Unfortunately, the joy of the Easter Season was muffled due to the numerous bribes being offered by evangelical churches for folks to turn out for Easter Sunday morning worship. My concern with these churches and various other churches is that by offering bribes they unintentionally communicate that they are ashamed of Christ, God, the Holy Spirit, and the gospel. Bribing people to attend church is the equivalent of giving crack cocaine to a drug addict while telling him to quit drugs. Sure, the addict may quit, but it will be in spite of what we have done instead of because of what we have done.
One example can be found here where a church gave away 10 cars on Easter Sunday, plus many other prizes.
Another example can be found here where a church blatantly says that they’re bribing people with “crap in order to meet Christ.”
You can find another example here where a Baptist church in Ohio gave away two $500 eggs on Easter Sunday, one to a visitor and one to a church member. (HT HereIBlog)
We cannot give people that have shown themselves to be world-lovers instead of God-lovers, another reason to love the world more than God while claiming to “love them in a Christ-like manner.” We cannot tell them that God is more valuable than stuff while using stuff to bribe them to hear about God’s saving grace; for, we are telling them God is more valuable while showing them that stuff is more valuable. In order to bribe them to come to church to worship God, we must silently tell them that He is not valuable enough in and of Himself to be worshipped. We can say “We want God to be glorified, etc., etc.” all we want, but what we do communicates our heart as much as what we say. Just like someone that gives a cocaine addict cocaine while saying, “I want to help you quit,” the church that bribes people to attend worship encourages their audience to not value God above all things while saying, “You should value God above all things.” If a person does not value God above all things, they do not belong to God.
Let’s take a look at Jesus’ example to see if He used bribery in His evangelism:
Luke 9:57-62 – ” 57As they were going along the road, someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” 58And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” 59 To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” 60And Jesus said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” 61Yet another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” 62Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (ESV).
In this passage Jesus clearly reveals the various idols in these men’s lives. Unless we forsake all things, we cannot trust in Christ. Bribing people to listen to God/Christ communicates that neither God, nor Christ are valuable enough to be heard. How can someone forsake all things when we just used something else other than Christ to get them to listen to Christ?
Luke 14:25-33 – ” 25Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, 26“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. 28For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.”
Jesus here argues that even the blessings of God must be forsaken in order to come to Christ. So, these people that we are bribing must climb over our bribes (money, cars, etc.) in order to accept the gospel. We thus are placing another obstacle between them and Christ.
Mark 10:17-23 – 17And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 19You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” 21And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. 23And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!”
Here Jesus warns His disciples and us how dangerous it is to be rich in this world. When we bribe individuals to come to worship, we however try to capitalize on our culture’s ungodly desire to be rich. After all, why are these churches full of people that want to win these prizes? There may be exceptions to this; but, if these hearers are not there to worship God, they are there for a wicked reason, period.
To those reading that believe God is glorified through bribing people to hear His gospel, I honestly want to know where you get the authority to bribe people to hear the gospel. There isn’t one example in Scripture of anyone bribing people to hear the gospel. This is amazing considering that Jesus, His disciples, and others in the New Testament could perform miracles. Talk about a perfect way to bribe people! So, why did these miracle-workers not use miracles to bribe hearers to listen to the gospel? The answer is that they believed the Author of the gospel was valuable enough to be heard. Those that bribe however reveal their doubt of this truth because they believe they must bribe people to hear the gospel. We must understand that our methodology communicates that we are ashamed of the gospel if we seek to hide the gospel behind temporary toys, even though we may vehemently deny this. What we do communicates truth, or hides it. I believe bribery hides the truth; or communicates lies about the truth.
Furthermore, in case any of us are thinking at this point, “But, people are being saved,” the problem is that we’ve been commanded to make disciples, not to merely get people saved. Our methodology matters! God cares just as much about how we reach people, as about how many people we are reaching. It is impossible to produce disciples when we teach that God is not valuable enough to be heard without bribery (Although God has been known to raise up godly people in spite of their leaders). Furthermore, those who bribe do not know the future. These people who may be trusting in Christ would have possibly come to Christ within a few days, weeks, or years without being bribed to listen. In other words, bribers could have produced a disciple that loved the Word of God because it is the Word of God, if they used the Word of God to get them to listen to Christ.
Finally, the end does not justify the means. Yes, God can save through His gospel in the craziest circumstances. This fact however does not mean that we should seek to create crazy circumstances. Just because God spoke through a donkey one time does not mean that we should bring a donkey on stage to preach; just because Martin Luther was saved as a Catholic Monk does not mean we should encourage sinners to go join a monastery in hopes that God will change them with the gospel; just because Dwight Moody was originally raised in a Unitarian Church does not mean that their teachings eventually drive hearers to the true gospel; etc. In other words, bribers do not have a biblical leg to stand on; and their pragmatism is blatantly ungodly even if some people are trusting in Christ. Also, bribers do not know how many people that they’ve encouraged to devalue God, Christ, God’s Word, and the gospel because they’ve taught through their methodlogy that He is not worthy to be heard because of Who He is. Bribers, if you are not ashamed of the gospel, God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, or Scripture, then use methodology that reveals this truth. The gospel is good news! Quit hiding it by garnishing it with things that your hearers must forsake in order to believe the gospel. We must realize that if your bribery proves that you really love Jesus and people, then you love Jesus and people more than Jesus, the prophets, apostles, or any other biblical example; for they were not willing to bribe people to listen to the gospel.
