Conference yukon::christian_v7

    F.Y.I. -
    
    Tonight, at 10:00pm (EST) on ABC-TV, Peter Jennings is doing a special
    report on religion and spirituality, as it is happening today in the U.S.
    
    The show 'Good Morning America' had Jennings on this morning to speak
    a little about his show....he showed a clip on a pastor Bill Hybels
    (sp?) in the Chicago area....his church has about 15,000 members, a
    state-of-the-art daycare center, a food court (!) and some other
    "attraction" (that I can't recall) that seemed strange to me.  There are 
    no crosses in the church because Pastor Hybels says that 'distracts
    people away' (not a direct quote; paraphrasing what was said).  I
    thought, "how does that distract - that is the Way!"  There will also
    be some footage of the "laughing in the Spirit" phenomenon.
    
    Karen 

Hi Karen,

My church doesn't have any crosses displayed, because it is felt that this 
distracts from the fact that the LORD Jesus is risen from the dead, and 
elevates the cross over the resurrection.  That's even an _empty_ cross.  A
crucifix (cross with a figure on it) would be considered very offensive there.

I'm entering this only as an observation, not as a discussion point, or to 
provoke, and primarily in answer to the 'no crosses' observation in 14.27312.

btw and fwiw, neither do we have the "laughing in the Spirit" phenomenon.
Nor a food court, though we do run a mother and toddler group.

I've not heard of Peter Jennings before, but would like to see it...


								Andrew

    My old church didn't have a cross either.  They had a
    stone wall behind the alter with the impression of Jesus
    with his arms open.  And above it the verse, "Send me your
    weary.....and I will give them rest" (can't remember the reference)
    (gotta work on those memorizations)
    
    This was very beautiful and when I first attended the church
    I thought I was the only one who could see it and actually
    got chills.  I hesitated to bring it up with people but then,
    found out later that they could see it too 8*)
    
    Boy, you should see the kids' faces when they finally see
    it!
    
    Pam

    Whoops, I discussed it.  Oh well.
    
    My new church doesn't have crosses only because we are
    in a high school auditorium.

    Howdy all.  I'm feeling much better today.  Not that you asked.  (ha
    ha)
    
    Taking herb tea's and stuff.  I acidently went to a "herbalist" -a
    friend of my mother-in-laws who unbeknownst to me channels to get info
    about what you need.  I was taking weird stuff and not getting any
    better, so I've stopped (besides, it was bugging me that I went to her)
    and went to a health food store to ask what to take for nausea, etc. 
    
    I feel much better about what I'm taking, and am feeling better
    overall.
    
    Well, thats all from me.  Have a nice day!
    
    
    
    Donna

    we're nothing without the cross - it shouldn't be ignored.

    re: -1
    
    that was my point about what I wrote in .27312....I just got a weird
    feeling about *how* it was said, like he was denigrating the power and
    importance of it.
    
    I prefer to see 'empty' crosses over crucifixes, but both serve to
    remind us of the price paid to save us.
    
    Karen
    
    p.s. - glad to hear you are feeling better, Donna!

    I don't think the work CHRIST did on the cross should be ignored
    but the cross itself should not be glorified.  Yes, I believe
    that if we keep in context the cross serves as a reminder of
    the price paid for us, but am dismayed by the importance and
    power people place on believing in the cross itself instead 
    of the saving grace of the Lord.
    
    Eg. I have know people to sleep with a cross in their bed as
    if it would save them from harm (I just don't see how a plastic
    cross picked up at a store could have more power than the
    belief in the safety and rest that Christ can give us.
    
    You know what I mean.  And, I don't mean that you guys are
    doing this because I *know* that you put your trust in Him!
    I think though that for others it can  be a problem. 
    
    And, I do not believe in denigrating it AT ALL!  I am really
    interested in watching this show tonight.  I heard a review
    of it on the local Christian radio station that says that the
    show is 'balanced'.  
    
    Pam
    

    Hi
    
    I must admit to feeling a bit concerned about people relegating the
    place of the cross in the church. I believe we need to constantly come
    to the cross and see there what Jesus did for us. I know the
    resurrection was a wonderful triumph for Jesus but the cross is our
    triumph and, as Paul says in Colosians "the cross has made a public
    spectacle of the powers and authorities". If I'd just been made a
    public spectacle by something then I'd do my best to hide that thing
    that humiliated me.
    
    I could go on for ages about the cross - maybe we should start a new
    topic on the importance of the cross and all that was done there for
    us.
    
    Bless you all
    ben 

    
    I just wanted to comment quickly on Bill Hybels and that ministry.
    I've read several of Hybels books and I feel that he's a solid
    christian.  Hybels church chooses to take a different path from the
    traditional church.  It is completely geared to the baby boomer 
    generation who is very demanding.  They feel like the church hasn't
    had any place in their life.  That it's old and outdated.  He first
    started his ministry in an old theatre to take the obstacle of a
    church building away from those who wouldn't go to a "church".  (We
    all know that the church isn't a building anyway, right?) and then
    they sang choruses with upbeat tunes with words projected on the wall
    rather than from hymnbooks.  They did dramas that showed that we serve
    a practical God and that he is significant to their everyday lives.
    Everything has been non-traditional for a generation that shirks 
    tradition.  Like Paul I believe Hybels has tried to become all things 
    to all people.  The methods may seem somewhat non-orthodox, but he 
    reaches souls for Christ.  I've read "Too Busy Not To Pray" and 
    "Becoming a Contagious Christian".  I thought both were excellent.  I'm 
    a little dismayed that his ministry will be presented side-by-side with 
    that laughing foolery.  I'm not saying Hybels ministry is perfect or 
    that maybe you can't find some flaws, but you have to remember that 
    you're going to see this story through the eyes of the media and we 
    all know that they'll put their own spin on it.  I'd recommend going to 
    a christian bookstore and checking out some of his work to get a 
    fuller picture.  
    
    Jill

    Thanks for your input on Bill Hybels, Jill.  It helps to have an
    opinion from someone we can trust.  As you said, his ministry will be
    presented from the perspective of the media, I don't care how
    'balanced' they think their reporting is.
    
    It should be an interesting show....
    
    Karen

 I've seen a piece on Hybels before and though not traditional, I found
 nothing wrong.  I'm not sure I'd attend, as I am rather traditional (even
 though I'm a baby boomer ;-)




 Jim

    
    You're an exception Jimbo!  

Got you, Karen.  I guess I missed the sense of what you read in 14.27312. I
read Pastor Hybels statement as guarding against the danger the 'symbol' of
the cross becoming an icon.  The significance of the cross is the work 
that Jesus did there, and this is kept fresh in our minds by communion,
as He established it.  Some see a physical cross - symbol - as an aid to 
the remembrance; others see it as a danger.  Not because the work is 
thought in any way less, but because it is so sacred that nothing can 
replace the commanded observance.

							Andrew

>                         -< In a class by yourself!!! >-

    
>    You're an exception Jimbo!  



   Yeah, I guess that's true ;-)

>    There will also
>    be some footage of the "laughing in the Spirit" phenomenon.

I would be surprised to hear that this is part Bill Hybels' Chicago
effort, but is another segment of the same "religion in America" 
story.

The church in chicago is miniscule when compare to Pastor Cho's church
in Korea which is number about 900,000.  It's not church like we know 
it, folks.

How do you minister to 900,000 people?  The answer is 10 at a time.
Many churches are using "small group" of "cell" group programs these
days, but few have been able to use it successfully... so far.  I think 
our conventional churches latch onto how it has been done and are not
meeting the needs of today's member of society.

Certainly, there are some immutable fundamentals that must never be
watered down or hidden, but because we bring our biases and experience
with us, we sometimes want to say that what we like other should too.
Worse are the people who elevate form and function to the fundamental
category.

When you have the fundamentals firmly in place, then the expression
can take on almost any form, including food courts to service people
who have come to meet in conference rooms with their small groups.

Gone are the days of Sunday Morning, Sunday Evening, and a week night.
At least, except for those who want it; there will always be the
traditions church of 50-500 around.

How do I know so much?  I don't but I am currently involved in a
new church plant and we want to do it right and not simply plant 
another denominational member church.  We have a blank sheet.

There is no reason in many of our churches that we couldn't open
Saturday evening services, complete with bands or whatever.  It won't
split your congrrgation because you won't be servicing the people
who come on Sunday morning - you'll be reaching a whole different
audience.  And if your fundamentals are in place and you are reaching
this different audence for Christ, then will the church be fulfilling
its mission? You bet it will be.  

Ministries should be nurturing other ministries, becoming one of the
ministry teams - not *the* ministry team.  Split that 70 member choir
in two and have them minister half the time they do now until you
go to double services (if you keepthe same format).  Have a band teach
a new band.  Propagating cell groups is very important and one of the
reasons the churches that Hybels and Cho are a part of are doing so well.

Maybe this ought to go in a note about church form and function.  Or
dreams about how to reach and minister in today's world.

