Brian says:

Love you brother, but we must be very careful. The above statement unwittingly highlights how marketing the church often leaves out a very crucial perspective. God’s perspective trumps both of the answers given here, yet His is often the last one considered when marketing strategies are employed in the church. Run from growth strategies that seek man’s wisdom or cater to any supposed seekers’ preference before God’s.

Brian says:

Seek and save the lost, it definitely does make sense. You know I’m down with that. I just saw the video, and the specifics of my comment were made without hearing your disclaimer in it. When I saw the post initially, I was on my mobile and didn’t even know there was a video to go with the statement. lol!

Having said that, I still struggle with the premise. Because while we say it is a given that what God thinks is more important, if we’re trying to draw lost men into the church to get them saved (instead of going out to seek them, as your final statement implies), then we’re not following the evangelistic examples of the apostles, examples that, if you really think about it, were given with the very intention of showing us what God thinks.

I do get your point, though, and I know that you guys are active outside your walls, and so much of what I am speaking against here may not apply to your fellowship. I’m not judging you or them, but I think even the best of brothers can still unintentionally get caught up in the growth strategy rush and end up making the church a business structure in more ways than is healthy, adapting advertising strategies and appealing to the flesh instead of depending fully on the Spirit’s movement in the only true marketing technique that was ever set forth for church growth: evangelism outside the church.

Even in response to your explanation, I still say fellowship is more for the believer, the “us” if you will. That statement in and of itself will rile most modern believers to scoff, but hear me out, because that doesn’t mean that we need to be introverted, nor does it imply that we need to be unloving, uncaring, or unfriendly. The core of understanding what I mean lies in the knowledge that our goal should not be to get “them” to come inside, but rather to bring the power of God to bear on their hearts (outside our walls primarily, inside if they are led there by the Spirit) and in doing so give the Spirit of God the avenue by which to make them a part of the “us.” In that, if God moves upon them, they will want to be with the body to which they now belong, without any other man made coersion, convincing, music, benefits, programs, etc.

I still can’t find in the bible where fellowship was ever designed to be a place to convert the unbeliever. Granted it happens as God sometimes leads men to us, but when we change what we do and/or how we do it specifically with the intention of making ourselves more attractive to the lost, I think that is actually where we’re missing the mark.

At the end of the day, you and I would both agree that it is a man’s perception of Christ that is crucial in this endeavor. And we would also likley agree that we cannot make anyone’s perception of Christ any better, we can coerse, but only He can change the heart and mind of man in a way that has lasting fruit. So in understanding that, we need to ask ourselves honestly, what exactly is it that we are advocating management of in order to draw men? Do you see my point?

Changing the term from marketing does not erase the strategic calculations that men employ to get unconverted people to come to and then stay at their fellowship. If the Spirit of God is not drawing them, but something we have done is, ultimately it will end in us having to do additional things to keep them from leaving.

Brian says:

You know I love ya, brother. I see the angle and I understand your intentions, but we may have to agree to disagree on what is done in an attempt to bring about their fulfillment. I still think there is a middle ground here, and I hope you understand that I am not advocating that we try to keep men from visiting our fellowships.

I just think too many modern leaders overemphasize marketing and perception, catering to the desires of the unbeliever more than his needs, and justifying the means by the supposed end. The problem is that getting the lost into the church at any cost does not guarantee the end many claim to be aiming for, in fact, it is often quite the opposite. Bill Hybels confessed that being seeker sensitive was not creating disciples. After having spent multiple millions and many years on creative marketing ideas that would draw folks in and ‘get them to participate,’ the fruit was just not there. The solution is not in making the unchurched churched by making the fellowship more comfortable for them and physically or relationally inviting to them.

I cannot speak for you, but most who hold to the mindset that you’re defending here would never have let the rich young ruler walk away, and they would have many good sounding and perhaps even well intentioned reasons for encouraging him to stay and fellowship. After all, he’ll hear good messages, he’ll be encouraged by and invested in by loving folks, we should invite him to stay. But by modern standards and in the eyes of many, our example, Jesus, would have qualified for most of the list of characteristics you gave above when He watched that man walk away sad as a result of His words, yet we know beyond any doubt that this was not the case.