Does our Church need Gimmicks?

[Gus Foster]

I sent for, received and listened to a set of 3 tapes from American Cassette Minisries by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim entitled, "Back to the Word". The theme is that only the Word of God pricks and converts through the work of the Holy Spirit. He spends much time describing the 'gimmicks' that we use in our churches today to 'bring in the sheep'. He mentions several by name: modern loud music, Christian dance, Christian clowns, Christian puppets, Christian art, Christian holiday celebrations, and more. I wonder if he is right. Do we need 'gimmicks' today to attract others to our church and to bring back old members?

The 2nd tape, 'Only the Word', is based on Peter's sermon from Acts 2, where Peter quotes Joel 2, Ps 16 and Ps 110 to convert those ready to accept Jesus as their Messiah. He then uses Lev 23 to show that Pentecost was what happened in Heaven, the coronation of Christ, and that the Spirit was the result of that heavenly enthronement.

His point was that the church was founded on the Word of God and not on gimmicks.

Do we need and use gimmicks today?

[Gregory Matthews]

What I consider revelant, you consider a gimmick.

The above is the problem.

I agree that we do not need gimmicks. But, I also believe that the Chruch needs to be revelant. As part of that, the Church needs to be meaningful to different people.

[Bravus]

As just one example: I assume we'll continue to have music in our church services, not desist from all music and just study the Bible. If so, what is sacred about the music of the 19th century versus the music of the 21st century? (actually, I've yet to see a church make it beyond the 20th, but that's another issue <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />) Making our music current is, IMO, not gimmicky but simply common-sense, but others will have different views on this issue.

That's the problem, much of it comes down to taste. I could happily do without plays and puppets, but I recognise that that's a taste call on my part and others react to those things differently.

Certainly a reminder to go to the Word never goes astray - but we need to be careful about turning that into an occassion for enforcing our own tastes on others.

(Footnote: I don't see using modern music as a strategy or gimmick for reaching 'the youth' but just as something completely natural: if anything, it's our anachronism in preferring old music that's odd and needs explanation.)

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

That's the problem, much of it comes down to taste. I could happily do without plays and puppets, but I recognise that that's a taste call on my part and others react to those things differently.

---

I am glad that you refered to plays and puppets as "a taste call"...otherwise, I would be wounded to the quick!

For me, I could do without music, mostly. But I could also see a real need for plays and scripts done in our church to bring home the point better.

Realize that this is from a former director of plays and former actor who brought relavant plays/parables to the church and not frivelous plays.

As for the writer, Samuel Pippen...

The man has brought aspersion, backbiting, backstabbing, and belittlement back into the church. I have read his book called "Recieving the Word" and some of the people he names as subverting the church and it's doctrines I personally know. These are people who are working and bringing and keeping people into our church and thier ministrys are evidence of God's leading...And Samuel depreciates thier characters in his book. As far as I am concerned, the man is nothing short of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And while his logic SEEMS impecable, there are assumptions made and conclusions that basically say that if you don't agree with him, you can not be a SDA, let alone a christian. Such a narrow minded view prohibits growth in our church..

[Bravus]

I should add that I was an actor in a play at our church just a few weeks ago that I think was well written and effective, to balance that more general comment, Neil. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The logic is always interesting: if you can get people to agree to the proposition (which is fairly uncontroversial) that 'our church doesn't need gimmicks', but then it's you who gets to define what counts as a 'gimmick'...

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The logic is always interesting: if you can get people to agree to the proposition (which is fairly uncontroversial) that 'our church doesn't need gimmicks', but then it's you who gets to define what counts as a 'gimmick'...

---

I remember SDA evangelistic series where the titles back then [20+ years ago] could have been deliberately ciphined off of today's Enquirer headlines. Those I thought were gimmicks and were uncalled for. The one SDA evangelistic series that I remember was "See the Gates of Heaven", and the preacher would talk of Orion's Gate, saying that 'some Christian communities" felt that Heaven was thru this supposed corridor... I felt cheated as I knew that the 'Christian communities" were Adventist and that based upon what EGW said. And while there is some speculation that the Orion Belt is a "corridor, " and that there is a 'great light being obscured by the clouds of dust in the area', that doesn't truely prove what is being claimed there...Just like evolution, we haven't been there, and we can only see it from afar...which mean that closer examination could show something entirely different. After all, water does appear on hot highways in the summer and every time I get to that spot, the water is NOT there...

