Without reading either book but just the exerpts noted, you each make excellent points, but it occurs to me that when I've encountered philosophical disagreement, it often happens that one party is talking about something different than the other leaving a gap that can sometimes be resolved as result of a dialogue. Tony did a great thing by inviting dialogue because in the end, I think all can benefit.

I read Tony's blog and based on the quote, I think Skye is missing an important point. Attracting people (the crowd) to church is a means to the end. The end purpose is to present Jesus to the crowd and accomplish what occurred over and over in Acts – people are convicted, repent and accept Christ. I can only speak to my experience at GCC – knowing that our pastors believe the catalyst for change is the Word and preach accordingly. It is possible to adopt methods, lose sight of the mission and become Skye's circus. However; reading his remarks leads me to assume that Skye dismisses all churches that attempt to reach the community with nontraditional methodology. You may have come across as sarcastic in your response. Skye comes across as another pious "I'm holier by my methods than thou" traditionalist.

Hi Tim

I always want to know if someone, say something about someone. Have you spent time with that person? If you haven't spent time with someone to make sure, 101% sure that you do understand him, then you can publish things about that person.

Is like someone here in South Africa made the comment that a Christian leader is more into New Age than Christianity. My question was, did you spent time with that person? Did you drink coffee with him, did you asked him some questions? NO! So how can you say he is into New Age? Well he said …. Did he really say that? Not sure?

So before you say something make sure.

There is also the other side the said that Skye may take, now I did not have coffee with him, I only have my story, how I have seen people are more into getting people to church, because they need the offering. I have seen worship-leaders being replaced because they don't attrack people. Seeing this I started to love the APC vs MRI of Len Sweet.

Bless your heart
Charl

I like this. Standing up when appropriate for being attacked.

Sure your comment had some sarcasm in it, but it had the substance too.

I haven't read the book (either) but from the three blog posts, I'm not in Skye's camp on this…

I wrote a response on bedevient.com to your comment, but I will respond here as well.

I call what skye was talking about the wow factor: http://thoughtsaboutnothing.com/the-wow-factor/
This idea that you blow people away with wow moments but leave them very shallow and only talking about the production. I believe the wow factor should be this idea that God has given us grace and the story should be the wow factor.

From what I have read from yourself and Tony I believe you both are more concerned with the story and redemptive power of grace then going after the wow factor of impressing someone with how well you can cover a muse song at your church.

Look forward to the rest of this conversation.

Jesus, Himself, seemed to put on a good show – more often than not. I think He might have invented the WOW-FACTOR. See Matthew chapters 8 and 9 for more evidence of the non-boring approach.

I think your comment where it was said was appropriate, albeit a bit sarcastic. People were accepting information as a whole when it was anything but.

I also think Tony’s reply and invite to Skye is beautiful. Tony has a way with doing that, disagreeing well without being disagreeable.

Challenging anyone’s core beliefs is difficult and will usually meet with criticism and resistance. For that person to resist publicly without conversation to understand context is just wrong. I think that’s even covered in scripture…something about handling offense? Both you and Tony have invited conversation, I think that’s the best you can do.

Each church must take the best approach to reach their community for Christ. Just because one approach doesn’t match your approach doesn’t mean you get to throw it under the bus. The point is that Granger is reaching a bunch of people, and the gospel is being presented. He boldly disagreed with you, but I wasn’t impressed with how he handled it.

This is a great discussion. The weird thing is, I posted a related blog a few days ago at http://ajrankin.org quoting some of Skye’s stuff from his Nines Conference segment. A friend who had read my post thought I would definitely appreciate yours. And I do!

Anyways, from the posts and quotes, I feel it’s somewhat of the classic ecclesiological argument. Personally, I feel convicted sometimes if the Church is too attractional and is failing to be missional & incarnational. Where the issue comes up is when you have a missional & incarnational church that is attractional. They’re on mission; they’re just being intentional on who they want to come to the gathering to hear the gospel. Or if you have a missional & incarnational church that is not attractional but the preaching is so rich that it becomes attractional and people are only coming because of that particular pastor’s preaching. Are they then attractional just because he is popular?

I pray for sound doctrine, good interpretation of Scripture, solid ecclesiology and conviction & repentance where needed. Glad you and Tony reached out to dialogue with Skye; kinda wish he would have done so before the book came out or at least brought it up at your meeting with the other leaders. Do so with love. The gospel has the power to keep this a friendly ecclesiological disagreement.

I enjoy your blog. Thanks for letting us engage in the discussion.

- A.J. Rankin

Tim and Tony

While I find the discussion interesting I take all this on a much more personal level as one whose life was impacted by this ‘greatest show on earth’. Is it not about the One who truly owns the show and all those who are impacted by coming to know Him? We are talking personal preferences here. Reaching the lost is far too important to become a discussion of which HOW is right.

