Why do I torture myself reading the santimonious crap that Slice spews daily? Looking for some hope of real discernment, all I see is a stream of nonsense interspersed with a few grains of truth. It’s like looking for a needle in a pile of manure. The fact that they won’t even engage in discussion, but filter comments, means I need to just take them off of my blogroll. This judgmental post of the culturally relevant and vibrant efforts at Ed Young’s church sent me over the edge, and I posted a comment there that I know will never see the light. But it will here.
My comment at Slice:
I would hate to have to endure the narrow, "holy" culture at your church. It’s a wonder such sourpusses can even enjoy eating, sex, or anything else God gave us to enjoy. The type of rhetoric and judgment you spew here in the name of discernment is pathetic. I wish you would take your bitterness masquerading as holiness and go putrefy someplace other than God’s church.
And I know this won’t get past your sycophantic moderation. This comment is just for you. May God have mercy on your dark, lifeless, sanctimonious soul.
Oh, and I came across another post condemning Christians hiphop. So I commented. I should just go to bed instead of poking at these monkeys.
"Christian Hip-Hop", now there’s an oxymoron if ever I’ve heard one….Rap music has never and will never save souls. The music came from the pit of hell and it’s leading many to it!
You betcha. In fact, any music with African beats is probably stirring up demons. And rock music? Born out of rebellion. Jazz and big band? Sensuality. Black gospel? Unholy blues.
The only music we are safe with is classical and tunes from before 1800. Or maybe we should stay away from all music just in case. I dunno, it all seems like it is from the pit of hell.
I think you may have missed their point, and in speaking out against what you thought they were against, you ended up looking publicly like a critical "sourpuss" yourself.
They are not speaking out against "fun and enjoyment", they are speaking out against things that don't belong in our places of worship according to the bible. Acts 2:42 gives us the pattern for church gatherings (not the four things it talks about in verse 42):
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.
Now how does Ed Young's amusement in church match up with that? Try to make your answer adhere to the bible, rather than just lashing out with your personal opinion.
Try to make your answer adhere to the bible, rather than just lashing out with your personal opinion.
Seeker is perfectly capable of defending himself but I want to comment about this. This comment sounds awful to me. Why should he make his answer adhere to your narrow interpretation of the bible? Why shouldn't he express his personal opinion? It's a free country and he should be able to say what's on his mind. That goes for music too. I don't even agree with what evangelicals are using music for; "fishing" for converts. I do think that music is free and universal to mankind. Who are "they" to say what type of music belongs in churches and what type doesn't?
Cineaste:
I'm sorry. I thought this was a Christian blog, therefore I expected any judgments related to what's right or wrong to be based on the bible, and not on personal opinion. Also notice that I never said anyone should give an answer that adheres to "MY narrow interpretation" of the bible.
There are different interpretations among Christians of what is "right" and what is "wrong" according to the bible. Isn't that part of the reason you disagree with Seeker?
how does Ed Young's amusement in church match up with that?
Jim, first of all, thanks for responding to my tirade. I just get frustrated with the what I perceive to be the Pharisaical abuse and narrow, limiting application of scripture that I see at Slice.
If that one passage were the sole rule for church, you would be right, but it is not. I have a lot I wish to say on this, but not a lot of time, so let me just give an overview.
1. There is a difference in methods for the gathering of the church and evangelism.
For example, when Paul went to Mars Hill, he was not having a church service. In fact, in order to reach them, he began by affirming their truth in their poets, and segued to the gospel. The principle I get from this is cultural relevance. In fact, we ought to do this when reaching out to people of other faiths.
Now I realize that Paul was not being entertaining, but I want at least to say that Paul shows us a principle here which we should use in outreach – that whatever method we need to engage people in hearing the gospel, "by all means reaching some", is a better rule for evaluating evangelism (I'm sure you could also measure the quality of decisions made, etc., but you get my point)
2. Are you saying that churches that do not function exactly as the passage you quoted are not doing God's will?
Should we be selling our possessions to make sure everyone has enough? If we do not, are we violating God's will? I think this passage is descriptive of what they did, illustrative of things we ought to consider for corporate xian life, but it is neither prescriptive nor prohibiting other activities like worship, neither does it say that we can't use medical missions, or music or sports outreach in our evangelism.
3. Why should we condemn what scripture does not?
As long as Ed Young is not violating scripture, I don't really think it is that important if he uses modern entertainments to draw people.
Now, as I said, evangelism and church ministry, while related, I see as operating on some separate principles (and some the same).
