What if our Appeal is Appalling?

[Hoovie]

I have given some thought to our presentation of Christianity and how we project the gospel to the lost by how we "do church".

Are we really reaching across the spectrum of our society? Or is it simply a segment that find our special niche attractive?

It seems the primary attraction of Pentecostalism has often been the exuberant congregants who enthusiastically recite stories of their radical transformation. Their rejection of what was perceived a stoic Christian religion often preceded their conversion and embrace of Pentecostalism. They eagerly embrace the idea that quieter churches and those who worship liturgically are in fact "dead churches". They are attracted to the total abandon shockamoo style of worship and seem quick to denigrate those who see less virtue in the same.

Having a jam session and headbangin worship may be kewl to some, but to most? Are we appalling to more than we are appealing to?

My question is, "What if one is not appealed to the way church is done"?

What if one really does not find total abandon attractive?

What if one does not see the virtue of a solemn liturgical service?

Is there outreach to those who aren't already wired like us?

Does it matter? Is it God Himself who sets the tone/style or do we have an actual responsibility to design our services and worship experience?

Is it our duty to find what is most attractive and acceptable in the society we live in?

Some have broadened their scope by have various services with different styles in each.

How far should the church go the be appealing to all peoples?

Are we appalling to more than we are appealing to?

[Hoovie]

I would submit that today the traditional Pentecostal Style is appealing to some, but appalling to many.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I would submit that today the traditional Pentecostal Style is appealing to some, but appalling to many.

Brother, people like services that use little to no Bible, and no one gets too excited. Joel Olsteen has his entertainment down to a science, and works through every inch of his program. If it was supposed to be so user friendly then Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul wouldn't of told us to repent. Now silliness and outright outrageous behavior is another story. It runs from pole to pole.

From traditional Pentecostal (some not all) to mainstream Charismatic (some not all). Religion is a funny thing, it attracts all kinds and some people who come really don't want anything more but to put on a show for one and all.

In Jesus' name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother, people like services that use little to no Bible, and no one gets too excited. Joel Olsteen has his entertainment down to a science, and works through every inch of his program. If it was supposed to be so user friendly then Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul wouldn't of told us to repent. Now silliness and outright outrageous behavior is another story. It runs from pole to pole.

I'm watching some of these The Rock Church broadcasts and they have it down to a science as well.......

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I would submit that today the traditional Pentecostal Style is appealing to some, but appalling to many.

And it's not just the pentecostal genre, Hoovie. It's most all Americanized cultured Christianity. It's the tone as much as the style.

Here's something Erwin McManus said:

"What is really needed in the church today is not so much a change in music, although that may need to change.....not so much a change in the decor, although that may need to change. It's not so much a change in how we look, and we may very well need to change how we look.

But the real change that's needed within the church is a change from the posture of spiritual arrogance to one of spiritual humility.....a change from "The church is not here for us, the church is here for the world."

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by notofworks

And it's not just the pentecostal genre, Hoovie. It's most all Americanized cultured Christianity. It's the tone as much as the style.

Here's something Erwin McManus said:

"What is really needed in the church today is not so much a change in music, although that may need to change.....not so much a change in the decor, although that may need to change. It's not so much a change in how we look, and we may very well need to change how we look.

But the real change that's needed within the church is a change from the posture of spiritual arrogance to one of spiritual humility.....a change from "The church is not here for us, the church is here for the world."

For Pentecostals, maybe all this mostly goes back to the early days in pentecostal history. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but the pentecsotal movement and the modern falling of the Holy Ghost began as a kind of extra blessing on people that already believed they were saved. This experience was then "marketed" to other christians as a super special blessing they could have. It wasn't marketed to the lost because it was thought of as something extra for christians. So maybe all this being centered on "christians" stems from the fact that the pentecostal movement all began as a movement for christans here and not a movement for sinners...

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I would submit that today the traditional Pentecostal Style is appealing to some, but appalling to many.

So should we change our "style" to appeal to many?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Cindy

So should we change our "style" to appeal to many?

I think it's a valid question. Obviously we cannot change anything of substance - the doctrine of Christ, and the message of the cross etc.

But if we by tradition and style are standing in the way some hearing or receiving the gospel, we should do anything we can to remedy it and reach a broader audience.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I think it's a valid question. Obviously we cannot change anything of substance - the doctrine of Christ, and the message of the cross etc.

But if we by tradition and style are standing in the way some hearing or receiving the gospel, we should do anything we can to remedy it and reach a broader audience.

I find I like the new "style" in the church I attend. And the reaching out to our community in diverse ways.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Cindy

So should we change our "style" to appeal to many?

Yes, yes, yes!!!!


Read the story of J. Hudson Taylor and his first year failure in reaching the Chinese and the next 50 years in which he reached 175,000 and the millions in the underground church today. He said, "Let us in everything unsinful become like the Chinese."