When the Church is the Church
Posted by Tony Sisk in Uncategorized
Sitting in my living room watching television one evening, my daughter having gone to bed (this was during those less hectic days of only one child; they didn’t last very long), the show my wife and I were watching was cut short. A power outage deprived us of our TV-watching experience. Agitated, we looked at one another in wonder. “What are we going to do?”
Before too long, we began to hear muffled voices outside and gales of laughter. Being the nosy neighbor, I peeked through the Venetian blind to see several neighbors out in the square talking. Intrigued, my wife and I decided to join them. Jumping in the conversation, we were then sharing about life, love, troubles, and difficulties. It was not too long before the size of the group had grown to a point that group conversation was impossible. So we began breaking off into smaller groups, following the trails of our own discussions. Several children were out of bed, playing freeze tag, rendering useless the earlier evening’s bath.
Having been outside for nearly two hours, we heard a phone ring from inside a neighbor’s apartment. The owner rushed inside to answer it and returned with the ominous news; the power should be restored within the hour. “Awww!” was the collective groan. As predicted, within an hour from the phone call, lights flickered back on, air conditioners whirred back to life, and like toy soldiers, we all filed back to our apartments.
Falling prey to the American cult of individualism, any sense of community that our neighborhood had developed in those crucial hours was just overwhelmed and consumed by the “powers” that be. What did it take to push comfortable people out of their apartments and into loving fellowship? It was not a desire on behalf of those affected; it was rather that something we consider invaluable in our lives was removed, leaving a void that had to be filled. And when television, radio, the Internet, and the XBOX were ripped away, then we found it necessary to generate community.
The American ideal of individualism is in many respects purely antithetical to the Scripture’s teachings on community. Nowhere in Scripture will you find an independent Christian. Nowhere will you find a Lone Ranger. Nowhere will you find a Christian walled off from others, an island unto himself and even, when Christians find themselves in this circumstance, they cry out for fellowship. Consider Paul:
“Be diligent to come to me quickly; for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica—Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you…” 2 Timothy 4:9-11
Our churches often resemble the attitude of a waitress in a restaurant a brother pastor and I patronized while out of town. As we were seated, she quickly introduced herself and intoned, “May I take your order?” Later, “What can I do for you?” “Is there anything you need?” “May I refill your glass?” Inflection and emphasis were placed on those second person pronouns, making it abundantly clear that my needs were paramount. This kind of thinking cuts community off at the knees. It’s a natural progression; when we become engrossed in ourselves, we become blind to the needs of those around us.
This cult of the individual has done great harm to our churches. Independence is a virtue in American Christian experience whereas Biblical Christianity teaches something radically different. Somehow this fallacy has crept into our thinking and warped our perception of what a Christian is and to an even greater degree what a church is. Our faith is not meant to be kept—it is meant to be given away. Our churches are not meant to be “well-oiled machines” with people treated as commodities. With this attitude (albeit unwitting) we perpetuate the system rather than simply touching hurting people, lulled into believing people are a means to an end rather than the end.
The fact is the church has become abysmally deficient in developing genuine community among her people. Our cult of individuality and “do it self” mentality holds community at bay. We convulse at the notion that we cannot do it ourselves. To exacerbate the understanding, culture perpetuates the notion that it is nobler to do it on your own. Is it? Our self-centeredness bristles at the idea of giving up praise for the good of the community.
Though this is primarily a Southern Baptist blog, it is a decidedly Christian blog. The need for community is not only important among Southern Baptist churches but even more so among the Body of Christ. I pray this blog becomes a conduit for exploring this idea of community and how we, not just as Southern Baptists, but as individual Christians committed to the cause of Christ can cultivate genuine community, counter to our individualistic culture.



Brother Tony,
Great topic. I can identify with the individualistic attitude seen and am guilty of that attitude in my life at times. I know there are areas where individualism comes shining through in a big way sometimes.
Having said that, I would like to explore a couple of initiatives that seem to fit the mold for that which you are speaking. First, the “targeting” of a particular group seems to add to this individualism. While I am not against the work that God is using Brother Geoff to do there in Kentucky, I do question the “targeting” that is taking place in church planting today. It seems that “targeting” while giving community to a group, appears to do so based on individualistic needs. A target group is generally defined as one that “is a subgroup of people or organizations sharing one or more characteristics that cause them to have similar product needs.” (Market Segment–Wikipedia) To center everything we do around the needs of one group, for me, screams individualism. You want to loose your group? Change your target. I also understand the need to penetrate the culture. I guess we are defining the different age grouping that Brother Bowden posted as sub-cultures within our culture. My question centers around reaching the culture only to change in order to appease those we have already reached. If that happens, has a church truly been a church by penetrating a culture? Or has one merely cleverly used a marketing scheme in order to appeal to individualistic needs and desires to get some into a door only to loose them if we do not continue “meeting their needs”?
