Pastor Dale,

I think, in theory, it is a good idea. I'm not sure how it will work in practice unless the common thread of the site is pretty significant.

I'm trying to build something like you described at http://newwaycorktown.org (the site is not production-ready, really). The common theme there being the Corktown neighborhood, but probably having a closed-off section as well for people who are committed to the church/ministry aspect. Do you think having two-tiers, an open one and a restricted one, to a social network is problematic?

I guess, personally, I'm starting to have more and more concerns about Christian churches and ministries trying to do outreach in this way. As matt mentioned here, I'm starting to feel more and more like Christians are doing the bait and switch.

Just today, I drove past a church and saw a huge sign that said "free english classes". I don't see anything wrong with this, but it made me wonder: Why are they doing this? Do they really want to teach people english and thereby help them in life (if so, awesome!)....or, are they ONLY doing this because they see it as a way to 'get people in the door and give them a chance to spread the Gospel'. If that's the case...it really is bait and switch, no matter how good your intentions.

I think as Christians we often excuse the bait and switch because we think "The Gospel is worth it"...while that may be true, it still IS ends justify the means...which I'm not sure God would stand behind 100%. The Gospel should be shared honestly and in the open...no 'free gifts'....no 'limited time only'....no strings or hidden agendas.

I have more and more concern about this, but I haven't fleshed it out totally yet. I'm just starting to think that any time a church offers anything but the gospel in it's plain and honest format, there may be a bit of deception happening.

This is a new feeling I'm having...so I'm not 100% sure of it yet, but I have yet to see a reason to doubt this point of view yet.

Just my thoughts, which this post helped bubble to the surface....(I'm not suggesting that anything you guys are doing here is bad...just thinking outloud)

Bob,

Your bait-and-switch concerns can be applied to anything the church, Christianity, or Christians do. I'm not sure that we should be more concerned with social networks/networking anymore than English classes or seeker services or Godtube or whatever.

Regarding your comment, "I'm just starting to think that any time a church offers anything but the gospel in it's plain and honest format, there may be a bit of deception happening." I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that means of getting people "in the door" is deceptive. After all, Christ did call us to feed/clothe/etc in Matthew 25. Plus the Holy Spirit doesn't speak to each person each way. So maybe teaching an immigrant a language for free will show them love, which in turn could lead them to a Christian community which could further lead them to Christ.

One more thought: you recently shared a video of Penn Jillette talking about proselytizing. In his story, he praised the man who gave him a Bible. But the man only gave him the Bible after talking to him and saying how big of a fan he was of the show. Is kindness and praise "a bit of deception?"

I think we're on the same page here, mojo...let me explain:

You say "After all, Christ did call us to feed/clothe/etc in Matthew 25"....obviously, I agree 100%. If you look back to my earlier comment, I said:

Do they really want to teach people english and thereby help them in life (if so, awesome!)

Then you mention the Penn video where the guy shares his faith after talking about how much he enjoyed the show...if you remember, in the video Penn says something like "He was totally real about it...he wasn't flattering me just to open the door to share his faith". This realness is what I'm talking about.

I guess I just think there's a BIG difference between someone teaching a foreigner English for the sake of helping and loving them (matthew 25) vs. teaching them English in order to earn their trust and then share the Gospel. To me, those are two VERY different situations.

I think, maybe, I'm seeing more and more of this "give you something to earn your trust..." as opposed to "giving freely out of love, leaving any door-opening totally to The Spirit". The former is deception while the latter is Christ-like. It's all about motive and I think often times Christians fool themselves into thinking they have Love as their motive...when really it's another notch on their "saved" belt that's really driving their actions.

Just one last illustration: Mojo, you say:

So maybe teaching an immigrant a language for free will show them love, which in turn could lead them to a Christian community which could further lead them to Christ.

I think this shows just what I'm referring to...in a situation like this, too often Christians are focusing on the last step: "which could further lead them to Christ" as opposed to the first step, which is "show them love". We want the result...but the simple action of Love is what Christ calls us to.