As a former worship leader, I like to use the example of the difference between worship and music ministry/evangelism. The difference is the audience. When we worship, the team is ministering to God. When we do outreach and performance music, we are ministering to people (before, in front of, God) – we are connecting with and focusing our words on them, and not God.
I mention this because, if Ed Young is using entertainment to keep people in church, rather than instructing them in righteousness and providing a place for corporate worship of God, I would be more concerned. However, I do also think that we have some latitude in Sunday services, as long as we are covering the basics you mentioned in one or other of our corporate gatherings.
In fact, I had more to say on how we do church in my post Why Most Churches Suck, which you might also like to comment on – it's actually NOT a rant, even though the title sounds like it – it actually has helpful content ;)
I thought this was a Christian blog, therefore I expected any judgments related to what's right or wrong to be based on the bible, and not on personal opinion.
LOL, it is a Christian blog, and we do try to argue from scripture, but many of our commenters are not Christians, which makes it fun, and sometimes irritating. As you can see from my comment above, I am not just trying to express opinion, and appealing to the bible as the rule of faith and practice is totally appropriate.
However, I think that Slice also disobeys the many principles I outlined in Ten Principles of Discernment
They are not speaking out against “fun and enjoyment”
I realize that, but in reality, their logic does not really reside in the scriptures, but in their inability to discern the difference between modern and worldly, between valid culturally relevant means of engaging culture and inappropriate means.
I think they should study the errors of fundamentalisms past, including their condemnation of mixed bathing, movies, card playing, worldly music like Glenn Miller and brass instruments, social dancing, and the like.
The condemation of rap on slice, for example, is just as biblical as condemning rock music for it’s african beats and rebellious origins.
If it was up to modern fundamentalists, we’d have no contemporary worship or contemporary Christian music, no restoration of the Christian influence in the arts, and certainly, nothing modern in our churches or church worship.
I mean, did Paul use a projector when he preached? Of course, preaching against such a thing would be foolish (unless you were depending on your flashiness to convince people, rather than anointed preaching and reason), but the modern fundamentalist preaching against using modern music, even in the right contexts, and condemnation of the methods of Ed Young, are really the same sort of ridiculous argument.
I am not saying that the ends justify the means, but what I am saying is that the scriptures are not so narrowly prescriptive or prohibitive as Slice consistently represents. It’s shameful that they allow such nonsense to cloud what could be a useful ministry, focusing on what is important, like the doctrines of Osteen.
It is interesting in their unabashed worship of Luther and the Protestant Reformation, they don't mention much about his position on music, mostly that it should be modern, culturally relivant and in the native language of the people. The postings there do give a certain perspective, in that I think we should always measure things against the scriptures, and examine the motives of others as well. There is, in my opinion, too much that does pass for christianity that is out and out heresy, but chrisitians are silenced because of either their lack of scriptural knowledge, or they have been so convinced that we should perserve unity at all costs.
But I don't see any of them voluteering to shut down the air conditioning….
Sandy: I don't think you have any grounds for saying that they "worship Luther", etc. And besides, if you do a search on Slice's archives you'll see that Ingrid very much has a great appreciation for Luther's music, which by the way, was very doctrinal and very polarizing. She'd done radio programs on that topic.
Seeker: You won't find anywhere in scripture where Paul uses worldliness to aid in evangelism. God wants unbelievers to be attracted to his Church based on how "other world-ly" they are (the Church's holiness). That is the appeal. The appeal is not in how much the church can be made to look like the world.
The story of Ananias and Saphrira underscores that point, When God judged them and struck them down, the passage says that the "seekers" would not come near the church after that. That's a God who cares about the Church's holiness ahead of "cultural relevance". Also, you err if you are implying that church gatherings are for evangelism. You won't find any examples in scripture of church gatherings being for that purpose.
Lastly, I would encourage you to study how the Puritans (as one example in Church history) handled these things. They went at it the opposite way that you are. Instead of saying "the bible doesn't say we can't do XYZ in church", they said "we are only going to do ABC in church because that's all that the bible says to do". They called this the Regulative Principle of worship (you can Google that). It had nothing to do with "the culture of their time" and had everything to do with wanting to be obedient to God's directives, even at the cost of putting aside their wants, preferences, individuality, and personal opinions. In a nutshell, it's all about what God wants, not what we want.