Mark

    
    Actually Andrew, I think that Hybels contention is that the cross is
    just something that these people who are so turned off to "religion"
    can't deal with at that point.  So he doesn't want it to be a hindrance
    to them.  Can they still teach about Jesus without it on the wall? 
    Of course.  If the trappings of church (a cross, an organ, a choir,
    pews, etc...) scare these people off, Hybels says then lets get rid
    of them so that we might have the opportunity to engage these people
    for the sake of the gospel.
    
    It's like Paul in Acts 17 in Athens.  He didn't use scripture with
    the Greeks.  He reasoned with them based on an inscription in their
    own city by their own writers.  He met them on their turf just to 
    have the opportunity to share about Jesus.  That's the core of Hybels
    ministry: for the gospel of Christ we will meet you where you're at.
    
    Jill

Good notes Andrew.  

I kind of hesitated to put this in here, but would be interested in hearing
people's comments on the following issues I've relatively recently become
aware of in regards to the use of cross symbol: 

  1) There is some ambiguity over what the actual execution stake on 
     which Yeshua was killed looked like - was there a cross bar? if yes, 
     was it at the top like a capital T? right in the middle, or about a 
     1/3 of the way down like most representations show?  

  2) It seems to be the only time that the instrument of death is used as 
     a symbol to glorify the one who was killed on it .... we don't tend 
     to wear jewelry shaped like a revolver, a guillotine, a gallows, or
     an axe on little gold chains around our necks in honor of some martyr
     or other murdered or executed person?

  3) The cross has also been used as the emblem of the Crusaders (and other 
     groups) when they slaughtered Jews and Muslims, and as the emblem of 
     the Klu Klux Clan against African Americans, so it may be a difficult 
     emblem for people from those groups to embrace even when they come
     to know Yeshua as redeemer annointed by God to bring salvation to 
     humanity.  And when a person from one of these groups comes into a 
     church that has a cross displayed or meets someone wearing one as a
     piece of jewlery, do they see the love God has for them, or do they
     see a symbol of hate that has been used against their people for centuries?

Because of these issues, I no longer wear the cross necklace I have, although
the atoning death that Yeshua paid for me is still important to me and 
absolutely crucial to my future.  Also, it is the risen Lord who sits at the 
right hand of the Father to whom I raise my hands in worship and supplication.
It is not the method by which he died that saves me, but the fact that He took
the chastisement for my sin upon Himself and overcame death, being the 
firstfruits of the resurrection that is to come.  It is Him whom I worship, 
not the instrument that was used to execute Him.

>    Actually Andrew, I think that Hybels contention is that the cross is
>    just something that these people who are so turned off to "religion"
>    can't deal with at that point.  So he doesn't want it to be a hindrance
>    to them.  Can they still teach about Jesus without it on the wall? 
>    Of course.  If the trappings of church (a cross, an organ, a choir,
>    pews, etc...) scare these people off, Hybels says then lets get rid
>    of them so that we might have the opportunity to engage these people
 >   for the sake of the gospel.
 
    Since when is the cross of Christ a "trapping" of the church?  Since
    when has there been any other way to come to Christ except via the
    cross?  Since when did St. Paul decide that anything was more central
    to the message of the gospel than the shameful and foolish gospel of
    Christ's death on a cross?  I tell you folks, we are in a seriously
    weak state when we do not *recognize* such gross error.
        
>    It's like Paul in Acts 17 in Athens.  He didn't use scripture with
>    the Greeks.  He reasoned with them based on an inscription in their
>    own city by their own writers.  He met them on their turf just to 
>    have the opportunity to share about Jesus.  That's the core of Hybels
>    ministry: for the gospel of Christ we will meet you where you're at.
    
    But Paul did in fact call them to repentance via the cross of Christ
    and by no other means.  Hybels "ministry" is in error, imo.  I believe
    the proper slogan should be: "so that you might have eternal, abundant
    life we will do everything in our power to help you to understand and
    believe what Christ's death on the cross means."
    
    
    jeff
    

  1) There is some ambiguity over what the actual execution stake on 
     which Yeshua was killed looked like - was there a cross bar? if yes, 
     was it at the top like a capital T? right in the middle, or about a 
     1/3 of the way down like most representations show?  


Let's see:

  (a) Jesus carried his cross; heavy but portable.
  (b) They posted a sign on the cross *over* Jesus' head
        which implies that the T wouldn't be very effective.
  (c) The cross had to be plopped into a hole for it to stand up.
        if the cross section was in the middle, the victim might
        be left standing on the ground, depending on the hole.
        It would make better sense to elongate the bottom portion.
  (d) Traditional artwork supports these views

FWIW

MM

>    But Paul did in fact call them to repentance via the cross of Christ
>    and by no other means.  Hybels "ministry" is in error, imo.  I believe
>    the proper slogan should be: "so that you might have eternal, abundant
>    life we will do everything in our power to help you to understand and
>    believe what Christ's death on the cross means."

I don't think Hybels is calling them to repentance by any other means, Jeff.
Can I show someone the cross in the Bible and through counselling, or does
the symbol *have* to be up on the wall where potential seekers are 
gathering?

MM

I think we've got onto such an important point here that we're not thinking 
humour - I guess I realised and passed .27283 by, Karen...  Sorry! ;-}

Was it Ben suggested that the 'Cross' discussion shuold be moved to it's 
own note?  I think that would be a good idea, but I haven't time to do it 
tonight.  If any mods have time to select the appropriate, from 14.27312, 
great.  Otherwise I'll try to remember tomorrow ;-)


Re 14.27332, Jill, I can go with the theory (reaching people where they're 
at), but if you're going to get anywhere at all, you have to bring in the 
cross!  Paul implied it by verse 31, in referring to the resurreection, 
which couldn't have happened without a death.  And it was this very point 
that  divided the response.  The significance of Paul's mesage at Athens 
is that he was addressing some (spiritually) very ignorant people.  Usually 
he found Jews to address first, on principle, and they would be familiar 
with the basis and background of what he was introducing.  Here, however, 
he was addressing total gentile heathens, so had to go even further back to 
cover the basics of creation.

In our day, the vast majority of people seem to be saturated with a totally 
false concept of Christianity, and I guess I can understand Hybels wanting 
to only give people what he has explained.  Not wanting *visitors*, say, to 
see the 'cross on the wall' as some Christian symbol of worship, and so be 
detracted from the real message of the cross. However (and I don't know his 
reputation at all), you can only give the full gospel by *preaching* the 
cross.  As Paul says, in a few examples :


1Corinthians 1:23 
    "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto
     the Greeks foolishness"

1Corinthians 2:2 
   "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, 
    and him crucified."

Galatians 6:14 
   "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our
    Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, 
    and I unto the world."
  

Leslie,

�  1) There is some ambiguity over what the actual execution stake on 
�     which Yeshua was killed looked like ...

I understand that today's commentaries view the traditional picture as
inaccurate.  The one to be crucified would actually carry only the heavy 
cross-beam to the place of execution (and that would be heavy enough!).  
There is also a view that the cross beam at that time was at the very top 
of the vertical (as a T-bar rather than a +).  I'm uncertain without looking
this up, though, and even then it relies only on what happens to be the 
latest understanding, rather than actual inspiration.  I believe that we 
are not to focus on the mechanical detail here, but on the physical and 
spiritual reality (after all, even the sun was extinguished to hide this 
sight).  I would agree that I would prefer not to see the cross used as a 
decorative item.

For me, the - a - most telling verse is in Deuteronomy 21:23 "anyone who is 
hung on a tree is under God's curse."

The Jews thought that in crucifixion, Jesus would be rejected by religious 
and Godly people as unclean and beyond God's blessing; that anyone who 
associated with Him would be likewise.  They little realised that in 
causing these words to be written so long beforehand, God was also hinting 
how He would take the curse in our stead....

The day is ending in the UK, so I'll bid you all farewell.

						God bless
							Andrew

    re: Bill Hybels/holy laughter
    
    Sorry if this was not clear.  The segment dealing with 'holy laughter'
    or 'laughing in the Spirit' was not connected with Hybels.  It was
    taped from a different mininster's church - in California, I think.
    
    Karen

Ben made a statement in 14.27322 that I am having a little bit of trouble 
with:

>>  I know the resurrection was a wonderful triumph for Jesus but the cross 
>>  is our triumph and, as Paul says in Colosians "the cross has made a 
>>  public spectacle of the powers and authorities". 

The reason this troubles me is that I don't think that either the crucifixion
or the resurrection are our triumph.  Our "triumph" is that God loves us 
and has made a way for us to be justified despite our shortcomings.  Without 
the resurrection, the "cross" would not have made a public spectacle of the 
powers and authorities, but would have ended all hope.  

