The neverending saga…
January 18, 2006
So, what do you do when mega-church pastors start to reference your blog in their sermons? I’m not sure. A friend tipped me off to Andy’s most recent sermon last Sunday as he was talking about the different areas of North Point church were people can get to know one another. He mentioned being on a blog sometime last year where the blogger was "ripping our church up and down." Hmm, I guess that was me but I didn’t think I was really ripping the church, I just expressed the fact that the mega-church was certainly not an environment that I would want to pastor in, or find myself attending on a weekly basis (knock on wood…ha, wouldn’t it be funny if I ended up working in a mega-church…hmm). At any rate, if you want to hear the actual sermon that Andy referenced, for Real Audio click HERE and for Windows Media Player, click HERE or watch it HERE.
**MESSAGE TO ANDY**
Andy, sorry if you thought I was ripping into North Point. That wasn’t the point. While there are things about North Point, methodologically and theologically, that I wouldn’t agree with, I do applaud your effort to create an environment where people will learn to love God and love others - it’s very needed. I was just recording my thoughts after a trip to a mega-church in Atlanta. And if it makes you feel any better, North Point fared MUCH better than my trip to The Church of the Apostles in Atlanta. Don’t know if that makes you feel any better or not. At any rate, I do hope to get to meet you sometime over the course of my next year which will be spent at Columbia Seminary in Decatur, GA.
Technorati Tags: Andy Stanley, Megachurch
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
January 18th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Adam -
I did not listen to the whole sermon, but it is possible he was referring to my blog comments. Andy and I got into what started out as a dialogue on his “Next Generation Leader” book. It then moved into some straigtfoward dialogue on the “mega-church” and the “emerging-church.”
I don’t recall ripping Andy’s church directly, though he may have taken my harsh comments on the mega-church that way. You can find our conversation here:
http://samandress.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_samandress_archive.html
It’s under the heading “Visoneering the Leader God Had In Mind.”
Hope to see you at the conversation in a couple of weeks.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
You’ve become infimous, congratulations.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Adam, if Andy was indeed referencing your blog in his sermon, then I think he owes you a public apology for misrepresenting what you said to his congregation. You clearly were not “ripping” his church.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Wow! Looks like someone maybe a bit insecure in daddy’s shadow and has to lash out in a very public way at anyone who may have a different preference than his own. I don’t feel bad in saying that Andy Stanley, if he indeed said this, was being a very immature brat. I say this as someone who has actually enjoyed hearing Andy’s teachings.
If what Andy Stanley and North Point stand for and practice is true and authentic, it need not be verbally defended.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:57 am
@Zach: Maybe you should listen to the sermon and hear the content and context of his remarks before you accuse him of insecurity and/or immaturity. (BTW, Andy’s dwarfing the old man right now in book sales and church attendance. I doubt he’s insecure about the shadow, but maybe Charles should be.)
This is weird. You say if what North Point stands for and practices is true and authentic, it doesn’t need to be verbally defended. What does that mean? Since when does something “true and authentic” not need to be defended verbally? Not only is the idea contrary to scripture, it just doesn’t make sense. In fact, can you explain it a little further? I’m trying to imagine another situation — maybe a church or an ideology or a political opinion or a social program — that doesn’t need to be defended verbally? Too bad you weren’t one of my college professors; most of them were under the misconception that truth (i.e. what we stand for and what we practice) should be and must be verbally defended.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:18 am
moondog, yeah….i did actually listen to the sermon and the way andy brought it up wasn’t as bad as I imagined. I don’t feel like he was being immature i guess, but it’s just weird that he feels the neccesity to even bring it up. to me, and i could very well be wrong on this, it seems andy’s involvement in defending himself and his church in the blog world and to his congregation still seems to show a bit of insecurity.
Maybe your right in terms of the need for verbal defense of things that are authentic…..i guess i’m doing it right now :-)…. I just feel the church as a whole has done plenty of defending their ideals by way of the mouth (or keyboard) and not so much in the way of their hands and feet. let’s stop talking about how we are “right”, let’s start showing our rightousness by what we actually do. maybe we could be so busy being servants in this world, we don’t have time to stop and defend the way we do church or debate whether “deep teaching” is necessary or not.
This is not to say that north point doesn’t do anything. I’m sure they make a great impact socially in their community. and this isn’t to say that i’m mother theresa or that i have it all sorted out. But it just seems a bit odd to me that andy has so much time on his hands that he could show up on adams blog and begin sarcstically defending himself and then play the role of the pastoral victim in front of his congregation.
adam was not “ripping the church apart up and down”. that’s just a false statement and one that i suspect is wrapped up in some hefty insecurity. But that’s just my suspicion and it could easily be wrong.
thanks for your reponse and helping me sharpen what it was i was trying to communicate.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I, for one, think it’s pretty cool that Andy shows up on a blog. It’s not like he’s a regular or anything…he’s obviously got greater concerns…but I think it shows some authenticity and realness that you don’t normally see from household name pastors like Andy. The original appearance Andy made on this blog was while he was on vacation with free time.
