This is the opening weekend for the new hit block buster movie, Star Trek. The reviews all say that this is a MUST see movie. The internet, radio, newspapers and television are all talking about Star Trek. Its the most relevant movie of the moment.
Because Star Trek is sooooo popular and soooo cutting edge and sooooo relevant there are already a herd of Seeker-Driven pastors stampeding to movie theaters in order to watch the movie and find a Biblical hook so that they can send out a marketing piece letting everyone in their neighborhood know that they are preaching a sermon based on Star Trek.
The assumption is that Star Trek is relevant and by preaching a sermon on Star Trek they will be able to reach out to unchurched people and meet them ‘where they are’.
But, there is one big flaw in this way of thinking.
Star Trek isn’t as relevant as you might think and I’ll prove it.
Let’s assume that Star Trek breaks all of the box office records this weekend and it eclipses The Dark Night, which hauled in $158,411,483 during its opening weekend last year.
For the sake of this exercise we’ll project an opening weekend haul of $165 million for Star Trek. That number would shatter the record and would be an amazing feat considering the fact that its opening weekend was NOT on a holiday weekend.
Now it is times for number crunching.
The average cost for a movie ticket in the United States is $7.18. With this information in hand we can determine how many people will go to the theaters to watch the most relevant movie of the moment. That number is 23 million people. This may sound like a huge number but keep in mind that there are over 300 million people living in the United States. This means that only 7.6% of the United States population think that Star Trek is soooo relevant that they had to see it on opening weekend. And we all know that box office receipts severely drop off after the opening weekend.
Now let’s come back to the pastors that mistakenly think that they are being relevant by preaching a sermon based on Star Trek.
I’ve seen the pattern repeated thousands of times in Seeker-Driven churches across America. A relevant seeker-driven pastor creates a marketing mailer that they send to all the unchurched people in their community announcing their cutting edge and relevant sermon topic or series. In this case, there will be a herd of relevant pastors spending hundreds of thousands of dollars announcing their Star Trek sermon under the false assumption that Star Trek is a relevant topic.
But in reality Star Trek is really only a relevant topic for roughly 8% to 10% of the U.S. population.
In other words, Star Trek is an irrelevant sermon topic for more than 90% of the U.S. population. When you consider the fact that planet Earth has a population over 6 Billion people then you begin to see just how grossly irrelevant a Star Trek sermon really is.
My question is why would any Christian pastors exchange the gospel message that we’ve been given, a message that applies to and addresses the #1 problem that impacts 100% of the world’s population for a message that at best is relevant to only 10% of the U.S. population?
100% of the World’s Population is born sinful by nature and hostile to the One True God and in need of a Savior.
Christ Died for the Sins of the World and whosever believes in Him will not perish when Christ returns in glory to judge both the living and the dead but have everlasting life.
In other words, Jesus Christ has left the Christian Church with a message that applies to and is relevant to every single person on the planet regardless of whether they like Star Trek or not.
Why would would Christians exchange a message that has Universal application and relevance for a message that doesn’t even come close to universal relevance?
Christian Pastors need to Preach the Gospel that we’ve been given and leave Star Trek at the theaters.
---
Update May 14th - Bad news for the relevance seekers...Star Trek's opening box office receipts ONLY totaled, $76.5 million. That means that only 10.6 million Americans (3.5%) of the U.S. Population really think that Star Trek is relevant.
Not to mention the host of philosophical and theological issues and problems that are part and parcel of the films and series.
Posted by: Elizabeth Rider | May 09, 2009 at 02:12 PM
Taking a shot at Star Trek, how sad is that? I mean since 1966 or was it 63, I have loved Star Trek, good night, man. Relevant? (I am kidding of course.) But on the other hand just how many would you say on the planet will be in a Biblical church this Sunday to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Few see the relevant of the Gospel on Planet earth.
Posted by: Charles E. Whisnant | May 09, 2009 at 05:21 PM
I'd also say that Star Trek isn't relevant to all those seeker-driven pastors because they're all Star Wars fanboys. I used to attend one of those churches and ALL of them were in love with Star Wars. It must've be the simplistic good vs. evil, high octane story.
(Disclosure- I'm a Trekkie although not one of those dress up, go to conventions and learn to speak Klingon ones. I enjoy Star Trek and Star Wars but attempting to draw biblical parallels to either of these is just ridiculous to me.
Posted by: JohnG | May 09, 2009 at 05:26 PM
I think to define relevance in by percentage is problematic, really one could only do that 10 years after a movie comes out to see how much it has made and try to figure out how many people have seen it. I believe that it is wrong to base your sermon on a movie but if there is an intersect with the text and a movie then that is alright, the problem is that not many who use movies in their sermon begin with the text and then see a connection with the text and the movie that is really their and does not have to be forced.
