I'm pretty skeptical about the overall value of a church-rating page. For one thing, do we really want pastors and church leaders to make changes based on popularity and website feedback rather than on what they believe God is telling them in their personal preparations for worship and guidance? Granted, there are some bad seeds out there, but I'm not sure Christians will be doing much good by airing the issues in a public forum where discernment is not a common trait. What is true is that many Christians, rather than trying to reform or improve their churches from within, just move on and try to find something more suitable for them. They should do so with as little grumbling as possible, as shrinking congregations eventually do get the message. Wrongdoing should be exposed, but within the family of believers in a local church because they are the ones empowered to take action.

Thom Hunter
http://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/

It'd be one thing if this was a valuable way to know the about doctrinal issues or abuse. But some of the comments I looked at for a church I'm familiar with (Mosaic in Los Angeles) could hardly be considered helpful at all.

One comment was by the authors themselves which appears to be based on a single visit. The other for their Pasadena satellite church was also by someone who visited there a single time.

Unless they were slaughtering goats in worship of Baal the day you were there, I suspect you can't know too much from a single visit to a church.

This will benefit the church about as much as sports talk radio has improved the quality of play in the NFL.

I'm reminded of the website where students get to rate (or roast) their professors.

They inevitably comment on how "hot" or how "entertaining" or "boring" Dr. FrontoftheClass is. Ah, how delicious to offer shortsighted opinions that elevate personal preference over lasting value.

"In the end, I’m not sure how helpful ChurchRater.com will be for those seeking a church. It may simply provide another forum for people to debate theology, vent their anger, and praise or pummel well known church leaders.

Skye,

If the church sells a marshmallow G-d, people who like a marshmallow G-d will be the customer.

If the church sell a red hot tamale G-d, people who like a red hot tamale G-d will be the customer.

If the church try's to sell a red hot tamale tasting marshmallow G-d they are going to loose both sets of their customer base, but will pick up the people who like a red hot tamale tasting marshmallow G-d.

When the American church try's to sell a specific flavor of G-d to the people they are going to get a customer base...each customer with their own subjective biases, and the church will be rated on the quality of their chef's preparation and presentation...er, I meant, pastor, not chef.

The cure for this is to stop selling a flavor of the week G-d.

G-d is holy, and we should be coming to him on his terms...presenting him as a holy G-d, one not to be trifled with our marketing ploys which are currently similar to dressing him up like a debutante to make him look presentable at his coming of age party.

As for this site, Churchrater, yep, Americans shopping for the right tasting kind of G-d.

Why am I not surprised.

The real question is why Christianity breeds such dissension and meanness. Where is the love of God and neighbor?

Christianity has turned into a part of the American culture, meaning that it's about individualism, not community; about violence, not love, and about money, not God.

I guess the real question is why we think churches would NOT be subject to the same cultural influences that drive everything else in our culture.

Pretty lame.

I would agree with you Skye. Not much edifying about about airing a bunch of dirty laundry. Not only does it not glorify God, it seems to run contrary to Scripture.

As I read this I was reminded that when someone says something bad about a restaurant it turns off about eight who will never go there because of what their friend told them, while a positive review only yields about 4 people going there.

I just visited their website and I give it a thumbs down.

Ironic that I'm telling you about it now?

Maybe.

or maybe, for all its flaws, it could be an outlet for the word to get out on unhealthy churches.

we don't like to admit it, but there are local gatherings that for one reason or another really should close their doors.

i wish we could have an honest discussion about when a church should "die".

But here’s the biggest problem I saw with ChurchRater.com—people are highly opinionated, and often nasty, about churches. -- Skye

Actually that's a problem with people, not with a website, whether it be churchrater.com or some other site nasty people choose to post on.

I would agree with you Skye. Not much edifying about about airing a bunch of dirty laundry. Not only does it not glorify God, it seems to run contrary to Scripture. -- David

David are you suggesting that hiding dirty laundry is a better approach? If so I wonder how that could possibly please or glorify God who, according to the Bible, highly values integrity. I don't see the integrity in hiding what is shameful or embarrassing rather than admitting it and dealing with it appropriately.

If the dirty laundry gets aired then maybe those responsible will be held accountable for it and will get motivated to wash it. Which would mean the problem is being addressed. Isn't God all about addressing problems?

Skye: thank you so much for writing about our website. We're working hard to make sure it's a place for people to dialog rather than vent their anger.

But what appears to be sparking the anger is not the existence of our website, but the fact that many churches are not emulating the example of Jesus all that well.

Anyway... Jim and I plan on being tightly involved and we hope to steer conversation away from vitriol and toward something more positive. It's no secret many churches are, as one person above said, "unhealthy" and that many are dying and--above all--that today's young people see less and less of a need for "The Church." (Not to say they don't need/love God...)

