For those who are serious about researching the “Church Growth Movement”, the takeover of the Madison Church of Christ may be of interest to you. Literally, hundreds of churches are secretly being taken over by CGM “Change Agents”, and a great many of them are of the Restoration Movement. Read and weep for the future of the Gospel.

http://www.concernedmembers.com

http://www.concernedmembers.com/thebook/

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

Answers

Phil;

I have read quite a bit of the madison church stuff. What a shame - the issue is not worship - it is self centeredness. Everybody wants their own way. Old time members want church their way and new ones the same.

I agree that entertainment in substitute for worship of our God is wrong. But a dynamic worship service is not.

A dynamic worship service can contain hymns, and it can contain praise songs. But it cannot contain hypocrisy and self centeredness. It seems no matter what the service contains, there is always a complainer. There is rarely submission to one another.

Whether the service is blended or contemporary or traditional does not matter, what matters is that it glorifies Christ. This is not some "CGM" issue or some derisive issue by "change agents."

No one can say that God has ordained a specific set of songs to be sung to hymn. If anything we should be horrified to sing old bar tunes with Christian words that we call hymns as compared to some of the more recent music that was designed to give praise to God.

With that said then, what is the problem and what is the solution? Someone wrote in the madison site, its like inviting someone to your house to worship and they want to change your worship? My reply is so! What if they want to bring you closer to God by singing different songs, is that sin?

Most churches only know half their hymnals, so why even use them. You could take a song from a hymnal put it on a screen and teach it to the church. Some would like it and some would hate it. And many would complain about the new music. Then say.. it came from our hymnal. It is not the music, it is the disposition of the heart and the comfort zone that individuals cling to. Didn't Jesus say you can't put new wine into old wine skins? True worship and praise to God is practice for heaven. After all what are we going to do when we get there. Some will arrive and point at the worshippers and ask, what are they doing?

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

Bill,

You just don’t get it do you? The issue is not about style, though some may view that as the single most important element. I repeat, it is not about style but about content. In spite of the claims of the so-called church growth experts, methodology is not neutral. There is a point where methodology and theology meet each other and can even clash with each other. Beyond the questions about music tastes and such, there is a definite ecumenical agenda at the center of this controversy. But somehow I get the feeling that I’m never going to get through you or Barry for one obvious reason – your mind is made up and you don’t want to be confused with the facts. Short of a full exposé, I have made an honest attempt at providing accurate information for your scrutiny, but it’s no use. You guys depress beyond words.

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

Phillip:

"For those who are serious about researching the “Church Growth Movement”, the takeover of the Madison Church of Christ may be of interest to you. Literally, hundreds of churches are secretly being taken over by CGM “Change Agents”, and a great many of them are of the Restoration Movement. Read and weep for the future of the Gospel."

What an incredibly ridiculous statement. There is no proof that the Madison Church of Christ has been taken over by anybody. Your use of this site alone as you reference on this matter is indicative of your whole approach to these discussions -- to find the people that agree with you, and completely ignore the other side because THIS side supports what you think. If you are interested, I can direct you to another site that will give the other side of the Madison story. Of course, I figure you'll most likely label that side the "Secret Agents Of The Change Movement", and discount everything they say.

"In spite of the claims of the so-called church growth experts, methodology is not neutral."

Methodology absoLUTEly can be neutral. It depends on who is using it and why. And whether a methodology is viewed as neutral or not depends largely on "whose ox is being gored", and the attitude taken by the user.

Let's take, for example, the methodology of a couple of people in this forum. Scott Sheridan agrees with me on most things, and disagrees with me on a few. Yet he has been almost unfailingly polite, considerate, thoughtful, and gentlemanly in the discussions we've had on issues about which we disagree. His methodology in argumentation has been most Christ-like. It is a pleasure to discuss things with Scott.

You, on the other hand, are increasingly strident, judgemental, name- calling, sarcastic, abusive, and second-hand as far as your research and references go. You seldom argue from your own mouth, but rely on positions taken by other writers and reviewers, and use the ones who you agree with to pound us over the head. Your methodology is often far from Christ-like. It is seldom a pleasure to discuss things with you.

And yet, I dare not call you anything but my Christian brother, for that is what you are, just as Scott is. You and I have some very strong disagreements, but I must not either assign you to hell or assert that you are an idiot, for those would be un-Christ-like actions.

"Beyond the questions about music tastes and such, there is a definite ecumenical agenda at the center of this controversy."

Baloney. The Madison controversy has nothing to do with ecumenism. It has to do with the leaders of the church trying to lead the congregation into the future in such a way that more and more people will be reached with the gospel. It's ruffling some feathers, upsetting some "sacred cows", and making a few people mad. But for you to assign their motivation to ecumenical agendas is, in my opinion, pompous, conceited and judgemental in a way you have no right to be, especially if all your info on the subject comes from that one website.

"Short of a full exposé, I have made an honest attempt at providing accurate information for your scrutiny . . ."

No you haven't. You've referred us to a website put together by some people who are upset that they're not in charge anymore. An honest attempt would be to do some research yourself, and present facts that can be argued, rather than opinion that can vary from day to day and feeling to feeling.

If you're going to call us to account for our positions on these matters, then the least you could do is try to look at both sides of the argument before you decide who's right and who's wrong. Again, I can point you to a site that will give reports and opinion from Madison members that disagree completely with those of the site you cite.

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

What is really upsetting is that these people would air their dirty laundry for the whole world to see on the internet. What a sickening witness for the body of Christ, regardless of who is or who is not at fault.

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

Sam and Barry, thank you for your posts. I sometimes have trouble coming to the point. But what you have said is what I have seen. Not posts that stem from first hand knowledge, but rather cut and paste items that one person can agree with but has little regard for the facts.

I agree the websites are sickening and show that long time members of the body of Christ are often immature believers who are pouting cause they cannot get their own way.

IN a church I was serving a few years ago, a young man wrote a rap for offering. The music ministry agreed to let him do it. Now I hate rap (I have been told it is spelt c-r-a-p only the c is silent), but I decided that if it had godly words, then a section of our church family would relate and identify with it. There are too many long standing Christians who don't get it.

Phil you say that I don't get it. Again the issue to me is not eccuminism, it is not entertainment, it is not trying to divide the church. It is trying to find ways to help people identify with that group of people who want to share Jesus. IF a person cannot identify, they wont want their Jesus. I have been told many missionaries have failed in the past because they wanted the nationals to accept Jesus AND the american way of life. But people could not identify with the American culture so they rejected Christ. (I heard this in missions in college) So I relate it today, if we push a worship style that does not relate to this generation, then the local church will die by attrition. IN 30 years, those churches that refuse to reach out on some level to non believers will die physically. Spiritually they may already be dead.

So Phil, I again appeal to you. Give me your opinion on the other thread, what does it take for a church to grow, if we don't make changes to our methodology.

-- Anonymous, September 13, 2002