Because of the biblical examples we have in Scripture, including Christ, we must ask why they were unwilling to bribe people to listen to the gospel? Why do you think Jesus Christ, the One who could work so many miracles that all men would be bribed to hear His gospel, did not perform many miracles and selectively healed only some individuals in a sea of hurting people (John 5:3-9)? Jesus could have ended world hunger, disease, sickness, poverty, etc., but He instead chose to reveal to the world that He is the conquerer of the Fall. The reason why there is hunger, sickness, death, etc. is because we’re not in the Garden of Eden anymore; and yet, Jesus revealed through His sinless life, miracles (ending disease, sickness, birth defects, hunger, death, etc.), and His truth that the Fall had no hold on Him. He ultimately proved this by rising from the dead. He did all of these things to reveal to a Fallen world that if they come to Him, they too have conquered the results of the Fall, including death, in Him. So, instead of Jesus bribing people, He simply revealed Himself to sinners, encouraging their repentance and faith in Him. Bribers, are you cheapening this? How can we get people to look to Christ as the Second Adam, the restorer of what Adam destroyed, by enticing them with forbidden fruit? It is wicked to come to a worship service for selfish reasons; and yet, bribers are intentionally encouraging people to come to their worship services for selfish reasons. When we do this, we are encouraging people to sin while trying to get them to run to the sinless savior? This is the opposite of what Jesus did.
So, let us examine our methods to see if they communicate what we say we believe. Does bribing people to listen to the gospel communicate the infinite value of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the gospel? I think it communicates the opposite; but, what do you think?
If I am wrong on this; I want to know it. So, if you believe you have a solid biblical reason to bribe people to hear the gospel, I want to hear it.
[like]
{ 1 trackback }
{ 61 comments }
I would say that even if people make a profession of faith at these marketing events (I’m not going to call them worship services) that doesn’t mean that a genuine conversion took place. Maybe it did.
What we do know is the theological bankruptcy of the “Purpose Drivel Life” type of evangelism peddles a gospel that is easy on the ears. There is little if any proclamation of sin, God’s wrath, Christ’s substitutionary atonement, or mankinds separation from God due to our sinfulness. If anyone is genuinely converted at these “events”, it’s inspite of them not because of them.
“”What we do know is the theological bankruptcy of the “Purpose Drivel Life” type of evangelism peddles a gospel that is easy on the ears.”"
Joe, I agree with you that many who call themselves “Purpose-driven” practice Christianity Lite. Yet, I don’t think it is particularly unique to that brand.
I’ve heard Rick Warren preach several times in person (and many times otherwise) and he has always been clear on the gospel, and not at all easy on the ears.
I’m not saying he’s perfect or has never said something that made me wince, but I don’t think we should paint with too broad a brush.
Purpose-driven is not a theology, but a way to express one’s theology. The better one’s theology, the better one’s expression of it will be. The great danger, in my mind, is to have a great way to spread a bad theology.
And, someone can be genuinely saved even with a less than perfect messenger. I’m thinking of Jonah for example. His heart was definitely askew but the message still came through.
Also, I think that a genuine conversion (or many), in and of itself, does not legitimize a particular practice. I think you are very correct in pointing out that some people “get saved inspite” of the messenger, not because of them.
Thanks for the post.
Funny, because I’d argue many conversions at rallies and events like Judgment House, Heaven’s Gates…, and insert various “revivalists” are real either but just heightened emotional responses.
Frank is dead on because Purpose Driven has come to mean different things to different people, some to defend their positions and others to attack those positions.
Let me first say I appreciate what you are saying and you make a very good point. However, as is typical with the popular current trend of finger pointing and criticism, it seems that you have fallen into the trap of getting worked up over someone taking something that was already being done and just doing it bigger and gaining more attention for it than any of the other churches and pastors that have done it before.
This holds true for theology as well as methodology.
How many preachers water down the gospel? We don’t call them out by name but if one becomes successful and writes a book that becomes popular suddenly we jump all over it forgetting the fact that there have been far more preachers doing far more harm preaching the same message for much longer than our current target has been around.
