A most difficult question, Ryan. I am under the conviction that by employing the weapons and stratagies of the world in order to bring about a desired effect, we are putting ourselves in God’s place. We do not know what He is bringing about. We are called to know and obey His ways and commandments, not to manipulate the purposes of God to match our own vision. This is why I believe that we must be led by the Holy Spirit in every moment; always doing what is right in God’s sight. By using the world’s tools, we bring disgrace upon the name of the Lord; because the world says: “See. They are doing the same things we all do; gaining power for themselves.” I hear this accusation on IIDB all the time. And it is indeed valid.

Hmmmmm……

You know, there have been times when, as a pastor, I longed to be in the busines world because at least you can get something done without moving heaven and earth. There are some ways in which those practices that get labeled “carnal weapons” are actually superior moral codes than that which takes place in churches.

I remember begging the personnel committee of the church where I most recently served to force the staff to adopt GE’s 360-degree performance review structure, simply because there was no way for underlings to say what was really going on at the top and be heard. Is that “carnal” just because it originated outside the church?

Here’s the thing–if the church can learn something useful from the world, then the church should be humble enough to do so. Good financial accounting in a church is another way of practicing good stewardship, and if a business model of accounting is useful to us, let’s grab it.

If you’re going to do a demographically-targeted service or event, then market research is the best way to get that done. I can argue that demographic targeting is just weird when it comes to community building, but we jumped off that bridge last century with Sunday School and are still falling.

I found that paying attention to movie and TV pacing actually made me more effective as a worship leader. Those guys in Hollywood make all that money because they know how to manage people’s attention. It’s not manipulative–it’s effective. You could say the same thing about Solomon’s temple. It did what it was supposed to do, and that is to draw people’s attention and focus to a certain place.

Byron,

The question isn’t what is effective, the question is whether or not God has commanded someone to do such. We are not in the position to discern “what” God wants to bring about. We are in the position to be obedient to “how” He has commanded us to do all things. We often confuse “our will for Him” with “His will for us”. Saying things such as: “I bet God would be honored if we were able to do such and such”. Rather than: “Who has sought out the Lord, that we may know His instruction in this matter?” Didn’t Solomon build the temple because God commanded him to do so? Only you know if you are following what the Lord is telling you to do. But I am very weary of associating effectiveness with righteousness. I don’t understand what you meant in the Sunday School statement. Could you tell me what that means? Thanks, David

I agree that we should do only what God has commanded us to do, and that we should not twist God’s commands to suit our own purposes. My question is about *how* to obey God’s commands to achieve His purposes. I am coming from the perspective that most of what God has commanded us is to be found in the Bible and is general in nature (”love your neighbor as yourself”, “go into all the world and make disciples of all nations”, etc.) Such commands tell us God’s purposes, but they don’t tell us how to go about fulfilling these commands. How do we be diligent in our obedience?

Let me give an example. Suppose we decide we want to act on God’s command to evangelize. First of all, how should we choose who we evangelize to? A “Christian” approach might be to say that Christ taught us the parable of scattering seeds, so we should just throw out bits of truth and love everywhere (or without strategy) and let things fall where they may. A “secular” approach might be to say that we will be far more effective by focusing on a particular demographic and employing those methods that have been found (say through market research) to be the most successful in reaching that particular demographic.

Once we have an audience to evangelize to, what message do we bring? “Secular” wisdom would probably say that most people will not be receptive to being to be told by a stranger that they are going to hell unless they repent; that we will ultimately be more effective in fulfilling God’s command by building non-judgmental relationships with those whom we wish to reach and presenting them with attractive truths. “Christian” wisdom would say the Holy Spirit takes what is humanly an offensive message and turns it into conviction which leads to repentance; that we must simply speak the truth about sin, impending judgment, and salvation, and pray that God softens their hearts.

I see truth in both schools of thought; which suggests to me that neither of what I have been calling “secular” and “christian” wisdom is complete, that there must be some Godly wisdom which encompasses both and somehow unifies them. Now THAT wisdom, I would like to have!

