Thoughts on church worldliness and "relevance"

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=FSSL]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.
[/quote]

lol, keep on braying, jackass.

 

[Fresh Air]

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.

You mean there is no such thing as a wrong way to worship? Certainly you must hold that there is, and if there is, it is then appropriate for me to teach/preach the right way and call attention to the wrong way by way of distinction and warning. I realize we might disagree over precisely what the wrong way to worship is, but I don't see how we can possibly disagree that there are wrong ways to worship.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]
How do we know that? Is he Catholic?

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

He's former fundy turned Methodist, when he feels like going. 

The comment was in regards to his intimation that he don't care how other people worships, and consequently he ain't going to speak about error in other people's worship, other than to say "he don't like it".  That's just patently stupid.  Truth is exclusive.  Gross error ought to be identified wherever it is.

 

[rsc2a]

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.

I would love to see that exegetical support.

"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?

Kinda like Noble playing Highway to Hell...  :

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?

I see quite a few similarities there. 

 

[Fresh Air]

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

No, I don't realize that. I do realize He is concerned with both. If we worship according to strict particulars but our heart is not right we are pharisaical. If we worship with sincere motives but not according to exactly what He decrees we are just as wrong. Israel was sincere when they put the Ark on the new cart, but they were wrong. Uzzah was (I'm assuming) sincere when he touched it but he was wrong. The woman at the well was sincere in her worship toward Mt. Gerizim, but she was wrong. It isn't an either/or thing. It is a both thing.

The Beatles were drug-addicted, sex-soaked, demon-possessed promoters of the world, the flesh, and the devil. I don't care who/how you sing their portfolio, you can't redeem it.

It is a matter of the heart...but it isn't only a matter of the heart.

 

[rsc2a]

Differing worship philosophies do not qualify as "heresy". 

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

Are you the only one that's making it into your version of Heaven?

 

[rsc2a]

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

No, I don't realize that. I do realize He is concerned with both. If we worship according to strict particulars but our heart is not right we are pharisaical. If we worship with sincere motives but not according to exactly what He decrees we are just as wrong.

Where do you find that for the modern church?

The Beatles were drug-addicted, sex-soaked, demon-possessed promoters of the world, the flesh, and the devil. I don't care who/how you sing their portfolio, you can't redeem it.

It is a matter of the heart...but it isn't only a matter of the heart.

You don't think celebrating beautiful music is worship (regardless of the source of the music)? Who do you think created music? Who made it so that those sounds put together in that order would be beautiful?

The same applies to chicken wings, sex, hot showers, and the smell of cut grass. By acknowledging those things as good gifts from the Creator God, you are worshipping Him.

 

[FSSL]

Are you the only one that's making it into your version of Heaven?

Heaven...

Strong's Greek: 3772. οὐρανός (ouranos)

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a] Are you the only one that's making it into your version of Heaven?
[/quote]

Me and you buddy.


And I ain't too sure about you.

You don't think celebrating beautiful music is worship (regardless of the source of the music)? Who do you think created music? Who made it so that those sounds put together in that order would be beautiful?

The same applies to chicken wings, sex, hot showers, and the smell of cut grass. By acknowledging those things as good gifts from the Creator God, you are worshipping Him.

Well, the next time you gather at church, git ya some chicken wings, take a hot shower, smoke some grass, and have some sex.  You know, the usual stuff for libs. :O

 

[El Cid]

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.

You are the one that made a stupid remark about just part of an article being posted.  If people always posted whole articles hardly anyone would read them.  Maybe you should think next time before you post. 

 

[rsc2a]

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.

You are the one that made a stupid remark about just part of an article being posted.  If people always posted whole articles hardly anyone would read them.  Maybe you should think next time before you post.

I have no problem with people citing parts of an article, but they should not cite them in such a way as to misrepresent what the authors were stating.



If there was an article where the authors said (in fact it was their major point) that eating three boxes of doughnuts for lunch is a horrible idea, but if you're going to do it, you should only pick Krispy Kremes...

...and you cited a portion that made it look like the authors were saying you should only pick Krispy Kreme doughnuts for lunch, then you have been dishonest with the intent of the article.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

R2D2 wrote,
"You don't think celebrating beautiful music is worship (regardless of the source of the music)? Who do you think created music? Who made it so that those sounds put together in that order would be beautiful?

The same applies to chicken wings, sex, hot showers, and the smell of cut grass. By acknowledging those things as good gifts from the Creator God, you are worshipping Him."