I wasn't meaning to imply anything pejoritive about Slice and Luther. The fact that Ingrid is a great admirer of Luther's music proves my point. Luther felt, among many other really more important things, that the music the Catholic church was using was outdated and not applicable to the listeners, that the use of Latin and the complex polyphony of the Mass completely obscured the text, and that the music was too complicated for the untrained singer to even attempt thereby leaving the congregant as observer rather than participant. That seems to be a sticking point with many of the bloggers on Slice, that the use of contemporary music is not honoring to God. My point is that Luther's music was, at a point in time, contemporary, as was Bach's, etc. At one point in the very early history of the church, there was great concern about having organs in catherdrals because they were considered worldly. It is laughable today, but it proves that the same arguments just keep coming back around. We get hung up on things that are not really what Christianity is about, and we let that distract and divide. I think that any music that has the worship and honor of Jesus at it's core, OR that the spirit of the musicians is to worship and honor Jesus can have a place in worship. While I might not really enjoy hearing rap in church, there are a great number of people who would not today enjoy hearing a Bach fugue, but I can listen to it and hear pouring from the organ Bach's absolute love and reverence for God. I enjoy many contemporary christian artist, love the old hymns, love it all. I just don't see the big hang up between electric guitars or pipe organs, and I don't see Biblical grounds to say that contemporary somehow means worldy. As I said before, it is not a standard we hold to electricity, plumbing, air conditioning, or motorized vehicles. It is a concept that is applied with a broad brush that too often has personal taste as the driving force rather than any strongly spelled out Biblical statute.
Sandy:
You DID say "unabashed worship of Luther", and I hardly think that Luther's wanting to move worship music from a language that few people spoke to a language of the common person – hardly compares with a perceived worship music upgrade to "rap". It is short sighted to overlook the fact that some types of music (speaking in a general sense) invoke the flesh, and are inappropriate for worship. take for example the "jock jams" that are played at football stadiums to get the crowd going. You would have us believe that these would be all well and good in church, so long as we'd afix some Christian lyrics to them apparently. When you bring up the famous composers, it is important to recognize a distinction that is important for conversations like this one, and that is worship music versus music. There are important issues to be considered when bringing music into a worship service.
The appeal is not in how much the church can be made to look like the world.
I totally agree. But one of the mistakes of fundamentalism is to confuse modernity with worldliness, that is, worldly values. Condemning rap is like condemning the hymns of Luther, is what one commenter was trying to say. Worldliness is about values, not methods, except when those methods are sinful.
The story of Ananias and Saphrira underscores that point, When God judged them and struck them down, the passage says that the "seekers" would not come near the church after that. That's a God who cares about the Church's holiness ahead of "cultural relevance".
God is concerned about holiness, but Ananias and Saphira weren't bringing a contemporary music band to church, they had LIED to God. Their sin wasn't worldliness, it was lying.
So, you got any scriptures that actually apply, ones that you might use to eliminate the use of bmx shows and rap music at an evangelism event? I mean, following your logic, maybe we should start hoping that God strikes some of us dead for our mixed motives so that people start attending our church.
Lastly, I would encourage you to study how the Puritans (as one example in Church history) handled these things.
I love the Puritans and have studied them some. But they weren't perfect in their doctrines either, and with respect to contemporary culture, also confused modernity and modern forms with worldliness. I'll look up that principle you outlined, but from the sound of it, I'd say that while it means to honor God, instead, it serves to limit God's people to a narrowness that the law of liberty does not demand.
But let me ask you a question. If none of the apostles used medical missions, does that mean we cant? If none of them used microphones, amplification, or electric instruments, does that mean we can't? I'm sure I am misunderstanding, but the condemnation of such things as bmx demos and rap music.
putting aside their wants, preferences, individuality, and personal opinions.
That sounds pious, but it also sounds like the kind of impersonal, unhealthy, utilitarian religion that uses people for evangelism, but fails to appreciate who God has made them in creation, not just in Christ. Please read my post Is Man Basically Good or Evil? for further details about why they "it's not about you" religion is an unbalanced heresy.
It is short sighted to overlook the fact that some types of music (speaking in a general sense) invoke the flesh, and are inappropriate for worship.
I somewhat agree – some music is better for worship, but nearly all music expresses emotions that God can use for ministry and evangelism. Worship isn't God's only use for music.
As far as "invoking the flesh", could you provide a scriptural reference regarding music invoking the flesh?
You would have us believe that these would be all well and good in church, so long as we'd afix some Christian lyrics to them apparently.
I'd say that's not far from the truth. Sure, some music is poorly crafted, but that doesn't mean that all music besides that by Bach is worldly and invokes the flesh.
Please take the time to read my post What is Christian Music?, I think you'll have a lot you might want to discuss (or surrender to my impeccable logic ;)
As far as "invoking the flesh", could you provide a scriptural reference regarding music invoking the flesh?