Second, is the small church mentality. Let me be the first to say that I am in a small church. I grew up in a small church. I began my ministry in a smaller church and I have always ministered in a small church. I believe I can say definitively that individualism is rampant in a small church–some times that is why they are small. I applaud what Brother Les is putting together and am looking forward to this conference. (Note to self, get registered) I also understand a church that is located in the middle of “Back Wood, Swampville, USA”, or “Great Plains, Big Sky, USA” simply may not have enough people residing within a 10 mile radius to grow larger than a small church. I also realize that some small churches have it ingrained in their DNA that they will be nothing but a small church. It is this second group of churches to which I now speak. Much that has been described as the uniqueness of a small church, many would describe as unhealthy. However, these small churches exist on a basis of individualism. If you do not believe it cross Daddy-Bear money pockets, or Mama-Bear WMU Leader. While pastors need to be careful about the changes we make in order to reach society, we need to make changes in these small churches in order to reach a lost and dying world. Is it painful on a pastor. I tell you it is–Can I get a witness? Is it worth it when you see a mixed race couple saved and then accepted because God has used you not to be comfortable with the status quo? You better believe it.
It is way early in the morning and I have gone way too long so let me finish. I agree that the church must be the church and in order for that to happen we must center on community. However, isn’t it the needs we have as individuals that drives us into community?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
Great comments, regardless of the length! Thanks for your observations. I believe they are valid ones and I am glad to explore some of these notions with you.
My primary point is that American individualism creates an insular church. We have become much more “at home” offering a new Bible study class, taking the folks on a Bible study cruise, going to a conference, short junkets to out-of-town churches to hear popular Christian speakers than organizing a mission project or mission trip.
Without genuine community among the body, those needs that drive us to the body do indeed become paramount and we long to have those filled. If they are not being filled, then the church itself becomes isolated unto herself, so the answer to generating greater community is one of the ironies of Scripture–you know, Christ was wounded so as to offer healing, died so as to give us life–community is generated by having our individual needs met.
In a church where this happens successfully community is then the norm, one body, one mind, one spirit, not 100 or so individual Christians.
I am not a fan of the “targeting” terminology, though I wonder how much this really takes place on the field. The term “target” seems to be, at least to me, a derogatory term used simply to criticize. I could be very wrong, and will be quick to admit if I am, but given I am not a church planter but a pastor, I will default that observation and allow one of the church planting fellas to address that concern, brother.
On your second concern, I also am a small church pastor. I can identify with crossing the patriarchs and matriarchs. And small churches, especially rural, traditional, churches (like Hunting Creek!) can become the absolute worst about remaining insular, no question there.
You said, Much that has been described as the uniqueness of a small church, many would describe as unhealthy. However, these small churches exist on a basis of individualism. It is not necessarily that way. A small church can be unhealthy, but so can a large one. Community can be lacking in a big church just as easily as a small one. But if the goal of a small church is to become big that is an unrealistic expectation and one that will likely go unmet.
Small churches, like big ones, can become obsessed with numbers (something I don’t get, btw). The challenge then becomes not getting the small church to reach their ten mile radius but rather to see a greater mission field and ministry opportunities. Perhaps the housing project in town might be a place to start, though I am sure there are numerous other examples.
Moreover, change does not come easily in a small church. Neither do I believe that the small church pastor should try to overtly implement change. The dynamic in a small church is much, much different than a larger one and where a man may be able by sheer leadership ability draw the body to where they need to be, in a small church, where folks are more relationally driven, they do not respond to “the pastor as change agent”. They will have to be “loved” to that place, the pastor having gained their trust and earned a place of leadership within the body.
Well, a long comment deserves a long response! You are a very thoughtful pastor Brother Tim. I think this is the first time you and I have ever talked together, and if so, I look forward to our friendship. God bless you and your ministry.
Brother Tony,
Thanks to your response. First, let me also say that I am not a church planter and concede much of my discussion of “target” audiences to church planters. However, if we target a group in order to form our own traditions, what happens when that “target” group ceases to exist? Are we not back where we are at this point?
