I don’t think it’s an either / or but I do think a lot of us have a hard time doing both and I think the heart of Craig’s point is that when struggling for both always lean toward the side of spiritual depth rather than cool and if you you have an extra hour to put into your sermon this week you would likely be better off to spend that in prayer rather than digging for a sweet clip on youtube.

“Like a single guy who is trying just-a-bit-too-hard to impress a girl, some churches are simply trying too hard to be cool.”

Tim, I’m guessing the idea is not just relevance, but TRYING so hard. If you are “cool” because that is who you are… or if you are creative because you are trying to communicate the gospel, that is one thing. But it does seem there ARE a lot of people who just seem to be trying too hard to create an image. It seems like they are acting LIKE someone else, rather than reaching the creative potential that God has given them.

BTW, to be clear, I would not put Granger in this category. I think Mark and your team seem authentic, as I have observed from a distance. (And a distance is a good perspective for affirmation, but not for critique.) So I say to you all, “Well done.”

I agree. It is a both and. I’m glad someone posted something. I felt a disagreement rising up in me as I was reading that post earlier.

I agree with paul. I mean, in any given area, business or ministry or whatever, if you’re looking too hard at how others are doing their thing, and you try and bring out a sense of competitiveness in attempt to be creative or “cool”, then focus shifts from mission to something else. From mission to imitation.

Lots of people will complain that imitation is a killer. I agree with that. I think that, while it’s hard to always be doing something different from everyone else, or to be cool or unique, it’s also just as hard, if not harder to focus on both. I attend North Point in Alpharetta, where Andy Stanley preaches, and I see amazing efforts work their way to amazing results of creativity, progression and relevance.

It can and should be done (both/and). It should never be either/or!

When I read it this morning, I didn’t feel it was an either/or coming from Craig.

He mentions where he thinks the focus should be, but no where did I feel he was saying you can’t do both, just as AJ was saying.

I think you may have read it in the light of the criticism GCC gets from “outside” over your creativity and intentional reaching out via cultural references.

keep up the good work!

It seems like Craig is an advocate of the both/and approach while arguing that the biblical principles of “fasting, prayer, personal confession, repentance and biblical community” should be the underlying motive and driving force of “being relevant, creating inviting environments, using humor and entertaining stories and preaching to large crowds” – not the other way around.

We had a worship experience this weekend that seemed to me exceptionally moving and engaging. In three services I observed people even raise their hands a bit without prompting (who for years haven’t.) I heard folks, with their heads raised high singing more than normal. I was deeply moved seeing our church family almost effortlessly expressing themselves to God. Many of the songs we’ve done before. I received alot of the usual courteous compliments along with some additional encouraging feedback that was out of the ordinary. But it was one unsigned comment card that that stood out. The one I can’t get out of my head. it simply said “worship seemed a little entertaining tonight, don’t ya think?” Apparently to this individual we must came off a little too “cool”. But I know the hearts of everyone on that team. We prayed in the green room. We prayed when we planned the service, We prayed when we practiced. I know their hurts and struggles and their love for Christ. I know their motives. And I wouldn’t have changed one single thing. God was involved and I believe God showed up. How cool is that?

I think the problem is when you do one without the other. Weird analogy, but when you order a steak, you want flavor, you want sizzle. Swinging the pendulum all the way over to the relevance side is like giving someone a cup of au jus; sure, it tastes like steak but you’re still hungry. But swing the pendulum all the way to the spiritual side is like giving someone an overdone steak. It’ll fill you up, but it leaves a dry, unsatisfied taste in your mouth.

Just my take on things.

“As the head, so goes the rest” – if the heart of the pastor is to look good in order to draw people, then there will develop a culture of people who are trying to act like Christians. If the heart of the pastor is to find God and to go to “all means necessary” to introduce people to Him, then the culture of the church will be service and surrender.

It doesn’t have to be either/or, it depends on the heart of the pastor. Paul (above) made a good point about living within the giftings and personality we are given.

Tim, Great discussion. I love what you guys are doing at Granger. For the record, I’m not pushing for an either/or. I wholeheartedly embrace both/and done with sincere spiritual motives. Blessings to all your GCC crew.

Mark and Rob have been bringin’ the heat lately, and to me that is cool!

