This stuff is making me yawn and vomit

Todd sent me this story last week. There is no question that Lifechurch.tv is the innovation leader in church and technology. The questions that are pertinent have to do with what they are actually accomplishing, in the practical and theological sense. I think when your "innovation leader" pastor begins to use words like leverage, your language game is hopelessly muddled. Kinda like, "We're gonna leverage the wisdom of the Bible to produce fully devoted followers of Christ." Ick.

Comments

[Streak]

Maybe they will "monetize" something next.

[stephen shields]

If folks are getting excited just because they've launched a bright and shiny ministry/service/whatever in some new online context, then we have every right to be skeptical. Vibrant spirituality is context-agnostic but turbocool contexts mean nothing by themselves. But lives really are being changed through what lifechurch.tv is doing thru Second Life, their Internet Campus, etc. People are making decisions to follow Jesus. So their track record does bode well for them. But we do have to take care that we aren't subscribing to an unwarranted technological triumphalism. The Facebooks of today can easily end up being the Prodigys of tomorrow.

fwiw

[dr dobson]

SS--

you are correct in asserting "success" in light of what LC is doing. The problem most of us have had on this blog with such practice is "success" by what standard? The standard that says more customers than the next plonk down the road? To "follow Jesus" is really at the heart of the debate.

I submit that the Jesus LC wants its rubes to follow is the one who wears the coolest Birkenstocks and has the coolest schools and the shiniest caucasian attendees, i.e. not the Jesus of the inner-city or the one who lives under the bridge from which we avert our eyes if forced to drive to that side of the tracks.

I agree with you (I guess) that there is a "market" for churchgoers in blogoSpace or whatever it's called, but isn't that really just peddling Jesusy product that LC feels charged with to the most effective "audience" (effective being defined by the audience that will provide the healthiest return on the investment)?

I'm sure we all watch Weeds with aplomb, so next time you see an episode, pay close attention to the theme song and the opening montage--though it uses a different scenario, the result is exactly the same as what LC wants to do to its minions. There's more to the good news than just morphing the organic existence of us all into freaking ticky-tacky Jesus people.

[Leighton]

Anyone want to start a pool on how long it will be before some of these big groups hit hard times and decide that, in order to focus on their core competencies, they need to disband half their ministries and outsource soul-winning and witnessing to consultants?

[dr dobson]

Leighton

I would love to participate in such wager, but unfortunately, LC and other similar McChurches already do that prior to entering any "sector" of the "market", irrespective of hard times or not.

[Marcus Partridge]

I don't agree with a lot of what is said on this blog site (as varied as it is), but I do share your critizism of the church as a "marketing business". Starting in the 80's, (maybe before?), the church started to use marketing techniques as a "tool" to help spread the gospel, not realizing that they, over time, would also purchase it's values and philosophy as well.
As one who has decided to stay with and try to help change and revitize the "established" church (making me a "fundy" I'm sure), this breaks my heart. But, my prediction is that since the church (the established evangelical church)has decided to buy into the models, methods, and values of this American marketing and business philosophy, they will someday be destroyed by it. What "sells" is no respecter of persons. Businesses die all the time for a varity of marketing and finacial reasons and since the church (as defined above) has decided in essence to be a business, their death is inevitable. Any thoughts?

[greg]

Marcus,

So we have more in common than we thought. I don't think people who stay with the church are automatically fundies; my good friend Jon Middendorf is certainly not a fundy, and he feels as you do about working for change within. I simply think it's largely a waste of time since there are too many vested interests to work well within an established system that exists merely to perpetuate itself.

My concern with your earlier comments was the free use of the slippery slope argument. It is one of the primary control mechanisms of fundamentalists. (And to say that someone is evangelical these days is almost the same as to say they are fundamentalist, as the evangelical movement has been largely co-opted by fundamentalists.

