Religion: Overselling cultural engagement
I recently had a conversation with an intelligent, passionate believer, and our conversation drifted rather quickly towards a tired, and necessary, topic for many of us: the Christian’s “engagement” of the culture. As a writer, this is a discussion that interests me, and one that bores me. Yes, Christians should be in the world, but not of it. Yes, Christians should seek to understand and have a discourse with the culture. Yes, Christians should be contributing good books, good movies, good poems, good everything to culture. Yes, we are called to redeem everything with the creative employment of our hands and heads and tools and words. And to redeem a thing is to understand the content and form of a thing. So, yes, Christians should engage the culture. I’m tired of reading articles saying as much, but I think we see so many articles and books and essays about engaging culture because we’re still not sure how to do it. As for me, I write stories. My job as a writer is to move past the whole “Let’s reclaim the culture for Jesus!” conversation and get on with writing good stories.
But not so fast.
In my conversation (the one that started this post), my friend said, “I think engaging the culture is oversold to believers.” He went on to say that the church accepts too much trash and artless obscenity (in movies, music, etc.) for the sake of “engaging” the culture. He said we want to be accepted as authentic, as hip, as with-it as the world. And in so doing, we corrupt ourselves.
So, for discussion…is “engaging the culture” oversold to believers?














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top62 Comments to “Religion: Overselling cultural engagement”
To answer your question… “yup”. We’re appeasing the culture, not changing it. How’s about we bend a large majority of our efforts at a personal gig with Christ, get to the place He wants us to be, and then deal with the culture?
That’s a better plan, but the enemy dangles a few carrots, and weak-minded believers take the bait, and soon we’re all an indistinguishable part of the salad.
Report comment to moderator
It’s over sold if there is no discernment.
There is grace to be found in Juno, but nothing really redeemable in Charlie Wilson’s War. Engage those differences.
Because of my occupation I deal with writers, movie-makers, professional athletes, etc. quite often. The Christians in those areas who are “redeeming” their genres are the ones who have a fixed purpose in glorifying God. They don’t have time for trash and artless obsenity.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been mulling over this one for a while. Dr. Olaskey wrote a book a few years ago with title (something like) Standing for Christ in a Modern Day Babylon. I’m not so sure that Babylon is the best analogy, however. I often ask believers (to stimulate good conversation along these lines) whether we live in Babylon or Canaan. That is, are we called to a more or less peaceful coexistence with the culture, or are we called to completely conquer the surrounding culture? A pure analogy is difficult to develop along these lines (in actuality, we live in neither; our current culture is unique in too many ways), but the thought seems to be along HSK’s lines.
Report comment to moderator
TJ, that is a very thought-provoking question indeed. I’ve been thinking about it for years, and still have not decided whether “peaceful co-existence” (which I admit I prefer) is a cop-out. One thing seems obvious to me, but may not to others–we are not going to completely “conquer” the surrounding culture until Christ’s return. But we can perhaps “erode” it some by prayer, careful evangelism, speaking out about culture and politics, voting for conservative candidates, etc. I do think a lot of what is thought of as “engaging the culture” involves changing the church in ways we should not in an attempt to gain the approval of others.
Report comment to moderator
“Yes, Christians should be contributing good books, good movies, good poems, good everything to culture.”.
But the problem is that these things can only be done by a small elite. When everyday Christians with no particular creative skills (like me) are asked to engage the culture, we interpret “engage” as “participate”. Then we attend everyday movies and concerts and museums hoping an opportunity will arise where we can witness to somebody. But those opportunities turn out to be rare. So we’ve exposed ourselves to the world without really changing it.
Perhaps it’s enough that our friends see us going to movies and concerts and museums, but NOT to bars and strip joints and the like. Maybe they’ll realize there’s something different about us, though we’re not total navel-gazers.
Report comment to moderator
Given that we live in a time when many ideas compete, the only real way for anyone, including Christians, to have an impact is to participate in the competition.
It’s true that not everyone can write books or make movies or other creative work — and even those who can still need to find an audience, preferably beyond the already-convinced — but everyone can talk and share opinions.
If I may offer one thought, and treading lightly because I’m not part of the church and I’m not sure it’s my place to offer an opinion in this particular thread — but I think one thing to consider is to be less visibly disdainful of some pop culture that seems sinful.
I find that art that is true to life ends up conveying some truths no matter how its packaged. As an example … I was a fan of the Sex and the City show. (I know, I may be the only heterosexual male in existence who watched it by choice and not at the behest of a wife or girlfriend.)
Now this show was widely derided by Christians because of the nudity and casual sex. And that’s valid … but if you watch the whole series, you can see all four of the main characters trace an arc into far more traditional values, and along the way they learn real lessons about love and commitment. By the end of the series, two of the women are happily married and one is clearly heading that way, and even Samantha — the one who always chose easy sex over any kind of commitment — has found a man who loves her and refuses to let her not experience it.
And all through the series, they learn small lessons that nudge them away from their casual sex lifestyles and toward first a yearning and then actively finding real commitment.
The thing is, even though the show was stylized and glamorized, it was more true-to-life from most people’s point of view — and especially from the non-Christian point of view — than a show where everyone is chaste until married would be. And as such, I think things like that can provide much more common ground for dialogue than more Christian-friendly programming.
I may be way offbase here. But it seems to me that if Christians, whether in professional criticism or casual conversation among friends, had chosen to watch the show and make note of those points, that could be one way to engage something in culture that is sinful by Christian standards, but with redeeming qualities that could provide starting points for conversations.
Flame away if I’m wrong. But I offer it just for thought.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG
The problem is that I watched it once and didn’t find it at all interesting. It would have been hard work to watch it and for what?
Report comment to moderator
Key: “As a writer, this is a discussion that interests me, and one that bores me.”
I share your ambivalence.
“So, for discussion…is “engaging the culture” oversold to believers?”
Maybe. I think it is better for the engagement to flow out naturally from our Christian lives instead of being deliberately practiced as a separate part of our lifestyle. If we are led by the Holy Spirit in all that we do, then we will automatically engage the culture (or not) according to God’s will.
The debate, then, boils down to the question of whether such-and-such an action is really led by the Holy Spirit or not.
Report comment to moderator
#8, “I think it is better for the engagement to flow out naturally from our Christian lives instead of being deliberately practiced as a separate part of our lifestyle.”
I think Kyle A nails it. If we are living out our faith on a day-to-day basis, seeking to glorify God in all we do, say and think, engagement with the culture will happen as a matter of course.
Report comment to moderator
Bon at #7: I used that only as an example. There are many such things. Some of them would no doubt interest you more.
Check out The Shield — It’s violent, profane and maybe nihilistic, but it’s also one of the best illustrations of “your sin will find you out” ever.
Report comment to moderator
My two cents:
$ .01 – Engaging the culture does not mean embracing the culture;
$ .02 – Too many Christian engage the culture with Hold hardware and Jesus Junk.
If we are not in the public square and the marketplace of ideas, we are shut out of the debate.
Report comment to moderator
RE #11 sorry for the typo
$.02 should read “Holy Hardware & Jesus Junk.”
Report comment to moderator
#2, “It’s over sold if there is no discernment.”
True. Let the buyer beware.
I would add that the call for discernment should be even louder than the call for engagement.
And the call for protection from culture should be just as loud as the call for engaging it with discernment.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Kyle A and MMacMurray. Engaging the culture isn’t particular activities, it’s using our talents and pursuing our interests just as everyone else does. God gave us those talents and our personalities and the circumstances that have shaped our interests.
Engaging the culture means not cutting ourselves off from it, not labelling some movies or books or music Christian and the rest non-Christian, but looking for what is good in all of it. And as SteveG points out – pretty much along the same lines as my Literature professor in college who was teaching us to “think Christianly” – what is good is what matches up with reality. (By that I don’t mean that fantasy is excluded, but if fantasy did not connect to our real experiences it would be of little interest.)
Our Worship Arts Pastor at church has a small band that plays at coffeehouses, festivals, bars, state fairs – and at church. His songs don’t always mention God – but they always say something real about life. He says “Good music touches the core—both of culture and of the soul. It is the high ground. We ought to give it as much authenticity and excellence as possible.”
I imagine he could make lots of money if he tried. I’ve heard that he’s had offers to go to bigger churches. But he’s convinced God called him here, so he writes his music to perform here, at church and in the local area, to minister to people here, not so he can have money or fame.
That’s engaging the culture.
Report comment to moderator
Evangelicals are sophisticated advertisers and promoters.
The special characteristics of evangelicalism within Christianity require it to recruit outsiders to an extent that other branches don’t have to. Evangelicals feel that if they’re not growing, they’re dying. Evangelism isn’t just a “commission”, it’s a validation. You see this in megachurches though not so much in the “dying” denominations. These evangelicals are superb at showing each other that they’re “with it” when it comes to the panoply of everything pop and highbrow. They must prove their “difference” is not cultural ignorance or disability. Old believers in their spidery orthodox churches or country Baptist church houses don’t have the burden or ambition of “appeal.”
Naturally, sophisticated evangelicals find themselves bored with the whole scene of having something to prove. Who could blame them? Culture is something you’re part of. There’s no such thing as a counter culture. Whether you engage or not, you’re always in it and of it. The most you can do is pick a distinct part of it, and tend your garden.
Report comment to moderator
A truly excellent book on this subject is Finding Common Ground by Tim Downs. I edited it; it won the Gold Medallion, and that’s all I’ll say about it, but it was great at helping believers see the need to connect with people in our culture.
