Here are some more differences… Here some additional ones that I’d add: 1. They don’t have a clue what you do all week, and they probably think you make too much money. 2. They expect totally different things from you than the way you are spending your day today. 3. For 90% of your attenders, the next time they think about you or your church is the next Sunday morning or Saturday night… and the thought is “Am I going to get up and go to church?” 4. They think you’ve got a pretty easy job. You think you have the hardest job in the world. What would YOU add to the list?I really like the post that Michael Lukaszewski posted yesterday. He talks about how pastors always think that the people in their churches are just like them. The reality is… they’re not. Here are some of Michael’s examples: They don’t know who John Piper or Steven Furtick are. They are confused when you quote them without context. They aren’t familiar with their Bibles. When you say, “You know…like it says in First Timothy,” they absolutely don’t know. They don’t work in a Christian environment. They aren’t surrounded by Christians who love worship music and some have bosses who are jerks. They don’t go to conferences. It’s a way of life for many church leaders, but the most people don’t do it. They don’t go to church every week. This might be the biggest of all. You’re there every week; they are not.
And they’ve published a guide and learning piece showing what they needed to do behind the scenes to make this happen. Logistics, you might say. But one blogger finds the document proves that the goal was ‘clearly numbers, and an opportunity to create excitement, get people in the community talking, hence new people keep coming through the doors.’ Hogwash. It’s called being prepared for what God might do. Whether you agree with the whole ‘spontaneous’ baptism thing that many churches are doing (which I think is probably more biblical than announcing it a few weeks beforehand and asking people to mill it over as we do in most churches), the document is interesting… and it shows the amount of planning and leadership that it takes to be prepared. In our churches… there are few things that just happen. Most everything takes a good measure of planning and leadership… even spontaneous baptisms. What’s YOUR take? ToddWow… Steven Furtick is getting some bad blog press from some of the watchdog blogs about publishing a resource kit for churches on how to host a ‘spontaneous baptism’. You see, Elevation Church baptized 2,158 over two weekends recently, giving people the opportunity to get baptized on the spot.
“We decided to do prayer time live during the first rebroadcast time. We were getting so many requests for prayer.”The church’s Motion Graphic Designer explained:
“the team decided to focus the rebroadcast on Jesus – so we reformatted the content a bit – We are trying to stay in the flow of what the Spirit is leading us to do.”And Pastor Steven Furtick tweeted the next morning:
“I apologize for the inconvenience of last night’s #CodeOrangeRevival programming change-Matt Chandler’s msg will reair today@10:12am&12:12pm.”The church also has said that the sermon will be available for podcast after the revival along with all other revival messages. Rosebrough’s response, according to the Christian Post:
“Fact is, Furtick’s ‘explanation’ is a flimsy effort at spin/damage control and an admission that a deliberate decision was made to remove Chandler’s sermon from the first two rebroadcasts.”He told the Post that he broke the censorship story on Saturday morning and then, shortly thereafter, Elevation “reversed their decision” and re-broadcast Chandler’s message. A quote from the Post:
In Rosebrough’s view, the talk was a “boxing match theologically; if you watched Furtick’s body language he was pissed. He wasn’t clapping, he was shaking his head.”So… which was it? Seems to me… pure speculation on anyone’s part. The charge of ‘censorship’ seems a bit over the top. If, in fact, Chandler shared something that went against the church or Furtick’s teaching, I would think they have full rights to not show it again… at least without being accused of censorship. When someone gives an explanation, I normally try to accept it. In this case, the follow-through from Elevation was actually showing Chandler’s sermon twice (and they’ll release it as a podcast). Doesn’t sound like censorship to me. Was there something more to the story? Could be. But I think Rosebrough may be totally speculating that all this went down exactly as he describes it. And I think that’s a huge speculation. Thoughts? Read more here.