GameSpot Video Games, PC, Wii, PlayStation 2, GameCube, PSP, DS, GBA, PS2, PS3, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 GameSpot UK | CNET.co.uk | SmartPlanet.com
E-mail:
Password:
GameSpot Video Games, PC, Wii, PlayStation 2, GameCube, PSP, DS, GBA, PS2, PS3, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3
Previous Page
Page 1
advertisement

View of relevance?

Becoming culturally, morally, and theologically relevant is a good thing.
20% [1]
Becoming culturally and morally relevant is a good thing.
0% [0]
Becoming culturally relevant is a good thing.
20% [1]
Becoming relevant is a bad thing.
0% [0]
Other
60% [3]
  Total Votes: 5
(note: you must be a registered member to participate in polls. sign up now!)
Tag
Relevance
mindstorm
Level 36
Radical Ninja
Posts: 9181
User is Online
Oct 12, 2009 4:11 am GMT

Often times in this union in particular the topic of the relevance movement is fought against.  I simply thought I'd clarify a few things about this movement being that it's such a common topic.  First of all, it is impossible to not be relevant to a culture.  However, that culture might consist of a small rural church.  This church may win some to Christ but largely the people outside of the church believe this church to be irrelevent.  Why?  Because they are stuck in the 1960s.

Some might argue that this is how church supposed to be.  Is it really?  Phillipians 2:10-11 states "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."  Would this not mean that Christians of every culture will be proclaiming the name of Christ.  Is it truly expected that every one of these groups will be exactly the same in how they carry out the message of the Gospel? The Gospel message never changes but it's presentation is. 

One can clearly see this by looking at even the four Gospels.  There are four different presentations of the same person, but each to a different audience.  In just the same way, we are to speak the same unchangable truth to a changable culture.  Paul even understood this when he states in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

Are we too not also supposed to be all things to all people so that by all possible means some might be saved?  Does this mean we might make ourselves uncomfortable by dressing differently, listening to different music, and speaking a different language?  Very likely so.  Does this mean we welcome homosexuality, become drunkards, and use crude langauge?  By all means not.  We are never to compromise our morality but we are to compromise our comfort.

Becoming "morally relevant" is not the only danger but so is being relevant for relevant's sake.  Sometimes a new type of ministry comes along and a minister will welcome it with open arms.  This ministry is only embrased because of it being "hip" and the new cool thing.  However, sometimes this is being different just to be different.  What truly needs to happen is that we love a people group to such an extreme that we become one of them.

Take Hudson Taylor for example, a missionary to China.  He learned the language, dressed like them, and loved them but never compromised on his theology or morality.  He eventually became one of the most successful missionaries in the world, whose influence eventually won millions to Christ.

If Hudson Taylor did that for the nation of China, should we too not do the same thing? What is wrong with getting a motorcycle and "riding with sinners"?  What is wrong with changing the music style to reach a new generation (while still being theologically deep, maybe even still singing the same words but with different instruments)?  What is wrong with having a pizza party with some youth and "eating with sinners"?  Did not Jesus and Paul do that?

The "relevance movement" is not a new movement but happens every generation.  People somehow believe that changing the culture of the church means becoming unbiblical even though biblical principles are not to be changed.  What is wrong is when people become theologically and morally liberal in order to become relevant.  In becoming relevent, they become irrelevent by having nothing to offer.

blackregiment  
Level 35
Stitches
Posts: 10625
Oct 12, 2009 4:54 am GMT

Relevance needs to be examined on a case by case basis. The individual actions of those that desire to be relevant need to be tested one at a time against the Word of God.

There is a tendency to attempt to lump many different things such as crude language, off color jokes, holding Church in a pub, etc., under the umbrella of "being relevant". 

It is a case by case thing and needs to be examined as such.

That being said, I will say that the Gospel message is eternal and timeless.

Unfortunately, in many Churches today, attempts at making Christianity or Church relevant to the culture is little more than an effort to avoid offending non-believers with the truth of God's Word, with the goal of keeping the seats filled and keeping the cash flowing, or to be liked by the world. those Churches, you will find that often, God's truth is toned down, the whole counsel of God's Word is not preached, and discipleship and Church discipline is ignored.

Joh 12:43  For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

God bless   

 

"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." Lord Kelvin, a British scientist, a pioneer in the study of thermodynamics.

