Greeting fellow Ur-ites! I'm thinking out loud here, so I could be wrong...it wouldn't be the first time!

I deeply respect Dr. Swindoll, but believe the sweeping statement linking crowds to insecurity to be a bit unfair. Would Dr. Swindoll not question the effectiveness of his or any of his staff's ministries if attendance numbers declined? Would he not celebrate the growth of a ministry? Would it be fair to suggest that either response was born from insecurity?

Grace to all!

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with Dr. Swindoll. I find much resonance with his critique of church as spectacle and wariness towards just following a crowd. I've been struck in reading Eugene Peterson's memoir, how he speaks of crowds as a peculiar temptation to pastors, and as a means of offering a false transcendance.

At the same time, I'd question a bit of what it means for the church to look different. There is no architecture that defines church. We have sacred symbols and peculiar practices and I think we do a great disservice to set those totally aside, but at the same time, to me, looking like a church means being a community devoted to God and devoted to knowing and being known as a means of growing and spurring each other on toward mission.

I don't think he ever mentioned the crowds being the problem, but the methods that some have resorted to in order to attract crowds.

Swindoll seems to be making an amateurish take at an idea of sacred space in the evangelical church. This is quite odd in that the very idea of sacred space is rooted in one's view of the Lord's Supper. Those with a view leaning towards transubstantiation...or even just the Lutheran's "In, With, and Under" have developed a theology of sacred space in order to remain consistent in practice.

Coming from a Pastor in a more "baptistic" background, the very suggestion of something being sacred as a physical space is fascinating. More and more evangelicals have been drawn to a theology of space in worship and it will be interesting to see how our theology of space develops independent from the historical structures rooted in the practice of the Lord's Supper.

Well Chuck is really starting to show his age. His article is out of touch with todays generation. We live in a world of smartphones, facebook and twitter. The medium in which we communicate the gospel needs to change to reach todays generation. The traditional baptist church just is not going to cut it anymore. This generation is going to come for the technology and stay for the message.

One one hand I'm thinking, "yeah, he's right" but on the other I'm thinking "It can be done...just not losing sight of the purpose."
In my case, our church music/band was decent, and fufilled the job of leading worship.
Then the worship leader had a friend...this friend will say is a professional musician...for television.
The show he was on finally went off air, and he decided he was done with tv, so he comes to our church, and settles in.
He's a fantastic musician, and on top of that, he's a professional musician.
Time goes by, and voila, the church band is soon performing at a professional level.

I'm quite serious about this...imagine if you will if David Letterman's music director, Paul Schaeffer took over your church's music, and brought it the level where they could go on television/concert and pound out a performance that would wow you to your feet.

But therein lies the problem...we have danced the line of concert/worship for so long.../grim-face...I'm not sure if we crossed over or not.
The music is professional grade music now, the worship music is crisp, clear, and not a chirp anywhere in the instruments, or voices.

Like I said...I just don't know if we have crossed the Rubicon or not...makes me think though that perhaps...perhaps there is something there I am missing, and that is why I'm kind of leaning towards Mr. Swindoll's argument...only because of my self-doubt.

I'm wondering what church era or time period or culture Chuck Swindoll has in mind when he says "we should look like a church"? What does a church look like to him?

-"But if we're here to offer something the world can't provide, why would I want to copy the world?"-

What are we offering that the world can't provide? The world has meditation, yoga, psychology, labyrinths, great music, divorce, groups that care for the poor, Bono, and no sexual boundaries. Seems that the church is pretty much on the same plane so what's the point of the church?

"What are we offering that the world can't provide? The world has meditation, yoga, psychology, labyrinths, great music, divorce, groups that care for the poor, Bono, and no sexual boundaries. Seems that the church is pretty much on the same plane so what's the point of the church?"

Ouch!

I knew a pastor how considered himself an introvert, and that God made him that way. I may be slow, but at first I didn't think much of it. As time went on it became increasingly clear that the senior pastor needs to be at least a little outgoing.