(ps...sorry to hijack this thread. that wasn't my intent)

I think the problem you are relaying Bob is not one of methodology, but one of authenticity.

It is possible to feed someone with the explicit intent of sharing the gospel with them and still be authentic. How could I possibly feed someone food and call it love while not offering them the Bread of Life, without which they will spent eternity in hell?

I hear you, though. I can sense the duplicity in what we do in the Church. But the problem is we're not very Christ-like. I think if we were authentic and genuine in our faith, teaching ESL with the specific intent of giving ourselves an opportunity to share the gospel with someone wouldn't seem like such a cheap trick.

Anyway, I see your point, but I don't think it's completely formed yet, as you said. It's a good conversation to have, that's for sure.

One thought. Evangelism didn't happen in a "relational" box in the New Testament. Paul frequently used local customs and created opportunities strategically to present the gospel in the Book of Acts. Discipleship, on the other hand, is extremely relational in the New Testament. Funny, isn't it? In the "Contemporary" church, that model is reversed. Discipleship programs and classes have been the method for twenty years, and "relational" evangelism has been what is mostly practiced, if not preached.

Eventually, in order to choose Christ, people must be presented with a clear choice, having fully grasped the consequences of their decision. Anything less amounts to an inadequate gospel.

Blessings,
Tony

We have been bouncing around "marketing" ideas with "related sites" at our ministry.

As a Port Ministry (seaman's center) we are contemplating related sites that mirror the mission of our ministry. Sites that focus on providing resources to Port Chaplains, sites that offer online prayer services to boat crews, and sites that provide seaman related Christian materials. Then link them all together. We could combine all these related sites into the existing www.texasportministry.org web site but from a "marketing" prospective that would not be the best solution.

From a church's perspective I would look into developing related sites vs. a "community site" to reach those you are seeking. Our church for example has many ministry's outside of its walls. These include nursing home, hospital, and prison ministries. Setting up the alternative sites to showcase these ministries would create a greater web presence for your church. In a large town these sites might get overshadowed but in a smaller community like mine it could be very beneficial. Think about www.clutenursinghomeministry.com with "clute" being the town name. With a little SEO anyone looking for a nursing home, volunteering in a nursing home, ect. would most likely run across the church's related site. At a minimum this creates positive exposure through a greater web presence for your church and at its best will lead people to know Christ.

And with the price of Joomla dropping all the time why not??? ;)

Just a though.

Chris

I agree with you Rob, and most everyone else as well. We must have the right intention. If we are honestly trying to assist people in life, great. The gospel should be presented with or without that. If we are using a carrot on a stick to get people in our doors and really wouldn't offer this same service/help/whatever outside of the church, then we are just trying to trick them. and there aren't too many folks that would not see the deception. that can tarnish people and push them away quick.

interesting thought....maybe our litmus test should be this - would we offer the same service/help/ministry/etc even if we could NOT present the gospel? don't throw stones, just think about it.

for example, the free english classes. let's say we want to offer free english classes. would we still do that with the same enthusiasm and time spent and money spent if we were forbidden to mention Jesus? if so, then we are truly doing that service out of the love we have for people because of how He loves us. if we don't want to, then the classes are just a ploy. now of course, we want to have that desire to help people and show love AND we MUST tell them the gospel.

just throwing out the idea....

TB, you nail my thoughts on the head here. Of course, the Gospel is the best way we could love people. But it's not the only way. Are we willing to love people where they're at just for the sake of loving them?

Every time this comes up, I hear Christians say "well, you're not really loving them if you don't share the Gospel". I think that's totally false. It assumes that it's our job in every situation, with every person we meet to be the one to tell them about Jesus. I don't think that's always true. God uses his people worldwide, working together to gently show His love and, at the right time, share His saving message. If we think we can't love people without being the one person to GIVE this message...I think we overestimate our individual importance in God's work.

Good discussion here folks...thanks for being gentle with each other as we talk through a tough issue :)

I think that all people know that walking into a church means something spiritual may happen. That is why many people do not want to walk into a church for any reason. It does not matter if it is a ESL class or not. The ESL class is assumed to have a spiritual thing to it because it is in a church building.

