I am from Texas. I love Texas. I get Texas.
I lived half my life in Texas, grew up in Texas churches, ministered in 3 of them, accepted the gospel of Willow Creek (which is from Chicago but is Texas-sized) in one of them, and know full well what Jesus meant when he said a prophet is not accepted in his hometown.
Most every time I talk “church” with Texas folk who are still in Texas, the leading question is “How many are you running?” or “How big is your building?” It would be an exaggeration to say every conversation begins this way but it would not be an exaggeration to say most of them do. I have been in Tennessee for the last 12 years, and the Bible Belt is in full cinch there, along with its focus on bigger, better, and faster. Your church is not taken seriously by most in Nashville if you’re not big. But nobody makes bigness the looming necessity that Texan evangelicals make it. In Nashville, the bigness is an unspoken rule while people are talking about small groups and spiritual formation and music, but in Texas they talk about bigness without apology, without any trace of irony, without any sense that it’s utterly ridiculous to assume the church growth movement. Most of them don’t know what irony is or what the “church growth movement” is. But they know what church is, and it’s big, dang it. Or else you’re not doing something right. Or, bless your little heart, you sure are giving it a go.
In Nashville, the people might think your small church is cute but in Houston they will tell you it is, as if this is a compliment and not a condescension. The second pastor I was a youth minister for planted his church in 1995 in Houston. He’s been there 15 years now with a regular attendance of about 100 for the last decade, and our mutual friends consider this as “Hanging in there.” As if 15 years of existence with 100 people constitutes the verge of death.
This isn’t just a Texas problem, but it is a Texas-sized problem in evangelicalism. Enter First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas and their new $130 million building campaign. Normally I don’t give one whit about how much a pastor is being paid or how much a church spends on whatever; I get my ire raised more by other things. And what FBC Dallas is doing doesn’t really raise my ire. But it is reflective of something that, yes, is bigger than FBC Dallas, bigger than $130 million.
Do we even know what $130 million looks like? Well, we do, actually. It looks like this.
What is at stake is what church is. In the building Q&A linked above, we find this gem: “[T]he glass walls have an evangelistic effect: people walking by have a view in from the street and feel drawn in.”
In the same way a hobo on the sidewalk might press his face against the window of a fancy restaurant in a Norman Rockwell painting, no doubt.
Nobody should fault FBC Dallas or anybody else for building a building. But this isn’t a building. This, and a bunch of other stuff, is Bible Belt Disneyland. This is evangelicalism with more cowbell. This is Field of Dreams attractional church. And it stinks to high heaven. I was directed to a church website once while doing some research that had in its mission statement this sentence: “We will be a missional church, reaching out to the community to invite them to come see what we’re doing at ___________.”
Not go and tell. Come and see is the “mission” of megachurchianity. Which is why you need evangelistic windows.
(Ever heard of Francis Chan? May his tribe increase.)
November 4th, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #1
This is evangelicalism with more cowbell.
if this weren’t so true it would be so funny. And I would laugh so hard. But I can’t, and that is really so sad.
November 4th, 2009 | 5:20 pm | #2
I should clarify – it’s sad about FBC Dallas, and about my church, and about my family, and about me. In different ways maybe, but the cowbell is still there.
Thanks for the post Jared.
November 4th, 2009 | 5:46 pm | #3
First, let me say that I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. Don’t fear the reaper, man.
.
{ahem. Walken is king, but Will Ferrell completely sells it}
.
I also wanted to say, Jared, that if you keep blogging like this you’re going to turn the whole world on its head. Somebody is going to stone you or something.
November 4th, 2009 | 5:58 pm | #4
Not if we get the right man in the White House. ;-)
November 4th, 2009 | 6:09 pm | #5
Just to be clear, it is not a church — it is a “welcoming, multi-purpose spiritual center.”
November 4th, 2009 | 6:15 pm | #6
Oasis – something that provides refuge, relief, or pleasant contrast. So given that it is being called a spiritual oasis, does this not signify a refuge from things that are spiritual?