Quote:

---

I should add that I was an actor in a play at our church just a few weeks ago that I think was well written and effective, to balance that more general comment, Neil.

---

And I should add that I find myself hummming or singing at least ONE song from our song service during the week when I go to church...

[aldona]

OK, let's make a list. Which of the following are "gimmicks"?

TV evangelism

Internet evangelism

Evangelism by the printed word

Daniel/Revelation prophecy seminars

Advertising for the above which is full of Hollywood-style pictures of partly clothed women on scarlet beasts with goblets of wine

Sabbath School

Sabbath School lesson guides (which tell every Adventist on earth what to study when, rather than encouraging people to study the parts of the Bible that the Holy Spirit directs them to at a particular time)

Song Service

Music (any) in the worship service

Instrumental music

Music performed on modern instruments (as opposed to Biblical lyre, pipe, cymbals etc)

Music performed on electronic instruments

Pipe organ music

Church bulletins

Offering bags

Stained glass windows

Health seminars

Cooking classes

...and the list could go on, and on, and on...

Which of the above is a gimmick? Which is a non-Biblical extra added on as a result of tradition? Which tries to make us look "just like other churches"? Which is a genuine method of religious or artistic expression? Which serves a useful purpose in building up and organising the church?

And who decides?

aldona

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

aldona said:

OK, let's make a list. Which of the following are "gimmicks"?

TV evangelism

Internet evangelism

Evangelism by the printed word

Daniel/Revelation prophecy seminars

Advertising for the above which is full of Hollywood-style pictures of partly clothed women on scarlet beasts with goblets of wine

---

HAH! You go, girl!

Does the church need "gimmicks"? No. Does the world need the church to come up with creative methods of outreach so that the gospel can go forth? Definitely.

I grew up in a "nominal Catholic" household (i.e. we went to mass on Sundays and did some church-related stuff but did not practice religion at home). Well to a child, sitting still in itchy clothes for 1 hour upon threat of painful corporal punishment if you fidget or make a peep is a total turn off, and listening to old men drone on and on is likewise. So I never REALLY heard the gospel till I was 8 or 9 years old and saw the musical stage production of "Godspell" for the first time.

Man, talk about getting turned on about Jesus!! No, I didn't get "saved" from watching it, but it planted the first serious seed in my heart and even got me reading the gospels in the NT for the first time. What was "Godspell"? It was a 1970s production telling the gospel story of Christ with modern, upbeat music (lite rock) and all the actors dressed like hippies. Monotonous Catholic mass couldn't speak to me, but this spoke to me.

The Apostle Paul left us an example in stating, "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." I'm not keen on puppet shows either, and I despise clowns, but that's just my tastes. For someone who loves either of those (particularly children), they could be avenues to really HEARING the Gospel (instead of in one ear, out the other or just being tuned out) and most importantly of all: demonstrating that our God really did "stoop down" to reach out to EACH and EVERY one of us, and is capable, for any one of us, of "speaking our language." That is a major witness in itself.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Gus Foster said:

I sent for, received and listened to a set of 3 tapes from American Cassette Minisries by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim entitled, "Back to the Word". The theme is that only the Word of God pricks and converts through the work of the Holy Spirit. He spends much time describing the 'gimmicks' that we use in our churches today to 'bring in the sheep'. He mentions several by name: modern loud music, Christian dance, Christian clowns, Christian puppets, Christian art, Christian holiday celebrations, and more. I wonder if he is right. Do we need 'gimmicks' today to attract others to our church and to bring back old members?

---

On the other hand, IF instead of creative methods of outreach to reach different kinds of people we are, in fact, manufacturing cheap gimmicks and relying upon the gimmick rather than the Truth of the Gospel and the Love of Christ communicated THROUGH that means, then yes, it's time to either pitch the trappings and get back to the solid core of the Word, or it's time to seriously rethink what we are doing all these plays, puppet shows, and what not FOR.

Are we just trying to entertain ourselves? Entertain the world? Because let me tell you, I have yet to see a church production of ANY sort of entertainment that was not second rate. Granted, I don't mean to sound like a harsh critic, but we're not talking Broadway here by a long shot. Perhaps we should FIRST get solid on what we're here for as the body of Christ, and THEN see about the different packages we can put it into.

Ultimately if someone comes into the church because "oh cool, they have modern music and skits on stage", and there's no substance once they get "in" ... they will either leave or have a vacuous religious experience and not get to know Jesus.

Hmmm, lots to think about here from MANY angles ...

