Mars Hill and Postmodern Evangelism

Thanks for the post. I have referenced Acts 17 when preaching, but never to advocate a scripture light sermon or a way to appeal to secular people on secular terms. The cross needs to be central to sharing our faith with those who are lost.

If I have used secular material as illustrations I have done so thoughtfully making sure that it adequately illustrates a scriptural point. If it doesn't do that I don't use it. Not that I use material like that often.

Thank you, pastor James, for that well-spoken word! And thank you for being a national voice for biblical truth. And thank you for not being afraid or worried one iota that you'll be mocked and criticized by postmodern church leaders for your strong words and stance on these issues. We need more public voices like that in order to quell the postmodern madness that is sowing doubt and uncertainty into many in the church today in the name of humility and outreach. We are supporting you're message which is full of both grace and truth.

Last fall, our pastor showed a clip of "Desparate Housewives" during the worship service. They also played Pink Floyd's "Money" song. My heart grieved over that. When asked about it, he referenced Acts 17. He said we have to learn to connect with where the people are at. The reply from some of us was that we won't even watch that show at home, so why let it be seen in church? "Everyone at church watches it.", was the reasoning. My heart aches for this distorted view of how to reach our world for Christ. My family longs to hear the Word of God proclaimed without apology. When I disagree with such an application/understanding of Acts 17, I'm told that I am causing division by not being a team player. We have been at our church 10 years now, and have seen the pendulum swing further into this felt-needs approach of church. We have come to LOVE the people, but are unsettled with this gradual "frog in the beaker" shift; one that few of us seem to see. Thank you, James for being a strong witness for the truth. Pray for wisdom as we seek God's direction over the summer. Is it time to leave, or is it time to stand in the gap? 2 Corinthians 4:7-18. It is so hard to not lose heart. I've been asking the Lord to bring a Harvest Bible Chapel to our city.

Thank you, Pastor James, for your unapologetic, clear insights on Acts 17.

I'd like to respond to the previous poster. David, my husband and I were at a church for nearly two years that sounds a lot like yours. We knew hearing Kanye West during the offering was not only a distorted view of how to lead nonbelievers to Christ, but also (as you said) not even a choice we would make outside of church! We hesitated to say anything because our alternatives were few. But I am telling you, staying at a church that was off-message was HARMFUL to our spritual lives. When we moved back to Chicago, we were so grateful for Pastor James and for Harvest. I can't speak for him, but based on his teachings (The Power of Personal Convictions series) and on Ephesians 4, I would say that if your church is straying from the gospel, and is more focused on "making Jesus culturally relevant" rather than feeding its sheep with the WORD--and the leaders refuse to acknowledge it--then you and your family should seriously consider leaving. I will be praying that God will grant you wisdom, as well as the courage to speak the TRUTH in love.

...and Luther was doing what seemed fit for the people of his time.
Listen:
Jesus let John baptize him because it fulfilled all righteousness.
What fulfills all righteousness where Church is concerned?
To be in a church that doesn't play Pink Floyd at their services? I don't think so- though that should be a clue to ALL the man-made churches: you're not that far removed.
As the sheep we are, let us gather together around Christ as our Fathers did when the Church was presented to them as a gift from God.
And those that would scatter us, though their intentions be good, may God kindle a desire for righteousness in their hearts that leads them back to the fold.

In our church there are things used that are wrong. But, in just a few meetings, my husband has been able to make some changes (praise God). We have seen positive changes in our church by the examples set by my husband and our son. Sometimes staying in a church can cause some awesome things to come about!! I'm not saying stay if you've prayed and God is leading you out, but He may just need you to stay to be a light in a dark place. Sad isn't it? To even say a church needs light because of their darkenss?

In our church there are things used that are wrong. But, in just a few meetings, my husband has been able to make some changes (praise God). We have seen positive changes in our church by the examples set by my husband and our son. Sometimes staying in a church can cause some awesome things to come about!! I'm not saying stay if you've prayed and God is leading you out, but He may just need you to stay to be a light in a dark place. Sad isn't it? To even say a church needs light because of their darkenss?

Hi James,good word brother. I struggle as a fellow servant when it comes to this issue. I try to preach the cross as central nearly every week, but I also try to be "relevent" to my listeners. I've used movie clips (always by myself previewed) that I feel illustrate the text's message I'll be speaking on that day. But I admit, I have some in my church who would like me to "step out of the box" a little more with secular music and such, all of which I am uncomfortable with. My greatest fear is that the church no longer is influencing the culture, but that culture is influencing the church - In essence, it would appear as if we're losing our "saltiness." I appreciate your message, your love for the Truth and proclamation of our Savior, Jesus Christ. God bless in your continued opportunities to speak to a vast audience as God has permitted.

As is nearly always the case, people get hung up in the either/or battle. For Paul, it wasn't a matter of relevance vs. truth. It was Truth in a meaningful way. He didn't speak to them in jargon, but in terms that made sense to them. St. Patrick did the same with the barbarians of Ireland and saw the whole country converted (then the whole thing fell to pieces when the RCC came down with the iron fist of conformity to their liturgy and ecclesiology. See Cahill, How the Irish Saved Western Civilization...Again).