We want to call out bribes? Why? Because suddenly there is a church that is giving big items and grabbing headlines. But what about the previous decades when the church has offered ANYTHING free in order to entice the community to be involved with their programs? That would include youth Pizza parties, Easter egg Hunts, Trunk or Treat, Fall Festival, Sports Leagues, and the list goes on. Where were the bloggers on the soapbox then? In my mind there is NO difference. Free stuff is free stuff no matter how you spin it. These churches just realize that they need to offer stuff people actually WANT. And, do not misunderstand I am not saying it is right or wrong. That is not my point. My point is simple, Where were the bloggers on the soapbox then?
You see the roots of whatever we are criticizing usually go deeper than we like to admit and we get our feathers ruffled when someone takes it further than we would like. Sometimes I wonder, not saying this is the case with you at all by the way, if we try to poke holes because we are jealous in some way. Jealous that we did not have the idea, jealous that we are not privy to the same attention, jealous that we cannot afford to do the same, or even jealous that we did not have the faith to make a similar bold leap.
Ultimately we have to start with the underlying problem rather than dealing with than trying to treat the outcome. If I have a rash that itches and I only deal with it by applying anti-itch cream when it flares up but don’t deal with what is causing the rash then I am really only covering up the problem and not dealing with it directly. Sometimes dealing with it directly hurts and is uncomfortable but until it is addressed it will not go away.
Jason, I really don’t understand your point. Whether we write about it now, or back then, it doesn’t matter. When there’s a huge media response, I feel the need to respond publicly because I personally don’t want other churches to think that bribing people is the way to grow their churches. I want them to consider the Scripture on the matter before they decide to bribe people.
Considering this is the first full article I’ve written against bribery, I don’t understand how I’m on a soapbox. You actually sound like the one on a soapbox, a “criticizing those who criticize” soapbox.
Also, do you really think I can’t bribe people to come to church, worship, etc.? Do you really think that I can’t mimick Joel Osteen, or preach like him? I can burp babies, smile all the time, and tell everyone how wonderful they are as well. It amazes me that people point to “jealousy” as a motivater for those against this type of mentality because what these churches are doing is the easy way. Try going door to door with the gospel; try getting your church members to do what Paul, Peter, and Jesus did: daily evangelism as they went about their daily lives. Then, talk to me about jealousy. What these churches are doing is easy, very, very easy… even cults and the Devil himself can offer these things.
I have thought about bribing people; these ideas are not new. Also, I don’t understand how bribing is a “bold leap of faith.” It’s the exact opposite of a bold leap of faith. We’re giving away things that we know people will want because even devil worshippers want these things.
Concerning your “underlying problem” reference, I don’t understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that I have an underlying problem, so I wrote this article? Or, are you saying bribers have an underlying problem that causes them to bribe?
Jared,
I am not criticizing you or anyone who criticizes. I actually lean towards agreeing with you more or less. I am trying to express a frustration that time after time no one ever seems to go any deeper than “The big name pastor with the big church went too far”. Even if I agree with someone’s criticism (and there are more of those opinions out there to count) It never seems to be more than that. Sometimes I feel like we fall into the trap of the Pharisee in Luke 18:11. Real change happens on a much deeper level. You want to make a change? Then go deeper. Address the underlying problem, the place the problem you are pointing out started. I make that statement to anyone who is reading and sees a problem in the church. My concern is that I see, I read, I hear all this “calling out” but it has a common theme. Always going after the big name. What about the far more small churches doing the exact same thing on a much smaller scale. Bribery didn’t start with a church giving away cars. It started simpler and more innocently. Maybe with free pizza. Maybe it didn’t even start as bribery maybe it started with the way we allow members of our churches treat the churches maybe we as the small church leaders have created the very monster we seek to conquer. I can’t tell you how many people I have ministered to have reacted negatively to having to pay to do something with the church. Heck I have little old church ladies that think the only reason they tithe is so that the church will provide them with Open Windows and Sunday School Books. To find a solution to such a problem is going to hurt and should hurt. It should hurt the very ones trying to find the solution as they begin with deep personal introspection and begin to see God chisel away at the way they live and then use that as an opportunity to build to change the culture.
I hope that clarifies what I am pushing for.
Jared,
I imagine these events come from good intentions. The assumption is that “if we just get people into the door then God has a chance to get ahold of them”. Then it is often assumed that once they become Christians then we can confront their idols.
It’s funny b/c what I think actually drives many who do this a belief that Gods word is powerful…and when people get inside the door and the preacher can proclaim the gospel to them God is big enough to save them.
So in my opinion what is going on here is a faulty ecclessiology. Rather than seeing church as the place to be equipped to go out and spread the gospel with our life and lips, church is now seen as the place to draw people to get them into the kingdom.
Here’s my question. How do we measure this tendency? It’s a continuum, and those churches went way over to propriety line. But don’t we do a little the same by cushioning chairs and air-conditioning buildings? How about the coffee bars in the church?
I doubt that anyone here will justify or defend giving away big screens and stuff on Easter Sunday. Crass. Unthinkable.
I think we’d all agree that some level of inducement to attend (nice decor, a comfortable sanctuary, convenient parking etc) are okay. I think we would all also agree that these churches went over the line. I think we would.