Second, as to the small church. I am not for going head first and wearing out the church with statistics and other numbers that will lead to plans that lead to growth. However, neither am I for sitting down and staying stuck in a metropolitan area of 1 million people and relegating ourselves to the fact that we are just a small church. Would you not agree that many a pastor has removed himself from the soul winning scene with that kid of mindset?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
It sounds like you have an intricate balance that you need to strike. A small church in a metropolitan area has great potential for the kingdom of God! Absolutely, I agree that many pastors have that mindset.
I could have the easiest job in the world, if I relegated myself to that mindset. Or, just as easily, if maintaining the body was my primary concern, my day would be a lot more simple. Go to the hospital, nursing home, prepare a couple of diddies for Sunday and I’m home free. You can’t get much more simple than that. However, God has called me to something much more radical, much more life-changing.
You and I both see that and that is what makes pastoring one of the more difficult jobs in the world.
Tim,
I, too, appreciate your insights. But I am a bit confused by a couple of your statements. Early in your comment, regarding the missiological principle of “targeting” a cultural group for outreach and church planting, you said, “It seems that ‘targeting’ while giving community to a group, appears to do so based on individualistic needs.” Then, near the end of your comment, you finished with, “However, isn’t it the needs we have as individuals that drives us into community?” Your statements seem to be a bit self-contradictory.
I think that, in your effort to understand a “target group” principle (which is a basic operating principle of church planting and missions), you have leaned too far toward the marketing aspect. The idea of a “target group” in our cultural context is akin to the idea of reaching out to a “people group” on the international field. Both recognize that sharing the Gospel is a cross-cultural endeavor … even among the generations on our own continent.
For an excellent explanation of “target group,” worldview, and the homogeneous unit principle, I refer you to this article by linguist and cultural anthropologist Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins. It deals most clearly with issues of communication, unity, and discipleship … and shows that many of the concerns expressed toward this language of “target” or “homogenous unit” are unfounded.
The issue of “target group” is not an issue of community, it is an issue of communication. Community comes once people are reached for Christ and gathered into the community of the church. We must separate the two. For the lost, the issue is a clear communication of the Gospel, for the saved, the issues become discipleship and worship. The challenge is to integrate these two principles within the life of the church. I fear that the traditional church has erred on the side of the already saved, at the expense of a rapidly growing population of lost souls just outside the walls of our “Christian communities.”
You also made this statement, “My question centers around reaching the culture only to change in order to appease those we have already reached.” This doesn’t make sense to me. It places the missiological cart in front of its horse. We do not “reach the culture in order to change in order to appease those we have already reached.” By no means! We change in order to reach the culture. It seems to me that the traditional church is doing a fine job of “appeasing the already reached.”
You also asked, “If that happens, has a church truly been a church by penetrating a culture?” The church has created a culture all its own. It has its own language, customs, dress code, and behavioral expectations (extra-biblical). And it expects the lost to adapt to its culture if they intend to be saved. Seriously … for a young person of the 21st century, a trip through the doors of most of our churches is like a trip backward in time … something akin to a time machine. Then, they are unable to meet all of the cultural expectations of the “church community.”
I submit to you that, unless a church adapts an penetrates the culture around it, it has not been a church at all. It is more like a monastery … holy, to be sure, but isolated.
That is what must change.
Of course, this post is about community. So let me get back on topic.
I have never seen the level of community that I have experienced at Crossroads in any other church. We allow people to find the place of community (where they fit best) in small groups that meet in homes. It is genuine, deep, life-changing, ministering community. It’s a level (depth) I don’t think you can reach in 45 minutes in a Sunday School class. I think the church needs to move its efforts at community outside the walls of the building.
There you go, Tony … back on course.
Awesome post, by the way!
Brother Geoff,
Thanks for bringing in the church plant perspective. After reading your quotes from my response and it confused me, let me see if I can say it better. :>)
I did not mean to be self-contradictory. What I am trying to say concerning targeting and individualism is simply, the target appeals to the individual attitudes of the group you are reaching. For example. If you were targeting disenchanted Baby Boomers would you have the same type of church start and governance? While some Boomers would be comfortable with the form of church governance that you have, most would never go for it. Simply because they came through a time that they rebelled against authority in the hands of a few.
Let me respond to your traditional vs. contemporary style that you have presented. While I agree that, as a traditional church, we are not reaching the amount of people that contemporary style churches are under the age of 35, I also see a flaw in the contemporary style. Neither are contemporary churches reaching those 50-75 like the traditional churches are.
I too have strayed from the topic, so let me return.
I recently had the privilege of baptizing a 29 year old and his wife. They came out of occultic activity and he was gloriously saved and brought into our church family. I haven’t yet in my current ministry, but I have in past ministry’s seen people saved that were 75 years old. You talking about glorious–that was enough to make a back-sliding Episcopalian shout.:>)
I tell you these stories to say this. I am sure that Crossroads, if they haven’t already, will baptize people over the age of 70, just like I baptize people under 35. It is not about your church or my church but about His church. I know you agree. As the post says; “When the Church is the Church” will be when we recognize not only the differences in our culture, but within our own outreach audiences. Everyone desire to reach everyone, but let me be honest. I know there are people that do not like my personality and style. (I know that confession surprises some of you.) However, they may like yours, Brother Tony’s, Brother Les’ and other pastors.
I believe the sooner we can grasp that truth, the sooner the Church will be the Church.
Sorry for another long comment, but it took me that long to get back on subject. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Exactly! I think you hit the nail on the head!
It takes different kinds of churches, with different ministries, and different strategies, to reach all kinds of people. (I seem to remember a fellow named Paul who said something to that effect.
) That’s the point (at least, it’s my point). And that’s the entire idea of a “target group.” It is not to “cater” to anyone’s desires or preferences. It is simply a communication strategy to reach a culturally different population. When we send missionaries overseas, the first must learn the language and customs of the people they are trying to reach. Then they adapt their methods to communicate the Gospel clearly to that people group. Like it or not, this younger generation is different … it has customs and a language all its own … and we had better learn both if we intend to reach them.
It is no longer sufficient or acceptable for the church to remain “unchangeable,” cling tightly to it’s historical self-image, dream of how things “used to be,” wring its hands, and lament the absence of young people.
Different churches and different strategies reach different groups of people. It is basic missions … brought “home” to the United States.
I think we sort of agree (kind of … a little bit?), but we just didn’t realize it.
Tony,
You have touched upon a subject that is near and dear to my heart. In fact, I wrote a whole chapter in my dissertation (oops, some people get really spastic about that – I mean “ministry project”) talking about the loss of true Christian community, and comparing the community of the first century church to the current American church community. Individualism can be truly seen in the inability of the current church paradigm than in the inability of most churches (save for paid staff) in ministering in crisis moments. My project in fact trained a group to help our community recapture this concept found in that first century church by helping church families in crisis. My hypothesis was that in doing so, church community would begin to be recovered. It continues to be a work in progress because of the culture of individualism.
Good work and thanks!
Rob
Tony,
Great topic. I believe our American culture has become so consumer-driven (“it’s all about me”) that some churches pander to this mindset rather than redirecting their focus to Christ.
To me, it comes down to whether or not we are self-centered or God-centered. However, in order to reach non-Christians how do we engage them unless we try to appeal to their consumerism? Or should evangelism be more of a “phased” approach in that we appeal to their individualistic, consumer-oriented nature to bring them in (phase 1), and then gradually try to bring them into a more God-centered view (phase 2)?
Tim,
I will be more than happy to address your small church concerns over at my blog where that is the main topic at hand. However, let me say that if you believe that my championing of denominational support for small church pastors equates to maintaining the status quo and not growing, you are mistaken.
Les
Brother Les,
I do not believe I have stated any of what you have accused me. If you are calling me to get back on topic, I will hear you and heed your direction. But, for you to make that type of accusation toward me I feel is over the top.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Pardon me if I seemed accusatory. That was not my intent. If I had misunderstood your position, I apologize.
Les
One of the most American and yet anti-Christian phrases often uttered, “It’s none of your business.”
Geoff and all:
I must admit that often I cringe when I see the traditional church so quickly dismissed. I think much of this is perhaps semantics or at least a generalization. All of us should oppose shallow, immature, ineffective churches not matter what label they wear. I pastor a county seat church which is innovative, creative, and alive to the gospel even though many would call us traditional. It’s been a move of God to watch the number of students called into the ministry all across the world. It’s mindboggling what God can do in a small town of 6,800. I have to take issue with the characterization of appeasing the already reached, or the time warp analogy. I’m not upset. I just strongly disagree with such a characterization and generalization. Do those churches exist? Absolutely, but I think most pastors in “traditional” churches desire transformation. Broad brush strokes are often used on the other side of equation to denigrate innovative and emerging churches as not caring about doctrine or syncrenistic. That’s a generalization as well.
