Drive-in church
February 22nd, 2007
Want to go to church — but not really? Then maybe you should try the Daytona Beach Drive-In Christian Church, where people can sit in their cars and listen to the service over the radio.
They also take communion from their cars — which really defeats the whole purpose of communion, because the very word denotes the act of fellowship and, yes, “union” with other believers. I’m guessing it’s hard to fellowship with other believers when you’re sitting in your car. But maybe that’s just me.
Here’s a photo essay on the church from Time magazine.
Hat tip: Brian
Actually, Two Rivers BC in Nashville tried this several years ago. I can’t remember if it was during Jim Henry’s pastorate or after that. It’s a fad that quickly passes since it’s (exhaust) smoke and (rearview) mirrors.
I guess stuff like this depend on people thinking they have either an opportunity to impress God or a debt to pay to Him, both of which are impossible. When will they learn (never, if they keep going to “churches” like this) that the gathering of the body is for building up of the Body, the encouragement of believers, and the picture to the world of the glory and power of God, not the piety of man.
Maybe they could offer an oil change and lube ministry while the service is in progress.
I guess that would put a whole new perspective on the term “anointing with oil”.
I know that people like to dog the drive in church idea, saying that it is not really church, but I like it. Not that I would want to be a part of it, because I’m a people person, and crave the fellowship of a church. There are many people who are not outgoing, they have been burned by church people before, or they just can’t stand the idea of sitting in a pew for an hour. This way, maybe they can get it together, find some common ground with a church, and get re-introduced to traditional church life. Or maybe it really doesn’t matter. I admire the people who started this church, because they are reaching out to people where the people are, unlike most churches, who say, “Here we are, like it or not, this is your only option. So come, or you are not really a part of us.”
“Here we are, like it or not, this is your only option. So come, or you are not really a part of us.”
Isn’t that reminescent of the Gospel message by way of it’s exclusiveness? Jesus is the only way- there is no other way under Heaven by which man can be saved…I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father save through me… Seems to me that Christianity is exclusive because our God is exclusive- if you don’t enter by the gate, you are not getting in and the only way to enter by the gate is if Christ beckons you unto Himself.
j razz
I could not agree more, j razz. Certainly the way is narrow that leads to salvation, but we are not talking about salvation here, we are talking about doing church. The way we do church should not be narrow, it should not be a “my way or the highway” mentality. That is what I was referring to in my comment.
People in this country who are really committed to their church are proud to say that they go on Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night. Anyone who does not do that is not as good a Christian. I’ve heard it many many times. But when I travelled to Mexico, they go to church every single night of the week. To them, we are slackers. So who is right? Neither one, its just a different way of doing things.
The problem is that too many people confuse the message of salvation with the method of delivering the message. There is one message, and many ways to deliver it.
Wow, this is funny.
I’m not for this idea, but I must say that I have been to some churches that lacked community so much that many of the people might as well have been secluded in their car rather than being as secluded as they were in there pew. Know what I mean?
But yeah, this is rediculous.
I’m not a guy who has a lot of “hot buttons,” but this whole idea of non-traditional church in one of them. Churches will do anything to be “different.” There is nothing about this that should be labeled church. Reaching out to the lost can be done a variety of ways, and should be, but can’t we get a clear understanding that a church is not something needing a gimmick attached to increase attendance? Call it outreach, call it evangelism, but don’t call it church! Paul’s phrase all things to all men” is about the most misused passage of Scripture in all of the Bible, ………..except judge not that you be not judged.
I don’t think it’s ridiculous. If there are people who this could benefit, then great. I’m thinking specifically of physically handicapped people or shut-ins.
This idea is actually old and recycled. This is how Robert Schuller first started what is now the Crystal Cathedral - as a drive in church.
If Schuller’s church is any indication of the merits of a drive in church, it is definitely a bad idea.
I think it’s more than coincidence that the cross behind the speaker has fallen to one side!
Is it wrong to drive-in? Listen to a message on radio? No to both — but this religious gathering is not the church as defined and established by Christ. Guys, the problem here is the biblical nature of a NT church - not that the activities are somehow wrong. The same criticism should be applied to the concept of anonymity in churches. Do some people want it? Yes. Should we do it? No; to give in to a symptom of a larger problem is no solution at all. The body is all about relationships!
Do you think when the pastor says, “Can I get an Amen?” that everyone beeps their horn a few times?
Phil 1:18
But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
I agree with Klay; this “church” does not line up with the picture of the church we get in the New Testament. You can’t be isolated and also be a part of a body of believers.
I like Dr. Beasley’s take on this….call it something other than “church” and it’s biblical. T. Miles quotes Philippians 1:18…good word, brother.
We can all speak with our platitudes about what churches “should” do and “should” be. But at the end of the day, if we are getting the message to people in creative ways who would not otherwise give it a hearing, I say “good job”!
Never compromise the integrity of the message, continually be willing to change the method.
So, what say some of you to TV or Radio ministries? Are they more or less isolating? Do they encourage the body of believers more or less?
I just want to try to understand, ’cause I don’t right now…
Seems to me this is a geography issue, assuming the theology is there…
I agree with those above who “rejoice that Christ is preached”. However, a church is more than just the preaching of the Gospel. It is more than hearing a well-rehearsed performance. It’s even more than just correct theology. Among other things, this format does not allow for the mutual benefit of corporate worship or of cooperative fellowship.
Jason, I am supportive of TV and Radio ministries that are faithful to the Bible. In fact, our church has a weekly radio broadcast. However, none of these should ever replace the local, regular assembling of believers, they should only be supplemental. This concept apparently is not meant to be supplemental.
In response to the two people who said that this is not the church modeled in the New Testament. Could that be because in the NT, they didn’t have cars?
In the NT, people walked up, sat down, and heard Jesus and the apostles teaching. When it was over, they stood up, and walked home. Walking was (and is still today) the most common form of transportation (and the most dangerous, since more people are killed walking than any other form of transportation). Perhaps driving up, parking the car, and listening to a sermon is closer to the NT model of a church than we are willing to admit.
In the NT people also interacted with one another, fellowshipped, and studied the Word together (Acts 2). My problem (at least not the main one) isn’t that they are using their cars instead of walking. As Nephos said, hearing a pastor preach a message is just a part of what the church is. I have no way of knowing if this church is effective in preaching the Gospel, but I do wonder what kind of growth is happening among the members who don’t even have to interact with one another but can drive up, sit in their cars, and then drive away again with no accountability or encouragement from fellow believers. Church is community, and you can’t have community isolated in your car. (Hebrews 10:25: Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.)
Obviously, there are those who are not able to get to a church every week, and for that reason I think that there is a place for radio and TV ministries that preach God’s Word in spirit and in truth, but if you’re an able-bodied individual, you should be a part of an active, Bible-believing, Bible-preaching congregation.
Jason, Nephos is right on.
Mass media ministries serve a purpose to the wider body of Christ and to the non-churched culture, but do not themselves constitute a biblical church. A distinction needs to be made.
For me, where this intersects is some manifestations (though perhaps not all) of the “satellite church” movement where people gather in movie theaters to watch the video feed from the mother church. This too lacks the organic, local assembly and accountability required by a bona fide NT church.
jasonk — I haven’t sensed anyone come down on the effort to communicate a message with creativity, but that creativity should not involve taking the church that Christ designed and morphing it for “outreach” purposes. Let the church be the church as Christ desires. Then, as the church, if they want to have a drive-in meeting (not church worship service technically though) then great!
Not against a drive-in message! That’s great. But this does not constitute a “church”. This brings up a much bigger question of what is needed to constitute a NT church. I’ll not attempt that now, but for example, how would this “church” celebrate the ordinances or sacraments in community?
Are the careful distinctions I am making coming through? Or do I sound like a platitude-maker?
For the record, I’m jiggy with most of the thoughts here supporting the broader relationship & sense of community building role of the church.
I just like to ask questions to see how people respond. I KNOW how I feel/think. I learn more when I shut up and listen to what OTHERS have to say.
Also to note that when you shut up, you don’t use words like “jiggy.”
That’s just how we roll here in suburban St. Lou.
I remember a comedy bit Jerry Seinfeld did a few years ago. He talked about how driving in a car was like being both inside and outside at the same time. You are in a room to yourself, yet close to so many without really being close. In a strange and ironic way, a drive in church may be closer to a normal church than we would care to admit.
For what it’s worth, I’m not so sure about the drive-in church idea for a few reasons.
Saying that people ‘walked’ to hear Christ and the disciples preach, sat down and listened and then got up and walked home, is not a valid argument to support this work. Such cases were open-air preaching, not church services. Going to ‘church’ was different. I’m sure they would not have come into church services on their donkey’s and the like. The whole idea just tickles the carnality of man - his corrupt fleshly desires.
I think it also just gives a completely ‘lazy’ impression and approach to worship. We are supposed to be approaching the presence of the great Creator, LORD of glory, King of kings…He who inhabiteth eternity!! Can we approach him in such a frivilous and lazy manner?
Quite frankly, I believe it to be almost blasphemous. Even heavenly beings without sin cover themselves and cry, “Holy, holy, holy…” (Is 6). Why should we give the impression that a deliberately pathetic approach to God is permissable?
I may be wrong, but I think (myself included) we’ve allowed ourselves to degrade our approach to God as something we can do in any way we please. Our approach and attitude to God as believers matters more than preaching the gospel and seeing souls saved. Souls don’t deserve to be saved, but God deserves to be worshipped aright.
May God help us all.