I'd be interested to hear your take on Driscoll. Some call him "emerging". Most emergents reject him as such. But he preaches a hard gospel, as is typical of the Acts 29 guys. They are hard-core committed to the centrality and supremacy of Christ and the proclaimed Gospel, even its sharp-edged implications (such as gender roles). Ironically, Driscoll's church is named Mars Hill. LOL!

Speaking of Mars Hill... Rob Bell (another Mars Hill pastor) preaches heavily from the Scriptural text. You might (probably would) argue that he relies too much on modern "rabinnical" sources which lend to his misinterpretation of some of Jesus' teachings, but he's no sugar-coater. Now, Joel Oelsteen is a sugar coater... and he couldn't be further from emerging.

Another tidbit I find fascinating is that postmoderns crave authenticity. Most of the watered-down gospel (read: false gospel) pastors aren't reaching true postmoderns, but rather self-centered, jaded "evangelicals" (See Webber, The Younger Evangelicals). The people who are truly reaching postmoderns are those who are living a wholistic gospel alongside the proclaimed one (not in place of it)... those who are committed to biblical ecclesia and social justice as manifestations of the inward transformation of Christ and the proclamation of the kingdom among us.

Thanks for the great discussion. Keep preaching the Truth without apology!

EDITOR: This is a great entry comment. I try not give commentary on other brother's ministries by name. But I really like what this guy wrote here. James

James - great post. I never knew about the use of Acts 17 for that before, seems pretty wacky! I've been very involved in Precept Ministries over the years and I sure didn't "Observe" that in the text.

Also, wanted to thank you for the things you have written on the emergent movement in the past. I've been blogging quite a bit about that topic recently, and linked to a couple posts from you.

www.jamesgottry.com/created/labels/emerging%20church.html

Though I don't attend your church (I'm in AZ), I have friends who do, and I benefit from your podcasts. Keep pointing people to the book God wrote!

Pastor James, and the commentors here, I just want to share a couple of quick words.

First, regarding the post itself, it seems to me that you are attacking something of a strawman, Pastor James. You talk about "Mars Hill" type churches as toning down the gospel and replacing the Word with hip secular materials. But this need not be the case.

A church could make good use of secular materials to illustrate a point for their audience in a way that makes sense to them, given their cultural context-- much as Paul did in the Acts passage you discuss. Hollywood movies, secular music, popular TV shows, etc; these are the things that mainstream American culture "swims in," they make familiar sense to people where Biblical references and Christian lingo would seem obscure and irrelevant. By using such cultural artifacts to reach people, and showing how the truth in them echoes truths in the Bible, churches can show how very relevant the Bible truly is. Secular sources can bridge the divide between "postmodern" secular Americans and the Gospel.

This gets toward my second point. One poster here mentioned that a church they once went to played a Pink Floyd song during a Sunday service, and that this horrified them. To that I give two intertwining points: all truth is God's truth, and all beauty is God's beauty. This means that secular materials can be appreciated for the truth and beauty that they may bring.

In the case of Pink Floyd's song "Money," it can be said that the musicianship is good (the music is beautiful), and the message it raises is familiar and important (the influence money has in American culture). In other words, there is some truth and beauty to be had in the song-- and, further, it is familiar to most people (even the people on this blog who seem to think it is evil, or at least evil in church).

It is precisely the willful ignorance and shunning of such cultural products of beauty and truth that makes people accuse the church of being irrelevant-- by ignoring what American culture products, the American church loses its ability to speak in a language that Americans understand.

People talk about the fear that using too much secular material in church will get the church to the point where culture is influencing the church, rather than church influence culture. But I will say that the church's influence on culture is all but non-existent when it does not engage in conversation with secular sources. Right now, Christian music, movies, fiction, poetry is stuck in a ghetto of imitating secular sources-- contemporary Christian music strives to sound *like* secular music. This method will never produce artistic leadership, and leadership is necessary to have influence.

Moreover, leadership produces respect-- many people not currently reached by the church will begin to listen to it, take it seriously, when the church starts engaging in real conversation with the culture, making cultural products that engage with secular cultural products, etc.

What I am saying is that having churches that engage culture in a serious manner is a first step toward having a church that simply *is* relevent to more people, rather than having to strive so hard to seem relevent. When you really know the conversation, it is only natural to join in and make sense to people. We need not fear this because of the dangers such engagement could pose-- Paul showed that they are not unavoidable.

I definitely understand what you're saying. Although I haven't heard much of your preaching, I'm currently reading DOWNPOUR and am really enjoying it. Bill Hybels mentioned your book by name last month when I was with him at South Haven -- he said it's a "must-read that will challenge you spiritually." I'm finding this to be a very true statement.