Would you attack paul for his speak on mars hill. He was using the story of this unknown God who had saved athens from a plague to talk about the gospel. Would you call that seeker driven, because the way i see it that is a biblical way to go about preaching the gospel. The point is where does the sermon start with the text or with the illustration.
Posted by: jared | May 10, 2009 at 09:56 AM
"It must've be the simplistic good vs. evil, high octane story."
It's also the emphasis on feeling "what's right." Seriously.
Ol' Ben Kanobe's ghost told Luke to turn off his instruments and trust his feelings, instincts, innervoice, ie. "the force."
Now it's "Put down the Bible and trust the 'holy spirit' to reveal the 'truth' to you."
To quote/paraphrase Thumb Wars, "Use the instrument panel! It's advanced computer machinery designed to target really small objects; that's what it's there for!"
"Read the Bible! It's the very Word of God written to teach us the truth of Christ; that's what it's there for!"
-Ray
Posted by: Ray | May 10, 2009 at 11:39 PM
I'm curious about this comparison. I certainly don't agree that hitting every major fad to draw people into church is a good idea but I can also see how "churched" or "semi-churched" lost people tend to ignore the Gospel message, damning themselves, and that maybe a pop-culture theme in which the full Gospel message is presented may be a useful strategy to break down the initial church barrier (assuming the church is attempting to evangelize for that sermon instead of discipleship from the pulpit...horrible if continuous but maybe once in a while can be beneficial?).
Posted by: Brendan | May 11, 2009 at 08:20 AM
One thing that strikes me about the various scifi movies that that, at a deep level, are an acknowledgment of extra nous. An element of the Gospel is that God exists apart from this world and enters into the world to save us (an alien salvation). The Word provides a view apart from ourselves (an alien perspective). It is the salvation from outside of our world to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.
I see a progression in Western civilization. We know that there is something wrong with us and so we are looking for an answer outside of us but it can't be the Gospel. Reason, Science, the natural man (Roseau), Asian wisdom and now aliens. Somebody must have an answer of how we fix ourselves, some spiritual wisdom, some answer key and we will all get along.
Posted by: mark of brighton | May 11, 2009 at 03:37 PM
Brendan,
I don't have a lot of time to comment right now, but I did want to leave a preliminary response.
One of the big issues (if not the biggest) at the center of this debate is what is the purpose of the "church"? By this I mean the actual building and the services held in it.
For many of us, the primary purpose of the church is not to reach the unbelieving with the Gospel, but to provide the believing with rest and nourishment of faith through the preaching of the Gospel and the Sacraments. Here's the kicker though: If the Gospel is truly, purely, and faithfully preached, then both the unbelieving AND the believing receive what they need for faith and eternal life. Then the believing depart, refreshed and strengthened in their faith, and they are tasked as soldiers of Christ to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations" through the sharing of the Gospel with our neighbors and through faithful service to them in our vocations.
The problem with gimics and fad-adherence for the sake of drawing in the "unchurched" or "semi-churhced" (hadn't heard that one before) is that in it the church forsakes its primary purpose: feeding the sheep. When the focus is on bringin in new recruits, two things happen:
1) Those who are already "recruited", finding their needs unmet and neglected move on.
2) Those who are newly "recruited" are not grounded and become wishy-washy in their "faith", chasing after whatever tickles their fancy.
Pretty soon, you're not a church anymore; just a social club.
-Ray
PS. I realize that above I have been using the term "church"; ideally, I should be able to use the term "pastor", ie. the shepherd tasked with feeding the sheep. However, these days, especially in big churches, there is usually a team, so for the sake of including these, I used "church".
Posted by: Ray | May 11, 2009 at 06:54 PM
On another note, why would a "Christian" church encourage or even talk about a movie that uses the name of Christ in vain? It amazes me how Christians can go sit through 2 hours of a movie that on more than on occasion blasphemes and take the Name above all names in vain. It's like the Batman movie that every church in America it seems was endorsing because of the "moral lessons". Yet this movie took Christ's name in vain.
Posted by: Jay Wingard | May 12, 2009 at 01:41 PM
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Star Trek quiz...Boldly going where no quiz has gone before
By David Buckna
Special to ASSIST News Service
http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2009/s09050064.htm
Posted by: David Buckna | May 14, 2009 at 03:00 AM
So did anyone win? JG
Posted by: JG | May 24, 2009 at 06:51 PM
What has happened with computers since 1966 when Star Trek began?
Science fiction is really about what kind of society may be made with technology. Technology is not going going to stop. The real problem is that plenty of people that say they like Trek just concentrate on the people in the stories and don't think about how it is the technology that makes the stories possible.
Bible Trek
Doesn't God have to know about relativity?
Posted by: psikeyhackr | June 22, 2009 at 02:50 AM