God didn't create sin.  The Beatles got their music from their father, the Devil, who is very musical.  Do I need to post the scriptures concerning Satan?  God created Satan, do you worship him.  He has been called very beautiful.  Aligning God with sinful music is an insult to God, imo.  The scriptures give us very clear directions concerning music, and it doesn't include the Beatles.  Ephesians 5:19 (NASB)
19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;

Somehow, I don't think Helter SKelter qualifies as godly music.

All the things you mentioned can be good things.  But they can be sin as well.  Men lying with other men, women with women is sex, but it ain't good in God's eyes.  Be careful with your talk so you don't blaspheme the Lord.

 

[standingtall]

Not worth the effort....

 

[ALAYMAN]

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.

There you go again.  First of all, you specifically interjected "CCM" into the expression of the author (whereas his intent was obviously MUCH broader in scope than limiting music to Gregorian chants or 1950s Cathedrals hymns).  Second, the context of those things he mentioned was clearly qualified as "secular", like bringing in the Doobie Brothers music as a prelude to the service for mood enhancement, ala Saddleback.  Or making the Harry Potter or Star Wars movie the theme of your sermons.  As you and FSSL have been wont to do, you subtly changed the meaning of his words and put words in his mouth that he never intended.

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

Maybe you simply misunderstand Jesus, and tis you that have it wrong.

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... 

Nice dodge.  The point is that carnal means attract carnal men.  It's the foolishness of preaching that convertst the soul, unless you believe that people get saved apart from hearing the word.  Oh, wait a minute, I see one of the problem you're having.

By claiming it was a "hook", you demonstrate that you haven't actually heard his explanation.

Go ahead and rationalize, err, explain how it was acceptable to play Highway to Hell in an worship service to the Lord Jesus Christ. 

And how was what Young did "profane", "vulgar speech" or "irreverent cultural trappings"?

I could cite my conservative "fundy" opinions, but you'd poison the well with them so, from the squishy Christianity Today...

Yet as we know, good intentions are not enough. There's no reason to be dour or straight faced when talking about sex, yet ploys of this sort invariably distract from the seriousness of the message.

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.

Nope, again, I'm claiming some things are appropriate in the right context and not in others.  Sex is good in private, not so much in public.  The appropriate place for the right activity.  Entertainment and amusement have no place supplanting the living word of God.

So you admit to trolling? Ransom will love this.

What are you, his toadie?  He's famous for talking about subjects like booze as being "fundy porn".  Well, regulated worship discussions are apparently "evagellyfish porn".  Goose and gander, ya know.

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

You're long on allegations, short on evidence.  Not one time has anything been suggested as normative from the 1950's, but keep saying that lie to yourself until you believe it.

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

Same as before, repeating a lie or inaccuracy doesn't make it so.

 

[ALAYMAN]

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

...speaking of junior high comebacks....

I try to speak in a mono-syllabic style for you, but it ain't easy talkin' your language lil' fella.

Problem is, everyone who doesn't follow your "biblical model of authorized worship" is marked as a heretic by you.  Ummm...I'm not the one acting all pious....

Well, I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.  If Osteen doesn't want to be called a heretic then maybe he shouldn't say that Mormons and Christians serve the same God.  But just like the Mariolatry and Proxy Baptism for the Dead, you roll that way, Mr. Non-Pious.

 

[Fresh Air]

You don't think celebrating beautiful music is worship (regardless of the source of the music)? Who do you think created music? Who made it so that those sounds put together in that order would be beautiful?

God made musical notes and God made all the letters of the alphabet too, but that doesn't mean that every single way they are put together is godly, beautiful, and edifying. The very fact that the NT twice explicitly refers to 'spiritual songs' strongly implies there are other types of songs, namely, unspiritual ones. So I was correct at the beginning, even though you tried to throw me off. Your position that 'Amazing Grace' and the Beatles are spiritually equal IS atrocious - atrociously unscriptural.

...after watching you on this forum for a couple of months I've come to the unvarnished conclusion that you are a walking spiritual disaster.

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

[brianb]

Seeker-sensitive is primarily about attracting the unchurched - nothing wrong with that - in fact that is what we do without evening trying.  Most if not all new members in the past couple of years have been people who have had no church background or were not previously saved. Unchurched people can be the most faithful members a church can ever have because there is not a chance that they will compare your church with another church or leave the church for another church. They also tend to have more unsaved friends (kind of the like the apostle Matthew) than life-long church people who may come to church such as for that new convert's baptism - in this way they hear the gospel and the truth whereas they would not otherwise.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Did someone post a link to the OP's article?
Sorry if I missed it.......I'd like to read it in context.