I just thought of another way of address this topic. David, you said “The question isn’t what is effective, the question is whether or not God has commanded someone to do such.” On the premise that God doesn’t usually give particular individual commands “do this, do that”, my question is, what is are the right questions to ask ourselves in order to decide what to do? I think effectiveness IS a relevant question to ask, but not the only one.

Well Ryan, I come from a different perspective; one which assumes that we should do what we are commanded to do, and that only God knows the outcome of our having done it. This is why I say that using “effectiveness” as the dictator for action is far to dangerous considering we are not aware of whom God will save and who He will not. The difficult part is knowing when to speak and when not to; as well as, what to say and what not to say. In the end it all rests upon faith. Therefore the best way is to rely on the message, in speaking; and the commandments, in action. When God says, “Love thy neighbor as thyself”, He is telling us exactly what we ought to do. The only question we should be asking ourselves in response to this commandment is: “What does it mean to love?” We get our answer by closely studying how Jesus loved and what He said love is.

Kierkegaard’s biggest issue with the Church was that he felt it had forsaken Jesus’s claim on authority, by trying to convince people. He says that the way the church does it is by removing the possibility of offense. The “offense” being that, a man claimed to be God. He claims that Christianity presented in any way as to conceal the offense was no Christianity at all. This all occures from the zeal to “save” people. But we know that only God saves. So to bring anyone to a place of accepting a Christ who is void of offense is the greatest betrayal and denial of our Lord.

But this raises the next question: How do we present the offense without simply being offensive in our presentation of it?

This is what is so difficult to do. If one has the desire to spread the Gospel, he must not fear the rejection of men. It is my opinion that nearly every single error in the Christian walk, and what keeps us from becoming like Christ, is the fear of men. No one wants to be rejected. No one wants to be spoken of badly. Everyone desires companions. Everyone wants to be understood and believed. We all know how terrible it feels when we are falsely accused of having wrong or evil intentions. All of this is enough to keep man from ever accepting or sharing the truth. Our nature is to flee from death. And any type of persecution carries with it the sense of death.

So, I suppose my feeling is that, without concern for the outcome and in a sincere and gentle spirit, we ought to share that a man lived here on earth; walked among other men; ate with men; was killed by other men; and was risen from the dead, thus proclaiming His divinity. Therefore, whatever the Lord Jesus commanded, is the same that the Father desires. Remember, the one who becomes offended has cut himself off from belief. Even now many “Christians” do not believe. This is why we see such a disconnect from what one claims to believe and what one actually does. How can anyone do something in obedience to one whom they don’t believe to be who he said he was? If we presented the offense(the Incarnation) first, then we wouldn’t be finding so many ‘deconverts’. If it wasn’t for the knowledge that all things are possible for God, I would say that there is no hope for men. The church is so screwed up, that it is most certainly only by an act of divine mercy that a person comes to really believe. I guess that’s how God wants it. But those of us who are awake are responsible to work toward the Good in all things. Nothing is more difficult than to remain in hope. Just as the writer of Hebrews says: We need to hold on till the end, the confidence we had at first.

Thanks for the post Ryan.

As an aside to this discussion, let me provide a link to this article: Willow Creek Repents.

As you may or may not know, Willow Creek Church and the Willow Creek Association are know for using methods taken from secular business practices. The above article talks about Willow Creek’s recent talks of departing from their program driven mentality.

[HT: JT]

David wrote: “Ryan, I come from a different perspective; one which assumes that we should do what we are commanded to do, and that only God knows the outcome of our having done it …. The difficult part is knowing when to speak and when not to; as well as, what to say and what not to say…. When God says, “Love thy neighbor as thyself”, He is telling us exactly what we ought to do. The only question we should be asking ourselves in response to this commandment is: “What does it mean to love?” ”
David, perhaps we are misunderstanding each other, because this seems very close to the main question I am asking.