So it’s not like he’s sitting in his office sweating over what the world is saying. I don’t think North Point would be as successful as it is if Andy and the leadership over there cared about what everyone else is saying.
I’ve gone to North Point for two years now and I find it to be the most amazing church I’ve ever attended. To me, criticizing a megachurch because of it’s size is just B.S. Jesus never put a max on how many believers can gather together in one place. In fact, if you read the story about the feeding of the five thousand, it kind of sounds like a megachurch experience to me (minus the plugged-in band). Sure, there are issues with a big church, just like there are issues with smaller and medium-sized churches. But what it boils down to is the authenticity of the message and the sincerity of the pastor(s). In that respect, North Point is incredible. The buzz around Atlanta about this ministry and what God is doing through North Point is incredible. People that hated church all their lives are going there and loving it.
If anyone wants to check out one of the better sermon series ever done at North Point, I would recommend a series called “Canvas” a four parter by Andy and Louie Gigglio. You can get it off the North Point website. This will totally blow you away, both the message and the creative element of this series. Highly, highly recommended.
I’ve rambled enough!
January 19th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Adam-
In your note to Andy you mentioned that “there are things about North Point, methodologically and theologically, that [you] wouldn’t agree with.” I wonder if you might elaborate for the benefit of your readers which theological and methodological concerns you have about North Point?
That would, at least in my mind, clear some of the air around this post.
Regards,
RNDaniel
January 19th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
RNDaniel, as far as theological issues, it’s just stuff that you would know (or at least have a sense of) from this blog that I might have a problem with any more conservative evangelical church’s theology - not just megachurches: issues relating to homosexuality, women’s ordination, questions of salvation, etc. So…just those things.
Methodologically, a lot of what it would take to run a huge megachurch are just not aspects of what a church body that I want to be a part of would look like. As I explained in the initial post, just the massive size itself, and the massive amounts of people…unlike Andy, I DO believe that the Sunday morning time is a time community, and people meeting and being welcomed into an intimate family experience…
Those are just some things off the top of my head.
January 19th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Okay. Thank you.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:11 am
You know, I’ve been the one who disparages the megachurch: how people are lost in the shuffle; how you can sit in your pew, do you civic duty, and never be noticed, talked to, or held accountable by anyone; the difficulty in forging deep Christ-centered, journey-following relationships with fellow believers; the consumerist mindset; the production of the service; the suits and polished smiles; the 40 days of purpose, etc., etc., etc….
But in the last few weeks, I’ve been doing some studying of the Argentinian revival that has been happening for the past 5 decades. Granted in varying degrees of magnitude, they have found a way to capture the spirit of what it means to ‘do church.’
I could write story after story here perhaps I’ll save those for some entries on my own blog. But the nation is being transformed. In 1950, a strong evangelical church in the nation of Argentina had about 6-8 members. A small Bible college (IBRP) began to pray and weep over their nation. Stories say they weeped for so long and hard there were puddles at their feet.
2 prophesies were issued from that season of prayer that earned the college removal from their denomination. 1 was the death of the President’s wife, Eva Peron (Evita) and the 2nd was that the soccer stadiums would be filled with people hearing the Gospel.
At that time, and unaware of the prophesies uttered in Argentina, American evangelist Tommy Hicks felt a burden to go. He was on the plane and felt that God had told him that he needed to find a person by the name of Peron (he did not know this was the President). When he discovered who this was he made his way to the President’s home, the Rose House.
The president was suffering from a skin disease and saw no one those days. This he quickly learned from a guard standing watch outside. Seeing that the guard had a limp Tommy asked if he could pray for the man. Instantly the limp he had suffered with since childhood was healed. The guard said he would do his best to get Tommy in the next day.
Sure enough, the guard was able to get Tommy in to see the President for a short time. As he enterd, Tommy told the president that he wanted to be able to use the soccer stadiums to preach the Gospel. Now at the time, soccer was the national religion of Argentina and the stadiums were used for nothing other than it. President Peron quickly shot down this idea.
Undiscouraged, Tommy asked if he would be able to pray for the President and his skin disease. The president had sought the medical attention of doctors across the U.S. and Europe to no avail so he saw no harm in allowing Tommy’s prayer. Once again, he was instantly healed and granted use of the stadiums and free access to publicity in the state-owned radio station and newspaper.
Now, of the three evangelical denominations in the country at the time, the census determined that there were about 574 Christians (much less than would fill the 25,000 person stadium).