Maybe churchrater can give all people a place to talk about what works and what doesn't--and, when it doesn't work, to talk about what may come next...

I/we hope to hear more from you! Thanks again...
Casper

Isn't church rating like judging? If it is then only Christ has the right to judge a church. Not people who have been there because most people (including some Christians) don't even know the fact that there really is no perfect church. A church is made up of people so if you rate it, you are rating yourself as well, there is only one true church and that is the church of Christ. So what if the church does not do well according to the people's standards, what are they doing about it to make it better? Instead of rating a church I would just pray for it. It does not help people who are looking for a church. It just scares them away. And in that aspect it is unfair because the church was rated based on peoples perceptions. Rather than rating a church why don't you just post what their doctrines, practices and beliefs are by asking the people in that church (and be sure to post only what they say)? This I believe will help all Christians look for a church rather than a rating. Sorry but I think the idea is demonic. It is not scriptural.

Skye- Thanks - like they say "there is no such thing as bad press" If history is any example many of our critics will begin regularly checking CR to see how they are being rated.

This article was essentially a pander to your base. You chose quotes that are not representative of what we normally get - Small churches use us a free advertising and often giving themselves 5 stars - its a hoot

Also - since everyone seems quite concerned with whether or not we are scriptural I would like to know where Jesus commanded us to build church buildings - chapter and verse please.

For those wanting to know Why I Rate Churches you can read this article http://offthemap.com/2009/09/23/why-i-rate-churches-and-you-should-to/

Skye - sincerely - thank you - you've really raised awareness of Church Rater

God Bless You

"Rather than rating a church why don't you just post what their doctrines, practices and beliefs are by asking the people in that church (and be sure to post only what they say)?"

You're not serious?

Reading beliefs and doctrine will tell you what a church is like?

Jesus said whoever DOES (practices) what I say is building on the rock.

He also said not everone who says Lord Lord will enter his Kingdom

I couldn't help but be amused as I read, "But is ChurchRater.com just another slip down the slope of consumer Christianity?" while the ad at the top of this article kept flashing at me, "Attract more visitors to your church with your website." Seems CT is not far behind on the consumer Christianity slope...

Our church took Jim and Casper's advice and put an ad in the local paper soliciting church raters at $25 a visit, with evaluation. We first used ChurchRater, then eventually added our own evaluation tools. Our review can be accessed on the site. (ChurchRater has existed for a while - but the site recently got an overhaul. Great improvements).

The concept of having people, especially church-less folks, evaluate your church is great. I wish there were a way to keep ChurchRater free of the in-fighting and - to put it bluntly - Christian bitching that shows up. But without constant (and expensive) moderation, I don't have a clue how to keep it out of the mix.

That being said, I commend Jim, Casper, and Helen on their courageous site. And we'll continue to refer people to it, offering it as a link from our church website.

I was once part of a bunch of guys who were at the beach, and we were rating the women as they walked by. The criteria being what you could see at the beach. "7" "5" "9!"

I'll never forget when a guy walked up behind us and said, "That '6' who just walked by is my bride. You guys have no way of knowing what a prize she is. To anyone who can see what matters, she's a '25.' "

The rating game wasn't as much fun after that.

I thought of that when I heard of people rating Someone Else's bride.

MOst Protestants churches are already consumer-driven businesses. Just listen to how they speak- about growth and relevancy and numbers, etc. Megachurches and televangelist "churches" are all about entertainment anyway.

Thumbs up. It's time we stop confusing church with God. It's time to realize, folks, people are already talking about your church. Behind your backs. At least when the discussion is out in the light you can be part of the dialog. I suggest to the skeptics that they fly into a strange city and embark on a search for where to worship. It can be extremely difficult, confusing and time consuming. Why not join the dialog and help give these poor folks a head start, at the least. It would be very Christian of you.

@Helen

I think you are mischaracterizing David's comment. I don't believe he is suggesting that dirty laundry should be kept hidden, and I find it hard to believe that you would honestly think he is suggesting that. Dirty laundry must be dealt with, but it must be dealt with in a certain WAY.

You yourself said that integrity includes "admitting it and dealing with it appropriately." There is an appropriate way to deal with the problems of the church, but this website is NOT the APPROPRIATE way to do it. That is what I imagine David means when he says it runs contrary to Scripture (and if I am mistaken, please correct me, David!).

Matthew 18 is clear that sin is dealt with WITHIN the church and at the lowest level possible. And in 1 Corinthians 6, Paul tells them that they have already been defeated by having their dirty laundry aired in public, in that case through lawsuits between brothers in Christ. Merely addressing a problem and holding people accountable is not the goal. Our goal is to do these things in a way that will ultimately bring glory to God and bring about genuine reconciliation. And I just don't see that being done through a public website for the world to see. The way we do things is important, and not doing things in the way of Jesus ultimately does more harm than good.

