Thoughts on church worldliness and "relevance"

[rsc2a]

What's wrong with etymological explanation of meaning, particularly in this case?  rsc2a didn't address it either, but the concept of entertainment and amusement is an integral component of the particularly egregious seeker types.  The gospel is not to be a distraction, or detracted from, but rather center stage in evagelical worship.  And the gospel is primarily about sin and redemption, not meeting felt needs and other self-esteem psychological appeasement.

As is usually the case, poisoning the well with epithets like "fundy" only serves to illustrate that your bias in this matter stems from an over-reaction or over-correction on your part from what you came out of.  Simply because I stand against a pragmatic philosophy doesn't mean that I spew party lines.  Some things people believe come from actual thought-out convictions, not merely regurgitation.  I am the type of  person who loathes group-think.  My maverick tendencies won't allow my conscience to "go along to get along", and that truth prevents me from blending in with the likes of the FFF prevailing temperature that folk like you put forth.  Is Sproul, Mohler, and Zacharias "fundy's" too?

By the way, you obfuscated, again, and didn't answer the question that was most salient to your "etymology" derision.  What's wrong with word studies, particularly relating to the notiont that "amusement" has no place in the somber and reverent life and death matter of preaching the gospel??

Several points:

I did address what you said. I'll repost it for you here:

Having said that, it appears to me that your model of evangelism doesn't match the basic premise/model of what our obligations to the lost (and conversely, to the church) are.  Can you show me in Scriptures where the invitation to the assembly of believers (contrary to your "Welcome", bolded below)  is extended evangelistically to the lost?

You do know "church" is not primarily for non-believers, right?  :-\




Also, exegesis is much more than a simple word study. In fact, if you only do a word study without understanding the cultural context of the original writing, it's likely to result in erroneous thinking, especially if your "word study" consists of breaking the word down to its etymological roots. I believe Carson actually calls it the "etymological root fallacy".

In order to be exegetically sound, you need to read...a lot...a lot. You need to read the Bible You need to read histories. You need to read biographies. You need to read mythologies. You need to read ancient religious writings. You need to read various commentaries on the passage in question, commentaries from a variety of sources including very old commentaries. 

You need to have an understanding of the meta-narrative. You need to know what it was like to be a Jew during the Roman occupation. You need to "feel" what Jeremiah felt as he watched Jerusalem get destroyed. (Lamentations) You need to understand what the accounts in Genesis and Exodus would have looked like to a tiny nomadic nation where kings were gods, monotheism was unheard of, and survival (from famine, warfare, banditry, wild animals, disease...) was a full-time occupation.

Personally, I've read...

- very detailed accounts of what Jewish life would have been like when Jesus walked the earth.
- various writings about the Canaanite, Egyptian, Sumerian / Babylonian, and Roman religions.
- ANE historical surveys.
- parts of several Midrashes, Targums, etc
- various Jewish documents from the time of the Captivity (e.g a marriage contract)
- patristic letters (letters from Church fathers written between 100-300 AD)
- modern writings describing various doctrinal aspects that are extremely important to grasp exegetically (e.g. covenants, the meta-narrative, kingdom, etc)
- commentaries from a very wide variety of sources*. (For example, I'll be ordering this and supplementing it with everything from official Catholic doctrine to Orthodox commentaries to Tim LaHaye to Rob Bell.)

* The objective here is to at least be aware of viewpoints other than your own preconceived ones when you begin to study. Some viewpoints may be ridiculous, but even these may bring other questions to mind that you haven't considered. Reading very old commentaries removes the eisegetical baggage our modern culture attaches to Scripture, so I try to include some of those. It also acts as a check to prevent you from going into heresy. If all the commentaries are pointing one direction and you are going the other, the likeliest answer is that you are the one that is wrong.

...and I still haven't read enough.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=FSSL]
I doubt they would have left out half of the point as you did in your OP. Fundies like to focus on the negatives and "thou shalt nots" like you consistently do... [/quote]

You obviously didn't listen to the clip, as Sproul and Mohler "negatively" dismantled the seeker sensitive paradigm, without staggering, stuttering, or equivocation.  Of course in your jaded view, that makes them "fundies", merely because they dare to speak about error.

I answered it but you are too dense to read and understand why I used the word "butterfly" to show you the fallacy of etymology.

The discussion of the etymology of amusement does nothing to prove your point because the CONTEXT and type of amusement can make it either moral or immoral.

So any etymological word study is naturally a root fallacy in every case?

How ridiculous and superfluous is your overly broad point when considered in light of the specific question I asked about the nature of the meaning of amusement as relating to the OP usage of "amusement".

amusement
c.1600, "diversion of attention," especially in military actions, from Fr. amusement, noun of action from amuser (see amuse).
And because all bold and irreverent Speeches touching matters of high nature, and all malicious and false Reports tending to Sedition, or to the Amusement of Our People, are punishable ... (etc.) [Charles II, Proclamation of Oct. 26, 1688]
Meaning "a pastime, play, game, anything which pleasantly diverts the attention" (from duty, work, etc.) is from 1670s, originally depreciative; meaning "pleasurable diversion" attested from 1690s. Amusement hall is from 1862; amusement park first recorded 1897.

