Thoughts on church worldliness and "relevance"

[rsc2a]

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.

It's atrocious because you cited a verse that supports what I just said?

 

[ALAYMAN]

(First, I fixed your statement.

Well, your "fixes" have often been sources of obfuscation or subterfuge, and this is no different.  Why would you eliminate "seeker sensitive" from the conversation when it was part of the discussion in the OP quote?

Second, you should have linked it for purposes of integrity.)

The quote was self-sufficient as a starter for the conversation regarding seeker-sensitive pragmatic church philosophy.  It needed nothing else for the purpose I intended, to begin a discussion about what is the proper model of worship.  Don't speak to me about integrity when you are clueless about how to discourse without chasing rabbit trails and introducing red herrings galore.

You can't discuss cultural relevance in the Church in any meaningful way without addressing both sides of this issue (syncretism and sectarianism).

Well, those topics are as nearly big as the subject of philosophy itself, so you'll have to be a bit more specific.

But addressing the point I was making in the OP, you don't have to introduce the trends and fashions of the world into worship in order to be relevant, nor do you have to present elements of questionable cultural norms (tatoos, beer, etc) into worship in order to have a proper paradigm for Biblical worship.  *That* was the point of the quote from the author in the OP. 

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

What in the Sam Hill are you talking about?  Who, besides you, introduced a "sacred/secular divide" into the  discussion?

Actually you did...

You make no sense.  The two concepts as put forth in the OP, "seeker sensitivity" and "worldliness" are considered to be synonymous, so how in the world do you get that I "set the two at odds"?

I bolded the key thing you wrote.

How does the word "explicitly" prove whatever inane point you're trying to make?

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

And how did you ascertain such?

Furthermore, as often is the case with your writing, you move the goalposts.  I don't think that the author means that all "seeker sensitive" methods are wrong, but rather that their "missiological beliefs" sometimes lead them to questionable practices in order to make the message more palatable.

 

[Fresh Air]

What have I failed to understand about your point? Enlighten me please.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=standingtall]That's because ALAMEMAN was trying steer the discussion into "that place" to get some controversy started. [/quote]

What's absolutely laughable is that in order to be adverserial and contentious  that you claim it's "controversial" that there's a legitimate Christian conversation to be had regarding worship styles, yet I'd hazard a guess that Ransom and you schmucks wouldn't have any problem saying that Perry Noble (Highway to Hell on Easter) and Joel Osteen's (prosperity gospel) worship style are diametrically opposed to Biblical models of authorized worship.

 

[FSSL]

It is almost 1pm. You have been on the forum, consistently, since 8am.
I bet that sermon is going to really be a a "good one."

 

[ALAYMAN]

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

What is ironic about that?

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...It is almost 1pm. You have been on the forum, consistently, since 8am.
I bet that sermon is going to really be a a "good one."

Why do you assume that my sermon isn't already nearly completely finished?  See, those are the sorts of things/presumption that prohibited fruitful dialogue in the past thread about Acts 5:42.

Judgmental much?

 

[rsc2a]

Well, your "fixes" have often been sources of obfuscation or subterfuge, and this is no different.  Why would you eliminate "seeker sensitive" from the conversation when it was part of the discussion in the OP quote?

The quote was self-sufficient as a starter for the conversation regarding seeker-sensitive pragmatic church philosophy.  It needed nothing else for the purpose I intended, to begin a discussion about what is the proper model of worship.  Don't speak to me about integrity when you are clueless about how to discourse without chasing rabbit trails and introducing red herrings galore.

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

You can't discuss cultural relevance in the Church in any meaningful way without addressing both sides of this issue (syncretism and sectarianism).

Well, those topics are as nearly big as the subject of philosophy itself, so you'll have to be a bit more specific.

Do you know what those words mean?

But addressing the point I was making in the OP, you don't have to introduce the trends and fashions of the world into worship in order to be relevant, nor do you have to present elements of questionable cultural norms (tatoos, beer, etc) into worship in order to have a proper paradigm for Biblical worship.  *That* was the point of the quote from the author in the OP.

You go to a Greek orthodox church? I would have thought you read the Scripture in the common language.

How about electricity? Do you use it in your church? Pianos?

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

What in the Sam Hill are you talking about?  Who, besides you, introduced a "sacred/secular divide" into the  discussion?

The OP did. You supported it.

You make no sense.  The two concepts as put forth in the OP, "seeker sensitivity" and "worldliness" are considered to be synonymous, so how in the world do you get that I "set the two at odds"?