The obvious answer is both/and. The question to pose is what is relevant. I guarantee that funny videos, shock value messages and cool pastors is relevant to some and not to others. I’m working with a church plant in Manhattan, NY right now that is strategically liturgical and high church because the leadership senses that it will connect relevantly. The mission field is diverse and needs lots of different kinds of relevant churches. What bothers me is not that most church plants strive for the cool factor but that they all look essentially the same. That means there are a lot of people who will find the churches we are planting completely irrelevant. Thanks Tim and Craig for stretching us.

1. Doesn’t Craig’s statement about people going in a “stronger direction” make it seem like the both/and is a weaker one?

2. Is it wrong to try to create a cool environment even if you are not cool?

3. How hard does one have to try for it to be “trying too hard?”

My opinion, fasting is something missing from A LOT of churches! Not sure where it’s gone or why it was taken away.

Tim says Craig says,
“seeing far better results with:

* Bathing a sermon in prayer.
* Fasting regularly.
* Practicing personal confession and repentance.
* Preaching from the overflow of time alone in God’s word.
* Caring deeply for others in biblical community.”

What we need to do is not just do our preaching within this context but also form and develop our conception of what counts as relevant in this context. If we come at “relevance” from one side, we end up marrying the spirit of the age (and are soon widowed, as they say). If we come at “relevance” from the Kingdom side, out of prayer, fasting and spiritual depth in Christ, then things MAY sometimes look the same as the other sort of relevance, but sometimes surely won’t.

I think Driscoll is a prime example of a pastor who is relevant and spends HOURS reading and studying God’s word.

He attends both ‘creative’ conferences AND theological conferences. But Driscoll is the exception. Far too many of today’s ‘relevant’ pastors don’t preach the word. Instead they sprinkle a self-help sermon with some out of context verses strung together from various paraphrases. When the audience leaves they haven’t learned anything from God’s word.

Does your pastor balance the conferences he attends between creative conferences and deep theological conferences like Piper’s desiring God conference?

If not, then he loves being creative but probably doesn’t have a clue about the Bible, theology and Christian doctrine and it shows because his sermons were copied or purchased off the internet.

I agree with you Tim. Churches across America can do both. To me it comes down to this. Am I doing everything I can to reach those who do not know Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior? If that mean making church relative, engaging, entertaining and such then so be it. God works in many avenues and through all sorts of methods of doing Church.

Not only can it be both/and, but I believe it HAS to be that.

Tim,
Thanks for your post. I appreciate the way both you and Craig are trying to help challange our thinking. It’s a worthy discussion to help keep us “sharpening one another”. To all, I’ve personally spent time at Granger at their “Leadership Live” and their 1st Wednesday service – Mark B. and his team passionately love Jesus and seek to point people to Jesus as creatively and effectively as possible. I really appreciate Paul’s comment that critiquing from afar can be dangerous. Thanks everyone for your thoughts.

Thanks for joining the discussion Craig. Your church (Lifechurch.tv) is a great example of balancing the both/and. Thanks for stretching the church through your consistent leadership…this is a fun discussion!

I think that this is a good discussion to have right now and a tough balance to make. I read a pastor’s blog the other day where he listed his first reason for doing something was because it was cool – and they want to be a cool church. I think that’s the wrong direction. It should first be Biblical and God inspired, and then hopefully cool.

I attend Lifechurch.tv and they do an amazing job of BOTH and I think anyone who knows anything about lifechurch.tv would have to agree. I don’t believe that Craig is saying that you have to choose between the two. He refers to relevant experiences and the such as “effective tools”. The point is that the American church, generally speaking, has leaned more in the direction of creativity and relevance than dependance upon God. My personal opinion is that it is not an issue of both, but a issue of priority.

It’s possible the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, and Craig’s comments are aiming at balance.

I can imagine that walking along the road with Jesus and seeing him use object lessons or parables would have been, in his day, the equivalent of skits and video clips in our day.

Doing drama or media just for the sake of doing it is counterproductive. There should be a reason, an apologetic, for every element in a Sunday service and each should be both attention grabbing and rich in depth and meaning.

For me it doesn’t boil down to an either/or, it boils down to the ORDER – which ‘list’ is the primary, initial driving force? Prayer,repentance, time alone with Jesus, etc. must come first – this is the starting point. THEN working on the relevant communication of this message of transformation, delivered in a culturally-impacting, attractive way. This is secondary.

Getting these out of order is dangerous. And it’s just as dangerous to focus on one without the other.

I love being at a church that gets both of them, and gets them in the right order.