I guess my concern is that it SEEMS as though you dismiss the use of ANYTHING deemed "secular" in our Sunday services... or whenever, as a tool to reach people for Christ (capitalization only used for emphasis... I'm not angry or anything). But you said nothing of motive - and I think a lot of what you deem wrong has to do with just that. There are several ministries that are interested in mainly numbers who will, in order to swell the crowd, use different methods for that reason alone... while others will employ those same methods for the sole purpose of furthering the gospel and the fame of Christ. I think the latter is very acceptable, and that needs to be understood. So what if a ministry uses a film clip, or drama, or a CLEAN "secular" song as a means of pushing the point of the message to its end? 1 Cor. 9:19-23 comes to mind...

I went to Washington Bible College, most of the teachers who impacted me teaching-wise were out of Dallas Seminary... so I love, and adhere to, the exposition of the Word of God. However, there are alot of ministries out there that are "cutting edge" that hold to the faithful teaching of God's Word, yet use some of the methods that you deem as inappropriate.

My team and I just started Mosaic Community Church in College Park, MD a little over a month and a half ago... I'm trying to do both: faithfully teach God's Word, yet do ministry in a culturally relevant, cutting edge way... I'll let you know down the line whether or not we were successful. ;-)

Much love, though, bro! I appreciate your faithfulness and high view of Scripture!!!

Drew,
Word up. Do you go to our church? If so, you obviously recognize that although Pastor James decries cultural compromise from the pulpit and in writing, the very fact that Harvest is culturally relevant (not soaked, but relevant, in my pomo opinion) reveals that he does understand and value contextualization on a level far higher than 95% of fundamentalist-evangelical pastors. It's one thing to speak out against cultural compromise when you're the kind of leader who lacks vision, and this is reflected in a stagnant, lifeless, fruitless church. It's quite another coming from a bold visionary whose church is reaching postmoderns such as myself. Granted, I'm not very postmodern with regard to some things (such as doctrine). But culturally, my wife and I connected with Harvest from the moment we walked through the door. Sure, I'd rather there be a little more "mystical" atmosphere (darker, candles, bohemian) and a bit more experimental music, but I see straight through all that stuff and see a passion for God's renown and the supremacy of Christ in our lives and in our church, and that's ultimately what matters.

I will echo the most important thing you said though: "By ignoring what American culture produces, the American church loses its ability to speak in a language that Americans understand." The key to the whole issue of contextualization (relevance, if you want to call it that) is communication. If we don't communicate the gospel to people, they don't receive it. It's just that simple. And communication involves much more than words. Many times, words are indiscernable if they are clouded in distracting nonverbals. This is the essence of irrelevance. (Forgive my analysis... my BA is in Communication, so I'm kind of a junkie on this topic). I'll reemphasize, however: the language of the postmodern is authenticity and substance. You're right, Drew. Churches that try too hard to be hip are going to push just as many pomo's away as churches who have stuck to historic liturgy (if not more). Fortunately, Harvest has learned how to avoid cheesiness and superficiality, as well as rote tradition and cultural compromise. I praise God for that.

Much love,

Long story short my husband was expelled from our church he was caught in 'crack cocaine' addiction. My children refused to attend once their father was expelled I attended for a few months but lost the guts and courage to continue alone without my family. I was absent from church for 3 years. Yearned to hear the gospel and started trying out different churches came across one that does use movie clips, secular music. I'd never been to a church like this before I was stunned. I wasn't sure what to make of it. When I told my husband this, he wanted to check it out (he kicked the crack about 2 years ago but the struggle is still on in other ways) He likes the church. Christ is preached. The sermons are preached from an open Bible. I pray that God is using this in the ongoing restoring of my family. A year ago my husband would not darken the door, now he wants to go to church on Sundays. When I sit and listen I hear the good news. Which I had all but turned my back on in defeat. Nothing can seperate me from the love of God (I can't even wiggle out on my own) I love to listen Pastor James unapologetic messages over the internet and I am so grateful my husband is sitting beside me in church on Sundays hearing God's word.

In response to Matt, I want to clarify that I do not want to accuse Harvest of being irrelevant. I was just taking issue with some of the content of the blog post we're commenting on here, and also some of the comments. These things seemed unduly alarmist and unfair to me, symptoms of a larger fear of engaging with culture.

I have not been to Harvest Bible Chapel, I do not live in the area anymore (I just graduated from Wheaton College), but I did visit once with some friends, and I have been to many churches that I would judge to be more or less similar. Like I said, my problem does not really lie with the church service you guys do-- it is doing many things right, as is obvious from the people you are bringing to Christ. Instead, my critique lies more with mindsets and lifestyles.

Here, I will make one more comment, and then branch it out: once you start speaking the language of a culture, it is one thing to speak to people, but it is a whole other thing to speak with them. This has less to do with the kinds of sermons given, or the style of music, or whether there are candles or incense or well-edited videos; or even whether you are playing clips of a few secular songs and movies on Sunday mornings. Indeed, it has a whole lot less to do with Sunday, and a lot more to do with the rest of the week.

Speaking with the people of the culture around the church, with the idea of bringing them to church and ultimately into The Church, involves the music we listen to, the movies we watch, the books we read; it involves the way we participate in these things; and the way we talk about them with others. It involves going to the places people congregate, taking part in the activities people enjoy; being a key part of the community rather than an alternate, shut-in community that we try to abduct people into.