How is such an explanation fallacious regarding the meaning of "distraction", which is essentially what the OP is speaking of?

 

[rsc2a]

So any etymological word study is naturally a root fallacy in every case?

No.

[quote author=ALAYMAN] How ridiculous and superfluous is your overly broad point when considered in light of the specific question I asked about the nature of the meaning of amusement as relating to the OP usage of "amusement".

amusement
c.1600, "diversion of attention," especially in military actions, from Fr. amusement, noun of action from amuser (see amuse).
And because all bold and irreverent Speeches touching matters of high nature, and all malicious and false Reports tending to Sedition, or to the Amusement of Our People, are punishable ... (etc.) [Charles II, Proclamation of Oct. 26, 1688]
Meaning "a pastime, play, game, anything which pleasantly diverts the attention" (from duty, work, etc.) is from 1670s, originally depreciative; meaning "pleasurable diversion" attested from 1690s. Amusement hall is from 1862; amusement park first recorded 1897.

How is such an explanation fallacious regarding the meaning of "distraction", which is essentially what the OP is speaking of?
[/quote]

*sigh*

First, notice what I bolded. Second...



amusement  (əˈmjuːzmənt)

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a] I did address what you said. I'll repost it for you here:
You really should read the Bible more. In fact, I'd probably start with Ecclesiastes if you are interested in this particular topic. If that is too weighty, you can read in the Pentateuch about the festivals. If you'd rather see more of Jesus, there is the wedding at Cana, all those parties Jesus attended, and pretty much every heavenly scene in Revelation.[/quote]

Explain how the passages you invoke relate to "amusement" and "entertainment", particularly in the worship of God during corporate assembly.

Not only that, but I don't think you even know what "etymology" means. Etymology is the "study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time." So, for you to say...

Look up the root words and etymology of amusement, then tell me how it fits into any concept of a Scriptural sermon, other than to give admonition to avoid it in the proclamation of the gospel.

...shows that you are completely ignorant of the concept. I don't care if "amusement" originally mean "offering virgin sacrifices to Satan while acknowledging him as ruler of all". That would no longer be the meaning to I would be free to use the modern definition without any of the baggage that you would associate with it. Do you not have any clue about how many words have changed over time, often to mean the exact opposite of what they originally meant? (Hint: "awful")

The origninal meaning, essentially a "distraction" is the same meaning as today in essence, and *that* certainly is how the OP authors were using it.  That is the point of my statement.  You are trying to advocate for the use of entertainment and amusement in <corporate> worship, and the authors are speaking of those things/distractions/amusements should not be taking an unwarranted proportion or worse yet, preimminence in the corporate gathering of the church.

Secondly, you have an extremely limited view of the Gospel. Penal substitutionary atonement is but one aspect of what Christ accomplished.

In what ways are my view of the gospel deficient?  Specifically, relating to the context of the conversation, what elements of the gospel am I ignorant of as relating to the core of the gospel as it is to be proclaimed to believers in the assembly?

Thirdly, for you to say that  "...doesn't mean I spew party lines..." and...

I am the type of  person who loathes group-think.  My maverick tendencies won't allow my conscience to "go along to get along", and that truth prevents me from blending in with the likes of the FFF prevailing temperature that folk like you put forth.

...only to list a bunch of people who you agree with is pretty amusing.

As usual, you contort the context to suit your twisted agenda.  FSSL had used an ad hominem argument (which is quite humorous and ironic since he screams"ad hominem" at me like a little school girl everytime his feelings get stepped on) and claimed that I am displaying "fundy" tendencies (due to my aversion to supplanting primary and authorized Biblical models of worship with modern styles of felt-needs pop-psychological seduction and marketing techniques).  Around the FFF the term "fundy" is generally understood to be a pejorative that lumps an individual in with anti-intellectualism and associates people with the loopy hyper-separatist camps of Hyles/Gray/BJU.  But the men I mentioned are in squarely with intellectual elites, don't kow-tow to American "fundy" dogma of isolationist views of culture, and in no way represent the normal use of "fundy" except to liberals and people from the likes of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

So, if you're still keeping up, he used the term "fundy" to inaccurately caricature my position.  Secondly, and more to the point, my pointing to men from a variety of backgrounds in the evangelical spectrum (Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Missionary Alliance) only served to strengthen the point I was making that such men aren't into group think, aren't limited to "camps" of insular theologic discourse, and find commonality in their philosophical outlook in respect to fighting the Finney-esque pragmatism ineherent to much of the Seeker Sensitive model.

