Unapologetic Church Advertising...

[traderumor]

Would you mind pointing out what you are referring to?

Not trying to be a PITA about it, but i read all of Rychian's posts, and I don't see where he is advocating changing the substance of the gospels. Please elaborate...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showp...5&postcount=17

[traderumor]

Good luck with the new venture. I never thought church "sucked", but it certainly didn't seem real relevant. But "Church doesn't have to be irrelevant" doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?

And thanks for the new word to use around my kids. I know, technically this one actually is a curse word, but being in Greek, or Aramaic, or Philipian, or whatever language it's suppose to be makes it okay.
SKUBALA! I'm liking this one more and more.

If you don't mind me asking, why didn't it seem relevant to you? What were you looking for it to relate to?

[Puffy]

Good luck, Tom. I hope this works out for you

[registerthis]

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showp...5&postcount=17

OK...

Where in his post is he advocating a change in substance?

I'm not getting your point here TR.

[traderumor]

OK...

Where in his post is he advocating a change in substance?

I'm not getting your point here TR.

You've lost me as much as I've lost you, apparently. I'm not sure if this clears up your confusion, but there are two primary issues here. One, is the one true gospel being preached. Two, is the church a gathering of saints for worship. Actually, he never addressed the substance of the message other than a generic reference to the "gospel." You've made the assertion that the substance hasn't been changed but that I'm fussing about music and worship style. The "gospel" can mean many different things, but I always like to use 1 Cor. 15:3-4 as a starting point, which are two verses that give the gospel in a nutshell. But then, as I pointed out in the post, the only substance I've seen so far is making an environment conducive to drawing the irreligious into a meeting by a religious person and calling it church. By religious, I mean a person following a certain set of beliefs for a spiritual benefit. I would say to that, woopy-doo, you got some folks to show up and talk about God. Now what? Is that enough?

[registerthis]

But then, as I pointed out in the post, the only substance I've seen so far is making an environment conducive to drawing the irreligious into a meeting by a religious person and calling it church. By religious, I mean a person following a certain set of beliefs for a spiritual benefit. I would say to that, woopy-doo, you got some folks to show up and talk about God. Now what? Is that enough?

But he says

Our philosophy is to simply love those we come into contact with and share with them the gospel. Plain and simple, It's all that Jesus Christ did.

And...honestly, I'm tired of this argument, because we may be arguing different things--I can't tell.

All I'm saying is, there are many methods one could use to bring people to church. And some churches will cater more to young or non-believers as much as some churches cater to those who are well-established in their faith. Tom says he's intent on preaching the gospel and intent on emulating Christ, so I don't see where your point of contention is with him.

...and people wonder why there are hundreds of denominations in Christianity!

[traderumor]

But he says

And...honestly, I'm tired of this argument, because we may be arguing different things--I can't tell.

All I'm saying is, there are many methods one could use to bring people to church. And some churches will cater more to young or non-believers as much as some churches cater to those who are well-established in their faith. Tom says he's intent on preaching the gospel and intent on emulating Christ, so I don't see where your point of contention is with him.

...and people wonder why there are hundreds of denominations in Christianity!

Roll your eyes if you must, but this is not an issue that springs denominations. This is an issue that separates a gospel church from a social gathering.

[Crash Davis]

Roll your eyes if you must, but this is not an issue that springs denominations. This is an issue that separates a gospel church from a social gathering.

So you are a bit of a church cop? Do it my way, or you're not doing it the right way. Who gets decide what's a church and what's a social gathering? And why would you want to decide that?

You've taken a wonderful thing that Tom is doing and tried to regulate it because it may or may not fit your own rigid standards for Christianity. Emulating Christ is the goal. That's good enough.

And I hope Tom doesn't have anyone else trying to get him to meet certain preconceived rules and regulations about following Christ's teachings.

It's OK for the capital "C" church to weed through all of the literature on Christ and decide what's copacetic and what's not. But it's not OK for Tom to start a church emulating Christ's finer qualities?