"Throughout history, the only option available for those that cannot refute the truth, is to suppress it and silence anyone that dares to share it. As it was and as it remains..." Anonymous

mindstorm
Level 36
Radical Ninja
Posts: 9181
User is Online
Oct 12, 2009 4:58 am GMT

I completely agree, aside from whether or not it's okay to go to a pub (designated driver ftw!).

...not saying it'd be my first choice though.  I'd have a lot of questions about that type of ministry, but I can see at least some ways it could work.



Edited on Oct 12, 2009 5:00 am GMT
blackregiment  
Level 35
Stitches
Posts: 10625
Oct 12, 2009 5:22 am GMT
mindstorm wrote:

Often times in this union in particular the topic of the relevance movement is fought against. 

I forgot to address one thing in my response. You made the above statement.

My response to that statement is, not anymore that you have "fought against" to use your words though I think a better term such as "resisted" would be more appropriate, Biblical creationists, the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account and evangelists that preach sin, God's wrath and hatred of sin, the fallen state of mankind, judgment and the eternal consequences of dying without accepting Christ.

God bless



Edited on Oct 12, 2009 5:28 am GMT
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." Lord Kelvin, a British scientist, a pioneer in the study of thermodynamics.

"Throughout history, the only option available for those that cannot refute the truth, is to suppress it and silence anyone that dares to share it. As it was and as it remains..." Anonymous

mindstorm
Level 36
Radical Ninja
Posts: 9181
User is Online
Oct 12, 2009 5:28 am GMT
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:

Often times in this union in particular the topic of the relevance movement is fought against. 

I forgot to address one thing in my response. You made the above statement. My response is, not anymore that you have "fought against" to use you words though I think a better term such as "resist" would be more appropriate, Biblical creationists, the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account and evangelists that preach sin, God's wrath and hatred of sin, the fallen state of mankind, judgment and the eternal consequences of dying without accepting Christ.

God bless

I only fight against them because, while some of those are clearly true, they can all be taken too far.  For example, Calvinism can be a good thing but hyper-Calvinism is clearly a bad thing.  The same can be applied too any of those views.

maheo30  
Level 21
Rescue Ranger
Posts: 4496
Oct 12, 2009 10:09 am GMT
Doesn't becoming relevant necessarily imply the gospel isn't? I don't find that in Holy Writ. The gospel is always relevant because man is dead in sins.

Atheistic reasoning gets easier to understand after a bottle of scotch.

mindstorm
Level 36
Radical Ninja
Posts: 9181
User is Online
Oct 12, 2009 10:38 am GMT

maheo30 wrote:
Doesn't becoming relevant necessarily imply the gospel isn't? I don't find that in Holy Writ. The gospel is always relevant because man is dead in sins.

Indeed the gospel is relevent to every culture, however, the presentation might not be.  If you walk up to someone in one culture and call that individual a sinner, he may repent and come to Christ.  In another culture, the individual will ask what it means to be a sinner.  Another will claim their is no God.  And yet another will be in another language all together.

When we have these differences, the gospel should be presented differently.  One expression of the gospel might have to start at creation while another might not need to mention creation (like when witnessing to a Jew or Muslim).  I might present the gospel as being from a personal God who relates to his creation to a deist.  I might present God as a perfect and loving father to a person who was abused by his earthly father.  In this way, the gospel while unchanging is to be presented differently to different contexts.

However, the point of the topic was not to say that the gospel itself should be "made relevant" (though, it is indeed relevant to every culture, every language, and every time), but how we live out the gospel will be different.  A person in Africa will live out the gospel differently than one in China or Europe.  Also, a person will live out the gospel differently in the rural United States than the urban United States.  This is my major point.  A person may use the same principles of Scripture but in different contexts it might look different.

What the conservative biblical side of the relevance movement tries to do is look at a specific context and use biblical principles in such a way that the culture will be redeemed.  Culture in and of itself is not evil but sometimes aspects of it can be.  These aspects needs to be sanctified by Christ as the lives lived in that culture are redeemed.  If I were to plant a church whose main audience is Southern farmers, then this church will look radically different than an audience of college students in New England.  Neither form is wrong or superior over the other so long as the doctrine remains the same.

We Christians often fall into the trap that our own form of Christianity is the correct form.  Every generation when they've practiced Christianity for any period of time begins to believe that they hold the true form of Christianity that all others should emulate.  Because of this, if you do not have a Sunday school then you might be considered a liberal even though home life groups might be better for a different context.