Chris,

Can I ask a clarifying question? Are you saying that, without attending ‘deep theological conferences’, a pastor won’t understand the Bible, theology, and Christian doctrine?

Jason,

Absolutely not.

That being said, however. I review tons sermons from the most innovative and creative churches in the country on my radio program and there is an almost direct inverse relationship between church innovation and Biblical fidelity (with only a few notable exceptions). In other words, the more creative a church tries to be, the less Biblically faithful it becomes.

In fact, most of the seeker sermons I listen to and review amount to nothing more than moralistic therapeutic deism (Theistic Self-Help). Seeker (creative) churches more often than not chuck out sound Biblical expository preaching altogether in favor of giving goats (unbelievers) practical sermons that help them learn how to be more satisfied with their lives.

Fact is, this is not creativity, instead it is open rebellion against the clear instruction of God’s word which commands pastors to “Preach the Word” in season and out of season. (2 Tim 4:1-4) and to feed Christ’s sheep (John 21:17).

I would see it as a positive step forward for these “creative” pastors to balance their conference attendance between creative conference and theological/doctrinal conferences. I personally think that the reason they don’t is because sound Biblical doctrine and theology rains on their ‘creative parades’.

To the point Chris, you hit it on the head dude.

Tom – your email to me the other day was full of heart and very gracious. I tried to reply, but it wouldn’t go through. I’d love it if you’d submit the content of that email as a comment under this post.

The genius of the AND. I like it.

Tim,

I’ve wondered the same thing you are wondering (does it have to be either/or) when I’ve heard others say something similar. First time, I heard Walt Kallestad (Church of Joy, AZ) say it. It was after he had come back from a heart attack and bypass surgery. I heard Mike Slaughter make a similar statement to Craig’s, right after a health scare). It seems to me that Craig, Walt, and Mike were able to come to a different place from their position as leaders who led their churches to be amazingly effective by employing the strategies in Craig’s first list (relevant, entertaining, etc.). Had they not employed those strategies, I don’t think they’d be in position to get a hearing for their new understandings. Not to say their new understandings are wrong. They’re not. It also seems that these faithful leaders go through a period where they must be pretty exhausted and wrung out after leading at such a high level for so long.

As I experience Bill Hybels these days, I think he would advocate for the second list, too (prayer, fasting, etc.), especially in light of the REVEAL study. But I can’t imagine him taking an either/or approach.

By employing the principles and strategies of the first list, these great leaders have established the results and credibility to advocate for the second list. The lists are infused, one into the other.

Bruce Cole
Faith Community Church, Huntley, IL

I think Craig’s original analogy hits the point. The guy on the date is who he wants to be or how he wants to be perceived. It’s form without substance. “They honour me with their lips…” kind of stuff. I think the point is that creativity will have significance only if it comes out of the depths of our personal story with God.

Tim, I think Craig is right on the nose with these two lists and his discovery. It seems we usually don’t have both things in church at least that has been my experience in the purpose (market) driven church. If entertaining videos, funny stories, engaging messages and so on can result from sermons bathed in prayer, fasting, and more than why not but it seems to be usually the opposite where a church trys so hard to be cool and then if there’s time we can pray about it and hope God moves through the videos and rock band. Please don’t get me wrong. I love the rock P/W, videos, engaging sermon series, funny stories and all that. But it seems that it would be better to start with prayer and study and let the other things come from that. I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that my experience with this type of “cool” church may have been skewed because of a staff and church that were and still is deeply embedded in the market driven techniques that Craig mentioned and cared very little if at all about caring for the family of God and would hurt feelings and step on anybody in the way of the pastor creating a cool church environment.

Another problem I see here is that it seems the use of videos, entertainment, and all the things mentioned before to get people to show up and understand the gospel message is a little prideful. I think we need to be careful here. The Word of God along with the Holy Spirit does not need our help. But that is the message sent when we try to make it less offensive and more pallatable to the unchurched.

In a nutshell I see the church slowly but surely going the way of the world in its techniques of reaching the lost. When I say the church Im actually talking about what takes place in the four walls of the building on Sunday and Wednesday or whenever. We are looking more and more like the world. I think that is scary. Christ and Paul in the gospels and epistles didn’t tell us to be like the world. Isn’t that being friends with the world in a way? And isn’t friendship with the world, enmity toward God? This is what I have been trying to say Tim for a while now but have lacked the grace and sensitivity to do so. I trust this makes sense.