Tim

Authenticity

I think one of the first things is with authenticity. In Robs analogy he talks about teaching people english. Are we doing that because we really want to serve them or because we have another motive and we are just using this to reach them. If that's the case it's not good. We are called to love and serve people. Not do things as an excuse to get close to them and tell them what we think.

Can we love and serve someone without sharing the Gospel? I don't think we can but let me explain what I mean. God brings people to him. It's not our job to convert people. We partner with God in his mission. That means we may play a large role or just a bit part. We have to ask how are we to share the Gospel with someone in the place and time we are at. Often that doesn't mean we tell them what we think about faith. It may be as simple as serving them and having them know we are Christian. Other times it may be a conversation. 90% of communication is non-verbal. Of the verbal part 2/3 is listening. That means we shouldn't talk very much in communicating the message. God does the work and partners with us. That means not all the talking will be coming from us.

Yet, we should always be trusting and praying for God to show us where to share his message and then doing so. Forcing it on people or baiting and switching on them doesn't show people Gods grace. It shows them how we try to manipulate things to our own agenda.

This is tough. Can we do nothing and truely not share the Gospel if we think it's that important? No. But, we need to know how God wants us to share it and not step outside the bounds of our partnership. This is not easy.

Jumping The Gun

When it comes to community sites to serve purposes other than the mission of the church we need to be careful. Are we trying to build something that's a bait and switch type deal? If so, stop and change gears. Are you looking to building a community site to serve a community of people? If it's good and has no other agenda than go for it. But, I can't imagine a use case for a church to make a community site for a non-Christian group where there is no target at the mission. One might exist, I just can't think about it.

One of the things people value a lot right now is honesty. Even if they don't agree with you honesty makes a difference. We need to make sure to practice this in everything we do. Even if it keeps us away from a project or makes us look weird to everyone else.

Quoting MF: "In Robs analogy he talks about teaching people english. Are we doing that because we really want to serve them or because we have another motive and we are just using this to reach them. If that's the case it's not good."

Let's please remain open to the possibility that the "other motive" falls under the definition of "serving them" as well. That's all I'm saying.

I appreciate your ministry, even when I disagree!

Blessings,
Tony

@anthonypero - I think you missed my point. Maybe I didn't make it entirely clear. Please read it all the way through. Can we love someone without sharing Christ? I don't think we can. But, sharing Christ does not mean we tell them what we think or we try to bait and switch them. Not in this cultural context. 90% of communication is non-verbal. 2/3 of verbal communication is listening. We need to share Christ and that usually means by our service to others and not telling them what we think.

I think the bait and switch part is important. Pulling a bait and switch means you have one purpose and you fool people with an alternative thing to bait them in. If a church is going to teach people english have that as a purpose not a means to get people in the door. There is a big difference between these two things.

This isn't a matter of semantics. It's a matter of approach. If we want to tell people what we think and that it's important for them to know it can become a very self centered thing. We want to tell them. We want to be the one that converted and saved them. It's really about us rather than them. We live in a self centered society. Even the most well meaning of us end up doing this. It isn't good.

If we put them first it may mean we just listen or serve them. It may mean God isn't going to use us to share the message but have us take on a different role. We have to be open to these and willing to jump in.

When I look at Christ in how he did things I see a man who truly loved others. He didn't feed people so they would come to listen to him. He fed people and he talked to them. He served people in two ways. He didn't use one as a means to sucker them into listening to him. This is authentic and something I don't see enough of.

Does this make more sense?

I understand Matt, I just don't fully agree, because I don't view it as a bait and switch if we are authentic in our faith.

