Bored & Blind: Should the Church Be About Entertainment?

I came across a video recently in my social media feed of a preacher making a claim that the church should be about entertainment. Is that true? Let's unpack it.

Pastor Ed Young of Fellowship Church, in Grapevine, Texas, sparked controversy in a recent sermon. Young drove onto the stage in an expensive car. Specifically he drove a Rolls-Royce, which typically costs around $200,000 to $600,000. (It's possible he may have rented the car, which can also be pretty expensive.) Then came the assertion that the church should be about entertainment.

The following will evaluate this in two parts: (1) Would Jesus drive up in an expensive car as an illustration?; and (2) Should the church be about entertainment?

(1) Would Jesus Drive Up in an Expensive Car as an Illustration?

After driving up in the car, Young says in a critical voice, "I can't believe, man, you're driving a car in church. That's gimmicky. That's unchristlike." And then Young gives his response, "No, it's not. I'm taking a page out of Christ's playbook. He preached from boat bows and beaches. He drew in the sand. He took salt. Here's a coin. This Rolls-Royce is a metaphor of your life and mine. We are designed for Jesus Christ to drive the car. And I'm going to ask you, 'Is he driving your car?'"[1]

Now, I want to give Young the benefit of the doubt. I imagine he initially started doing things like this, because he desires to reach people with the gospel. But since he claims that he received this approach from Jesus, then we must ask: Would Jesus do this?

First, Jesus was undoubtedly an exceptional preacher who masterfully used illustrations, but we should consider this question: Is there a difference between drawing in the sand (to take one of his examples) and driving an expensive car into a worship service? One is a free action done by Jesus while confronting self-righteousness while the other is using a very expensive car during a worship service. I believe that there is a massive difference between these two illustrations and methods.

Second, does Young's interpretation of these texts account for the context? For example, Matthew 13:1-3 shows that Jesus preached from a boat because the crowd was large and gathered around him. He needed to get space in order to teach them. (And some argue that the water helped with the acoustics as well.)

Third, does Christ give a preaching playbook? Does that playbook include Rolls-Royce cars? If they had Rolls-Royce cars back then, would Christ have spent the money and brought it into a worship service as a metaphor? I would argue that Jesus doesn't explicitly give a preaching playbook, but we can learn from his example (which is probably what Young means—trying to be a generous listener here). However, at the same time, we must consider that Jesus is God and we're not. Therefore, he may do things that we cannot or should not do. Nevertheless, while I would agree that we can learn from Jesus in using illustrations in preaching, I personally think Jesus would not rent (or purchase) a Rolls-Royce and drive it into a worship service due to the expense, distraction to worship, and potential to mislead.

Now, we don't have a direct correlation in Scripture on this issue. I could be wrong. Maybe Jesus would surprise me on his view here. But I don't think so.

Not only do I suspect that Jesus would not do it, but I even wonder if he would get upset and begin turning over tables. Why? It seems to me that this practice could be somewhat similar to desecrating the house of prayer in Matthew 21. It appears to be an unwise, intrusive introduction into a service which should be designed to glorify God in worship (see Matthew 21:12-17).

Moreover, when we assess this issue based on the full teaching of Jesus in the New Testament, it seems highly unlikely that he would approve. Specifically, I am thinking about Jesus' teaching on the poor, financial stewardship, worship, truth, salvation, discipleship, doctrine of the church, wisdom, idolatry, etc. (It is beyond the scope of this article on entertainment to go down the path of each of those biblical and theological topics, but I highly recommend studying what Jesus said on each of them.)

Thus, I conclude that Jesus would not drive up in an expensive car as an illustration.

(2) Should the Church Be About Entertainment?

Ok, let's continue. Young then made significant claims about church worship services. He said, "My friend if you go to church and you're ever bored; don't blame God, blame the communicator. Church should not be a boring place. Church should be about, and this is going to mess some of you up, entertainment. What does it mean to entertain? It means to capture and hold someone's attention for an extended period of time. What did Jesus do when he taught? He entertained."[2] So, there's his claim: church should be about entertainment.

Is this biblical? In other words, does the Bible say that the church should be about entertainment? The short answer is no.

Ed Young's claim: the church should be about entertainment. Is this biblical? In other words, does the Bible say that the church should be about entertainment? The short answer is no.

Let's dive into the details.

#1 - Churches should not be about a public performance to amuse and provide diversions.

We will begin by defining the word "entertainment". After a brief search online, I could not locate Young's definition of "entertain". I'm not necessarily suggesting he made it up. Instead, I am simply stating that I could not locate it or even one similar.