Also, I think (though I'm not absolutely certain) that the powers and 
authorities of which He made a spectacle are not the human rulers and leaders 
who "put" Yeshua on the cross, but the forces of the Evil One who stand as 
humanity's accusers.  Their accusations no longer have any merit whatsoever 
because the legal price owed by humanity for its unrighteousness and sin was 
cancelled by being paid in full by Yeshua on the cross.  This is how the REB 
reads for what I think is the verse(s) in Colossians.  (I'm eager now to go 
home & look at our new Greek interlinear, though we don't have a terrific 
Greek lexicon yet.)

I'm going to start at verse 12:

    "For you were buried with him in baptism and in that baptism you were
     also raised to life with him through your faith in the active power of
     God.  And although you were dead because of your sins and your 
     uncircumcision, he has brought you to life with Christ.  For he has 
     forgiven us all our sins; he has cancelled the bond which was outstanding
     against us with its legal demands; he has set it aside, nailing it to the
     cross.  There he disarmed the cosmic powers and authorities and made 
     a public spectacle of them, leading them as captives in his triumphal
     procession."

The reason I started with verse 12 is because I think that the crucifixion
of Yeshua and His resurrection are inseperable.  One without the other just
does not work.  Through his death the legal requirement for our damnation be-
cause of sin is destroyed, through his resurrection to life, we with Him are 
also raised to life.  That is why immersion or baptism is not complete until 
we come back up out of the water.

Leslie

PS.  Ben, because I've written so much that is critical about that particular
     statement you made, I also want to balance it a bit by telling you how 
     delightful your morning entries about being out in the country enjoying 
     God's creation, and your praise of the Creator are.  These are normally 
     the first notes I see when I look in the file each day, and they help me 
     also to remember God in praise and thanksgiving ... so thank you for 
     entering them, and may God's shalom fill your day.

    Also, to add to what Mark mentioned in one of his recent notes, i.e.,
    meeting people (non-christians) where they're at, presentation of the
    church (i.e., service style/structure, etc.)....
    
    this was discussed at the church meeting last night - we need to bring
    the gospel to where it needs to be heard, in a manner in which it can
    be understood and received, not necessarily how we are/would be
    comfortable to do it.  I've heard this echoed by many people in
    different churches lately.  It seems pastors and leaders within the
    church are finally recognizing this fact.  
    
    As to how Bill Hybels is going about it, I don't know enough about his
    ministry to say.  I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with
    incorporating a food court into your church buildings, but I question 
    why someone would go to such lengths.  Are we (the church) making it
    *too easy* for people?  They have to WANT to come.  If people are going
    there because it's convenient, then they are probably going for the
    wrong reasons.  The Church is not a mall, it's not one-stop-shopping. 
    People should have the proper respect for it.
    
    Karen 

    Hi Jeff,
    
    Mark said exactly what I was going to say.  I'm not saying that Hybels
    doesn't preach about the cross and the saving work of Jesus.  I think
    you're missing my point.  He's saying if hanging one up on the
    wall keeps them away so that I don't get the chance to talk to them,
    then I'm not going to hang one up.  But his message in no way changes.
    
    I had to laugh recently at some people at church getting all upset 
    about the church wanting to sell our pews in favor of chairs.  You
    would have thought we had changed the gospel message or something.
    It's not important what kind of building we meet in, what kind of 
    chairs we sit on or even if we sit, it's not important if we have
    symbols of our faith on the wall.  If Jesus can save someone on a
    dusty road without all of that around, than so can we.  If Hybels can 
    save someone in an mini-mall "church", then more power to him.  The 
    message does stay the same.  Paul was willing to shave his head to
    meet people on their own terms.  Timothy was willing to be circumcized
    AS AN ADULT to reach the Jews.  Bill Hybels is willing to take an 
    object, that while it is a symbol of our faith, is a turnoff to a 
    world of hardened hearts.   He wants the chance to bring them into a
    relationship with Christ where they will one day cherish the old 
    rugged cross instead of seeing red at the mere sight of it.  
    
    So what is the alternative?  Leave all our "symbols of faith" up and
    leave the lost cold in their spiritual death?  Who are the symbols
    up for?  God doesn't need them.  Are they up for the lost?  Debatable,
    but doubtful if they are a turnoff.  Are they up because we think that 
    it's how church should look?  Are they up because they remind us of
    Christ's sacrifice?  That's fine.  Do we need that reminder to remember
    the most significant thing that's ever happened to us?  If we knew that
    we would remember Christ's sacrifice for us, and we knew we would here
    the full story of Christ's saving grace, and we knew that there was
    even one lost soul who couldn't listen to the Pastor because of that
    "big, ugly cross" hanging behind his head (their words, not mine)...
    which one of us would not take down?  What if this person was your
    best friend, your spouse, your mom or your dad, your child, or a 
    complete stranger?  What if it was the person God sought after to be
    the next Billy Graham?  God will find another way, but your church 
    will miss out on the miracle.  
    
    Understand I don't believe that every church is cut out for the same
    kind of ministry.  I think we are called to be all things to all people
    with one gospel firmly rooted in the Word of God.  
    
    Food for thought.
    God bless.
    Jill

    
    I agree Andrew...it always has to come back to the cross and in all my
    readings of Hybels work and of another author who was saved by this
    unique ministry, I would say that it always does.
    
    .27343> Are we (the church) making it *too easy* for people?  They have
            to WANT to come.
    
    Or Karen, are we the church making it too easy for us?  Hey, if they
    stay lost it's there fault because they didn't WANT to come.  We have
    the commission, not them.  GO YE....  YE that's slang for us
    christians. We need to get the word out, but it's God who works to draw
    their hearts to the message.  But that does not change our
    responsibility to GO. And so what if they come because it's convenient? 
    So what if they come because they want their kids to get some moral
    training?  So what if they come because their parents made them?  So
    what if they come because it's Easter and their parents always used to
    go on Easter.  So what!!!!...as long as the come and have the
    opportunity to hear.  Then God takes over. My best friend came to a
    revival at my church to get his coworker off his back.  He never
    dreamed he'd be walking the aisle that night with tears streaming down
    his face.
       
    Jill

    
    Hi Jill.  I didn't miss your point accidentally.  The issue is not
    whether a cross is displayed on the wall or not.  Hybels (and others of
    the "seeker sensitive" church growth models) has created quite a stir
    among evangelicals.  Some of the serious issues being raised are the
    very nature, purpose, and role of the church; biblical evangelism; and
    even the gospel message itself.  These *are* serious issues and Hybels
    unorthodoxy, quite possibly even heresy, is naturally disturbing.
    
    jeff

Okay, a bunch of other notes were written while I was writing mine.  I'm
a slow writer ....

There were some that I want to comment on.  First of all, about the actual
form of the execution stake - re. Mark's points: my questions around that 
point were a bit rhetorical in some ways because I already knew the 
information Andrew posted in .27340:

>>I understand that today's commentaries view the traditional picture as
>>inaccurate.  The one to be crucified would actually carry only the heavy 
>>cross-beam to the place of execution (and that would be heavy enough!).  
>>There is also a view that the cross beam at that time was at the very top 
>>of the vertical (as a T-bar rather than a +).

And I think I can answer all of the objections Mark raised to anything 
other than the tradition view thusly:

>>  (a) Jesus carried his cross; heavy but portable.

    What Andrew said about the only the cross beam being carried to the 
    place of execution.

>>  (b) They posted a sign on the cross *over* Jesus' head
>>       which implies that the T wouldn't be very effective.

    If the person were suspended by their wrists from the cross bar, their
    head is going to be lower and there would be room for a sign to be
    nailed above it on the crosspiece or attached to the top.

>>  (c) The cross had to be plopped into a hole for it to stand up.
>>        if the cross section was in the middle, the victim might
>>        be left standing on the ground, depending on the hole.
>>        It would make better sense to elongate the bottom portion.

    That would depend on how tall the actual executation stake was.
    Plus, as Andrew alluded to earlier, they probably didn't "plop"
    it in a hole.  The vertical piece was probably already there and 
    the cross beam was then raised up and mounted on it.

>>  (d) Traditional artwork supports these views

    Traditional artwork also for the most part shows everyone in more or
    less European dress, with gold halos, and with non-semitic features 
    (except for Judas Iscarriot).  Traditional artwork usually shows 
    the last Pesach seder Yeshua celebrated with everyone seated on chairs
    rather than reclined as is Jewish tradition.  And traditional artwork
    generally shows the nativity in a pristine wooden stable when it was
    probably actually a cave carved out of the limestone hillside, and 
    certainly wasn't nice and cozy and pristine.  I don't think we can on 
    tradtional artwork for accurate historical information about the
    Yeshua's times or crucifixion.

But really the crux of my point about the shape of the cross is that it has 
become an image we almost hold as sacred in and of itself when what is 
important is not the cross image itself, which may be inaccurate, but
the event that happened on it - the Lord of the Universe bore our chastisements
and died in our stead.

