You've heard of the ol' bait-and-switch routine. The easiest example is those car ads in the paper or on the Internet. "Come see this brand new Ford/Chevy/Whatever, regularly $45,000, but we have one today for just $20,000" or the like. And, of course, people flock to the dealer to find, oh darn it!, they sold that one just before you got there. But, hey, you can still buy one like it, only it's $42,000. Such a deal! In the consumer market, it's actually illegal. But it happens in lots of other places.
That first example would be in business where it's illegal (but that doesn't stop it from happening, does it?). It happens in politics. You remember the story of Representative Tim Murphy who got himself elected on an anti-abortion platform only to be caught urging his mistress to abort her unborn child. Bait and switch. It happens on social media all the time, where that "really cool guy" on that dating website turns out to be a 55-year-old pedophile. And it happens in churches.
"Wait ... what? How so?"
Glad you asked. Here's the current popular model. We've changed the name from "seeker sensitive" to "attractional church" because, well, that "seeker sensitive" term wasn't very sensitive. But it's the same corpse flower by another name. Here's the idea. Make the church to be so attractive that sinners will want to come in and then we can give them the gospel and -- boom -- we've fulfilled the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20). And that, dear reader, is what is known as "bait and switch". You give them the bait -- "Come on in! We have friendly people, music just like you like on itunes, fun programs for the kids, helpful therapeutic programs for adults ... it's all good!" -- and then the switch -- "Oh, and while you're here, you'll need to pay with a few minutes of the gospel." Just like the "Come in and listen to our spiel and we'll give you a free car!"
There are a few problems with this approach. First, the obvious assumption is that what was going on before wasn't working. You know, all that Bible teaching and stuff. "Preaching the 'Word', hymns, that kind of thing. Who wants to hear that? That'll never bring in the crowds." Because apparently the goal is to "bring in the crowds." Which, of course, you won't find in the pages of Scripture. Not that crowds are bad; it's just that there is no command to bring them. Second, when the goal becomes bringing in people, then the tendency is to eliminate things that get in the way of meeting that goal. One obvious thing would be making people feel uncomfortable about, say, their sin. And, oh, by the way, the gospel is one of those things (1 Cor 1:18, 22-24). So what often happens is that "here's the gospel" moment gets moved farther and farther out until it's no longer visible. I cannot tell you how many youth events I went to growing up where we were encouraged to come and enjoy (and we did) but never actually heard anything like "the gospel". When we did, the unbelievers mostly just turned off anyway. Third and, most importantly, there is a presumption that God is insufficient. The suggestion is that only sufficient means are the tools of the world. "Yeah, yeah, the Bible says there is power in the Word (Rom 1:16; Rom 10:17; Heb 4:12; 1 Peter 1:23; 2 Tim 3:16-1; 1 Thess 2:13; Isa 55:11; etc.), but we know they're not paying attention. We need to get their attention in other ways." The work of the Spirit (John 16:7-11) is insufficient. We have to woo them!
And so we lapse into this "bait and switch" technique thinking we're doing God favors. His Spirit is nice, but there aren't a lot who are listening. His Word has power, but it isn't drawing in the people. It isn't ... attractional. Fortunately we've figured out the techniques that God never had available in His day. Making mature Christians (Eph 4:11-16)? Naw. That's not the aim. Making disciples? Surely not! Too much work! So we settle for marketing techniques that are illegal in the marketing world. Bait and switch.
9 comments:
i remember the pastor saying that they will no longer call people to repent from sin, but rather they will address their brokenness. the difficulty in my mind is that people suffer brokenness, from sin. brokeness only addresses one's personal problems, whereas Sin addresses that fact that we are hostile to God and have offended Him. Brokeness is just a red herring in that it distracts from the true nature of the problem that being our Sin nature. again brokeness ( if that is even a real thing) is just a psychological depiction of the symptoms of Sin. in addition it still begs the question, How do we deal with the symptom apart from the cause? it seems the words Brokeness and Sin come from two different theaters of thought. brokeness comes the world of psychology and Sin comes from the Moral dimension. the Gospel does not call people to be made psychologically whole, but rather it calls us to escape the wrath of God's judgement. two completely different domains.
However, as you pointed out, as the Gospel gets removed to attract more people, the switch is then removed as it's simply a bait. Since the Gospel sounds like bad news to those that don't believe they're drowning, it gets pulled or changed to fit the ideas of the masses. I'm pretty sure the same thing happened to the Catholic Church, and that's why we got to the point of needing a Reformation. I wonder what (if it happens) the next reformers will be called. We'd need a new term since Protestants and Reformers has already been taken and perverted.
Bob,
I ... I can't think of how to respond to a pastor who says that. "We won't talk about the cancer that is eating them up, but we will address their pain from it with some nice medication. Much better." Jesus didn't say, "Feel better, for the kingdom is at hand." It was "Repent!"
Exactly, David, and the offense of the Gospel is gone, because the goal became "Get 'em in here." So we bait them with nothing they can't get elsewhere and likely in better quality and then offer them nothing.
Which raises the question about the purpose of a worship service, and who it should be for. It seems like the “evangelism” piece needs to be separated from the worship piece.
I do think that, much like Paul, we need to be able to communicate the gospel in its entirety in ways that are appropriate to our audience. As long as the gospel isn’t compromised or minimized, I think that there’s a degree of freedom in how it’s presented.
We certainly need to be able to communicate the Gospel to our audience. And if our worship is being given to God, we absolutely ought to give it our best quality. When the direction shifts -- either "Get 'em in" or "Entertain the crowd" or the like -- we have a problem. (And I have long contended that the worship service is a service designed for worship. I know. Revolutionary, but ... I think Scripture bears it out as well. That there will be unbelievers in the middle of it is a given and to try to reach them there is biblical, too, but the aim of a worship service must always be worship, not evangelism, entertainment, attraction, or some other faulty goal.)
Biblically, the purpose of the Sunday fellowship is to help build up believers so that they can be evangelizing during the week. It's not to be the instrument of saving the lost, but encouraging and feeding the saved. We've lost sight of that.
David, on your earlier comment, I neglected to mention. One of the key principles from the Reformation is the principle of Semper Reformanda. They always said that the Church needs to be in constant Reformation because it is our tendency to constantly drift from the truth. We don't need a new category; we just need people to keep doing it.
That was my point that a worship service should be designed for believers to worship God and be equipped for service. I don’t have a problem doing some other sort or service or evangelism program, just not as a substitute for worship.
Post a Comment