Reason for Church Services

[Esaias]

We are told to "Go", to take the gospel OUT THERE into the world. The church isn't "for" believers, it IS the believers.

Part of our problem has been the idea that our gatherings are for evangelism. Thus the church becomes devoted to "attraction" of people instead of proclamation of the gospel. And thus we turn the church into a franchise trying to sell a better Jesus than the other McChurches in town. Instead of witnessing we satisfy ourselves with "inviting people to church". We focus on flowers in the foyer and pads on the pews and dressing up the building to appeal to folks. We design our music NOT to please our holy God but to allure people and "move" people. We preach less of God's Truth and more of our pop psychology to make folks feel good about coming to OUR precious little corner of the religious market. Why? So we can get the most people to come, and get 'em coming back, and build our great big fancy kingdom, and so we can feel good about ourselves even though we hardly ever speak to our neighbors (let alone witness to them).

I'm all for evangelistic meetings. But "build it and they will come" is a line from Hollywood, not holy Scripture. When our worship is designed to entice the lost into loving our God (and us ...) it will sooner or later get off track and perveted into marketing gimmicks.

As the TEMPLE of God our purpose is service to God. We should be more outward directed in our evangelism. Sinners see us for what we've become: Jesus salesmen peddlin our particular brand of religion... no different than anyone else.

That preacher you mentioned, he's got it all wrong though, think that's obvious.

But regardless, what did they do in scripture? Does our model match theirs? If not, why not?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

Interesting thought,
Unfortunately it would be unethical. I would of loved to have had men like G.T. Haywood, A. Glass, J.E. Rhode J. Duke, D. Grey, A.L. Lyle, V. Shoemake, C.P. Kilgore, O. Vouga, O. Hughes, Verbal Bean, C. Shew, M. Golder, B. Yandris, R.C. Cavanes, C. Ballestero, L. Reynolds, H. Shearer, M. Baughman, S.L. Wise, F. Muncey, I.H. Terry, I. Baxter Sr., V.A. Guidroz, M. Burr, J. Davis, H. Davis, M.D. Treece, J. Meade, R. Evans, A.O. Holmes, L.E. Westberg, C.J. Haney, T.W. Barnes, V. Morton, J.T. Bass, F. Ewart, R.E. Johnson, J. Alvear Sr., E.L. Holly, T. Alexander, E.L. Freeman, B. Garrett, C.H. Webb, M. Hicks, O.F. Fauss, and A.D. Urshan to feel like they could have just showed up at the 'ol Perez house for some Beans, Cornbread and piano singing time around the fireplace. (Boy wouldn't that be a line-up to hear at conference!)

Ethics, for better or for worse, till death due us part.

Instead I'll just read their books listen to them preach and wait till I get to heaven to ask all the questions I've got, after the first million years of talking to Jesus I might get around to it.

Wont that be a time,
J.A. Perez

I dont get it. What do you mean by it would be unethical? What would be?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We are told to "Go", to take the gospel OUT THERE into the world. The church isn't "for" believers, it IS the believers.

Yes, the church is the body of Christ, I'm talking more about the services.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Part of our problem has been the idea that our gatherings are for evangelism. Thus the church becomes devoted to "attraction" of people instead of proclamation of the gospel. And thus we turn the church into a franchise trying to sell a better Jesus than the other McChurches in town. Instead of witnessing we satisfy ourselves with "inviting people to church". We focus on flowers in the foyer and pads on the pews and dressing up the building to appeal to folks. We design our music NOT to please our holy God but to allure people and "move" people. We preach less of God's Truth and more of our pop psychology to make folks feel good about coming to OUR precious little corner of the religious market. Why? So we can get the most people to come, and get 'em coming back, and build our great big fancy kingdom, and so we can feel good about ourselves even though we hardly ever speak to our neighbors (let alone witness to them).

I'm all for evangelistic meetings. But "build it and they will come" is a line from Hollywood, not holy Scripture. When our worship is designed to entice the lost into loving our God (and us ...) it will sooner or later get off track and perveted into marketing gimmicks.

I agree we shouldn't get caught up in trying to out-church other churches. Again, thinking back on growing up, there was just the Gospel preached and opportunity for sinners to receive salvation. No gimmicks or programs. This was well before video projectors and special stage lighting.

Originally Posted by Esaias

As the TEMPLE of God our purpose is service to God. We should be more outward directed in our evangelism. Sinners see us for what we've become: Jesus salesmen peddlin our particular brand of religion... no different than anyone else.

That preacher you mentioned, he's got it all wrong though, think that's obvious.

But regardless, what did they do in scripture? Does our model match theirs? If not, why not?

It is important to be reaching out daily in personal evangelism. But our services should also allow for the visitors and sinners who come to a service looking for salvation specifically because it's a church.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

Yes, the church is the body of Christ, I'm talking more about the services.


