Does your church follow these new rules for successful ministry?

[Just John]

I think the author has a ax to grind. But I will say this about first point. Doctrinal preaching has gone by the wayside in America. Doctrine divides so don't emphasize it. You can believe or deny anything and be saved. Paul was right in II Tim 4:2 . So as a general rule you can have a larger crowd by tickling ears

After reading the initial list I questioned what his issue was with that as well but when juxtaposed with list #2 I better understood where he was coming from.  He could have said it better though. Good doctrine is of course essential but if it isn't taught in a relevant manner, i.e. with APPLICATION, then it is not taught best. It is the application that makes it relevant and that is where SOME who refuse to bend to contemporary times are lacking IMO.

Apparently I not that smart  I'm not sure what your point was. Application should always be a part of the "sermon Structure" no matter whether the sermon is doctrinal or topical in its nature.

Oh I'm with you. But I have heard plenty of sermons that were heavy on doctrine and light on application. It's the difference between hearing a sermon on Sunday and learning how to put it in action the rest of the week.

Application, IMHO, separates the pulpit from the classroom.
The other side of the coin, are the preachers that read one verse, out of context and build an entire sermon on it......drives me crazy.

As to the old rules and new rules, I am a stickler for sound doctrine, which some who follow the new rules will overlook.
An example is Steven Furtick who invited TD Jakes to preach at his Code Orange Revival!

I wouldn't invite Jakes either. The man can preach for sure, but he's not trinitarian and he leans WoF, both heresies.

I still wouldn't have him but I understand he recently recanted his views on the trinity.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I think the author has a ax to grind. But I will say this about first point. Doctrinal preaching has gone by the wayside in America. Doctrine divides so don't emphasize it. You can believe or deny anything and be saved. Paul was right in II Tim 4:2 . So as a general rule you can have a larger crowd by tickling ears

After reading the initial list I questioned what his issue was with that as well but when juxtaposed with list #2 I better understood where he was coming from.  He could have said it better though. Good doctrine is of course essential but if it isn't taught in a relevant manner, i.e. with APPLICATION, then it is not taught best. It is the application that makes it relevant and that is where SOME who refuse to bend to contemporary times are lacking IMO.

Apparently I not that smart  I'm not sure what your point was. Application should always be a part of the "sermon Structure" no matter whether the sermon is doctrinal or topical in its nature.

Oh I'm with you. But I have heard plenty of sermons that were heavy on doctrine and light on application. It's the difference between hearing a sermon on Sunday and learning how to put it in action the rest of the week.

Application, IMHO, separates the pulpit from the classroom.
The other side of the coin, are the preachers that read one verse, out of context and build an entire sermon on it......drives me crazy.

As to the old rules and new rules, I am a stickler for sound doctrine, which some who follow the new rules will overlook.
An example is Steven Furtick who invited TD Jakes to preach at his Code Orange Revival!

I wouldn't invite Jakes either. The man can preach for sure, but he's not trinitarian and he leans WoF, both heresies.

I still wouldn't have him but I understand he recently recanted his views on the trinity.

That depends on what the meaning of recant is....there are those who believe he simpy
parsed his words a la Clinton.

 

[Izdaari]

That depends on what the meaning of recant is....there are those who believe he simpy
parsed his words a la Clinton.

Well, maybe. I don't know, I didn't hear it, didn't even read about it. But even if he is an orthodox trinitarian now, there are other parts of his theology I'm not comfortable with. Chiefly too much prosperity gospel. But he can preach; I've enjoyed listening to some of his sermons on TV. He has a way with stories and illustrations that get right to the heart of the matter, and his delivery is excellent, in a Southern black church kind of way.

 

[Timothy]

Perhaps a mix of the old and the new would be okay. Most of the items on the new list our pastor promotes in some way, but a few of the old things he still follows also. But, then again, we are all learning and the best rule is to never underestimate God and how he will work.

 

[Fresh Air]

http://www.churchleaders.com/mobile/pastors/pastor-articles/162032-discover-the-new-rules-for-ministry-today.html?p=1

Or are you old fashioned?

This article goes to the heart of the tension present in ministry today between the contemporary and traditional models of ministry.

What do you think?