[Ceth]

I agree, Nicodema.

In general, people today want two things: They want something to entertain them/hold their interest, and they want immediate results. This means that in order to reach them, there are [big generalizations coming up] only a few ways to get that foot in the door:

1) Be a friend and let your life draw them in. It is the surest way to impact others but it takes time. It gets interest from others over time, but there is no immediate payback. This is often overlooked by evangelistic efforts (Send out some flyers, have a few Bible studies, have a meeting or 20, and baptize the ones that didn't run away).

2) Get them to come to you. If you're not their friend, then you need to get their attention. Getting their attention may require what may be considered a "gimmick", such as: "Why 9/11?", "What is heaven like", "Mysteries of the Middle East", "Archaeology in Bible Lands", or something more current: "Angels today", "Do Miracles Happen", or even "Purpose Driven Life". Is it a *gimmick* or is it meeting people where they are? If we know what people are interested in, why not meet them where they are?

3) Go door to door. I've done it. It's hard. Door after door closes. When someone lights up as you discuss God with them, it makes it all worthwhile. Again, it's a lot of work with relatively few instances of immediate results.

I guess what I'm saying is that if we're not going to (1) be a friend and draw them in, which you can't do for a large number of people simultaneously, and you can't (2) go to every door in person to give them the message, then you're left with (3) to try and get them to come to you.

We're not doing a bait and switch here, offering a great product and then delivering something cheap, we're doing the opposite! We're offering people something that meets them where they are (angels, etc.) and expands that into something much better (a relationship with Jesus). Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how that can be bad.

That goes for updating the music, lighting system, puppets, or even *shocked looks* dressing down or not throwing a fit when a visitor puts chicken on the table at potluck. Meet people where they are, help them along in their walk, and let God do the convincing from there.

After all, we're out there to win souls, not to uphold traditions.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

In general, people today want two things: They want something to entertain them/hold their interest, and they want immediate results. This means that in order to reach them, there are [big generalizations coming up] only a few ways to get that foot in the door:

---

While I understand what you are attempting to say, I disagree with the above statement about people wanting entertainment or something to hold thier attention...

EVERYONE that I meet, knows the difference between entertainment and meaning...People want meaning to thier lives. They want thier lives to mean something...Churches have failed to give life meaning. While the church is the repository of the gospel, it needs to go out to the people and meet the people where they are at....

In the past, we have expected the world to beat a path to our door...but the world is tired of a lame gospel. They have heard it before and it is lame to them. They have heard the "If you ain't a member of MY church, God will get you" gospel. They have rejected that. They have heard the "mysterious faith filled " Gospel...too etherial [sp] Not practical. They know the difference between entertainment and somethig that gives meaning....We have to show meaning....

[Nicodema]

It seems to me we are still missing something though. I mean, on the whole I agree with the points raised here but something's still "off", and I can't quite put my finger on it.

Perhaps it's the way it just seems like we are exhausting ourselves trying to beat the world at its own game, when what people are really needing and craving -- the MEANING -- isn't something that can be cello-wrapped and sold in the DVD section.

Lots of food for thought here, but I'm not sure we've arrived at a solid answer. And it's kind of funny to say "the world" when what we really mean is Western society for the most part. Even that speaks volumes (and I did it too, I admit).

Flawed premise, flawed conclusions...

We're talking about what does the world want, how can we reach the world where it is at. Maybe we can't. Maybe the world is sunk in its carnal nature and the bottom line is that all we have to offer is Jesus Christ, and whether we do a decent job of offering Him to a hungry world or not, He may not be what they "want". And they may still reject Him, puppet shows, skits, modern music, and all.

Maybe we should focus less on trying to make Christ fit what the world "wants" ... and more on trying to manifest the genuine love and character of Christ in our lives. I just have this sneaking suspicion that when our experience with Jesus is what it was meant to be, what it could be, we won't need a million clever ways to tailor Him to the world's wishes to get their attention. We'll HAVE their attention -- for good or for ill!

Just some thoughts ... not a position hammered in stone.

[Gerr]

Are parables gimmicks?

Are visions gimmicks?

Ezekiel lying down on his side for 390 days, was that a gimmick?

The sanctuary services & the sacrificial system, were they gimmicks?

What is a gimmick?

Gerry

[Ceth]

Quote:

---

Neil D said:

While I understand what you are attempting to say, I disagree with the above statement about people wanting entertainment or something to hold thier attention...