Here’s an up-to-the-minute story about engaging our culture a little too much. A friend who has a first-grade son, special needs, went to pick him up from school this week. Here’s the report in her own words about what happened next (with some editing to protect privacy):
The teacher said, “He raised his hand and asked the class who wanted to come to BARF night with him.” I said, “Oh, I can certainly see how that would sound.” She said, then, that she asked if there were other kids in the class from J’s church, at which point a couple of the children raised their hands and helped him explain. One of the kids in his class [explained] this fun acronymn for Bring A Real Friend Night at AWANA. It was obvious to me that J’s first grade teacher did not consider this word the most appropriate First Grade word, and here we are, brand new in this town in a school with no written rules or codes and J’s Dad is the Senior Pastor of this church, and my kids are black and stand out big-time here in this all-white town. . . . So I am wondering what kind of a reputation our Children’s Program will continue to have. I was terribly embarrassed and still feel glum about it.
Report comment to moderator
I think the church should only accept “evidence”. Can you imagine religion based on evidence? Everyone would be a believer.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean: Everyone would be a believer.
I’m not so sure. Different kinds of “evidence” mean more to different kinds of people.
Report comment to moderator
This is a funny topic, since I suspect that it breaks by age. As a young man, I wanted to extend my powers, put them to work for the Kingdom, Do Something. The language of “engage the culture” seemed to mesh with this view. And best of all, it complemented my self-image.
Now that I’m older, the business of engaging the culture seems less pressing, since so many of the reasons for that engagement have now been settled. With a little experience under my belt, it is also clear that some stuff keeps going around and around. Even with books, as Ecclesiastes reminds us.
So which is the real view? The jaded view of old age? The aspiration of youth? Oddly, I find that a godly mind asks that in my youth I had a little more disengagement with or suspicion of culture, and in my approaching elderhood more engagement with the culture.
But young or old, what I need is the wisdom to discern, and the wisdom to know my times.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve decided I agree with Kyle A, MMcMurray, and Pauline.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG make a great point in #6:
“It’s true that not everyone can write books or make movies or other creative work — and even those who can still need to find an audience, preferably beyond the already-convinced — but everyone can talk and share opinions.”
Michael Smerconish was guest host for Bill O’Reilly’s talk radio show a week ago Friday, and read on air to Bill’s millions of listeners a column of Michael’s published in The Philadelphia Daily News that week, titled, “I’M A MAN OF FAITH, YOU’RE A CRACKPOT”. The thrust of his column is that one religion is just as loony as any other.
What a ripe opportunity to engage with the culture!
Many are coming to believe that ‘faith’ is just believing a story that has no basis in fact, that anything having to do with ‘faith’ is inherently unprovable, and by extension, out of touch with reality.
RDEAN in #17 says, “I think the church should only accept “evidence”. Can you imagine religion based on evidence? Everyone would be a believer.”
What RDEAN and Mr. Smerconish do not realize is that the Christian faith IS based on evidence!
Josh McDowell’s defense of Christianity, “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” had been expanded to two volumes some years ago.
I wonder how many believers are familiar with the content of those two volumes.
Report comment to moderator
Joel – 13
I agree with you.
I wonder sometimes how many people can interact with people in the 3D world, when they spend so much time reading every book they can get their hands on. The world around me is a big place, one on one contact is important. If one spends hours a day 5-7 days a week reading books, how can they honestly be interacting with ‘people’? I have friends who would rather read a book then go out to dinner with their friends, . . I’m talking about a regular event, they love to read, and that’s their life.
I have read the verse below many times, and have often pondered it. I wonder how much time people spend in the Word of God, and interacting with others, versus reading books, and watching film?
I’m not making a judgment on anyone, I’m just interested in your thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
#18: Different kinds of “evidence” mean more to different kinds of people.
Evidence is something you can measure, see, feel, share. If you prayed and something actually happened. If a God actually appeared. If there were some kind of proof of mystical creation. Any of these and everyone would believe. It’s one thing to rely on what someone said and another to see it for yourself.
If there were evidence in the occult, everyone would be a believer.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, the teacher should lighten up. Don’t worry about it.
————————————-
Scroop Moth, you might be missing a different problem. Evangelicals actually believe in the biblical admonitions not to be worldly, and must wrestle inwardly with what that means. So, the issue may partly involve our image, but it also involves our convictions about certain activities.
Report comment to moderator
KYLE A Don’t put so much stock in your convictions about certain activities, if your engagement in certain activities is indistinguishable from, or even worse than, everybody else, as Marvin Olasky as observed in recent blogs. Your conviction about certain activities is anthropologically significant as a marker within a common culture, but it doesn’t make you different. Some Romans wanted badly to return to the mos maiorum but they were Romans like everyone else. Evangelicals are just playing the gap between norms and practice, as some group or another has always done in every culture that ever existed.
Report comment to moderator
John Denney
I certainly am. There is much proof in the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
#23,
Sometimes “evidence” we trust can mislead us.
We can have tons of evidence that a person loves us, then see it all change after the honeymoon.
Inaccurate signs, which you see with your own eyes (lacking other forms of evidence), can be posted taking you the wrong way.
