we Lutherans are truly serious in our evangelicalism, we will bring our creative energy to bear on the issue of communicating a substantive message of Law and Gospel. For us, there is no other way.
Your second point (“this is a way in which to build relationships and opportunities to tell the Gospel,” etc.) represents the insidious nature of Church Growth perspectives. Church Growth will tell us to keep our lawns mowed and our buildings maintained, so that our property presents itself as inviting to the public. Church Growth will also tell us to be polite and helpful, so that visitors will feel welcomed. The problem isn't maintaining our properties (Christians with a modicum of stewardship sense will naturally do this) or being nice to visitors (Gospel motivated Christians, full of Joy and Gratitude for Christ's work on their behalf, will naturally do this as well), or finding ways to establish contact and relationships with people in our community. The problem is that (a) Church Growth represents a calculated effort to draw individuals to Christ, and into Fellowship specifically with us, based on criteria that are fundamentally irrelevant, that is, apart from their faith and Christian conscience; (b) it prescribes methods based on statistical research, and turns what ought to be (often what would naturally be) Gospel motivated works into works motivated by law (and not even God's Law, but man-made laws – there is a theological term for this, but I can't remember what it is right now...); and (c), it draws the trust of the Christian evangelist away from the Holy Spirit's work though the Means of Grace, causing him to (at least partially) put his trust in other means, draws his focus away from sharing the Gospel, causing him to share that focus with trivial matters of “ambiance,” and, I submit, trains the evangelist in methods that at best are mere periphery, rather than in skillful communication of the Gospel.
So now to your example: “a 'Christian Parenting seminar' for the community for evangelism” (note my emphasis, I'll return to these points). I am very enthusiastic about creating opportunities to share the Gospel, and a “Christian Parenting Seminar” seems to me to be a great way to create such opportunities, assuming that the congregation can muster the qualifications to conduct such a seminar beneficially.
Further, involvement in the community, it seems to me, is as an essential role for the Christian congregation as it is for any “community organization,” much more so, given the eternal benefit of our message and the Divine priority of our mission. In my opinion, the congregation is a vitally important force in the community, and not just in a laissez faire sense. While the congregation is indeed a “fortress,” or a place of safety and escape, and while it is also an “embassy,” or a familiar home in a foreign land, it is just as much a base of operations, where Christians consider both strategy and tactics, train their workers, and plan and execute evangelical sorties and campaigns, all for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When we send out our evangelists and missionaries to preach the Gospel, and when we reach out with our resources “to feed and clothe the hungry” and “care for the fatherless and the widows” (Ja. 1&2) we do so understanding that our workers need to interface with individuals in the community. While everything we do both emanates from the Gospel and returns to it, individuals function from the Gospel as motivation and point to it in their words and actions, in the context of relationship. Creating opportunities for evangelism by definition means creating opportunities to make contact with, and establish some sort of relationship with, individuals in the community, and it also means being ready to act on the opportunities once they have been created. Creating the opportunities, however, does not constitute evangelism. Evangelism occurs when Law and Gospel is delivered, not as peripheral commentary, but as the subject and the reason for the communication, to directly address the sinner's hopeless and desperate standing before a Just and Righteous God, and to show the Grace of God in the person of Jesus Christ, the eternal benefit of Whose work belongs to the sinner through faith.
A “Christian Parenting Seminar,” by definition, will begin with and frequently return to Law and Gospel. Everything in between may be some combination of Scripture and Natural Law expressed in words and actions. The same is the case with a “Christian Soup Line,” or a “Christian Homeless Shelter.” The question is, is this evangelism or is it outreach? My answer: this is outreach. When a Christian congregation is active serving the needs of individuals in the community for the sake of the Gospel, it is reaching out to provide some tangible relief from the effects of sin in the world, actively pointing all the while to the Ultimate and Eternal Relief from sin. A community service conducted by a congregation that fails to point to the Gospel as the motivation of that service, and to Jesus Christ as the solution to mankind's ultimate need, does not even qualify as Christian outreach. As with all things the congregation does, outreach heralds Law and Gospel, but it also serves others in their (temporal) needs, reminds them of their eternal needs, and so leads to evangelism.