I have to be frank and vent a bit as well. One of the students called into youth ministry became enamored with ideas championed by those that insist on the ineffectiveness of the traditional church. In a sense he became rootless and homeless because no church could meet his expectations. Now think about this – the traditional church had led him to the Lord, discipled him, sent money to the Cooperative Program to assist him in college and seminary, but now it’s no longer effective?
The subject of the post is community. It also fits in with Bowden’s post yesterday. We must empathize and seek to understand where people are coming from. I applaud your work in a church plant. I echo your passion. I also invite you to come on down to Texas and watch a traditional church in action. It might bust some of your preconceived ideas.
Blessings,
Joe
By the way I wish we could have this conversation over a Coke. I’d love to meet you someday.
Rob,
Thanks for the encouragement. You are correct about ministering during crisis moments and how individualism truncates that. Too many American Christians look at it as buying trouble. There seems to be a gap governed by politeness that keeps us from other people. You don’t bother me with your problems and I won’t bother you with mine.
Les,
I would lean toward your two-phase model. I mean, folks out there have got to “buy” what we are “selling”, right? And it has to be wrapped in a nice neat package to boot. Also, that seems to be to be more Scriptural; out with the old man, in with the new.
Chris,
You are correct. In a way, though, often Christians use “fellowship” or “community” or “prayer concern” to be all up in somebody’s business meaning they are simply busybodies and gossips. They don’t really care about the issue that person may be facing but rather its laced with selfish appeasement of their own base desires. Thanks for that good word!
i would say that the real thing that seems to make a church grow and reach people is that they are alive and filled with the Spirit where the bible is preached and taught. they tend to have a celebrative worship style…no matter if it’s contemporarty, traditional, or blended…as long as it’s pure and true worship that celebrates Jesus. i’ll bet that we could all think of churches that have a wide range of worship styles that are growing and reaching young people…because the church is alive, and it celebrates Jesus in it’s worship.
i heard of a church in a ky town that’s close to a college and the very traditional, rural church just outside of town is the church that’s reaching the college kids! they have only hymns sung at thier worship. but, it’s done in a pure worship, celebrative style. the young people love it!
my church has a good youth group, and we have a lot of young couples mixed in with our older and senior adults. we have a blended worship. they all seem to like it. we have introduced guitars in with the piano and organ. and hopefully, one day soon, we’ll have a projector and screen to sing off of as well.
anyway, just thought.
david
Pastor Joe,
I think, as you stated, the issue is in the use of the term traditional. I think if you use the term to just describe a style you are talking about preferences.
I use the term to mean a church that encourages, by their programs and structure, the practice of having one sacred day (two if you count Wednesday!), and the remaining days secular. The traditional church member, as Chris said above, doesn’t want anybody in their business. For them, church is a place they go to settle their private matters with God. The church, as Alan Hirsch says, becomes a vendor of religious goods.
The opposite of this model is a church that encourages daily interaction among the messy lives of the saints.
Here’s a quandry: I happen to be a member of a non-traditional church, yet we have many traditional church(see definition above) members.
We still have to love on them and pull them into our lives as much as possible, while at the same time pouring our lives into those who want community.
Mike:
I hear you bro. I agree 100% with what you say. We just need to make certain to remember that today’s innovative bunch will be tomorrow’s traditional church! :-0
Joe,
I have not sought to dismiss the traditional church, my brother. We have a great need for the traditional churches in our culture. But we also have an intense need for the non-traditional. I think that far too often the “traditional church” is equally dismissive of all things new. I ministered for twelve years on the staff at four very traditional churches, so my perspective has been forged in the “fire of ministry,” not in any classroom.
I agree that my “appeasing the already reached” and “time travel” analogies are generalizations. But such was my 12 years of experience prior to planting a non-traditional church. I tend to think that they are, in general, accurate. Indeed, many pastors of more static churches desire change, but precious few are ever able to swim against the current of “we’ve never done it that way before” to see that change come about. Plus, they usually don’t remain in the pulpit and leadership of the church to bring about needed change. They move on in search of “greener pastures” or a more favorable ministry climate.
I, too, would love to have this conversation in person … but over a cappuccino.
Indeed, the topic is community. I think Mike has made one of the more insightful contributions to this post. We are dealing with very different mindsets. Different generations. Different cultures. We can’t expect church to just be “one size fits all.”
And I have never, ever experienced the level of true community that I see in action through our LIFE Groups (small groups) that meet in our homes. Very Acts 2!
David,
Your comment is spot-on, not off topic at all; but I think what you just described is the topic of this post–community! God bless ya, brother!