Good doctors can take in tons of tangible “evidence” and make a false diagnosis.
Weather reporters go on scientific evidence and I have actually heard of one or two of them who have actually been wrong.
The best intelligence in the world can lead every major leader in the Western world to think a tyrant has WMDs, and they can all be wrong. Or, they can all be dead right but the full extent of evidence does not show up. But good leaders know that some decisions must be made on the “evidence” they have.
There are many times and ways in life wherein decent people must proceed on trust and faith. You can build trust with evidence, but it’s still a form of faith. And some of life’s greatest decisions must be made before all the facts and evidence are in. We all must resort to trust one way or another sometime.
Trusting ONLY things you can measure, see, feel, share is just not enough for living a full life of love and trust. Plus, it can mislead you, just like the testimony of others can potentially mislead us.
In any case, many of us have seen prayers answered. But you might have other explanations. That does not make yours right.
And I think God did actually appear, and a lot of other celebrators of Christmas agree with me.
Sometimes it is unwise to follow ONLY what our eyes see and ears hear. Sometimes that can mislead us seriously. We need to live with minds more reasonably open to other forms of evidence and guidance. This sort of open mind is what I call faith. I place mine in God, as well as in many other secondary resources of trust.
Report comment to moderator
#23
RDEAN says, “Evidence is something you can measure, see, feel, share.”
In a court of law, the testimony of witnesses is also evidence.
New Testament writers Matthew, Mark, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude were all witnesses. Luke was the investigative journalist of the day and presents written testimony based on his research.
Report comment to moderator
Is there evidence that any of those people even existed? If God were so real, why not some “good” evidence? Why “signs”? Why “games”?
Report comment to moderator
DNA is evidence that God exists.
For life to exist, it must replicate. Replication requires the DNA replicate, which requires, among other things, two enzymes. The coding for the two enzymes must exist in the DNA, otherwise the cell could not replicate. What are the odds of the coding for these two enzymes appearing by random chance? (Remember, there is no life yet, so evolution is not the answer.) The enzymes are complex, requiring about 1800 “rungs” on the DNA ladder for their coding. Each rung can be one of four possibilities, so the odds of guessing the right combination of 1800 rungs is 1 chance in 4 raised to the 1800th power. That’s a really small chance; less than 1 in 10 followed by 1000 zeroes.
“But”, you say, “in a 15 billion year old universe with billions of suns . . .”
OK. The universe is estimated to contain about 10 to the 70th atoms. (That’s a 1 followed by 70 zeroes.) If we were to go to the absurd extreme of giving every atom in the universe a million guesses per second for 15 billion years, how
many guesses would that be? Not even 10 to the 100th power. The number of expected correct guesses is the number of guesses multiplied by the odds, for instance, guessing “heads” or “tails” for 100 coin tosses, where the odds are 1 in 2, 100 times 1/2 gives you 50 as the number of correct guesses to expect.
If we multiply our absurdly overestimated number of cosmic guesses of the correct enzymatic combination times the odds of guessing correctly, we get zero out to the 900th decimal place.
Since the universe is incapable of generating that DNA information, it is not unreasonable for an open minded individual to conclude that it had to have come from outside the universe, which coincides nicely with, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
Report comment to moderator
Harrison,
My intent is not to hijack the thread into arguments about the existence of God. It is to illustrate one means of cultural engagement: presenting evidence and reasoning.
Josh McDowell, in a more recent book, “The New Tolerance” bemoans the fact that the evidence and reasoning he spent most of his life presenting is now ignored because of post-Modernism.
That may be true in academia, but out in the real world where the rubber hits the road, evidence and reasoning are still powerful.
Report comment to moderator
RDean,
You’re not looking for evidence to believe; you’re looking for excuses not to.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
Are you a prophetess, knowing what’s in RDEAN’s heart?
Keep in mind the enemy has sown confusion all over the world, that there are many factions clamoring that their’s is the only true way, that there are many charlatan’s, impostor’s, and false prophets constantly attempting to mislead anyone they can, that others are “the blind leading the blind”.
Having been in RDEAN’s shoes to some degree, I think it behooves us to patiently accommodate skepticism by giving, as St. Peter said, “a reason to every man for the hope that lies within us.”
Report comment to moderator
John Denny – 33
I don’t agree with you, Cheryl does have an excellent point. We have read this individuals ‘raging rants’ for some time.
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 1 Peter 3:15
All of us who are Believers have been patient, trying to explain the Gospel, the proof through prophecy and much more. There comes a time when ‘dusting off ones feet’ is the only viable choice left.
The enemy can sow all the confusion he wants, but that will not be an excuse when a person stands before GOD. No one can say “I was confused because of the devil”-
There are many anti-christs, and they know who they are, they never give up trying to confuse the saints, or making ’sport’ of them.
Report comment to moderator
The enemy can sow all the confusion he wants, but that will not be an excuse when a person stands before GOD. No one can say “I was confused because of the devil”-
Why not?
