Thoughts on church worldliness and "relevance"

[FSSL]

I have nothing, ZERO, nada, to prove...

We know... we have uncovered that fact.

Just like we uncovered the fact that you did "expository" work on Acts 5 and all you did was copy and paste from Strongs.

 

[standingtall]

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.

....

He'll bloviate and bluster some more.  Nothing new there.

I rest my case.

Hey ALAMEMAN, show me where Perry Noble and Joel Osteen criticize folks for NOT worshiping the way they worship, as opposed to those who criticize folks for not following their perceived "Biblical models of authorized worship".

I might not agree with how others worship, but I have NO problem with letting them worship however they want.  What I DO have a bad problem with is folks telling others how they should worship....and fundies are notorious for that.

 

[rsc2a]

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.

You do realize God is much more concerned about why you worship than how you worship, right?

Someone could make Amazing Grace a profane thing. (See verses you cited.) Someone could make the Beatles a holy thing.

Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.

"When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations-- I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.

Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause. Isaiah 1:10-17

 

[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?

Book of Armaments 2:9-21. 

It should be odd that Alayman would be more critical of another ("independent" *cough, cough*) church's style of worship than people would are more liturgically minded (e.g. you, myself, a few others).

 

[El Cid]

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

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

So if someone here wants to quote part of an article here they have to quote the whole article?  What if the article is 12 pages long?  That does not make sense.  Do you ever quote just part of articles to make your point?

 

[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. 

It should be odd that Alayman would be more critical of another ("independent" *cough, cough*) church's style of worship than people would are more liturgically minded (e.g. you, myself, a few others).

Yep. I recently switched to a liturgical church, and I find the worship more reverent than in my previous evangelical church. Neither is "seeker sensitive" in the sense of compromising their doctrine for the sake of appealing to a wider audience, though both are in the sense of being aware of and seeking to be relevant to the culture they are in.

I think the same could be said of Paul, who appealed to the Greek philosophers when preaching to the Greeks in Athens. Of course, Paul was probably the only Apostle who was familiar with the Greek philosophers. (Luke, the Greek-trained physician and historian, probably was as well, but he wasn't an Apostle).

P.S.: Btw, no, I don't think Highway to Hell is appropriate church music, though I do think it's great classic rock. I don't know anything else about Perry Noble or his church.

And I don't have a problem with Joel Osteen's style of worship, though I do have a problem with his lack of content other than prosperity gospel and New Thought self-help messages.

 

[standingtall]

So if someone here wants to quote part of an article here they have to quote the whole article?  What if the article is 12 pages long?  That does not make sense.  Do you ever quote just part of articles to make your point?

IronCid, you are a monument to stupid people everywhere.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]Not only did I quote it, but you re-quoted it replying to my posts. [/quote]

So you think that he was saying that EVERYTHING that seeker churches do is wrong?[/quote]

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.)

Whatever buddy.  You talk in circles.

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

Well, if you'd connect your thoughts to what the OP was talking about, and then explain how he violated whatever syncretistic model you're advocating, then we'd have something to talk about.  Til then, you're tilting at windmills of your own invention, as you brought those concepts to the table.

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

Did the OP specifically mention either of those?  Did I?  There you go again, making strawmen up to knock down.

I will say, "tackling" the second you mentioned, that the church is to glorify God in worship, making Him the center of adoration in the gospel as its primary focus.  In that gospel we proclaim what He has done and the effects of His work, which will inevitably address people's hurts and consequences of sin.  But the direction and emphasis of the preaching is Christ and His works, not our needs.  Our needs is addressed as a byproduct of His accomplishment.  The "seeker churches" that make felt needs the center-focus are at best detracting from the Lordship of Christ, pimping Him out like some Jeanie in a bottle.

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

You don't think that there are churches that attract people using carnal means, and not using the gospel?

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".

Used "Highway to Hell" as an Easter "hook"?  Yes, and a whole lot more than just Noble's church do stunts like that.  Pastor Ed Young Jr uses visual stunts and tricks like preaching a series on sex from a bed in his church.  I could go on if you'd like.\

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

No, explain.

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?

Herein lies the crux of many arguments on this forum.  I put the chum out and the former-fundys bite like ravening wolves on a plump lamb.  Where have I said ANYTHING about an era of worship?  Where have I said ANYTHING about the 1950s?  You assume that because you have left that style of fundamentalism in the dust, and every chance you get to rail on that boogeyman you impose such a caricature on others.  Does Macarthur advocate such nostalgia?  Mohler?  Mahaney?  No, they don't, but you'd foist your canard onto them if they raised the notion of improper methods of pragmatic philosophical worship.

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

So I was supposed to read your mind, and know you were talking about another thread that we hadn't previously discussed in this one?  Gotcha.

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.

