Keeping 20-30's

To make this statement, you put yourself in the place of the Holy Spirit, knowing the hearts of others -- based on externals, I might add. Respectfully Rev., but you don't rate that.

JDale

 

You know them by their fruits. Scripture is clear

 

What is overused is the word relate. It has become an excuse for all sorts of things. The problem is not the items such as music or clothes etc but the motivation that they are required to win some to Christ. That is adding to the gospel no matter how you word it.

 

So, to be consistent, you believe Paul was wrong in his approach to winning the Greeks in the Areopagus on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17:22-34)? Paul used one of their altars to a pagan idol to introduce them to the One True God (v. 23) He quotes TWO Greek philosophers in his address: [1] Epimenides of Crete (v. 28a) and [2] the poet Aratus's poem "Phainomena" (v. 28b). Instead of proclaiming the God of the Hebrews using Israelite history and cultural terminology, Paul uses GREEK terms and speaks of a universal CREATOR GOD (vs. 24-27)... He doesn't even take a text from the Septuagint (Old Testament)! And then he uses THAT to draw them back to the clear Gospel message (vs. 30-32).

So, was Paul wrong? He clearly did not follow your principles for how to appeal to people with the Gospel. He was willing to use what THEIR CULTURE offered as a bridge to get them TO the Gospel. This was completely in keeping with Paul's stated missiological purpose: "I have become all things to all men that by all means I might win some" (I corinthians 9:22b). And indeed, Paul DID "win some" (vs. 33-34).

JDale

 

You really need to go and reread my posts so you do not make errors like this one.

 

Who is "them?"

 

Being relational is required to communicate the gospel. It is also required for church growth. Isn't love relational? How does one communicate truth without love, and the gospel without love?

Spirituality is not measured by a set of rules and regulations as the gnostics did but by a relationship with God. One can have loads of knowledge and act like a Christian and be lost as a goose.

Clothes do not make the man but they can make a difference in communication. Clothes can demonstrate a willingness and unwillingness to work within a particular culture.

 

How does that compare to the days of Noah and Lot?

 

Every generation appears more depraved to the previous generation that forgets its own indiscretions while its own virtues glow with the patina of age.

 

I disagree. The day I live in never saw parents pass their children through fire, temple prostitutes, nor a holocaust.

 

RevMitchell -- you're not the Holy Spirit. If I'm right, you have thousands of posts here on BB. I haven't the time to chase down your views on Paul in Athens or his missiological methodology. So, why not correct my "errors" regarding Acts 17 and I Corinthians 9?

Paul did all he could to win souls to Christ! And he was merely following the lead of His Lord. Jesus went wherever there were lost people -- why do you think He was accused of being a "winebibber" by the Pharisees? Why were they so quick to say He kept company with "publicans and sinners?"

The Church must be IN the world, but not OF the world. To reach the world, the Church must speak THEIR language -- but that does not mean we are partaking of their "evil deeds." Is it a challenge? YES. But its also an imperative. Illustration: If I speak German, that doesn't mean I AM German. If I go to a German Beer Hall, and eat German food (yuck), that STILL doesn't make me German. But I can find a lot of Germans there! And I can even talk to them.

If we ADOPT their corruptions, or compromise our message, that's wrong. If we ADAPT our language and practice to their culture in order to communicate the Gospel, that's EVANGELISM. That's OUTREACH. That's BIBLICAL. Otherwise, we oughtta just go back to reading the Scripture in Latin -- or is that Greek? Hebrew? -- because after 2000 years, we've made such a mess that ONLY returning to the "pristine" conditions of the 1st century New Testament church can be considered "right."

JDale

 

very well said...this is cultural relevance (not sub-culture )

 

That ought to be a good things for all of us to remember.

 

So what happened from 1936 to 1945 was somehow less heinous?

Sorry -- you have chronological blinders on.

 

Not what I said...what happened from 1936 to 1945 was more heinous than anything I have witnessed since 1972.