Even with these changes, many things are to remain the same such as preaching, reading of Scripture, worship, fellowship, etc.  Sometimes it just looks different for different contexts.  It has become relevant.  Relevance only becomes wrong when it is forced upon the wrong cultural context or it is unbiblical.

blackregiment  
Level 35
Stitches
Posts: 10625
Oct 12, 2009 11:11 am GMT

No one has said that different approaches should not be used for different people. That's not what we are discussing when we speak of the emergent Church's desire to be "relevant" to the culture. We are talking about the many questionable and often unBiblical methods that they are known for in their attempt to "fit in", "be liked by non-believers". and not "offend anyone". that and their post modern approach to the truth.

 

 

"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." Lord Kelvin, a British scientist, a pioneer in the study of thermodynamics.

"Throughout history, the only option available for those that cannot refute the truth, is to suppress it and silence anyone that dares to share it. As it was and as it remains..." Anonymous

mindstorm
Level 36
Radical Ninja
Posts: 9181
User is Online
Oct 12, 2009 12:02 pm GMT
blackregiment wrote:

No one has said that different approaches should not be used for different people. That's not what we are discussing when we speak of the emergent Church's desire to be "relevant" to the culture. We are talking about the many questionable and often unBiblical methods that they are known for in their attempt to "fit in", "be liked by non-believers". and not "offend anyone". that and their post modern approach to the truth.

 

 

That's why I only agree with one portion of the emerging church.  This video can give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

I agree with the portion of the emerging church that examines tradition to discover what works, what doesn't, what is biblical, and what is not biblical.  This picture gives a very basic idea of the various conservative "types" of Christianity in the United States currently.

 emergent



Edited on Oct 12, 2009 12:06 pm GMT
blackregiment  
Level 35
Stitches
Posts: 10625
Oct 12, 2009 12:54 pm GMT
mindstorm wrote:
blackregiment wrote:

No one has said that different approaches should not be used for different people. That's not what we are discussing when we speak of the emergent Church's desire to be "relevant" to the culture. We are talking about the many questionable and often unBiblical methods that they are known for in their attempt to "fit in", "be liked by non-believers". and not "offend anyone". that and their post modern approach to the truth.

That's why I only agree with one portion of the emerging church.  This video can give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

I agree with the portion of the emerging church that examines tradition to discover what works, what doesn't, what is biblical, and what is not biblical.  This picture gives a very basic idea of the various conservative "types" of Christianity in the United States currently.

 emergent

I thought it was only the non-believers that liked the term offensive term fundamentalist, often used for Biblical Christians. I forgot that liberal Christians and the emergents like to use that term too. Thanks for reminding me.

Oh those pesky Biblical Christians. Always mucking things up by testing everything against the Word of God.  And then daring to offend non-believers by telling them that God's Word says that all men are sinners and there are consequenses for our sin. My, my, my.

Act 17:10  And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11  These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

1Jn 4:1  Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 

In the video, I thought his shirt with what appeared to be an image of Jesus with a boom box,is a perfect example of what I am talking about. It is offensive and disrespectful to our holy Lord, just as images that mock Jesus, made for laughs, are as well. How does his shirt glorify the Lord?

1Co 10:31  Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.  

PS, God's Word provides the answers that are the truth, not people. 

 

 

 



Edited on Oct 12, 2009 2:15 pm GMT Edited 4 total times.
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." Lord Kelvin, a British scientist, a pioneer in the study of thermodynamics.

"Throughout history, the only option available for those that cannot refute the truth, is to suppress it and silence anyone that dares to share it. As it was and as it remains..." Anonymous

Lansdowne5  
Level 26
Cyber-Lip
Posts: 7319
Oct 13, 2009 2:37 am GMT
blackregiment wrote:

In the video, I thought his shirt with what appeared to be an image of Jesus with a boom box,is a perfect example of what I am talking about. It is offensive and disrespectful to our holy Lord, just as images that mock Jesus, made for laughs, are as well. How does his shirt glorify the Lord?

That's exactly what I was thinking......

God Bless

Are you a bible-believing Christian? If so, check out these two unions:

Salute to Crushmaster!

Unjustly Banned for Christ!

mindstorm
Level 36
Radical Ninja
Posts: 9181
User is Online
Oct 13, 2009 3:41 am GMT
Lansdowne5 wrote:
blackregiment wrote:

In the video, I thought his shirt with what appeared to be an image of Jesus with a boom box,is a perfect example of what I am talking about. It is offensive and disrespectful to our holy Lord, just as images that mock Jesus, made for laughs, are as well. How does his shirt glorify the Lord?