No, being relevant, as in having an understanding of what the moral pulse and zeitgeist of the culture is important, as I'm sure that most conservatives like the one in the OP and Carson would advocate, but bringing in questionable pagan philosophical practices into the body of believers in order to reach the lost is a backwards model for how to do church.

 

[ALAYMAN]

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. 

You're such a loser, but at least you you're good at it. 

I rest my case.

Translation: "I got jack, so I'll deliver my best junior high comeback".

Hey ALAMEMAN, show me where Perry Noble and Joel Osteen criticize folks for NOT worshiping the way they worship, as opposed to those who criticize folks for not following their perceived "Biblical models of authorized worship".

I might not agree with how others worship, but I have NO problem with letting them worship however they want.  What I DO have a bad problem with is folks telling others how they should worship....and fundies are notorious for that.

Well, you've got no problems with people praying to Mary, or making prayers for the dead.  You're such a pious individual, moreso than the Apostle Paul who told us to mark the heretics.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]


It should be odd that Alayman would be more critical of another ("independent" *cough, cough*) church's style of worship than people would are more liturgically minded (e.g. you, myself, a few others).
[/quote]

Independence is no blanket exemption from being marked for heresy.  To have to state such obvious things is an insult to even the most simple evangelical principles.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]
I think the same could be said of Paul, who appealed to the Greek philosophers when preaching to the Greeks in Athens. Of course, Paul was probably the only Apostle who was familiar with the Greek philosophers. (Luke, the Greek-trained physician and historian, probably was as well, but he wasn't an Apostle).
[/quote]

Was Paul advocating that poetry to be used in worship?  Was the venue that you refer to an ecclesiastical context?  Is it fair to use such evangelical texts out of context in a discussion about proper worship practices?

 

[rsc2a]

P.S.: Btw, no, I don't think Highway to Hell is appropriate church music, though I do think it's great classic rock. I don't know anything else about Perry Noble or his church.

I think it was probably dumb because of the controversy it caused, but after hearing Noble explain why they did it, I can understand somewhat. Still think it was dumb, but I do understand his reasoning.

And I don't have a problem with Joel Osteen's style of worship, though I do have a problem with his lack of content other than prosperity gospel and New Thought self-help messages.

I agree (mostly). I've said this before:

And the thing is I don't think what Osteen is preaching is necessarily bad.

I'm not a fan of his prosperity-lite message at all, but Osteen's biggest problem (from what I recall) is his extreme unbalance when it comes to his topics. It's all ponies and unicorns and fairy dust and no cross, blood, and sin.

I think he would be fine to listen to for more discerning folks but a)they likely wouldn't listen to him because he's all milk and no meat and b)he definitely shouldn't be all someone listens to.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]


It should be odd that Alayman would be more critical of another ("independent" *cough, cough*) church's style of worship than people would are more liturgically minded (e.g. you, myself, a few others).

Independence is no blanket exemption from being marked for heresy.  To have to state such obvious things is an insult to even the most simple evangelical principles.
[/quote]

Differing worship philosophies do not qualify as "heresy". 

 

[ALAYMAN]

I have nothing, ZERO, nada, to prove...

We know... we have uncovered that fact.

Just like we uncovered the fact that you did "expository" work on Acts 5 and all you did was copy and paste from Strongs.

And from such selective word twisting you continue to earn your badge of dishonor.

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Izdaari]
I think the same could be said of Paul, who appealed to the Greek philosophers when preaching to the Greeks in Athens. Of course, Paul was probably the only Apostle who was familiar with the Greek philosophers. (Luke, the Greek-trained physician and historian, probably was as well, but he wasn't an Apostle).

Was Paul advocating that poetry to be used in worship?[/quote]

Not on that occasion. But he quoted poetry/song lyrics that were used in worship, so it's a reasonable guess he was ok with it.

Was the venue that you refer to an ecclesiastical context?

Nope, it was an evangelical context, public forum preaching like what the Greek philosophers themselves did. Very relevant of him, fit right into what the Greeks were used to.

Is it fair to use such evangelical texts out of context in a discussion about proper worship practices?

I don't see why not, since we all know Paul's context on that occasion.

 

[Izdaari]

Well, you've got no problems with people praying to Mary, or making prayers for the dead.  You're such a pious individual, moreso than the Apostle Paul who told us to mark the heretics.

How do we know that? Is he Catholic?

Though my new church is liturgical, we are not Catholic and those are not our practices.

 

[rsc2a]

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.)

Whatever buddy.  You talk in circles.

You refuse to read. Case in point....

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

Well, if you'd connect your thoughts to what the OP was talking about, and then explain how he violated whatever syncretistic model you're advocating, then we'd have something to talk about.  Til then, you're tilting at windmills of your own invention, as you brought those concepts to the table.

