Church?
So don't hold me to any of this, I'm just rambling.
I've been thinking about the corporate worship gathering. I've been thinking about it in general terms but, for somanorth, this is the Sunday evening gathering that happens at North campus. So, here's my question: read Acts 2:42-47. I dig videos and cool music and hip multi-media stuff, but does that really have eternal value? Intrinsically, no. Insofar as that it communicates the Word of God, maybe. However, when we gather as a body, what place does "cool" have? Or even pop culture? As a wise man once said, "The things of substance, that which changes lives, rarely costs money-- it requires time, energy, and commitment to Christ's high calling. It costs us our lives." How then does that change what we do on Sundays? How then does that change how I look at the Sunday gathering? Or does it?
I would honestly LOVE to hear your thoughts on this one...
I've been thinking about the corporate worship gathering. I've been thinking about it in general terms but, for somanorth, this is the Sunday evening gathering that happens at North campus. So, here's my question: read Acts 2:42-47. I dig videos and cool music and hip multi-media stuff, but does that really have eternal value? Intrinsically, no. Insofar as that it communicates the Word of God, maybe. However, when we gather as a body, what place does "cool" have? Or even pop culture? As a wise man once said, "The things of substance, that which changes lives, rarely costs money-- it requires time, energy, and commitment to Christ's high calling. It costs us our lives." How then does that change what we do on Sundays? How then does that change how I look at the Sunday gathering? Or does it?
I would honestly LOVE to hear your thoughts on this one...
posted by Parrot1540 at 8:19 AM
4 Comments:
You have a lot of great questions in your post, too many to do justice in a comment, but I have this thought - I think that "cool" can too easily become an idol, even without recognizing it. I don't think Jesus, the early church, and the subsequent saints actually cared about being cool. At the same time, Jesus was highly culturally relevent (see numerous examples in Luke of his commentary on Herod and the current political situation).
I think the difference may be found in the focus. As Christians, it's important to ask the Holy Spirit motives on this - why do we use interesting videos, does it accomplish what we think we want it to, is it kind and loving, is it helpful, etc.?
I think there's also an aspect of
"coolness" that implies aloofness - is what we do inviting and welcoming or standoffish?
All these ramblings to a final point... we are called to be a set apart people, holy unto the Lord. There should be a clear difference between the world and the church. And this is the clear difference - the church is acting in love - consuming concern, care and action for the good of another. So, then the question is - is it good for us? Does it make us more like Jesus?
I can imagine the answer to this being both yes and no. I think that videos like Matt Steven's voice over on the Jesus Films (by Vintage 21) can be hugely helpful in re-evaluating our understanding of church, but I know that there are others that are equally unhelpful.
Of course, all of this reverts back to the ancient questions, what is "good."
I don't know that these thoughts add any light, but it's a question I have been and want to keep pondering.
Good stuff Luke. Keep posting!!! The first thing that jumped into my mind when you asked "What place does cool have?" was 1 Cor 2:1-5. Read it.
I think the biggest thing I get afraid of, personally, in ministry is that people would get converted to Christianity because it is hip, cool, entertaining and not because Jesus is beautiful and calls them to die. Holler at cha boy
Anyone who thinks that they are now emergent or missional bc they play sushi & sunsets or a track from u2 or light candles (or any other cosmetic) simply doesnt understand the implications of developing a missional ethos. The bigger issue is that culture has radically changed. we're, as you well know, are living in a postmodern era now. the problem is that most churches refuse to accept this. we want to, like the Amish, freeze frame certain methods or styles of the past as being more sacred than others...they're not. (In fact it even becomes an obstacle bc we incognizantly are asking people to convert to some weird, nerdy, dated christian sub-culture). I reluctantly use the following analogy but for the sake of blogging...the modern church learned how to beat the system, i.e. modernism, but today's church (in the US & UK), for the most part hasnt. they are growing largely through transfer and Not conversion growth. they excel at making christians smarter. theyve become comfortable and good in what used to work. So, all that to say, yes and no. No, we must never ever compromise theology. Yes, we must always, in my opinion, like a missionary, be culturally relevant to the culture God has assigned us. otherwise we become the amish of our era. the issue then isnt cool or uncool (personally i prefer cool). Its being Holy Spirit led, Biblically based, and culturally relevant in whatever era, people group or Lord has assigned us. Happy New Year.
bobby - I wouldn't diss the Amish. I think there's a lot to learn from them. They keep to a set of principles, they've got depth (contrary to a lot of churches in America), and they do a good job of transfering culture in a holistic way.
The point isn't to be culturally relevant (although it's clearly important), the question to answer is whether people are becoming transformed into the image of Jesus Christ and learning to dwell within the community of the trinity because of their involvement in our church. Real transformation, real discipleship is what matters, not being "cool."
On another point - we are not clearly in a postmodern era. We are in a period of transition in which many of the mandates of the modern era remain while culturally postmoderism is truly emerging as a new perspective. (Although many would argue that it's not truly a new perspective, just a different spin on the old. Numerous similarities exist, including the public private divide, etc.).
I agree that we're to be Biblically based, spirit led and culturally relevant. But I would add that this particular movement of the church requires careful discernment - it very quickly and all too easily becomes about being cool rather than being real or being true. I think we constantly have to be questioning motives for wanting to be cool, while continuing to seek how to be wisely culturally relevant.
Post a Comment
<< Home