Trying to follow

I wanted to accent again Brian’s comment cause it says so much about what I think the church should look like.
Basically the thing that was so radical about Jesus is he went and hung out with sinners on their turf. I’m in full agreement with Richard and Brian in regards to physical barriers to people hearing the gospel. And my arguement would be that our churches are physical barriers. Sharing the gospel of Jesus with others should happen on their turf.
Again, I’m not saying that big churches don’t get the job done. The comments I’ve gotten have been trying to make a case for bigger churches, and I’m not here to argue that. I’m simply trying to draw our attention to a different way (and maybe better), as well as point out the problems I see with the current structures (again, not negating the good).

My words aren’t coming out right. So much in my brain and it’s coming out like mush.

Furthering my thoughts on my last post, I want to submit that there is a great danger to the big church building projects especially as it relates to non-Christians.
Take a look at your Bible. If it’s the same as mine the scriptures are full of a call for Christians to pour themselves out on behalf of others. It is a totally reversed idea from what culture says. We are called to sacrifice for the sake of others, to put others needs before our own, etc. And most non-Christians know that, at least some of it.
What message does our huge fancy buildings send to the world? It says that we are very interested in our own well being. It says that we some how reconcile the call to care for the poor, the poor on our streets, and our big building all together in this religion of ours. How does any of this make sense?
I’ll tell you, this is a struggle for me, and I guarantee you it is something non-Christians wonder too. Those who come to our comfortable, fancy churches and like it stay, not because of the radical call of Christianity, but because of the comfortable, country-club style church we’ve created (not everyone, but I would submit a lot of people). I’m gonna get in trouble for saying that.
I ran into this problem near the end of my time at the Christian college I attended. This is “fancy” place. They just spent $21 million on a new student center for the 2400 students that go there. In the classes we talked about the radical call to care for others, but we do it all the while with this underlying presumption that we can follow this radical call and at the same time maintain this extravagant lifestyle that we are offered at the college. Now, this is not to say my education was worthless, or the people there are horrible. I had an incredible education, and the people (staff, peers, admin) are wonderful, this does not take away from that.
What I am trying to say is that our buildings send a message about our values, and I think they send a message of values in the wrong places.

Brian’s comment aroused a couple of thoughts in my mind and I’ll try and address it in the next two posts. The question it really brought up is: what do “unchurched people” or “non-Christians” really want in a church? From what I understood about what Brian said (and I think this is what a lot of people would say including myself at one point) is that non-Christians want a comfortable enviroment.
I think the reason we think non-Christians want “comfortable” is because that’s what we want. We want a comfortable place, so we build big churches, with fancy statues, waterfalls, game rooms, fireplaces and the list goes on. Sometimes we are honest and say it is for ourselves(”we simply need those extra rooms for Sunday school”), and other times we say it is for outreach (”we could have lots of concerts on this stage and people will get saved”). Now I’m not saying either of those things are true, or that they can’t be used for that, but I do question if that is really how we should be doing things. Or if Christianity is really about being comfortable in that way at all.

Now this is impressive. Chavez is interviewed on Nightline with Koppel. Chavez mentions during the interview that there are rumors circulating that are lies, and mentions Pat Robertson’s comment about his assissination. Koppel tries to write it off and say that no one in the government condoned it and the Robertson apologized. Chavez responds:

“Well, take a look at this.

The U.S. administration has to reject — should have rejected the term of terrorist that Robertson used. The U.S. administration seriously sinned with respect to international and national laws, because the call to murder a chief of state is, in accordance with international law, terrorism.

So this gentleman, Robertson, should be under arrest by the government of the United States — silence.

Consequently, harboring a terrorist,…”

How about that USA?

p.s. The interview is really good, and you can watch it on comcast.net if your a comcast customer, or just read the transcript.