I looked around the ChurchRater website, because I wanted to make sure that I wasn't commenting about something I know nothing about. I think the intentions are good, but the possibliity for abuse is what concerns many of us. And it is not a small concern.

One final comment. When you study church history, and in fact go as far back as the Old Testament, you realize that God's people have never gotten it completely right. There are some bright spots here and there, but for the most part we're always messing it up! That's certainly true of the church in North America. And yet, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph 5:25)! I hope that all of us may exhibit more and more of that love for His church, that we may nourish it and cherish it (v. 29) and sacrifice our lives for it in all its weaknesses and faults. THAT is the way we change the church for the better!

I became aware of Church Rater after reading Jim and Matt's book. It's not new. Another similar project exists at the website Ship of Fools. It's always good to see ourselves as others see us.

The problem in the church today is not that we need more churches that are seeker-friendly, but that we need to do something about the ones that are seeker-hostile.

@ fernando

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to Helen- I'll let her speak for herself.

However I dont get the angle you are taking in your characterization of Church Rater as a place where people air their dirty laundry or speak negatively of others in public.

If you actually read the majority of ratings
you would discover that most people are rating their own churches and usually quite highly.

The FACTS are that there are very few negative remarks. you actually have to go searching for them. And we talk with people who do that and ask them to remove names.

Christians have to get use to the fact that if they want to use PR to attract people to church -ie Newspaper ADs, Websites, Church Signs they are basically saying they are in business.Once that happens people have a right to treat them the way they would any business (which is in fact what Christians actually do anyway - which explains why most church growth is actually transfer growth)

I didnt make these rules. The 20th Century Evangelical church did. I would be fine if the church put Church Rater out of business by getting out of business themselves.

Until then I would suggest that you rethink how you use scripture to correct us since we can reverse the process as well by holding you accountable to the same book.

For example can you give me chapter and verse where Jesus told us to construct church buildings and raise millions of dollars for lights and cameras and pews?

No one seesm at all bothered by the fact that this practice has no basis in the gospels at all. I dont care but I do care about the hypocrisy I hear in some of these comments. Where is your spiritual integrity?

To check your Website ranking for a particular keyword go to the search engine whose position you want to check, and enter your keyword. You then need to go through the results and try to locate your Website URL in the results.

Hi,
To rate the church is not for everyone.No one has such power to rate the church.I don't know why one have to rate the church.

Another way where we are making our taste the litmus test for choosing a church.

"Christians have to get use to the fact that if they want to use PR to attract people to church -ie Newspaper ADs, Websites, Church Signs they are basically saying they are in business. Once that happens people have a right to treat them the way they would any business

Well done, Mr. Henderson, for pointing out the primary problem of the American Church...a pity it had no affect on your endeavor.

(which is in fact what Christians actually do anyway - which explains why most church growth is actually transfer growth)"

And as my mother, and grand-mother always told me, "Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it the right thing to do."

Mr. sheerahkahn

I couldnt agree more - hope you an get that thru to the church...

Thanks, Jim and Matt, for stepping into this conversation. That's what I love about this blog--great posts, spirited exchanges, and contributors who aren't defensive. Wow. That's a gift.

It's a privilege to participate.

"As a spiritual leader he had achieved amazing popularity....But in spite of his God-given gifts and super-effective ministry, the young pastor had a secret life unknown to any of his church members...The young pastor had committed adultery with a married woman in the church and she had become pregnant with his child. The congregation castigated the young woman as a promiscuous product of society but continued to hold their young minister in high esteem because the young woman refused to reveal the identity of the father of her child....His dark secret caused him to become physically ill...eventually resulted in a breakdown, public humiliation, and an early death...Rev. Arthur Dimmesdale...was the tortured Puritan pastor in Nathaniel Hawthorne's classic work 'The Scarlet Letter'..." - G.L. Mc Intosh & S.D. Rima, Sr., "Overcoming the Dark Side of Leadership"

If it can forestall another Jim Bakker or a Jimmy Swaggart disgrace (that often go undetected and unchallenged until it is too late) then ChurchRater.com will be worth its salt.

One of the greatest contributing factors to the recent moral failure of numerous spiritual leaders has been their unwillingness to submit themselves to ongoing accountable relationships, stressed Dr. John Maxwell, author of Leadership books including "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership."

I think I remember Jesus airing quite a bit of dirty laundry on the religious establishment of His day. I think all saints since the beginning of church have read quite a bit of dirty laundry on the the church in Corinth, Galatia, etc. I don't remember the OT prophets ignoring dirty laundry on Israel. This is all dirty laundry airing inspired by God for ever and ever. Not one jot or tittle of it will pass away.