To make a long story short, the campaign lasted 52 days and an astounding 2,000,000 people heard the Gospel with innumerable documented healings. Ambulences filed into the stadium with the sick on stretchers but they carried their stretchers out w/them completely healed. The crowds grew so large, they moved the services to the larger 180,000 person stadium.
The last evening 200,000 people attended in a country which had a documented 574 evangelical Christians. Here’s where this ties into megachurches. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands came to a saving knowledge of Christ in that crusade alone. But the churches were not prepared to handle the explosions of members that occured so many were lost.
Pastors there to this day weep as they remember how unprepared they were. These days, its not uncommon to have cell-group based churches that number 10, 20, even 30,000 people.
One story recounts an issue a pastor of a 300 person church had with one of his attenders and the attender of a church of 26,000. He called the pastor of the 26,000 person church and explained the situation and the pastor of the ‘mega-church’ said he would call back in an hour. In 1 hour he had navigated the network and gotten the story straight and called back the 300 person church pastor with the correct solution.
It’s not as though megachurches are the answer to the church in America’s problems. My point in all this is they can be effective. And God help us if He should pour out his Spirit on us. I wish and pray that every church in America would become a mega-church.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Why is that when I read so many blog comments written by Christians about other Christians that I get sad? (pulling up soapbox for a minute)
I’m not really talking about you, Adam, since I appreciate your clarifying your thoughts in this post so that there isnt any misunderstanding (or tension) about what you think/feel. What bothers me more is the “shoot first, think later” mentality (see Zach’s two posts) that most Christian bloggers have about other churches. It is everywhere in the blog world. It seems that just about everything that is negatively said about another church (big or small, mega or micro) is based on speculation, bad information, made-up information, or stuff that simply arises from the heart of someone that either has to have their way, loves to argue, or would rather try and shoot holes in someone else’s ministry than create another much needed one.
It frustrates me because I cant figure it out. Why in the world is so much of the mean-spirited and divisive stuff coming from the christian LEADERSHIP community (meaning most of the most critical blog stuff are from Christians that say that they are leading people and/or will be in the near future)? As much as you love peace in the world, Adam, doesnt this drive you nuts? And this doesnt fall under the “prophetic spirit of John the Baptist” excuse either. This isnt about calling Pharisees out. This is one christian talking about another christian and the work that they are dedicating their lives to do for God and those God loves.
In all the crappy potshots that I’ve ever read that are taken at any high profile that gets flack (Hybels, Warren, Stanley, whoever), I’ve never once read a disagreeing post end with “I need to be praying more for that man and his ministry.” That makes me sad. We are called to even pray for our enemies, so why wouldnt that apply to a Christian praying for a fellow brother in Christ that is going full-on after what he feels God is calling him to do? The reason why is because of comments like Zach’s which arent about advancing the Gospel (in my opinon). They are more about shooting someone else in the back (or front) and then walking over them to find the next person that hits a wrong nerve with them. I wont speculate on why Zach did that because I dont know him and any comment I made would be based on speculation, bad information, made-up information, or stuff that simply arises from the heart of someone that either has to have his way. I will say that going back later and watering harsh comments down doesnt help. It’s kind of like punching someone in the face and then going back and saying “oh.. sorry. It slipped.”
If angry non-christians that hate and want to eradicate the church were smart, they’d simply form a plan to get all the christian leaders in one big room since all those Christians togehther would end up either (a) destroying one another or (b) paralyzing all of their ministries since they’d never leave because they’d be stuck blowing hot air at each other with fruitless debate.
That is what makes me sad about being a part of Christian leadership, honestly.
(And i’m not talking about Andy, either, by the way. I appreciate that he’s willing to make time to post stuff in here to show that, contrary to critcisms, he is not untouchable and above anyone…. (even though he now gets grief for posting on blogs, evidently)
John.
January 20th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Don’t worry John. I’m not a christian….at least my calvanist neighbor just informed me of that last saturday. I’m just a secular artist who happens to notice how silly the church and those leading the church can seem sometimes. According to many in the church, secular musicians have a corner on silliness so that makes me an authority i guess.
Also, if shooting first and thinking later is the crime here, then Andy and I are in the same sinking boat. We can share the trophy for the most sarcastic comment on this blog. Did you happen to actually read Andy’s first response to Adam?
And John, I wish you wouldn’t “rip me up and down” like that but I agree, let’s pray for our enemies. I suspect you’ve prayed for me as much as I’ve prayed for Andy. On my knees I go….gonna hook you up John. Can you feel it?
January 20th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Dear God, this is becoming nauseating.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Yeah, well… I’m in a Bon Jovi video for 4.3 seconds.
January 24th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
that’s take the cake tony. that’s sweet! was it “wanted dead or alive” or “bad medicine”?