“A new generation spreads the word”
June 25th, 2004 | Published in Religion | 13 Comments
USATODAY.com – A new generation spreads the word
I’m not sure what to make of this stuff yet. Something inside me tells me it is not good. What happened to holiness? We’re making a bunch of atheological Christians without a passion for purity and who want to be more conformed to the world than to Scripture.
[cribbed from SkinnyJ]
June 25th, 2004 at 5:13 pm (#)
Exactly! This is the same faulty thinking that says, “You know, we must have a ‘praise and worship’ band for Sunday morning. Those kidz don’t want to sing hymns.”
Uh, yeah they do. Those kidz don’t need anymore entertainment in their lives–besides MTV will always do a better job at entertaining the under-30 crowd in 3-minute bites. What do we have to show for 30 years of CCM? Nothing. Are Christians more holy because of CCM? Look at Amy Grant! Ask George Barna about the divorce rate among today’s “Christians.” It’s sickening.
I can write pages and pages of stuff about the worldliness of “good Christians” but I’ll spare Josh. SkinnyJ, you’re right, this isn’t good. This trendiness in Christianity is not fruitful.
I could go on and on. Really. This subject makes me so angry.
June 25th, 2004 at 6:15 pm (#)
I hear you. It frustrates me as well… I think it often has to do with a faulty view of God, but I know people who even seem to get that right, yet something doesn’t seem to “click” with them regarding a change of life.
June 25th, 2004 at 6:32 pm (#)
I’ve been a subscriber of Relevant Magazine since the second issue. I love the graphics and design of the magazine, and I admire their approach.
However, every time I begin to read the articles, I’m almost always disappointed and slightly offended. The amount of church-bashing and anti-”organized religion” beliefs leave a nasty after taste. They fail to recognize God’s order and divine design of authority. If a friend of mine where to speak like that about *my* wife, I’d no longer call them a friend.
Relevant also touts a biblical perspective on society and culture. Their motto, “God, Life, and Progressive Culture” prologues the magazine’s in depth columns and reviews of the world’s entertainment. It’s interesting the choice of musicians, authors and movies reviewed. If you happen to pick up the magazine and flip to the rear (where they place all of the culturally “relevant” content), you would never guess it to be a spiritually-oriented magazine. The articles about developing a deeper walk with God are followed up by reviews of Pearl Jam’s latest recordings–the review being positive, I’m sure we will soon see high schoolers playing the CD while trying to have a quiet time with God.
Again, I admire Relevent’s approach–or, perhaps more accurately, their actual efforts. I’m glad to see such high-quality design and content coming from the Kingdom. However, if Relevant wants to survive, it’ll need more than just subscribers, it’ll need the backing of Jesus’ Bride, the church. Until then, Relevant’s business is: God, Life, and Progressive Compromise.
June 25th, 2004 at 6:39 pm (#)
Very interesting, Sean–thanks for sharing!
June 25th, 2004 at 7:45 pm (#)
Wow. Nicely said, Sean.
Josh, as far as Christians not able to “click” with changed lives, I don’t know. I think that a lot of it has to do with those in our lives. Are my friends encouraging me to live a holy life? Does my priest/pastor care about the state of my soul or are they too busy organizing the church baseball team? Am I being challenged in my faith or do I just need to be good enough to get by?
Can converts “get it” but be frightened to take up their cross daily? It’s a serious decision.
What do you think?
June 25th, 2004 at 8:10 pm (#)
I’ve been going through Relevant’s Web site and have now read a few articles.
The USA Today article uses the word “post-denominational” to describe Relevant and this is certainly evident. Are we really in a post-denominational age?
June 25th, 2004 at 8:26 pm (#)
If this truly *is* a picture of what “post-denominational” religion is, I’m cringing (along with the Father’s of the Faith). When I originally subscribed to Relevant, I did so because I was intrigued with the design — shortly thereafter, I made my own little design to post on my website. It was simple, but simply stated, “Religion is not the enemy.” I used the image to link to Relevant’s website, hoping they might find it via link-checkers.
Indeed, we may be previewing a new “movement” towards post-denomination, but we will never be able to avoid religion itself. I, for one, hope to be convicted of being religious if ever brought before a judge on such charges. I want my faith to show. I’m not so sure about Mr. Strang and other’s who seem to want to be more culturally relevant than religious.
