Thoughts on church worldliness and "relevance"

[ALAYMAN]

This spirit of accommodation has also affected the way we

 

[rsc2a]

This spirit of accommodation has also affected the way we

 

[standingtall]

Ah! You should have cited more of the same article:

That part of the article doesn't serve ALAMEMAN's purpose. 

 

[Ransom]

Wait, you mean LAMETROLL quoted a Web site out of context? Shock!

 

[standingtall]

Wait, you mean LAMETROLL quoted a Web site out of context? Shock!

Of course!  We can't bring in the "weird and repulsive" practices of many fundy churches into the argument, can we? 

D.A. Carson is advocating a balance here, but fundies want no part of that. 

 

[rsc2a]

Of course!  We can't bring in the "weird and repulsive" practices of many fundy churches into the argument, can we? 

D.A. Carson is advocating a balance here, but fundies want no part of that.

What is really interesting about Carson's statement is if you eliminate the false sacred/secular divide then you will never have "secular bait on a religious hook for the purpose of catching [non-believers]" because you will recognize that everything is "something real."

If only people realized that Amazing Grace could be "worldly" and the Beatles could be "spiritual"....

 

[FSSL]

Wait, you mean LAMETROLL quoted a Web site out of context? Shock!

Of course!  We can't bring in the "weird and repulsive" practices of many fundy churches into the argument, can we? 

D.A. Carson is advocating a balance here, but fundies want no part of that.

Right! And from what I see from Alayman's continual legalism I wonder if he would have difficulty with D.A. Carson's standards as well...

I have a great CD of music that Carson put together. My former Fundamentalist friends will not accept Carson's CD of great worship music.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
Ah! You should have cited more of the same article:
[/quote]

So I should have raised a topic for discussion that YOU want to discuss?

The two themes are not mutually exclusive.  Matter of fact, contrary to StandingShort's, FoolsSundaySchoolLimericks, and Ranscums sniping, the reason I came across the article wasn't due to a search of the problems with the relevant church, but was rather fishing for an illustration of the word "peculiar" that depicted the wrong understanding of it meaning "weird".  I'll be preaching tonight on the very thing that you quoted, that thing being that we be true salt and light, and not odd insular irrelevant non-loving cloistering kooks.

That said, the OP quote was still good stuff.

 

[rsc2a]

The two themes are not mutually exclusive...

As the article made evident. Your snippet did not. In fact, your snippet did set the two at odds.

...the reason I came across the article wasn't due to a search of the problems with the relevant church, but was rather fishing for an illustration of the word "peculiar" that depicted the wrong understanding of it meaning "weird".  I'll be preaching tonight on the very thing that you quoted, that thing being that we be true salt and light, and not odd insular irrelevant non-loving cloistering kooks.

Interesting...

That said, the OP quote was still good stuff.

I really just caught this in the OP...

Seeker services have become the popular trend, where the objective has been to represent Christ as being as much like what people are accustomed to in the world as possible.

...so, yeah, with that kind of erroneous statement, I'm not too impressed with the first paragraph in the piece you snipped out. (Although, I did think the overall article was decent.)

 

[FSSL]

I'll be preaching tonight on the very thing that you quoted, that thing being that we be true salt and light, and not odd insular irrelevant non-loving cloistering kooks.

Your OP did not stated the opposite of what you are saying now. So, is your comment "...the OT use of the word "harlot" in relation to God's people and their fake religiosity/pluralism" saying anything about insular irrelevance? Baah!

You need to go back and study... You have quite a bit of verses in Strongs to sift through...

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]No...you should have maintained the overall integrity of the article. (And you should have linked it.)[/quote]

According to you I should have linked it, because you think that it's necessary to discuss the whole article, but my point for discussion is valid (taken from the excerpt) regardless of what the rest of the article said.  The topic under discussion is worldliness and seeker sensitive relevance.  That is a worthwhile topic, regardless of what source (or how much of the source I cite) I use. 

If I had somehow tried to misrepresent a specific author's perspective then you'd have a beef, but I wasn't misrerpesenting Carson, or the author of the article, but rather presenting the element that they have in common with "fundamentalists" which decry not using pragamtic means of worship in order to justify whatever kind of thing draws a crowd.  Both agree that there's a ditch on both sides of the worship aisle.  I never said or intended to imply otherwise, so that's just a canard, plain and simple.

As the article made evident. Your snippet did not. In fact, your snippet did set the two at odds.

No, I didn't.  By omitting the part about the fact that we ought to retain an element of authenticity in no way explicitly determinative of some nefarious intent.  That is you reading into things, and judging motives.