The question for me is this: where is the line?
Good insight David. The idea of a continuum seems to be the issue — at least for me.
And, where are they giving away those Big Screen TV’s?
PS–The choice of words is so important: “inducement” vs. “bribe.”
“Making the people who come comfortable is totally different that bribing them to come in the first place.” –>> Should read –>> “Making the people who come comfortable is totally different than bribing them to come in the first place.”
“And, where are they giving away those Big Screen TV’s?”
Minneapolis
Yes. The giveaway’s are crass. I don’t see that making folks comfortable with padding and heating/air-conditioning is is the same neighborhood as door prizes, etc. Making the people who come comfortable is totally different that bribing them to come in the first place. Category error.
Squirrel
One thing’s for sure: if one’s theology is verified by seeing how many people one can turn “off” to Jesus, then certainly any approach that seems to try to turn someone “on” to Jesus is going to be criticized.
Here’s a debate that I first entered more than 30 years ago:
“”But, people are being saved,” the problem is that we’ve been commanded to make disciples, not to merely get people saved.”"
Usually people who have shouted this mantra over the years have done very little of either. It is that pesky “either/or false dichotomy” and it is definitely not new.
Pray tell, how do you disciple someone until you win them to Christ? (and of course I mean watch Christ win them to Himself while you stand on the sideline and cheer)?
I’m definitely not for all the practices outlined above, but I just wonder about judging the motives of people, or trying to determine who is or who is not “genuinely saved” (See my post to Joe).
I’m no great fan of Robert Schuller (not sure of that spelling) but I thought he had a great answer for his critics: “I like the way I’m doing everything wrong and getting something done better than the way you are doing everything right and getting nothing done.”
I think he adapted that from something Dwight L. Moody once said.
Again, I am not endorsing any particular methodology because much of it clearly is “out-of-bounds” (my message for this Sunday) and will result in stunted growth in many converts to be sure. I just think we have to be careful not to judge the motives of people (not saying anyone is doing that, just pointing out a possible pitfall) or to suggest we can determine who is genuinely saved and who is not.
“”What we do know is the theological bankruptcy of the “Purpose Drivel Life” type of evangelism peddles a gospel that is easy on the ears.””
that should be Porpoise Drivel Lies”
I’m no huge fan of Rick Warren or the Purpose-Driven series. On the other hand, I do not think that he is the devil either. I’m guessing this was an attempt at humor (which I appreciate) but I don’t think the conversation is advanced by ridiculing Warren.
I actually think that most of the damage was done by Warren’s followers, not Warren himself.
Thanks, Dave.
totally agree, Dave
I think the bigger question is: What is church for? (I mean the regularly scheduled worship services). Is it (primarily) for Christians to assemble to worship, or is it (primarily) for evangelism. I understand that both can sometimes occur. I’m talking about primary purpose. I think the biblical record would clearly indicate that Christian worship services are just that, for Christians to worship. If unbelievers are present, then they may be touched by the Spirit in the midst of that worship, but the primary purpose of a worship service should not be evangelism. Church is where Christians go to be equipped for evangelism.
Bill, I know you clarified your position so you are not setting up and either/or dichotomy, so I basically agree with your point (not that you need my validation).
People (unbelievers) cannot experience the Spirit if we “stifle” Him in order to make sure nobody feels uncomfortable. I probably lean more to an “evangelistic” worship service than you might feel comfortable with, but I do realize that the greatest tool for evangelism is God’s Presence.
Thanks for your post. It stated the case well.
I just realized, I actually wrote about something similar last Easter. You may find it interesting:
http://www.mikeleake.net/2010/04/monday-ministry-musing-packing-pews-on.html
What can you expect from a generation of pastors and church members trained by evangelical “youth group” that crazy stunts and giveaways were the only way to get lost people to hear about Jesus?
Many senior pastors that would recoil over giving away a car during Easter Sunday allow or even pressure their youth pastors to pull the same kind of theatrics throughout the year (though with a smaller budget).
Very good point. We are reaping what has been sown for decades
I totally agree. Sort of facing a similar thing at my church right now with pressure on the youth group to “entertain”.
Hi Jarred,
While I do not disagree with your main point–that it is self-defeating to “bribe” people with things like cars, TV’s etc., to enter what is supposedly a worship service, or for that matter, an evangelistic service–I do have to say a couple of things.
First, I agree with Dave that the whole issue of bringing unsaved people into a place where the Gospel is preached exists on a continuum. There are some–but relatively few–who because they have both reached a crisis in their own lives and somehow recognize that the solution to their crisis can be found where the Gospel is proclaimed, thus enter into a “church building” on a Sunday morning. These few would come if the building or setting was guaranteed to be far more uncomfortable than anything else available. I dare say the church advanced greatly under such circumstances, i.e., in the catacombs of the Rome during the Empire, in Communist China, etc. But for the rest–saved and unsaved alike–where do inducements like air conditioning, comfortable seats, and a pleasant surrounding end and bribes begin? I am not at all sure we can quantify the difference except possibly in cultural terms, and that is constantly subject to change. If a church in the Deep South in the 1940s or 50s had air conditioning and few, if any of the people of the community did, (only their competition in the local movie theater) and started a Sunday evening service in July or August (or for that matter, a Saturday evening one), might they not be accused of bribing people to come?
