I have struggled with this issue. I think there may be a time and a place for this casual type of teaching. However, it does effect the listener. The cup of coffee is used to create a casual atmosphere, it is an attempt to make the listeners feel we are all on the same level. Preaching is reduced to simply having a discussion of opinions like one would have in a Starbucks. The authority of the Word of God is under such subtle attack these day, and this appears to be one more way. In my opinion it gives the listener the option to come and see what you think about what I am saying, rather than being faced with the thought that this is what God's Word says and I must obey it or fall short.

Somehow, I don't see Moses or the Prophets or the apostle Paul sitting down with a cup of coffee and doughnuts to say to the people "Thus says the Lord."

When we as preachers stand in front of people we are to be giving God's Word to the people, not our casual thoughts about life.

I agree with Wells that, for the most part, the medium is the message. I am a musician and a preacher and that idea fits well in both arenas.

By contrast don't you think it's interesting that some of Jesus' most powerful teaching was sitting around a table eating food with sinners and disciples. At other times He was standing or most likely sitting in the midst of a crowd proclaiming 'the kingdom is at hand'.
He clearly had the ability to vary his communcation and preaching, but we seem to want 'just one way'.

I think the reason why the beautiful cathedrals have no life is because they were built by those who tried to follow the letter rather than the spirit (the letter kills but the spirit gives life). The problem with coffee-house churches is there is no difference between the holy and profane - the word of God just is one topic of discussion among many topics. There are times when it is valid to have discussions about the word of God, but not a diet that consists merely of that. We need preaching too, and preaching entails that one is delivering a message while the rest are listening.

Phil,
I have wrestled with that question, and I agree there is a place for that. However, it does not appear to be the central worship hour or hours for a church. We ought to have people in for dinner if we want to have dinner conversations. We ought to go to the water cooler if we want to engage in woman at the well type dialog. I often here people use that logic to say this is what is effective and this is how Jesus taught, and he did. However, he also taught in the synagogues and in the temple. The manner of teaching varied as to the setting.

An interesting thought, Andy. The consumerisation of church, the "let's advertise and make it sexy and attractive so people will come" line of thinking leads to being one product in a large field of competing products for people's attention and hearts.

If people won't come for the authority of God, then removing that to make it palatable destroys the message.

There is a point, however, where formality and authority make things imprenetrable for a newcomer. There has to be a balance, and as we usually do, we've polarized into both extremes.

Brother Jonathan,

Though I confess I had to look up the definition for "adiaphora," I agree with Wells that environment is very important. I often point out that ours is an incarnational faith, reminding fellow Christians that the Word took on flesh, and therefore is not merely abstract truth. This is why our witness is only as effective as our words/beliefs match up with our behavior/demeanor/etc. I don't mean this in an absolute sense, of course, but it is very important (hence, Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees, for instance). This extends in preaching to the environment the Word is preached in, the architecture, etc. And in preaching and even in personal witness at the downtown Starbucks, I believe it relates to *how* we say what we say, the inflections and tones of our voices, the seriousness and urgency of our delivery, etc.

Anyway, a few added cents to the pot of consideration.

In Christ,
--Eric

Sure, the medium matters and sure the locale does, but that quote is overstated.

"If we have nothing but Starbucks and light conversation around the Word of God, we will find that the Word of God disappears."

Jesus got flak for discussing spiritual matters in odd places and with odd people.

Some of my most memorable spiritual conversations have been informal. Contrary to his quote (and I'm actually a fan of his), the Word of God doesn't need any physical surroundings to be potent.

His primary point in this 'excerpt' seems to be that architecture affects the environment, but that it is also only one component of the setting. He is not really saying that you can't have a strong conversation in Starbucks. Wells has had many deep spiritual discussions in informal settings.

Unfortunately, many people (including pastors) do go into Starbucks for light conversation. However, I just got back to the office from a Starbucks meeting where we discussed porn addiction, a ministerial calling and marriage in very deep ways. I mean deep, identifying idols in your life and glorying God ways. The casual nature of the setting can set the tone, but the intentionality of the pastor or spiritual leader in the meeting sets a greater tone. The casual environment can be the hook that lures them, while you subsequently reel them in with deep truths.

As for what you see confirming what you hear, I would direct the primary attention to the person across the table rather than the architecture. It is more the man (or woman) across the table than the room itself. Wells states that also in the article.

I have found that many men who are weak at the coffee table are weak in the pulpit. A passionate man who has been touched by God will be effective in both environments. Wells, Dever, Mahaney, Piper, etc are all strong wherever you find them.

Two things are important.
One is that wherever,and whenever we are given an opportunity to be with someone,whether friend or stranger,we are in the planting and watering business.May be the first seed,or last drop of water.
You're alone with a salesman,
or a Muslim walks into your office for help,a young man wants to mow your yard,a Jehovah witness appears at your door,or you catch your new neighbor in the yard,etc.
secondly,the assembling of the church together should not change.Singing psalms,hymns,and spiritual songs,and the reading,and preaching of God's word.
By the way,I think it is a mistake to have contemporary and traditional services.
We are one family and need to be taught to worship together.

If the medium is the message .....

1. Coffee-house conversations send the message that we're quite fine with living in the culture God has placed us, and love the people around us enough to join them in the world as light in darkness.

2. Sermons in church send the message that the Word of God is everything that we as Reformers believe it to be.

If preaching looks like coffee-house conversations, then we are at a dead-end before we even start.

This has nothing to do with the post, but it does have to do with Leadership. Anyone ever read the book TrueFaced by Bill Thrall, John Lynch, and Bruce McNicol? It has to do with building leaders...
Thanks.
Jim Masters

It helps to remember the unique place of preaching in the local church. A bunch of guys/gals gathering at a local Starbucks talking about the Word or theological issues does not constitute a local church. For one thing, if medium is also the message (which I agree with Wells) than the authority of the Word is not as clear as opposed to it being preached from the pulpit. And a second thought is that preaching from the Word is a form of worship as well. When the preacher is exulting over the text about the beauty of Christ, it is worship, and it much different than a couple of people getting together to sip coffee and think. Just trying to get a clear picture of the difference between the two. Hope that helps.