[Leighton]

Piggybacking greg's comment, the problem with the slippery slope argument with respect to people's behavior is that it misses the real objection to arbitrary rules. It isn't "Rules against swearing are stupid because I like to swear and sound cool," at least not after middle school (or college, in some American Christian contexts). It's that the time you spend on making sure people don't use a specific subset of forbidden words eats away at the effort you can spend against language, however superficially courteous, whose purpose is to wound and damage other people. At every church I was part of, people were more offended at "Oh, shit, I forgot my keys" than at "You may be useless at everything you do, but God loves you anyway."

The other Rules--social niceties for polite society in one particular section of the country, elevated into timeless laws for all of humanity--are equally silly. That's not in the sense that they don't have their place (I don't drink around recovering alcoholics, or swear around my grandparents, or talk about dancing among people who consider it a mortal sin), but in that that fundamentalists talk about them too much, and to the detriment of issues like poverty, justice and treating people with dignity instead of using them as tools. Some principles are just more important than others. I think it would be nice if people would always clean up their dog's mess, and I can think of lots of good, solid reasons why they should, but I feel like there are more important things to spend my time on.

This is different than saying that everyone ought to swear and drink. It's not "nobody should do it" versus "everyone should do it." The key is recognizing that the overwhelming majority of people are capable of recognizing that these things have a time and a place, and making their own judgment calls about when they're appropriate. Fundamentalist churches tend to try to keep people at the moral reasoning level of children--"Daddy said not to, I'm telling!"--and part of the reason so many people leave those environments is that they recognize when the time comes to put childish things behind them and become adults.

[Leighton]

I should have used "recognize" a few more times in my last paragraph. It would have been awesome.

[Marcus Partridge]

Greg,
"I simply think it's largely a waste of time since there are too many vested interests to work well within an established system that exists merely to perpetuate itself." I believe (sadly) that this quote is true for the most part.
It is, ofcourse, not exclusive to just the church (the government, u.n., d.m.v., etc.) But is true for a lot of "organizations". Which is what the church has become. My earlier rants against you had little to do with Nazdom as an organization, but with Nazarenes as a people...people who have ministered to me in countless ways. And I think the real tragedy is when people confuse church with the organization. The COTN is not my "beloved" demonination. But the people (even though most are hopeless fundy...no arguement here) are beautiful. And not all of us are backward. I've spent time in Mexico and Honduras and I'm amazed how fruitful their ministry is without huge buildings, resource-heavy programs, and complex organizational structures.
So, is there a way for me to meet you guys in the middle? I'm not able to "stretch" as far theologically as some do in the emergent camp, but I do share some of your values. Peace out.

[Dallas Tim]

Do you love Optimator?

If not... you're out.

[TCz]

Pointing out the theological and practical problems with an organization such as LifeChurch is like pointing out the problems with a 7th grade boy with down syndrome. Dealing with the people who buy into LifeChurch's chicanery is like dealing with that same boy's parents.

[Leighton]

Well, except that you can't recruit people to Down's Syndrome, nor do actual people with Down's Syndrome try; and in practice, most parents of Down's children I've known aren't under the illusion that their kids don't have difficulties in society, though they do get a bit defensive when assholes make fun of their kids for being born the way they were.

So, pretty much not like Down's Syndrome at all.

[john]

What is the point of this site? I think the point is clear you don't like LifeChurch.TV. Great now move on with your life.

[greg]

John,

It's apparent from your brilliant insight, generalization, and over-simplification that you are a fan of lifechurch.tv. And thanks for putting another reference in the comments for the search engines. Indeed, this site is only about my dislike for lifechurch.tv. Way to read the posts, John. You're my new spiritual hero.

[Mike]

Funny, but phrases like "explosively viral" make me think of my 6 year old vomiting in a trash can, rather than about bearing witness to the Gospel. So I will agree with you on that one, Greg.

BTW, I noticed you delisted me in your blogroll.

- Mike Laprarie

[greg]

Mike,

Didn't delist you on purpose. I'll fix it.