Here are a few definitions from the Oxford English Reference Dictionary:

• entertain — "amuse; occupy agreeably"; "receive as a guest"; and "give attention or consideration to (an idea, feeling, or proposal)."[3]

• entertainer — "a person who entertains, esp. professionally on stage etc."[4]

• entertaining — "amusing, diverting."[5]

• entertainment — "the act or an instance of entertaining; the process of being entertained"; "a public performance or show"; "diversions or amusements for guests etc."; "amusement"; and "hospitality."[6]

To make matters more clear, let's examine the definition of the word "diversion". According to the Oxford English Reference Dictionary the word means "the diverting of attention deliberately" and "a recreation or pastime."[7] This is highly concerning, and in my view, actually sheds light on what is taking place. Attention is deliberately being diverted away from Jesus Christ, genuine worship, the truth of his Scriptures, and the gospel. In my view, church worship is meant to glorify God through Jesus Christ by the power of the Spirit. Undoubtedly, there are upward (worship), inward (edification), and outward (mission) aspects. However, nowhere in Scripture do I see entertainment as the focus of the church or worship services.

#2 - Churches should not use carnal, worldly methods to attract (or shall I say distract) people.

Personally, I would consider utilizing a Rolls-Royce within a worship service as a carnal, worldly method. Jesus' illustrations were not carnal. As the common saying goes: if carnal methods are used to attract people, then carnal methods must continue to be used to keep people.

Additionally, since I subscribe to Calvinist soteriology, I don't think these methods are effective without the regenerating work of the Spirit. In other words, regardless of what methods a church uses, a person needs the Holy Spirit to regenerate their heart (for one example see the story of Lydia in Acts 16:14).

In fact, I think that carnal methods could actually be harmful for effective ministry. These worldly methods may actually veil the gospel and lead people to believe that they are saved when in fact they are not. That is utterly frightening! This is particularly scary in light of the famous verse from James: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" (James 3:1 ESV).

I wonder sometimes how many of these bizarre church methods are actually the opposite of what Paul says in Romans 1:15-16. Paul writes,

"So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:15-16 ESV). 

Paul realizes how shameful it may seem to the city and culture that he is preaching about a man from the Middle East who grew up in an obscure area, claimed to be God, and was killed as if he was a criminal. But to the most powerful city in the world he says that he is eager to preach the good news about Jesus. In verse 16 he gives two reasons: (1) he is not ashamed of the good news of Jesus; and (2) the good news of Jesus is the power for salvation for those who have saving faith.

Now, notice that Paul doesn't say, "Let us consider how to get more salvations in Rome by reducing the offense of the gospel by using worldly methods" (as if that could work!). Isn't this really being ashamed of the gospel? Instead, Paul says that he is not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God for salvation. (Note: I'm not saying that we should harshly and intentionally offend in other ways as some Bible teachers do. On the other hand, I am saying we shouldn't reduce the offense of the gospel either, as some do.)

Moreover, churches must wrestle with their philosophy of ministry. I have written extensively on this so I won't reproduce it here. For more on the topic of attractional churches, please refer to my blog on the views on whether churches should be attractional. (Please click here to read that article.)

Often the attractional form of ministry is undergirded by a market-driven approach to ministry. In his excellent book Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes Like the World, John MacArthur comments on the market-driven approach to ministry:

"The new philosophy is straightforward: The church is in competition against the world, and the world is very good at capturing people's attention and affections. The church, on the other hand, tends to be very poor at 'selling' its product. Evangelism should therefore be viewed as a marketing challenge, and the church should market the gospel in the same way all modern businesses sell their products. That calls for some fundamental changes. The goal in all marketing is 'to make both the producer and consumer satisfied.' So anything that tends to leave the 'consumer' unsatisfied must be jettisoned. Preaching—particularly preaching about sin, righteousness, and judgment—is too confrontive to be truly satisfying. The church must learn to couch the truth in ways that amuse and entertain."[8]

Ironically, this sounds very similar to how Ed Young is defining "entertainment". He has essentially redefined entertainment in such a way where a market-driven, attractional, and entertainment approach to ministry is being defended. In fact, he's claiming that Jesus himself did it! But Jesus didn't have an attractional, market-driven approach to ministry or preaching. He also did not take an approach to ministry that softens truth or waters it down to make it more palatable.

Instead, Jesus used illustrations to aid in understanding and amplify God's truth. (Unlike any other teacher, he also knew what was in his hearers' hearts. Therefore, his teaching sometimes simply cannot be imitated. He is God!) Sometimes Jesus comforted and other times his teaching convicted. Sometimes the illustrations Jesus used helped people understand the truth in a way that challenged them. And sadly, sometimes they opted to leave and stop following him.

I'm sure you're thinking, "What?! Where?!" To give one example, consider Jesus' teaching in John 6:

"53 So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.' 59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?' 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, 'Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.' (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.' 66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him."

- John 6:53-66 ESV

To summarize, Jesus taught the crowd to feed on his flesh and drink his blood so that they could have eternal life (see vv. 53-54). He then used an illustration and referred to himself as the bread that arrived to earth from heaven. Many of his followers were offended. They no longer followed him. But Jesus didn't fail in his teaching. That is a pragmatic way of thinking. He was faithful and taught the truth. Jesus also didn't compromise and modify the message to keep the crowd.

Now, let me be clear: I'm not saying the goal is to get followers or lose followers. Instead, I'm saying the goal is faithfulness in preaching the truth. Jesus taught, often using illustrations, and faithfully presented the truth. And people responded according to whether it was "granted him by the Father" to come to Jesus or not (see John 6:65). If they didn't like his teaching and stopped following Jesus, which they did (see John 6:66), this didn't mean that Jesus' teaching, methods, or philosophy of ministry failed. He was faithful. However, the people did not respond to the truth with saving faith.

This highlights a massive concern with the market-driven and attractional philosophies of ministry. If people leave, then "something is wrong with our marketing," "something is wrong with our methods," or (heaven forbid) "something is wrong with the message or teaching." The assumption is always that the church must grow. Thus, the tactics or methods are at fault if it is not growing. But that is not what we see with Jesus.

The assumption that the church should always grow combined with using carnal, worldly methods also causes alarm based on another text. In 2 Timothy, Paul writes to Timothy that he must preach the word of God (even charging him before God and Jesus to do so!) and that many people will have itching ears and wander off into myths. They will find teachers that will teach them what they want to hear! This seems to precisely fit the market-driven philosophy: Find out what they like and what brings them, and do that to grow the attendance. Here is the full passage from Paul:

"1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." 

- 2 Timothy 4:1-4 ESV

In a nutshell, Jesus did not use worldly methods to reach the world. His illustrations were not attempts to reach the world with the world.

#3 - Churches should consider what values are communicated by their methods used.

Churches may be implicitly harming people by their methods. Consider these questions:

• Does using a Rolls-Royce communicate that Christians should drive Rolls-Royce cars?

• Does it set a consumeristic expectation for church attendees to be dazzled with expensive showmanship each week in church?

• Do these methods lead to regeneration, saving faith, and sanctification? Does it communicate that they do?

• Do these methods communicate a value of Scripture and inspire people to study and obey the Scriptures? Do they inspire to worship God?

• Do these methods distract from Scripture? Do they distract from worshiping God?

• Do these methods challenge or feed idolatry?

I'm not claiming that Ed Young explicitly believes or is teaching any of these things, but instead I'm asking us to consider what we may be teaching implicitly by adopting these methods.

#4 - Churches should consider financial stewardship.

In life and in churches, we have finite resources. There is always a trade-off. In other words, when we choose to do one thing with our time or money, we are always necessarily saying no to many other things.

Now, I'm not saying we should live with false guilt. I'm not saying that buildings, air conditioning, and other luxuries should all be thrown out at once. Instead, I'm simply saying we should evaluate and think about these things.

We should consider if the Rolls-Royce is really necessary. Could the car have been referred to in a sermon verbally? Could the church have put a picture of a Rolls-Royce on a screen? And what trade-offs are present? Could that money have been given to the poor? Could it have been given to a missionary? Could it have been given to a single mom struggling financially? What does a church having a Rolls-Royce communicate to the poor? What does it communicate to those struggling financially (and perhaps who are also sacrificially giving to that church)?

Again, I'm not stating that all spending on matters other than these is inappropriate. I'm simply saying we should evaluate our spending and seek to make wise, biblical decisions. Personally, I would find it difficult to justify spending money on having a Rolls-Royce as an illustration in a worship service. (Someone may object: What if it was given to them? What if they didn't spend any money? To which I would say please see my previous point where I object to the philosophy itself on other grounds.)

#5 - Churches may be able to see their own cultural blindspots by considering other cultures and other time periods.

Here are various voices throughout church history who have spoken about entertainment (for the sake of space I had to be pretty selective). I will work backwards from present to the early church.

In our present culture, Paul Washer states,

"Giving the people entertainment rather than confronting them with eternal realities—these circus clown preachers—foolish little boys playing marbles with God's diamonds. We're not entertainers. We are to confront men with the reality of eternity."[9]

John MacArthur addressed this issue about 20 years ago:

"Plainly declaring the truth of God's Word is regarded as unsophisticated, offensive, and utterly ineffective. We're now told we can get better results by first amusing people, giving them pop psychology or impressing them with a high-tech, special-effects smoke-and-light show—thus wooing them into the fold. Once they know we are cool and feel they are comfortable, they'll be ready to receive biblical truth in small, diluted doses."[10]

Next up is A.W. Tozer who was a pastor in the mid-1900s. (For more on Tozer's views on this topic, see my longer article titled "Tozer on Worship and Entertainment.") Tozer said,

"In our day we must be dramatic about everything. We don't want God to work unless He can make a theatrical production of it . . . Some of us even demand that He provide a colorful setting and fireworks as well! . . . Then there are some among us these days who have to depend upon truckloads of gadgets to get their religion going, and I am tempted to ask: What will they do when they don't have the help of the trappings and gadgets? The truck can't come along where they are going!"[11]

About two hundred years ago (in the 1800s), Charles Spurgeon said the following:

• "Within suitable bounds, recreation is necessary and profitable; but it never was the business of the Christian Church to supply the world with amusements."[12]

• "If any of you wish to preach a gospel that will be pleasing to the times, preach it in the power of the devil, and I have no doubt that he will willingly do his best for you."[13]

• "[M]any church-members are indifferent as to the personal piety of the preacher; what they want is talent or cleverness. What the man preaches does not matter now; he must draw a crowd, or please the elite, and that is enough. Cleverness is the main thing. One would think they were looking for a conjurer rather than a pastor. Whether he preaches truth or error, the man is held in admiration so long as he can talk glibly, and keep up a reputation as a speaker."[14]

Considering the method John Calvin used in preaching is a powerful argument against entertainment in church worship. Calvin's preaching approach was to explain the text of Holy Scripture word-by-word. That is, he tethered the things he said to the text. I'm confident that Calvin would adamantly reject entertainment in preaching and church worship services. Consider this excerpt from John Piper's article on John Calvin's preaching style titled "In Honor of Tethered Preaching." Piper writes,

"For Calvin, preaching was tethered to the Bible. That is why he preached through books of the Bible so relentlessly . . . The difference between an entertainment-oriented preacher and a Bible-oriented preacher is the manifest connection of the preacher’s words to the Bible as what authorizes what he says. The entertainment-oriented preacher gives the impression that he is not tethered to an authoritative book in what he says. What he says doesn’t seem to be shaped and constrained by an authority outside himself. He gives the impression that what he says has significance for reasons other than that it manifestly expresses the meaning and significance of the Bible. So he seems untethered to objective authority. The entertainment-oriented preacher seems to be at ease talking about many things that are not drawn out of the Bible. In his message, he seems to enjoy more talking about other things than what the Bible teaches. His words seem to have a self-standing worth as interesting or fun. They are entertaining. But they don’t give the impression that this man stands as the representative of God before God’s people to deliver God’s message."[15]

This brings up an interesting difference from Ed Young's view. Piper is contrasting a Bible-oriented preacher with an entertainment-oriented one. Young, on the other hand, is claiming the Bible tells us to be entertaining. Would Young also claim that the Bible is meant for entertainment? I digress.

Jumping about 1,500 years backwards (for the sake of time and space), we will now look at the early church. In the early church, worship services did not resemble the entertainment offered in the wider culture. Churches weren't bringing worldly entertainment into the church as a methodology. Thus, they didn't really address the issue.

Nevertheless, many church fathers spoke out about the wickedness that took place in entertainment offered in their cultures. (It is important to recognize a difference in their culture compared to ours—that they often didn't have wholesome options for entertainment as well. The gladiator games ended in murder. The theater had perverse and immoral parts. Obviously, we also have plenty of sinful entertainment options also. But I am simply pointing out that their decision was probably more black and white than ours which is more of a gray matter at times.)

Still, I will offer a few quotes below that shows how they thought of entertainment more generally:

• Tertullian (year 197), "It will be made clear that the entire apparatus of the shows is based upon idolatry" and "Now let me address the kind of performances peculiar to the circus exhibitions [i.e., chariot races not circus as we mean today]. In former days, equestrianism was practiced in a simple way on horseback. Certainly, its ordinary use had nothing sinful in it. But when it was dragged into the games, it passed from the service of God into the employment of demons."[16]

• Theophilus (year 180), "Neither may we watch the other spectacles [i.e., the theaters], lest our eyes and ears be defiled by participating in the utterances that are sung there. For if one should speak of cannibalism, in these spectacles the children of Thyestes and Tereus are eaten. And as for adultery, both in the case of men and of gods, whom they celebrate in elegant language for honors and prizes, this is made the subject of their dramas."[17]

• Clement of Alexandria (195), "The Instructor will not, then, bring us to public spectacles. Not inappropriately, one might call the racecourse and the theater 'the seat of plagues.' . . . Let spectacles, therefore, and plays that are full of indecent language and abundant gossip, be forbidden. For what base action is there that is not exhibited in the theaters?"[18]

Perhaps this doesn't need to be said, but I doubt the church fathers would be fans of driving a very expensive car into a church service as an illustration during a sermon.

To summarize this section, I have biblical, historical, linguistic, and practical reasons for disagreeing with the claim that churches should be about entertainment. I don't think the goal is for a church to be boring, but maybe the solution to our boredom in church is not entertainment but something else. Let's explore that idea.

Conclusion: Are We Bored Because We're Blind to Joy in Jesus?

Therefore, I conclude, to summarize the answers of the two questions that we asked at the beginning, that (1) Jesus would probably not drive up in a wildly expensive car during a church worship service as an illustration; and (2) the church should not be about entertainment.

But maybe the boredom is highlighting another issue. You know, Ed Young claims that the solution to our boredom in church is the communicator. It is the preacher's creativity and wildly entertaining illustrations. But I think focusing too much on the preacher really misses the point in a massive way. The solution is not necessarily the communicator. It is finding joy in Jesus.

Let me explain. This week, in God's providence, I happened to be re-reading Michael Reeves wonderful book titled Rejoicing in Christ. Reeves stated, “Sometimes we find ourselves tiring of Jesus, stupidly imagining that we have seen all there is to see and used up all the pleasure there is to be had in him.”[19] We grow bored with Jesus. He continued: “We get spiritually bored. But Jesus has satisfied the mind and heart of the infinite God for eternity. Our boredom is simple blindness. If the Father can be infinitely and eternally satisfied in him, then he must be overwhelmingly all-sufficient for us. In every situation, for eternity.”[20]

Maybe our boredom is blindness.

The answer is not entertainment.

The answer is joy in Christ.

And joy in Christ will be eternally satisfying and inexhaustible.

End Notes:

[1] Ed Young, video, Facebook, September 28, 2026, accessed October 1, 2026, https://www.facebook.com/pastor.ed.young/videos/915559154722707/.

[2] Ibid.

[3] "Entertain," Oxford English Reference Dictionary, eds. Judy Pearsall and Bill Trumble, 2nd ed. rev. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003), 469.

[4] "Entertainer," Oxford English Reference Dictionary, eds. Judy Pearsall and Bill Trumble, 2nd ed. rev. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003), 469.

[5] "Entertaining," Oxford English Reference Dictionary, eds. Judy Pearsall and Bill Trumble, 2nd ed. rev. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003), 469.

[6] "Entertainment," Oxford English Reference Dictionary, eds. Judy Pearsall and Bill Trumble, 2nd ed. rev. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003), 469.

[7] "Diversion," Oxford English Reference Dictionary, eds. Judy Pearsall and Bill Trumble, 2nd ed. rev. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003), 412.

[8] John MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes Like the World, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 37.

[9] Paul Washer, "Church Entertainment is Foolish," YouTube, May 13, 2025, accessed October 1, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TNRYmvlgUp8.

[10] John MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel, 28.

[11] A.W. Tozer, Tozer on Worship and Entertainment, ed. James Snyder (Camp Hill, PA: Wing Spread Publishers, 2006), 99; originally in The Tozer Pulpit, Book 8, 48-50.

[12] Aaron Halvorsen, "Spurgeon on the Entertainment-Driven Church," The Spurgeon Library, March 13, 2018, accessed October 3, 2026, https://www.spurgeon.org/blog/spurgeon-on-the-entertainment-driven-church.

[13] John MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel, 262.

[14] Ibid., 263.

[15] John Piper, "In Honor of Tethered Preaching: John Calvin and the Entertaining Pastor," DesiringGod, September 17, 2008, accessed October 3, 2026, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/in-honor-of-tethered-preaching.

[16] "Entertainment," A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers, ed. David W. Bercot (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 232

[17] Ibid., 231.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Michael Reeves, Rejoicing in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 21.

[20] Ibid., 21; emphasis mine.