I will get back to the Council of Nicaea discussion later in the week, but had to do a quick poll after reading the following info.
More than half of church leaders responding to a recent Leadership magazine poll said they will offer their congregations classes, seminars, or sermons on The Da Vinci Code.
In the church it seems like we have two types of leaders on this issue; some are offended while others say the release of the movie this week is a faith-sharing opportunity. Enter the star of the film, Tom Hanks. He thinks churches should capitalize on the debut, which is sure to have people asking serious questions about faith matters.
Hanks told Etertainment Weekly,
“If [churches] put up a sign saying: This Wednesday we are discussing the gospel, 12 people show up. But if a sign says: This Wednesday we are discussing The Da Vinci Code, 800 people show up.” “I think the movie may end up helping churches do their job.”
What do you think and why?
Are churches compromising if they headline this issue or are they negligent is they do not? Also, why do you think church leadership thinks so differently on this subject?
I don’t think we ever saw Christ use a ‘bait and switch’ approach to the Gospel. In other words, if the goal of a particular service is to share the Gospel with the lost, I don’t think a church should attempt to ‘trick’ people into attending by using something like the current interest in the Da Vinci Code to ‘get them in the door’.
However, if the goal of the church gathered on the Lord’s Day is the worship of God and the edification of believers (as it should be), then its entirely appropriate to educate those believers on a topic such as this.
I don’t, however, see it as appropriate to use it as ‘bait’ to do evangelism.
Larry, I understand your point, thanks. However, I am not sure it is that “cut n’ dried.” Isn’t there a middle ground? Don’t we want to attract (a.k.a. bait?) lost people to the Gospel through our personal good works or corporate teaching from the Bible on life? Also, is there a difference in making something attractive or fulfilling a need in order to gain an audience and “baiting” someone? I think it would be easy to agree that Christ did do former (feeding of the 3000,5000, purpose of miracles in general, etc.).
Would our answer to this question be found in focusing on the motives of a church and the strength of its Gospel presentation?
Dan, I agree, to a degree 🙂
We should certainly be “winsome” so that God is glorified by our good works and the Holy Spirit then often uses that to draw the lost to Christ.
I guess I was reacting to what I see so much in churches today, offering things such as computer classes or golf instruction all in the name of “get them in the door” so the Gospel can be shared. Then if this pragmatic approach does lead to a gospel presentation, it is a 5 minute “pray this prayer” type presentation tacked on to the end of the main event that was used as the draw.
I will concede, however, that this situation may be somewhat different since there is at least some spiritual aspect to the Da Vinci code discussion (as opposed to golf lessons!). I also agree that it depends upon how the church using it teaches the scriptures and the gospel to those who respond. I cannot concede that motivation is that important though since many outlandish things have been done by churches with motives that were basically good. Good motives are not always a good barometer.
I would disagree with you, however, that Jesus feeding of the multitudes and miracles were done in order to gain Him an audience. Certainly these things created a following for Jesus after they began to occur but the feeding of the multitudes was a compassionate response on the part of Christ towards a crowd that had already gathered. It was not the draw used to get them to come. In fact, we read in John 6 that when the food did become the draw, Christ rebuked them and many stopped following Him.
Likewise with the miracles, their primary purpose was to fulfill prophecy and confirm that Jesus was the messiah, not to draw a crowd for His teaching (Matthew 11:3-5). Christ even sometimes told those He healed to keep quiet about it.
Long and short, you’re correct there is a middle ground between seeker sensitive pragmatism and doing nothing but quoting scripture to people (not that I was adovcating that but it makes a good “other extreme”) 🙂 and we should be on the lookout for and prepared for opportunities which come up that allow us to share the truth about Christ with the lost.
God bless…
Larry
I agree. The best way to reach the lost is for the people of the church to be equipped to reach the lost not to bring them to the “professional” and get a quick prayer and a raise of the hand.
I also agree that motive is not the final check to whether or not something is right. We can be deceived and need the checks and balance of plurality in leadership.
Let me clarify in relation to Jesus’ feeding. Jesus did not do this to try to gain the crowd, but His works did draw a crowd. My point was that the crowd was not a bad thing, nor was Jesus meeting the crowd at their point of need. It is also a very good point that when the crowd began to replace allegiance to Him with devotion for more food He rebuked them.
Larry, thanks for your input. I believe this type of dialogue is very healthy to clarify and sharpen our thinking.
I don’t know whether I accept Hanks’ claim that a Da Vinci Code event at a church draws 50 times more people than a gospel presentation.
What has me piqued about the Da Vinci phenomenon is that it offers a chance to equip the typical churchgoer to defend his faith. A follower of Christ who knows what he believes — and why his beliefs can be trusted — is greatly to be preferred over a slick tract-toting evangelist when it comes to reaching our post-Christian culture.
So if churches are just peddling tracts to deal with Da Vinci, then it’s a bad thing. If they’re furnishing believers — and perhaps unbelievers too — with reasons for trusting the gospel, then thank God for Dan Brown.
I first took Hanks’ comments as meaning that ‘The Code’ was just the sort of poke in the eye that the church needed to motivate a little action in learning the true history of the Church and how to defend it. If that was what he meant, then I agree.
Eric-
Did you take Hanks’ comments in another light after further consideration or after gleaning more information?
Pat, I first took the comments as a wake-up call for the church. After seeing Larry’s take on it as an opportunity for bait-and-switch, I can see that is just as likely (maybe more so) what Hanks meant.
When Hanks says “helping churches do their job” I immediately think equipping the saints, but Hanks probably thinks evangelizing.
I’d say “helping churches do their job” is usually intended as either:
A. Getting people to go to church
B. Proselytizing (AKA: try and get people to go to church)