My only concern is believers with negative experiences pinning the blame on individual personalities they conflicted with, and miss the deep seated fundamental corruption of the institutional system that is the foundation under most personality problems. They run off to another church, think the problem is solved, but the bigger problems are the same. They missed the real issues. They are just refining their consumerism, not throwing it off so they can run the race marked out for them.

"If it can forestall another Jim Bakker or a Jimmy Swaggart disgrace (that often go undetected and unchallenged until it is too late) then ChurchRater.com will be worth its salt."

I see your point, and I understand your position having experienced Pastoral spiritual malfesance myself...I just think there has to be a better way than...this.

The blog is interesting. In addition to the blog All Ic an say is that, while harboring hate is a sin in itself, if you have committed your life to Christ, accepted Him as your savior, then you have recieved His gift of forgiveness. God is the final judge, not the church, which is made up of flawed humans. Although, I think if you search, you will find a church full of good people who are trying to live like Jesus. And even if you don't, remember there are hypocrites everywhere, in every religion, and outside of religion

I started to write a response to this article first based on the "theory" of the website in question, then realized I was just being drawn into the fray. I also realized I was passing judgment on something as an idea vs. a reality, so I rolled over to check it out...meh. What a complete waste of time.

I think the bottom line is that "ChurchRater" is just a way to further catapult the careers of Matt and Casper or whoever...I mean, what do they care? They are the winners.

I especially liked how at the end of the article Skye mentions that Matt and Casper are branching out into other faiths. Perfect. Doesn't matter anyway, right? Just what each person's opinions are of a particular gathering of people. Soon we can all decide what is best for us, and gather together with all our favorite wisdom and wishes are met.

Our stink must be filling the nostrils of our Lord. God help us!

Many will suggest, perhaps correctly, that the Pope’s intentions here are noble. Rather than hoping to stoke the flames of anti-Semitism at a time when rates are already skyrocketing, he is seeking unity among Catholics. That may be, but it does little good for the Church to welcome back a movement that is fundamentally opposed to key points of theology, and does nothing but create tension with the Jewish community, who the Catholic church was finally starting to improve relations with after centuries of complicity in unspeakable crimes against them.

It's Sunday morning. Where are all the men? Golfing? Playing softball? Watching the tube? Mowing the lawn? Sleeping? One place you won't find them is in church. Less than 40 percent of adults in most churches are men, and 20 to 25 percent of married churchgoing women attend without their husbands. And why are the men who do go to church so bored? Why won't they let God change their hearts?

It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself in this manner," said Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, whom the pope transferred to Rome in 2008 after Burke's often-stormy tenure as archbishop of St. Louis. Neither Holy Communion nor funeral rites should be administered to such politicians," Burke said. "To deny these is not a judgment of the soul, but a recognition of the scandal and its effe.

I recently attended a church which I liked for the most part, but the pleasure of the experience was diminished by a couple of things which the pastors said from the pulpit, in relation to their attitudes towards hurting and/or depressed people. Phrases like "pity party" and "get over it" and "man up" suggested to me that these were not men with whom I'd be welcome to share my burdens.

When I talked with the senior pastor about the issue, he said, "If you don't like the way we do things here, start your own church." And here I thought that it was Christ’s church, not the pastor’s own personal possession! What an ungodly, unloving, egocentric attitude. It wasn’t my first encounter with such a pastor, either. And then people wonder why there are "church hoppers" and why folks want a means of saving themselves a lot of grief by checking out sites, such as ChurchRater.com, which allow people to learn what other people have to say about various churches before making commitments to those churches.

People who have nothing to hide need not fear public exposure of their practices, attitudes, etc. As for the possibility that such sites can be abused in order to libel or slander pastors or their churches, that’s obviously a danger, but the same thing could be said of any attempt to hold public leaders of any type accountable for their actions. The fact that something can be abused doesn’t mean that the thing itself is bad. If that were the case, we’d have no pastors and no churches either.

You should be aware that there is no “standard” blog approach and that what really counts is how effective you are at communicating to your selected audiences the messages or news you want to get across. From personal diary to magazine-style there are a lot of approaches that can be effectively used to make blog-software become a powerful PR, marketing, or online publishing tool.

I recently attended a church for a while that seemed like Rock n Roll Baptist to me. Nothing seemed more important to the pastor than the guitar, drums, flute, piano, and singers being perfect. I walked in early one morning to find the pastor pleading with God to forgive them for being weak.

The church seemed to have no outreach. Not even anyone offering to take someone to Sunday School that was held in a different building.

I did not feel comfortable approaching the pastor at all. If something like church rater could have an impact on such pastors who focus more on style than content, I think I would tend to favor it.