Jeff picked up on someone else's note which included the cross with organs, 
choirs, and pews as a "trapping", and responded to that:

>>    Actually Andrew, I think that Hybels contention is that the cross is
>>    just something that these people who are so turned off to "religion"
>>    can't deal with at that point.  So he doesn't want it to be a hindrance
>>    to them.  Can they still teach about Jesus without it on the wall? 
>>    Of course.  If the trappings of church (a cross, an organ, a choir,
>>    pews, etc...) scare these people off, Hybels says then lets get rid
>>    of them so that we might have the opportunity to engage these people
>>   for the sake of the gospel.
 
>    Since when is the cross of Christ a "trapping" of the church?

You see, in Jeff's response, there is an implication that the cross itself 
has achieved an eminence of its own in western Christianity.  A little later 
on in Jeff's note he does point out that it is not the cross but Yeshua's
death on the execution stake that is the good news to be told to the world:

>>  Since when did St. Paul decide that anything was more central
>>  to the message of the gospel than the shameful and foolish gospel of
>>  Christ's death on a cross?  

Yes, yes Jeff! Its not the form of a cross that's important, but Yeshua's 
atoning sacrifice of giving up his life on a Roman execution stake in our 
stead!!!!  Maybe its subtle, but I think its an important distinction.   And 
so the standard symbol is part of church trappings, but Yeshua's atonement for 
us is pivotal and primary.  Does this make sense to anyone?

Leslie 

    Thanks Jim.  I think this is my last note for right now.

    I wanted to revisit another aspect of the cross which I brought up
    in an earlier note and Karen addressed in one of her notes:

    
>>    Leslie, good points about the cross being used in an abusive way
>>    towards minorities, etc., and how christians should be sensitive to
>>    that.  However, at some point these people will have deal with these
>>    feelings, much as somone who has been abused at the hands of their
>>    earthly father needs to learn to embrace the concept of God as their
>>    Father.  It's not something that happens overnight, but is rather a
>>    process.
    
    Yea, I've been in those discussions about the use "Father" in relationship
    to God, and I've always maintained that we need to heal the person's
    personal image of what it means that God is our Father, rather than 
    using the word Mother.  So I can understand the point you are making as 
    regards the cross, though I do see a slight difference being that Father 
    is a title denoting a relationship - God is the source of our being, our 
    provider, and our protector, while the cross is a symbol which the church 
    started to use later (although still early - if I remember right, 
    somewhere around the 300 AD time frame) in its development to stand in 
    for an event that happened in history.  I am talking here about the 
    physical symbol of the cross, made out of wood, gold, brass, plastic, 
    silver, stone, pinecones or whatever, not the word by which Paul summarized
    or refered to the events of Yeshua's death.  I would say the physical
    symbol has become an icon though not an idol.

    Leslie

>Re 14.27332, Jill, I can go with the theory (reaching people where they're 
>at), but if you're going to get anywhere at all, you have to bring in the 
>cross! 
>
> I would agree that I would prefer not to see the cross used as a 
>decorative item.

Andrew, 

  Both of these statements are the opposite of what Jill was saying.
Bill Hybels doesn't have *decorative* crosses.

Mark

    re: .27334 & 27335
    
    Jill -  yes, I see your point of view on this and I agree.  I believe
    in one of my notes I addressed that the church is starting to
    wake up to the fact that we need to meet people where they're at and
    not only do what's comfortable for us.  I believe there is a need for
    both the traditional and non-traditional church.
    
    Karen  

>    As to how Bill Hybels is going about it, I don't know enough about his
>    ministry to say.  I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with
>    incorporating a food court into your church buildings, but I question 
>    why someone would go to such lengths.  Are we (the church) making it
>    *too easy* for people?  They have to WANT to come.  If people are going
>    there because it's convenient, then they are probably going for the
>    wrong reasons.  The Church is not a mall, it's not one-stop-shopping. 
>    People should have the proper respect for it.
    

(a) Church complex
(b) Has your church ever made a "shepherds" supper for the midweek service?
    If so, then you will see the idea for the food court.  The sheer volume
    of people meeting in ministry throughout the week on all nights of the
    week can support a food court and why not have it staffed by people in
    your church.  And again, not church as we know the form.  But a church
    that is alive in cell groups.

Celebratory worship, where all the groups come together is when the church
sees itself as one church, and yet, as you may imagine, Cho's church in 
Korea has to turn away two thirds of his congregation from a soccer stadium
that seats a quarter of a million people!  Even celebration must be 
scheduled and people are urged NOT to come to any service they are not
assigned to SO THAT THE LOST CAN BE REACHED!  You'd take up their chairs!!!

It is an entirely different model than what most of us are used to, but it
is a WORKING model where many of our churches are cloisters of 50-500.

"Upon this rock will I build MY church, and the gates of Hell will not
prevail against it."

  Too often we view the church as a fortress instead of an army.  We picture
Hell coming against us and it will not knock down our sanctuary.  But the
picture is WRONG.  The church is alive and moving.  The gates of Hell cannot
shut it out!  It will lose against the forces of God as we send our soldiers
IN to save those who are lost to hell if we don't do something.

We need to "lift our eyes and see the army of God" that surrounds the armies
of men and begin to see beyond our own traditions and preferences so that
Jesus Christ can be proclaimed among the heathen where the heathen live.

Mark

>    These *are* serious issues and Hybels
>    unorthodoxy, quite possibly even heresy, 
>    is naturally disturbing.

I think this is an unfair and unreasoned statement, Jeff.
Sorry to say it, but there it is.

MM

    
    You're entitled to your statement and opinion, Mark.  I don't think my
    statement is unfair or unreasoned in the context in which I stated it 
    (which you left out).
    
    jeff

>    Hi Jill.  I didn't miss your point accidentally.  The issue is not
>    whether a cross is displayed on the wall or not.  Hybels (and others of
>    the "seeker sensitive" church growth models) has created quite a stir
>    among evangelicals.  Some of the serious issues being raised are the
>    very nature, purpose, and role of the church; biblical evangelism; and
>    even the gospel message itself.  These *are* serious issues and Hybels
>    unorthodoxy, quite possibly even heresy, is naturally disturbing.
    
Here's the context, Jeff.

What's heretical about examining the "nature, purpose, and role of 
the church?"  The gospel message is not being diminished.  I do not
see your contextual statement any more reasoned than the clip I clipped.
Sorry.

Mark

>What's heretical about examining the "nature, purpose, and role of 
>the church?"  The gospel message is not being diminished.  I do not
>see your contextual statement any more reasoned than the clip I clipped.
>Sorry.

>Mark
    
    First off Mark, Hybels is not "examining", he has implemented. The
    arguments may be made that his view of the nature, purpose and role of
    the church, his view of evangelism, and the gospel he is preaching is at 
    odds with God's view of the same according to the Bible and orthodoxy. 
    
    jeff

>    First off Mark, Hybels is not "examining", he has implemented. The
>    arguments may be made that his view of the nature, purpose and role of
>    the church, his view of evangelism, and the gospel he is preaching is at 
<    odds with God's view of the same according to the Bible and orthodoxy. 

See note 699.*

Also, all these vague references.

Did you know Hybels hired some theologians to ensure that his thoelogy 
was straight and orthodox?  This is not a cult leader, but something that
has grown from obedience.  Billy Graham isn't a cult leader either.  (Is he?)

>Did you know Hybels hired some theologians to ensure that his thoelogy 
>was straight and orthodox?  This is not a cult leader, but something that
>has grown from obedience.  Billy Graham isn't a cult leader either.  (Is he?)
    
    The fact that he has hired some theologians to ensure...brings me no
    comfort.
    
    Obedience to what?
    
    Billy Graham does not pastor a church nor does he propogate terribly
    controversial methods to other churches.  Billy Graham's methods, his
    preaching, have been remarkably consistent over the years and are
    generally in line with orthodoxy.
    
    jeff

This isn't really chit-chat anymore is it?  What would Ann Arno say ;-)

But um, I haven't really heard what it is that Hybel says about:
     
   .  the church
   .  evangelism
   .  the gospel

I mean the only thing I know about him now after all these notes is he has 
a big church, it has some sort of "food court" in it like the malls do, and 
there are no crosses displayed in the church in order not to set any pre-
conditions on seekers coming into the church.  Perhaps someone could enlighten
me?

Thanks,

Leslie

    
    Sorry to enter more here Leslie.  I want to keep the string together
    until Jim moves it.  
    
    Actually I like the idea of the food court.  Wow!  I just started 
    thinking about it.  The singles go out to eat after church all the 
    time.  We invite all our visitors, everybody that came to classm, 
    everybody we run into on the way out to the parking lot.  Sometimes 
    it's only a couple of people, sometimes it's 20.  There other groups
    that do the same thing.  Plenty of churches serve lunch after their 
    service.  So are we saying that because we put that fellowship in a 
    food court it becomes wrong?   I don't believe that.  Not for a 
    minute.  Now that I think about it my dad had been playing with some
    kind of church/mall idea in his head for several years now.  
    

    
    Jeff,
    
    I'd have to agree with Mark on this.  Bill Hybels is not some wacko
    teaching another gospel.  He is teaching the only saving gospel that
    the Bible has ever taught. It's his method of attracting people that
    is different from the traditional church.
    