I think the churches that are built under the new rules will implode in the next generation, either numerically or doctrinally.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

http://www.churchleaders.com/mobile/pastors/pastor-articles/162032-discover-the-new-rules-for-ministry-today.html?p=1

Or are you old fashioned?

This article goes to the heart of the tension present in ministry today between the contemporary and traditional models of ministry.

What do you think?

I think the churches that are built under the new rules will implode in the next generation, either numerically or doctrinally.

NEW RULES
1. Teach accurately

 

[Fresh Air]

Which of these points would you most disagree with, and why?
I don't see anything inherently wrong with any of them.....

It isn't this particular list of new rules, specifically. It is the contemporary, chase-the-world, change-everything, please-the-people, pragmatic philosophy that lies under it all that I'm talking about.

...I know I'm broadbrushing and that there are many churches who are approaching this conscientiously, but I don't think you will be able to recognize the doctrinal conditions of these churches in the next two generations. You can't make the pursuit of change your underlying philosophy without doing great damage to truth eventually.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Which of these points would you most disagree with, and why?
I don't see anything inherently wrong with any of them.....

It isn't this particular list of new rules, specifically. It is the contemporary, chase-the-world, change-everything, please-the-people, pragmatic philosophy that lies under it all that I'm talking about.

...I know I'm broadbrushing and that there are many churches who are approaching this conscientiously, but I don't think you will be able to recognize the doctrinal conditions of these churches in the next two generations. You can't make the pursuit of change your underlying philosophy without doing great damage to truth eventually.

I tend to agree...somewhat!
The contemporary movement is vast and varied....but at its core, the missionals tend to emphasize community service and acceptance, often at the expense of doctrinal purity. This is a waekness in the movement, but I'm seeing a little concern being raised about this from some of the leaders of the movement.

I think the answer lies somewhere in between the stringency of the IFB movement and the uber grace shown by the contemporary movement.....which is the ground we are seeking in our local church!

 

[Miller]

Which of these points would you most disagree with, and why?
I don't see anything inherently wrong with any of them.....

It isn't this particular list of new rules, specifically. It is the contemporary, chase-the-world, change-everything, please-the-people, pragmatic philosophy that lies under it all that I'm talking about.

...I know I'm broadbrushing and that there are many churches who are approaching this conscientiously, but I don't think you will be able to recognize the doctrinal conditions of these churches in the next two generations. You can't make the pursuit of change your underlying philosophy without doing great damage to truth eventually.

I tend to agree...somewhat!
The contemporary movement is vast and varied....but at its core, the missionals tend to emphasize community service and acceptance, often at the expense of doctrinal purity. This is a waekness in the movement, but I'm seeing a little concern being raised about this from some of the leaders of the movement.

I think the answer lies somewhere in between the stringency of the IFB movement and the uber grace shown by the contemporary movement.....which is the ground we are seeking in our local church!

I have thought the same for sometime.

 

[Timothy]

Which of these points would you most disagree with, and why?
I don't see anything inherently wrong with any of them.....

It isn't this particular list of new rules, specifically. It is the contemporary, chase-the-world, change-everything, please-the-people, pragmatic philosophy that lies under it all that I'm talking about.

...I know I'm broadbrushing and that there are many churches who are approaching this conscientiously, but I don't think you will be able to recognize the doctrinal conditions of these churches in the next two generations. You can't make the pursuit of change your underlying philosophy without doing great damage to truth eventually.

Many years ago I remember a preacher saying that padded pews made soft Christians. Most Churches today have padded pews. I'm not saying he was right, but let's face it, on some level all Churches please the people inside the four walls. If something doesn't work, is outdated or can be improved on shouldn't it be changed? Would you like wooden pews? How many Churches update their sound system, floral arrangements, or soul winning programs? How many men purchase a new suit to match the newer styles? Each year the VBS theme changes.

My pastor introduced me to Pastor James MacDonald (http://www.harvestbiblechapel.org). This man preaches with a modern Bible version and has Praise and Worship music in his Church. ))gasp(( But, here is where things don't change .... HE PREACHES THE WORD!

You can update, change, and rearrange many things - just so the Bible is opened up and preached well.

Funny thing about leaving my IFBx Church. While visiting others with modern music and Bibles I found many still preached a solid sermon. I was always told they preach 20 minute little messages with no doctrine. Not always true. Churches (local assemblies of believers) come in many shapes and sizes ...