EVERYONE that I meet, knows the difference between entertainment and meaning..

---

I agree with you that everyone knows the difference between entertainment and meaning at some level but I'm not sure everyone is conscious of the difference. I do believe that most people that I meet don't know what they are looking for, and many don't realize they are searching or even need to search, there's just something missing. So they look for entertainment or something to hold their attention (a distraction). I'm not saying that's what they want down deep. I think that's where most people start their search. Many of the people I work with drown themselves in alcohol regularly, and never find answers. But it distracts them, gives them something else to focus on for a short while. So I guess it's the difference between a conscious search and an unconscious longing. Once we get their attention for a bit, we can start to try to reach the longing they may not even be able to name...

[Gregory Matthews]

Sometimes we must get one's attention before we can provide meaning.

[Gus Foster]

There is another side to this that has not been mentioned; that there is a difference between church activities and worship services. For years, I have thought there was a difference one can engage in outside of the formal worship service and in our service on the floor in heaven before the throne of our Holy God.

Adventist have traditionally taught that Sabbath worship was lifting us to the present of God. Have we abandened that, or can theatrics, puppets, clowns, dances, cheering and clapping and other human emotional gestures be acceptable in this throneroom setting?

Isaiah, Ezekiel and John show otherwise in their visions of heaven. In fact, I had a person in church tell me that if that is all they were to do is bow before God and say Holy, Holy, Holy, and just to sing glory to Him, they wouldn't want be there.

And Gregory, this is not my conviction, but an area of concern.

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

Sometimes we must get one's attention before we can provide meaning.

---

[:"blue"]I believe Greg hit the nail on the head. This is the key - to get people's attention. You can't get people's attention raised on Sesame St. etc. with the same old bland approach. God got the Israelite's attention at Mt. Sinai with lightning & thunder, fire & smoke & earthquake!

The disciples got the unbelieving Jews' attention at Pentecost when a strong wind came, tongues of fire, & speaking in tongues came to the disciples.

Gimmicks are good for getting attention, but intelligent people will not be kept in attention by them for long. [/]

Gerry

[Gail]

When I saw the topic starter, my question was exactly the same as many of the responses- what IS considered a gimmick? I think that the answer to that will vary depending on whom you are talking to.

The concept of worship probably varies depending on who you ask as well

I do know of a couple of contemporary-styled SDA churches that incorporate drama and modern music (don't remember seeing any clowns). I've attended their services at times and the members are involved in the service and have lots to contribute during the prayer time when asked for testimonies. They have lots on the go in the way of Bible studies (according to their bulletin and word of mouth that comes my way) and small groups and social events

This is not my preferred worship style, but it is my husband's and I cannot deny those worshippers their joy and blessing. What we do is alternate between the 2 styles and that suits us both

What I might call a gimmick other worshippers might find relevant

I do think that it's a good thing for everyone to have a Biblical look at how God is treated by those who get a glimpse of His throne. A person's concept of God may influence also s/he approaches the throne, whether a person fears God or comes boldly

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

This is the key - to get people's attention. You can't get people's attention raised on Sesame St. etc. with the same old bland approach. God got the Israelite's attention at Mt. Sinai with lightning & thunder, fire & smoke & earthquake!

---

While I agree that people needs are as varied as the individual and dynamic as life itself, I disagree that the "same old approaches" DONT work. Because, *sometimes* they do. And we are able to reach some people. The command for us is to go into the "hiways and byways" and invite people to come to the marriage feast that is laid out for all of us. And that is where we have problems.

So, Gerry, when you said-

Quote:

---

God got the Israelite's attention at Mt. Sinai with lightning & thunder, fire & smoke & earthquake!

The disciples got the unbelieving Jews' attention at Pentecost when a strong wind came, tongues of fire, & speaking in tongues came to the disciples.

---

It is not the spectacular that command attention. As you have said, the intelligent people will not remain amazed for long. What we need them to do is "listen to the still small voice"...and direct them to the source. Whether we do this by teaching, or by a spectacular event, still the command for us is to direct the individual to the source of peace, hope and faith....

[Gus Foster]

Gail, you have pointed to a very crucial key. Do we worship as we see fit, or diligently search out God's method from His Word? I recall that the nation Israel was instructed explicitely about every worship practice, and yet they kept doing things outside of His will and catered to their own.

Are we saying that we will do things our way, including worship? It almost sounds we are saying, "I will do what feels good for me; I will satisfy self"!