November 4th, 2009 | 7:17 pm | #7
Jared, the church I featured in a video at IM a while back- the big stone traditional PCA church in Nashville? 27 mil I think. Not totally sure.
ms
November 4th, 2009 | 7:37 pm | #8
Jared,
Thanks for the post. I was born and raised in Texas (San Antonio) and now live in S. Cal. For the most part I do agree with you. But not every church though. I do agree that this is a problem, but there are some that are trying to do it right though. Perhaps your brush is a bit wide?
I stand corrected if I am wrong.
November 4th, 2009 | 7:47 pm | #9
Perhaps your brush is a bit wide?
Greg, I did write things like:
“It would be an exaggeration to say every conversation begins this way”
“This isn’t just a Texas problem”
“Nobody should fault FBC Dallas or anybody else for building a building”
And used “most” in place of “all.”
Those are all my attempt at not making blanket statements.
The only other options I have are to dilute the strength of the writing with repeated caveats and disclaimers or just not write on the subject at all.
November 4th, 2009 | 7:48 pm | #10
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jared Wilson, JasonRT. JasonRT said: thinking $130 million building is a lot even for Texas http://bit.ly/344EFn [...]
November 4th, 2009 | 8:58 pm | #11
Jared, I do apologize, I did read the post in haste and stand corrected.
Thanks for the rebuke. I do agree with your overall point though and please do not dilute the strength of the writing for those of us (me!) who fail to read thoroughly and then respond out of ignorance.
My bad brother.
November 4th, 2009 | 9:15 pm | #12
Greg, absolutely no worries at all. I didn’t taken any offense even in my defense. :-) I appreciate your spirit. Peace, friend.
November 4th, 2009 | 11:18 pm | #13
What FBC-D is doing is reminiscent of the disciples drawing Christ’s attention to the magnificent Temple in Jerusalem; just like the Temple, as Jesus promised, this monstrosity in downtown Dallas will be razed, too.
When I read about this project, I felt like I was reading an article about an upcoming pornographic movie. Only worse.
I’m with you, Jared. Except I think we can – and maybe must – fault FBC-D for doing it.
November 5th, 2009 | 9:17 am | #14
Mr. Wilson,
I have lived in Texas all of my life, and this “Most of them don’t know what irony is” I think is a touch too far. I appreciate your dilemma about not wanting to water down you writing. In addition, I expect you were having a little fun poking fun at Texans (of which I do remember that you used to be one) however, caution might be advised next time you joke at another people group’s expense. Even more caution is advised when you are joking in line with the stereotypes a group puts up with. I suspect you would have been less cavalier joking that an ethnic group was lazy than you are that Texans are ignorant.
The above aside, I thought your article was compelling and a little convicting as I stop looking at their mega building and shrink it down to the scale of my own building (home) in relation to how much I practice charity.
I would also, have loved for John Mark Reynolds to have responded to this article, as he is a big believer in the notion that church buildings should be beautiful and that we are failing our cultures if they are not. My gut instinct is to side with you that the money from buildings should go to charity, but I respect him and can see some of the merits of his case. It would be nice to see the two of you hash out the merits of your respective cases sometime. Well, keep up the good work and thank you for your work.
November 5th, 2009 | 9:39 am | #15
As an adopted Texan of 20+ years, I say “no harm, no foul.”
We can take the ribbing because we know y’all wish you were us. And if you don’t, it makes us glad that we’re not you.
:)
November 5th, 2009 | 9:52 am | #16
you used to be one
Haha. At what point do I lose my bloodline? :-)
Both my parents are native Texans. I was born in Brownsville, raised in the Rio Grande Valley, lived in Houston through my teens and start of college, and consider Houston my hometown.
All my family is still there.
I think I’m cleared to make some sarcastic social commentary, particularly on the Texas attractional church mentality, of which I both ministered in and get to soak in again every Christmastime visit with friends and family.
I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I don’t consider myself an outsider to this situation necessarily.
November 5th, 2009 | 10:47 am | #17
If they are prepared to show the same amount of money put into spreading the gospel to the furthest reaches of the world, feeding the hungry, caring for the parent-less and husband-less, clothing the homeless and any number of other things Christ gave priority too than I’d not be at all cynical about them spending this amount of money on a new building.