I'm glad for the modern bathroom in my Church.

 

[brianb]

You probably noticed there have been less conversions or less people leaving IFB churches over the years. A lot of IFB churches are changing - in some cases it's just a change to become more contemporary. In other cases it's a change to prevent immorality or make those such as pastors accountable for immorality.

 

[Izdaari]

Which of these points would you most disagree with, and why?
I don't see anything inherently wrong with any of them.....

It isn't this particular list of new rules, specifically. It is the contemporary, chase-the-world, change-everything, please-the-people, pragmatic philosophy that lies under it all that I'm talking about.

...I know I'm broadbrushing and that there are many churches who are approaching this conscientiously, but I don't think you will be able to recognize the doctrinal conditions of these churches in the next two generations. You can't make the pursuit of change your underlying philosophy without doing great damage to truth eventually.

I tend to agree...somewhat!
The contemporary movement is vast and varied....but at its core, the missionals tend to emphasize community service and acceptance, often at the expense of doctrinal purity. This is a waekness in the movement, but I'm seeing a little concern being raised about this from some of the leaders of the movement.

I think the answer lies somewhere in between the stringency of the IFB movement and the uber grace shown by the contemporary movement.....which is the ground we are seeking in our local church!

I've found a different flavor of church that I like: mainline but orthodox, missional, liturgical.  8)

 

[Just John]

Which of these points would you most disagree with, and why?
I don't see anything inherently wrong with any of them.....

It isn't this particular list of new rules, specifically. It is the contemporary, chase-the-world, change-everything, please-the-people, pragmatic philosophy that lies under it all that I'm talking about.

...I know I'm broadbrushing and that there are many churches who are approaching this conscientiously, but I don't think you will be able to recognize the doctrinal conditions of these churches in the next two generations. You can't make the pursuit of change your underlying philosophy without doing great damage to truth eventually.

Funny thing about leaving my IFBx Church. While visiting others with modern music and Bibles I found many still preached a solid sermon. I was always told they preach 20 minute little messages with no doctrine. Not always true. Churches (local assemblies of believers) come in many shapes and sizes ...

Of course. Such claims were always a partially uninformed and wholly prejudicial bugaboo used against non-IFBx churches to scare the sheeple from venturing outside the fold.

Consider this statement by someone I nonetheless have respect for:

"I think the churches that are built under the new rules will implode in the next generation, either numerically or doctrinally."

But when you look at said rules there is virtually nothing wrong with them if in balance. More thought and less impulsive reaction would be more in order resulting in greater credibility IMO. It's just so inculcated in the DNA of some X'ers to automatically say "NO".

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Which of these points would you most disagree with, and why?
I don't see anything inherently wrong with any of them.....

It isn't this particular list of new rules, specifically. It is the contemporary, chase-the-world, change-everything, please-the-people, pragmatic philosophy that lies under it all that I'm talking about.

...I know I'm broadbrushing and that there are many churches who are approaching this conscientiously, but I don't think you will be able to recognize the doctrinal conditions of these churches in the next two generations. You can't make the pursuit of change your underlying philosophy without doing great damage to truth eventually.
[/

Funny thing about leaving my IFBx Church. While visiting others with modern music and Bibles I found many still preached a solid sermon. I was always told they preach 20 minute little messages with no doctrine. Not always true. Churches (local assemblies of believers) come in many shapes and sizes ...

Of course. Such claims were always a partially uninformed and wholly prejudicial bugaboo used against non-IFBx churches to scare the sheeple from venturing outside the fold.

Consider this statement by someone I nonetheless have respect for:

"I think the churches that are built under the new rules will implode in the next generation, either numerically or doctrinally."

But when you look at said rules there is virtually nothing wrong with them if in balance. More thought and less impulsive reaction would be more in order resulting in greater credibility IMO. It's just so inculcated in the DNA of some X'ers to automatically say "NO".

I also questioned Tom's reasoning about that statement.

I would say that the IFB movement has or at least is in the process of imploding!
The mainline denominations of the 50s imploded.
IMHO, if the so called contemporary movement continues to stress good works and liscence....it will implode as well!