Finally, in all of this mix is the purpose and function of the Divine Service. The purpose of the Divine Service is not outreach, nor is it evangelism. When Church Growth and it's attending perspectives are dragged into the execution of the Divine Service under the pretense of evangelistic emphasis, the Divine Service is, at best, turned into an outreach event, and further abuses unavoidably follow.
Anyway, I think I mentioned that this would be a quick response... So, I guess I'll cut it short, now...
Freddy Finkelstein
Freddy: You sound like a pastor, but the pastors I know don't have the time to spend on a blog like you do. Are you getting your primary work done, or spending all your time on this?
Freddy, I've found many of your comments insightful and helpful. Thanks for choosing to spend some time here. I imagine pastors are busy. But I also imagine many would be unwilling to publish their thoughts within this forum. Comments like the anonymouse at 6:12 reveal one possible reason why.
Rob
Good Question! No, I'm not a Pastor. My consulting job I can do in my sleep (same old story, overeducated and underemployed...). The net is, I do, and have done, alot of reading on this and other topics -- most of this stuff is on the tip of my tongue, which is why I can produce so much in a hurry. Also, some of these topics I have written about in the past, mostly journaling, so I draw on that, too. Today, I happened to be using vacation, writing in between jobs around the house.
Freddy Finkelstein
Freddy-
Thanks for making the distinction between outreach and evangelism.
I fear that some WELS churches are being labeled "church growth" and attacked when they are looking to do outreach better and evaluating their outreach efforts.
"I fear that some WELS churches are being labeled "church growth" and attacked when they are looking to do outreach better and evaluating their outreach efforts."
No. Some WELS churches are labeled "church growth" because they spend so much time doing outreach that they never get around to doing evangelism.
One example: churches are so concerned about making visitors comfortable at worship (outreach) that they stop offering the Sacrament during the service (evangelism).
This is a serious problem.
"No. Some WELS churches are labeled "church growth" because they spend so much time doing outreach that they never get around to doing evangelism. "
Whether or not that is true does not negate the statement you quoted.
Some WELS churches are labeled "church growth" because they spend so much time doing outreach that they never get around to doing evangelism.
I suspect you would put St. Mark's Green Bay into this category. If they are never getting around to doing evangelism, how is it that they have so many baptisms each year?
"If they are never getting around to doing evangelism, how is it that they have so many baptisms each year?"
Easy. First, you follow CG methods and identify young families as your "target market". (In other words, you get to decide what kind of people you want in your church.) Second, you use Christian Parenting seminars and the like to bait such families and bring them into the church because of the fun programs or the pastor's personality. Third, you baptize all of their children, whether or not the parents actually understand what baptism is all about.
"If they are never getting around to doing evangelism, how is it that they have so many baptisms each year?"
Does anyone else see the subtle Church Growth mindset here? The argument goes like this: "We are doing evangelism because our numbers are good" or, said the opposite way, "Our numbers prove that we are doing evangelism."
Numbers prove NOTHING. A congregation with zero baptisms might be doing more evangelism (in the true sense of the word) than a congregation with 100 baptisms. God does not care about numbers. He cares about faithfulness to him and his Word.
As I see it, the problem with "outreach" occurs when a congregation is not equipped with skilled evangelists who can take advantage of the opportunities generated. The result is that the evangelistic content of the "event" is reduced to nothing more than a commercial for the congregation. Thus, the congregation is heralded in place of the Gospel, because the so called "ministers" involved are themselves incompetent to effectively use Law and Gospel. Further, because of evangelistic incompetence, the Divine Service is itself subjected to changes designed to placate and manipulate the unregenerate.
Yes, relying on "what works" is a crutch for evangelistic incompetence, or worse, represents shame for the content of our message itself -- usually shame for the message of the Law. Sports arenas and department stores can draw a crowd, too, but that does not make them true religion, just experts in human behavioral science. So some are tempted to point to, say, the number of Baptisms (which is a good thing!) and say, "Gee, they must be doing evangelism." But are they using Law and Gospel, or are they principally manipulating people with clever use of Natural Law? Because of the proliferation and danger, yet subtle nature, of Church Growth perspectives, this is a fair question to ask of any congregation engaged in outreach. It is a question they should be asking of themselves.
Freddy Finkelstein
Freddy,
You seem to be well versed in these matters. Could you lay out the differences between outreach and evangelism? I think there are a lot of people who see them as one in the same. I'd also like to have a better grasp on the differences between the two. Thank you!
Mr. Humility Police
Mr. Humility Police,
Without getting too deep into the weeds, I'll cite the difference as generally this: Outreach is principally service, Evangelism is telling the Gospel. Both are done purely for the sake of Jesus Christ.
Outreach, therefore, is not a covert attempt to increase a congregation's visitor rate. It is service that is engaged in out of genuine Gospel love and concern for others. It does not seek a return on such effort, therefore, is not calculated to result in return.
At the same time, Outreach, because it is engaged in for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is unapologetically Christian, does not hide from but points to the Gospel as the reason for these acts of Christian charity, and so often leads to a personal telling of the Gospel with those who benefit from such service.
Hope this helps,
Freddy Finkelstein
Freddy:
Your distinction between outreach and evangelism means nothing for a lot of people. For the majority of our people, the two words mean the same thing.
Anonymous at 1:09 said:
"Third, you baptize all of their children, whether or not the parents actually understand what baptism is all about."
Wow! What a terrible assumption. You are certainly putting the WORST construction on their baptisms. How do you know they aren't teaching parents the biblical basics of the sacrament?
"For the majority of our people, the two words mean the same thing."
Like law and gospel. Or is that just one word?
"How do you know they aren't teaching parents the biblical basics of the sacrament?"
Well, when all of the pastor's sermons are plagiarized from a Baptist pastor, I doubt any of the church members hear what baptism is really all about.
When all of the praise band's songs are written by Evangelicals, I doubt any of the church members hear what baptism is really all about.
When a congregation's focus (and trust) is on mission statements rather than the Means of Grace, I doubt any of the church members care about what baptism is all about.
There sure is alot of rhetoric going on here. Is there scripture to back up what is being said?
"There sure is alot of rhetoric going on here. Is there scripture to back up what is being said?"
Umm, would you care to be a tad more specific? Is there Scripture to back what up?
Just a biblical reminder about all the accusations and charges that are anonymously thrown about here:
"A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will not go free."
Let's be careful that we don't emotionally overstate our opinions or worse turn them into slander.
Well, when all of the pastor's sermons are plagiarized from a Baptist pastor...
Prove it. With such a bold statement of sin, the burden of proof is on you to show that it is true. Once you have shown that every sermon is plagiarized, please forward that on to his D.P. and synod president.
When all of the praise band's songs are written by Evangelicals...
Again, please shown proof. Please list every song they have used in the past 2 months and show that each and every one is written by Evangelicals.
When a congregation's focus (and trust) is on mission statements rather than the Means of Grace...
Again, show me how their trust is in mission statements and not on the Means of Grace. No called worker there would agree with that.
Stop going overboard with unsubstantiated BS.
"BS"
Quit using such language.
Wendy WELS
I agree with the latest comments on this site, there is lots of bs being thrown at pastors/congregations. The spirit of this place is not that of love, but of arrogance and hate. Do you think this pleases the Lord of the church and is consistent with Scriptures picture of the people looking at how Christ's people "love each other?" Before posting anything here, get out from behind your keyboard and talk personally with someone you have an issue with. Find some time to do evangelism too, you may be amazed at what God does when you are privileged to share his Word with someone.
Let's pick heart over head, emotion over thinking, deeds rather than creeds. Doctrine divides. Love conquers all.
Tearing Up
"Let's pick heart over head, emotion over thinking, deeds rather than creeds. Doctrine divides. Love conquers all."
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely what's wrong with the Church Growth/Evangelical/Ecumenical movement.
No, what is wrong is that when people disagree, they delight in playing theological king of the hill and destroy reputations.. without having a love that causes them to go to someone personally and share their concerns. It is so easy to throw words through the ether of the web and not have to account for them. Re-read this thread and see how many Scripture's are quoted to "prove" someone's unfaithfulness to God. People have feelings and are creating laws that they feel others should obey and be bound by. Unless you can prove these things wrong from Scripture, I won't bow to you ... a famous Lutheran once said that. How sad that at Thanksgiving you have to be thankful for Church and change being "exposed." On Thanksgiving I am thankful for the faith God has given me and my family, and for all the blessings that flow to me from my Maker. And where there is error in the church or in a friend, I pray for God to open their eyes and proclaim his Word more faithfully. In truth, this site has saddened me greatly. I guess that makes me a pietist, as I should not have any feelings but only think. Oh well, have a blessed Thanksgiving everyone. Like it or not, I'm praying for you all today.
How sad that at Thanksgiving you have to be thankful for Church and change being "exposed."
No, how delightful. To be Confessional, one must repudiate error as well as affirm the truth of the Scriptures. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Mt 7
"Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing." Mt 7
"Mark and avoid." Romans 16
"False doctrine is a cancer."
Real love means showing errorists their mistakes. It is not loving to bow at Stetzer's feet, to kiss Sweet's ring, to get a diagnosis from the Church Doctor.
"It is not love, but the Word that converts." (Luther)
Tearing Up (I was repeating the Church and Change sayings for fun.)
As I recall conversations with now sainted pastors who were involved in the WELS/LCMS split, none ever used the word "delightful" to describe their attitude toward no longer being able to walk together with a brother because of doctrine. Instead, I heard words of pain and sadness. The fact you delight in such things says so very much. That is exactly what is wrong with this blog and why I won't post again. While you may love the Lord and his Word, you have not learned how to speak the truth with love to others. I hope your Thanksgiving was delightful. Goodbye.
"Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing." Mt 7
John and his cohorts love to refer to this passage. However, the nature of this blog- it's unloving attitude, its libelous accusations, and it's delight in inciting argument - leads me to believe that the wolves we need to watch for are those authoring this blog and ruthlessly condemning anyone who opposes their view.
The comments I read on here certainly do not reflect the love Christ showed us. Nor do they follow his commands.
Faith in Christ and his true gospel means living that faith. You profess to have this faith. Yet your actions show otherwise.
Oh my! The Pietists are going to stop attacking the Confessional Lutherans for being "unloving." I, for one, will suffer no withdrawal pains during the drought.
It is fun to watch the Pietists angrily condemn everyone who is not on their side of the rock band, calling the liturgical Lutherans all kinds of names, ending with "unloving."
The WELS/LCMS split was phony and ended officially soon after it started. They all met at Fuller Seminary and began their union activities all over again.
The crusade is on: the church and changers are infuriated that this blog and others have challenged their ideologies.
"It is not loving to bow at Stetzer's feet, to kiss Sweet's ring, to get a diagnosis from the Church Doctor."
Good thing nobody, not even church and changers, do this.
Nobody do this?
Church and Changers rush off to see Stetzer and book him. They pouted, hissed, and fumed when they could not have Sweet, Hunter, and Werning.
Werning is starring in a sequel to Weekend at Bernie's.
"It is not loving to bow at Stetzer's feet, to kiss Sweet's ring, to get a diagnosis from the Church Doctor."
"Good thing nobody, not even church and changers, do this."
You're right. They do far worse. They PAY these false teachers! Hmm, isn't there something in Scripture about supporting the work of false teachers? Something about how people who support them are just as guilty as they are?
Oh well, who needs Scripture when you have "love", right?
Let us prey ...
How many of these growing churches are growing off other WELS churches? How many of the new members are adult confirmations?
Post a Comment