Their marketing suggests otherwise. What I read through didn’t suggest any such thing and I was hoping to find it. I sincerely hope I’m wrong.
November 5th, 2009 | 11:31 am | #18
I had mistakenly assumed that you moved to Texas from somewhere else. The idea that someone would actually leave Texas had never occured to me. I was not so much offended as tired of the people from the South are stupid mentality that seems to bathe everything (not that we don’t sometimes earn it, with some of the neo-confederate nonsense that exists). I was probably too quick to find offense where none was meant. So I’m sorry about that, being from Texas I have only recently figured out how to use my opposable thumb and should probably be slower to use them on a computer. :) . Sometime though I would love to see an interaction between you and John Mark on this subject. I assume we all can agree that no one wants an ugly church, but at what expense towards a beautiful one does it become ugly when it becomes a representation of materialism and not the beauty inherent in God?
November 5th, 2009 | 11:55 am | #19
I fear this kind of portrayal will lead us into a new age of piety. Francis Chan is well on his way. I do believe that architecture can play a role in the way one worships. However, what is happening in Dallas is tantamount to the disciples wanting to pitch tents at the top of the mountain. I think partly because they didn’t want to leave and partly because they didn’t want to go back and “engage culture”.
I live in Charleston, SC. Enter FBC downtown or St. Phillip’s “Anglican” downtown and your attire will be different and your voice will be a little more reverent in its volume. Enter the local user friendly social gathering like SeaCult http://www.seacoast.org/ and its a free for all.
All that said, we attend a “contemporary church” because the Gospel is preached. Wish we could have the perfect bride this side of heaven(in my eyes).
November 5th, 2009 | 12:25 pm | #20
[...] Jared Wilson reflects on the “come and see” presuppositions behind the “megachurchianity” $130 million building campaign for First Baptist of Dallas. [...]
November 5th, 2009 | 12:56 pm | #21
Jared, I don’t really want to disagree with you, but my recent experience does.
Our congregation built a building and opened it up 18 months ago. We’ve grown by 40% in attendance, up from around 500 to over 700.
Not transfer growth either. Mostly professions of faith. We’re blue state, highly secularized area, but the building, like a good book cover made people open it up and explore.
Attractional is not over in our culture. There’s still a place for it. And many of our “bringers” have told me their friends only became willing to entertain visiting when the building went up.
We don’t have stained glass windows, but our location, the beauty of our building, landscaping, etc. all play an important role in people being willing to explore further. Maybe that’s wrong. Maybe it’s because people are sinful and superficial. But it also is just a fact.
Bob
November 5th, 2009 | 1:05 pm | #22
Bob Myers,
Where is your church? I want to attend. We would like to give up our dirty living and not have to go out of our house and live out the gospel. If we go to your church we can quench our guilt by knowing that they are coming to us. We don’t have to go out to them. Being crucified and picking up the cross daily never looked so good…attractional, huh. That’s a new one on me. BTW, your experience is how we ended up getting more cowbell and less Lamb-bell.
November 5th, 2009 | 1:22 pm | #23
A quote from their press release announcing this building project
“In these tough economic times, why can’t we use our gifts to build a church building that provides a spiritual oasis and matches the splendor and majesty of God?”
Even the thought that a building can match the splendor and majesty of God is idolatry and foolishness. This place is a modern day Tower of Babel and the sinful pride and folly of mankind will be on display for the world to see.
November 5th, 2009 | 1:28 pm | #24
I attended the Criswell College in Dallas during the 1980′s. I spent alot of time in those old First Baptist Dallas buildings and, yes, many of them are deplorable (Criswell College used to be housed in FBC facilities).
I remember taking a summer literature course in a room in one of the FBC buildings with no air-conditioning. The professor insisted on reading long portions of Shakespeare to us while we struggled to stay awake and keep the sweat off our text books.
It was inevitable that FBC would have to either move out into the suburbs and build a new facility or find a way to update their downtown facilities. Hooray for them that they decided to stay downtown! It would have been much easier for them to have moved.
Given the fact that this is Dallas, it was also inevitable that they would join the arms race to see who could build a bigger, better, flashier facility. It’s a kind of insanity for which the only cure seems to be getting yourself safely across the Mason-Dixon line.
