The modern church has all kinds of ‘new traditions’ it uses thinking that these things in and of themselves will help boost attendance and keep people engaged. These are just 5 of the ways modern churches try to relevant to its culture and community.
1) Sex Talks- Every cool pastor has to have his sex talk. These usually include some type of challenge of having sex. (go without it for 7 days, do it for 7 days, talk for an hour then do it, etc.) The talks are usually bumpered with hip videos that have clips of beds and ‘do not disturb’ signs. For the cooler churches you may see a bed on the stage or a poster outside the church that references the 60’s or some other sex filled part of pop culture. The pastors usually try to make them seem more extreme than they are by saying things like “Today’s message is PG13” or “This message is intended for mature audiences only.”
The problem with these sex talks is that they are all the same. If you’ve heard one you’ve heard them all. Most of this stuff should be covered in a pre-marriage counseling class anyways (something pastors seem to be forgetting to do anymore, even as divorcee rates skyrocket within the church!). Most pastors seem to do these talks once a year, but rarely do they cover the real issues couples are dealing with. Sorry having sex won’t fix the problems most couples are dealing with. These talks also alienate large sectors of people the church should be targeting, what about single people, gay couples, those not yet married, or widows? We as the church are called to meet the needs of these people yet churches do huge sex spectacles that forget about these groups completely.
Many churches do these talks to show they are relevant but the ideas presented in most of these talks show how chauvinistic and closed minded those within the church are. These spectacles were shocking in the 90’s but are now just boring. Sorry sex was so 90’s now entertainment has gone towards more risqué topics (like swingers, hookers, sex addicts, polygamy, or playmates) or has dropped the subject altogether.
These talks would be much more effective as a class or alternative service couples could attend. Why not have these as another Sunday morning message option or as a class?
2) The use of plasma TV’s on stage- It seems as though every up and coming church has done away with its huge stage designs opting instead for a mix of plasmas. They are usually redone for each sermon series. During worship these screens usually play random looping videos that all seem out of focus. Then during the message they have slides similar those on the big screens that usually flag either side of the stage.
These screens are a poor attempt to keep peoples attention (by having moving objects on them which in reality distract people more). The televisions are used as a cheap way to change sets but quickly become boring and in most cases look like an afterthought thrown onto the stage. They are usually used by churches that have a ‘technology’ focus. But their use usually shows a lack of creative technology. What happened to simplicity? If one must use them why not have images that refer to the pastors message pop up on them (Leonard Sweet calls this person the Visual DJ, they take key words from the message and use them to find images, much like Google images does. The images may have no reference to the message but at least are related the pastors message.) During worship why not broadcast live feeds of other churches in worship (I know of one church in Longwood, Florida that does something similar to this and its been very popular). I personally think that throwing a couples of TV’s on the stage just shows a lack of creativity and misuse of technology. There are so many other ways to portray the same feel without spending as much money or copying others.
3) Avoiding the money talks- Money and the Church has had a long bumpy road. Many people in Gen X and the Baby Boomers seem to associate the church with those who beg for money from the stage. So in return many churches that want to relevant avoid the topic altogether.
The problem with this is that money is a HUGE part of Christianity. Just look at how many times Jesus talked about it, look at how often its discussed in the Bible. Money is a huge part of our culture also so by avoiding it the church becomes irrelevant not more relevant.
The church can’t just avoid the topic altogether or just have a once a year class on how to save money (though Dave Ramsey does have some good things to say). Instead of avoiding the topic the church should try to tackle it head on. Be blunt about how some people including some churches misuse the money and then show from the stage where the money is going. Put it up in an easy to read chart (I would recommend pie charts or why not try some new style?). Have the church budget readily available in the lobby and include it in each new member packet.
Sermon series could cover things like Biblical principals for financial savings, investments, or wise purchasing habits. (I highly recommend the documentary ‘What Would Jesus Buy’ for those interested in wise purchasing habits). Offer free tax advice (from paid experts the church brings in, not just lay people, that could get ugly!) for low income families.
The church can’t just ignore money talks, giving is a huge part of what it means to be a Christian. By talking about and by being open about how the church spends it then peoples opinions will be changed.
One of my biggest pet peeves is churches who talk about giving to “Caesar what is Caesar’s” and how we should partner with our government in helping those in need yet they make sure every thing is tax exempt. What if churches stopped their tax exempt status? What if people didn’t claim their offerings on their taxes? Sure those offerings would drop but is the only reason people are giving is so that they don’t have to pay more taxes, which seems to be the opposite of what the Bible teaches. Shouldn’t churches be a model for others of how to co-exist with the government? I have never understood why the church doesn’t pay taxes, imagine if churches said yes we could not pay taxes but we care about our community enough to pay taxes to make sure our schools, our parks, our roads are well funded.