[quote author=rsc2a]

I fixed your statement for you. [/quote]

No, you again twist Carson's words to mean something you'd rather that they mean.  His point, and the author of the link/excerpt in the OP is that we are to meet people where they are (similar to Paul at Mars Hill) but that we are to not take on their mind as regarding the structure of our worship.  Paul confronted the Athenians in their idolatry after quoting their poets by telling them to repent of their idolatry and believe on the one and true God.  That model is generally anathema to the lifestyle/seeker types.

You do know "church" is not primarily for non-believers, right?  :-\

Exactly right, which was clearly my point in the question to MagneticFields.  Which is why we don't structure our worship so as to accomodate pagan practices and philosophies, and don't seek to start with man as the center of our gathering, but look Godward to the gospel for our praise, adoration, supplication, and thanks.  That's not just the preachers job in proclaiming the gospel, but the minds of the hearers are to be actively engaged in worship as they hear the living word.

Also, exegesis is much more than a simple word study. In fact, if you only do a word study...<snip>

...and I still haven't read enough.

More presumption on your part.  Good on you for educating yourself to properly study context.  *If* I had suggested ANYWHERE that exegesis merely consisted of looking at a Websters dictionary, Strongs, and doing an etymological word study your rambling diatribe would have some salient target, but since I have nowhere asserted what exegesis should look like, your point is nothing more than pompous grandstanding to stroke your ego, or at best impertinent information tangential to the conversation. 

Remember, the point for asking you to do a word study was not to demonstrate an exegetical understanding of some Biblical passage, but rather a request that you support the idea from Scripture that "amusement" could be found as a valid technique as a major component in the proclamation of the gospel in the assembly of the saints.

 

[ALAYMAN]

So any etymological word study is naturally a root fallacy in every case?

No.

[quote author=ALAYMAN] How ridiculous and superfluous is your overly broad point when considered in light of the specific question I asked about the nature of the meaning of amusement as relating to the OP usage of "amusement".

amusement
c.1600, "diversion of attention," especially in military actions, from Fr. amusement, noun of action from amuser (see amuse).
And because all bold and irreverent Speeches touching matters of high nature, and all malicious and false Reports tending to Sedition, or to the Amusement of Our People, are punishable ... (etc.) [Charles II, Proclamation of Oct. 26, 1688]
Meaning "a pastime, play, game, anything which pleasantly diverts the attention" (from duty, work, etc.) is from 1670s, originally depreciative; meaning "pleasurable diversion" attested from 1690s. Amusement hall is from 1862; amusement park first recorded 1897.

How is such an explanation fallacious regarding the meaning of "distraction", which is essentially what the OP is speaking of?

*sigh*

First, notice what I bolded. Second...



amusement  (əˈmjuːzmənt)

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a] I did address what you said. I'll repost it for you here:
You really should read the Bible more. In fact, I'd probably start with Ecclesiastes if you are interested in this particular topic. If that is too weighty, you can read in the Pentateuch about the festivals. If you'd rather see more of Jesus, there is the wedding at Cana, all those parties Jesus attended, and pretty much every heavenly scene in Revelation.

Explain how the passages you invoke relate to "amusement" and "entertainment", particularly in the worship of God during corporate assembly.[/quote]

Sacred/secular divide again. You can't say "church", "home", "work", "play", etc... and call one aspect holy (i.e. "set apart") and the other not...

...not if you want to maintain Biblical integrity.

And, directly to your point, Ecclesiastes says good food and good wine with good friends is a holy thing...probably about ten times actually.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]The origninal meaning, essentially a "distraction" is the same meaning as today in essence, and *that* certainly is how the OP authors were using it.  That is the point of my statement.  You are trying to advocate for the use of entertainment and amusement in <corporate> worship, and the authors are speaking of those things/distractions/amusements should not be taking an unwarranted proportion or worse yet, preimminence in the corporate gathering of the church.[/quote]

No, it's not. Solid Biblical illustrations can be amusing, and instead of distracting from the message, they reinforce it. 

And your own words betray you...the article doesn't even use the word "amusement".

Also, you aren't arguing for the same thing if the authors are saying "things/distractions/amusements should not be taking an unwarranted proportion or worse yet, preimminence in the corporate gathering" because you have lambasted ALL amusement.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Secondly, you have an extremely limited view of the Gospel. Penal substitutionary atonement is but one aspect of what Christ accomplished.

In what ways are my view of the gospel deficient?  Specifically, relating to the context of the conversation, what elements of the gospel am I ignorant of as relating to the core of the gospel as it is to be proclaimed to believers in the assembly?[/quote]

Christus victor for one. (And that one is huge.)



[quote author=ALAYMAN]But the men I mentioned are in squarely with intellectual elites, don't kow-tow to American "fundy" dogma of isolationist views of culture, and in no way represent the normal use of "fundy" except to liberals and people from the likes of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

So, if you're still keeping up, he used the term "fundy" to inaccurately caricature my position.  Secondly, and more to the point, my pointing to men from a variety of backgrounds in the evangelical spectrum (Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Missionary Alliance) only served to strengthen the point I was making that such men aren't into group think, aren't limited to "camps" of insular theologic discourse, and find commonality in their philosophical outlook in respect to fighting the Finney-esque pragmatism ineherent to much of the Seeker Sensitive model.[/quote]

So they aren't limited to "camps" except where they are limited to "camps"? And you don't ascribe to group-think, but ascribe to particular thoughts of a group?