I haven't advocated for any particular model. I have basically said two things: the presumption in Carson's comment relies on a sacred/secular divide that is non-existent and you cannot discuss sectarianism in any meaningful sense without also discussing syncretism (as you are wanting to do).

Oh yeah...I've also pointed out that you misrepresented what the original author was saying and didn't provide any links to make this evident.

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

Did the OP specifically mention either of those?  Did I?  There you go again, making strawmen up to knock down.

Yes...

...program, entertainment, excitement, music...

...slow down...read more thoroughly.

I will say, "tackling" the second you mentioned, that the church is to glorify God in worship, making Him the center of adoration in the gospel as its primary focus.  In that gospel we proclaim what He has done and the effects of His work, which will inevitably address people's hurts and consequences of sin.  But the direction and emphasis of the preaching is Christ and His works, not our needs.  Our needs is addressed as a byproduct of His accomplishment.  The "seeker churches" that make felt needs the center-focus are at best detracting from the Lordship of Christ, pimping Him out like some Jeanie in a bottle.

Wow...I guess Jesus had it all wrong.

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

You don't think that there are churches that attract people using carnal means, and not using the gospel?

Yeah...and those churches are generally preaching a works-based righteousness, talking about how you shouldn't listen to certain music, watch certain movies, drink certain beverages, etc... 

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".

Used "Highway to Hell" as an Easter "hook"?  Yes, and a whole lot more than just Noble's church do stunts like that.  Pastor Ed Young Jr uses visual stunts and tricks like preaching a series on sex from a bed in his church.  I could go on if you'd like.\

By claiming it was a "hook", you demonstrate that you haven't actually heard his explanation. And how was what Young did "profane", "vulgar speech" or "irreverent cultural trappings"?

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

No, explain.

You are claiming *this* part of creation is sacred and *this* part of creation is secular. You do it with "Sabbath"; I'm not surprised you do it here.

Herein lies the crux of many arguments on this forum.  I put the chum out and the former-fundys bite like ravening wolves on a plump lamb.

So you admit to trolling? Ransom will love this.

Where have I said ANYTHING about an era of worship?  Where have I said ANYTHING about the 1950s?  You assume that because you have left that style of fundamentalism in the dust, and every chance you get to rail on that boogeyman you impose such a caricature on others. 

When all of your standards of "decent" come from the 1950's, you don't actually have to say anything about the 1950's.

Does Macarthur advocate such nostalgia?  Mohler?  Mahaney?  No, they don't, but you'd foist your canard onto them if they raised the notion of improper methods of pragmatic philosophical worship.

I'd ask them where their Biblical support is, same as I've asked you.

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

So I was supposed to read your mind, and know you were talking about another thread that we hadn't previously discussed in this one?  Gotcha.

No...I was just pointing out your double standard.

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.

No, being relevant, as in having an understanding of what the moral pulse and zeitgeist of the culture is important, as I'm sure that most conservatives like the one in the OP and Carson would advocate, but bringing in questionable pagan philosophical practices into the body of believers in order to reach the lost is a backwards model for how to do church.

Remember that "irony" statement....repeat it.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]


It should be odd that Alayman would be more critical of another ("independent" *cough, cough*) church's style of worship than people would are more liturgically minded (e.g. you, myself, a few others).

Independence is no blanket exemption from being marked for heresy.  To have to state such obvious things is an insult to even the most simple evangelical principles.

Differing worship philosophies do not qualify as "heresy". 
[/quote]

Yes, in some case it is, like substituting "another gospel" like the prosperity gospel for the gospel of the cross.

 

[FSSL]

I have nothing, ZERO, nada, to prove...

We know... we have uncovered that fact.

Just like we uncovered the fact that you did "expository" work on Acts 5 and all you did was copy and paste from Strongs.

And from such selective word twisting you continue to earn your badge of dishonor.

LOL! I bet that is going to be one very long and boring sermon tonight! You can spot an unprepared preacher by the length of his ramblings.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]
Not on that occasion. But he quoted poetry/song lyrics that were used in worship, so it's a reasonable guess he was ok with it.[/quote]

Paul's tone and tenor was that of one calling them to stop being ignorant of the true God, and to repentance.  He was in effect, through rhetoric, mocking them and saying that they should know better than to fall for such idolatrous practices.

Nope, it was an evangelical context, public forum preaching like what the Greek philosophers themselves did. Very relevant of him, fit right into what the Greeks were used to.

"Fitting in" so that he might gain a platform to preach Christ to them is quite different than sanctioning their modes and objects of worship wouldn't ya say?

I don't see why not, since we all know Paul's context on that occasion.

What do you mean?  His context was, in effect, apologetics and open air evangelism to pagans.  How is that analagous to the mode, model, and mission of the assembly of believers?

If Paul had quoted one of their temple prostitutes in poetry, and the quote regarded their "trade", would that be a positive normative acceptable worship practice too?