… I guess I feel more strongly about this subject than I realized. I should probably write an article or something. I wonder if Relevant Magazine would be interested in publishing it. ;)
June 28th, 2004 at 6:40 pm (#)
The more I think about “cross-denominational” ties the more frightened I get. The reason for this is because before the consummation of the Kingdom, the Christian church needs denominations if we are to maintain doctrinal distinctives and purity. If no one took a position on any area of theology—or if everyone in the entire church agreed on a specific set of doctrines—then it might be possible. But neither of those will happen in this age. For example, a Southern Baptist could not go to church consistently with a Presbyterian. Why? Because they often disagree on three major things: 1) Calvinism 2) Church government and 3) Paedobaptism. So what happens when one believer has a completely different view of God, church, and baptism than another? You probably can’t worship at the same church for very long, because you would never agree how to make decisions, who to baptize, or who God is and how he acts. That is one scary church and, of course, wouldn’t be healthy and would split quickly.
So if we’re entering a “cross-denominational” age, then count me out. It will only lead to liberalism.
June 28th, 2004 at 7:22 pm (#)
Exactly Josh. I respect you because your church has remained steadfast in their beliefs not just over a decade or two but for several hundred years! There’s wisdom when generation after generation have refused vary from their church’s teaching.
Relevant magazine has an article on onanism on their Web site. One pastor writes that it’s no big deal while another is noncommital. My church has said for hundreds of years that such a sin is so severe that you literally risk your salvation. I’d hate to know that a young man (or woman) might be lead into sin by this post-denominational magazine.
This is dangerous territory.
June 28th, 2004 at 7:24 pm (#)
Agreed–even on onanism. But I’m a minority in my camp.
July 23rd, 2004 at 12:00 am (#)
Though I have not read an edition of Relevant, I have experiences with things of similar ingredients such as television, radio, etc. As a young man of “urban” background, I believe that there is a need for us to relate to the world if we are to win them over. The problem comes when we take the position of evangelist when we are not mature enough to keep our distinction of salt and light. We then lose both the respect of our brothers and sisters and lose the credibility of our witnessing. To reach, you have to become. But you should never partake in their acts.
We should not have a problem with anyone introducing the “same old” things about Christ in a “new” way. The problem comes when these “new ways” compromise the truth to make it look better.
Someone mentioned denominations. Like Christ, I am one who is all for the breaking down of barriers in the body, except that which divides truth from perversion. When I look at the word ‘denomination’ I see denominator and denominate. They basically mean “to name a division.” It scares me that we have and will continue to divide the body of Christ and seem to refuse to acknowledge the scripture’s emphasis on unity in the body.
The body of Christ is the Church, which is the totallity of believers, not a church or a the collection churches. It should not be divided. Mathematically speaking, if we created a name for every combination of doctrinal views there would be millions of denominations (not to mention denominational denominations). This is okay for the members, but what about the outsiders looking in. It makes the Church look like nothing more than another group of religious sects.
July 23rd, 2004 at 10:13 am (#)
Good thoughts, although I disagree in some respects. My first comment on 6/28/04 explains my position on denominations.
I also think we should keep things “fresh” but we also need to be careful of constantly imitating the world. Christians have a habit of that, ESPECIALLY in regards to music. If anything, we need to be more creative. It’s almost like musical plagiarism on the Christian stations. Can’t we be a little more creative?
July 23rd, 2004 at 11:37 am (#)
I completely understand your view of the need of denominations. I also understand that due to the fact that there won’t be a uniform doctrine unless Christ himself clears things up, we are forced to both embrace and identify these divisions. It’s also his desire for there to be some divisions and distinctions in the Church. What a complicated God we serve!
In music, creativity is important. We’re in a creative world and we constantly have to combat MTV, BET, VH1, and the likes. Every child of God is called to be his representative, therefore we must represent his truth with whatever medium or style we chose. You can only reach a particular group by becoming and talking like them. This scripture basically explains that. We are supposed to imitate, but not the extent that we begin to participate in the sinful acts and customs that we are called to save people from.