November 5th, 2009 | 1:42 pm | #25
Wow Danny,
I think if this is how you function, making blanket judgments and the worst of assumptions about people, I’d prefer, for the sake of the gospel that you keep yourself as a hermit and stay away from unbelievers and all church interaction…..
Just returning your judgment of me and the church I pastor, and doing so somewhat tongue in cheek, but hoping that if you’re offended you see your hypocrisy….
Our people are bringers, they simply have found the building far more helpful than we ever imagined. I preached against the “field of dreams” idea when we built this facility. But we all have been surprised at how attractional facilities have actually played an important role in helping unchurched people feel like stepping inside. I guess if we were really spiritually we would have remained a small church without adequate facilities. Evidently the Lord has told you that building a building and possessing facilities is sinful and unspiritual….
You’re probably a decent enough person face to face. I suspect and hope that your problem is that you’re just a person who behaves badly when they are writing from afar.
November 5th, 2009 | 1:42 pm | #26
This ecclesiology has more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity.
November 5th, 2009 | 1:54 pm | #27
Yes, and that new age of piety will lead us straight towards a new age of legalism. Sounds like a blast.
November 5th, 2009 | 2:05 pm | #28
Bob Myers,
Looking back on my comment it was out of bounds and not constructive. I have all kinds of excuses I could line up. However, I would like to say I am sorry. Sometimes the blogosphere lends itself to an anonymity with which I feel too comfortable.
November 5th, 2009 | 2:09 pm | #29
Agree with your critique, Jared, though there is plenty of self-righteousness and “come and see” mindset in small churches too. And it’s easy to direct that small church self-righteousness at the megachurch around the corner. Hopefully those glass walls will be a means for the members there to see out and be drawn out.
November 5th, 2009 | 2:32 pm | #30
I want to repeat one thing and introduce another hopefully as help towards understanding where I’m coming from:
1) There’s nothing wrong with building a building. Not even with building a big one.
2) I am not anti-megachurch. :-)
November 5th, 2009 | 2:40 pm | #31
There is a “Go and tell” but there is also a “come and see” and there needs to be both!
The goal is maximum impact in minimal time which requires we GO and also invite people to COME! Both are needed, both are biblical, both must work together!
November 5th, 2009 | 2:46 pm | #32
“Wise counsel tells us that when time comes to begin construction, the economy will likely be in recovery.”
If we could predict the future like that we’d all be rich. It’s unwise to base financial plans on possible economic recovery. It could also get a lot worse.
As far as giving more. Many people their “tithe” to the church and any extra goes to the poor. So they are asking people to give extra for a building.
Jeff
November 5th, 2009 | 2:58 pm | #33
Jesus lived during a time period where there were magnificent buildings–both of (quasi)-Jewish and Roman origin. Certainly Paul regularly encountered some of the finest edifices within the Roman empire.
Yet neither of these individuals made any appeal for the Christian community to “match” these buildings. In fact, they both took great pains to illustrate that it is the people who are the true structure (and the only one God loves and is glorified through). I would tend to think that all this effort to “honor God” with a grand building brings about (at best) a bored yawn from Heaven’s throne. I would have appreciated it more if they had simply said, “we’ve outgrown our current facility and want to build something state-of-the-art that will last us for several decades”. Hey, if you need a big building go for it—its just that their rationale is naive, materialistic, and (frankly) against the grain of the New Testament.
November 5th, 2009 | 4:21 pm | #34
Dan,
Apology accepted. I have been guilty of the same thing myself, and that’s why I called you on it. I needed to be reminded of that myself.
Thanks for understanding and responding
November 5th, 2009 | 4:28 pm | #35
From what building did Jesus or his disciples regularly preach? Was not the most famous sermon given outside? Is this not how Jesus wanted us to go forth and teach? I understand the appeal of having a roof and conditioned air during especially cold, hot, or wet seasons, but when was the last time you were at a service held under the sun and in the fresh air? Isn’t that the “real” building, the real home of God?
November 5th, 2009 | 5:21 pm | #36
There are 100,000 or so orphans in Ukraine living in orphanages experiencing unimaginable abuse.