Gotcha.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]No, you again twist Carson's words to mean something you'd rather that they mean.  His point, and the author of the link/excerpt in the OP is that we are to meet people where they are (similar to Paul at Mars Hill) but that we are to not take on their mind as regarding the structure of our worship.  Paul confronted the Athenians in their idolatry after quoting their poets by telling them to repent of their idolatry and believe on the one and true God.  That model is generally anathema to the lifestyle/seeker types.[/quote]

I really think you should re-read the article.

I'll put in a couple pieces for you...

Jesus Himself engaged in radical identification with the people of His day in contradistinction to the religious elite who were aloof and condescending to the people. It must also be noticed, however, that He maintained a radical difference of spiritual integrity that made Him unique when compared to either the sinful populace or the self-righteous Pharisee. He was

 

[rsc2a]

1) You are responding to a post I made to FSSL.  I find that somewhat strange.  Are you two related somehow?

Yes, we are fifth cousins, twice removed. Me on my mother's side. Him on his father's. We also both stay in Holiday Inns from time to time.

...or...

it's an internet forum.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]2) "notice what I bolded"....sometimes words don't change a ton over time, and their range of semantical meaning isn't that far from the original usage.  In this case, that's pretty much how it is, and the reason I alluded to the original meaning, your pedantic clamoring about the <alleged> improper use of the word notwithstanding.[/quote]

I'll bet you give "awful" sermons, don't you? 

[quote author=ALAYMAN]If it tickles your fancy, just resort to your propensity to use the strike feature and substitute "orginal meaning" if you like.[/quote]

Except the original article never uses the word "amusement". Doh!

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Once you are done quibbling about minutia, then you could actually address the substance of the point, that "amusemnt"/distraction ought not to be a part of the somber responsibility of preaching and hearing the gospel.
[/quote]

To think! Jesus was doing it all wrong!

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]Sacred/secular divide again. You can't say "church", "home", "work", "play", etc... and call one aspect holy (i.e. "set apart") and the other not...

...not if you want to maintain Biblical integrity.[/quote]

Well, if you want to maintain that everything a person does in private worship is valid in public worship go right ahead, but I think most folk understand that the marriage bed is undefiled, but still have enough sense not to talk about the best positions to give the most satisfaction as part of a gospel sermon, so you go ahead and continue on your way and don't make distinctions for proper modes and venues for the differing contexts of worship.

And, directly to your point, Ecclesiastes says good food and good wine with good friends is a holy thing...probably about ten times actually.

And so you think that we ought to have food and wine in the assembly as a matter of regular corporate worship?  Why do you resort so much to OT passages for your bastardizing of NT theological models for church worship?  Do you take a goat to church to sacrifice too?  Normative/descriptive distinctions are our friends.

No, it's not. Solid Biblical illustrations can be amusing, and instead of distracting from the message, they reinforce it. 

Nobody is arguing against that sort of "amusing" use of language to support truth.  The extent of "amusement" however, is a different thing altogether.  You knew that though, but like to shift goalposts and equivocate.  It's how you roll.  Nowhere did I say that humor, excitement, contemporary illustrations, etc, are inappropriate means to convey truth.  What has been asserted in the OP, and throughout, is that the pragmatic philosophy of the SS movement is wrong when it says that we have to accomodate and prop up our corporate worship with bells and whistles so as not to make the pagans uncomfortable in our services. 

The article uses the word entertainment, which is synonymous with amusement.  You sidetrackthe conversation into tedium like a petulant 5 year old off their ritalin.  The point of the discussion relating to amusement and entertainment philosophies being brought into the church is that they are borne out of pragmatism and a wrong-headed approach to evangelism.

Also, you aren't arguing for the same thing if the authors are saying "things/distractions/amusements should not be taking an unwarranted proportion or worse yet, preimminence in the corporate gathering" because you have lambasted ALL amusement.

No, I have not said that amusing teaching tools aren't to be a part of a preacher's sermon.  You foist your canard again.  I've said that amusement via skits, drama, video, wrong music, etc, ought not be a central part of the worship of the saints.  That's what the the OP was about, no matter how much you twist the words of the OP article. 



[QUOTE
Christus victor for one. (And that one is huge.)

I know the term, but don't know how it relates to the discussion, but a quick wikipedia hit reveals...

While largely held only by Eastern Orthodox Christians for much of the last one thousand years, the Christus Victor theory is becoming increasingly popular with both paleo-orthodox evangelicals because of its connection to the early Church fathers, and with liberal Christians and peace churches such as the Anabaptist Mennonites because of its subversive nature, seeing the death of Jesus as an exposure of the cruelty and evil present in the worldly powers that rejected and killed him, and the resurrection as a triumph over these powers. As Marcus Borg writes,

Eastern Orthodox?  Liberals?  Paleo-orthodox-evangelicals??? 