We live in a culture that frequently rejects to participate in outright presentations of the Gospel. Do they have the right? Certainly. However, if I see someone standing on a ledge, do I let them jump? Do they have the right? Sure. But I would consider it my responsibility to do everything I could to get them off that ledge. I really don't consider it that different of a scenario.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Blessings,
Tony

I tend to agree w/ MF & Rob. I think there are extremes:

1. Only doing social welfare and not looking for opportunities to share the Gospel in the process.
2. Slapping crosses and ICHTHUS's and church lingo on everything so as to scare away people who see it as a "good ol' boys' club"
3. Doing social welfare, claiming it's just to help people, but really having ulterior motives.

Maybe a better question is this: Would we do this if we knew there were no chance of these people ever showing up at our services?

Maybe it's a matter of saying, "You are of infinite value to God, so we want to help you however we can. We take a wholistic approach to helping people, so we want to help not only your body and mind, but your soul. That said, you are under no obligation to accept any or all of the help we offer--it's given freely with no strings attached."

You might want to distill that down a bit.

The local Methodist church does a feed-the-hungry weekly meal. Recently, they added a worship service toward the end of the meal. (Service in the sanctuary; meal in fellowship hall) Nobody is required to attend the service, but the service is well-attended. When they began the meals (open to all, no poverty check required--many seniors come just for the fellowship), they didn't have the service. I think the service was an afterthought. But I see no problem with offering to feed both body and soul, and let the recipient choose what they want fed.

I think we're missing the boat, though, if we have the opportunity to serve others and *not* share the Gospel at the same time, since faith comes by hearing, not by eating, so to speak. Jesus did all kinds of nice things for people, but when they stopped listening to his message and just wanted their bellies full, He moved on--that's not why He came.

Not sure whether I'm contradicting myself--this is a train of thought.

I wholeheartly agree Pastor Dale... that's really where I was aiming with my authentic faith comments. I don't think you require people to sit through a presentation of the gospel when you are providing a social service, but I don't think there's anything wrong with providing a social service with the desire and hope of being given the opportunity (through the Holy Spirit) to present the gospel to someone. This is where the authenticity comes in.

Love you all, I'm out of this thread for now!

Blessings,
Tony

well put Pastor Dale. you managed to put the right words together that form my thought too.

I agree with Pastor Dale as well...however, with one caveat. I'd suggest that the only way to be authentic in this situation is make it clear, before they ever step foot in the building that you'll be offering this option. People don't appreciate being blindsided or pressured to attend something 'optional' after you just gave them something free...in their mind, it's no longer really 'free'.

So, for something like a community meal, I think it's essential to put "optional worship service following" on the advertising so people know what will be offered before they even come. Then, there's no surprises and no look of dishonesty. At that point, I'm all about this.

I think, somehow, we believe that people "expect churches to add a gospel message onto everything they do". This idea would surprise alot of people coming into a church for any 'free service'. People tend to take Churches at their word when they say "free meal" or "free english classes"...they only get offended when they find out it's not really free because there's an unseen pressure to attend a Gospel presentation after they just got something 'free'. Pressure, seen or unseen, isn't a way to introduce folks to the Gospel.

Overall, I think we're on the same page here...good discussion.

Agreed, Rob. So what about something like this: People attend a meal, and when they arrive, becaause different entrees are available, you hand them a menu. The menu is printed on the back of a tract. They're under no obligation to read the tract, but if they have it in their hands while eating, they just might. Or as they're leaving, someone sits at the door and offers them a tract/magnet/whatever as a giveaway. (Preferably something useful, like a fridge magnet, letter opener, thumb drive--which can contain info about the church and/or a presentation but can be wiped and reused, etc.) They don't have to take it, but it's given away as freebie swag.

(And BTW, I don't recommend mousepads--anyone who wants one has one, and they're not really necessary in this optical/laptop world.)

I think the "optional worship service following" is actually a good idea not only re: being upfront with people, but planting the idea and letting them think about it.

I will say there's nothing wrong with having posters/artwork/banners in the room with Gospel messages on them. It's a church, so church décor shouldn't be surprising to anyone. Just avoid Comic Sans. ;^)

this was a good thread. this is exactly why i come to this site and read the forums. good discussions and opinions from a bunch of Christians all dealing with the same issues - how do we serve Him with all we have? this is all very encouraging.