Pipin is probably right in saying that the church is imitating the nation Israel in history, practice and rebellion.

It does appear that "relevance", "custom", "culture", and "inviroment" dictate our motis operande.

[Gail]

Point well taken, Gus, but I can't tell what people's motives are. I know the reasons why I myself go to the house of worship, but that's as far as I can judge

The people who worship at the contemporary style churches seem joyous indeed. To them, God is their Friend, and they are happy to be with their Friend. I can't knock them for that, any more than they should put down those who prefer a solemner service.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Gus Foster said:

Do we worship as we see fit, or diligently search out God's method from His Word? I recall that the nation Israel was instructed explicitely about every worship practice, and yet they kept doing things outside of His will and catered to their own.

Are we saying that we will do things our way, including worship? It almost sounds we are saying, "I will do what feels good for me; I will satisfy self"!

...

It does appear that "relevance", "custom", "culture", and "inviroment" dictate our motis operande.

---

Gus, what do you deduce from Scripture to constitute God's desire in how He is approached and worshipped today? Obviously Israel had very elaborate ceremonies prescribed in the Old Testament, but what about for Christians? I see general guidelines in there -- "let everything be done decently and in order" for example -- but I haven't seen anything that stands out as specific instruction on how to organize our worship experience explicitly. Have you seen anything specific? If so, could you please share the verses from scripture? Thanks.

Nico

[Gregory Matthews]

I am not Gus, but I will make a comment:

Isaiah 6:1-8 is a classic passage that is often thought to give us the basics in regard to worship. I agree with that thiking.

If one accepts that, the reality is that the details are not spelled out. Perhaps, the details are left for people to decide, and to apply in time and culture?

I note that most of the comments posted here come from a specific time (it could not be any different, as we can only live in today) and from a generally simular culture. There is a little Hispanic influence. There is some from Australia. But, we do not have a significant Asian posting, and we do not have a signigicant African posting, to name but a few.

I attend a church that regularly sends groups of members to other countries to do ministry. Currently they are sending people to Africa, and the South Pacific. I have lived in Asia, and Central America. It is apparent to me that some of the comments posted here fail to consider the culture of some of the places I have mentioned above. The music, and the instruments allowed in church services, differ from place to place. Sometimes we attempt to draw boundries there God has not. Just maybe, we should not be dogmatic about what is allowed in worship.

[Gail]

God was sensitive to culture, too, when He dealt with His people, or that is how I see it.

In the Old Testament, many people have difficulty with the violence with which He dealt with those who were considered rebellious, or enemies

Jesus' approach was a total turnaround, for He told the people at that time to love their enemies and to render to Caesar what was due him

I believe that the reason God did this was because He was speaking to the people in the language that they most understood. His goal was redemptive. He dealt with people according to their mindset so that His message would not be lost on them

Could some of that principle be useful here?

[Gus Foster]

Quote:

---

Gus, what do you deduce from Scripture to constitute God's desire in how He is approached and worshipped today? Obviously Israel had very elaborate ceremonies prescribed in the Old Testament, but what about for Christians? I see general guidelines in there -- "let everything be done decently and in order" for example -- but I haven't seen anything that stands out as specific instruction on how to organize our worship experience explicitly. Have you seen anything specific? If so, could you please share the verses from scripture? Thanks.

---

My basis for worship and religious services come from 2 places, the early church as recorded in the New Testament and from Ellen White's exhortations. We have a great indicator of accepted worship practices in the messages to the Revelation churches. Basically, Jesus told us not to let outside doctrines and rituals invade our service. He used symbolic terms, such as Nicholaitans, Balaam, Jezebel and other conditions to let us know what He expected from His people. Also, we much remember that Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and He set down a number of rules to follow, especially to the Corinthians and to Timothy.

All of these are Christ centered, and we would have to think that the culture of the first church was influenced by Judaism.

Frankly, my interpretation of the first century worship practices, and that of Ellen White in the 19th century are close to one and the same. They were always directed at a Holy God, and in that audience leave little room for human personal preferences in what is accepted in that setting. I can only relate to you that the difference between the churches I attended 50 years ago and the ones today are miles apart. That might not be all basd, but certainly not all good. The church switching attendance of members today is usually to satisfy taste and preference, (or personality conflicts and decisions), and little to do with traditional worship agendas.

Has our church compromised to encourage more attendance, which brings in more money, or is our culture merely growing in the stature of Christ? We have to answer that individually, but ultimately it will be answered in eternity.