That's exactly what I was thinking......

God Bless

Do you both reject everything that was said simply because of the shirt he is wearing?

blackregiment  
Level 35
Stitches
Posts: 10625
Oct 13, 2009 5:00 am GMT
mindstorm wrote:
Lansdowne5 wrote:
blackregiment wrote:

In the video, I thought his shirt with what appeared to be an image of Jesus with a boom box,is a perfect example of what I am talking about. It is offensive and disrespectful to our holy Lord, just as images that mock Jesus, made for laughs, are as well. How does his shirt glorify the Lord?

That's exactly what I was thinking......

God Bless

Do you both reject everything that was said simply because of the shirt he is wearing?

His talk was really just him attempting to sell his version of "emergent" philosophy over the other versions of emergent philosophy, and separate his version from the others in areas where they disagree.

In the process of doing that, the shirt he was wearing was a glaring example of the errors that can result from being over-concerned with being "relevant", fitting in with the world, wanting so much to be liked, and accepted by the non-believers.

Supposedly he has toned down his use of crude language and off color jokes and remarks, and to his credit, I didn't see him resorting to that in that video, now he needs to lose the shirt that is demeaning to the Lord.

As I have stated before, he speaks a lot of truth and in most areas is biblical but he needs to focus on the rough edges and stop trying to be popular with the world. He needs to reflect on these verses.

Deu 18:13  Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.

1Co 5:6  Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7  Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8  Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 

2Co 7:1  Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 

1Pe 1:13  Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
1Pe 1:14  As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
1Pe 1:15  But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
1Pe 1:16  Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." Lord Kelvin, a British scientist, a pioneer in the study of thermodynamics.

"Throughout history, the only option available for those that cannot refute the truth, is to suppress it and silence anyone that dares to share it. As it was and as it remains..." Anonymous

mindstorm
Level 36
Radical Ninja
Posts: 9181
User is Online
Oct 13, 2009 8:19 am GMT
blackregiment wrote:

His talk was really just him attempting to sell his version of "emergent" philosophy over the other versions of emergent philosophy, and separate his version from the others in areas where they disagree.

In the process of doing that, the shirt he was wearing was a glaring example of the errors that can result from being over-concerned with being "relevant", fitting in with the world, wanting so much to be liked, and accepted by the non-believers.

Supposedly he has toned down his use of crude language and off color jokes and remarks, and to his credit, I didn't see him resorting to that in that video, now he needs to lose the shirt that is demeaning to the Lord.

As I have stated before, he speaks a lot of truth and in most areas is biblical but he needs to focus on the rough edges and stop trying to be popular with the world. He needs to reflect on these verses.

Deu 18:13  Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.

1Co 5:6  Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7  Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8  Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 

2Co 7:1  Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 

1Pe 1:13  Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
1Pe 1:14  As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
1Pe 1:15  But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
1Pe 1:16  Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Out of curiosity, how do you know his motives?  Could it be that he is trying to follow 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 rather than be liked?  Even Jesus was liked by many so if that is the consequence of following 1 Cor. 9, then maybe Driscoll is doing something right.  Also, it's the religious people who did not like Jesus.  If someone is doing things right, then would not that person also have the religious be an opponent?

And Driscoll is not liked by everyone, especially certain religious types and liberals.  If Driscoll's goal is to be liked, he's doing a poor job.

blackregiment  
Level 35
Stitches
Posts: 10625
Oct 13, 2009 8:45 am GMT

mindstorm wrote:
blackregiment wrote:

His talk was really just him attempting to sell his version of "emergent" philosophy over the other versions of emergent philosophy, and separate his version from the others in areas where they disagree.

In the process of doing that, the shirt he was wearing was a glaring example of the errors that can result from being over-concerned with being "relevant", fitting in with the world, wanting so much to be liked, and accepted by the non-believers.

Supposedly he has toned down his use of crude language and off color jokes and remarks, and to his credit, I didn't see him resorting to that in that video, now he needs to lose the shirt that is demeaning to the Lord.

As I have stated before, he speaks a lot of truth and in most areas is biblical but he needs to focus on the rough edges and stop trying to be popular with the world. He needs to reflect on these verses.

Deu 18:13  Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.