I'm really enjoying the discussion, but it makes me want to throw in a different worldview, if only to stir things up a little.

Our church partners with an organization that does short term mission trips in Cairo, Egypt and to the people who live in the garbage dumps of Mexico City. (I can't recall the living conditions of those in Cairo, but if they're not living in garbage there, it's close.) In Egypt, a Muslim nation, it is illegal to walk up to someone and share your Christian faith with them. However, it is not illegal to tell someone about your faith if they ask.

These mission teams operate free clinics. In Mexico City, the team sets up tents for a day's operations. I think the Cairo teams work out of a fixed location. Care consists of providing dental care, helping to fit people with donated eyeglasses, hair care and feet washing, etc.

The general response is "why are you doing this for me?" Under Egyptian law, that's enough of an invitation to allow the teams to share their personal faith and therefore the message of Gospel. Is that a bait and switch? I'm pretty sure that anyone who has washed the feet of someone who lives their entire life in a garbage dump, or combed lice from their hair, wouldn't see it that way.

So where am I going with this? I'm not really sure. I think it's that when we offer services that touch hearts and change lives, those receiving ministry are going to be more open to receiving the Gospel, and less likely to feel they've been sold something. A free car wash probably wouldn't cut it. English lessons probably represent enough of a life-changing investment, plus the building of a relationship over time, that an appropriate time to share the Message will come.

I think a community website (bringing this back to the initial question) would offer a similar chance to build relationships where the conversation could go there naturally over time. If it's handled in a way that smells of bait and switch, it'll die a quick death anyway. I think the real question in this case is whether it will attract enough people to thrive and be useful to them.

Micah

This is a great topic with, I think, many angles to it. I am working on how to address the somewhat cross purposes of social networking within the church versus the community. On the one hand, trying to support intimate support within the body (men's groups, women's groups, addiction groups, leadership, etc.) as well as those supported by our church in the community (annual 5K run, meals/food outreach, musicians). So, building a community site to support these very different audiences must be both public and private. In all that we do, though, I want people to know we are a church.

Similarly, my day job is working for a Christian entrepreneur, so we have discussed the difference between being a Christian business and a business led by Christians. On one hand, we try to run our business as Christians in how we deal with employees and customers and we seek out others that believe in that approach to join us. On the other, when advertising for customers we do not advertise as a Christian software development company with a Christian data center. We believe that as we build relationships with customers and work at behaving as God has directed us in those relationships, that we will have opportunities to share who we are and what we believe. Put in corporate marketing terms, our Business Mission Statement is about what we do, our Purpose Statement is about why we do it and what we believe in.

That is how I approach my two worlds. I welcome your thoughts.

Blessings,
Doug

I look at Christ and the feeding of the 5000, now if each man had a wife, OK thats now 10000 and if each family had 2 kids then that would be 20000, so I think I can say Christ fed 15000, maybe all the men not married and some families only had 1 kid.

4 fish and 2 loafs pf bread. Now Christ fed them and then preached to them so was that a bait and switch. Just thought I would throw that out.

We just had VBS it was great 17 kids came to know the Lord. We and every church does VBS in the hopes that 4 things happen 1 Kids have a great time. 2 Kids get saved. 3 Kids want to come back for Sunday school. 4 Kids lives are changed parents see the change and want to come to church.

I'm sorry we are not talking about selling shoes, used cars or even pulling teeth we are talking about saving someone from the fire of HELL. If it is so called bait and switch that causes someone to come to know Jesus as LORD then I'm for it. Now if your just looking at packing the church and getting their money then thats another story and GOD WILL deal with that.

I was on the streets her in Seattle WA and when I went to a mission to get supper and a bed I had to first go to Chapel service no chapel no eat and no bed. Is that bait and switch, I can tell you this much I was running from God and when I went to service to get fed I heard the Word of God and He spoke to my heart. I'm now back living with the Lord and doing His work. If it was not for the so called bait and switch I would still be a saved man running from God doing my own thing and living like there was no tomorrow. Praise God for the BAIT and SWITCH. Keep up the good work.