    Imagine yourself back in the days of the early church.  You are a
    Christian and a Jew.  Now you hear about Paul doing some inane gentile
    customs like shaving his head and he's eating meat sold in markets that
    may have been offered to pagan gods alongside of Gentiles.  You're
    outraged!  How dare he!  Call the counsel together at Jerusalem.  James
    do something about him!  He's tearing the church down.  This is
    heresy!!!  But it wasn't.  It was God's plan to reach the whole world 
    (including us) with His gospel.
    
    Jeff, you seem to have a very strong opinion against Hybels.  Can you
    shed some light on what you've studied about his ministry that has
    upset you so?  To be honest while I enjoy some of the big names in the
    Christian publishing world today, I won't defend everything they do
    after all they are only human.  These people are in the limelight and
    Satan is going to be doing everything he can to undermine them and lead
    them astray.  There is a danger in being a big name evangelist.  They
    are mere men and they can fall.  I don't believe we can just blindly
    defend anyone. I think we need to hold them up always to the Word of
    Truth.  I have not personally read anything by Hybels that raises a red
    flag.  I know the Word fairly well (but there is room for lots of
    improvement).  If your experience varies, I'd like to know about it. 
    But if this is over things of aesthetic value, the word legalism comes
    to mind.
    
    God bless.
    Jill

> <<< Note 14.27350 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

>>Re 14.27332, Jill, I can go with the theory (reaching people where they're 
>>at), but if you're going to get anywhere at all, you have to bring in the 
>>cross! 
>>
>> I would agree that I would prefer not to see the cross used as a 
>>decorative item.

>Andrew, 

>  Both of these statements are the opposite of what Jill was saying.
>Bill Hybels doesn't have *decorative* crosses.

I don't quite follow Mark.  I think the second of Andrew's statements which
you've quoted in your note was a response to one of my notes in which I 
talked about using the cross as a piece of jewelry - ie as a pin, earings, or 
on a necklace, and he was agreeing that he would also prefer the cross not be
used in that fashion.  How is that the opposite of Bill Hybels not having
decorative crosses?

Leslie

PS.  I agree with some of your other points around Hybel's church and stuff
     according to the little I've heard about this, which is almost nothing.

 Discussion of the ABC News Program "In the Name of God" moved here from
 Chit Chat.




 Jim Co Mod

 I wasn't terribly troubled by Mr. Wybel's church (though something is gnawing
 at me about it), though I don't thinki I would attend.  I was a bit troubled
 by the segment on the Vineyard, and quite distressed over the "laughing in the
 spirit" segment to the point I almost turned it off..

  The frequent references to "marketing experts" bugged me..in my opinion the
 only marketing expert a church needs is the Holy Spirit..but again, thats
 the traditionalist in me.


 Jim

Leslie was correct in .43; it was her reference to jewelery I was replying 
to, some way back.. ;-}

Jill, I think it's probably a minor nit as far as your reply .42 is
concerned, but Paul's shaving of the head was an old Israelite practise
from Numbers 6, which the LORD gave for anyone wishing to make a special
voluntary consecration to the LORD.  For 7 days, he would obey extra laws,
like abstaining from alcohol, or any fermented drink, grapes and raisins,
keeping away from dead bodies (he has to restart if someone dies in his
presence), etc. 

Before starting, he shaves his head.  During the vow, he must not cut his
hair.  On completion, the hair which has grown through the duration of the
vow is shaved off and included with other assigned offerings. 

Then he can drink wine again!

The reason Paul was encouraged to do this in Jerusalem in Acts 21:22-25 was
to try to convince his opponents that he was still living as a religious,
observant Jew.  It all stems from the circumcision dispute, where purely 
'religious' (not necessarily Christian) Jews thought that Christianity was 
being offered as a sort of back way into Judaism, bypassing the O.T. laws.

As we see in verse 27-29, they were out to get him on any pretext, and his 
outward gesture didn't placate their wrath at gentiles receiving the gospel.

But I agree with the principle of your note - that Paul was being 'all 
things to all men' (1 Corinthians 9:19-23), and some baulked at him being 
all things to *other* men...  We need to be careful not to make the same 
mistake, while also preserving the integrity of the gospel.

While Hybels is not answerable to this forum ;-}, I would like to be aware 
of his stance on basic doctrinal principles.  Jeff, you in particular seem
aware of areas of concern here.  Can you identify from his direct teaching, 
a specific clear indication of where he stands on key issues, both positive 
and negative, so that we can begin to understand where he is comng from 
when he takes a stance which is potentially contraversial?

							Andrew

Last night's TV show on "In the Name of God" had three major segments.
Willow Creek, The Vineyard, and <don't remember> (Laughing revival).

Characterizations:

Willow Creek: come and relax and we'll feed you the gospel
Vineyard:     come and get excited
Laughter:     come and get happy

Each of these places were not churches that I would be comfortable in
worshipping week after week.  But they are churches that I might feel
comfortable in *ministering*.  Each of the three stretch my comfort level.
That is, I was most uncomfortable with the Laughing in the Spirit segment
because it was most foreign to my experiences and relationship with the Lord.

I saw each of these "movements" appealing to different segments of society.
Willow Creek is unabashedly aimed at the Baby Boomers.  The Vineyard is
aimed at still a younger audience and one said they wanted to be the 
Rock and Roll church, though I saw NO rock and roll but more of what I 
would characterize as contemporary songs.  The L-church seemed to be aimed
at people who need happiness (depressed people, perhaps the unwanted of
society).

They also had a minister from a "traditional" church whose church is partially
filled cautioning about becoming too much like the world, while at the same
time investigating the materials that have been written by Willow Creek
associates to see what can be done.  The fear is that these other approaches
"water down" the gospel.  I think that the reasoning here is because so much
emphasis is given to the form of worship rather than the life of the church.

Willow Creek's service is ONLY a small portion of the life of the church which
is LARGELY based upon small group life.  Discipleship and the full blown
gospel is handled on a individual basis primarily.  The worship celebration
is a time of corporate gathering for God's glory.  If relationship is the
essence of Christianity (relationship to God; relationship to others; see the
greatest commandment), then how is relationship BEST facilitated?

There is no doubt that Willow Creek is different than most of our churches.
(Peter Jennings commented that the organ was once considered too worldly to
have in church.)  But different doesn't have to be wrong or heretical, does it?
If another church is reaching a vast segment of the population that your
church cannot reach and will not reach, will you bless them or curse them?

I'm not the experiential type of worshipper.  I love the organ music and the
stained glass and I reverence God in my heart.  I found some of the Vineyard
clips (unfortunately) too casual for my liking for a church setting.  However,
if these people are changing people's lives for Christ then may the Lord
double and triple their numbers! 

Do we want spiritual maturity at rebirth?  If we were honest, we would admit
that this is what we often expect of people who come to Christ.  Consider
Jesus' example.  He went to parties that no self-respecting religious leader
would go to.  Why?  Because the people at these parties would not dare show
up in a synagogue; they might be chased out and stoned.  And because Jesus
did these things he made an astonishing declaration that the prostitutes
and tax collectors would enter the kingdom of heaven before those religious
persons.

We need to be careful of the stones we cast in the name of religion because
they may not be inthe name of God.  What is the nature, purpose, and role of 
the church?  How is it expressed best for you?  Is it the only expression?
Is it the best expression?

I am the first one to want to help someone into a deeper walk with the Lord
because the deeper you go, the sweeter He is.  I am the last one to water 
down the gospel to a universalism.  One man on the show last night put it
well.  "You choose the hills you'll die on" meaning that you will not
yield ground on fundamental principles of Christianity (and what are these, 
folks?), "and the rest is negotiable" meaning that the expression after the
principle is firmly established is icing on the cake.

Mark

.43>  I don't quite follow Mark.

Forgive me for sidestepping this.  I think it is much less an issue than
"different forms of church."  To explain and then jump out of that thread,
I saw it as saying "you must bring in the cross" and "you must not have
the cross as a decorative item."  I saw people in violent agreement not
disagreement.  As a decoration, it can be meaningless or worse.  As a 
symbol, it can evoke powerful emotion.  The cross can be presented without
a physical symbol.  That's all that was being said.

    Our church has sent representatives to Willow Creek because in some
    ways we've modeled ourselves after it. (It's only about 5 hours drive
    from there to Far Hills, so if anyone is in the neighborhood...) I have
    not been one of the sent ones (apostles? ;-), but I think I know what
    they learned. To the best of my knowledge, Hybels does not compromise
    the message. (You'll notice the show emphasized the peripheral and
    didn't include even a sound bite of his sermon.) I think he believes in
    salvation by grace through faith in Jesus. The big thing is determining
    the *methods* that are appropriate to delivering this *message*. The
    methods may change - the message never.
    
    That being said, I would not feel comfortable at Willow Creek. Our
    church has adopted some aspects of their model (e.g. we have up-beat
    music with choir and orchestra, "praise teams", skits, non-
    threatening welcoming of visitors, unobtrusive offering system, etc.)
    but there is at least one thing we've done that I have voiced my
    opposition to.
    