This concept does not come from any Biblical source, but rather from Plato, specifically in "Republic" where Plato adresses the use of the modes, particularly the phrygian mode to incite physical and sexual desire. He elaborates on the specific passions or affections that the other 6 modes create as well. It is understandable that the early church, coming from a Roman adaptation of the Helenistic culture would have accepted this theory as well. Indeed, it again became popular briefly during the baroque period, known as the doctrine of affections, and was also an important musical ideology in the Enlightenment, which I think we can mostly agree was a secular philosophy with no interest in Biblical teaching. When I read my Bible, I do not see any reference to what kind of music is to be used. I see references to dancing, which annoys most Southern Baptists, shouting, which certainly goes against what many mainline protestants want to see in worship, alluding to your stadium rock reference. I see references to drums, cymbals, clapping, stringed instruments, and trumpets, among a myrid of other things. The Psamls are certainly filled with a variety of texts, from joyous and exuberant, to greif-striken and questioning, to mournful and quite frequently vengeful.
As I understant it, all that is in this earth is the Lord's and the result of His handiwork. Because it is sometimes used for non-religious or even Pagan purposes, does not somehow default it as belonging to "the world."
If I played you sections of the Messiah with the lyrics removed, and then played you some of Handel's operas with the lyrics also removed, you would be very hard pressed to hear any differences. There aren't. Handel wrote the kind of music he wrote, and the ONLY difference is in the text he uses. Are you willing to throw out Messiah because structurally it is indercernable from Rinaldo or Semele? But you are willing to throw out contemporary christian music because of similarities it has with contemporary secular music. If that is truely the case, you need to toss out all music, because you will NEVER find a form that is not a product of the time it was composed it. Many of Wesley's poems are set to commone tunes of the which were in no way sacred, as were Luther's.
My point about Luther is that I think he would dissagree with this argument about the inclusion of contemporary music. He wanted this parishoners to be a part of the worship, to have music they were familiar and comfortable with. He wanted it to be relevant to the people. Isn't that what Jesus did? He didn't hang out in they synagogue waiting for sinners to walk in. He went out to where they were. He was a vibrant part of their world, all the while showing them a better way than the sin that held them captive.
When I read my Bible, I do not see any reference to what kind of music is to be used. I see references to dancing, which annoys most Southern Baptists, shouting, which certainly goes against what many mainline protestants want to see in worship, alluding to your stadium rock reference. I see references to drums, cymbals, clapping, stringed instruments, and trumpets, among a myrid of other things.
Don't forget David dancing before the Lord and, in his abandon to God, accidentally revealing his privates. That made the fundies of his day really angry. How worldly! How uncouth! How indecent and out of order!
I know it is easy to call people Pharisees, but seriously, modern day fundamentalists, in their zeal for God, are like the Pharisees, who created laws just to keep us from even getting close to breaking God's laws. But in the end, what we need are not laws, but David's passion for God.
I'm not saying that it is "either-or" but that modern day fundies are so far to the right that they accuse anyone living in Christian liberty with abusing that liberty and being licentious and worldly. It's an easy sickness to fall into (having recovered from it, mostly ;). As I like to say:
Seeker:
I've had a chance to look around your blog, and it's pretty clear that fundamentalism is the "boogey man" here; it's all over your various posts.
Please realize that "Fundamentalism" is a 20th century movement that was in response to Christian Liberalism. Fundamentalism is a movement that even I have issues with. I say that to challenge you to go back further in church history and get exposed to some other thinking. Reason from the scriptures with Victorian era Christians, learn about 18th century Great Awakening and what kind "cultural relevance" was involved with it, read what the Reformers had to say, and go back even further.
You say that you've done this with the Puritans, but one wonders how that's possible if you have not heard of the Regulative Principle. Bounce your idea of what scripture means by "worldliness" off of Jeremiah Burrough's "Treatise on Earthly-Mindedness", and bounce your ideas of what's acceptable in worship off of his writings on the "Strange Fire" passage in scripture, in his 17th century book Gospel Worship. Resist living in a vacuum of: we are right, and everybody back then was wrong (or is irrelevant for today).
To declare all of these Christians of the past (all of whom were before the movement known as Fundamentalism) as being "not culturally relevant" (or not relevant for our time), is simply short-sighted and misses the point of how they interacted with scripture.
You brought up Mars Hill in the book of Acts. Don't be like the Athenians in that chapter who are always going after something new. Christianity is not about "I don't like fundies; they are not the boss of me" nor is it about "look at how new and creative I can be" (what the late Martyn Lloyd-Jones called "the cult of self-expression"). No, it's about something entirely different than that.
Thanks for listening.
Jim, thanks for your comments. I've written an new post based on your observations. It was to much to put in a comment.