I thank God for you two, Pastor Furtick at Elevation, Skye and all the thousands of others who have dedicated your lives to changing lives like mine.

Don’t stop!

TIm – I think your comments on Justin’s blog were fine. I don’t understand how someone would see honor in what Skye wrote. Nothing particularly awesome or shocking about Skye’s viewpoint either. Actually pretty old hat stuff that’s been leveled from the first time Schuller preached from the top of a drive-in movie snack stand, Hour of Power went on the air, Willow launched, etc.

More to the substance of Skye’s contention, “But the moment we believe transformation occurs via external experiences, the emphasis of ministry must adjust accordingly. Manufacturing experiences and meticulously controlling staged environments become the means for advancing Christ’s mission.”

I don’t know how we separate life transformation from external experience. It’s not an either/or, but a both/and. I understand the transformations brought to individuals by Jesus to be connect to external experiences as well as internal ones (touching the hem of his garment; a conversation with him at a well; calming a storm; walking on water…). In Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians, I understand the external experience of hearing the Word of God preached as a key (possibly chief) means of the Holy Spirit’s transformative work.

And I look at 2000 years of liturgical history (leitourgia – work of the people) as the history of people constructing environments as means for advancing Christ’s mission. In fact, the more “high church” liturgical, the more tightly controlled it is. To call it “manufacturing” is pejorative. What possible expression of corporate worship is not constructed and characterized by external experience? None that I can think of.

I’m struggling to not be offended on behalf of the many faithful pastors I know (or know of) who lead churches like Granger, NewSong, NorthPointe, NewSpring, etc. – all of whom are deeply reflective and consistently concerned with evaluating the strategies and methods they use so as to be faithful shepherds and never “showmen.” What a wrong-spirited, mean brush Skye has used to paint his generalized, inaccurate picture.

I haven’t read Skye’s book. I imagine I will. And if in the process of joining you in concern that he took your words out of context, I’ve done the same to him, I’ll be quick to apologize.

Bruce @ Faith Community Church, Huntley, IL

I think Tony’s response was perfect. Yes – you had a bit of sarcasm but didn’t read it as combative.

As for Skye, I wonder how he would have reacted to Jesus’ both/and approach of “WOW” and life on life spiritual transformation? And that’s the push I’m seeing with Granger, NewSong, et al — the both/and of meaningful worship experiences plus the life-on-life experiences.

Tim, I would be interested in hearing how your views may have changed (if they have) since you and Tony wrote the book from which Skye quoted.

I’ve been at GCC for three years and it’s obvious that there’s a process of continual evaluation and change in how you approach things. For example, the recent encouragement for everyone to bring their Bibles to the weekend services. I find this willingness to examine the How (not the Why) and modify methods a strength of this church.

I was one who did appreciate, not necessarily what he had to say, but how he had to say it. I didn’t read the quote as an attack, but rather a critique. As I said over on BeDeviant.com, a critique with no face to face discussion seems a bit shady. There are some questions over there for you, btw. Glad you and Tony are entering this conversation. Lots to learn.

woops, how he said it… not how he had to say it.

On a lighter note…

There’s been a clamor for a “hug-a-thon” between Tim, Tony, & Skye. I think Time would agree that hugging & Tony Morgan are two things that go together kinda like Tony Morgan & country music. Doesn’t happen very much, Tony’s not a big hugger!

Tim thanks for the book suggestion. I’ve been wrestling with the whole big-box church phenomena. I attend one, and yet I refuse to shop at the Wal-marts in our community.

After reading Skye’s book (just a 2 chapters left) I think this whole thing is a case of snippets taken out of context. On the whole skye warns against the dangers of the consumerist worldview overrunning our churches and what we can do to stay balanced no matter where we attend. The quotes he used was to illustrate a point and if Skye’s whole context is taken I think you’d agree. He didn’t slam Granger, he just used your quotes to illustrate a point: As we design worship experiences we have to be careful that it’s sustainable in the lives of the congregants — ie if they can only reproduce spiritual connections with God at a service and not on their own their faith will wither — we need to ensure that our instruction facilitates an intimate relationship with God and others outside of the sunday worship experience. (An aside to tim and tony: if you publish your words expect them to be quoted, that’s how the world of conversation turns. What’s the difference between mis-perception and perception …)

As churches if we look at our budgets, how much of it goes to the sunday wrapping paper? How much of our intention, creativity goes towards the sunday service? Do our measurements of success differentiate between the sunday high and also the thursday night high?

A thanks to all for a good discussion,