    I was quite troubled with the particular skit they showed from Willow
    Creek's service last night. I think there are some topics - and
    certainly some language - that is inappropriate in a public setting
    (especially where children are present) where we're trying to glorify
    God and bring to focus on Him.
    
    	BD�
    
    P.S. I have considered this topic for years, discussing it with many
    other mature believers, and I haven't quite decided where the lines are
    to be drawn. One thing I've decided, though, is that in the first-
    century church the assembly of people that occurred on Sunday was an
    assembly of *believers*. The model was not one of making that assembly
    comfortable for unbelievers. The belivers gathered for worship,
    teaching/learning, spiritual recharge, and then they would *go out* and
    spread the word to the lost. I think it's an indictment on the modern
    church: it's because we're not being responsible in *going out* to
    witness to the lost world that we instead are now trying to bring the
    lost world into what had originally been a "believer-friendly"
    assembly.

Trivia:   Hybels is 47 and makes $67,000/year.
          Willow Creek has 167 (?) paid staff members.
          Annual budget in the millions.

Jim, 

  As for marketing, I think it is thr traditionalist.  We tend to equate
marketing with materialistic consumerism rather than taregting an audience.

  For example, say you want to evangelize an area in your city.  How would
you go about it?  One idea would be to go to some radio stations.  They
have information on how many 30-45 year old white males who like sports
are in the area (to determine how well received a sports talk show might
be, and how much to charge advertizers).  Demographics is a tool of marketing 
that the church can use to know its community better.  If you have a bunch
of old people in your community, starting a contemporary-style church is
not likely the way to get the message of the gospel to these people.

  Willow Creek is NOT for everyone; it is for a demographic segment of
society that our churches are not meeting well.  The gospel is NOT being
watered down.  Jesus spoke differently to Nicodemus than he did to the crowd
than he did to the woman at the well than he did to Zaccheus then he did...
was his message different?  No, but his delivery was different.  Why?  He
met people where they were.

  Another fear is that Willow Creek is "Christian Lite" and that it is 
all Christian spiritual milk.  Again, this is just the entrance and not
the whole of the church life.  Just as we know that we don't feed newborns
meat, the unborn are fed through the umbilical cord and then spiritual milk.
Spiritual growth and depth happens in the day to day living and fellowship of
the small groups.  Christianity is a relationship with God; the church 
organization is AN expression of that relatioship.  As we grow in Christ,
our expressions of the relationship changes (even if we never change our
church locality).

Mark

�    to be drawn. One thing I've decided, though, is that in the first-
�    century church the assembly of people that occurred on Sunday was an
�    assembly of *believers*. The model was not one of making that assembly
�    comfortable for unbelievers. The belivers gathered for worship,

Agreed, Barry!  According to 1 Corinthians 14, it seems that unbelievers
are convicted when they witness the results of believers worshipping - the
services being Christians focussed on the LORD, not Christians trying to
focus non-Christians on the LORD.  To look where someone is looking is a 
much stronger pull than to look where they are pointing.

Of course, there's the 'outside' witness situation as well...

							Andrew

Who has just found out that he has a number in common with Hybels.  
And it's not the salary ;-}

.49>

Good comments, Barry.  Thanks.

One response to your P.S. about the early church.  The earlier church,
that is, when Jesus preached to the multitudes, his setting was the 
hillside and the audience was the common folk, churched and unchurched.
Jesus also had a custom of going to synagogue.  Perhaps this was Jesus
demonstrating "going out" to bring them in. 

The Willow Creek model may be looked at (perhaps) as the hillside 
encounter in the theater, and the synagogue experience (Torah read 
and spoken about) to happen in the small group (like a local synagogue).
Are we not all called to minister to one another?

Yes, it is an indictment on the modern church.  Given the traditional
church form, how does one go out and then bring in a believer?  
Traditionally, we want to bring them to church and let the preacher 
convert the fellow through the sermon and the service.  Tradionally before
this, conversion happened a whole lot less formally.  "Come see this man
who told me everything about me!"  (Also when Andrew went and got his brother.)
The sermon and altar call isn't going to reach everyone that can be reached.
Conversion of the heart happens wherever the Holy Spirit chooses and we can
be part of that according to His gifts and grace, or we can be observers
(burying our talents).

Mark

    Re: Note 697.52 by TOKNOW::METCALFE
    
    I realize this may be rhetorical, but...
    
�Yes, it is an indictment on the modern church.  Given the traditional
�church form, how does one go out and then bring in a believer?  
    
    The church form should have little to do with one's going out to
    "make disciples". If we live our lives the way the Bible tells us to,
    our verbal and physical witness will be the tools the Holy Spirit uses
    to bring others to Him. After they are converted they'll feel quite
    comfortable in a church service that's believer-friendly.
    
    	BD�

>    The church form should have little to do with one's going out to
>    "make disciples". If we live our lives the way the Bible tells us to,
>    our verbal and physical witness will be the tools the Holy Spirit uses
>    to bring others to Him. After they are converted they'll feel quite
>    comfortable in a church service that's believer-friendly.

I don't see Willow Creek as "making disciples" as it is an introduction 
to the gospel message.  Taken to an extreme, though, many of our current
churches should then stop preaching evangelistic messages, but that's not
what we want.  An evangelistic message is not believer-friendly but
sinner-seeking.  I view making disciples as something different than
"ye must be born again."  Being born is the beginning; making disciples 
is the process through life.

Mark

>    One thing I've decided, though, is that in the first-
>    century church the assembly of people that occurred on Sunday was an
>    assembly of *believers*. The model was not one of making that assembly
>    comfortable for unbelievers. The belivers gathered for worship,
>    teaching/learning, spiritual recharge, and then they would *go out* and
>    spread the word to the lost. I think it's an indictment on the modern
>    church: it's because we're not being responsible in *going out* to
>    witness to the lost world that we instead are now trying to bring the
>    lost world into what had originally been a "believer-friendly"
>    assembly.

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!

I've been frustrated by this, too.  'Church' has been thinned down to one
service on Sunday, and that's the ONLY time we gather as a whole body.  We do
little or any evangelism in most of our churches, so that one-and-only
service is also our only evangelical opportunity.  So then if we try to do
anything in the one-and-only service that God is calling us to that is in any
way more compelling or more challenging, the message comes back "but what
about the first-time visitors?  They will be put off, and we won't reach
people for Christ."  So we water down our only whole-body experience.

I agree, agree, agree, Barry, that this is one of the MAJOR problems in
American churches today.

Paul

    From what I understand of Willow Creek, the Sunday morning service is
    geared to those investigating Christianity.  There is also a service on
    Wednesday night which is geared toward believers.  There are the small
    groups, which Mark mentioned, where believers can build one another up
    and get to know each other more intimately.  The Sunday morning service
    can be looked at as a tool to assist believers in bringing others to
    know Christ and in getting them started on their journey.
    
    I thought the show last night was very well done.  It didn't seek to
    cast judgment one way or another (it didn't even judge the laughing
    segment, but let the "Bible Answer Man" do it instead).  FWIW, I thought 
    that they said Hybels was 43.  I remembered thinking that he was just 6 
    years older than myself.  Its a young age to have such a large church.  The
    statement was also made that it was the best attended church is the US
    (approx. 15,000 each Sunday). 
    
    In Christ,
    
    Bing 

    I was also impressed with the interview with Mr. Hybels.  He has a
    heart to reach those who don't know Christ.  One statement that he made
    was that when a person asked him the central question of what Christ's
    death meant, he (Mr. Hybels) had the choice to either answer in a way
    to impress the person with his knowledge, or to answer in a way which
    the person would clearly understand.
    
    In regard to the 1st century church, I agree that the church was for
    Christians.  However, they also didn't have centuries of tradition with
    which to contend.  There's nothing in scripture that says we have to
    sit in pews vs chairs, or that we have to use hymn books vs. singing
    praise choruses, or that we have to follow the same order of service
    every week, or that we have to only have organ music.  Those are man's
    traditions.  There's nothing wrong with them, but there's nothing
    sacred about them either.  There are plenty of traditional churchs for
    those who like traditions.  We shouldn't criticize others just because
    they are doing something different than what we feel comfortable with
    (assuming its in line with scripture).  We should seek to love and accept 
    people right where they are (that's what Christ did for us).
    
    In Christ,
    
    Bing

    I agree with Barry on the early church being the model.  Believers and
    seekers don't come to church looking for a watered-down gospel.
    
    Mike

>    I agree with Barry on the early church being the model.  Believers and
>    seekers don't come to church looking for a watered-down gospel.

I agree with Barry, too.  What I don't like is what seems to be an implication
that some of these aforementioned churches (or movements) are watering down
the gospel.  In fact, if they are reaching more people for Christ (and
watering down remains to be seen and certainly may be a wrong judgment),
then perhaps it is we in the "traditional" churches who do not see what
the gospel is and its need to be presented to a lost world.

