If you were to ask the congregants of such a church why they go to that particular church, what do you think the responses would look like?
Probably something like:
"I get to wear jeans"
"I like the music"
"I can drink a soda during the service"
"I can act casual"
"The sermons aren't long and preachy"
"No boring hymns"
All translate into fleshly needs, and I am not simply assuming. These were the responses received by our former pastor when he implemented the PDC model at our old church. He then sought to change the service to accommodate.
The very first step in Rick Warren's plan is to conduct a survey and find out why people in an area don't like church, then make the necessary changes to suit them. To make church more attractive to them. Correct?
The motive for the church-goer at that point becomes their personal comfort and ease, not a desire to worship their creator with awe and reverence. You've now set the standard for their future attendance, and the moment they become uncomfortable, they'll be the first ones to leave.
You've now made worship conditional, basd upon their desires and comfort. It becomes "If I can't wear jeans, then I won't go." If ___, then ___. Conditional worship.
What you win them with is what you win them to.
Just like the pop music. Who are they worshipping? the God of the Bible - the God of love, judgement, wrath, and mercy - the God who commands us to flee from our sins?
Or, are they worshipping the kindly, nonjudgemental, psychiatrist grandpa-god of contemporary desires?
If those musicians were "won" to a theology of cheap grace and man-centered worship, then that's what they'll write and produce. There's a lot of fluff in modern pop-christianity music - it's largely a mile wide but an inch deep. You can't say the same for the great hymns of old - it's like comparing Main King Lobster to genea can of tuna.
Now, don't get me wrong. I do enjoy some of the contemporary music, and it certainly does have it's place, but not in the worship service. It's better than listening to gangsta-rap and
During the reformation the Magistrates would often order the legal authorities to go out into an area and find out why people weren't going to church. If they weren't infirm or on their death beds, they would be taken to the center of town where they would be flogged and placed in stocks. After a few visits from the law, these people would be very motivated to go to church every Sunday.
The motive of people back then to attend church was quite often for "personal comfort and ease, not a desire to worship their creator with awe and reverence." The powers that be set the standard for their future attendance.
Nobody complained back then about a concern that the church was filling up with goats. They fed the sheep and at the same time entertained the goats by keeping them awake by the fear of pain and humiliation.
It is not a choice. We are commanded to go into the streets and compel them to come in. We can't threaten them with violence. But we can offer them a smile and a cup of coffee and a promise that the experience may just change their lives.
How about "I come to the garden alone,
while the dew is still on the roses,
and the voice I hear,
falling on my ear,
the Son of God discloses.
And He walks with me,
and He talks with me,
And He tells me I am His own,
And the joy we share,
As we tarry there,
None other has ever known"
done to sensual waltz time,
And "The Lyrics:
Who am I that You are mindful of me
That You hear me when I call
Is it true that You are thinking of me
How You love me it's amazing
(Chorus)
I am a friend of God
I am a friend of God
I am a friend of God
He calls me friend
God Almighty, Lord of Glory
You have called me friend
(Repeat Chorus)
He calls me friend
He calls me friend..."
Not done to waltz time, just an energizing beat.
The first has a nice warm sentimental verse but lousey theology and the second has deep theological content and an up beat rhythm. Which do you prefer?