It's really not complicated. You set purity/holiness and relevance at odds with one another. They're not.

I bolded the key thing you wrote.

How does the word "explicitly" prove whatever inane point you're trying to make?

Because you implicitly did...  :

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

And how did you ascertain such?

Because he made a stupid statement about seeker-sensitive churches.

Furthermore, as often is the case with your writing, you move the goalposts.  I don't think that the author means that all "seeker sensitive" methods are wrong, but rather that their "missiological beliefs" sometimes lead them to questionable practices in order to make the message more palatable.

And you ascribe to methods that "sometimes lead to questionable practices" thereby making the message more offensive.

Still two sides of the same coin....

 

[rsc2a]

What have I failed to understand about your point? Enlighten me please.

I have no idea. Maybe you should tell me what "that" is so I'll know what "that" you think is atrocious.

 

[rsc2a]

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

What is ironic about that?

*snicker*

 

[rsc2a]

...you schmucks wouldn't have any problem saying that Perry Noble (Highway to Hell on Easter) and Joel Osteen's (prosperity gospel) worship style are diametrically opposed to Biblical models of authorized worship.

Would that be in Second Hesitations or the book of Bloviations?

 

[FSSL]

Why do you assume that my sermon isn't already nearly completely finished?  See, those are the sorts of things/presumption that prohibited fruitful dialogue in the past thread about Acts 5:42.

Judgmental much?

Prove it... post it for us right now to see... Then I will apologize for making this assumption.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]

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

lol, but you do?  You're such an expert for such a small pond.  Maybe you should take your show where the big dogs hunt.  How pretentious can one poster be?

What specifically did the OP assume about "most seeker sensitive" churches that is at odds with whatever you're claiming they believe and practice?

Would that be in Second Hesitations or the book of Bloviations?

So you think that anything is acceptable in worship so long as "relevance" is king in terms of motive?  No restrictions?  I don't believe you're being intellectually honest now.

Do you know what those words mean?

Sure do.  Do you?  Or are you just creating a diversionary smokescreen and attempting to avoid discussion?  How does "sectarian" and "syncretism" have to do anything with the OP?  You made the assertion/connection, now simply support it.

You go to a Greek orthodox church? I would have thought you read the Scripture in the common language.

How about electricity? Do you use it in your church? Pianos?

And how are those methods anti-Biblical philosophically or theologically?

The OP did. You supported it.

Again, support your assertion.  How is the OP dividing the secular from the sacred?

It's really not complicated. You set purity/holiness and relevance at odds with one another. They're not.

Only in the sense that there are some things that are profane, and ought not be part of worship.  "Relevance" by using vulgar euphemism in speech, or irreverent cultural trappings in conveying truth are in deed "at odds with" Biblical worship.  Or do you believe anything goes in a church so long as you throw in a few Bible verses?

Because he made a stupid statement about seeker-sensitive churches.

Such as?

And you ascribe to methods that "sometimes lead to questionable practices" thereby making the message more offensive.

What?  Speak in complete sentences.

Still two sides of the same coin....

What?

 

[Fresh Air]

What have I failed to understand about your point? Enlighten me please.

I have no idea. Maybe you should tell me what "that" is so I'll know what "that" you think is atrocious.

It is atrocious to put 'Amazing Grace' and The Beatles on an equal footing. If that isn't what you intended to do then somehow I radically misunderstood you. If that is what you intended to do it is atrocious.

 

[FSSL]

Prove it... post it for us right now to see... Then I will apologize for making this assumption.

Well... 30 minutes has passed and while he has posted other posts since then, there is no proving his case now.

I am actually going somewhere with this...

• How much relevance does a church have when those preparing sermons, lessons and devotionals are spending their time on forums during the time they should be studying?
• Isn't this a form of worldliness where a person wastes sermon prep time on things OTHER than the word of God?

The irony is that Alayman is quick to jump all over the "sins" of the nonFundamentalist crowd and he wastes study time on the forums.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Prove it... post it for us right now to see... Then I will apologize for making this assumption.

Well... 30 minutes has passed and while he has posted other posts since then, there is no proving his case now.

I am actually going somewhere with this... How much relevance does a church have when those preparing sermons, lessons and devotionals are spending their time on forums during the time they should be studying? Isn't this a form of worldliness? The irony is that Alayman is quick to jump all over the "sins" of the nonFundamentalist crowd and he wastes study time on the forums.

lol, keep digging a hole.  99.9% of my sermons are hand-written, as is this one.  If you don't believe that I really don't care.  Your accusatory and presumptive thinking is on display for everyone to see.  It is part and parcel of the fabric of how your reasoning skills are fallaciously built.