I've come to the conclusion that being an introvert and feeling content to stay there is giving into sin. After all what is the mantra of an introvert? "I'm afraid I will look like a fool." Let me go a little interlinear on this: I (self focus) am afraid (spirit of fear) I (self focus, again) will look (appearances, vanity) like a fool (pride).

This pastor was all about putting on a good show for the morning worship service. And the building had to be 'comfortable' for the pastor's chosen niche of people he could reach. All the rest of us were really of no concern. The elderly, the 'normal', and the old fashioned were of no consequence and were really in the way of "progress".

So, I fully understand where Chuck is coming from. Insecure pastors become black holes needing a crowd around them to contently stroke there weak egos but giving very little back.

We need to find our security in the Lord not the praise of men, but too few actually know how to do that.

Robert,
Your senior pastor may be quiet because he feels that listening is a better part of pastoring that lecturing.
Take him out to lunch with specific question in mind about something you are interested in...I'm willing to bet you will discover a very deep person in there, that, or...confirmation of your assumption.

"But why is getting a crowd our focus?"

Answer: $

I'm so glad God apparently sanctified a particular time period's recent understanding of religious architecture and information delivery.

It is really a laugh to hear Swindoll complain about this when everything he mentions is merely a natural flow from the one-way communication, platform driven, expert performance oriented church gathering he champions. He is a master of that system of gathering for his generation. He added in some new toys (technology) in his generation.

Lead off question: "Why are business and entertainment values dominant in the church?"

Because the institutionalize system of church IS a corporation/business complete with top - down hierarchy for control, and it's main gathering is a platform driven performance in it's reality. When you hire experts to perform in special cathedrals consuming 86% of the money collected (normal church budget per L.J.) you will have a business and a show. The relationships will now be business and consumer oriented - with the grace of God some exceptions will occur. If those in this form of church were willing to examine "the right to be paid" and "refusing the right to be paid" as both are taught by Paul they would discover that the greater blessing, freedom, and reward in ministry comes from refusing the rights. Now you don't have a business or a show. Now you have body /family oriented relationships. Everything changes. Corporation and crowd oriented gatherings are stripped away. Not one thing is left the same except our human flesh. Now the saints come prepared to offer 100% mutual, one another, two-way communication, not to spectate and "be blessed". "Let us consider how we can spur one another on to love and good works, not giving up the habit of meeting as some is..."

The last time I heard Swindoll speak on "refusing the right to be paid" he just laughed and said "I'm sure glad Paul only meant that for himself and not me". What shabby hermeneutic that is! Chuck - "Preach the Word, in season and out..." does not mean lecture the Word, no participation, no questions, no objections, not one word of any personal expression from the rest of the household of faith, and never entrust the preaching to any man who works in the market place. Maybe I've missed some clear scripture on this.

It's far more than insecurity. It's also:

foolishness - ignoring and excusing away God's revelation on reproductive shepherding rather than perpetual dependency

pride - loving the titles, degreed status, spiritual pedestal, and perpetual dependency rather than humble reproductive leadership in mutuality (brotherliness).

greed / laziness- enjoying the handout with no need to function in the marketplace. Paul set the example on this. They know it but twist the Word to justify tradition.

With the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit this can all be fixed.

The Leadership article starts out with, "A survey in 2009 asked pastors to identify the most influential living preacher. Chuck Swindoll came in second only to Billy Graham."

Reading the responses at this blog I see a real disconnect with whatever survey Leadership consulted. Very interesting.

It gets really exhausting to hear people associate the worst of motives to pastors. Greed, insecurity and much worse.

Notice that Swindoll does criticize a particular style of architecture, but the motive behind a certain approach to church architectural design.

There are many different ways church buildings might be aesthetically convey a sense of sacredness, but we won't get to any of those ways if our goal is to *avoid* that sense.

Swindoll doesn't criticize any one person or group in particular: to those who have reacted so negatively: methinks thou dost protest too much.