LOL, sounds like you can keep it to yourself and take it to those schmucks to me, just keep it out of Biblical Christian pulpits.

So they aren't limited to "camps" except where they are limited to "camps"? And you don't ascribe to group-think, but ascribe to particular thoughts of a group?

Gotcha.

Commonality = group think now???  lol, you're an idiot, but keep up the display for all to see.

The one thing that unites a good number of people against the seeker sensitive model, in terms of their opposition to its philosophy and fruit, is their reformed principles (regulative principle and such) but I wouldn't expect you to embrace the reformed systematic approach to theological analysis, lol.

I really think you should re-read the article.

I'll put in a couple pieces for you...

Jesus Himself engaged in radical identification with the people of His day in contradistinction to the religious elite who were aloof and condescending to the people. It must also be noticed, however, that He maintained a radical difference of spiritual integrity that made Him unique when compared to either the sinful populace or the self-righteous Pharisee. He was

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
To think! Jesus was doing it all wrong!
[/quote]

Yes, the law-observing Jew who was in the synagogue at each God-appointed time would have rocked out to AC/DC and Samantha Fox in the temple and brought in fertility gods and symbols to show the virtue of proper Biblical love.

 

[FSSL]

Yes, we are fifth cousins, twice removed. Me on my mother's side. Him on his father's. We also both stay in Holiday Inns from time to time.

I am the one with a short leg and an outie for a belly button.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]
To think! Jesus was doing it all wrong!

Yes, the law-observing Jew who was in the synagogue at each God-appointed time would have rocked out to AC/DC and Samantha Fox in the temple and brought in fertility gods and symbols to show the virtue of proper Biblical love.

Wrong question. Would Jesus have used entertainment and amusement as a means of relaying His message? Yes or no?

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
Everything a person does in private worship is valid for celebration in public worship. Again, ever attended a wedding?[/quote]

You mean those things that are sanctioned by God in the Bible?  Yeah, I've been to those.  Have I ever seen the consumation of marriage at a wedding?  Nope.  Your analogy doesn't wash.

Sure. Lots of "church" happens at my dinner table with fellow Christians.

Your fellowship with other believers isn't the same context nor structure as that of the ekklesia. 

I'd hate to use your own words against you. Then again...no, I wouldn't...

Look up the root words and etymology of amusement, then tell me how it fits into any concept of a Scriptural sermon, other than to give admonition to avoid it in the proclamation of the gospel.  The good news is NEVER "amusement".

...you are aware of what "never" means, right? Or should I look up the etymological meaning for you?

Right, and in the context of "entertainment"/"amusement", that sort of thing where a person is expected to be "distracted" ought not occur in the gospel proclamation, ever.  The mind should be actively engaged and challenged through whatever communication is occuring, and it's the gospel that is clearl the model and centrality of the means to sanctification.  They had plenty of drama and dance in Paul's day, yet he NEVER once spoke of it as a model for conveying truth.

You can't even correctly give the main point of the article. How do you know what the discussion is about?

You say it's "balance", which apparently means that a little AC/DC and a little Wesley makes for "balance".  A little leaven spreads through the whole lump.

Also, you aren't arguing for the same thing if the authors are saying "things/distractions/amusements should not be taking an unwarranted proportion or worse yet, preimminence in the corporate gathering" because you have lambasted ALL amusement.


Look up the root words and etymology of amusement, then tell me how it fits into any concept of a Scriptural sermon, other than to give admonition to avoid it in the proclamation of the gospel.  The good news is NEVER "amusement".

Asked and answered.  The difference between using a humorous illustration to point to a truth and disproportionately relying on rabbit trails and constant jokes to fill the air ought to be obvious.  Couple that "entertainment" mentality with some drama, theatrical interpretive dance, and some krunk and you've got something more fit for the Apollo and not the church of God.

...because it's part of your shallow (i.e. "not deep") understanding of the Gospel...

You have yet to prove your assertion on how the Christus Victor is advantageous to your argument, nor have you linked it in any discernable way to the concept of the seeker sensitive paradigm.

But here's an interesting jellyfish article on the subject from Christianity Today again, ....

The Problem with Christus Victor

...those same people also believe in the deity of Christ. In other words, they have truth also, and truth does not rest solely in your mind...

No, Christus Victor is advocated by those folk, Greg Boyd, Rob Bell, etc.  Birds of a feather, ya know.

Roman Catholics believe in the virgin birth, Trinity, and some form of Biblical authority too, but I ain't cozying up to them on Sola Gratia, like some libs are.

I'm a determinist. (Do you know what that means?) And, for you to say you "embrace the reformed systemic approach to theological analysis" and deny the existence of the universal church is absurd.