Seeker services have become the popular trend, where the objective has been to represent Christ as being as much like what people are accustomed to in the world as possible.[/i]

...so, yeah, with that kind of erroneous statement, I'm not too impressed with the first paragraph in the piece you snipped out. (Although, I did think the overall article was decent.)

Say what?  What's "erroneous" about that statement as it was stated in the context of the paragraph?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I'll be preaching tonight on the very thing that you quoted, that thing being that we be true salt and light, and not odd insular irrelevant non-loving cloistering kooks.

Your OP did not stated the opposite of what you are saying now. So, is your comment "...the OT use of the word "harlot" in relation to God's people and their fake religiosity/pluralism" saying anything about insular irrelevance? Baah!

You need to go back and study... You have quite a bit of verses in Strongs to sift through...

When you have something sincere, coherent, and meaningful to ask/say I'll be glad to respond in like kind, until then you should just refer back to my statement about you being somebody to not take serious.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Your OP did not stated the opposite of what you are saying now. So, is your comment "...the OT use of the word "harlot" in relation to God's people and their fake religiosity/pluralism" saying anything about insular irrelevance? Baah!

Just so you understand what that statement in the OP meant, and you don't go off on some wacky tangent as you seem to already have done, "religiosity" = "self-righteous pharisaism", and "pluralism" = "seeker sensitve acceptance of false worship" (ie "Chrislam, therapeutic moral deism, etc).

 

[rsc2a]

If I had somehow tried to misrepresent a specific author's perspective then you'd have a beef, but I wasn't misrerpesenting Carson, or the author of the article, but rather presenting the element that they have in common with "fundamentalists" which decry not using pragamtic means of worship in order to justify whatever kind of thing draws a crowd.  Both agree that there's a ditch on both sides of the worship aisle.

Based on a false sacred/secular divide and assuming the worst about a group of believers....

I never said or intended to imply otherwise [regarding there being ditches on both sides], so that's just a canard, plain and simple.

Actually you did...

The topic under discussion is worldliness and seeker sensitive relevance.

As the article made evident. Your snippet did not. In fact, your snippet did set the two at odds.

No, I didn't.  By omitting the part about the fact that we ought to retain an element of authenticity in no way explicitly determinative of some nefarious intent.  That is you reading into things, and judging motives.

I bolded the key thing you wrote.

Seeker services have become the popular trend, where the objective has been to represent Christ as being as much like what people are accustomed to in the world as possible.[/i]

...so, yeah, with that kind of erroneous statement, I'm not too impressed with the first paragraph in the piece you snipped out. (Although, I did think the overall article was decent.)

Say what?  What's "erroneous" about that statement as it was stated in the context of the paragraph?

Other than the fact that the author apparently has no clue as to the missiological beliefs and/or practices of most seeker churches?

 

[rsc2a]

..."religiosity" = "self-righteous pharisaism"...

 

[Izdaari]

I agree with Carson's piece as a whole. But if all I had was the OP quoted portion, I would have to disagree, because it seemed to be going someplace I wouldn't like. I'm glad it wasn't.

 

[FSSL]

You need to go back and study... You have quite a bit of verses in Strongs to sift through...

When you have something sincere, coherent, and meaningful to ask/say I'll be glad to respond in like kind, until then you should just refer back to my statement about you being somebody to not take serious.

Since you did not provide the full quote...
Since you did not present the quote in the way you are now speaking...
Since I am not the only one to see the 180 turn...
Since you have a sermon to prepare for tonight...

From brother to brother... I would not be spending this amount of time on a forum if I were preparing for a sermon tonight. You will just end up giving your opinion like you consistently do...

 

[standingtall]

But if all I had was the OP quoted portion, I would have to disagree, because it seemed to be going someplace I wouldn't like. I'm glad it wasn't.

That's because ALAMEMAN was trying steer the discussion into "that place" to get some controversy started.  He'll deny that, of course...but it's apparent to those of us who know his modus operandi.

rsc2a threw ALAMEMAN out of whack when he posted "the rest of the story".  He'll bloviate and bluster some more.  Nothing new there.
 

 

[standingtall]

When you have something sincere, coherent, and meaningful to ask/say I'll be glad to respond in like kind, until then you should just refer back to my statement about you being somebody to not take serious.

Translation:  I'm going to ignore you because you're right and I just refuse to admit it.

 

[Fresh Air]

What is really interesting about Carson's statement is if you eliminate the false sacred/secular divide then you will never have "secular bait on a religious hook for the purpose of catching [non-believers]" because you will recognize that everything is "something real."

If only people realized that Amazing Grace could be "worldly" and the Beatles could be "spiritual"....

If you really meant that, it's atrocious.

Eze 22:26  Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.