1Co 5:6  Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7  Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8  Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 

2Co 7:1  Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 

1Pe 1:13  Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
1Pe 1:14  As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
1Pe 1:15  But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
1Pe 1:16  Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Out of curiosity, how do you know his motives?  Could it be that he is trying to follow 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 rather than be liked?  Even Jesus was liked by many so if that is the consequence of following 1 Cor. 9, then maybe Driscoll is doing something right.  Also, it's the religious people who did not like Jesus.  If someone is doing things right, then would not that person also have the religious be an opponent?

And Driscoll is not liked by everyone, especially certain religious types and liberals.  If Driscoll's goal is to be liked, he's doing a poor job.

Did I use the word motives? No!!! When you stop attempting to attribute things to me that I didn't write I will entertain continuing discussions with you. The man admits he wants to be "relevant" to the culture.

1Pe 1:15  But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
1Pe 1:16  Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Mat 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

By the way, I don't think that 1 Cor 9:19-23 condones, cussing, foul language, off-color sexual jokes, and wearing shirts with images of Jesus with a boom box, all of which he has or continues to do. 

Oh and by the way, since you mentioned the term motives, I will ask the same question, how do you presume to know his motives? 

God bless 

"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." Lord Kelvin, a British scientist, a pioneer in the study of thermodynamics.

"Throughout history, the only option available for those that cannot refute the truth, is to suppress it and silence anyone that dares to share it. As it was and as it remains..." Anonymous

mindstorm
Level 36
Radical Ninja
Posts: 9181
User is Online
Oct 13, 2009 11:11 am GMT
blackregiment wrote:

Did I use the word motives? No!!! When you stop attempting to attribute things to me that I didn't write I will entertain continuing discussions with you. The man admits he wants to be "relevant" to the culture.

1Pe 1:15  But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
1Pe 1:16  Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Mat 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

By the way, I don't think that 1 Cor 9:19-23 condones, cussing, foul language, off-color sexual jokes, and wearing shirts with images of Jesus with a boom box, all of which he has or continues to do. 

Oh and by the way, since you mentioned the term motives, I will ask the same question, how do you presume to know his motives? 

God bless 

I've never said that these passages condone such, I'm merely saying that we should become a part of the culture in order to redeem the culture, all while keeping to correct doctrine and living a holy life.

And as for his motives, I only know what he has stated and his fruit seems to show a right heart.

Also, I'm not entirely sure how this topic ended up talking about the emerging church and Mark Driscoll, all I wanted to talk about was becoming a missionary to our neighbors.

blackregiment  
Level 35
Stitches
Posts: 10625
Oct 13, 2009 12:21 pm GMT
mindstorm wrote:

Also, I'm not entirely sure how this topic ended up talking about the emerging church and Mark Driscoll, all I wanted to talk about was becoming a missionary to our neighbors.

You should know the answer to that since you (1) created the topic about relevance which is the clarion call of the emergent Church and (2) also brought up Mark Driscoll by posting a video of his presentation. 



Edited on Oct 13, 2009 2:32 pm GMT Edited 2 total times.
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." Lord Kelvin, a British scientist, a pioneer in the study of thermodynamics.

"Throughout history, the only option available for those that cannot refute the truth, is to suppress it and silence anyone that dares to share it. As it was and as it remains..." Anonymous

mindstorm
Level 36
Radical Ninja
Posts: 9181
User is Online
Oct 13, 2009 3:18 pm GMT
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:

Also, I'm not entirely sure how this topic ended up talking about the emerging church and Mark Driscoll, all I wanted to talk about was becoming a missionary to our neighbors.

You should know the answer to that since you (1) created the topic about relevance which is the clarion call of the emergent Church and (2) also brought up Mark Driscoll by posting a video of his presentation. 

I brought up Driscoll because the emerging church was brought up.  When I'm talking about reaching the culture the emerging church is only a small part of that.  What the emerging church tries to do is reach people with a postmodern mindset.  What I'm talking about is simply knowing the people we are trying to minister to.  If I use an illustration from Star Wars with someone in a nursing home, the individual might not relate.  If I use an illustration dealing with farming in a local country church, then it works.

All I'm proposing when talking about relevance is trying to reach the culture.  Am I specifically talking about the postmodern culture, not at all.  Last week when I was in New York I noticed that there were more Hispanic immigrants than any other people group.  Would not learning Spanish and trying to reach them where they are be of benefit to the Gospel?  When I talk about reaching the culture, I'm talking about redeeming every aspect of it, not just the parts that are "hip and cool."