130 million would be enough to completely abolish the orphanage system by purchasing homes for foster care.
A whole country could be changed or a fancy glass building could be built because the old one is outdated…
I guess this is what consumerism does to the church over time.
November 5th, 2009 | 5:36 pm | #37
Great blog, Jared! This is absolutely unbelievable. As a former Texan myself, I couldn’t agree more with your thoughts on the overall attitude displayed down there.
The Pastors at our church lose sleep over using church money for things like business cards! $130 million? That just blows my mind…
November 5th, 2009 | 8:18 pm | #38
My wife and I used to go to FBCD and we both had a laugh at the videos–they are brilliant! Yet, the irony of the campaign is that they are selling “transformation” by doing more of the same.
Mac Brunson tried to lead a $48 million campaign there earlier this decade and the church turned on him. This new campaign pushes all the buttons that Brunson didn’t–it trumpets triumphalism and nostalgia. Is a giant cross in the middle of downtown Dallas going to transform the town? No. But it will raise some money from the old people longing for the old days.
If FBCD really wants to transform Dallas they will offer the city a radical counter-narrative to the consumerism and commercialism that surrounds them.
November 6th, 2009 | 7:27 am | #39
While I appreciate the discomfort many have expressed with what this church is doing (and the terms in which they are couching it)–I’m a little uncomfortable with it as well–I can’t help feeling like there are few things missing from the discussion.
First, we don’t know the complete context. Is this solely a “we need bigger and better” or is this “it’s time to improve and we’re building for the long-term so we can better serve where we are”?
Second, I didn’t get a clear sense of what you would have preferred for this church to do, Jared. Do you want them to take that money and use it for charity (as some others suggest)? Have a less flashy building?
Third, how do *all* the biblical precedents relate here? We’ve had mention of Jesus preaching outside and going to the poor–but what about the fact that God Himself commissioned an incredible tabernacle and then temple for His glory and worship?
I don’t have all the answers, and I’m still trying to sort this out for myself. What I want to avoid myself, and what concerns me in many of these comments, is a holy-than-thou attitude that’s really easy to have from the safety and isolation of our own computer screens.
November 6th, 2009 | 10:33 am | #40
$130mil that’s small fry, there’s a church here in Singapore spending $358mil on their share in a private-church partnership building of not a hospital or missional building but a entertainment-retail complex (a cross between a mall and something from Vegas). Does it have that much debate, not really, most churches here are just envious.
- http://www.straitstimes.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bd98403cd71ff110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=cf70758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD
November 6th, 2009 | 10:45 am | #41
Considering it is downtown (more expensive) and they have been faithfully using the same facilities for the last 100 years, they have more of an excuse to build this type of place than others. Is 130 mil a lot? Yes but they aren’t building this after using the other building for 5 years. At least they are trying to be thoughtful in maximizing the current infrastructure and not running to the suburbs.
It is their flock they have to stand before God to give an account for, not ours.
November 6th, 2009 | 11:10 am | #42
Whenever we are being extravagant, we need to ask whether we’re being extravagant in glorifying God, or extravagant in glorifying ourselves.
Spending lots of money isn’t inappropriate per se, it’s the motivation behind the action that is important. (And we who criticize spending need to check the motives behind our criticism as well! Is it because we are concerned about the cause of the gospel, or is it because we are concerned with money?) Remember the story from John 12:1-6:
“Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief…”
November 6th, 2009 | 11:32 am | #43
“Come and see” seems to have become the MO of so many evangelical churches here in the south. And yes, it makes me sick too.
November 6th, 2009 | 11:56 am | #44
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mark Lamprecht and drewcollins, Scott Douglas. Scott Douglas said: Going for a run… Interesting perspective on a $130 million building http://tr.im/EkYa [...]
November 6th, 2009 | 1:45 pm | #45
A soft therapeutic “gospel” can also be preached in a cheap, ugly-but-cost-effective industrial building with add-on trailers for classrooms. I know from experience.
November 6th, 2009 | 1:48 pm | #46
Did the idea to call this article “Six Flags Over Jesus” come Paul Washer’s sermons (his “Shocking Youth Message” for example)? He is the only one I have heard describe big churches that way (but of course he could have borrowed it from someone else… or it could just be a popular phrase that I didn’t realize other men were using).
