Consumer Christianity takes timely new steps to the world of online reviews….
Do you think it is ok (or possible) to be a consumer about your next church selection but not necessarily be a consumer about the gospel (picking and choosing what you desire most)? How do you think online reviews for churches affect the gospel that is being preached in these churches vying for a 4 star rating? Bottom line: What are the implications of this?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125394718&sc=emaf
I won’t even go to a church that isn’t at least a “four cross” church! We’re talking: off the hook worship, comfortable chairs (cup-holder, please), a barista bar and a hip preacher – but that’s just me.
It is sometimes hard to find a church when you’re going to a new city and don’t know anyone (I’m really stretching to find a good point here). But yeah, this is ridiculous. Sounds like an onion article. Score one for the parish model.
Don’t know what to think about these types of reviews. Of course we all want a 4-cross like Chris, but if you are new to a town what should you do?? Should choosing you church be part of moving arrangements? Look for house, new school for kids, new church home, and ect… (maybe not in that order).
Of the many issues this raises, one of them is the reality of how isolated we are, and that community is something that we now must forge. It does not come with the territory like the good ol’ days. We really don’t need one another anymore (or at least that’s how we live), so finding a church “home” isn’t something that we fall into or are born into. Thus, I get why these reviews are happening, I just don’t like it. I think it is more a warning to us and the church than a natural evolution. I think it more and more encourages a comfortable, consumer-preference church. We must must remember Luke 14:25-17. Jesus’ did not appeal to the masses! And neither should we. A gospel that is appealing to the masses is not the sacrificial gospel we find in Christ.
Well put, ya’ll. Truly difficult issue, but allow me to offer my two cents.
The consumeristic implications of this church rating thing is indeed one that should concern us and a matter that we must not take lightly. We too, in our own church talks with others (however informal they may be), could fall unintentionally into the consumeristic mode. We want to help people to become vitally connected to the local church but what kind of language could we or should we use that avoids the appeal to consumerist values and a market driven approach.
On a personal note, I too struggle with this issue of viewing churches as products for consumers and as a consumer I need some kind of guide to avoid “trial and error” as the article phrased it. But I think “that” is the point where we can find some kind of inroad to solving our consumer problems. Maybe these ratings (online or by word of mouth) that we consult are our “easy way out” routes. We would like to base our decisions off of the popular opinion of others rather than to go through the trouble of really and personally entering into these church communities and making decisions based on authentic experience. If we are to build authentic community with churches in new surroundings I think going through the “trial and error” stage and experiencing first hand the community must be an inevitable part of the process.
Of course, its easier to read a review. But should we not make decisions within the context of true and real presence from within those communities? But that takes energy and personal risk, the very ingredients for authentic community which consumerism tries to eliminate. But then again after having first hand experience, we still come back to the consumer question of “so which one do I prefer?” But at least, we can be more informed.
These are just some of my ramblings and my “thinking out loud” episode. Feel free to correct or critique.
Joe
Joe,
I was a seventeen year old, drug dependent, high school drop out, and all I knew is that I needed to find a church. I remember that first Sunday morning waking up and still not knowing where to go. I opened the phone book and made a few calls and got a few voice messages. I remember thinking, “I really need a church that is walking distance from my house.”
Right about that time my sister said to me from the other room, “Hey, I just remembered this lady I work with telling me about such and such a church.” I wasn’t even a Christian then but to this day I remember hearing my sisters suggestion and immediately sensing a very strong impression. If I were to put audible words to the impression it was, “Go with that.” And that’s what I did – I went with it.
I walked into that sanctuary in Van Nuys CA (a good six miles from my house) and I was literally captured by the presence of God drawing me to Himself – I went back that Wednesday and was baptized. Twenty five years later I look back to my years at that church:
1.I grew in Christ during the formative years of my young Christian life.
2. I met two of my life-long friends there.
3. I ended up working on staff there for five years where I matured as a leader.
4. I met my wife there and we were married in that church.
5. I eventually formally trained and sent out into ministry from that church.
What’s my point? That God needs to “speak” to you and tell you where you to go. Not exactly. My point is that I remember that morning so clearly and in retrospect I see that God new exactly what church he wanted me to attend, but if it was up to me, I would have missed it. God will use all kinds of “prods” to lead us in his paths for us. Our job is to simply remain open to his leading even when it doesn’t line up with our private assumptions and our personal “agendas.”
You are right on the money Chris. That’s a good point. In the process we ought not to be in the center of it. God must be in the center and be the one guiding our journey. Going to this or that church but not live and die on how we benefit from the church or how well we will fit in. I think we should frame it rather on where God is calling us. He might be calling us to a church that, in our consumerist view, may not have much to offer us (children’s programs, available positions, convenient “coffee bars, or what have you).
You are right Chris, we must be “open to God’s leading even when it doesn’t line up with our private assumptions and our personal agendas.”
You all have some great points and it is frustrating to see how consumerist people are when it comes to the church. It is sad to know that it’s our (the church’s) own fault for this too. We get so caught up into various things we disagree with about any particular church and decide we need to leave it and find a new one that is “more authentic” to what we believe scripture teaches. Many times we might well be right on an issue or belief needing to be fixed, but we should be willing to stick around humbly and help fix it. We also need to make it a habit of regularly praying for and encouraging those in other local bodies of believers as much as we do our own. We are all part of one body after all.