 

[thethinkingrebel]

http://www.churchleaders.com/mobile/pastors/pastor-articles/162032-discover-the-new-rules-for-ministry-today.html?p=1

Or are you old fashioned?

This article goes to the heart of the tension present in ministry today between the contemporary and traditional models of ministry.

What do you think?

Quite frankly, when you consider those who have come before us, From Billy Graham, John Wenham, D.L Moody, Charles Spurgeon, John Bunyan, Henry Morris, John MacArthur, Samuel Bagster. You view them as representative of the church as it was.

Then you view the church today, with people Like Rick Warren and Rob Bell, who have capitalized on the collapse of church membership (Which owes more to the rise of modern culture than anything that the church has done wrong) and instead made it worldly and self help.


I would much rather stick with traditional church practices, and in fact..I spit on that article, I spit on those rules. To say "Make sermons that are relevant to today", as if our world is any different to the world of 100 years ago. Somehow our needs are someone so much more desperate and important than a person in 1912 or 1812. We are the same but with more tech.

That first rule, diminishes the rest. It gives license for the pastor to preach anything he wants, from any source he wants. Look at the Pastor of life church, he preaches from HIS OWN BOOK! Driscoll has done the same.

We have all these "relevant" pastors who are making a mint from sad lonely and depressed people who are starved of the gospel. They don't go to real churches because their ears are being itched by liberal churches who preach anything that will get people in. They spend more on gymnasiums than they do on evangelism.

Then you have these emergent churches which take any doctrines and spiritual teachings from anywhere, twist it all together and preach self help advice and call it a sermon. They practice Maze walking and Transcendental Meditation, rosaries idol worship.

Itching ears. Oh and that's rule 1, I could easily expand my complaints.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

http://www.churchleaders.com/mobile/pastors/pastor-articles/162032-discover-the-new-rules-for-ministry-today.html?p=1

Or are you old fashioned?

This article goes to the heart of the tension present in ministry today between the contemporary and traditional models of ministry.

What do you think?

Quite frankly, when you consider those who have come before us, From Billy Graham, John Wenham, D.L Moody, Charles Spurgeon, John Bunyan, Henry Morris, John MacArthur, Samuel Bagster. You view them as representative of the church as it was.

Then you view the church today, with people Like Rick Warren and Rob Bell, who have capitalized on the collapse of church membership (Which owes more to the rise of modern culture than anything that the church has done wrong) and instead made it worldly and self help.


I would much rather stick with traditional church practices, and in fact..I spit on that article, I spit on those rules. To say "Make sermons that are relevant to today", as if our world is any different to the world of 100 years ago. Somehow our needs are someone so much more desperate and important than a person in 1912 or 1812. We are the same but with more tech.

That first rule, diminishes the rest. It gives license for the pastor to preach anything he wants, from any source he wants. Look at the Pastor of life church, he preaches from HIS OWN BOOK! Driscoll has done the same.

We have all these "relevant" pastors who are making a mint from sad lonely and depressed people who are starved of the gospel. They don't go to real churches because their ears are being itched by liberal churches who preach anything that will get people in. They spend more on gymnasiums than they do on evangelism.

Then you have these emergent churches which take any doctrines and spiritual teachings from anywhere, twist it all together and preach self help advice and call it a sermon. They practice Maze walking and Transcendental Meditation, rosaries idol worship.

Itching ears. Oh and that's rule 1, I could easily expand my complaints.

Welcome to the forum!

I basically agree that the decline in church attendance today has about as much to bo with the culture as it does with the church....although the church has the task to reach the culture with the Gospel.

I disagree that point one, means tickle ears....although some undoubtedly do!
It's a long way theologically from Bell to Driscoll......go to Mars Hill's website and you'll find that usually, Driscoll preaches verse by verse thru books of the Bible!
I think the relevant comment in point one could refer as much to application as exposition!

 

[Fresh Air]

Consider this statement by someone I nonetheless have respect for:

"I think the churches that are built under the new rules will implode in the next generation, either numerically or doctrinally."

But when you look at said rules there is virtually nothing wrong with them if in balance. More thought and less impulsive reaction would be more in order resulting in greater credibility IMO. It's just so inculcated in the DNA of some X'ers to automatically say "NO".