 

The entire point to "cultural relevance" is the ability to communicate. What some have turned it into however is personal choice disguised as the need to communicate. What people prefer has nothing to do with whether or not one understands clearly the gospel message. (1 Cor 2:1-4)

Preferences like clothing choice and style, music, service format, length of service offer no communicative ability to the gospel. When we avoid facts such as these are sub-cultural issues then we place on them a requirement that does not actually exist.

Having traveled to India and preached an evangelistic Crusade in 11 remote villages in two different regions I have a clear understanding of cultural communication problems. And what we have here in the States is not it.

You have made a poor attempt to equate an illustration Paul used about their religion with American sub-cultural issues. They are not an equal comparison. There is no communication break down when a preacher with a suit presents the gospel to a biker. But if that same suit wearing preacher went into a biker bar and used a picture on the wall as an illustration of their beliefs or life style then we have an equal comparison. There is no communication break down when that same preacher presents the gospel to a post modern. But if the same preacher walks into a coffee shop and uses a cup of coffee as an illustration then we again have a legitimate comparison. Simply making vague statements like Paul used the culture fails to address the real issue. What many are doing is trying to redefine these terms in order to justify, solidify, and normalize their personal preference as some sort of mandate from scripture.

I don't care what clothing style people wear or what kind of music style they like. But none of it is ever a help or a inhibitant to understanding the gospel. It is all nothing more than preference. And we do not need to be trying to draw people into the church with it. That is not a function of the church and evangelism is to be done out on the street not in the worship service. (Matt 28:18-20) Nor does it communicate the gospel any more clearly.

You want to win people to Christ...set aside your preferences and intellect ( 2 Cor 2:1) and just love them and present the gospel as it is given in scripture under the power of the Holy Ghost. If you love them they could care less about clothes, music or any other sub-cultural issue out there. God is not glorified because someone has a suit on or even jeans. He is glorified when Christ is lifted up. Faith comes from the word of God not from a pair of wranglers, an Italian suit, or a band called Casting Crowns (Romans 10:17).

All of those things are mini cultures or sub-cultures within the bigger American culture. The word sub-culture has its own definition for a reason. And avoiding it does not make anyone's point any more factual.

As far as whether or not I am the Holy Spirit....well I never implied in any fashion that I was. But I do follow scripture and scripture says those who are true followers of Christ behave in specific ways (Matt 3:8,10; 7:17,18,19 12:33; John 15:2,8, Rom 7:4). And we are to recognize them and those who do not. It is a clear command from God. In the future if you want to address me on this issue then you need to do it from the aspect that I see it clearly in scripture rather than implying that I am trying to be God. Otherwise we have nothing to discuss.

 

I agree with you in many ways but I think you are missing something that is clear in scripture in communicating the gospel. Jesus did use wisdom in dealing with people. He used a lot of farmer language and terms they understood. When I talk with farmers I use farmer language. They immediately know I can speak their language. When I talk with professors I try to use the language they are familiar with. When Jesus spoke with the Sadducees he only used what they valued--the Torah. When Jesus spoke with the Pharisees he used the entire OT. When we talk with people we must consider what they value and it is not always what we value.

Of course we can have everything in place except love and we will not reach many if any if we do not love them.

Mt. 28:19, 20 deal with making disciples not just evangelism. Evangelism is like a woman getting pregnant and having babies. Discipleship is like a woman getting pregnant and raising that baby to maturity so it can be a mature adult.

 

gb:

This was the main point I was attempting to make. I agree...

JDale

 

You nailed it right there. Where "culturally relevant" methods prevail, there is least the demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

There are a culturally relevant folks who are nothing more than rebellious as though nobody wants to go to church and hear the Bible. While at the same time there are those who treat the Bible as a battering ram that people will automatically listen to if preached by someone who yells at them.

It is not an either or issue. It is an issue of wisdom. Sometimes one has to go through a lot of stuff first to get to where they need to be. Seems to me that so often both sides of that issue are or like concrete--all mixed up and permanently set. Jesus met people where they were first to take them where they needed to go.

It all must start in prayer first.