 

[FSSL]

lol, keep digging a hole.  99.9% of my sermons are hand-written, as is this one.  If you don't believe that I really don't care.  Your accusatory and presumptive thinking is on display for everyone to see.  It is part and parcel of the fabric of how your reasoning skills are fallaciously built.

I'm not digging a hole... You have provided ZERO proof. It does not take (now 45 minutes) to snap a pic and post it here.

 

[ALAYMAN]

lol, keep digging a hole.  99.9% of my sermons are hand-written, as is this one.  If you don't believe that I really don't care.  Your accusatory and presumptive thinking is on display for everyone to see.  It is part and parcel of the fabric of how your reasoning skills are fallaciously built.

I'm not digging a hole... You have provided ZERO proof. It does not take (now 45 minutes) to snap a pic and post it here.

Wasn't you the joker that talked about not taking one's self too seriously?  Get over yourself buddy.  I have nothing, ZERO, nada, to prove to you about my study habits.  The people God has given me authenticate my calling REGULARLY, not some loser on an internet forum who plays ignorant games because he likes to argue too much.

 

[rsc2a]

Would that be in Second Hesitations or the book of Bloviations?

So you think that anything is acceptable in worship so long as "relevance" is king in terms of motive?  No restrictions?  I don't believe you're being intellectually honest now.

Hmm....

No...you twisted my words to say something I never said and then used that mis-characterization to attack a straw man by foisting that mis-characterization onto the [the practice of worship]. I implied nothing.

(Odd how similar that statement is to something I've said before.)

Do you know what those words mean?

Sure do.  Do you?  Or are you just creating a diversionary smokescreen and attempting to avoid discussion?  How does "sectarian" and "syncretism" have to do anything with the OP?  You made the assertion/connection, now simply support it.

How does syncretism have anything to do with the topic of relevance? You have got to be kidding me, right?

You go to a Greek orthodox church? I would have thought you read the Scripture in the common language.

How about electricity? Do you use it in your church? Pianos?

And how are those methods anti-Biblical philosophically or theologically?

How is CCM music and addressing felt needs anti-Biblical philosophically or theologically? (I'd absolutely love to see you tackle that last one.)

The OP did. You supported it.

Again, support your assertion.  How is the OP dividing the secular from the sacred?

...churches that put secular bait on a religious hook...

It's really not complicated. You set purity/holiness and relevance at odds with one another. They're not.

Only in the sense that there are some things that are profane, and ought not be part of worship.  "Relevance" by using vulgar euphemism in speech, or irreverent cultural trappings in conveying truth are in deed "at odds with" Biblical worship.  Or do you believe anything goes in a church so long as you throw in a few Bible verses?

I'm trying to figure out which way to go....I guess I'll go with three options:

1 - Can you show where a church has actually done this? I want transcripts of the sermons (or such), not "so and so said that THIS BAD CHURCH did this".

2 - Do you not recognize a sacred/secular divide in your very question?

3 - Do you not realize that "vulgar speech" is extremely culturally dependent? Why are you insisting we adhere to particular cultural views of "acceptable" behavior while ignoring other cultural views regarding acceptable behavior (e.g. door-to-door witnessing)?

Even better, why are you trapped in a 1950s view of what is "decent" in regards to cultural standards? Do you not realize that "decent" in the 1700s looked a lot different than "decent" in the 1950s which looks a lot different than "decent" today?

Because he made a stupid statement about seeker-sensitive churches.

Such as?

See above (again).

And you ascribe to methods that "sometimes lead to questionable practices" thereby making the message more offensive.

What?  Speak in complete sentences.

Go back to the door-to-door witnessing thread. Read the section where I provided the information on mass-media evangelism.

Still two sides of the same coin....

What?

You keep trying to parse out the relevance piece from the holiness piece as if they are mutually exclusive, at least if relevance looks like anything later than 1960.

 

[standingtall]

The people God has given me authenticate my calling REGULARLY....

Good for you.  You must be so proud; although, that is something that Jim Jones, David Koresh, and others could easily have said.   

 

[Izdaari]

...you schmucks wouldn't have any problem saying that Perry Noble (Highway to Hell on Easter) and Joel Osteen's (prosperity gospel) worship style are diametrically opposed to Biblical models of authorized worship.

Would that be in Second Hesitations or the book of Bloviations?

Book of Armaments 2:9-21.