Second, I wish you would reconsider how you sometimes phrase things. In this entry, you end with, “So, if you believe you have a solid biblical reason to bribe people to hear the gospel, I want to hear it.” The way a question is phrased often dictates the responses to it; at best, it will slant the answers, and for that matter, it may stiffle any answers at all–not prevent them, just quench them. In politics, it is called a “push-poll,” that is, the questions are phrased in such a way as to both get the desired results and convince people of pollster’s own perspective. Any poll has to be designed very carefully for the same reasons, and include multiple ways of asking the same question. But by characterizing any difference of opinion as “bribing people to hear the gospel,” you have effectively shut down expressions of different opinions. In this particular instance, I do not disagree with you, subject only to my point in the preceding paragraph. Furthermore, electronically as this is, it would not bother me to disagree and be characterized as one who supports “bribes” to get people into church. But in the same community or church, people may not vocally disagree, but if they do not like the way something is said, they may just pull back. For instance, had you phrased this as, “If I am wrong on this; I want to know it. So, if you believe you have a solid biblical reason to induce people to hear the gospel, I want to hear it,” it would mean the same thing, but be much more inviting of dialogue.
John
BTW, I am told my cousin John L. Smith, when he was pastor of FBC in either LaFayette (Alabama) or one of the other small towns there in the 1950s, had a/c installed, and began a Monday evening service, was accused of just that–bribing people to come to church. Today, because virtually every church, business, and house has a/c we don’t give it a second thought–unless it is either too cold or not cold enough, in which case the chairman of the properties committee gets reemed out by all the little old ladies for having it too cold and by the young folks for not having it cold enough. My point is: the difference in legidimate inducement and bribes are determined by culture.
John
I dislike gimmicks intensely.
This is, however, highly ironic. Check Tim Rogers’ dissertation over at “Southern Baptists in North Carolina”.
I’m sorry, but I cannot agree with the comparison of coffee bars, comfortable seating, and fellowship inducing amenities to that of giving away cars for coming to church.
I cannot comprehend how a church can give away cars, cash, stuff while celebrating the resurrection. Then again, I cannot comprehend how my peers can give their children Easter baskets literally full with hundreds of dollars worth of stuff either. Maybe these two things are linked.
However, the coffee bars, the comfortable seating, donuts, etc. if utilized by the church effectively put members visiting and fellowshipping with each other AND visiting with people that they may not know who may or may not be members as well before a worship service. By doing this, the churches I’ve seen do this also take out the awkward “fellowship” right smack dab in the middle of a service which usually either creates a disjointed worship set or acts as a filler after some other function was included in the service.
I have zero problem with churches trying to foster an atmosphere of comfort designed to encourage fellowship and visitation before and after a service.
This is a wholly different animal from giving away a new car Bob Barker style.
Since I raised that issue, let me clarify. I’m not saying it is the same thing, just that they are points along the continuum.
My point was to ask where inducement and comforts becomes bribery. We all (I think) understand there is a line. I’m just wondering where that line is.
I think the line is drawn by answering this question “Are we intentionally using something other than Christ, His word, etc. to get people to do something commanded by God”? Ex: church attendance, evangelism, etc. Now, people may be doing what God commands for the wrong reasons, but they shouldn’t be able to lay this at our feet.
People have padded seats, a/c, etc. at home, it doesn’t bribe them to attend church. Years ago it could have been a bribe, I guess… it’s difficult to say.
We have coffee, tea, and donuts in our ‘hospitality’ room. I’m not sure that is an ‘incentive’, so much as a warm welcoming for our own parish members, their guests, and all visitors who come in to pray.
I know myself, that a steaming hot cup of coffee after seven o-clock mass on a cold winter morning is truly a blessing. What is more important is that the people who serve others are conveying a welcoming spirit. My parents, for many years, were on the ‘hospitality’ committee, and served coffee and doughnuts after mass. For them, it was a labor of love.
I guess food doesn’t count as ‘a bribe’. Sounds like you all are talking about Churches that give away more ‘sought after’ materialistic goods.
Christiane…my hubby and I are in charge (voluntarily), of bringing two huge thermoses (sp?) of coffee each Sunday for our couples S.S. class. So we’re the bribe, ha ha. in a roundabout way. Does ensure a bit more faithfulness on our part when we are plum wornout from colds, work, and sleepless nights for one thing and another. But…we do like that coffee and the treats that others bring–donuts, breakfast casseroles, and various other goodies. No one’s ever offered us a television though. lol
Christiane, I think you’ve said something interesting here: “I guess food doesn’t count as ‘a bribe.’” I would reply, “It depends on the context.
