While I do endeavor to stimulate, it is not my intention to frustrate. I do not seem to be able to clarify my remarks so that you may have a proper understanding of my thoughts, and I am sorry for that. Let us take our leave.

Thank you for taking the time to comment. I must conclude by your endorsement of Brad Powell, and then by the rest of your letter, that: you are mistaken about Brand Powell, or you are not attending as often as you should.

Thanks for taking time to comment. While time does not allow me to respond to all the points you raised, I can touch on these:

- I have not personally experienced the crucifixion; are you suggesting I remain silent about it?

- I DON’T want people to have something “to do with Christianity,” I want them to have something with Jesus: salvation.

- I don’t think that it is “Christlike” to call into question my salvation because I paraphrase a promotional advertisement and you find it distasteful absent its glowing terms and slick marketing.

- One of the “positive things” the Apostle Paul did was to warn Christians on a regular basis of the wolves that would not spare the flock, and men that would arise speaking perverse things:

Act 20:29-31
(29) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
(30) Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
(31) Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

- I am remiss, I have not prayed for your congregation or the pastor; until now.

David

I am guessing that pastors who go way off implementing ideas are new and/or young pastors who are hired by churches and then find themselves in one of two circumstances. 1) they may have an established congregation whose worship and services seem dated by today’s multimedia standards, or 2) they may have an older waning congregation that has raised their kids, is now mostly retired, and also seems dated. In the former case, the new pastor sees the world passing by outside the window with no one stopping in to join; and, viewed in its best light, he wants to evangelize those people. Nothing wrong with that. In the later case, the same urge may exist, with the added desire to fully utilize the almost empty “facility” to greater capaicity. I think they err when they equate growth with success (now emphasized in seminary), and fail to understand the duty they owe to Shepard those small congregations who have faithfully, over the years, built the church, and paid for the upkeep of building and grounds. To often the new guy sees the equity in these churches as the money he needs to turn the church into something “relevant” to the surrounding culture. The congregation is persuaded to take out a second mortgage, and then becomes slaves to the payment; having to make all sorts of compromises to keep paying customers to meet the debt. What should be emphasized in seminary is growth is not the measure of success, and that some congregations will naturally be waning; and fidelity to God’s word and the flock he gave you are the measure for success.

Alas, this does bring in tuition money, sell books and CD’s, or help to get you on the cover of Christianity Today (or the Larry King show, where you can be made to waffle and squirm on national television). Anything thing produced can be made to grow by following the market strategy of tailoring your product to meet the needs and desires of the customers–as they see them–and marketing these to them. Unfortunately, this is what “relevance” has come to mean in the church growth industry,

Thank you for you commentary,

-David

reminds me of the emergent church. A lot of good questions but the course of action to answer those questions boggles my mind…

Soli Deo Gloria!