...from Mark Driscoll.
"There have been many adaptations in the church throughout the centuries (Pews in the 13th century; 14th century the organ was introduced in the church; 15th century the printing press; 19th century – electricity and audio microphones, 20th century – loud speakers [differences between George Whitefield and Billy Graham], radio preachers, more screens in churches than theaters, the internet) – on the front end of innovation everyone’s critical at the back end everyone’s using it.
Communication has 4 things – instant, constant, global, and permanent. That’s true for critics and for the proclamation of the gospel.
Every church contextualizes. Where are you in the continuum? If you have pews, you’re on the cutting edge of the 13th century. And so forth for organ, screens, audio, website, etc. Can you do more? Are you doing all that you can? All are contextualizing. The key is to name your year and name the year you would like to be."
Amen. Thank you Mark Driscoll for putting the arguments of some who refuse to adapt in perspective. I think this answers the objections of jp in a response to an earlier post. Driscoll is an excellent example of how adapting can help you reach those who would otherwise never be reached by the gospel.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but I wonder where our church and churches in our "movement" will learn to adapt like this. It seems to me, and I would love to hear our brother Dave's thoughts on this, that we either need to push the envelope and let the chips fall where they may or we need to just shutup and sit down and leave the church to the traditionalists. Maybe that sounds harsh or too bold but it's high time we charged forward into the 21st century and engaged our culture for Christ. I really don't think anybody is gonna leave as long as we stay gospel-focused so maybe it's time to stop trying to appease everybody including the few that want to keep us in the 17th century (cause when you do that, you really just end up pleasing nobody) and work towards a more progressive sound in worship that will ultimately please our God more. Or so it seems to me. Please comment Brother Dave.
ReplyDeleteSaved,
ReplyDelete17th century? Well, if they do and we accomodated to their wishes, we would be pleasing them, unless you view them as nobodies. :-) I am all for engaging culture. When Paul did that, we find him in a public (probably rented) facility where ideas were propogated (cf. Acts 19 - school of Tyranus), in synagogues (various places in Acts), and before Greek intellectuals in Athens (cf. Acts 17). We need to find places in our culture where ideas are porpogated and pounce on it! As far as one genre of music pleasing God more than another, I do not think that can be proven, except by raise of hands. :-)
Rich Barcellos
Dear Saved by Grace,
ReplyDeleteI'll have more to say in my next post (Quo Vadis, part 3) about where I think we should be going. I'll try to be as detailed as I can be.
There's an old Latin proverb -- "Festina lente" -- make haste slowly. Especially in an established church like HBC, it's vitally important that we progress in a measured way, as overseen by wise pastors. Obviously one man's prudence is another's haste, and yet another's glacial progress.
We are making progress, we are adapting -- though it seems slow. We are not where we were 2 years ago, or even last year (see Quo Vadis, part 2).
There's more to be said -- so I'll post soon. Promise!
David
Hmmm, first thing you might do is trade in the 17th century theology for a 1st century one!
ReplyDeleteThen I would let David Goodwin lead the congregation into musical maturity with a diversity of instruments.
But, diversity of musical styles is not necessarily musical maturity. I don't want to hear Kiss (which I recently did) at a funeral. I don't want to hear "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs during Sunday worship. I expect my brethren to support my Johnny Cash habit during the week, but I don't expect to do a karaoke performance of "Sunday Morning Coming Down" during church. And please don't put a worship team up front with entranced expressions singing melody.
The words should be richly theological, the musical score should be suitable to the public occasion of worship, the congregation should learn to cherish vocal and instrumental harmony.
Drug addicts shouldn't leave church desiring a fix!
Jesus is the resurrected Lord! Let's do our worship music to please Him, not our sick, corrupted culture.
Bruce Russell
"In a park I saw a Daddy, with a laughin' little girl that he was swingin',
and I walked outside a Sunday school and listened to the songs that they was singin..."
So Driscoll and Redman are off the mark? Here's the deal--if things are gonna change but only for future generations, then it's probably time for some to think about heading down the road to Pleasant Valley (a sister church who sings more contemporary. Oh wait, some already have and make no mistake--more will follow.
ReplyDeleteDear everyone,
ReplyDeleteAs far as the church contextualizing historically, it is true. But I think it was more proactive than reactive (Dave can verify this or correct me if I am wrong). The reason for some medieval church architecture was not because there were icons in the culture, but because the culture was illiterate and the church wanted to teach the people, through physical symbols, aspects of the gospel. Granted, the medieval church went too far, but this is what happened. When the Reformation came, changes in church architecture occured. For instance, the altar, icons, and crucifixes went and the pulpit was put front and center. In some Calvinisitc churches the pulpit was put in the center with the folks sitting around the preacher, so I read today in Brian Chappel's new book. This was to give a vivid reminder of the priesthood of all believers. It seems to me that, historically speaking, the church contextualized in order to teach the world something about God, public worship, the gospel, etc. In other words, the church was proactive in creating a climate that would communicate something to the culture about what the church is all about. They may have been wrong in their approach, but I think that's what happened. It seems to me that some today have turned the historical practice on its head, when it comes to public worship. They may be right in their approach, but I think that's what's happening.
Rich Barcellos
PS: Dear anonymous, I find your post a bit saucy. Do you like coming off as a prophet of doom? :-)
BTW, what I meant by, "As far as one genre of music pleasing God more than another, I do not think that can be proven, except by raise of hands. :-)," was that when it comes to genre, God has not spoken. He has not revealed to us what genre pleases Him most. I don't think genre is the issue with God at all. It's our issue; and we need to think and pray and defer and think and pray and defer more, at least I do!
ReplyDeleteRich B.
Bob Kauflin recently commented in a message that we must be careful to never give the impression that music has more power to divide us than the Gospel has to unite us!
ReplyDeleteKatie,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bob K.!
Rich B.
PS: Thanks for posting your name. :-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete