The Gospel & the Starbucks Generation

David Wells offers some interesting thoughts about the new challenges of evangelism, and the dangers of adapting the Gospel message to the culture.  Here are a few excerpts.  This first one has been a hot topic of discussion at a few STR staff meetings, and his other thoughts express some of our concerns for the church.

I think there is a lot of truth in that phrase ["the medium is the message"]. This argument that the message is preserved while the means of delivery is changed is a misleading proposition, because the message being delivered almost invariably is stripped of its theological content. That is the whole point about it. In many of these churches, they disguise their identity. You see it visually because they don’t want to be thought of as a church. So religious symbols go. Pews go. The pulpit is replaced by a Plexiglas stand. And then the Plexiglas stand disappears and you have people on barstools.

Now you could say that perhaps nothing has changed—and I certainly wouldn’t die on a hill for a pulpit. But subtle messages are being sent by all of this. In an earlier generation, the pulpit was at the center of the church. It was visually central. You saw it. Oftentimes it was elevated. And this was a way of saying to the congregation, "The Word of God that we are about to hear is above normal human discussions. We’ve got to pay attention to it, because it is authoritative."

Now we have replaced the pulpit not even by a barstool, but by a cup of Starbucks coffee, which speaks of "human connecting." And human connecting has become more important to us than our hearing from God. Now when we make these kinds of changes to our method, we are really making changes in the message that is delivered....

Well, one of the really interesting things about so much "outreach"—and I want to acknowledge the genuineness of many of the motives in evangelism; I’m not questioning those—is based on several very important miscalculations. And one of the miscalculations concerns what people actually want to hear. Many churches assume that people cannot hear the Word of God or a gospel message that has any theological words in it. So they downplay it. But the results of some important research among formerly unchurched people who then came to church are shocking. When these individuals were asked what they liked about the church, ninety-odd percent said that what was preached was important to them. And almost 90 percent said that they wanted to know what the church believed. They wanted to hear its doctrine. Now that is just the reverse of what the common outreach approach assumes. It assumes people don’t want to know. In actual fact, those who want to come into the church do want to know.

So demonstrating and practicing the centrality of God’s truth is important. But also, that has to be discovered and practiced within a context of Christian believing. People sense this when they come into a body of believers. It’s not only having good preaching, but it’s having good people too....

I believe that the evangelical world is in a transitional time. The older evangelical coalition is running out of steam, and new approaches are emerging. The nice thing about habits is that you don’t have to think. If you drive the same route to work, you don’t think about it. But once these things fall apart all kinds of questions open up. Given declining biblical literacy, given the declining place of expository preaching in the church, the evangelical movement will find more and more live questions and less and less biblical capital from which to respond to those questions. This means that the evangelical movement will find itself in more and more trouble. I see that as a major trouble from within.

From without, I can only see an ever greater acceleration of what we experience. Globalization is a reality. As goods, information, people, drugs, and body parts move across national boundaries, it’s as if they don’t exist. What this does is bring to us and everyone else more and more knowledge of other people, other places, other religions, other lifestyles—all of which makes relativism an inevitability. And the church is going to have real trouble sustaining its belief in the uniqueness of Christ.

Comments

[Tim Elsenpeter]

I'm not sure exactly what Mr. Wells is getting at. I spent close to 18yrs. in a church with such a pulpit. At 20 years old I was so bored, it took another 30 years for God to finally get through to me. The doctrines and Biblically based teaching from a "Plexiglas stand" have, and continue, to change my life.
I do understand his concern for the message that is preached though. Sunday last, I attended a church service in a theater; the other viewing rooms were showing the normal junk. The preaching and teaching from the "stage", put to shame anything I ever heard from the "pulpit" in my first 20 years.
Oh yes, one of the pastors of that church and I are going to meet at Starbucks in the near future. I can't speak for Pastor Tom, but I doubt if he would mind if Mr. Wells joined us.
To bottom line my 'Christianity'; I'm being equipped in my church/congregation to take Christ to the streets, beds of convalescent homes etc., etc., etc. ( I introduced a man to Christ sitting on an excavator bucket in the middle of a freeway under construction at lunch time.)Whether he actually committed his life to Christ I don't know, I've never seen him again, but he heard the Gospel. Let's quit worrying about the trappings and be aware of the trap, the answer to getting out of the trap and staying out is still Jesus. On that name, Jesus, I'll make my final point. When I finally came to faith in Christ, looking back now, I'm supprised that after 9 out my 12 years of school being spent in " religious " schools, I knew nothing about Christ of any value. In fact it took almost a year after I was saved for it to really sink in. I knew I was saved because my life was completely different, but it was reading the scripture that was doing most of the work. The fact that Mr. Wells is concerned is good, but let's be concerned for the right things; it's the message not the mesenger.

[Alesia]

Don't get me wrong here but I don't think the message of Jesus is changed just because the environment has been tweaked alittle to peak the interest and be eye appealing to our younger generations...I think the kids of today like a more laid back approach with couches and comfortable surroundings to promote learning...And if having a cup of Starbucks brings one to church--that is great.
We can still teach the seriousness of the message and promote what it means to live under the cross. By the way I live in Seattle and love Starbucks coffee... This guy has partially missed the mark...

[Kevin W]

I think the result, unfortunately, is less equipped Christians. As David Wells said:

“Many churches assume that people cannot hear the Word of God or a gospel message that has any theological words in it. So they downplay it.”

In my experience, these “starbucks generationers” rarely if ever sit around and address the tough issues. It’s more along the lines of Jesus’ peace love and tolerance. Christ was cool. Again, in my experience.

I don’t doubt people have had good experiences in these ‘new age’ settings; but I’ve witnessed skewed messages that accompany these settings too many times.

The result is just what they set out to squash in the first place: I am a young Christian myself and automatically skeptical of such surroundings.

[Kanoa M]

Being a young Christian (in age that is) I've never given much attention to this issue. Now that I think about it, I don't think I'm partial to any particular surrounding/environment just as long as Christ is preached, accurately. Though I must admit I do enjoy visiting the type of churches which have pews, pulpits, etc. as they invoke a sense of nostalgia which I experience vicariously when I talk to those who have had that experience.

One last thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall reading any of the types of settings described by Prof. Wells in the book of Acts or the Gospels. Obviously the setting has changed over the last 2000 yrs of church history. But is this the "cause" for "the message being delivered almost invariably is stripped of its theological content." I don't think so.

[AC]

Is there a difference between authoritatively "preaching" the gospel as opposed to non-confrontationally "discussing" it?

[Tim Elsenpeter]

What I here is the core of the debate; what Wells is describing is 'religion ' defined by setting/surroundings; what I and the others are describing is 'the love of Christ shed abroad in our hearts' whatever the setting or situation. It's still the message, not the setting.

[Kevin W]

“Is there a difference between authoritatively "preaching" the gospel as opposed to non-confrontationally "discussing" it?”

First I think there is an assumption in the question that “authoritatively” preaching the gospel is inherently “confrontational” aka offensive. That being said, no person could argue that a “non-confrontational” discussion of scripture is bad. The bad part is when the message is skewed.

And in my personal experiences; while in ‘new age’ settings (i.e. fog machines, flashing colored lights, abstract art on the walls, etc.) I often times hear a poorly delivered and watered down version of the truth. Again, in my experiences.

Therefore, I am skeptical when I see such settings. For anyone that says I just haven’t been to the right churches; the same could be said to those advocates of traditional churches. The ones with pulpits.

I agree, the most important aspect of this as mentioned; is the nature of the message; as there is nothing necessary about a pew and pulpit per se. But as human beings we draw conclusions based on settings all the time. It's in our nature--otherwise why change or leave anything the same at all.

[Patrick, Holland MA]

None of us outgrow over-stimulation!

[Jeff T]

I think it all comes down to this...the purpose of Christianity is not to make sad people happy, but rather to make dead people alive... The Church should support the latter...

[pedmin]

The most spiritually dead churches in America are the traditional liberal churches, which have the most traditional furniture/window/pulpit trappings.

The most alive churches are non-traditional conservative churches.

Tradition is the trappings. Conservativism is about the authority of the Word.

Because he has observed non-traditional, more liberal evangelical congregations, Wells is arguing for both tradition and conservativism, claiming that they are logically one and the same.

For such a brilliant man, he could not be more wrong.

[tony montano]

I think that was an interesting observation. Surely the use of icons in establishing a preaching domain is a much overlooked these days. The whole notion of “ceremony” in general is not practiced in the western world as it used to be. This is detrimental to proselytizing goals as people are more likely to receive authority claims from practitioners who “look the part.”

I think one of the major reasons why the catholic church has been around so long, is simply because they have better uniforms. Or to steal a phrase from the movie “Catch Me If You Can”:

“Don’t ya know why the Yankees always win Frankie? Because the other teams can't stop staring at those damn pinstripes.”

Proselytizing (like most marketing ploys) is 10% message. And 90% delivery.

[B. Linus]

Why do Christians treat as axiomatic this naive notion that message and medium can be divorced with impunity? The message determines the medium, and the medium shapes the message.

If you doubt this at all, have your pastor this Sunday set the words of institution to hip-hop, and see if the stylistic addition of urban male anger doesn't alter the substance of the message.

[Kevin W]

B. Linus,

Yes; with extra loud bass; and tinted windows instead of stained glass.

[nathan]

I don't understand how eliminating non-biblical traditions (pews, stained glass) has anything to do with theology getting screwed up.

[Tod Samuelson]

I wish people would treat the whole 'religion idea' more seriously. If only they would consider Christianity as something significant, worth thinking about. And once its importance and eminance is truly realized, then there won't be any concern about dumming down the message or stripping it of theological content. At the point when people study it and take it to heart as they ought, then propitiation and atonement will roll off their tongues like plasma screen and direct TV.
And while not everyone may buy supralapsarianism, neither do all buy blue ray discs. BUT they know what they are, and reject them as an informed human being. With God as my judge, I know too well the graver error: A not-so-clear entertainment or hell-fire-and brimstone.

What a glorious day that would be!

[Derek]

"I don't understand how eliminating non-biblical traditions (pews, stained glass) has anything to do with theology getting screwed up."

Church music and architecture affect doctrine in much the same way as body language and inflection affect a spoken message. The utterance, "That guy's a real genius," can be heard two different ways, depending on how one says it. If it is meant sincerely, the speaker's body language and intonation will reinforce that fact--if not, the non-verbal cues of sarcasm will undermine the words entirely.

Likewise, our church architecture and music styles can either reinforce or undermine the message we're trying to communicate. Either the presence OR the absence of a prominently displayed cross in your sanctuary communicates something about what's important in your theology. Neither statement is neutral. Likewise, as B. Linus demonstrated above, your musical settings should not be fraught with associations that interfere with your message.

Mike Horton wrote an excellent primer on this topic for Modern Reformation a few years ago called "Why Sacred Space Matters." Just google the title and it should be the first entry.