Often this passage is used to justify a new expression of church, in the name of cultural relevance:
And it's a fair call, I myself subscribe to a modern church methodology. But are we at risk of becoming the new cultural snobs?
I can't help but think that hip music, no robes or rites, 'missional' language and preaching to the postmodern persuasion is alienating many from the Gospel.
Are we possibly becoming too much of a Gentile to the Gentiles at the expense of becoming a Jew to the Jews?
1 Corinthians 9:19-23
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
And it's a fair call, I myself subscribe to a modern church methodology. But are we at risk of becoming the new cultural snobs?
I can't help but think that hip music, no robes or rites, 'missional' language and preaching to the postmodern persuasion is alienating many from the Gospel.
I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
Are we possibly becoming too much of a Gentile to the Gentiles at the expense of becoming a Jew to the Jews?
3 comments:
Interesting thoughts, dude... I've often said that it's a MUCH harder task to take an existing church and lead it and preach to it -- to do what Paul did and challenge the "Jewish" assumptions and practices. Sure planting a church is difficult but you have the advantage of defining your DNA and "flavor" right from the start.
I would say a word of caution, though: the "Jewish" church, the established, denominational church has alienated as many post-moderns as newer "Gentile" churches have alienated moderns. That's why we have to do both well, while challenging the assumptions, practices, and preferences of both.
Hey Laura,
Thanks for dropping in.
I totally agree with you. It's been interesting to note that whilst needing change, we still need the 'stay the same' happening too.
Continuing to challenge our methods is going to become more of an issue the more time passes.
In a sense, it's also a challenge for the church planter to realise the model of church that would serve the community best.. would a young groovy church planter sing mainly hymns for a more familiar expression to the unchurched?
I know I'd find that pretty tough.. ;-)
I'm really blessed to be in a church where the worship pastor is incredibly (and unusually) open and flexible when it comes to style. We do liturgy stuff, including creeds and catechisms, we have a very specific pattern of worship, we sing a lot of hymns (hip-ified, of course), we use many styles of music. And our worship pastor has a deep appreciation for all sorts of musical styles, including the piano-organ-choir hymns only business!
I definitely take your point -- if the purpose of a missional strategy is to remove barriers to the gospel, then we need to be willing to "shoot our dogs" even if the dogs are our pets, like hip music, candles, blue jeans, etc.
I'm having trouble imagining, however, a place that one would plant a church where the unchurched in the area would be more comfortable with hymns only. I guess, though, if your worship "band" sucks, you shouldn't try to do something hip.
Post a Comment