I've been thinking about this topic. Froging, I don't think any of your examples is a bait & switch. Jesus preached first, then fed them at the end. Ditto for VBS and a mission for the poor when it's made clear from the outset. I think what Rob is talking about is a church hosting a "Family Game Night: Come play UNO with us" Then right in the middle, the pastor stands up and gives a homily. That would be a bait & switch as much as me taking my kids to a G-rated movie and suddenly being assaulted with a nude scene. Instead, in such an event, the church could hand out tracts or something to everyone who comes or even leave some tracts sitting on the tables at a meal, but in those cases, nobody's surprised and put in an uncomfortable position as a captive audience.

When I went to a mission to get supper and a bed I had to first go to Chapel service no chapel no eat and no bed. Is that bait and switch?

I don't think so. My wife and I lead praise and worship at a local (Ogden, UT) homeless shelter every month (local churches share the work), and that's the rule there - no praise and worship, no food, no bed. But I've never seen anyone regret it, and we regularly get people dedicating their life to the Lord after the service. If people don't like that, there are other shelters available.

We also get just as much out of it as they do - probably more, in fact. It helps us to put our problems in perspective.

Pete.

doulos12 said:

I think what Rob is talking about is a church hosting a "Family Game Night: Come play UNO with us" Then right in the middle, the pastor stands up and gives a homily. That would be a bait & switch as much as me taking my kids to a G-rated movie and suddenly being assaulted with a nude scene.

I think I need to add something to your comparison to make it accurate. It would be like taking your kid to a porn house for a G-rated movie, then suddenly being assaulted with a nude scene. A church is a church; it exists for one reason--to fulfill its mission. A religious nature is implied because of the setting.

Tony

I wonder, Tony. You said "A church is a church, it exists for one reason--to fulfill its mission. A religious nature is implied because of the setting." This is not directed at anyone individually, just a mindset that bothers me amongst many believers.

Our commands are to love God and love each other. Does that always have to fall in a religious context? Can we love someone without preaching to them?

Example: My pastor was an electrician for 20 years before being called into the ministry. During that time he lived like most other construction workers - he smoked, drank, cussed, etc. He worked with another guy that had the same pay grade and the same number of mouths to feed but his life was so much better. This made Pastor ask him what was different and the guy told him that he, basically, "couldn't handle the truth". This made Pastor hungry enough to keep coming back and eventually when the guy told him about God, he said "I want that!".

We don't have to be all religious or always talk about God to show Him to others. Never be ashamed of Him, but I can tell you for a fact that the world sees a person that puts God in every conversation as a kook and won't listen to them. My pastor doesn't even tell people what he does for a living if he meets them on a diving trip, for instance. He doesn't hide it but it's not pertinent to the conversation and it gives him more opportunity to speak truth into their lives.

The original comment - if they are teaching English to help the people, awesome - is the crux of it all. Look at the Bible.. the woman committing adultery about to be stoned - Jesus didn't say "If you give your life to God and start obeying the Law then everything will be ok." He basically asked the men 'haven't you all done as bad?'. No preaching or even mention of God besides the sin issue. He saved her life, changed her life I assume, made the men aware of their own issues, hopefully changing their lives, and God gets the glory without even singing a hymn or saying amen. I think that we should strive to be more like this in our lives instead of trying to cram the religion-image of God into other lives not ready to be preached at. Help them to meet Him in person and in real life instead of going through the motions of religion.

As an aside, Temple was for sacrifices, synagogue was for teaching, churches are to train up the saints... it's out there that we are to minister to people and too often we try to box God up into a building - if we started treating a building as just a building and God as part of our lives more (collectively, not meaning anyone in this forum necessarily and with myself included) then the world will be a lot more receptive to who He is. I can be the same witness to someone in a school cafeteria as in the church building, and they may receive the former better, so I see the building as a resource, not somewhere we get people to go to get saved. God has come out of the Holy of Holies. We don't have to go there to meet Him. :)