Cedar Park Church
16300 112th Ave NE
Bothell, WA 98011

p: 425.488.3600
e: info@cedarpark.org

Service Times:
Sundays:
9am, 10:45am, 6pm

Radio Show Times
7:00am KLFE 1590AM
7:30am KGNW 820AM
9:30am KCIS 630AM
10am KKOL 1300AM

Employee Email

Adjusting Ministry to fit Different Audiences

Branch churches will inevitably do worship, preaching, and “church” in a variety of ways to suit various target audiences. Is this ok to do? Are we compromising the Gospel if we do this?

This is Pastor Joe's message suggesting that it is generally ok since Paul did this very thing. The second part of that message warns that there are also dangers along that path. I used the issues of Mary at Ephesus as my historical case study to show that things can go too far in that direction.

Adjusting Ministry to fit Different Audiences

Part I: Justification for one church doing ministry in different ways
Morning Message - November 25, 2001

In January 2002 we intend to launch a new church. It will meet in the Chapel of the Resurrection on Sunday mornings. The ideas are still being developed, but the key idea will be a liturgical format for the service. The idea of multiple churches fits with out “Cathedral Church” concept. This will be our 6th church that is part of Cedar Park. We have the Fijian, Japanese, and Spanish Churches, plus Cedar Park Northshore and Bothell. For those that are new, or who are not part of our leadership, I have printed a copy of my notes from this fall’s “Leader’s Day” where we outline of concepts of the Cathedral Church. You can get a copy of it at the information desk.

I have felt for a long time there was a need for this type of service on the Eastside. Over the last three years I have interviewed a number of ministers without success. I remember interviewing a couple of Episcopal priests. When they start swearing in my office on the initial interview I’m thinking to myself, this really is not going to work.

In the last 60 years there has been a dramatic shift in the spiritual culture of Puget Sound. For the first forty years of the last century, Mark Matthews was the Pastor of First Presbyterian in Seattle. He was dominant in the political life of the city and was probably as conservative or more conservative than I am. His life and ministry is a good example of what things were like back then. His 8,800 members were testimony to the strength of his approach. He was definitely a cool guy and a good role model for any minister wanting to impact a culture for Christ. Since he died just before WWII, the whole religious climate has changed. We now have several churches in Seattle with homosexuals as Pastors. Many of the churches have abandoned the ancient foundations of their denominations. I graduated from a Methodist University, and I can tell you that what I experienced was spiritually tragic. The professors and chaplain had left John Wesley and Methodism in the dust.

I believe that many people who have experienced the liturgical style growing up like that style and would still attend churches of that style if they could stand the new interpretations of the Bible. I believe that a church that is evangelical in its doctrine, and liturgical in its style, would be attractive to many people who might otherwise not have a church home.

Such considerations cause me to ask two questions:

- Should the preaching of the Gospel be adjusted to fit the audience?
- If so, what are the dangers of that adjustment?

Scripture Reading: 1 Corinthians 9:16-23 Page 911

16 Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it. 19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

In Chapter 9, Paul is defending his life and ministry against detractors. He says that a minister should be supported from his or her ministry just as the Temple priests received a portion of the food and offerings given to the Temple. Although he received such assistance elsewhere, he had not done it in Corinth. As an Apostle to the Corinthian Church, which he was by virtue of founding the church, he was certainly entitled to such a benefit. However, he gave up that right and acted as a slave to the people to whom he preached.

In verses 20-23 he gives a most eloquent expression of his determination to win people to Jesus. What it shows is Paul willingness to adjust his style and his message in order to speak to the culture of his day. His preaching was not about him, it was about the people he hoped to reach. By making the adjustment, he was serving the people. It serves as a good model even to us today.

20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Just prior to preaching in Corinth, Paul had preached in Athens. In Athens, on Mars Hill, he talked about the unknown God. He spoke to the issues of their religion, but, as Acts 17:18 shows, he came back to Jesus and the resurrection. In Acts 17: 24-25 he attacks one of their central ideas, that their gods lived in the temple that they made on the Parthenon and around the city of Athens. God should not be thought of as “an image made by man's design and skill,” as he says in verse 29. He even goes so far as to call such ideas “ignorance.” In doing this he is attacking the very core of Athens. The Parthenon stands over the city like the Space Needle over Seattle, except bigger, better, more beautiful and much more dominant. He is hitting their religion, their culture, and their politics right in the nose. There was no compromise in the fundamental message. All that changed was the approach.

