Providing the Church keeps the message the same and speaks the whole truth of the Kingdom, who cares what they look like?

Pastor Marty

Mike :: You’ll appreciate this story which took place about six years ago. A young man in Loudonville grew up in the church and went on to become a missionary to India, learning the language and studying the music. He came back to Loudonville to talk to us about ethnomusicology and the importance of Indian believers praising God using the styles of their culture. He said before the people could truly worship they needed to be singing praise songs written in their own cultural style. Our youth pastor then leans over to one of the youth and whispers with a smile, “Hey, we should do that here.”

Dunno what that has to do with anything but I felt like pointing it out.

Someone will always bring up in a hipper church, “are we emergent?” And of course everyone else will always reply “what’s emergent?” Great question… because the more you read about emergent churches the more confused you get.

I included the link for EmergentChurch.org because the emergent church movement is definitely an example of trying to be relevant. If we compare that to a “modern” church in this area, we’ll say Grace Fellowship… they are (imho) decidedly NOT emergent, but are still seeking to be relevant (from what I see and from what my fellow believers who attend tell me).

Hmm… perhaps modern and post-modern/emergent are almost “flavors” of what the church should be - sound doctrine delivered in a relevant vehicle and always seeking to be like Christ.

But alas, look at me speaking in labels. As was said, it really is pretty simple. There exists ONE body… with more fragmentation and multi-denominationalism than any other entity I think in all of history!

I had a conversation with a Methodist chaplain one time. I told him how I grew up Legalis– I mean Baptist, but that I would rather just call myself a follower of Christ and dispose of any man-made label or denomination. To which this dope discounted me by attributing my label-rebellion to me being one of today’s disenfranchised (and disinterested) youth. He was truly a Kool-Aid drinker.

Whenever the post modern church speaks about the modern church, they jump right to the extreme to make a point - boring monotone hymns. Whenever the modern church speaks about the post modern church, they likewise, jump right to the extreme - compromising God’s Word in order to be trendy. It’s human nature I guess, but the heart of the matter dwells well within the extremes I think.

I agree with modern worship. I agree with the coffee shop inside my church. I don’t agree with Pastor’s discussing their favorite alcoholic beverage with a group of people. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with at least a skeleton of a dress code inside a church (or at least the sanctuary).

So where do I fit in? Am I post modern, or modern? Am I only partially relevant?

I guess, for me, the only thing about the post modern church that I DON’T like … is the fact that “they” felt it necessary to rename themselves, destroying the very unity they claim to be embracing. If a Pastor, or church leadership decides it time to make a few changes for the better, great! But don’t rename yourself (the emerging church) and draw a line in the sand - only to ask people to become a part of their “better” church.

See what I mean? anyway … just some thoughts.

milo

HEAD….

You hit it! Amen, Brother!