4) Video based Children’s Ministries- This is all the rage it seems. Children will come into a large gathering where a video is played, it is sometimes followed by breaking the children in age groups and asking them questions or doing a ‘craft.’ The video is a poor attempt to be Blue’s Clues or Sesame Street in quality. The children are encouraged to interact with the TV by dancing, talking back to the on screen personality, and by singing songs. These video based curriculums usually require little preparation and fewer volunteers than traditional children’s programs.
In a culture where experts continually tell of how children are getting too much TV it seems as though these video curriculums are teaching the opposite. The volunteers usually are little prepared for the lessons the videos teach and thus find it difficult to answer questions the children may ask.
Having the children interact with the videos seem bizarre to me. Ever seen a person interact with a movie in the theater or a person standing up and start dancing when a dance scene comes on the TV? This person would seem loony yet this is the exact thing we ask kids in Children’s church to do.
These videos are usually great with one certain age but the other ages get bored with them, even the ones that have multiple videos for different ages.
Instead of videos why not try a more interactive approach. I imagine something more like a VBS. The children would travel from booth to booth with their ‘teacher’ and would do whatever that booth has. For older kids (elementary age ideally) they would be able to travel around these booths alone and get a stamp at each one.
The Day in the Park with Barney attraction at Universal Studios is very similar to this in that it has small interactive exhibits children can go and explore on their own. A lot of newer science and history museums are also doing this. The ones in a children’s church wouldn’t have to be as big or as expensive but as interactive. A few churches have already attempted this but seem to spend more on themeing than on the actual changeable interactive booths. The key is being able to changing them for whatever topic is needed.
5) Using the term relevant to prove they are relevant- Most churches that try to in style have websites filled with terms like relevant, hip, and in-touch. The stage personalities seem to remind the congregation every week about how the church in relevant and in touch with culture. The bulletins are filled with reminders how relevant the church. Some go as far as placing these types of words in their name (Relevant, Cool, etc.) The problem with all this is that by saying they are it shows they really aren’t.
To be relevant one must never admit they are relevant. These churches say it so much its as if they are trying to convince the congregation (or themselves) that they really are relevant to our culture. If they were people would know and wouldn’t need to be told that they are. MTV, Hollister, Pepsi, Twitter, Esquire, Facebook are all relevant and in touch with culture yet they never have to remind people that they are. (When MTV did is when their viewer ratings dropped drastically). Cool is a style, not just a bunch of words.
Its easy to tell which nightclubs are in-touch with current culture without the nightclubs having to remind all their patrons that the club is cool. (I have been to clubs where the DJ’s kept reminding everyone that this was the most popular club in town and that it was rated #1 Club in the World [10 years ago], strangely the place was almost completely empty.) The very act of stating that your in-touch or relevant makes you not relevant anymore. If something is truly in-touch with culture it shines through and shows.
Instead of filling websites, bulletins, and messages about how relevant and in-touch the church is why not just let it shine through? If a church is in-touch with its community and has relevant teachings the community will find out without having to be told the church is in touch with it. A church website should reflect the church, when it does that it will show if the church has relevant teachings. The website will show if the church is in-touch in its community.
So what do you think? Am I off? What did I miss? I know that there are positive results and great intentions behind each of these ways the church tries to be relevant. I am not saying these things shouldn’t be used in some cases. I just see many many churches that use them only because it works in other churches. These ways usually result in large jump in attendance but those jumps rarely stay, often times within a cycle of 10 years the church has lost those it gained by using the ‘relevant’ ways. Shouldn’t the church be more focused on presenting the greatest message ever told (IE the Gospel) than how many TV’s it can fit on its stage or how many sex shock talks it can give? The Gospel message is always relevant, always in touch with culture. Yes we need to continually update how we present that message, though in my studies it seems that relational-friendship evangelism is by far the most popular and oldest form, maybe if we just did that! Instead of spending billions of dollars a year on tracts, hip websites, and evangelism classes we could spend it on taking our neighbors out to eat, donating our time at a local shelter of some sort, and growing those relationships.
There is a time for bold preaching of the gospel but sex talks and children’s videos are neither bold nor relational. Instead of trying to twist the gospel to be relevant why can’t we just present it in its always relevant glory?
No comments:
Post a Comment