Just drop the "reformed" label, as they wouldn't walk across the street to pee on you to put the fire out with the baggage you carry.

The article was saying there should be a balance, the very thing you are against.

Asked and answered.  Baloney, if by "balance" you mean that they were advocating bringing the circus into church so as to reach the elephants and monkeys.  You clearly have an agenda and blinders to claim that the article was in any way favoring seeker sensitive methodology of the Warren/Hybels variety.  Heck even Hybles has admitted that such crappola was, well, crappola.

Yeah...define that for me.

What does Paul tell Timothy to do?  Preach the word, not perform drama.  I'd go into more detail, but pearls and pigs and all that.

Wrong question. Would Jesus have used entertainment and amusement as a means of relaying His message? Yes or no?

No, not as defined in the OP, lest you do think that setting up a strippers pole in the sancturary would have been his thang.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]
Everything a person does in private worship is valid for celebration in public worship. Again, ever attended a wedding?

You mean those things that are sanctioned by God in the Bible?  Yeah, I've been to those.  Have I ever seen the consumation of marriage at a wedding?  Nope.  Your analogy doesn't wash.[/quote]

You don't think weddings are a celebration of two becoming one?



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Sure. Lots of "church" happens at my dinner table with fellow Christians.

Your fellowship with other believers isn't the same context nor structure as that of the ekklesia.  [/quote]

Ah! Word study time....what does "ekklesia" mean?

(And, for the record, we had several couples over this weekend where we were hosting a Seder dinner. There was prayer. There was praise. There was teaching. We even partook of Communion. Seems to fit even your very narrow / wrong understanding of what "church" is.)




[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I'd hate to use your own words against you. Then again...no, I wouldn't...

Look up the root words and etymology of amusement, then tell me how it fits into any concept of a Scriptural sermon, other than to give admonition to avoid it in the proclamation of the gospel.  The good news is NEVER "amusement".

...you are aware of what "never" means, right? Or should I look up the etymological meaning for you?

Right, and in the context of "entertainment"/"amusement", that sort of thing where a person is expected to be "distracted" ought not occur in the gospel proclamation, ever. The mind should be actively engaged and challenged through whatever communication is occuring, and it's the gospel that is clearl the model and centrality of the means to sanctification. They had plenty of drama and dance in Paul's day, yet he NEVER once spoke of it as a model for conveying truth.[/quote]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Yeah...define that for me.

What does Paul tell Timothy to do?  Preach the word, not perform drama.  I'd go into more detail, but pearls and pigs and all that.[/quote]


Words have meanings. "Amusing" does not mean "distracting". It might have 400 years ago, but it doesn't anymore. It appears you have no real argument.

"whatever communication is occurring" - for the record: skits, music, liturgy, sermons, dance....those are all forms of communication.

Do you really want to start discussing Paul's model? I guarantee you'll be backtracking before long if you want to go that route.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

You can't even correctly give the main point of the article. How do you know what the discussion is about?

You say it's "balance", which apparently means that a little AC/DC and a little Wesley makes for "balance".  A little leaven spreads through the whole lump.[/quote]

So you acknowledge you don't know what the article is about. Fair enough. 



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Also, you aren't arguing for the same thing if the authors are saying "things/distractions/amusements should not be taking an unwarranted proportion or worse yet, preimminence in the corporate gathering" because you have lambasted ALL amusement.


Look up the root words and etymology of amusement, then tell me how it fits into any concept of a Scriptural sermon, other than to give admonition to avoid it in the proclamation of the gospel.  The good news is NEVER "amusement".

Asked and answered.  The difference between using a humorous illustration to point to a truth and disproportionately relying on rabbit trails and constant jokes to fill the air ought to be obvious.  Couple that "entertainment" mentality with some drama, theatrical interpretive dance, and some krunk and you've got something more fit for the Apollo and not the church of God.[/quote]

So what you are saying is that you didn't mean those words you typed earlier? First, we have to nail down your position, but since you are self-contradictory, it's a bit hard.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

...because it's part of your shallow (i.e. "not deep") understanding of the Gospel...

You have yet to prove your assertion on how the Christus Victor is advantageous to your argument, nor have you linked it in any discernable way to the concept of the seeker sensitive paradigm.

But here's an interesting jellyfish article on the subject from Christianity Today again, ....

The Problem with Christus Victor[/quote]

Do you even read articles before you post them?

The Christus Victor model has much to commend it. The idea is this: Christ is victor. Christ in his death and resurrection overcame over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection, those powers variously understood as the devil, sin, the law, and death.

Indeed, we are enslaved to powers beyond our control, both personally and corporately. This model also highlights big picture atonement: Christ's death isn't merely about me and my salvation. It's about the redemption of the cosmos: "He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him" (Col. 2:15).