I am reminded of the debates we've had within the church.  They generally
fall along two lines: evangelism and "maintenance mode."  The argument
is that we need to grow our people in order to bring in new people.
The other argument is that we need to bring in new people and grow them.
The problem in this debate is that it looks at the issue as either-or 
instead of both.  Each of these in isolation is incomplete.

Mike, were you implying that Willow Creek offers a watered down gospel?
Did you see the show?  Have you read some of the things here that say
that Hybels does not water the gospel down?  Or are you refering the the
method of presentation as watering it down?  How so?

Mark

 I've heard a couple tapes of sermons by Mr. Hybels, and from the brief
 snippets I heard, he didn't seem to be watering it down.




Jim

    who would have thought all this came from my f.y.i. announcement in
    chit-chat? :-)
    
    It was interesting to me that the comment that started all this (my
    paraphrasing Peter Jennings statement about crosses that *he* said 
    Bill Hybles made - got that?)  The statement/observation made by Jennings
    during the interview that there were no crosses and Hybels explanation 
    was not offensive.
    
    Lots of good feedback in here....Jim's .45 pretty much sums up how I
    felt about the program....I had a pretty good feeling about Hybels
    intentions and as a pastor; the church's style didn't really appeal to
    me though.  I felt the reporting on this segment was pretty unbiased. 
    I was very disconcerted with the segment on the Vineyard and felt they
    were not portrayed in a positive light.  I have attended a couple 
    services at the Vineyard in Chelmsford, MA and they were not like that.  
    The music was similar (contemporary) and the spirit of open praise and 
    worship (lifted hands) was there, but not the events that happened up 
    front at the end of the service with people shaking, etc.  I was
    disgusted at the segment on laughter.  That man started his service
    telling jokes (cutting down other religions/denominations) and bringing 
    those people into an emotional state of uncontrollable laughter while he 
    stood up there with a straight face!  I feel he abuses whatever spiritual 
    authority he thinks he has by doing so.  What about the guy that was 
    jumping/dancing around uncontrollably?  Please tell me how these things 
    bring glory to God?  I believe the Holy Spirit can use laughter (or 
    whatever else he wants for that matter) to bring healing, joy, etc. into 
    someone's life, but I feel it would be more of an individual thing, not 
    a collective/assembly occurance, and certainly not whatever that 
    expression might be to form a doctrine or service around.
    
    Mark said something in .47 about different churches meeting different
    needs, different ministries (my paraphrasing), like Paul trying to be
    all things to all people...I agree.  Each of us, individually, like
    each church, are at different stages of maturity/development, therefore
    we are drawn to whatever it is that meets our needs, whatever meets us 
    where we are at. 
    
    Barry - .49 P.S. - Yes! Excellent thoughts on church and believers
    vs. non-believers, evangelism.
    
    At the Wednesday night service at the Nazarene church in Fitchburg, the
    Pastor is doing a 6-week study on evangelism/the Great Commission.  He
    asked if people would be interested in a class/training on evangelism
    and the response was positive.  I know personally that many times I am
    "stumped" by intellectual types debating God, salvation, etc and would
    like to learn how to answer these types.  As Mark said, traditionally
    we bring people to church and hope that the service and pastors message
    will 'convince' them to be saved.  And, as Barry said, what will
    convince them is the power of God evident in how we live our lives -
    interpersonal contact, being "real" not 'holier-than-thou'.  In my
    experience, those people that the Lord has used me to bring to Him, the
    actual decision/conversion happened in a church, but there was a
    realtionship prior to that.
    
    it's taken me many starts and stops today to get all these thoughts
    out; I think I'd better leave it at this.
    
    Karen
    
    P.S. - Mark M:  I met Don Arey Wed. nite....do you know him?  He used
    to write/read in here....he's a Quantum ee now in Shrewsbury.  

 The idea of a "food court" is rather intriguing...However, us Baptists would
 likely spend more time there than in the auditorium ;-)

    
    Seems like old times, doesn't it? 
    
    I feel strongly about the role of the church in the life of the
    Christian.  Our best (only?) biblical picture of the NT church is 
    illustrated in Acts 2.  It is clearly for believers.  Any model
    which attempts to eliminate the "offensive" elements of the gospel
    while filling the church with unbelievers, is in error in my opinion.
    
    I have been around several different types of churches including a
    seeker sensitive church.  As a Christian I never felt so comfortable
    with my sin as at the seeker sensitive church.  And I have never seen
    so many other Christians so comfortable with their sins.  And the
    churches of our country, no matter how full and exciting, are of almost
    no value as salt in our society.  It is all connected in my opinion.
    
    Jim's humorous comment about what might happen if they had a food court
    reveals a significant truth about the state of Christianity in our
    country and especially among some denominations.  Bill Clinton, a
    regular church-going man, is considered to be a Christian even though
    his fruit is antithetical.  He could have come from Willow Creek or any
    other growth-focused church.
    
    It just sickens me, really.
    
    jeff

>    P.S. - Mark M:  I met Don Arey Wed. nite....do you know him?  He used
>    to write/read in here....he's a Quantum ee now in Shrewsbury.  

Yes!  Say hello to him and tell him to watch for my Article in the 
May issue of the HH.  ;-)

-----

On another thought, how many of our churches have sent missionaries to 
other cultures?  Most of us, no?  In this foreign land, the gospel is
presented in a culturally accepted way, without watering it down.
Nevertheless, culture is a factor.  

How about American culture?  Why not present the gospel in a(n American)
culturally acceptable way?  Certainly, there are portions of the culture
that we do not want to support, but there are also certainly portions of
the culture that can be used (different from how "we" do things in "our"
churches).

Present an uncompromized message of the gospel in a compromized comfort
zone.  Compromize your comfort zone for Jesus' sake.  Determine what
the uncompromized message really is (see note 699.*), then do what
is necessary to reach people who need the Lord.

To the point: what is the essence of the gospel?  How do our traditions
help or hinder?  Do they help us but not all?  If not why not?  How much
of what we are comfortable with is bedrock and how much is negotiable?
For whom is something a non-negotiable?  Many of us said we wouldn't
be comfortable in Willow Creek - Sundays, that is.  Who would change their
weekly worship celebration to Wednesday evening and could you worship God
will all your heart, soul, mind, and strength on any day except Sunday at 11?
if you can't, then God bless you in your church and your church on Sunday.
Go with God and serve Him as well as you know how.

Comfort zones can be challenged.  Mine has been challenged for nearly
two years now... and it is a phenominal experience (coming from a
non-charismatic kind of guy).

Mark

Jeff, 

  I would like to see your thoughts in 699.  Would you?

Mark

 I did squirm a bit when it was mentioned that Mr. Wybel was Bill Clinton's
 "spiritual advisor"..

>I did squirm a bit when it was mentioned that Mr. Wybel was Bill Clinton's
> "spiritual advisor"..

Yes, this is what Jennings said.  Remember that Billy Graham was Richard
Nixon's spiritual advisor, too.  I am glad that these Presidents are 
seeking out the counsel of Christian ministers.  And I know Billy Graham
has also been to the Clinton White House.  It is probably not surprising
that a 43 (Bing) year old may be able to speak to some issues that the
president may have.  His association with Bill Clinton is not his (Hybels,
not Wybles) guilt.  Guilt by association is wrong. 

MM

> I did squirm a bit when it was mentioned that Mr. Wybel was Bill Clinton's
> "spiritual advisor"..

           Cannot blame you, Jim.  
           
           I didn't see show, but did tape it (too late for me :-), and
           will watch when we get a chance.  I've read some replies and
           it would seem there's MANY "flavors" of churches out there, not
           pleasing to everybody all the time.  I would say to those who
           don't like this or that flavor to ask the Lord to plant you in
           a church that you "need" to be in, not necessarily that you
           feel comfortable in.
           
           Steve
           
           PS- I guess it's good to hear the show was "balanced".  
           The Christian bashing gets kinda old, BUT we will face
           persecution on all fronts, especially when we're actually
           doing the Lord's work.

� I met Don Arey Wed. nite....do you know him?  He used to write/read in here...
Hey, great!  One of the old timers!

    Re: Note 697.62 by CSLALL::HENDERSON

� The idea of a "food court" is rather intriguing...However, us Baptists would
� likely spend more time there than in the auditorium ;-)
    
    No problem - allow eating in the auditorium. Even better: have "pew
    vendors" that could sell us goodies as we sit and enjoy the service. We
    could make a bundle and send a cut to the Cooperative Program :-)
    
    	BD�

RE:   <<< Note 697.70 by DYPSS1::DYSERT "Barry - Custom Software Development" >>>
                      -< peanuts! get your peanuts here! >-

   
>� The idea of a "food court" is rather intriguing...However, us Baptists would
>� likely spend more time there than in the auditorium ;-)
    
 >   No problem - allow eating in the auditorium. Even better: have "pew
 >   vendors" that could sell us goodies as we sit and enjoy the service. We
 >   could make a bundle and send a cut to the Cooperative Program :-)
    
  
   We're working on it..once we get the automated offering system (AOS) 
 installed in the pews (so members can use their credit cards), we'll work
 on the pew vendors.


 Seriously, there are many folks who spend all day Sunday at the church, from
 8AM-9PM and I could where a variation on a food court could come in handy..
 


Jim

Acts 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone:
    for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
 39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even
    to fight against God.

I have seen people use these verses to defend their own ministry.
I am not a member of Willow Creek, the Vineyard, or the other place
in last night's show.  I am not a Catholic, Baptist, Epsicopalian, 
Lutheran, Reformed [], Presbyterian, SDA, etc.  I am not using
these verses to defend the Church of the Nazarene.  Nor am I
using these verses to "hit" anyone.

I am using these verses to get us to think about whether we struggle against
doctrinal issues or how we think it ought to be performed.  Even with the
third guy in the segment in the laughing revival.  I am uncomofrtable with
it, personally, but if God chooses to touch some people through this
ministry, I'm not going to be the one to castigate it.  The "Bible Answer
Man" would and out of my discomfort I found it easy to resonate with him.
And yet, there may be some among that crowd who sought after God and
found Him there.  I'm not comfortable with it and based on that discomfort
I would advise some people with full explanation of my reasons, but that
falls far short of condemnation.

Mark

    
    Our aversion toward making distinctly judgemental statements concerning
    doctrine and practice is an example of our weakness, not our strength.
    
    jeff
    
    p.s. Mark,  I don't have time for 699 right now.

>    Our aversion toward making distinctly judgemental statements concerning
>    doctrine and practice is an example of our weakness, not our strength.

Doctrine is one thing; practice is another thing entirely.
Some people have trouble separating the two.  I hope you
don't have this trouble, Jeff.  You know I have no aversion
from standing firm on doctrinal issues.

Mark

    
    When I say practice I mean that which naturally or logically follows
    doctrine.
    
    jeff

>    When I say practice I mean that which naturally or logically follows
>    doctrine.

Such as bearing fruit in keeping with repentance.  I understand.
However, some of the vague references you have made imply to me
that some of the practices that you see logically following doctrine
may deserve a closer look as to whether the practice is a
doctrinal practice (such as baptism or communion) or a doctrinal
expression (such as crucifix, cross, shepherd symbols; or Sunday
am, pm, and Wed. pm; or ...).  That's why I started 699 (and when 
you do have the time for it, I do want your thoughts on the matter
instead of the (somewhat passing) references you've made here.

I realize I may be risking feelings on this matter with you, Jeff,
and I hope it will not come between us.  You never know whether we'd
ever be neighbors and I'd prefer to be a good'un to y'all.  I just want
to look at it and see it for what it is and for what is is not.

Mark

    
    I think you are reading too much into my passing references plus I'm
    famous for speaking in broad terms and leaving details for later.
    
    Concerning feelings, don't worry about mine.  I'm a manly man. ;()  I've 
    got a thick skin. But don't needlessly impugn my character! ;)  
    
    jeff

>Acts 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone:
>    for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
> 39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even
>    to fight against God.

Consider your character unimpugned, then, needless or otherwise.
It is never my intention.  Issues only, friend.

Mark_who_feels_similarly_passionate_about_his_character

    
    Well, I missed all but the end of the segment on Willow Creek,
    (Bible study ran late) but I have heard updates from my mother and 
    others.  I am a bit disturbed however by some of the comments here 
    about the church being for believers.  Last time I checked believers 
    are the church.  The goal of the early church was to go ye into all 
    the world.  They did that.  That's why we have the gospel.  Now
    the present church seems set on the same goal to reach the world for
    Christ.  Except we have millions of little satellites all over the
    globe and there are still people all over the world that need to be
    reached.  So we have missionaries that we send just like in the 
    early church.  Then we have local ministries or churches which I
    believe because of the spiritual deficit in our country have got a
    dual-mission.  To make disciples and to reach the lost in our 
    communities.  I am utterly amazed that any christian would squawk
    about whether they were saved through a one-on-one outside-the-church
    experience or inside-the-church which they came to because of the
    walk of a christian who invited them.  Why don't you post signs at
    the doors saying "Believers Only"?  Or maybe we should just make
    non-believers sit to the back and if they can't understand tough...
    it's not for them anyway.  
    
    The church is supposed to make disciples but who says that has to be
    in Sunday morning worship.  We have Sunday School, discipleship
    classes, Wednesday night bible study, kids clubs, youth group, 
    separate group bible studies, men's ministry, women's ministry, 
    and one-on-one discipleship.  Are we so inward focused that we need 
    Sunday morning too?  Are we so off-based if our focus is upward 
    and outward?  May it never be!!!  
    
    I don't see Sunday morning worship service as "church" where believers
    go to be fed.  Our number #1 goal is to worship God.  We are not the
    audience, God is.  Our number #2 is to reach the lost for Christ.  
    Love God and love others.  If you're telling me not to be tuned in 
    to a seeker, you haven't read your Bible too well.  Only God can draw a 
    person's heart to Him.  If that person is seeking, it's because God
    moved them.  We have had miraculous stories like that of a cyclist
    who always passed by and was so overwhelmed by feelings of needing to
    go into our church and see what was going on.  He sat in the back in
    his cyclist clothes and shoes on for several Sundays, he talked with our
    Pastor afterwards, then one Sunday (cyclist garb and all) he walked the
    aisle.  Our church presents a strong gospel message to non-believers 
    and we've seen hearts won for Christ.  And you know what...I never get
    tired of hearing the invitation.  I'm always moved by God's love for
    all of us.  The church is made up of believers only, but the buildings 
    where the church meets should not be.  We should welcome all who want 
    to hear the glorious message of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
    
    Love and peace to you all in Christ's name,
    
    Jill
    

           Jill,

           I believe your comments were truly inspired!    

           You spoke the truth... and that's all that matters.  
           Jesus IS all that matters here.
           
           Steve

 Amen

    
    .80
    
    Hi Jill,
    
    there's a good bit of your reply that I find arguable.  And I think
    you've inferred incorrectly from what some folks have said concerning the
    church.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time presently to respond to
    your note.  Maybe later.
    
    jeff

I'm with you, Jill.  I'm getting more and more of a heart toward reaching out
as I grow closer to Christ.  If what I said in this string was part of what
disturbed you, let me clarify.

I hold nothing up as a 'sacred cow' that cannot be touched.  I have no agenda
about keeping Sunday morning (or any service, for that matter) for 'believers
only.'  What disturbs me is that because of the weakness of the committment
in most American churches, we mix two (or more) separate things, try to do
all of them Sunday mornings, and so do none of them well.

In most churches, participation has been pared down to Sunday morning
worship.  And so we try to do EVERYTHING there.  We worship the Lord and
deepen our committment to Him, because we're not willing to take time
elsewhere in the week to do that.  We try to reach walk-ins, because we're
not willing to take the time during the week to bring the gospel to them.  We
try to share our joys and burdens and lift each other up, because we won't
take the time elsewhere in the week to do that, either.

So if God calls to a body and says "I want you to do this (insert something
new here), to draw closer to me in your worship," the church will often
decide not to do it at all, because of arguments about "how will that effect
the people who walk in.  They won't understand, and will leave, and that will
effect our evangelism."

I think that ideally a church should have an effective plan for evangelism,
including services that are tailored to reaching walk-ins.  Sunday morning,
being the most likely time for people to just walk in, should probably be one
of them.

But the church should have SOME other places and times where there is no
sense of compromise for acceptability.  It shouldn't be 'believers only,'
everyone should be welcome, but there should be no sense of compromising what
God is calling people to because newcomers would have difficulty with it.

Paul

 Sunday mornings in our church are geared towards evangelism.  The messages
 are targeted toward the unsaved visitor (or regular attender) should there
 be one or a hundred.  The Sunday school hour is geared towards Christian
 growth and fellowship as are the  Sunday night and Wednesday night services.




 Jim

    
    Well I'm sorry if I read anything into anybody's notes.  I was reading
    quite late and reread it a couple of times in disbelief seeing if I
    was reading it correctly.  Unfortunately, sometimes a media like this
    doesn't pick up all our beliefs behind what we write.  Therefore what
    we think we write isn't always what people read.  I mean no disrespect
    to any of you.
    
    Jeff I guess I'm still a little confused at your objections.  Do you
    have specific incidents where you feel Willow Creek has watered-down
    it's message?  Or do you have a generic feeling that all
    seeker-sensitive churches have watered-down the message?  If so,
    do you really feel that is a fair characterization of all seeker-
    sensitive churches?  You appear to speak in pretty condemning tones
    for such broad sweeping statements.  I'm hoping you'll have time 
    soon to expound on your statements.  I feel like we can't understand
    where we're coming from if I'm working with specifics and you're
    working with generalities.
    
    Peace,
    Jill