That's strong language, probably too strong, but I want to convey that for many people the church simply has no voice in anything that matters to them. Christians are "out there" condemning everything that is meaningful or enjoyable to them, or at best making lower-grade "Christian" versions of it. (I use the scare quotes, btw, because many Christian songs or movies or what have you involve less deep introspection of the soul than their secular cousins, at least the best quality secular works-- a truly sad state of affairs.)

What I'm saying is, it isn't enough for the church to be able to speak the language of American culture; it must also know what to speak about, if it is to reach people where they are at. Matt, you pointed out that people crave authenticity and substance, and I would add to that community (a rare commodity in America these days); but many, many people have no idea that the church provides these things. To them, the church seems isolationist, xenophobic, narrow-minded and short-sighted.

The sad truth, in my view, is that these people all-too-often have a point: the great truth of our Gospel is frequently almost buried underneath the weight of our own Evangelical sub-culture, which seeks to be "at war" with the people in mainstream culture rather than conversant with them.

Avoiding and undoing this reality is, in my view, what the Mars Hill model is really all about. That is why I have made both of these posts here: to try to give these ideas a fairer shake than what I think Pastor James gives them here. I know he is just trying to talk about a specific sub-set of churches that really are watering down the Gospel, to the detriment of all. But I thought that the opposite case- the church failing to engage with the people around it- needed to be made too, as I see it as an even more prevalent problem.

Hey Drew,
What you're basically talking about is an entirely different modus operandi, and your pleas are probably either going to reach deaf ears or stern rebuke here. If you're cool with that, more power to ya. If you'd rather engage in a more substantive treatment of the ideas you're expressing, hop over to my blog and you'll have ample opportunity (in fact, read my very first blog entry if you have time).

www.theincarnate.blogspot.com

One last thought. My giftings are primarily prophetic in nature, and so I have tended in past years to take the convictions God has given me and try to apply them universally (i.e. there is one right way to "do church", or better yet, "be church"), but have since come to accept that many different types of churches are not only tolerable, but needed in different contexts. Genuine, biblical community can't happen for the most part in suburbs. They just aren't designed for it. You can drive 15 or 20 minutes to a small group once a week, but that's far from being engaged in a real, tangible community together. The best a suburban church can hope to do is, I believe, what Harvest is doing. And the real issue is (a) whether people are receiving Christ as Savior and Lord, and (b) whether transformation is happening in families' and individuals' lives. I do see this happening at Harvest, despite its "come to us" structure. I see other churches similar to Harvest that lack the Spirit of God, which are not seeing these things as typical. Once again, God is sovereign, and He will work however, whenever, and wherever He chooses. He is working here.

Hope to see you over at The Incarnate. ;-)

Drew, the strawman argument of
All Truth is God's Truth ?

Sounds pretty good, right?

This statement is usually what you will hear from someone who is trying to find the good and nice things from other religions as an attempt to be tolerant and open minded, seeking common ground. After all, claiming to have "the Truth" wouldn't be very nice to those who disagree.

But whether the statement is true or not really depends on how you and I and we all define "truth".

To ponder this statement and apply it, the average person will activate his little mind and scan the millions and billions of claims of "truth" in the world we live in. Those he thinks (or feels) are "true" he will then claim as God's. Either way, whether really true or not, it is all called God's. But accepting the statement "All Truth is God's Truth" as true is very dangerous! Here's why:

First, today in our culture many deny any absolute truth. The popular thinking is that you have your truth and I have mine and what's true for you might not be true for me. So the idea of "All Truth" cannot even be agreed upon.

Secondly, the statement's first part, "All Truth" puts man first and God second, requiring us first to think of: what we say, what we teach, what we believe, what we think, what we've read, what we've heard, and so on. This is a man centered way of viewing truth. In God's eyes it doesn't matter what WE say, what WE teach, what WE believe, what WE think, what WE've read, what WE've heard. It very possibly could all be wrong, incorrect, and even foolish. Unless, what we say, what we teach, what we believe, etc. is from God's Word it has no value. This is where we should start, God's Word. How WE define Truth is irrelevant.

Thirdly, the question ought to be "How does God, and God alone, define Truth?" And how do we find that out? The answer is; from the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, God's Word by the acting of the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, What is "Truth"? Well, to put it simply, Jesus! He said that he is the way, the TRUTH and the life. No one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6). Everything he said, taught, fulfilled, accomplished, promised is all truth. That's where we must always start, with Jesus–the TRUTH manifested–as clearly taught through no other source than His holy scriptures–the Word. He is the "WORD" of God become flesh. That is "God's Truth". Anything outside of that is a lie.

Instead of trying to figure out "All Truth" and force it into "God's Truth" like the statement tells us, I think it would be better to say "All God's Truth is True". This puts God first and man out of the picture. That's the way it ought to be!

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

FOR AN EXAMPLE FROM PSYCHOLOGY
LINK ON:www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Introduction/atgt.htm

www.thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/03/all-truth-is-gods-truth.html.