[DunnersGrl44]

Good Luck on your new venture.
As much as I hate getting on the topic of religion. I will add my 2 cents. Church to me is a state of mind. If going to church makes you feel better. Then go. If it does nothing for you, and you are staring at the clock the entire time, then don't go. Wether you believe in it or not, as long as you believe in your beliefs, then no one can tell you that you are wrong to feel that way. But I do think that absolute worst thing that anyone can do, is try to pass on your own beliefs, whatever they may be, and get into arguements about it.
Thats about all I have to add!

[SunDeck]

If you don't mind me asking, why didn't it seem relevant to you? What were you looking for it to relate to?

Relevant to me would be doctrine based upon the following: humility, forgiveness, understanding, equality, justice. I am a Catholic; dip your hand into that barrel and pull out a fist full of irrelevance.

[traderumor]

So you are a bit of a church cop? Do it my way, or you're not doing it the right way. Who gets decide what's a church and what's a social gathering? And why would you want to decide that?

You've taken a wonderful thing that Tom is doing and tried to regulate it because it may or may not fit your own rigid standards for Christianity. Emulating Christ is the goal. That's good enough.

And I hope Tom doesn't have anyone else trying to get him to meet certain preconceived rules and regulations about following Christ's teachings.

It's OK for the capital "C" church to weed through all of the literature on Christ and decide what's copacetic and what's not. But it's not OK for Tom to start a church emulating Christ's finer qualities?

Thanks for expanding, although that is exactly what I thought you meant. Yes, when one is attempting to do a work as a member of Christ's church, there are Biblical standards to abide by. Note I said Biblical standards, which to me assumes of the historic Christian faith, not my standards as you charge. I kept those very simple and at the heart of any work to ensure that folks like you and registerthis would not have a legitimate charge of "different strokes for different folks arguments" against the points I am bringing up--the gospel and corporate gathering for worship.

And I hope Tom does have someone else trying to get him to build a church that follows the entirety of Scripture on the subject. Not that he is accountable to me, but accountability is a good thing in the Christian's life.

[Rychian]

I love creating a stir...

That was not the intention of the thread though. For those concerned yes i do have a denomination watching to see that we create a scripturally based church. The church as we know it in America is not the church as we will know it in 30-40 yrs. There is an emerging church that will not prescribe to the modern context as we have come to know it in our happy little sunday morning services.

We are attempting to build a relevant church both scripturally but also to people's lives. I challenge anyone to tell me that the church should be anything other than a tool for God to use. Not THE tool for God to use, but a tool. There are many ways for God to reach people and it doesnt have to happen where we are most comfortable on Sunday mornings. I find people in Border's bookstores and starbucks more receptive to the gospel then some christians i meet.

The fact of the matter is, the church needs to begin to realize what it was made for. It is not intended to prop up the people on the inside to make them feel better than those outside. It is to grow those within the walls and to call to those who are outside the walls. The word Ekklesia though meaning assembly, gatherings..... has the idea of going out. Or reaching out.

My church chose to reach out by stating that church doesnt have to suck. So be it. From the response here it seems to strike a nerve and i love that! If i were to print an advertisement and have it say "come here to hear the word of God" it would be cast off by those most needing to hear it. Instead we go around and use the language of today to strike a chord, hit a nerve and perhaps save someone. If i have to say suck to get the church's attention, then there it is. I hope the church wakes up, or before too long we will be Europe.

Peace,
Tom

[RFS62]

I have never been able to figure out how so many denominations lay claim to the only true understanding of Christianity.

Especially the ones formed hundreds of years after Christ lived. What happened to the people before the big revelation that launched a new church?

There are many paths to enlightnemt.

[Rychian]

Sadly many denominations have been caused because egos were hurt or someone else wanted to be president. Other splits occured because the traditional church refused to accept a new line of thinking (See: Methodism). Other churches were created for power (Anglican / church of england) and others due to creedal statements and the power of a pope (Eastern orthodox and Catholic).

There are many churches that claim that they follow the direct lineage of the apostles and therefore they are the only true church. However no matter how many egos get in the way christ is still preached. I pray that someday these splits will heal, but in the next year we will most likely see another few splits. The Episcopalian looks like it is lining up for one as well as United church of christ (both over the gay issue).

Churches split, denominations split, no church should ever claim that
"we are right, and the rest of yall be going to hell! "

Tom

[Puffy]

Churches split, denominations split, no church should ever claim that
"we are right, and the rest of yall be going to hell! "