Many interesting comparisons can be made between the two theories. Both actually include dimensions of personal guilt and victimhood, but as I listen to the discussion today, it seems that Christus Victor highlights our state as victims. Substitutionary atonement focuses on our guilt. In Christus Victor, we are liberated from hostile powers out there. In substitution, we are forgiven, and liberation is from ourselves and our addiction to our sin. Naturally, both models speak to truths of the human condition! And both have nuances worth exploring. But I'm concerned at the rising popularity of Christus Victor when it comes at the expense of substitution.

...and that's just on the first page.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

...those same people also believe in the deity of Christ. In other words, they have truth also, and truth does not rest solely in your mind...

No, Christus Victor is advocated by those folk, Greg Boyd, Rob Bell, etc.  Birds of a feather, ya know.

Roman Catholics believe in the virgin birth, Trinity, and some form of Biblical authority too, but I ain't cozying up to them on Sola Gratia, like some libs are.[/quote]

So you are the sole source of truth in your universe. I'm a sola Scriptura guy, but your position is, frankly, stupid.


[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I'm a determinist. (Do you know what that means?) And, for you to say you "embrace the reformed systemic approach to theological analysis" and deny the existence of the universal church is absurd.

Just drop the "reformed" label, as they wouldn't walk across the street to pee on you to put the fire out with the baggage you carry.[/quote]

So you don't know what determinist means. Got it.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

The article was saying there should be a balance, the very thing you are against.

Asked and answered.  Baloney, if by "balance" you mean that they were advocating bringing the circus into church so as to reach the elephants and monkeys.  You clearly have an agenda and blinders to claim that the article was in any way favoring seeker sensitive methodology of the Warren/Hybels variety.  Heck even Hybles has admitted that such crappola was, well, crappola.[/quote]

Then why do you have such a problem with the rest of the article (as opposed to the snippet you posted). Why are you trying to explain it away?



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Wrong question. Would Jesus have used entertainment and amusement as a means of relaying His message? Yes or no?

No, not as defined in the OP, lest you do think that setting up a strippers pole in the sancturary would have been his thang.
[/quote]

It's not defined in the OP. You later foisted your own interpretation upon it in order to attack your pet vice. (Remember that general/specific conversation we've had....you might want to review.)

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=rsc2a]
You don't think weddings are a celebration of two becoming one?[/quote]

Yes.  And I think that sex is an appropriate topic for preaching if you are discussing Song of Solomon or several other passages of Scripture.  I wouldn't draw pictures or do a chalk talk along the lines of the Kama Sutra though.  Potato/puh-tah-toh.

Ah! Word study time....what does "ekklesia" mean?

A called out assembly, with respect to Scriptural usage, of Baptized believers in Christ.

(And, for the record, we had several couples over this weekend where we were hosting a Seder dinner. There was prayer. There was praise. There was teaching. We even partook of Communion. Seems to fit even your very narrow / wrong understanding of what "church" is.)

Nope, that ain't an ekklesia.  That's members of the ekklesia having fellowship.  Was there a pastor there?  Did he preach the word?

Words have meanings. "Amusing" does not mean "distracting". It might have 400 years ago, but it doesn't anymore. It appears you have no real argument.

ummm, in the context of the way the OP was using the term "entertain" ("amuse") it certainly is in the context of "distraction".  The SS types employ the "secular hook" to lure the mind into an association with memories and comforting thoughts that are completely superfluous if not completely distracting from what OUGHT to be happening in the mind (worship of Christ).

Do you really want to start discussing Paul's model? I guarantee you'll be backtracking before long if you want to go that route.

Oh my goodness, what was I thinking?  I'm sorry, you scared me to death.

/sarcasm

Go ahead, discuss Paul's model for worship, and keep it in the context of the entirety of NT Scriptures.

So you acknowledge you don't know what the article is about. Fair enough. 

I acknowledge that you are clueless.  Here's more excerpts from Carson on the SS philosophy...

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]
You don't think weddings are a celebration of two becoming one?

Yes.  And I think that sex is an appropriate topic for preaching if you are discussing Song of Solomon or several other passages of Scripture.  I wouldn't draw pictures or do a chalk talk along the lines of the Kama Sutra though.  Potato/puh-tah-toh.[/quote]

Not the question. You are arguing against the idea that "everything a person does in private worship is valid for celebration in public worship".  Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum failed



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Ah! Word study time....what does "ekklesia" mean?

A called out assembly, with respect to Scriptural usage, of Baptized believers in Christ. [/quote]

Ah! But everyone attending is a baptized believer in Christ, and we were an assembly. Still haven't shown how we weren't doing "church" in my living room.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

(And, for the record, we had several couples over this weekend where we were hosting a Seder dinner. There was prayer. There was praise. There was teaching. We even partook of Communion. Seems to fit even your very narrow / wrong understanding of what "church" is.)

Nope, that ain't an ekklesia.  That's members of the ekklesia having fellowship.  Was there a pastor there?  Did he preach the word?[/quote]

Several pastors. I count at least four husbands and three fathers.

Was the word preached? Of course...do you know what a Seder is?


