Response no. 3
my first response was one of opposition. reading this quote made me apprehensive that the author's meaning was that christianity's embrace of pop culture in relating to the world is intrinsically wrong.
The question is one of mode and meaning. 1. is the mode one of conforming the church to the practices of the lost world in order to make the unchurched feel more comfortable? 2. Is the reason a matter of making the Gospel more palatable? If there is a yes to either, then I think there is a problem. The Church is not for the lost. For that matter, the Church is not for the Christian. The Church is God's. He has commanded our prescence to do Him homage under His own terms. The question is not for us to be relevant to anyone, but to fulfill the Divine mandate in an acceptable fashion.
this bothered me because of what mr. davis pointed out. God transcends time. very t.s. eliot of God, don't you think?
What I am not suggesting is a church with an inability to interact with the culture around it. But I do believe that interaction to an extent stops at the Church door. When we enter the temple, we are in eternity for that time. The issue is not whether we understand or enjoy whaty goes on, but whether we please God. i'm kidding...i thought of ii corinthians. to be relevant in culture. the mission of many churches. the mission of so many lives. yet i initially missed the point, which led me to the following.john fischer published an article in the recent relevant, "When Christians Go Underground". in this article, he advocates that due to the stigmatized stereotypes of christians existent in western culture, christians may indeed "have to go underground and then resurface with a new unified mindset". meaning that as doctors, coffee baristas, firefighters, preschool teachers, police persons, musicians, artists, garbage truck handlers, clerks, professors--you get the point--we must be the dynamic people that we are created to be and, as he puts it, christians second.saying it in this way is difficult for me to stomach, as Christ is the most important part of who i am. if there were one song i could sing (and i had any musical talent), that would be it. yet i like the concept.
I must confess that I am troubled by the concept. It seems to be the result of privatization of religion on a grand scale. I would suggest that Christianity has earned its reputation by being false to itself and to Christ. If we were to reverse the relevance games this minute, engage the culture in an unapologetic (though not without apologeticS), un compromising way, and challenge the world to experience the truth of the Church, we might not have a single convert, but we would be a bit more honest. Suffice to say, I think mr. Fischer should consider soaking his head in cold water several times before doing any more writing.
part of the difficulty of the embrace of pop culture by contemporary christianity is that it may very well lead us into bondage because we lose sight of the focus. granted, since my stay in europe, i've often wondered if the egocentric american perspective blinds us altogether.someone i love articulated it well. yes, God is to become all of who you are, giving up self to become like Him. yet there is a stout difference between being selfless and self-less. the latter circumstance strips the identity until there is nothing left, disregarding the intricately made being that was created. i see this a great deal in the christian subculture, a people afraid to be who they are, so they rely on what they know will be accepted. the former allows the person to be others-focused, but utilizes personality and all the unique things about the person to serve that goal of becoming more like Him. He has to have something to use. i like the way haseltine put it, "Bring the full weight of who you are into your relationships". yet this idea seems to deal more with the individual lives than i-church. then the question always becomes, how does this play out in the i-church?
What is the i-church?
The question is one of mode and meaning. 1. is the mode one of conforming the church to the practices of the lost world in order to make the unchurched feel more comfortable? 2. Is the reason a matter of making the Gospel more palatable? If there is a yes to either, then I think there is a problem. The Church is not for the lost. For that matter, the Church is not for the Christian. The Church is God's. He has commanded our prescence to do Him homage under His own terms. The question is not for us to be relevant to anyone, but to fulfill the Divine mandate in an acceptable fashion.
this bothered me because of what mr. davis pointed out. God transcends time. very t.s. eliot of God, don't you think?
What I am not suggesting is a church with an inability to interact with the culture around it. But I do believe that interaction to an extent stops at the Church door. When we enter the temple, we are in eternity for that time. The issue is not whether we understand or enjoy whaty goes on, but whether we please God. i'm kidding...i thought of ii corinthians. to be relevant in culture. the mission of many churches. the mission of so many lives. yet i initially missed the point, which led me to the following.john fischer published an article in the recent relevant, "When Christians Go Underground". in this article, he advocates that due to the stigmatized stereotypes of christians existent in western culture, christians may indeed "have to go underground and then resurface with a new unified mindset". meaning that as doctors, coffee baristas, firefighters, preschool teachers, police persons, musicians, artists, garbage truck handlers, clerks, professors--you get the point--we must be the dynamic people that we are created to be and, as he puts it, christians second.saying it in this way is difficult for me to stomach, as Christ is the most important part of who i am. if there were one song i could sing (and i had any musical talent), that would be it. yet i like the concept.
I must confess that I am troubled by the concept. It seems to be the result of privatization of religion on a grand scale. I would suggest that Christianity has earned its reputation by being false to itself and to Christ. If we were to reverse the relevance games this minute, engage the culture in an unapologetic (though not without apologeticS), un compromising way, and challenge the world to experience the truth of the Church, we might not have a single convert, but we would be a bit more honest. Suffice to say, I think mr. Fischer should consider soaking his head in cold water several times before doing any more writing.
part of the difficulty of the embrace of pop culture by contemporary christianity is that it may very well lead us into bondage because we lose sight of the focus. granted, since my stay in europe, i've often wondered if the egocentric american perspective blinds us altogether.someone i love articulated it well. yes, God is to become all of who you are, giving up self to become like Him. yet there is a stout difference between being selfless and self-less. the latter circumstance strips the identity until there is nothing left, disregarding the intricately made being that was created. i see this a great deal in the christian subculture, a people afraid to be who they are, so they rely on what they know will be accepted. the former allows the person to be others-focused, but utilizes personality and all the unique things about the person to serve that goal of becoming more like Him. He has to have something to use. i like the way haseltine put it, "Bring the full weight of who you are into your relationships". yet this idea seems to deal more with the individual lives than i-church. then the question always becomes, how does this play out in the i-church?
What is the i-church?
posted by Brother Makarias | 6:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home