“The church was instructed to go out and get the world and bring it to Jesus”
But not by making it palatable and inoffensive. When the public face of the church changes to reflect the world, that church has it bass-ackwards.
“But not by making it palatable and inoffensive. When the public face of the church changes to reflect the world, that church has it bass-ackwards.”
Exactly. Thank you.
Changing the name of a church isn’t a big deal, particualrly if it eliminates confusion.
Right on! So many churches are nothing more than country clubs. I'm not one of those who believe that contemporary Christian music is sinful, but I personally like to worship the old-fashioned way, singing from the hymnal (what could beat "The Old Rugged Cross?), and hearing the preacher preach the Word of God, not the latest fashion. A couple of years ago, at a church business meeting, another member suggested to do the "40 days of purpose". I stood up, pointed out some doctrinal errors in the book, and told everybody that the book was based on a very bad paraphrase of the Bible (The Message). I bought a copy of the Message and gave it to my pastor. There has never been any more talking about 40 days in our church. Our pastor preaches Christ, and Him crucified. We leave the entertainment for other local churches. True, to the world they seem more successful, they have many more members, but it is not the roster of church members that matters but how many people are brought to Christ. And, in this category, Second Baptist stands second to no one.
‘But not by making it palatable and inoffensive. When the public face of the church changes to reflect the world, that church has it bass-ackwards.”
The name of the church matters little. Its whether they teach the Bible and that Jesus is our savior.