Serious question. If God is sovereign, then the devil can sow confusion only because God permits it.
If God permits Satan to confuse people, and then punishes people who were confused, where is the justice in that?
Report comment to moderator
So tranparent, even a child could see through this.
Report comment to moderator
You know, it would nice if just once you would not react to a question, disagreement or difference of opinion as if it were either (1) a set-up or (2) an attack.
OK Victoria, fine, you win. Don’t answer. Sheesh.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Believe me, I understand about losing one’s patience, dusting off the feet, and moving on.
I did not intend for confusion to be an excuse before God, but as a reality in the life of unbelievers that merits our compassion.
Report comment to moderator
Prayers have been answered; Victoria posted without CAPS! I read her comments without rolling my eyes. I enjoyed reading her without my “sneer” factor. It was good.
Keep it up, Victoria!
By the way, this is heartfelt, not a put down! I really enjoyed your comments, Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
John Denney
We can be compassionate, but there does come a time when we dust off our feet. I don’t believe that answering the same ‘foolish’ questions is pleasing to the LORD. Some of the questions in this ‘case’ have been asked dozens of times, with the same answer. Then there is the insulting remarks made about us, the Believers and our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ. No John, I don’t believe this should continue.
9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
Titus 3
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Bob, ….. but I just posted some Scripture in ‘BOLD’-
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
God does not condemn people for being confused.
God has condemned the entire world, just as He did in the days of Noah. Only this time, instead of an ark, He has provided a different means of salvation – belief in His Son.
“Those who don’t believe this are actually calling God a liar because they don’t believe what God has testified about his Son.” 1 John 5:10
“In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, . . .” – James 1:18
Paul speaks of those who “received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” 2nd Thessalonians 2:10
Finding the truth is a tricky matter. Someone could be telling you the truth – or not. Evidence and reasoning is useful, but not infallible.
Hindus say there are many Gods; Christians say there is one God, and Jesus is His Son; Jews and Muslims say there is one God, but He has no Son; atheists say there is no God. Logic dictates that only one of these positions can possibly be true.
Your task is to decide which.
Report comment to moderator
John Denney,
I’m not dusting off my feet, just cutting to the heart of the matter. RDean may not even realize it himself, but that is what he is doing.
Report comment to moderator
John Denney … thanks for your response. That’s all I was looking for.
The nature of truth and the difficulty of determining it is where I’m going here. You list a few options and of course there are more on top of those. It can be a bewildering landscape, especially for a person who has no idea where to even begin looking.
Add to that the cultural power of religion and the relative difficulty people have in leaving a faith that they were raised in and where their family and self-identity still reside.
And then we throw Satan into the mix, whose role is to create confusion and doubt, so no wonder people are confused and have doubts.
God doesn’t condemn people for being confused, I understand. Yet if God is sovereign, as Christians believe, then the only confusion that exist is what God allows to exist.
So God desires us to find the right path to salvation, but allows the existence of things that will inevitably lead at least some of us down the wrong path, and that seem to have no purpose other than to do just that, no? That does seem to be the logical conclusion.
(I know this probably sounds argumentative/challenging, but I do think it’s a valid question. And honestly, one reason I’m not a Christian anymore is I just don’t have it in my nature to not ponder these kinds of things and ask about them.)
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.,
Perhaps so. I don’t know. My original intent on this thread was to encourage believers to engage the culture by presenting evidence for their beliefs when the opportunity presents itself, since so many people these days don’t think there is any. RDEAN then presented an opportunity (a meatball, in baseball slang, a pitch that can be easily knocked out of the park), and I was taken aback at your response. I would rather have enjoyed some evidence you might have presented. RDEAN may have scoffed, but he’s not the only possible beneficiary of your knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
It’s ok to have questions. A good authority will give good answers to good questions. Jesus always gave good answers. Nowadays, keep asking until you get a good answer. I’ve had lots of questions answered. (One them was “How could corn be mentioned in the Old Testament when it was unknown until the discovery of America?” It occurred to me one day to look up the word in the dictionary, where I found that its original meaning is “grain”)
You might read Ephesians 6:10-20, in which Paul states that we are engaged in spiritual warfare. Jesus commands us to preach the Gospel, but there are forces that God allows to oppose us. I don’t know why.
Why did He let Cain kill Abel? Abel was innocent, and was pleasing to God. It seemed a tragedy; poor Abel! But the surprise ending is – God is more powerful than death!
Jesus rose from the dead; His disciples saw Him, touched Him, spoke with Him, and ate with Him. We who belong to Jesus will eventually get new bodies too, as will Abel.
Report comment to moderator
Engaging and being in culture requires one to participate in the Arts – to actually do and nothing more.
The getting good at doing anything comes with experience, practice the doing over time. Next thing you know, you might even become an artist or expert in culture and be able to influence it.
So don’t worry about what others are saying, especially about you, your practice of and participation in the arts and culture. It’s the underdoing that is oversold.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not necessarily oversold, it’s just wrongly applied. This calls for that elusive gift that we so often fail to recognize – the gift of discernment.
Oh, how we want a formula, a formula that covers everything. That way things are simple. No need to grapple with differences of opinion. No need to think. No need to use God’s gift.
Someday I would like to see an adult Sunday School class on discernment – that’ll be the day.
Report comment to moderator
John Denney,
I’ve answered him in some detail in the past, and so have many others. I may do so in the future if he asks a good question or even asks a bad question but seems to legitimately want an answer. But I do think sometimes it’s appropriate to recognize a fake question as just that. He has asked this exact question (maybe in different words) many times, and at this point that qualifies it as a fake question, in my mind.
Report comment to moderator
No, engagement with the world is not “oversold”. Engagement with the world is the heart of the great commission, so it is at the heart of what Christ’s church is to do. In my opinion it is being sold with a corrupt form as it’s dominant mode of communication, thus the world is confused more than it need be. The “institutionalized church” (IC) is a severely corrupted form from what Christ designed for his church to accomplish the great commission.
Consider only one of many examples: The main events of believers gatherings are dominated by lecture, one-way communication by one hired expert and a few Sunday School teachers. For 90% of believers, this is their only exposure for how to carry out the great commission. For 90% of believers, they will never articulate one word of truth to their fellow believers in their whole life. One quick (honest look) at the scripture that says believers should “not forsake meeting” tells us how God wants us to build the great commission into our lives. Heb. 10:24 – 25. We are to “consider how we can spur one another on to love and good works”, and “encourage one another”. This is a highly participative gathering, not a spectator gathering. Ordinary (non-clergy) believers are seen by God as capable to build greater “love and good works”- the two things needed to engage the world. The IC form says we should “consider how we can get the best Bible lecturer to tell us what to do with no personal considering or speaking involved.” Do you see the corruption? God’s request here is in direct correlation to His design of us as His body – a living organism where ALL the parts participate together. The pew & pulpit dynamic is a drastic denial of this organism identity.
At this point Victoria probably is at the edge of her keyboard to tell me I’m attacking her and other sincere believers in her church who do many wonderful things that God is blessing. God’s grace is powerful and able to use corrupt dynamics to accomplish His purposes, but we don’t get the rewards unless we obey Him. There is greater glory for Christ when we obey Him, less glory when His great grace needs to intervene on our corruption (sin). I am not attacking. I am “rebuking and correcting” with the Word, “reproving, rebuking and exhorting” in two-way communication, as a good preacher is supposed to do. Our God is a two-way communication God. He never degenerates into one-way communication.
This blog is a much better builder of world engaging “love and good works” in the household of faith than the best pew & pulpit routine. There is much power in what has been offered so far. Saints, keep up the good “spurring”. It requires great “consideration”, just like the verse says.
Report comment to moderator
I still think the the call for protection from culture should be just as loud, among people of faith as the call for engaging it with discernment.
That said, I fully agree with what Llama said at #47 about “getting good” at something and about practicing the “doing…” Active participation in the arts and culture by Christians can have a redeeming impact.
I don’t know if Llama was taking this track but I have heard a lot of high-minded rhetoric about “being” as opposed to “doing.” While I see some of the point, you can still put me in the “doing” camp. Just remember whose you are!
Report comment to moderator
Tima – 50
You come up with these absurd statistics as being accurate? Your 90% statistics are a sad reflection on ‘your’ Church life and experience. Your experience should challenge and urge you to seek another Church which doesn’t have anything to do with what you have posted. “Hired expert” ? Those who are called of God to preach the Gospel are not “hired experts” they are pastors and evangelists. You can’t speak for anyone but yourself.
People come together to Worship the LORD in their churches, your comments are not Scriptural. If you believe that going to church is less important and just a “pew & pulpit routine” not to mention, your remark as pastors being nothing more than “Hired expert” . . it is you who have missed the point. Men who have been called by God, have studied, not only in Bible Schools, but attended Seminary are not just a ‘pulpit routine’-
We are to assemble ourselves together, that doesn’t mean just looking into a ‘lighted box’ which we can type into, having no 3D contact with anyone outside our nimble fingers, and box. I do agree that ’some’ blogs are giving out the Gospel, but that does not take the place of the Church or gathering together, unless you believe you can change what the Word of God says.
Report comment to moderator
Tina,
With respect, I don’t necessarily see the corruption; not from your description. I absolutely love the “institutionalized” church. I love the non-institutionalized church too. I just love the church. I love good preaching too. I think the pulpit is a powerful insturment for spiritual leadership and encouragement.
I also believe in Life Groups, fellowship events, faith forums, seminars, workshops, Sunday School, prayer meetings, service projects, hospitality ministries, praise concerts, potluck meals, outreach events and so much more. I am so excited when I see members get involved in personal outreach. I also love good singing, with or without instruments. I love the pew & pulptit dynamic and I have found it to be quite dynamic.