...so is your position that my position can only be formed as a result of impulse and little thought? I mean, I couldn't possibly have spent hundreds of hours studying such things as music in the church and how it affects worship, service, doctrine, youth, etc. No, of course not. I haven't spent any time reading the quotes of and watching video by men such as Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Marc Driscoll, Rob Bell, Andy Stanley, and Marc Beeson. Nope. Just an impulsive and thoughtless opinion thrown out casually on the internet with nothing to back it up....

I'm not saying that everybody has to agree with my opinion, JJ, but nor do I think it is intellectually honest to simply sweep it away with the words 'more thought' and 'impulsive.' It strongly implies that the only possible conclusion thoughtful people can reach is to embrace the contemporary movement, and that position is both inaccurate and unfair.

 

[Fresh Air]

I would say that the IFB movement has or at least is in the process of imploding!
The mainline denominations of the 50s imploded.

The mainline denominations imploded b/c of theological liberalism. It is only the Words of God that give life to a church, and when they are abandoned and rejected death always results. ...and I would caution you to re-think your opinion that the IFB movement is imploding. Sure, there may be an example or two that you are aware of, but the only study I've seen done in any length (as discussed in Paul Chappell's 'Church Still Works') recently found exactly the opposite. Such IFB church growth and stability is largely flying under the radar since the number of our mega-churches has declined while at the same time the number and size of our more average churches is increasing.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tom Brennan]The mainline denominations imploded b/c of theological liberalism. It is only the Words of God that give life to a church, and when they are abandoned and rejected death always results...[/quote]

The Word of God ≠ the words of God

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Consider this statement by someone I nonetheless have respect for:

"I think the churches that are built under the new rules will implode in the next generation, either numerically or doctrinally."

But when you look at said rules there is virtually nothing wrong with them if in balance. More thought and less impulsive reaction would be more in order resulting in greater credibility IMO. It's just so inculcated in the DNA of some X'ers to automatically say "NO".

...so is your position that my position can only be formed as a result of impulse and little thought? I mean, I couldn't possibly have spent hundreds of hours studying such things as music in the church and how it affects worship, service, doctrine, youth, etc. No, of course not. I haven't spent any time reading the quotes of and watching video by men such as Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Marc Driscoll, Rob Bell, Andy Stanley, and Marc Beeson. Nope. Just an impulsive and thoughtless opinion thrown out casually on the internet with nothing to back it up....

I'm not saying that everybody has to agree with my opinion, JJ, but nor do I think it is intellectually honest to simply sweep it away with the words 'more thought' and 'impulsive.' It strongly implies that the only possible conclusion thoughtful people can reach is to embrace the contemporary movement, and that position is both inaccurate and unfair.

I do not believe your opinions are based on impulse or knee jerk reactions....I believe you have given the situation due diligence and arrived at your conclusion in a logical way....in your world/church view.

I would point out that I/others have also done some research. I have attended 'their' conferences, visited their churches, studied their methods and theology and have logically come to a much different conclusion.....about IFBs and the so called Contemporary movement.

I have known the IFB movement from the inside out.....I was an insider (in one way) in the 70s as I worked on-staff of 2 of the Largest Sunday Schools in America as we liked to say then. I drove Dr Hyles to the airport on a couple of occasions, ate meals with Drs Rice, Grey (Fla), Hutson and Hudson....etc. some of those were good, Godly men, others not so much. The movement was in its heyday then, but has been and is in decline IMHO.

Their theology is shallow, their methods are dated and their standards are often man made and mis placed. It is as if they are in a foreign country and think everyone else is wrong!

The contemporary movement is similar......some of their preachers and leaders are good, sincere, Godly men....others not so much.
In a combination of a reaction to extreme fundamentalism and an attempt to reach the changing culture, they have methods that are non traditional....just as the leaders of the 70s had non traditional methods.....I heard Dr Rice complain that some pastors were trying to reach the man of the 60s with methods from the 40s.

You will find, I believe, that Mark Driscoll is a theologically solid preacher with Bible standards IF you can get past his dress, and what you consider irreverence.
I heard him asked at a conference what to say to a Christian living in adultery.....he responded that was the equivalent of a meat eating vegan.....

Jus saying, don't be so quick to throw the baby out with the bath water...which is also what you're cautioning me about my opinion of the IFB movement...poin taken.


And, I like, appreciate and respect you even when you're wrong....