As others have pointed out, AC was a rarity once upon a time and as such, an air conditioned church was essentially a bribe in the hot southern climes. Today, of course, AC is the norm. The item has not changed, but the context has.
For our work here, food IS a bribe on an enormous scale. Of course, I recognize that you were referring to your context and I am referring to mine.
Here’s the question you’ve inspired: of all the activities, events, gifts, etc., listed in this discussion, are there some items that are bribes in one North American context and not in another?
Jesus bribed me to become a Christian. He said He would trade my miserable, hell-bent, disgusting life for a blessed, heaven-bound, meaningful life.
I took the bribe.
I almost titled this article “Bribe people with Jesus, nothing else.”
Man oh man, do I EVER like THAT!
Jared, when I was lost and hadn’t been to church in umpteen years, I went because my dad sent me a tract in the mail instead of a check. The tract had “NEW LIFE” on the front of it. For weeks, that “new life” idea poked me in the inner recesses of my mind. I wanted a new life. Mine was a mess. Dad seemed to think if I went to church I might be in better shape (after all, he knew the state of my being at the time). So…when I got to church I found out more about that “new life”. Within a few months, Jesus gave me a new life and that’s what drew me to church. Maybe we oughta all put that on our marquees out front…Come one, come all. We offer a new life here. Just thinking out loud.
Frank, me too.
I really do not know to whom this needs to be addressed. So, to all,
While I do disagree with the commercialization of getting people to come to church. The church in the video uses their stuff as an invitation gimmick. However, is there a difference in doing that and giving someone who is visiting a visitors packet with a gift in it?
Blessings,
Tim
“”is there a difference in doing that and giving someone who is visiting a visitors packet with a gift in it?”"
Tim, given the cheap pen in our visitor’s packet versus a large screen TV — I can see a bit of a difference: I’m going to visit that church, sign in with my cheap pen and take home TV.
PS–I’ll even leave the pen on the pew.
Tim
I’d say it’s an issue of “materiality”. That’s auditor-speak for “How big a deal it is”. For instance, if I go to Anytown Baptist Church and get a welcome packet with a key chain or pen that has the church’s contant info and maybe a sermon by the pastor on CD I’m going to say that’s not that big a deal.
Now if I go to Somewhere Baptist Church for their Easter service and get one of the Easter Egg’s with $5,000 in it, brother, let me tell you that would be a good chunk of change to this fat, bald headed white boy.
Long story short–Yes I think there’s a difference. Your mileage may vary.
Another difference is this: A visitor’s packet is not an inducement to come to church. A new car is. One is a gift, the other is a bribe (or prize).
Um, why did my reply to Tim go into moderation??
Just to torture you. Seriously, a lot of comments have been finding their way into moderation for reasons I don’t understand. I blame liberals. But I have no evidence.
If its any comfort, you aren’t the only one.
Joe, don’t feel abused or threatened, bro. several of my comments have gone into moderation. I think it’s the Lord’s way of slowing down our rants…
we’d probably all be better off if things we said went into moderation and forced us all to think a little longer and then our comment gets spit back at us in an email, and then we got a second chance to consider our words before we hit the publish button. wonder how that would change our conversations…??? hmmmn
Jared,
I’ve also heard about a few edgy and cool guys bribing guys with beer along with Bible Study at a micro-brewry. Unbelieveable!
All in favor of NOT having another unproductive discussion of alcohol, say aye. All opposed, nay.
The ayes have it by an overwhelming majority. Let’s NOT have another fight about alcohol on a post that has nothing to do with it.
Aye! Well shoot…as usual I am too late.
Hello from the colonies!
I have no doubt that most (if not all) of those engaging in such ‘bribery’ have good intentions, i.e. ‘bring ‘em in and while they’re here give them the gospel’. They would even appeal to 1 Cor 9:19-23 for biblical warrant.
Going by some of our local examples, I could force myself to overlook this if indeed people were given the gospel but often they are not, they are just given a sales pitch to accept Jesus the willing therapist and promising problem solver who will improve your life exponentially and give you wisdom to make ‘right choices’ so you don’t keep on making the same ‘mistakes’.
The practice of bribing people with cars and other prizes to come to church has sinister connotations! (Btw I’m not a pastor, so this is just a layman’s opinion). The problem is not the practice per se, but what it communicates, which I think is profoundly disturbing on several levels.
Firstly, it feeds our already consumerist and narcissistic (what’s in it for me?) nature. In essence it appeals to our sinful desires.
Secondly, it introduces a quid pro quo type faith that misrepresents the gospel through a false premise (scratch my back God and I’ll scratch yours). This will require some ‘clean up’ work in discipleship classes later to set the record straight.
Thirdly, it communicates that the gospel cannot stand alone and needs to be dressed up with gimmicks to make it palatable to sinners. This could be a sign where the church has lost its confidence in the power of the native gospel that it alone “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes”. Where is God’s sovereignty in all of this (and I’m not even a Calvinist) and God the Holy Spirit to convict people of their sins and usher them to Christ through the gospel?
Lastly, it is principally counter-apostolic (layman’s opinion again, if in doubt dial an expert!) Here’s what I mean. Paul made it abundantly clear that he did not want anything to stand between him and the gospel, even eloquence, so the cross of Christ is not obscured. “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” 1 Cor 1:17 (cf. 1 Cor 2:4-5)
‘Not apples and apples’ you might say. That’s why I’ve prefaced this point with ‘principally’. On principle, Paul would remove anything that could potentially compromise the work of the cross. So if there are any steps to follow would it be unreasonable to filter our activities even through this criterion alone, namely, if you do X does it have the potential to compromise the gospel, obscure the power of the cross and the finished work of Christ? If the answer is ‘yes’ then ditch it. Just because it may work, it doesn’t make it right.
Thanks again for the opportunity to interact.
John FromDownUnder: what a refreshing thought, “ditch it” if it “obscures” the gospel message of Christ. When in doubt, leave it out was a mantra I vocalized and branded in my mind as a baby Christian.
While I agree with the principles you set forth in a very reasoned layman’s viewpoint, would you clarify what you mean in your introduction by: “they are just given a sales pitch to accept Jesus the willing therapist and promising problem solver who will improve your life exponentially and give you wisdom to make ‘right choices’ so you don’t keep on making the same ‘mistakes’.” Question: what should we do with the blessings God promises, the rewards He promises, the comfort, and hope and joy and refuge and rest that Jesus expounded upon when He said, “come unto me all ye who are heavy laden, take my yoke…it is light”? Don’t these very things preach the gospel’s benefits? Are they not part of the gospel message? While my brain wants to agree with your rationale somewhat because I am quite a selfish, self-saturated individual, I tend to think Christ wants us to understand He is, indeed, those things which you mention. I am so very grateful for Him and His therapeutic skills, and His surgical precision in cutting through my ego, pride, and fanciful self-centeredness to bring me out of myself to be a more holy, sanctified, brighter light for His kingdom’s work. He is so much more than a paid-in-full receipt for me to enter the gates of heaven. So much much more. In Him is all blessings and glory. In Him is all peace and joy. In Him is all power and strength. In Him is all possibility and hope.
I thank you so much for crossing the sea of cyberspace to challenge our thoughts in the united 50 states. I so love the folks down-under, especially Grosey. What I appreciate most about the folks down under is their ability to speak their minds with clarity and boldness. selahV (a.k.a. hariette petersen)
Hello c’est la vie
If I was to clarify what you asked me, it would trigger my CRD (Compulsive Rambling Disorder) and my CKAD (Compulsive Keyboard Anxiety Disorder) for which they haven’t invented meds yet, so I’ll have to rely on my weak self-discipline which is not that effective
Let me compose myself before smoke comes out of my keyboard because…thet’s say ‘I have strong views about this’…
Certainly, all of what you mentioned is part and parcel of the Christian faith and some/most of what you listed comes under the process of sanctification anyway. People will learn about that stuff eventually though reading, preaching, fellowship etc.
My objection is introducing people to Christ by BEGINNING with what he can do without explaining who he is. Like someone said, ‘it’s like signing the marriage certificate before you even meet the bride’!
Highlighting the benefits as the reason to come, may be aiming to catch fish but it’s attracting piranhas.
It’s problematic because it sets people’s hopes high and after the honeymoon with Jesus is over, eventually reality hits that Christians still get sick, get killed in head on collisions (David Wilkerson !), lose their jobs, the bank may foreclose on their home if they can’t pay the mortgage and their marriage may fall apart if they remain selfish brats and don’t learn the give-and-take rule. Then someone has to clean up the mess and mop the floor from ‘unmet expectations’.
Then they begin to work out that God doesn’t actually guarantee any of those things for here and now. But what about the promises? Well here’s one that comes to mind: “In this world you will have trouble. [but here’s the good part] But take heart! I have overcome the world” If you take a quick look at the 7 churches Jesus deals with in the book of Revelation, he ends his interactions with a promise to each one. Count how many of those promises are for now. I counted zero, but double check me because I was never good at maths!
If we love sinners as Jesus did, we owe it to them to perform biblical diagnostics and highlight the need they don’t even know they have, to deal with their sinfulness and realize their desperate their need for a savior and his forgiveness (how we do this is for another discussion).
Here’s a lame personal analogy. In my teens I went to the doctor for something that was bugging me at the time and the blood test revealed that I was a carrier for Hep B. He had to call me at work and tell me. I hated him because it now meant I had to drink from separate cups and eat from dishes no-one else used. Yet as much as I hated his phone call, he performed his ‘duty of care’ because he told me about a problem I didn’t know I had, even though I went to visit him for something else. Bottom line, it was for my own good and if he didn’t tell me, I had the right to sue him for failing his professional obligations and not upholding his Hippocratic Oath!
Nuff said
Regarding Steve Grose, I’m a Pentecostal refugee so that explains why I’ve never heard of him. He wasn’t known in my former circles.
I’m not particularly distressed about the sometimes outrageous approaches some take to get an audience. I’m less inclined to spend a lot of time trying to sort out their motives.
What I have come to see through this thread is: we depend almost entirely on the worship service to do evangelism. The idea that people would actually share the gospel with their neighbors and encounters on a regular basis is almost completely scuttled as a means of building a crowd.
I think shallow methods of building a crowd are likely to lead to shallow commitments. Maybe if we were more concerned about building up the soul of our neighbor than the crowd at church we would find the solution to the latter is the former.
Frank, I think we need to do both. Not necessarily build up a crowd at church in the manner that is being discussed here, but I do it by building relationships with our neighbors and those in our community. But I do understand what you are saying. The faithful are faithful, the faithless are not faithful. Jesus told us all what we lacked…and in Revelation He spells out what our biggest problem is…we have lost our first love. Pray your worship tomorrow is filled with members bringing neighbors to meet Jesus. selahV
Thanks harriette
I remember a number of years back, we had a local church that had a puppet ministry present the gospel as a puppet show to the neighborhood kids in our front yard. It was a really good presentation, and there were a lot of kids there. I actually though it was one of the better gospel presentations I had heard, until the end that is.
When the presentation was all done, the leader got up and gave an “altar call”, but rather than confront the children with their sin, they asked how many of them were willing to come up and give their lives to Jesus and get a bag of candy also.
Guess how many kids DIDN’T raise their hands?
One parent looked at me and said “my daughter has no clue what she’s doing – she just wants the candy.” And guess what all the unbelievers were saying – yup – the same thing.
And to make matters worse, they had each kid sign a card that said they were now members of God’s family and were going to heaven when they died.
I have never asked that church to do another presentation like that, nor will I ever again.
I often wonder how much more damage that did than good. But, since I am a “Calvinist”, I can take solace in the fact that the gospel was preached, God’s word was heard, and it will not return void. Maybe it’s purpose that day was judgment, and not just on the unbelievers who heard.
I know my wife and I were convicted to our cores.
I may have misunderstood you here–but you don’t have to be a Calvinist to believe that God’s Word will not return void, but will accomplish that which He intends.
John
True, sorry – Calvinism is not required to believe that God’s word will not return void.
I was mainly thinking of it in the context of my very “anti-Calvinist” friends of those days who were so concerned that I was so against that puppet show. They would have NEVER said that God’s purpose could have been judgment.
Thanks Jeff for the clarification.
John
Well, I sat on this over the weekend and thought this through.
In the end, I think Tim Rogers does ask a valid question that many here have skipped over.
Is there a difference between giving away a door prize like a TV and giving away packets for visiting?
I know this isn’t a direct quote, but the premise is there.
There actually isn’t a difference because you are giving visitors a chance to win a TV (or car) or you’re giving them a packet which usually includes pens and/or coffee mugs.
The problem is that they are inherently the same thing. One just costs way more than the other. The basic act is the same: you are rewarding visitors for attending. One gift just happens to attract far more people than the other.
So, at what point does a gift packet become unacceptable? At what point does a gift from the church to a visitor become tasteless? What is the cost of a gift that becomes too much?
At it’s base form, there is no difference. I contend that we’ve gotten used to pens and coffee mugs being acceptable inducement to reward visitors for attending. However, like a frog in a kettle, the gifting of a TV or a car is dumping boiling water into the kettle rather than just increasing the heat with slightly increasing the amount of gifts in our common visitor gift pack.
For me, I also had issue with the gifting of TVs and cars on Easter Sunday but would have zero problem with these types of gifts were they awarding at an event hosted by the church OUTSIDE of the confines of the worship service.
But I do think Tim Rogers’ question is worth discussing…
Bill, the difference is that tvs are used to get people to attend worship; and visitor packs are given to visitors that did not visit just to receive the visitor’s pack. Any gift is unacceptable if the gift is used to get people to be obedient to God… regardless the price of the gift.
I agree with your final statement. If we’re bribing people to attend an event, I think we’re free in Christ to do this. The problem is when we bribe people to be obedient to God. There’s no possible way it works. If people repent, it’s in spite of what our methods communicate. Events however are not commanded; we therefore are free to do this… however, don’t be surprised if the attendance for your events are extremely higher than the attendance for your worship services, if you’re only bribing people to attend your events.
So then Jared am I understanding that your position more directed at the sanctity of the worship service? Because when you titled this post I assumed you meant any church function.
Comments on this entry are closed.