I have found that people who are hurting can be deeply moved by listening to a godly preacher deliver the good news from a loving heart and a well-trained mind.
I even love people who complain about the church. There must be something in there somewhere that actually cares.
Report comment to moderator
You covered all it all Joel . . . .
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, You say I’m not scriptural. Did you look at what Heb. 10:24,25 says meeting or assembly is? When you sit in your pew you don’t do what this says. 90% of the folks in your church do not do this. You are not meeting. You are forsaking it. Meeting is primarily two-way, intimate communication. That’s the kind of God we worship. His body gathered should be no different. God has called every believer to be a proclaimer, a preacher, not a separate professionalized class of believer called clergy or pastors. What the Bible says a pastor is to do is far from what they do in the IC. The pastorate offers some of the worst examples of “engaging the world” because the system has them focusing their time inside the church walls. Pastoral studies bear this out.
Joel Mark, with respect, I’m sure you like everything you said. But the church is not for you to like or dislike what happens. It is to please Jesus. You have to look at what Jesus documented that he wants. Much of what happens in the IC are bad substitutes for what Jesus wants. Maybe you could show me some scripture where God wants believers to have a weekly professionally prepared Bible lecture in order to grow up, or some scripture that says he wants us to gather in large groups that require million dollar facilities. If he has not asked for these, they are taking resources and attention away from what he has asked for. I have no doubts it’s mostly all enjoyable to men, but it’s not our church. Lets do what the head has asked for. Then we will have on display for the world what Jesus wants. The typical IC spends 75 – 85% of $ “given” for staff and buildings that benefit mostly those who “give the $”. Only 14 – 25% goes out the door. Is that giving or pooling? That is serious corruption. Victoria, check your church budget statistics on this one. There is a way for the church to build up the saints and reach the lost with far greater strategic impact and obedience where 100% of the giving goes beyond the givers “needs” or “tradition driven expectations”. When saints gather weekly fully prepared to “spur one another on to love and good works”, they will be more strategic in engaging the world.
Report comment to moderator
Tima – 55
Tima, SLOW DOWN, take a deep breath . . . . you know not one thing about my church. Your facts are nothing more than your misguided statistics which you dreamed up over the weekend.
Your diatribe isn’t worth listening to, nor is it factual, scriptural or authentic.
Have a nice week, try and get some rest!
Report comment to moderator
Tine,
Hebrews 10:24,25 does not make the negative case you are making. Not by any stretch. Thou dost protest too much.
I enjoy meetings that are participatory and two-way, and I also love listening to a competent speaker or leader. I enjoy participating in the singing (two-way communication) and I love listening to a well-practiced choir sing to the congregation (one-way communication), or to a duet or soloist or to any talented singer who served God with his/her gift of song. One-way or two-way, I just hope the melody comes from godly hearts. That is what is biblical.
I think it honors God to be professional in the right place and the right time. There are other times to be casual. It pleases God when well-prepared people, with servant-hearts, use their gifts in worship.
The church is much much stronger where people respect their clergy & leaders and where the clergy & leaders earn and deserve that respect (whether they are recompensed or not with financial support). The Bible calls for “double honor” for those who serve the church with “preaching and teaching.” (1 Timothy 5:17).
Report comment to moderator
Tina wrote, “But the church is not for you to like or dislike what happens. It is to please Jesus.”
That’s a false dichotomy. We are human beings and even when we seek first of all to please Jesus, we still come to any and all assemblies and church fellowships with likes and dislikes. I happen to come with a lot more likes than dislikes, because I love to worship God with others and I love those with whom I worship.
Jesus wants us to come with pure hearts and to worship in spirit and in truth. We can do that in a host of diverse ways, including one-way and two-way and multiple-way communications. And one of the most time-tested and proven ways of making churches healthy is to have trusted leaders who are called and supported to serve. But if a body of believers chooses not to have a supported worker, I wish them well.
But can we not even pay a full-time secretary? If we can, why not a personal worker? Why not someone who serves full-time and is available for funerals, weddings, counseling, preparation for teaching and preaching, administration, publishing materials, bulletins, brochures, outreach materials, planning events and so on?
Of course we can.
The New Testament is full of sermons (lectures). I can point to about ten of them in Acts alone. Plus, Paul told Timothy to devote himself “to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and teaching.” (1 Timothy 4:13).
Tina, I love to learn. Any good resource for learning is fine by me, and that includes listening to a well-prepared and well-trained preacher or lecturer. Of you love to learn, you will learn to love.
Whatever facilities a church uses, use them to the glory of God. In my opinion, your penchant for judging other churches and trying to ban certain methods of worship and define certain costs for facilities is not pleasing to Jesus.
You seem to think it’s about money, Tina. Well, it’s not. Fortunately, Jesus looks at our hearts.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, You certainly love to evade simple questions with substantive scripture. You have described your church in past blogs so I do know about your church. If your church did what Heb. 10:24,25 says it should do in their focal point gathering, I’m sure you would have told me about it. I give you credit for not lying about it and making something up just to try and win an argument. I’ve given you scripture. It is a two edged sword designed to cut apart mans self-centered tradition. I”ve asked God to help you take heed to what it says.
Joel Mark
I don’t remember making a negative case with Heb. 10:24,25, rather a positive one. It becomes a point of rebuke and correction when you see the household of faith ignoring it, putting in it’s place the exact opposite.
I did not raise a false dichotomy. A scripture you allude to from John 4 tells us we are to worship in spirit and in truth, not anyway that tickles our fancy or meets our cultural perspective. There is latitude in many ways for creativity, but there are also boundaries set up by such scriptures as Heb. 10:24,25. Can our hearts be said to be “pure” if we are ignoring what is specifically asked for?
The NT is not full of lectures by a hired men for 30 – 45 minutes with no opportunity for interaction, questions, objections, etc. Maybe you could show me one by a man who took all of his needs out of an offering plate gathered from the people he was talking to. You referenced 1 Tim. 4:13. This correctly says that men who labor so are worthy of double honor establishing a “right” to be paid. This verse occurs in the context of many other scriptures, written by the same man who taught by word and deed to “refuse” this right. Have you ever heard sermons on these?
I don’t think it’s all about money. It’s all about obedience. We demonstrate our love for the Lord with obedience, not good intentions with alternatives substituted in. What we do with the money God has given us is very important. I’m not judging other churches. I’m not assigning penalties. I am a messenger pointing to the Word with rebuke, correction, and instruction in righteousness – just what it is inspired for. Believers will engage the world with more spirit and truth when they obey the truth.
Report comment to moderator
Tima – 59 and then back to 55
You pretend to speak for Evangelical Churches, . . what they do, and what they don’t do. Having read your posts, I am now convinced you haven’t a clue.
YOU WRITE in post 55…… “When you sit in your pew you don’t do what this says. 90% of the folks in your church do not do this. You are not meeting. You are forsaking it.”
Reading again what you wrote, claiming to have what I would call FALSE REPORTS against me not to mention accusations against me and the Church I’m affliated with. …. you’re one unenlightned person, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you make it up as you go along.
Report comment to moderator
TIMA, Joel Mark, Victoria,
I think the issue isn’t so much format as time.
“Going to Church” for 1 hour a week is insufficient, whether it’s “pulpit and pew” or “highly participative gathering”.
I spent an hour in a “highly participative gathering” with just one other person just at lunch today!
(Didn’t Jesus say that wherever two or more are gathered in His Name, He would be there in their midst?)
If today’s hour were my only possible fellowship for a week, it would be precious indeed, as I imagine it is in parts of the world where Christians are persecuted.
If one only had one hour per week to meet with other believers, I suppose the question would be how to make the best use of that time. Prepared message? Interactive participation? Blend?
But in a nation where the average person watches (how many?? 40??) hours of TV a week, I think we can fit in BOTH “pew and pulpit” AND “highly participative gatherings.”
And if I discern rightly, I’ll bet Joel, like many others, encourages “highly participative gatherings” from the pulpit.
Report comment to moderator
John Denney
It’s both format and time. God gave us a simple, yet powerful format in Heb. 10:24,25. It’s a format that can be done anytime, anywhere. The IC format is very limited for time and weak in dynamic for making use of God’s design in our relationships. You are right, God wants all of our time to be worship and ministry. We are all to be “full time ministers”. “Always give yourself fully to the work of the Lord…” That would be world engaging.
Victoria
You need to think deeper than your emotional reactions of “You pretend to speak…” and ” false reports”. If I go into 100 evangelical IC churches around me on Sunday morning, 99% of them will be just as I described. Even though they might all be different brand names, their system of gathering is the same. The pulpit and pew dynamic does not allow for “one another” communication among God’s people. Not only that, but if I suggested they do what God has said, they would have lots of excuses to keep up their traditions. Your own response is proof of that. I”m not guessing at this. I know from experience. If I have given a false report on your church gathering you have had every opportunity to describe how the saints do “spurring one another…” while in their pews or SS class. You have not said a word. You only accuse me of not having a clue. You are showing me I am right on the money. In my 90% figure, I am allowing for 10% of God’s people actually doing what He has asked for. In a church of 500, thats 50 people. Those 50 people can accomplish powerful ministry. But the fact that it’s only 10% should be a red flag to us that there are serious systemic issues that we should be looking for errors and seek to fix them. We are not builders of God’s kingdom if we white-wash and live in denial of our failures to follow Jesus. Jesus has given us a dynamic where 100% can grow up to full maturity. I consider myself a true protestant. I protest the errors in the church. Most saints who claim to be protestant are functional catholics. They make no effort to be a “nobel” believer and examine what they are told and what they do and compare it to the scriptures to see if it’s true. Acts 17:11
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!