Pop Goes the Church - (Disagreements) Part 1

A few weeks ago, I read an article on Pyromaniacs  where two books were mentioned. One of which I bought because I was curious. The book is titled "Pop Goes the Church" by Tim Stevens. Seeing that it has forwards and recommendations from the likes of Ed Young Jr. and Bill Hybles, I already knew the answer to the question in the subtitle. This book should be considered the seeker-sensitive church manifesto. It helps you understand why sleazy pastors like Perry Noble play  "Highway to Hell" in their worship services. Tim does say that: "pushing the envelope or going over the edge is not the point (p. 145)", but who's really going to take that advice? 

However, when I read something that I already know that I'm going to probably disagree with, I try really hard to be objective and give the author a fair hearing. So, I am going to do two posts: this one will point out my disagreements and the next one will point out my agreements and raise questions about what we should do with this information.  Tim Stevens mentioned that he came from a church that preached against movies, was KJV-Only and considered Steve Green's music to be sensual (p.37). The author must have been raised in the IFB! I can totally sympathize with his frustrations about traditional church.  Being that I came from the same background as the author, I understand his mentality and his theological worldview. However, his theology seems to be very man-centered in its focus. For example:

"There is a growing percentage of people of faith in our communities who love God the best way they know how- they just see the church as completely irrelevant" (p.30)

Who are people of faith? What he means by this is that unconverted people are still "spiritual beings" and that they are "pursuing God through the culture subconsciously." (p.30-31) He straight out said: "People in our culture are searching for God." (p.62). Sorry, Paul would disagree:
Romans 3:11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 
Immediately, I have to object with this premise because the Bible makes it clear that God isn't running from mankind and mankind is not pursuing God! God is pursuing man, while man is running from God! (Gen. 3:9; Rom.1)

The next thing he built his case on is the unsubstantiated claim that

"we feel God tugging at our heart through the culture...many of us were never given any context for God speaking to us through a secular song, a blockbuster movie, or a graphic novel.  Is it possible? What do we do with it? How do we respond?" (p.61)

My question is: "Is that even a Biblical thought? My caution flags flew up all over page 61 when he went on to use a lot of subjective terms about "feeling" the presence and fervor of God at a rock concert; "experiencing" the power of movie magic".  We do not have the right to ascribe the power, or speaking of God to things that God has not clearly taken the credit for! Tim Stevens gave all kinds of examples such as the TV Series "Saving Grace" and "Desperate Housewives" as examples of fallen screen artists who express truth in their art forms. Particularly, in pop culture, there are seven themes that keep coming up:

1. A fascination with eternity and the supernatural
2. A longing for relationships
3. Love and sex
4. Honesty and authenticity
5. A Desire for purpose
6. Bitterness and revenge
7. Justice and Redemption.  (p. 96-97)

He rightly points out that these themes are predominant because fallen people are spiritual beings seeking the answers to understand these themes! Where he is wrong is at the crux of his theological understanding of the depravity of man. At this point in the book,  I remembered another book, that I wish Tim Stevens would have read called "Meaning at the Movies" by Grant Horner. Professor Horner rightly nails the idea of truth being expressed in pop culture. It isn't because people are seeking God, but because people - made in the image of God - are suppressing truth that comes from God and it oozes out in all kinds of different distorted forms that we Christians immediately recognize in the culture.

His next major premise is that we as Christians should be reaching out to the lost by inviting them to a church they can understand and relate to:

"For us, church was a bunker. It was a place of shelter to protect Christians from the bad world out there.  You didn't bring your irreligious friends to the church...no, you got them saved out there, and when they had been cleaned up, you brought them to the place of refuge...Why did we have to be won outside the doors of the church and only brought to the church after he had been cleaned up and was ready to grow?" (p.36-37)

He went on to explain about how to use themes that people are naturally drawn to such as money, sex, family, purpose, etc.. to draw them in...

"If you don't offer something people need, they won't come. If the people don't come, you can't teach them the truth.  So, an effective church is busy identifying people's needs and letting the community know you have some help they should consider." (p.121)

This is the difference between being "Missional" and "Seeker Sensitive".  The Seeker church  begins with the premise that man is looking for God and if we make the church inviting and comfortable for them, they'll come so we can tell them the gospel.
Being Missional (Biblical) on the other hand, doesn't ask the sinner to "come", it tells the Christian to "go"! But, Tim Stevens makes the right assessment about why they do church the way they do:

"It all has to do with how you view your services." (p. 151)

That's exactly it! They view worship services as the primary tool for evangelism. This is where I disagree with him about bringing pop culture into the worship. What is the purpose of the worship service? It is never taught in Scripture to be an evangelistic event. It is to be focused on God, not man. Worship isn't worship if it's focused on anything other than beholding and enjoying the nature of God! This is something only Christians can do and that is why it's something that we can't expect unbelievers to understand and relate to. I once heard John MacArthur once say at a conference:

"I don't want unbelievers to relate to anything that goes on here on Sunday...I want them to look around and say to themselves..'what in the world is going on in here?'"

That idea is "Anathema" to the Seeker Sensitive crowd because they have little idea about the character of the God they say they worship, and they equally misunderstand the character of the people they're trying to reach.

More to come....