When we study the methods of Paul in Acts it is easy to see that he spoke to the people of his day in a language they understood. How he presented the Gospel was based upon the particular group that he was addressing. The same is true of the Apostle John in writing the Revelation. In particular, his comments to the seven churches of Asia were filled with local references and angles. It just seems natural and obvious to do this.

In the same way, if there are tens of millions of Americans who were raised in a particular liturgical style of religious expression, why not continue to approach those of that group who appreciated the context? Obviously, for those who found that approach dull and uninteresting, we would approach them in another way.

Our point is that Gospel preaching requires accommodation to the experience of the people hearing the message. If we must make adjustments, are there dangers associated with that? Aren’t there plenty of examples of that going to far? Tonight I want to use one such example in detail. I will preach a message on “When cultural accommodation goes too far: How Mary became the Mother of God 400 years after she died.” The short answer this morning is that there are many dangers and they must be constantly guarded against. I have no interest in presiding over the watering down of the Gospel.

Besides launching the new church, I want to encourage you to think about yourself as a preacher of the Gospel to your world. After Easter of next year we are going to launch an effort related to the actual issues of this community. Right now, we are gathering the information that will give us insights into this community. After Easter, I want to preach a series of message addressing their chief concerns. We will want to assess what our church does and how we present that to the community. It may be that we will need to develop new programs and ministries that will speak to where the people of this community really are. We may need to let people know what we already have. I personally think we already have one of the strongest need-meeting ministries of any church. We can do more.

I don’t want you to rely upon the church for all this. There is a part that you should play as well. As an example, we are coming up on Christmas. What are people thinking about Christmas? There are the usual cast of concerns about money and presents. Don’t people really just want to have a pleasant Christmas experience? Why would a person want to go to the Nutcracker for the umpteenth time again this year? It is not the plot or the music or the dance. They go because it is Christmas and that is what you do at Christmas. Well, you could invite someone to church with you any Sunday these next weeks. One of our choirs will have beautiful music. The place will be all decorated. I will preach a Christmas related message. Your invitation could be very simple. You could just say, “if you want to reconnect with the spiritual part of Christmas, I’d love to have you visit our church.” You could invite them to the drama or the special musical by the choir and orchestra. Every Sunday night in December will be quite memorable.

Adjusting Ministry to Fit Different Audiences

Part II: Adjusting can go too far!
Evening Message, November 25, 2001

When Jesus taught us to pray he said "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name…” (Matt 6:9) So when we pray, we pray to the Father. Nowhere in the Bible are we ever instructed to pray to anyone else. In the Catholic world, during the months of December and May, there is a strong emphasis upon Mary and the prayers that are to be offered to her.

The question that is worth asking is how did we get from “Our Father” to “Hail Mary?”

There are two answers that are commonly given. The first is that it is a demonic plot to draw worship from the uncreated Savior to an earthly person. The second is that it is the accumulation and residue of several centuries of trying to compete with pagan culture. In the process of competition, Christians put forward their best alternative to the fertility cults of the pagans.

If we put the best face on it, they were trying to bring the people over in the best way possible. One of their methods was the conversion of pagan shrines into Christian Churches. So, in Rome on Esquiline hill, the temple of Cybele, a mother goddess, was converted into Santa Maria Maggiore. It is a beautiful church, with gold on the ceiling that came from the Americas. The ruins of another temple to Cybele / Magna Mater can still be seen today in Rome on Palatine hill. On Capitoline hill, there was a temple to the Phoenician goddess, Tanit. Her temple because a church dedicated to Mary. Temples to Isis and Minerva (Athena) near the Pantheon became churches dedicated to Mary.

This happened all over the ancient world. In Athens, on the acropolis, the temple to Athena was changed into the Church of Mary. In Ephesus, the city devoted to the fertility goddess Artemis, the church there became the first church ever devoted to Mary. Unfortunately, Mary took on the attributes of the goddesses she replaced. Like June and Artemis, she became the patron of pregnant women and unborn children. Like Isis, the Stella Maris, she protected sailors. The Pagan sea goddess, Marian, wore the blue cloak and pearl necklace. Over time Mary, mother of Jesus, was dressed in blue and often wore the pearl necklace. Venus, is often shown rising from the sea in a scallop or clam shell. On a Catholic website devoted to Mary there is a frank discussion of why Mary is often shown with the clam or scallop shell. Their discussion is shown below.

Mary and the shell

Madonna and Child
Fra' Filippo Lippi

“The shell or clam shell has symbolic value in many cultures, from India (Vishnu carries a shell) to the moon god in Aztec culture. Its main reference is to vulva and matrix as life receiving and giving organs. It is in this context that the clam shell is symbolically referred to Mary, and means the divine conception of Jesus Christ in her body.

The origin of this symbol is to be found probably in Judges 6,36f. ("concham rore implevit") and becomes a Marian symbolism thanks to the famous Physiologus. …the shell symbol is commonly applied to the incarnation of the divine logos.

The shell as symbol of divine conception (virginal conception) is prominent in Italian Renaissance, especially in representations of Mary and child standing below the symbol of the clam shell. So in paintings by Neri di Bicci, Tavernelle, Pieso della Francesca, Buttinone. A particularly telling example can be found on the west portal of the Pisa dome where the Annunciation is accompanied with the symbol of shell and pearl, titled" "Rore coelesti foecundor" (heavenly dew will make me fruitful). The symbol is widely used in baroque emblems regarding Mary's virginal conception.

What is clear is the adoption of the emblems of mythology to embellish the character of Mary. In particular, I think the goal was often to use familiar ideas to convert the population to Christian ways of thinking. Unfortunately, this sometimes brought along unintended connotations and connections. The case of Mary in Ephesus is a case in point.

Ephesus and Mary

Ephesus has several distinctions in church history, two of which revolve around the issue of Mary. The first church in the world ever dedicated to Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in Ephesus. In the picture I am standing in the remains of that first church. Today, there are thousands of such churches. Ephesus began that tradition.

We wonder if there was not some connection between the desire of the people to acknowledge an ancient female deity and a church dedicated to Mary. In that city there was no reluctance to honor the female goddess. In the second picture I am standing next to one such example. She is Artemis, the female goddess of Ephesus. What to do with Artemis worshippers had been a key issue with which the church had contended in the early years. If my wondering has merit, how might this situation have come about?

Even though the church was separating from paganism, there was still considerable accommodation and interchange. The Christian emperors were being memorialized in coins and inscriptions as “deified,” still divus in the mid-fifth century. The father of Theodosius received honor in Ephesus from a Christian governor in the late fourth century. The honor was to be portrayed in stone, accompanied on one side by the city’s guardian goddess Artemis and on the other side by Athena. Why would Christian leaders do this? Like politicians today, I suspect they were trying to appeal to both sides. On the one hand they were Christians. On the other, they wanted public support from the considerable number of pagans who still lived in that area. For their purposes, it did not seem inappropriate to mix pagan titles and pagan goddesses in with Christian leaders. For that matter, reaching back into the “Caesar is god” cult, even if they saw it only as a civil expression and not for worship or religious purposes, was acceptable to them.

The inclination of the church to try to capture pagan holidays and activities, reorienting them to Christian ideas has been around for some time. Many of the traditions that are part of Christian celebrations today had their roots in pagan practices. Even the tune to a song like “Amazing Grace” has its origins in less than a holy place. As a teenager, my generation took the popular song, Bridge over Troubled Waters, and set it to pictures about Jesus. We gave a new, and Christian, meaning to the old terms and melodies that were strictly secular when they were written.

While I cannot be certain, I wonder if something like this was not partly in operation in Ephesus. Maybe they thought that taking away all memory of Artemis and other female inclinations in religion would leave a void. Rather than a void, or to counter pagan ideas, they may have begun to play up their side of the story. The pagans of Ephesus had Artemis, Christians had Mary. Just as Theodosius’s father was shown in stone relief with Artemis, the ancient title for Artemis, “Queen of Heaven” began to be applied to Mary. It seems understandable to me that preachers would showcase their counterpart to the old culture. They might even have used the popular understanding of Artemis as a bridge to teach about Mary and Jesus. In learning, we always go from the known to the unknown by way of similarities or contrasts.

I have not been able to discover the precise date when the Church was named in Mary’s honor. I seem to recall, although I am not positive and have been unable to locate the source, that Temples to Artemis were officially closed by Emperor Theodosius II around 430 AD. I know his predecessors closed similar temples elsewhere between 380 and 391, including a temple in Alexandria. Certainly, the mood all around the empire, especially after Julian the Apostate, turned against the continued existence of pagan temples. There were imperially funded and directed campaigns against sacred images in various parts of the empire. It became increasingly difficult for pagan religion to survive publicly. There may have been a convergence of interests here. The Artemis Temple was long ago destroyed and not rebuilt. Officially, there had been a longstanding, and growing, crack-down on Artemis worship. It may have been in someone's interest, in such an environment, to name a Church in honor of Mary.

The naming of a single church in honor of Mary, which is not necessarily negative, is a very small thing compared to what would later transpire in that church building. In that church dedicated to Mary, a significant theological decision was made which still reverberates into our time. That decision was to shift the title of “Mary, Mother of Jesus” to “Mary, Mother of God.”

How did Mary, 400 years after her death, become the Mother of God?

We think of the conflict around the definition of Mary’s role and title as something of the Reformation. In fact, the controversy goes back many centuries.

The decisive spark of conflict was lit when Emperor Theodosius II appointed Nestorius to be Patriarch of Constantinople, the leading Ministry post in the empire. Somewhere around 428 or 429 Nestorius preached the first of his famous sermons against the word Theotokos, and detailed his Antiochian doctrine of the Incarnation. As the theological battle intensified, so did the rhetoric. In a couple of sermons preached December 13th and 14, 430, Nestorius said, “If Mary is called the Mother of God, she will be made into a goddess, and the Gentiles will be scandalized.” Nestorius was opposing the growing tendency to elevate the status of Mary. Even though he had the most influential church position and spoke for the tradition of the church, he did not ultimately carry the day.

The views of Nestorius were finally overturned, possibly in part because of his lack of political skills. Nestorius was outflanked at the Council of Ephesus, refusing to participate in meetings unless also accompanied by his loyal bishops. Theology can, at times, have a political side. The story of the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD was one of those times. Stephen Ulrich wrote the following account of that Council.

“Nestorius arrived on Easter, April 16, with 16 bishops and an armed escort. He had heard of the reputation of Cyril. He had also faced opposition and physical threats from some monks in Constantinople. Apparently Cyril was stirring up opposition to Nestorius through the onus of Eusebius, a lawyer of the Basilica of Constantinople. (Gregory 90) Nestorius arrived to find some lesser bishops already there. Cyril arrived in the city shortly afterward accompanied by about fifty-five bishops and a considerable number of monks. By the June 7 deadline 198 bishops had arrived but they were still expecting the oriental delegation which comprised John of Antioch and thirty other bishops. This delegation was crucial support for Nestorius' case. The bishops had already agreed to wait until July 10 for the delegation but on June 21, armed with what he thought was special authority from Pope Celestine, Cyril proposed to open the council under the pretense of preventing more sickness and death among the bishops. Sixty-eight bishops, along with the chief guard of Nestorius from the Emperor Theodosius, presented letters protesting the decision and demanded that Cyril wait. Cyril ignored them.

The next day, June 22, Cyril opened the council presiding over 60 like-minded bishops (Kelly 327), and dispatched four bishops to summon Nestorius. He refused to appear before the oriental bishops arrived. In the absence of Nestorius, the supporters of Cyril moved quickly to depose him. They finally pronounced a formal statement against Nestorius. Meanwhile, outside there was a crowd gathered, eagerly anticipating the outcome. It is worthy to note that there were demonstrations of women in Ephesus supporting the position of Cyril. When the decision of Nestorius' deposition was announced to the gathered crowd, the women formed a procession to show their support. (Gregory footnote 124) It seemed they had a special attachment to Mary. But why did they feel this special kindness and closeness to Mary?

The Mother of our Lord through a late tradition seems to be connected to Ephesus by the Apostle John. While on the cross, Jesus gave John custody of his mother. Near the end of John's life according to tradition she accompanied him to Ephesus. Epiphanius denies this tradition has any historical or biblical merit. These women of Ephesus who expressed a special veneration for Mary were following an older tradition and devotion of another virgin and mother, Artemis (Diana) of the Ephesians. (Emphasis mine) (Acts 19 & Gregory 106, 107)

Meanwhile, Nestorius met with a group of 43 rival bishops in a synod and issued a similar verdict against Cyril and the rest of the bishops. (Atiya 250)

Finally, on June 26, the oriental delegation of bishops arrived under the leadership of John of Antioch. John petitions Emperor Theodosius and describes the city in a state of civil war and "all manner of confusion." (Gregory 104) In his letter, he squarely places the responsibility on the shoulders of Cyril and Memnon. Theodosius, after hearing of the condemnation of Nestorius and his teaching (June 29) dispatched a letter to Ephesus decrying the decision of the council and reproving the bishops for not waiting for the oriental bishops. On July 10 the legate of the Pope of Rome arrived and declared the Pope's support for Cyril. Cyril was quick to point out to the emperor that his continued support of Nestorius was contrary to the decision of the ecumenical council. (Gregory 108)

The story continues on in typical Byzantine fashion with enough intrigue and deception to satisfy any modern student of politics.

One surprising aspect of this Council was its relatively small size, particularly the sixty who were present when eliminating Nestorius’ influence. This handful of bishops compares quite unfavorably to the Council of Nicea where some 400 bishops were present.[11][7] Even though it was over a hundred years later, the number of bishops present was less than half of the Nicean Council. Like modern elections, the Ephesian Council was notable for how few actually participated.

It is common to assign this conflict to spiritual issues. Without a doubt, there were spiritual issues. In those days, most of the discussion centered on the appropriate use of the term theotokos ("she who bore God" or "Mother of God") for the mother of our Lord. Nestorius disliked the term. He preferred Christotokos ("Mother of Christ" or "Messiah bearer"), Anthropotokos ("Mother of man"), or Theodokos ("God-receiving").

As a theological term, Theotokos first appeared in a letter written in 324 by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria to the Bishop of Thessalonike.

What Ulrich’s text points out is the political side to the conflict. Ultimately, Cyril of Egypt anathematized Nestorius. “What is the benefit gained by Cyril anathematizing Nestorius? The evidence seems to suggest that within Egypt there was an Antiochene community before the Council of Ephesus and Nestorian sympathizers after the Council, who were obstinate against the authority of Cyril. So Cyril sought a means by which he could lessen or eliminate their influence.”

Ulrich notes that eventually Nestorius agreed that the title theotokos was acceptable enough when properly explained and qualified. Both Cyril and Nestorius agreed that Christ had two natures. Cyril, for his part, emphasized the differences and called the difference heresy. Nestorius was not as politically clever as his opponent was and, as a result, we have the idea “Mary, Mother of God.”

I am particularly interested in Ulrich’s comments on the role of the women demonstrators outside the Church. Does it mean anything that these were women and not men? Is this more of the ancient traditions of Ephesus and Artemis that Paul had encountered and reacted against four hundred years earlier? Given what we know of the spiritual battles fought in that city, it is entirely possible.

What does it say about the spiritual climate of that city that the women believed the outcome could be influenced by a popular demonstration? Rather than an appeal to the words of Scripture these women somehow appealed to the passion of the street. What significance does their personalization of the argument hold? That is, they attached the personalities of various people to their side of the argument. So when the decision of Nestorius' deposition was announced, they formed a procession or demonstration to show their support. I am aware that theology had a lot more participation at the popular level in that time. Even that, however, does not fully explain to me why the women of Ephesus were so involved in this issue. Nestorius’ ideas could not just be defeated. They had to get rid of him as well.

In Peter Wagner’s short Queen of Heaven booklet on this subject, he stops a fraction of a millimeter short of saying outright that the deification or elevation of Mary was a spiritual substitute for their previous loyalty to Artemis. In fact, I suspect he really believes that but didn’t want to say it outright for fear of being misunderstood by faithful Catholics and Orthodox.

This much we can say with certainty. Ephesus had a long history of feminist activism in favor of the female mother goddess. It was also the city that first named a church after Mary and it was the city where Mary, over four centuries after her death, became “Mother of God” in Christian theology. Although we cannot say with certainty that any actual relationship existed between these facts, it is at least a striking coincidence.

Was Mary always a virgin, or did she have a normal relationship once she married Joseph?

Matthew 13:54-56 is quite clear that after Jesus was born, several other children were eventually born to the union of Mary and Joseph.

“Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

Acts 1:14 is also clear that Jesus had brothers: “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.”

Did Mary remain a life-long virgin, or did she have other children as the Scripture indicates. Origen, one of the church fathers from the middle 200’s AD gives us a clue to the background. He tells us where the idea came from the Mary had no other children. In doing so, Origen is letting us know that the “ever-virgin” idea was not a universal idea. It was not widely believed. It came from a single source. He is tracing the idea to its source. Then he tells us why people would invent such an idea. Their reason was to honor purity.

“And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren , James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee," might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.”

This whole study about Mary and Ephesus is an illustration of what can happen when church leaders decide they want to accommodate to the culture but don’t know where to draw the lines. Sometimes I worry that a lot of what is happening in churches today as they try to relate to the lost suggests that the clergy are as “lost” as they people they are trying to reach. Sometimes the “medium is the message.” We strip the church of anything that looks like church so we can relate to the lost. In the process we can lose the church.

In order to successfully challenge the culture, you have to be willing to be different than the culture at many essential points. The wisdom to know what is negotiable and what is not sometimes is less evident than we might hope. In the end, there has to be a missionary heart in the Christian. We have to want to enter the world and change it.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES