wow. that sentence should be in an english paper of mine sometime.
but i think i have come up with a clearer way of saying what i meant to say the first time around. when it comes to church, i don't think there is anything wrong with using ideas from other parts of culture. using video, cool projection stuff, mainstream music (i don't really like the idea of there even being "christian" music as opposed to "mainstream" music), different kinds of instruments, and using culturally-savvy illustrations during a sermon--those kind of things. especially me being someone who gets to help lead worship sometimes, i love technology and think it can definitely enhance at times, and distract at others. the kicker though, i think is this:
what happens when you strip all that stuff away? imagine for a second that you showed up at church one sunday, and the band wasn't there. it was one guy, with an acoustic guitar (or piano, for you pianists). the projector/projector screen is broke. no words. so needless, to say, the cool video you had planned is a goner. the pastor has forgotten his notes. he can't remember any of his cool analogies or bullet points, and is just gonna have to shoot from the hip. all the fluff of sunday is gone. is it still the same message? is the message you hope to convey every sunday that of "being a culturally relevant church/christian" or is it the importance of following Christ both when it seems relevant and convenient and when it's unpopular and inconvenient?
i just think too often when we are trying to be relevant, we end up doing what any other organization does when they try to be relevant, which is to package their product up in the most attractive way possible, and then put it out there, hoping people will consume it. and when church turns into the staff producing and the congregation consuming, it's not what God designed the church to be.
derek webb says it this way:
"the Truth is never sexyi love the story behind the song "Heart of Worship." at worship leader matt redman's church, the pastor decided that their church had turned into just that: the congregation were becoming consumers as a result of them and the band both pursuing better and newer forms of worship music. so he stripped it all away. he took away the band and the sound system, and for several months, worship was just the congregations' voices. and at first it led to really awkward silence. but after a while, the people got it. we as followers are meant to be producers, not consumers. we are meant to bring everything we can do offer to God, to glorify Him--not to go to church and find what we can fit into our life, what is relevant to us, and then leave the rest there at church, because it doesn't fit.
so it's not an easy sell
you can dress Her like the culture
She'll shock 'em just the same"
so there. i guess if you're doing all that stuff, and you can be relevant all the time, go for it. anyway, it's more christmas shopping for me today. talk about trying to be relevant...
5 comments:
i will comment on this post so that i don't have to scroll down as far to see if there are any more comments. but i am not sold on your position (or rhett's)
a) why can't the truth be sexy? why can't we display the gospel in such a way that it is appealing and attractive? i agree that we shouldn't take away from the gospel message or from the truth - but why must it be "unsexy?"
b) again with the rick warren - i really don't think that his goal was to "capitalize on the mega church movement?" i know that no one is wanting to drag mr. warren through the dirt - but my guess is that his coat is getting dirty.
c) never should anyone be preaching something that is contrary to the Truth. rhett - what "relevant church" are you talking about? because it seems to me that you should use a different word than relevant. the problem isn't relevance but a matter of believing and preaching scripture.
and finally - does anyone consider Freedom to be a "relevant church?"
Wow! This has gotten way out of the realm of friendly chat.
The whole "sexy" argument is interesting to me as there are people dying in this world today because they are christians. Murdered for the bible they carry and the meetings they hold. I think that is about as un"sexy" as it gets.
To continue with Warren. His book doesn't say anything at all that one would not gather from reading the new testament. That was entirely the point I was trying to make. That people will rely on someone else to form their opinion for them. If I listened to the Pope for advice without reading the bible for myself, it amounts to much the same thing. Take all the militant Islamists as an extreme case of following religion blindly without reading for yourself to see if it adds up. I'm sure Mr. Warren is a fine man. I just consider his writing "theology light". Note I didn't even throw a stone at Osteen. That's not the way I work. I wouldn't name them on a blog and talk junk. I'd send them a letter or email instead.
To address c), which I find just bizarre, I think it should be noted that we've been talking in generalities. I was always trying to make the case of the danger of the individuals in a congregation not being aware of what they believe. I think that kind of ignorance and the desire to be relevant can walk hand in hand. If the programs become more important than the education of the people, then you have this problem. Conversely, if the people only attend to be entertained and will not study, then the fault falls the other way. The stats show that some 85% of America believes in God. However only around 20% read their bibles. It's like letting people drive cars for Nascar without ever having been in any kind of car. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I understand .001% of what I've read of the bible, but I do care enough to try.
As to the final question, from my perspective I believe that every church will have people who are only looking for a "relevant" church. People who are there to be entertained or worse, people who will get involved with the church to try to push their agenda. I believe that their are churches whose agenda is to be so relevant that they completely lose sight of any kind of kingdom goals. I attended a church that fell into that category and Freedom is definitely not that. I must say though that I'm confused as to why you would even pose the Freedom question. I certainly didn't mean to put you on the defensive. If you will reread my comments, I think you'll find the only thing I attacked at all was the willingness of people to be ignorant of what they profess.
i guess i should have clarified this too on the blog--but i'm not trying to sell anyone on anything i post about. me posting is more or less things i feel, and i do not claim to be 100% correct all of the time, or even any of the time. they're just my thoughts. naughty or nice, pleasant or offensive, right or wrong. that being said, i don't like the idea of the truth being sexy (or rather, us MAKING it sexy) for a couple reasons:
1) it shouldn't have to be. if i wanted to appeal to people's desires with something very attractive, i am marketing it. Jesus isn't a product. and often i think us marketing him as one is the cause of us turning a lot of people off to him completely. did Jesus every try to make anything sexy or relevant? not to my knowledge. instead, he spoke in parables that people didn't even understand most of the time until he explained them. which brings me to
2) they wanted Jesus to be sexy, and the reason he attracted people to him was because he never tried to be. sexy, at the time, probably meant being a strong political leader, a king. that's what people wanted, an attractive ruler who could change things by overthrowing them, by doing things the worldly way, using force to overcome force. yet, none of that stuff ever happened the way they wanted it. the sexiness never came. instead he carried on with all of this stuff about a different kind of kingdom, a kingdom that had nothing really to do with using force and overthrowing political rulers. the idea was not near as appealing as people had hoped, but what happened? people were attracted to him by the thousands anyway. i heard someone talk one time who said the funny thing is, if Jesus came back today and walked on the earth, things wouldn't be much different. most christians would want him all over the news. "tell them why You would vote for this guy, Jesus." "Tell them how what they're doing is wrong, Jesus." "Go on Larry King, so that everyone can see how cool You are, Jesus." "Be the President, Jesus." I just think it's hard for people to see who Jesus really is when we're constantly trying to make him something he isn't.
first - the problem with a forum like this is that no one can tell tone of voice. as far as i am concerned - we are still in friendly chat mode - or at least i hope we are.
i see your point about wanting to erase ignorance. the common person should do as much as the minister to try and seek and understand God. and i wasn't trying to be defensive - i wanted to know where freedom stood in your mind. and as i see it - we (freedom) are not supporting ignorance but are relevant.
i could be wrong - but it seems like we have come down to disagree on some words.
i think all three of us would agree - if a church is concerned more with anything (relevance, "selling" the gospel, or matching the carpet to the drapes) than they are concerned with the great commission then that church is in the wrong.
right?
as for defensive or non-friendly conversations - we are merely discussing (sometimes heatedly) our views. but in the end we all know - we all love Jesus.
xoxo Merry Christmas.
amen. that is in a nutshell all i was trying to say, is that when we become obsessed with a relevant way of preaching the gospel, instead of being obsessed with preaching the gospel, there's a problem. and yeah, i love having discussions like this, and in no way upset with either of you guys. to me, the beautiful thing is that we can interpret things differently within the body of Christ, and still have the same goals as believers (can anyone say "diverse members of one body"?) if we couldn't do that, then christianity would be a cult. and i have nowhere near enough kool aid to support us all. merry christmas guys. see you tomorrow.
Post a Comment