Don,

Your reasoning is circular. You said, "whether the statement is true or not really depends on how you and I and we all define "truth". Sounds like an awfully postmodern statement to me. God is Truth, and is revealed perfectly in Jesus Christ and testified to perfectly in scripture, I believe. Everything I know and have experienced tells me this. Now, the fact that all of the stimuli my brain has received (knowledge and experience) brings me to this conclusion does not make it true. What's true is true, regardless of what I think about it. To say otherwise is completely contradictory... it is simply impossible for something that is true not to be true. The very essence of truth is that it is. That is why God said, "I AM". However, this does not mean a thing to a human being like you or me. The best you and I can do is observe this truth via our six senses (the sixth being spiritual). We hear things spoken. We read words with our eyes. We experience peace, conviction, sorrow, and joy not just with our "hearts", but with our bodies. We receive all of these stimuli into our minds, which then process them into meaningful data, which we store into our memory. As we receive more stimuli, our brains bring these memories back into consciousness to help us interpret these new stimuli. This is how we derive meaning from anything and everything we experience--reading, feeling, hearing, and so on, including spiritual things. The spiritual is "run through" the cognitive--always. Therefore, God is real to us, because our six senses tell us that, compared to all competing alternatives, this is most likely to be so. But again, this does not make it so.

Do you follow what I am saying? If not, there's no sense driving yourself nuts over it. However, you brought up the issue of epistemology (how one comes to know truth), and I have just outlined the most basic foundation for this.

Now, if you're interested in talking about the implications of this, here's something to chew on. If our perceptions of God's existence are not what makes it true, then that leaves us with two distinct types of truth: actual truth and perceived truth. The classic postmodern philosophical argument is that perceived truth is the only option available to human beings. Actual truth exists apart from our perception of truth--that is, subjective truth. By definition, all "human truth" is subjective truth. God saying, "I AM," is objective. Us saying, "You are," is subjective, because we are only believing and stating what our minds have allowed us to perceive as true.

I hope that's not too brain-wrenching for you all. You seem pretty keen to me, so I'd say you can handle elementary philosophy.

One last thing, and then I'll jet. Don said that saying, "All truth is God's truth," is dangerous. I would argue that the opposite is far more dangerous. If all truth is not God's truth, then that obviously means that some truth is not God's truth. But if God is the consummation of truth, the source of all truth, then we have completely contradicted ourselves. What I think has happened in this conversation (not just this one in particular, but the broader, ongoing conversation) is that we have assumed that the people saying, "All truth is God's truth," are really saying, "Everything everyone believes to be true is God's truth," and that, my friends, could not be further from the truth. Postmodern pastors and thinkers are, on the whole, not saying this. They are saying that God has not limited his revelation to the Bible... even the Bible tells us this, for crying out loud (i.e. creation, "eternity in man's hearts"). Matt Westerholm blogged on Rick Warren's debate with atheist Sam Harris, and in that debate, Warren explained that God has given "common grace" to all mankind--that is, the ability to think and reason and work and have pleasure and so forth. Life itself is "common grace". Whether we like to admit it or not, people do experience degrees of satisfaction without God (granted, it's infinitely inferior to the satisfaction we find in God), and this is common grace. Likewise, there are plenty of non-Christians in the world that have contributed meaningfully to the global human existence. Again, all their contributions are as rags compared to Christ, but they are still done by his grace. Study the early Church Fathers and you will see a hearty appreciation for Greek philosophy and literature. Depending on these to arrive at "ultimate" truth is plain foolishness. But utilizing these to help flesh truth out, or to build bridges for evangelism is wise. Hello, the Bible wasn't written in English. Nor did the Bible teach us how to develop a written language. Hmm, let's see... where did people have to look in order to find the truth they needed to be able to record God's word and transmit it throughout the earth? Wherever it was, it was not the Bible. Some truth necessary for some things (neither salvation nor sanctification) cannot be found in Scripture. That is the most basic way of saying what Rob Bell and other postmodern Christian thinkers have been saying. Let's get over it already, and get on with the Gospel.

I, too, take issue with the statement “All truth is God’s truth.” There was “truth” in what the serpent said when he told Eve she wouldn’t die if she ate from the tree, but that certainly wasn’t God’s truth. For a practical example, consider the world’s “truth” that sex is beautiful. By contrast, God’s truth asserts that sex in the context of marriage is the only sex that is beautiful. These are two drastically opposed notions. When we have half the truth, it’s a lie. (Might be why our court system insists on “the WHOLE truth”). Similarly, in a fallen world, NOT all things considered beautiful by our society are indicative of God’s beauty. Again, our society would have us believe that sex is beautiful as long as two people love each other. The Bible, however, makes it very clear that sex outside of marriage is ugly.

Drew, maybe we disagree about what it means to engage culture. It seems that defining culture as music, movies, and television is pretty limiting (and would exclude a large number of unbelievers by age, race, and socioeconomic status). At Mars Hill, Paul cited two lines from poetry familiar to his listeners (which, by the way, would not have been familiar to ALL listeners in that culture as they were to this very specific audience) to, in effect, say, “Hey, even your own poets are toying with the idea that we are made in God’s image—so what’s with these idols?” He then QUICKLY moved to the gospel, calling them to repent. Because some of his listeners were not compelled, would we say he should have been more “culturally relevant”? Not at all. Fortunately, it’s the message that changes people, not the messenger. Why obscure the message by melding it with the half-truths espoused by a postmodern belief system? Sure, God uses the church to bring people to Him, but I love that He gets the job done IN SPITE OF it.

And I’m not sure why failing to play “good” secular music in church amounts to the church ignoring culture. Now, if the church at-large were refusing to use email as a means of communicating with people, or asserting that using PowerPoiint to display worship lyrics is a sin, then I’d agree that it’s isolating itself from (at least one aspect of) culture. But your argument that the church should use secular materials seems to be predicated somewhat on your assessment that their Christian counterparts are not of similar artistic merit. That may or may not be the case, but the primary purpose of music (for example) in the church is for worship. Even by the most liberal definition, that's a hard sell with Pink Floyd.

Ironic that the very song that is cited here mis-qoutes scripture as the verse from 1 Timothy states the "love of money is the root of all evil." If that is not reason enough not to play it, then I don't know what is. The fact is, the "need" to be culturally relevant in order to relate to postmoderns is just a slippery slope that dangerously risks leading to compromise. The Gospel when proclaimed boldly, is powerful enough to continue to build the "true" church as it has for the last 2000 years. Otherwise, what you end up with is a church of consumption that seeks out whatever tickles the ears when the status quo fails to do so!

Jessica,
You and Don bring up a great point: how we define "truth" makes all the difference in this conversation. Your mention of partial truth vs. whole truth is very helpful, because I think it gets at the heart of the issue. People "in the world" and "worldly" ideologies contain partial truths (small "t"). Only God contains Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. The whole point Drew, myself, and others have tried to make is that little "t" truth is worthwhile to utilize in order to help people recognize big "T" truth. A one-size-fits-all approach won't work. When witnessing one-on-one, people have questions. If all you have to say is, "The Bible says so," then not only are your chances slim to none that they'll actually accept the Gospel message, you actually have abdicated your responsibility to give a compelling account for the hope that you have. Postmodern people don't give a rip what the Bible says, no matter how fervently you say it. They want to know (a) is the Bible trustworthy and why, and (b) does the Bible make sense out of life, both here and beyond, to me... that is, if they care at all. Many times, they wouldn't care even if you did give a sound defense of the Bible's trustworthiness and sensibility, until you earned credibility with them as a person who is genuinely interested in who they are as a person, not simply as a convert. That's a plain, simple fact about the vast majority of Western European/Americans. They are post-Christian... "Been there, heard that, found wanting."

To them, a big part of caring about them is caring about what they care about, even if you really could not care less about it.

"I have become all things to all people so that by all means, I might win some."

Paul was missional. Jesus was missional. I guarantee you he despised his human flesh... not to mention the mockery and rejection of him by his own creation. "I am here to do my Father's will," he said again and again. We are here to do our Father's will, and that includes identifying with the lowliest people of this world, and most certainly people who are unlike us.

The discussion obviously gets more complex when you're discussing the nature of corporate expressions of faith. The trick is maintaining undeniable sacredness, while making it intelligible to outsiders. Not comfortable by any means, but intelligible and credible. But more than that, a church's corporate experience ought to express the characteristics of the people in its congregation. If you have highly creative, talented, spirit-filled people in your congregation, squelching their talent and creativity is dishonoring to God who gave them the gifts for the edification of the Church. If you say, "Nope, sorry, that's not welcome here," then you're unequivocally saying, "Nope, sorry, you're not welcome here." Or worse, you're saying that God didn't know what He was doing when He wired them that way. And the Christ-likeness of that is highly questionable, from what I see in scripture.

Judging from Pastor James' newest blog entry, I'm guessing he wants us to lay low on the "truth" question until he has time to write a new entry specifically devoted to that. Anyone else get that vibe?

;-)

I'm going to bow out 'til then.

You all are fun.

Much love,

matt

Editor:
This Matt guy seems to have a good heart, but his theology of how the gospel penetrates a human heart, needs some development. I allowed his post because it is thotful and kindly stated, but I must say I strongly disagree. We can get back at this Monday a.m.

james

Yeah.
That was the only thing The Passion lacked: "Money" playing in the background while Jesus hanged on the cross.
Excuse me, where's the line for the iron fist of conformity to liturgy and ecclesiology?

Hi, Matt.
I'll respond to your points and then will also wait until we can move to another discussion board.
I'm hearing you say a few things with which I respectfully disagree:

(1) People have to accept the Bible as true before they are changed by it.

Just the opposite is true, thank goodness, or we'd all be in trouble. I'll defer to the I Cor. 1:18, which says, "...the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God." In other words, it shouldn't surprise us when people reject the Bible. Their eyes have not been opened. But we ourselves don't do the opening--the Holy Spirit does. Our role is clear: share the gospel bodly, unequivocally, unapologetically, and lovingly. When we do that, we can expect one of at least three responses: rejection, repentance, or readiness to hear the Word again (cf., Acts 17). We are remiss if we interpret rejection of the Gospel as necessarily an indication that we have not communicated in a way people can understand or that is relevant to them (and the Gospel, unadorned, is ALWAYS relevant--not even postmodernism can change that). On the contrary, if we have conveyed the Gospel accurately, we surely WILL be rejeced by many people (as Christ was). In fact, if the message I'm sharing is not rejected on a fairly regular basis, I should probably ask myself if I'm sharing the right one! :-)

It is true that many postmoderns will response to the Gospel with arguments against the Bible's validity. We should be as prepared as possible to engage in a discussion of why the Bible is what it says it is--a discussion that uses Biblical, historical, archeological, and testimonial support. But people don't come to Christ because they believe the Bible is true. They come to Christ through the power of the message (Romans 1:16). They can only know what the Gospel is by hearing it, for "faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). The Gospel is a paradox in this way: we believe, and THEN the truth of His Word is revealed more fully to us.

In any case, I agree that saying "because the Bible says so" is a weak way to witness, which is why we need to point people to specific passages, using GOD's words as our foundation, not ours and certainly not the world's wisdom (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18-31). This helps US, too, as sometimes we would rather defer to "the Bible says so"--even in our discussions with other believers--rather than look at and study what it actually says. So, I'm with you on that one, Matt!

(2) The Gospel itself is one of many evangelistic approaches.

The Gospel is not one of many ways that people come to Chirst. It is the ONLY way (John 14:6).

My sense is that condoning the integration of secular materials in church originated from a heart of compassion for the unbeliever. When we present unbelievers with the Gospel, and they reject it, we are hurt because we feel like they've rejected us and (more importantly) because they have rejected Christ. I empathize, then, with the heart that seeks to win unbelievers through whatever means possible. Unfortunately, we compromise the Gospel when we neglect to examine the conflict between the half-truths manifest in secular pop culture materials and Biblical truth. And there kernals of truth in some of those sources? Perhaps. I could probably find something to eat for a starving man in a garbage can, too, but why would I rummage through it if I can offer him a five-course meal? Even for those who came to saving faith at Mars Hill, it's a stretch, I think, to say that the poems Paul quoted were instrumental in leading them to Christ. Those were indicental and served as a reference point for them, but it was the Gospel alone that compelled change.

We are wise to refrain from resorting to other messages when we get frustrated because unbelievers are not responding to the Gospel. I'm all for communicating the Gospel with different process approaches, and through multiple media (through a blog or a radio ministry, for instance!), but there's a vast difference between acknowledging various learning styles (as influenced by culture, experience, background, education, etc.) and relegating the Gospel to the backseat in favor of mesages that are more palatable to the postmodern ear. Those messages don't offer (or even ask for) real, lasting change. Fortunately, God had all people of all time in mind when He wrote the Bible. We might have good intentions when we seek to win unbelievers through extra-Biblical messages--or lead them to the Gospel via half-truths--but we're not helping God out in any way, as though He forgot about the 21st century.

(3) The messenger is as important as the message.

There's only one instance where this is true: Christ himself, because Christ IS the message. Unbelievers don't come to Christ because of what believers do; they come to Christ because they are convicted by the Gospel. Might unbelievers be turned off to Christ when they witness hypocritical behavior from Christians? Definitely. Our actions should reveal Christ. God forgive me when people have been turned off to the Gospel because of something I said or did. However, their rejection is still, ultimately, a rejection of Him. They will be without excuse if they say to God, "I would have believed, but that Jessica woman wasn't a good Christian, so I thought better of it." I do not want to be around for THAT conversation! :-)

(4) Identifying with unbelievers is best done through pop culture.

I agree that we should reach out to and identify with "the least of these." I'm still not sure why that has to entail integrating secular music, t.v., and movies into church services. Oftentimes, the least of these in our communities have limited access to these media, and we do well to engage them (and all unbelievers) by seeking to meet their most pressing physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. THAT is relevance.

(5) Any and all gifts/talents that people have are equally profitable for use in the church.

Responding to this at length here would be tangential to where I see this discussion is headed, but maybe we can agree on this point: Not all gifts, artistic and otherwise, are useful for integration in the church service proper, largely because their potential for edifying the body is questionable.

Anyway, that's my two cents. (More like a dollar!) Glad to know we go to the same church, Matt! Makes this fun!

Hoping this and future conversations will bring us all to a deeper, richer understanding of the Gospel,

Jessica

Hey Jessica!

I just want to say I TOTALLY respect your perspective on this. I'm very sorry I came across as saying what you claimed I said in #2-4. Forgive my vagueness. I never intended to give the impression that I thought evangelism could happen in any measure apart from the Gospel. The Gospel IS evangelism. My concern is how the Gospel is communicated, and it can be done in a variety of ways, so long as the clear-cut message is ALWAYS there and ALWAYS forthright.

As far as #3 goes, I'm right with you. However, and I stress however, this brings up a whole huge ball of theological wax. I'll just say outright that I'm not a Calvinist (and absolutely have no interest in bring up the subject AT ALL on this blog, especially right now), and so I see "our role" and "God's role" in evangelism with a little more mystery, you might say, than a Calvinist. The message is obviously preeminent over the messenger. However, in my view, messengers can and do "get in the way" of the Gospel. The Calvinist would say, "Whatever, God's already decided that that person's going to be saved, and there's nothing you can do about it, for positive or negative. And He's already decided whether He's going to use you to do it, or someone else. So you really have no say in the matter, so quit wasting your time talking about it."

I hear this type of talk all the time. I hear one group saying, "It has everything to do with us," and another group saying, "It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with us," and I think they're both dangerously wrong. When Christ gave the Great Commission, it was just that-- a co-mission. Christ and us making disciples... and most certainly Christ in us.

Really, anyone who is Reformed ought to give up on the whole missional discussion, because relevance is, well, entirely irrelevant. Just read the Bible to people as it is written, and if God's predestined them, then they'll come, sooner or later. No need for building bridges or contextualizing. You can speak it in Swahili for all I care. If they're going to come, they're going to come. Let's quit wasting our time talking about contextualizing if the verdicts have already been decided.

Blogging is a waste of time if predetermination (not based on foreknowledge) of souls is true. So is motivational speaking. All that is needed is proclamation of the Word. Tell it how it is: "Jesus is Lord. Now come." The will is moot, so there's no sense appealing to it.

Editor:
This is textbook straw-man argumentation. Caricature your opponent's position and then criticize the distortion rather than the actual position. Sorry Matt, you're way, way off. Can't wait for Monday,

james

Oh, I'm well aware that very few Calvinists would verbally admit to following this line of thinking. I just don't see how someone can spend his or her energies trying to stir up people's wills to witness, when, according to their theology, people's wills have nothing to do with either their own eternal destiny or anyone else's. That's more than a mere paradox or mystery... it's an outright contradiction. However, I am willing to concede to correction if I have misunderstood the theology to begin with. That may very well be the case, and I would very much welcome such clarification, so that I can cease spouting nonsense.

Thanks for caring. :)

(P.S. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else use the platform of the blog to do this. Please feel free to email me, and maybe we can set up a time to talk about it. It's really an issue that's frequently heavy on my heart. I'm a non-Calvinist, full-time MDiv student at Trinity in a land of Reformed giants, so forgive me if I appear overly preoccupied by it.)

Editor:
I would love to connect with you, Matt. I sense your passion, call my office this week, or talk to me after a service. We can connect in person which is far better than here.

james

I'm late to the party... but what a great post, and some great discussion. I see two issues here... 1)how the Jesus follower consumes/engages the culture, and 2)how culture is used in ministry.

As far as the first one goes, I would recommend taking a look at the recently published book "The Culturally Savvy Christian" by Dick Staub. It does a good job of addressing the state of the culture today, the state of the Western Church today, and giving a manifesto of how to move forward as a culturally engaged follower of Jesus.

Pastor James... keep up the great posts, and God bless you in your ministry.

Scott

I am a Bible Teacher and Evangelist in the UK - a very different culture from the US. Not involved in pomo church or emergent church - originally from the Anglican - Church of England - so pre rather than post-modern. This debate concerns me very much.
Editor:
Somebody named Karoly, wrote an essay as a comment. The very nature of comment is 1) It interacts directly with something posted on OUR site, and 2) It is by nature brief

For those two reasons, SORRY KAROLY, you said some good things, but I'm not gonna post it.

james

i am amazed that anyone would preach from Acts 17 and not consider the wholeness of the passage it makes it seem similar to the "Truth that some people are saying is the only truth when they leave out the wholeness of the trinity.

The kingdom would be better served if we were less concerned with cultural sensitivity and more concerned with sensitivity to the Scriptures. It's all about the Glory of God.

11 cor. 6:16-17 KJV
16. And what agreement hath the temple of GOD with idols? for ye are the temple of the living GOD; as GOD hath said, I will dwell in them,and walk in them; and I will be their GOD, and they shall be my people.
17. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye seperate saith the LORD, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
It grieves my heart to read what some people are incorporating in their worship of the ALMIGHTY GOD have mercy on them and guide them

Ever notice that the whole 'Emerging' concept is eerily similar to verse 21 of that very scripture:
21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

I agree with Drew that media can be a bridge and really it depends on the content and message of the media and whether it is meant to bridge culture to the Biblical message or replace it... by the way, James' message on money from "Wise Up!" actually begins with the Pink Floyd song being discussed here! Which, for the record, is an excellent example of an apporpriate and effective use of cultural media in a Biblical message.

God commands us to share the gospel with our neighbors. Than God has given us his Bible his Word. Where did we get off the track and start thinking that we have better ideas for reaching the lost than God does. This in my mind is the single biggest affliction in the American Church today! God's word is enough for anyone to grow closer to God and for anyone to get to know God. We need sermons and teachings straight out of the Bible!!