If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? (1 Corinthians 14:23 KJV)
Actually what sounds like a rarity is where "the whole church be come together in one place". If we glean from that verse that the presence of unbelievers in the assembly is rare then we would likewise have to glean that the assembly of the whole church together in one place itself would have also to be considered a rare event.
That is a copout for believers too scared to stand alone in the world for Christ.
To the weak I became as weak.
I dare say that most Christians fall into that category. So what? If they need the whole church as a crutch for their own evangelical failings, what is the problem? If they think their pastor is better at getting the word out, then what should they do? nothing? Or invite them to church where they can "Taste and see, the Lord is good." ?
It is very possible that you are right about that too. I have no doubt they rarely got together in one place, considering the persecution they were under. Jesus said himself 'wherever two or three are gathered'- so the size of the assembly, it sounds, doesn't matter much. And it certainly doesn't mean that where only one believer is, as I'm sure you would agree, Jesus is not there.
That is a copout for believers too scared to stand alone in the world for Christ.
To the weak I became as weak.
I honestly don't see how that applies here. ya have me going "HUH?" with that one... and of course, that is the one text that every church growth teacher uses to justify Church Growth philosophy.
Now I will say it again -- Taking on the customs and culture of the time is not in and of itself necessarily bad. But putting out of the church those who don't wish to do so IS bad, and that is what happens at these churches. The minority's 'felt needs' are not considered, which belies where the focus is -- on the numbers.
Now, if you're going to say 'when I was with the GenXers I became as a GenXr that's fine, but if you don't present the clear gospel to them,then you are using it as a cloaking device. Rick does not present the gospel in his books, and I haven't heard it in a message or in anything he's said publicly, in fact, more often I hear him say things that are mutually exclusive to the gospel (e.g. saying the five fundamentals are 'narrow' when they are exactly the opposite!) and saying "anyone can be saved if you just find the key to their heart" -- that smacks of pelagianism, or semipelagianism, synergeia, and heresy.
So are we to say from that 'to the sinners I became a sinner'? To the prostitutes I became a prostitute? Just how far do we draw this 'when in Rome' analogy?