Joe, I hope to be around in 50 years when the candle and incense crowd get hammered with the traditional label!
Geoff:
. Isn’t that is what is amazing about the body of Christ? He uses all of us despite our imperfections. When we learn that – we build community. I am often amazed that God demonstrates His manifold wisdom through the church.
I agree but we can skip the coffee
Mike:
I hope to be worshipping with candle and incense in a different place. Where my best life will be!
Community… traditional… contemporary… non-traditional… blended… candle and incense crowd (that’s a new one to me)… are all terms that mean so many different things to so many different people. I really think that genuine Christian community, having all things in common, is only found in self-sacrificing love. It’s not the style. It’s the substance. The church in Jerusalem in the 1st century was certainly the most innovative church in history. I mean, there had never been church before, so everything they did was innovative. The principles they adhered to were simple. They dedicated themselves to the apostles’ doctrine. They dedicated themselves to one another. They sacrificed all they had so that all could have. The quickly chose leaders to solve problems rather than pretending there were no problems (a.k.a., Acts 6:1-7). They apparently shared the gospel everywhere they went. They met together house to house. They shared meals. They prayed together. That’s what what growing Christians do. That’s what a healthy church looks like. I don’t think it matters what label you put on your process. I think it matters only that you live it out, together.
Tony,
The situation you described with all the neighbors out talking in the square is everyday fare for Spanish society, in which I have lived the last 17 years. Yet, for the most part, they still lack the true community that only the bond of the Spirit can bring. I wonder if perhaps the substitute community life they experience in some ways innoculates them to recognizing their need for true community, and that is why, for the most part, it is so hard to reach Spaniards for Christ. Or at least one of the reasons.
However, I have experienced some wonderful community with Spanish brothers and sisters in Christ. And their natural cultural bent towards being gregarious and not isolating themselves certainly contributes to this.
I also agree with Geoff about the importance of small groups, with lots of dynamic interaction. To experience true community, we must get to truly know each other.
But then, we must not get stuck in a rut of navel-gazing in our small groups. We must be outward-looking, always seeking to bring others in, and never exclusive.
TIM ROGERS,
I have observed since I started Blogging that you really have a problem with you Attitude. You come out attacking a Brother who reaches out in Christ to help you. Brother Les Puryear’s Small Church is having a GREAT IMPACT and that is what this post is about. Why have you displayed this type THIS TYPE OF ATTITUDE toward a Brother. I copied below your little TISSY you displayed for all to see. You can also read about it on my Blog and ask God to search your Heart.
Les said:
Tim,
I will be more than happy to address your small church concerns over at my blog where that is the main topic at hand. However, let me say that if you believe that my championing of denominational support for small church pastors equates to maintaining the status quo and not growing, you are mistaken.
Les
Tim you said:
Brother Les,
I do not believe I have stated any of what you have accused me. If you are calling me to get back on topic, I will hear you and heed your direction. But, for you to make that type of accusation toward me I feel is over the top.
Blessings,
Tim
Les said:
Tim,
Pardon me if I seemed accusatory. That was not my intent. If I had misunderstood your position, I apologize.
Les
In His Name
In The Spirit,
Any Church, Small or Big can and has to reach out to the people, young and old. It takes a mixture of people of all walks of life to reach out, and a church that shows Love and Preaches God Word like Brother Jeff young and Brother Dale Sterzer do. A church should one another each other and also the community in it’s area.
Brother Les Puryear has set an example. I once told Brother Les that I could not see his Heart and Les responded by changing his attitude and showing His Heart.
You can read it here:
http://pastor-dale.blogspot.com/
in His Name
Wayne,
I appreciate your visits and your concern for the atmosphere of the interactions here at sbc IMPACT! We value your input. And we also value the conversation, views, and feelings of Bro. Tim. He is a valued and honored friend.
I think the thing with Tim and Les was just a misunderstanding. I’m confident that Les didn’t mean to offend or accuse with his comment. And I hope that Tim has read and accepted his heart-felt apology. So I think it best that we consider the matter closed and not call any further attention to it. We need to let them discuss their points of view “off-line,” if necessary. I know you’ll understand.
And, I agree with you … it does take a mixture of people from all “walks of life” and cultures to reach out to everyone with the Gospel message. That’s why we MUST “do ministry” in different ways, using different and innovative methods and resources, to reach very different people.
Blessings, My Brother,
Geoff
P.S. You Texans need to let go of a little bit of that rain … sort of let it slide eastward. We’re parched up here in Kentucky!