[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Words have meanings. "Amusing" does not mean "distracting". It might have 400 years ago, but it doesn't anymore. It appears you have no real argument.

ummm, in the context of the way the OP was using the term "entertain" ("amuse") it certainly is in the context of "distraction".  The SS types employ the "secular hook" to lure the mind into an association with memories and comforting thoughts that are completely superfluous if not completely distracting from what OUGHT to be happening in the mind (worship of Christ).[/quote]


If this is your gripe, I hope you never use familial relationships as analogies to describe our relationship with our Father/Husband/Brother. I also hope you never use parable. (Again, Jesus must have gotten in wrong.)

So it's based on a purely subjective measure? In particular, your purely subjective measure.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Do you really want to start discussing Paul's model? I guarantee you'll be backtracking before long if you want to go that route.

Oh my goodness, what was I thinking?  I'm sorry, you scared me to death.

/sarcasm

Go ahead, discuss Paul's model for worship, and keep it in the context of the entirety of NT Scriptures.[/quote]

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills...

...Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts....

...What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.



[quote author=ALAYMAN]

So you acknowledge you don't know what the article is about. Fair enough. 

I acknowledge that you are clueless.  Here's more excerpts from Carson on the SS philosophy...

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=rsc2a]
To think! Jesus was doing it all wrong!

Yes, the law-observing Jew who was in the synagogue at each God-appointed time would have rocked out to AC/DC and Samantha Fox in the temple and brought in fertility gods and symbols to show the virtue of proper Biblical love.
[/quote]

That's an interesting thought! If AC/DC and Samantha Fox were there in the 1st century it could only be through time travel. And since we have no idea how to do that through technology, and current scientific opinion seems to be that it probably isn't even possible... I would think if they got there by that means, it could only be a miracle... which would mean God put them there. Hmm.  ;D

 

[FSSL]

The article was saying there should be a balance, the very thing you are against.

...which explains why he lobbed off the article, giving us the impression that the author was a sterile, shallow, stilted person.

Also, you know skits tell stories, right?  :

And can be used for a perfect lead-in to a sermon! Our favorite church, so far, was one in the upper part of lower Michigan. (Hopefully Alayman can understand that.) A band, which was awesome for the singing aspect of the service, did a cool skit based off a classic rock song (oops! lost Alayman) and it tied in BEAUTIFULLY with the sermon which was very good!

Alayman needs to get out of his shallow existence and visit other churches! NOT just independent, fundamental, baptist churches.

 

[rsc2a]

The article was saying there should be a balance, the very thing you are against.

...which explains why he lobbed off the article, giving us the impression that the author was a sterile, shallow, stilted person.

I've noticed he has a tendency to completely ignore things that don't fit his worldview which he can't refute.

[quote author=FSSL]

Also, you know skits tell stories, right?  :

And can be used for a perfect lead-in to a sermon![/quote]



Almost as if creation is telling a single story, a story you can see played in Harry Potter, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Gladiator, changing my kid's poopy butt, good dinner with good friends, marriage, cleaning a house, construction or gardening...

...almost as if there was one overarching theme to everything.

[quote author=FSSL]Alayman needs to get out of his shallow existence and visit other churches! NOT just independent, fundamental, baptist churches.[/quote]

I'd actually recommend the same thing. He should probably even attend some !liturgical! services.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Seems like today's Christians have a hard time determining what is wordly and what isn't.  Friendship with the word is enmity with God.  But anything goes in today's Chrisitanity, it seems.  There is no way that Jesus would use an ungodly rock song in a worship service, imo.  Just because a lot of wordly people think it is ok doesn't make it so.  Paul tells us in Romans 12 that we are not to be conformed to this world system, but today's Christianity wants to embrace it with both arms wide open.  Psalm 1 warns against the dangers of embracing this sinful world system.  There is gonna be a rude awakening for a lot of so-called Christians, I am afraid.  Call me old-fashioned, I don't care.  Did Jesus associate with sinners?  Yes, he loved them and reached out to them, but he didn't join them in their sin.  He told the woman taken in adultery to go and sin no more, and he certainly didn't celebrate her adultery, or promote her lifestyle.  I can't believe some of the blasphemous things people advocate nowadays.

 

[themagneticfields]

[quote author=themagneticfields]I'll hop in to say my church "is a church of seekers, followers and doubters who are learning to follow and worship Christ." There is no making Jesus palatable, no elimination of distasteful theology. You can engage seekers and doubters with the truth of the Bible.

If there's no elimination of core doctrines of Lordship, sin, atonement, etc, then I don't think your church meets the essential definition of SS that is being critiqued in the OP.

Having said that, it appears to me that your model of evangelism doesn't match the basic premise/model of what our obligations to the lost (and conversely, to the church) are.  Can you show me in Scriptures where the invitation to the assembly of believers (contrary to your "Welcome", bolded below)  is extended evangelistically to the lost?


Bring your faith and your doubt, your joy and your tears, your praise and your selfishness. As a church, we want to emulate Jesus