Saturday
Feb072004
I feel for these guys
Saturday, February 7, 2004 at 8:25AM
Fascinating discussion over at Rachel's site. Rachel asked some excellent questions about a tract she received in the mail. Once the church started commenting, things got out of control. I can't read the thread of posts without wincing a lot. I feel for these guys. They are well motivated, working hard, and you can sense their commitment. It's hard not to feel bad that they've been hurt in this discussion. But the questions asked were more than fair. I don't want to replicate the debate here, so please don't comment pro or against either side. It did strike me, though, that this was the first real clash I've seen between the traditional form of church and whatever it is that you call this new thing. We will be seeing more of these clashes in the future. Probably the hardest thing to realize is that asking questions is not a personal attack, and if you have good answers you don't need to fear the questions. I have this dream that the traditional forms of church will rise up and bless some of the newer forms. Just a dream. It didn't happen here.
Reader Comments (11)
I just skimmed over it Darryl, will have to get back to it later. I'll have to check out that Chris's church if they have a website. Talk about being out there with the gospel. That's what we need in Toronto, a church like that. Don't you think?
Oh man, I really don't think there's anything to be gained by rehashing the arguments for or against this group. This really can't become part two of that thread. So let's focus on this: what needs to happen for the traditional church to be able to hear and welcome the questions that are being raised? Or do we just give up on that happening?
No, we don't give up on that. I personally just get real impressed with people and churches that are in the doing stuff and not just the talking stuff. Churches that purpose to get the gospel message out and bring the lost into the kingdom. God honours that and blesses it, when he sees his people doing stuff and not just talking. Its gotta get done acording to his will though.
Thanks Darryl. I should point out I never said anything *against* what this church is doing. I merely asked if their message was in fact the gospel. You knew that :)
Yes, I did, Rachel. Thanks for the reminder.
I promised myself that I would not become embroiled in these types of arguments, but here I go again..... It has always been my understanding of tract ministry that the tracts were merely a tool to get the attention of the person(s) receiving them. Before embarking on this type of outreach, our group would always pray that The Holy Spirit would convict the recipients of their sinful nature and thus their need for a Saviour. End of story. The contact information (ie. the church address and phone number) included on the tract was there to provide the recipient with an avenue by which any questions they may have could be answered. Any converts were encouraged to attend the church of their choice, read Bible and pray daily, and enter into a relationship with Our Lord. Tracts, due to their very nature, cannot contain "The Whole Gospel", any more than a single service on Sunday can present the entire Christain lifestyle, or what it means to "Lay down one's Cross" and follow Jesus. Obviously, this is where discipleship and follow-up come into play. Having said all that, I will admit that there are some very questionable tracts out there, and care should be taken when deciding which to use of the millions that are available. "What needs to happen for the traditional church to be able to hear and welcome the questions that are being raised?" My question is this: Are the questions being raised pertinent, or are they merely a means of voicing criticism? Are those raising objections doing so out of a sincere belief that what is happening is anti-christ, or is what is happening merely anti-tradition and/or outside our comfort zone?
P.S. That goes for BOTH sides.
you wrote "I have this dream that the traditional forms of church will rise up and bless some of the newer forms. Just a dream. It didn't happen here" my dream too - blogged on it only 3 days ago (5 feb - "Why I'm emerging, but not leaving") - my dream is that the New Forms will not degenerate into slagging off the old forms; and the trad will embrace the best of what's new. Steve Taylor wrote eloquently in my comments about the slender and fragile thread that connects the old and the new. We need to look after that thread wherever we can. I'm a college chaplain in a trad. denomination, doing the 'New things' without feeling the need to leave. (Not that I criticise those that DO leave - it's not a one-size-fits-all thing.) Don't give up that dream.
Arthur: LT has done a great job of talking about the message of the tract here: http://tinyurl.com/2ftkz" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/2ftkz I think the questions being raised are legitimate. We can never stop asking, "What does it mean to follow Jesus Christ?"
Arthur: Looking at the history of evangelistic practice I believe the church rejected traditions that they shouldn't have. There are many issues in which we should compare the old to the older and see if the church lost its way. The western church is in trouble. It barely exists in Europe. It is in steep decline in North America. How many icebergs does this Titanic have to hit before we start thinking maybe we are going too fast in the wrong direction?
Thanks Darryl, and you are correct. The comments are right on. LT: I agree with you whole-heartedly. Absolutely! The challenge we all face as Christians, (not only the pastors, but for them the responsibility and accountability is greater than for the rest of us) is to keep our wheels from sliding into the ditch on either side of the road. Unfortunately, the tendency for many is to throw out the baby with the bath water. I have attended churches where they refuse to sing any of the old hymns because somebody decided that one or two of them were not scriptural. Rather than take the time to evaluate the hymns and discard the ones they did not agree with, they simply tossed out the hymn-book! On the other side of the road are those who refuse to sing any contemporary songs, because they are not traditional enough. As Darryl can attest, I am a strongly opinionated guy, with a few chips on my shoulder, but I have learned a certain amount of tolerance in my advanced years. Rather than criticise everything and everybody who does something differently than I am used to, I tend to hold my counsel (in other words I bite my tongue) until I have the chance to evaluate the fruit, while still keeping my eye on scriptural veracity and doctrinal soundness. I tend to see things in shades of grey rather than black and white. In another post I made the comment to the effect that not everything works for all people. Some people need the traditional church setting, some people prefer a less formal gathering. So be it. There is room, surely, for us all? My questions boil down to this: What has God called you to do? What gifts has He bestowed upon you? Then go and use them to do what He has called you to do for his Glory. Problem is, too many people just try to duplicate what is working for some-one else instead of finding out what God wants to do and accomplish in their situation. One final comment, before this turns into a book: In Canada, and I am sure this applies in almost every other nation, our culture is changing rapidly. Whether because of different ethnicities, or simply the "evolution" of our societies, our ideas of normality and tradionality do not apply any more. We had better find ways to meet those changes and reach those people rather than rely on "what used to work" or "what was, way back when."