Here is the famous sermon he says it in:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/go/shocking
Here is a new interview I just shot with him about that sermon:
http://tinysa.com/pw/background
November 6th, 2009 | 4:37 pm | #47
What do you want FBC to build in the heart of the city? A cheap metal industrial building? That would certainly speak volumes in a city with multimillion dollar buildings surrounding the church. Praise God this church isn’t folding their cards and deciding they can’t afford to exist in downtown Dallas any longer. This church has a vision to transform and maintain a presence for Christ. I’m inspired by their multimillion dollar vision. Sounds to me like they want to reach people for Christ well into the 21st Century. Looks like their witness and influence would be greatly hindered if they keep things the way they are today.
November 6th, 2009 | 5:38 pm | #48
Most of you are making me very sick. I don’t know what this site is, I’ve never been to it before, I just saw this on a respected guy’s twitter post and clicked on it.
I’m from Omaha, NE, grew up in a fairly large church of about 5,000, still here today. We are currently faced with the same issue. Space. We have outgrown our current facility. We cannot effectively do on-campus ministry with the amount of people that come every week.
What FBD is doing in their church is incredible. Do you not see how it’s grown over the past decades? For those that are concerned about “suburban megachurches,” do you not see where the heart of their ministry is located? In the heart of Dallas, downtown. I read that at their fall festival a couple of weeks ago they had over 7,000 NON-MEMBERS come through their doors on Halloween. That means that 7,000 people “came and saw” what FBC was doing. Why? Probably BECAUSE of their location, size and the beauty of their facility. Do you think the homeless in Downtown Dallas would come to an ugly cold warehouse? Do you think the families want to be welcomed into a cramped church, where it’s easy to get lost in the crowd? No. But should the church step outside of it’s glass walls into the city to reach these people where they’re at? Yes. And I believe that there are people in that church that do just that.
Who are you all to judge the hearts of those in leadership at that church!? What you are all saying is, “I could find a better use for $130 million than these prideful pharisees.” “I would build a homeless shelter, or an orphanage across the world.” And the church will continue to meet in the same building, and will quit growing, becuase there is nowhere to go and no room to continue ministry.
I don’t really know what I’m trying to say. I don’t even know who all I’m speaking to, but I just thought you were all being very harsh on people that you don’t even know. You’re judging their hearts WAY to quickly. I think they have prayerfully considered what the future of their church should be.
November 6th, 2009 | 9:30 pm | #49
Hey, I was sympathetic to this church before reading the comments, but now I”m ready to make a contribution.
Good defenses made in the comments.
November 7th, 2009 | 7:48 am | #50
[...] Read about a Church that could be called a Six Flags over Jesus Here [...]
November 7th, 2009 | 11:44 am | #51
Not that I am agreeing with what FBC Dallas is doing but I am curious to know if anyone has a figure on what the monetary limit should be for a God honouring church expansion?
$100,000,000; $50,000,000; $1,000,000; $500,000; $100,000; $0?
Is there a dollar value where we cross the line into sin?
Please include any bible references in support of your answer.
November 7th, 2009 | 11:50 am | #52
The first thing W.A. Criswell did when he went to First in Dallas was to purchase prayer benches and have them installed on all the pews. His philosophy of ministry was that all things, including worship and the Christian life in general, should be approached with prayer.
I would be willing to bet that there are no prayer benches in this new facility.
November 7th, 2009 | 11:51 am | #53
My friend’s daughter served as a missionary this summer at an orphanage in Kitgum, Uganda. When she arrived the children had no mattresses. They slept on dirt floors. She e-mailed her father here in the States, he sent an e-mail to his personal friends and scrounged up enough money to buy some mattresses so that these precious children, made in God’s image, didn’t have to sleep in the dirt.
Let me cut through the beeswax. We are the church. A beautiful building can serve as a nice public witness, but it can be done for a lot less. Some of God’s most important work is done in the ramshackle, storefront, inner city churches in this country, in neighborhoods where respectable right-wing Republicans wouldn’t be caught dead.