A practical example is how I preach.  If I'm in a traditional church then I'm more likely to dress in a suit and use the version of the Bible that the audience uses (which will likely be KJV or NIV).  If I'm in a more contemporary church then I'll wear blue jeans and preach from the version of the Bible that the audience uses (which will likely be NIV or ESV).  I've done this btw.  All I'm trying to do here is reach the people I'm trying to share the gospel with.



Edited on Oct 13, 2009 3:22 pm GMT
blackregiment  
Level 35
Stitches
Posts: 10625
Oct 13, 2009 5:23 pm GMT
mindstorm wrote:
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:

Also, I'm not entirely sure how this topic ended up talking about the emerging church and Mark Driscoll, all I wanted to talk about was becoming a missionary to our neighbors.

You should know the answer to that since you (1) created the topic about relevance which is the clarion call of the emergent Church and (2) also brought up Mark Driscoll by posting a video of his presentation. 

I brought up Driscoll because the emerging church was brought up.  When I'm talking about reaching the culture the emerging church is only a small part of that.  What the emerging church tries to do is reach people with a postmodern mindset.  What I'm talking about is simply knowing the people we are trying to minister to.  If I use an illustration from Star Wars with someone in a nursing home, the individual might not relate.  If I use an illustration dealing with farming in a local country church, then it works.

All I'm proposing when talking about relevance is trying to reach the culture.  Am I specifically talking about the postmodern culture, not at all.  Last week when I was in New York I noticed that there were more Hispanic immigrants than any other people group.  Would not learning Spanish and trying to reach them where they are be of benefit to the Gospel?  When I talk about reaching the culture, I'm talking about redeeming every aspect of it, not just the parts that are "hip and cool."

A practical example is how I preach.  If I'm in a traditional church then I'm more likely to dress in a suit and use the version of the Bible that the audience uses (which will likely be KJV or NIV).  If I'm in a more contemporary church then I'll wear blue jeans and preach from the version of the Bible that the audience uses (which will likely be NIV or ESV).  I've done this btw.  All I'm trying to do here is reach the people I'm trying to share the gospel with.

Implied in your statement is that those in the traditional Church don't attempt to get to know the people they are witnessing to or speak in their language. I do not accept that false premise. That is a straw man.

In addition, God's Word is truth and relevant for all times. It does not need certain "settings", "props", "staging", "hip dress", or "cool terminology, slang, jokes, etc." to be relevant. In my opinion to think that sort of stuff is necessary is to deny the power of the Word of God.

By the way, the Word of God does the reaching and convicting, we don't. We must be careful to not give ourselves more credit than we deserve.

Rom 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 

Heb 4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 

 

 

 

 



Edited on Oct 13, 2009 5:25 pm GMT
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." Lord Kelvin, a British scientist, a pioneer in the study of thermodynamics.

"Throughout history, the only option available for those that cannot refute the truth, is to suppress it and silence anyone that dares to share it. As it was and as it remains..." Anonymous

mindstorm
Level 36
Radical Ninja
Posts: 9181
User is Online
Oct 13, 2009 7:45 pm GMT
blackregiment wrote:

Implied in your statement is that those in the traditional Church don't attempt to get to know the people they are witnessing to or speak in their language. I do not accept that false premise. That is a straw man.

I'm not trying to make a logical argument, I'm telling you what I witness in many churches firsthand.  Keep in mind that I am in no way saying all traditional churches do this.  Also keep in mind that I go to a traditional church and I love its people, people who love Christ.  What I'm stating is that many times people who have always done church a certain way will not step out of their comfort zones in order to carry out the will of God. My home church, for example, is not yet comfortable enough to open up to people of other races and social classes.

blackregiment wrote:

In addition, God's Word is truth and relevant for all times. It does not need certain "settings", "props", "staging", "hip dress", or "cool terminology, slang, jokes, etc." to be relevant. In my opinion to think that sort of stuff is necessary is to deny the power of the Word of God.

By the way, the Word of God does the reaching and convicting, we don't. We must be careful to not give ourselves more credit than we deserve.

Rom 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 

Heb 4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 

 

 

And I do not disagree with you here. I'm merely saying we should meet people where they are.  We should not expect people to change aspects of their culture that are not unbiblical.  To have a "Christian culture" that isolates themselves from the world is unbiblical, Christians being a light in a dark world is biblical.



Edited on Oct 13, 2009 8:08 pm GMT
Previous Page
Page 1