Thanks

 

[rsc2a]

God didn't create sin.  The Beatles got their music from their father, the Devil, who is very musical.  Do I need to post the scriptures concerning Satan?  God created Satan, do you worship him.  He has been called very beautiful.  Aligning God with sinful music is an insult to God, imo.  The scriptures give us very clear directions concerning music, and it doesn't include the Beatles.  Ephesians 5:19 (NASB)
19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;

Somehow, I don't think Helter SKelter qualifies as godly music.

Can you give me a definition for "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" and "godly music"?

All the things you mentioned can be good things.  But they can be sin as well.  Men lying with other men, women with women is sex, but it ain't good in God's eyes.  Be careful with your talk so you don't blaspheme the Lord.

No...those things cannot be sin. Sin is not a "thing"; it is a "do" (not limiting it to a physical "do"). All of God's creation is good. When we corrupt the uses for which God intended them, we sin. Those things do not become sin.

 

[rsc2a]

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

It's not a sacred/secular divide, but rather an appropriateness/reverence issue.  Not everything that one would do in public, or your home, is fit for corporate worship (case in point, your ignorant analogy of worship relating to sex, chicken wings, and cutting grass).

Their own words show the falseness of your claim...

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

And, for the record, everything I mentioned (sex, chicken wings, cutting grass) can be (and should be) a cause of worship. And, just to point out, I didn't say we should bring every activity into a corporate setting, but all of them can result in corporate worship.

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.

You can't have it both ways.  The author was saying that there is an appropriateness in going into the public sphere ("secular") that isn't appropriate to bring into worship.  He further was stating that those elements of the secular that might be acceptable in their proper venue, whether entertainment, amusement, etc, they don't have the same place in the church.  AC/DC, as much as you liberals want to argue is "art", has no place in the worship of the Savior.

Doubling down on the sacred/secular divide, I see.

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.

There you go again.  First of all, you specifically interjected "CCM" into the expression of the author (whereas his intent was obviously MUCH broader in scope than limiting music to Gregorian chants or 1950s Cathedrals hymns).  Second, the context of those things he mentioned was clearly qualified as "secular", like bringing in the Doobie Brothers music as a prelude to the service for mood enhancement, ala Saddleback.  Or making the Harry Potter or Star Wars movie the theme of your sermons.  As you and FSSL have been wont to do, you subtly changed the meaning of his words and put words in his mouth that he never intended.

Ok...please enlighten me...what kind of music is generally played at SS churches?

Also, you're again parroting that un-Biblical sacred/secular divide.

And, if you realized that everything in creation is a shadow and a mirror of Christ, you wouldn't criticize those churches for making Harry Potter or Star Wars a theme in your sermons. (Christ is the theme.) There is nothing wrong with using current cultural illustrations to show how everything ultimately points us to Jesus, albeit imperfectly. When I last preached, from introduction to conclusion, I used the illustration of building a house. Would you criticize that as well? What's the difference?

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

Maybe you simply misunderstand Jesus, and tis you that have it wrong.

Jesus didn't meet felt-needs? I suggest you re-read the gospels.

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... 

Nice dodge.  The point is that carnal means attract carnal men.  It's the foolishness of preaching that convertst the soul, unless you believe that people get saved apart from hearing the word.  Oh, wait a minute, I see one of the problem you're having.

And Pharisaical standards attract Pharisees. What's your point?

As a bonus, who is promoting carnal means? Perhaps you are referring to Paul's little occurrence of quoting pagan poetry to get his point across?

By claiming it was a "hook", you demonstrate that you haven't actually heard his explanation.

Go ahead and rationalize, err, explain how it was acceptable to play Highway to Hell in an worship service to the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Just an acknowledgment that you are judging him without even bothering to listen to his explanation is fine. 

And how was what Young did "profane", "vulgar speech" or "irreverent cultural trappings"?

I could cite my conservative "fundy" opinions, but you'd poison the well with them so, from the squishy Christianity Today...

Yet as we know, good intentions are not enough. There's no reason to be dour or straight faced when talking about sex, yet ploys of this sort invariably distract from the seriousness of the message.

I really think you need to re-read that article because it's not making the point you think it's making. Granted, how you treated the article you cited in the OP, I'm not surprised.

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.

Nope, again, I'm claiming some things are appropriate in the right context and not in others.  Sex is good in private, not so much in public.  The appropriate place for the right activity.

And celebrating all those activities is appropriate in public. 

Entertainment and amusement have no place supplanting the living word of God.

Perhaps entertainment and amusement is another way God speaks to us. 

(I'll not beat you up with verses proving my point.)