One of the things I’ve been greatly encouraged by in the church AND community I am in right now is that most of the pastors in the area regularly get together and pray with each other, plan joined services & events, and even pray for the other churches during our own services. They also agreed to standards of practice for things in the community like requiring premarital counseling of anyone seeking to be married in the community. The divorce rate amongst those getting married in North Marion has dramatically fallen since this took place.
On the other side of things, I think we do need to recognize that every church is going to have it’s own personality and flavor…and that’s ok. Just like the individuals they are made up of, having distinctive traits is okay so long as those traits don’t cause division. If we know that someone has moved into a community or maybe someone just new to church period, and is looking for a church, what would be so bad about finding out more about them and than saying “hey…you should check out such and such church, because I think you might really connect with the pastor there or the music.”? There are some students that I know will connect better with the youth program at the church down the road and I would much rather have them go there than nowhere.
It seems that this was somewhat of the idea behind the website, but unfortunately there are people who join in on it that are more disagreeable when it comes to how they talk about other churches. Maybe is the site was better moderated and only more objective comments were able to be posted, would make it better. and maybe take away the “rating” part…simply point out the things that people connect with at various churches and than let people decide for themselves.
anyways…I rambled way too much and it probably made no sense at this point…haha…
Brother James,
Your “ramble” made perfect sense. Prophetic sense too. You really have good insight on this matter and I’ve learned much from it. I myself need to be more humble and more committed to the body of Christ realizing my own need to prayerfully engage the church community and even the broader culture. Yes we need to encourage other churches and have a better sense of unity as we are one in Christ. You are right.. if the website was more geared towards giving information about churches rather than getting into the whole “rating” thing, it would not fall prey to the consumerism disease.
Good to hear from you James.
Hi, this piece is a bit long but since it is 80 years old perhaps we can give it a break. It has helped me to reframe the church finding conversation in terms of God calling us out of “place” to be a witness to his kingdom in that place.
Howard
From: What Shall This Man Do?
By Watchman Nee.
Chapter 9: Gathered In The Name
In earlier chapters we have placed strong emphasis upon the unity of the church. Always and only have we seen her as one and undivided. Now we have to ask ourselves a question: is there any point at which this view of her has to be qualified? For does not Scriptures speak not alone of “the Church” but also of “the churches”. Where and at what point does the Church of God become the churches of God?
If we look carefully into this, we shall discover that the basis of division (if we can use that word at all) is a single one -that of locality alone. If the New Testament is to be our guide, the only ground of division contemplated is geographical. There is in the word of God no room for the grouping of Christians together in two things called “churches” on such grounds, for example, as history or doctrine, mission -connection or personal allegiance, or even a special message or ministry. The names given to churches in Scripture are invariably those of cities, that is, of local centers of community life. We read of ‘the church of God which is in Corinth’, ‘the church of the Thessalonians’, ‘the seven churches that are in Asia’, (each of course, named after a single city), and so forth. It is such expressions alone that designate the Church of God distributed on earth, and Scripture knows no exceptions.
But this brings us to another thing, and it is this, that the very same word church is used locally as it is used universally (for of course in Greek there is no distinction by capitals and lowercase). We read of ‘the church which is his body’ but we read also ‘the church of God which is at Corinth’ and ‘the church in our house’ (Eph. 1:23; 1 Cor. 1:2; Philemon 2). Surely this means that the church in a locality is that church which is His body ( with all the profound wealth of meaning that goes into that term) finding her local expression in that place at that time.
But if this last statement is true, it places an altogether new emphasis upon one thing of which we may till now have missed the significance, namely, the importance to God of the present local expression of the body comprising all the members of Christ in any one place. In Corinth or Laodicea, Rome or Lystra, all the members of Christ by new birth were called upon to function and against the secular background as an expression of one body. Every dividing of them up on other principles would only touch their life and testimony adversely.
Leaving aside, of course, the more limited grouping together of brothers and sisters for special tasks in the work of the Lord, I affirm again that the Church embraces all the believers; it has no room for sectarian alliances. It was one of the reproaches held against the church in Corinth that parties had begun to appear there claiming personal allegiances. To-day that kind of thing has become perpetuated in various ways, but to this Paul’s challenge is a strong and clear now as it was then: ‘Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?’
In a passage at the end of Romans touching on the subject of church life, the apostle begins his discussion with the words ‘God hath received him’, and ends it with ‘Christ also received us’ (14:3; 15:7). Here is the simple basis of all our life and fellowship with others. It is that they belong to the Lord, and so do we. That is sufficient. We do not join with them because they and we belong to the same denomination or owe our Christianity to the same mission, nor because both share a liking for a certain preacher or his message, nor yet because they hold particular doctrinal views and we hold the same views, nor even because they have had a certain Christian experience and we have had a like experience. No, we join with them solely and sufficiently because they belong to the Lord and we too belong to the same Lord. It is in him that we are one.
Apparently this has bee a recurring issue in the Church since her inception. I think Watchman Knee really nails it here. The question is, will the power and profundity of this principle be lost on us simply because we are creatures of a preference driven society with an ethic of pragmatism? Thanks Howard for the post.