Are there no homeless people in Dallas? Are all the widows and orphans provided for? Do all the sick in Dallas have adequate healthcare?
Give me a break. This thing is an abomination, and on the Day of Judgment, not one stone will stand. And I don’t apologize for saying so. Neither should any of you.
November 7th, 2009 | 12:34 pm | #54
Is there a dollar value where we cross the line into sin?
James, I was wondering the same thing. Is there a monetary line over which any defenders of this building campaign would say, “Well, that’s too much”?
Is there such a thing as a church being extravagant, show-offy, grandiose? If so, what does it look like?
For my part, I have stated in the post that I personally don’t care usually about money. It’s not about money. I don’t fault churches building buildings.
It’s the spirit and rationale behind this thing that is a red flag. Opulent fountains, “evangelistic windows,” an “oasis” in downtown, keeping up with the big buildings of the downtown area.
Here’s the issue: The number of megachurches is increasing in America. That would be a fine statistic if the number of professing Christians wasn’t decreasing.
Everyone from Michael Spencer to Tim Keller is predicting the collapse of Bible Belt cultural Christianity in the next generation.
Something must change.
Or we can keep on keepin’ on. And see more of the same.
It’s not the $130 million. It’s what the $130 million signifies about what we think church is and what it’s supposed to do.
November 7th, 2009 | 1:30 pm | #55
I seem to remember something about knowing we are Christians by our love. Perhaps some modern translation misprinted that as “by our flashy buildings”? So is it if Christ be lifted up, or is it if a weird looking cross on a Christmas tree fountain be lifted up?
November 8th, 2009 | 4:11 am | #56
Very interesting post. If they are truly just updating facilities, why can’t they portray it as such? Instead, it seems far too flashy and as if a lot of pride has gone into it.
Not that I’m saying they are prideful, but it certainly appears that way and that’s the problem I have with this building.
I personally don’t understand the megachurch mentality. I am a small church (less than 50 people) girl and probably always will be. My pastor’s teaching is excellent and the fellowship is amazing. We have a drive to evangelise and there’s always ways to serve and be served.
November 8th, 2009 | 4:07 pm | #57
[...] But, wait, it’s spiritual oasis…that’s a load of crap. These people are wasting resources in the name of comfort, not of Jesus Christ. Have they looked at the economic climate? Don’t they know that people are out of work? What about starting churches in another state? What about training another generation to take the gospel to another area with resources to support the ministry? Why not give it to families to move into another community, so they can bring Jesus to people who may not know them? [...]
November 8th, 2009 | 5:23 pm | #58
Will they be able to open the roof on fair-weather days?
November 8th, 2009 | 6:18 pm | #59
[...] tip to Challies for the link to Jared Wilson and hat tip to Jared Wilson for the links to the comparison and the title [...]
November 8th, 2009 | 10:58 pm | #60
[...] “…evangelicalism with more cowbell” Posted on November 9, 2009 by Lane Corley Six flags over Jesus by Jared Wilson. [...]
November 11th, 2009 | 4:36 pm | #61
[...] November 11, 2009 Andrew Ford Leave a comment Go to comments Jared Wilson writes about a 130 million dollar new church building in the buckle of the Bible Belt: Dallas Texas. He [...]
November 16th, 2009 | 8:14 pm | #62
[...] Dallas: the epicenter of evangelical awesomeness. [...]
November 17th, 2009 | 11:34 am | #63
[...] For a look at a similar expression of this mentality: First Things: Six Flags Over Jesus [...]
November 17th, 2009 | 4:52 pm | #64
I am all for expanding for growth, but this is insane. All I can say is the church is consumed in greed. The pastor of FBC Dallas was the pastor of FBC Wichita Falls, the city God put me, and all you hear about him is greed and controvsary. I think he is only making a name for himself and not glorifying God. In a way, he is his own idol. I can do a lot with $130 million and giving it to further the gospel would be one of those things I would do with it. I think the church is going down a path that will lead people to hate Jesus and not come to Him in faith for salvation. If you ask me, I think the pastor and Joel Osteen are in the lines of preachers that care to make a name of themselves and not glorifying God.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact