Well done critique. There is much to be commended in services such as the one that you attended and there is no doubt much good that is happening. My biggest concern about mega-churches is whether they will prove to be sustainable over the long haul, both economically and in terms of the very talented staff that it takes to pull these kind of weekly events off. We’ll see.

On a broader note one of my nagging complaints (one you mentioned) in many evangelical churches is the way that communion is done. It is often very impersonal, lacking reverence, non-participative; eat, drink, pass your cups to the inside aisles, next item on the agenda please. When did we start using those silly plastic cups and crumbled crackers??? Visited an emergent church a while back and they did communion in a very creative yet traditional and meaningful way. Would love to see more churches do better at this most importance ordinance.

Shalom
dmcd

I think you are right that churches should not have to choose between edification or evangelism. The assumption that I find in your question leads me to believe that a clear presentation of the gospel is evangelism, while edification is something else. I would rather say that we are both evangelized and edified by the gospel itself. So that the gospel as it permeates the songs, Scriptures, sermons, etc. winds up edifying the saints and doing the work of calling to the unbeliever.

I think we are both talking around the very same idea, only I’d like to clarify that the gospel does the work of edification and evangelization at the same time. I’m not saying we have to completely tailor the services for one side or the other.

But the point I MEANT to make, was that if a congregation sees the worship service as primarily for the edification and preparation of the believer, is that not a valid choice? In that case, a newcomer might not encounter the salvation message on any given Sunday because the congregation is dining on meat, not milk.

In other words, I am questioning what sounds to me like a basic assumption on your part, that the Sunday (or whenever) worship service should be primarily, or at least significantly, a proselytizing tool rather than primarily for the edification and preparation of the body to serve. It is that assumption that troubles me, as I feel that a properly-trained and growing congregation will do its most effective witness/recruitment/whatever in its life outside the bounds of the sanctuary.

I’m not criticizing those churches who DO choose to have their services focus on the evangelistic side, as long as they also provide significant opportunities for deeper study and teaching as well. I’m merely pointing out that the choice to focus on one or the other can (actually, SHOULD) be a deliberate choice, and either option can be chosen out of a sincere commitment to making disciples.

Am I more clear this time?

I am not critiquing either church for the lack of altar call or evangelistic thrust. (One of the things that bugs me about American evangelicalism is the equating of altar call with evangelism, as if you haven’t done evangelism without an altar call, or that the mere presence of an altar call is equal to evangelism. Both those assumptions are wrong.)

I suppose I should have been more clear in my critique. As an outsider to both these churches, I was approaching the evangelism issue with this question. If I as an average Joe have come to this worship service, what would I know about God and Jesus, the cross, the gospel, and what God expects of me? Am I to repent? How do I follow Jesus? Who would I talk to about getting more info, etc.?

I was not intending to critique the churches regarding altar calls (I don’t think I even mentioned them), but regarding the lost stranger in their midst. Was the gospel presented clearly enough that the lost person would know what God is calling them to do? Of course, the worship service on Sunday is for the faithful (and ultimately it is God serving us… I understand all that). My question relates more to the presence of the gospel and how it permeates our services.

I hope that clarifies my thoughts somewhat…

But I know plenty of other churches that, while as evangelical in their mindset as these, still look upon the Sunday worship service as primarily a time for worshipping God and teaching the flock. This is a conscious choice, just as much as having an invitation and/or evangelistic message is a choice. I’m not sure it is fair to criticize (or compliment) a church for the evangelistic content (or lack thereof) in the worship service, as they very well may be highly evangelistic in other contexts such as their service projects, the ways they mobilize their members to reach out, etc.

I have seen enough of your other posts to realize (I think) that you see the gospel in much broader terms than simply getting people to intellectually assent to the proposition of Jesus’ saving work on the cross & subsequent resurrection. It would seem to me that the notion of “preach Christ. . .when necessary, use words” would suggest that one has to dig a lot deeper into the life of a church in order to determine if they are or are not a force for the kingdom.

I may be over-analyzing your critique, but to me it seems in some ways to repudiate the more kingdom-living style of outreach and church life. I doubt that was your intention. . .

Peace!