I agree we shouldn't get caught up in trying to out-church other churches. Again, thinking back on growing up, there was just the Gospel preached and opportunity for sinners to receive salvation. No gimmicks or programs. This was well before video projectors and special stage lighting.


It is important to be reaching out daily in personal evangelism. But our services should also allow for the visitors and sinners who come to a service looking for salvation specifically because it's a church.

For an institutional church setting, yes services need to make an effort to reach visitors, absolutely.

I don't think it really matters much these days tho. We are infected as a movement with a sales-marketing-find the latest gimmick-outdo the competition mindset. Probably because we don't have enough Holy Ghost in our meetings to begin with so we gotta "make up the difference"...

You know, all this dissatisfaction has got to lead somewhere... revival, hopefully...

[KeptByTheWord]

I didn't mention the unbeliever in my earlier post, but it wasn't intentional. I certainly believe that a gathering of believers should most often include unbelievers who are hungry and searching for truth. Like the verse Prax quoted - there has to be a place for unbelievers to come to be persuaded of the glorious gospel of the Lord.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I dont get it. What do you mean by it would be unethical? What would be?

I wondered the same thing when I read this post. Perhaps Bro. J. you can better explain why it would be unethical for any of the men you mentioned to gather in your home for a meeting?

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I wondered the same thing when I read this post. Perhaps Bro. J. you can better explain why it would be unethical for any of the men you mentioned to gather in your home for a meeting?

Mike, Word,
Some people (for lack of a better word lay-saint) are not mature enough in the Lord to know that there are differences in beliefs even among Good men and women. And they will take a little thing that someone else believes or says and divide, abstain, or not fellowship, instead of excepting our minor differences for the sake of unity. For instance I take my shoes off in my in-laws house because of their cultural tradition, in my house I wear shoes, but I better not bring muddy boots in and leave tracks all over the tiles. The reasoning is I respect my in-laws convictions, and I expect them to do the same at my house. However neither of us will allow the extreme of muddy boots in the house. The same is for the traditions of the various elders we all clan around. A newer saint might benefit by the influence of an elder like Haywood or Bean but they might not understand the whys and why not's of their own local assembly they belong, and not be able to Draw the lines in Perfect(Pleasant) Places. I've even seen this in some seasoned saints as well. Not that I'm mature but God has dealt with me on these things. The example above can be used in the place of Pre- or Post Trib rapture like my great, great uncle M. Baughman taught, and many Good men loved to have him in their pulpits. But they both would never except Preterism. These are the things why, not because it might not be good its because of the lack of stability and understanding in us.
Thus ethics is a protection we use to prevent confusion and provide safety.

Hope that was acceptable,
J.A. Perez

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

Mike, Word,
Some people (for lack of a better word lay-saint) are not mature enough in the Lord to know that there are differences in beliefs even among Good men and women. And they will take a little thing that someone else believes or says and divide, abstain, or not fellowship, instead of excepting our minor differences for the sake of unity. For instance I take my shoes off in my in-laws house because of their cultural tradition, in my house I wear shoes, but I better not bring muddy boots in and leave tracks all over the tiles. The reasoning is I respect my in-laws convictions, and I expect them to do the same at my house. However neither of us will allow the extreme of muddy boots in the house. The same is for the traditions of the various elders we all clan around. A newer saint might benefit by the influence of an elder like Haywood or Bean but they might not understand the whys and why not's of their own local assembly they belong, and not be able to Draw the lines in Perfect(Pleasant) Places. I've even seen this in some seasoned saints as well. Not that I'm mature but God has dealt with me on these things. The example above can be used in the place of Pre- or Post Trib rapture like my great, great uncle M. Baughman taught, and many Good men loved to have him in their pulpits. But they both would never except Preterism. These are the things why, not because it might not be good its because of the lack of stability and understanding in us.
Thus ethics is a protection we use to prevent confusion and provide safety.

Hope that was acceptable,
J.A. Perez

P.S.
This is the reason this forum is so dangerous. Though many in here are honest and are just trying to help. Our varried opinions can cause confusion in an assembly. By a person who hears a teaching differently may cause that unstable or unlearned person to attend a service and start to look at their pastor wrong or start question structure in the arrangement in government, or the particular stand that man is making about " a bean Patch." To us it may be a poiness bean patch but for you it may have big problems with people in your church that you don't know about. That your pastor has had to deal with you about or about others. Landmarks aren't always boarders for us as limits they are so set to mark the line the coyotes can't cross.
With questions about ethics preachers on this furum know there limits. But that's how the devil works to see discord amongst brethren. Because we don't know who each other really are, just a picture with a word or name.
And let me tell you I can tell if my kids been hanging around the wrong kids, it shows up sometimes in their additude or speech. "Evil communication corrupts good manners."

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What about unbelievers?

1Co 14:22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.
1Co 14:23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

No comment? If these were house churches...how did unbelievers know about these meetings and walk in?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No comment? If these were house churches...how did unbelievers know about these meetings and walk in?

Perhaps they were invited.