Sheerahkhan: I once read Todd Fadel of The Bridge in Portland talk about "musical caravanning"--the idea of keeping everybody together, even if there are some who need to take it slow and some who could get way ahead. A church musical leader should, in my humble opinion, be better than just a professional-calibre band leader. She (or he) needs to be a good caravan leader--both for the musicians in the ensemble and the faithful who are gathered. Better to have an amateur sound with everyone participating than a great performance with a bunch of spectating. But that's easier said than done.

To Elegance,
Is that what YOU expect from a church? If that was all my church offered, I'd be someplace else. Perhaps I missed your point, but what the church offers (at its best), no one else does.

To Robert,
Since when is being introverted a sin? While we are speaking on the topic, since when is introversion defined as "I'm afraid I will look like a fool."? Both the definition and the idea that a personality type are sin have no biblical basis.

I, for one, think Swindoll makes some extremely salient points. *Shouldn't* we examine our motives for doing things, rather than just simply copying the culture because "that's what people expect"?

...or is it just de rigeur around here to automatically question someone that comes from a more conservative background than the emergent church?

"A church musical leader should, in my humble opinion, be better than just a professional-calibre band leader. She (or he) needs to be a good caravan leader--both for the musicians in the ensemble and the faithful who are gathered."

That's the thing for me...I just don't know...there are times...yeah, not all the time, but there are times when I feel like I'm at a concert rather than at Church.
Perhaps it is just me...I don't know, but when I look around me at church I see people dancing in place, hands are up in the air swaying in time to the sound...it's almost surreal at times...and through it all, I hear the words...but they don't call me to worship.
And so I go home, and I worship in quiet, or as my usual habit, I worship during the week, and then come Sunday...I go to the gathering...listen to the music, then pay attention to the sermon.
Yeah, it may be me...I just don't know.

I think it is wise not to focus too much on secondary things, like technology and architecture. If, in a local congregation, the Word is faithfully proclaimed, taught and lived out, and the sacraments duly administered, that congregation is doing ‘church’.

I’ve heard Swindoll often speak of the importance of ‘balance’. I think he could have applied that principle here. A wise pastor and congregation will make sure their worship service doesn’t get too entertainment-oriented.

For example, most folks enjoy when, in the sermon, the pastor tells a joke or two. A wise pastor will know that she/he should limit it to just a couple. The local congregation to which I belong is blessed with an exceptional organist. Once or twice a year she will perform a mini-recital as part of the service. The recitals are worshipful but also entertaining. But we know better than to make that a once-a-month thing. You get the idea.

Why is it that success of a church is measured by how many people are in the pews instead of how lives are changed by the word of God.

As usual people argue about the building, the music and presntation. Chuck's article was more about the message being forgotten becuase of the above arguments. I really don't care what yourchurch facility looks like, or sounds like, the message is salvation. I have been to many of the newer worship centers, full of people. THe only name or face I didn't see in the music or the Word was Jesus. The words I did not hear were sin and redemption. Go argue about the size of the table, the war is still raging.

The purpose of the church, I think, is to love on, transform, and cause growth in the soul of its congregation.

Crowds can be an achilles' heel, true, for some pastors. They should see that their desire for church growth shouldn't outweigh their desire for his existing congregation to be dedicated and flourishing followers of Christ.

As far as technology, and the church as entertainer, of course that's something to be careful about. For me, I see 'art' and the human condition [its pain and joy in relation to God], in some uses of technology and media, especially in worship music.

But, the difference between using music, tech, media, etc, as a tool to connect people with the God that's bigger than they are, rather than as crowd-gathering entertainment, can be a hard distinction to make.

I always thought the purpose of the Church was to be a constant reminder that G-d is an active deity in our little world, and no matter how insignificant we truly discover about our presence in this universe...he, G-d, still cares enough to set aside everything just to show us how to enter into an eternal relationship with him.

Of course...I could be wrong...my talents lie in other areas.

Wonder how "secure" he would feel if he showed up to preach on a Sunday morning with just 12 men like Jesus?