Hey Brother, I enjoy reading your posts. I would offer a word of caution about embracing all the concepts in Mark Batterson’s post.
For example, he says…“The post-Christian church needs a revelation: irrelevance is irreverence!”
That is a catchy saying but not a reliable way to determine what is reverent or irreverent. Who, in that formula, is the object of reverence? Is it God or the people? Or does it mean that unless both God and the people are reverenced neither are? Of course the author is talking about being relevant from the people’s perspective. And so it seems he is saying that unless the people see value in what is being said or done it is irreverent.
Then again, he writes… “We need to get serious about exegeting culture and finding spiritual identification points. We need to redeem cultural metaphors to communicate the gospel. Isn't that what Jesus did as a parabolist?
It is true that Jesus spoke to the masses (culture) in parables. His disciples asked Him why He did this because it made it MORE DIFFICULT to understand what He was saying…and His answer was quite different than the one suggested by the quote above (see Matthew 13).
Am I being too picky about these things? Perhaps, but these are the points in the article that seemed most relevant to me as one concerned about how easy it is to be misguided when led by one’s sense of what is relevant…. : )
Okay, now I'm going to sound like an old fogey (sp?). I'm not really sure I agree with Mark's ideas. I do agree with certain points, but there is a danger I'm afraid in some of the points. Anyway, you may or may not agree, but I'm just trying to be honest here. Also, maybe I'm reading too much into it.
P.S. Read MacArthur's new book "The Truth War." It addresses some of these issues as well from a different view point.
I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this post. I enjoyed the entry, myself.
I thought the meaning behind the post was to get people thinking about reaching their culture with the gospel of Jesus, but also, using methods that are relevant to the unchurched, unsaved population.
For instance, Paul quoted one of their own poets at Athens to explain THE UNKNOWN GOD. He said, "for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring." Acts 17:28.
I definitely do not agree with everything Mark Batterson writes, but I do appreciate the way he encourages his readers to think.
6 comments:
Thanks for the link Aaron - awesome thoughts and a great challenge for us.
Hey Brother,
I enjoy reading your posts. I would offer a word of caution about embracing all the concepts in Mark Batterson’s post.
For example, he says…“The post-Christian church needs a revelation: irrelevance is irreverence!”
That is a catchy saying but not a reliable way to determine what is reverent or irreverent. Who, in that formula, is the object of reverence? Is it God or the people? Or does it mean that unless both God and the people are reverenced neither are?
Of course the author is talking about being relevant from the people’s perspective. And so it seems he is saying that unless the people see value in what is being said or done it is irreverent.
Then again, he writes…
“We need to get serious about exegeting culture and finding spiritual identification points. We need to redeem cultural metaphors to communicate the gospel. Isn't that what Jesus did as a parabolist?
It is true that Jesus spoke to the masses (culture) in parables. His disciples asked Him why He did this because it made it MORE DIFFICULT to understand what He was saying…and His answer was quite different than the one suggested by the quote above (see Matthew 13).
Am I being too picky about these things? Perhaps, but these are the points in the article that seemed most relevant to me as one concerned about how easy it is to be misguided when led by one’s sense of what is relevant…. : )
John 5:44
Okay, now I'm going to sound like an old fogey (sp?). I'm not really sure I agree with Mark's ideas. I do agree with certain points, but there is a danger I'm afraid in some of the points. Anyway, you may or may not agree, but I'm just trying to be honest here. Also, maybe I'm reading too much into it.
P.S. Read MacArthur's new book "The Truth War." It addresses some of these issues as well from a different view point.
I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this post. I enjoyed the entry, myself.
I thought the meaning behind the post was to get people thinking about reaching their culture with the gospel of Jesus, but also, using methods that are relevant to the unchurched, unsaved population.
For instance, Paul quoted one of their own poets at Athens to explain THE UNKNOWN GOD. He said, "for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring." Acts 17:28.
I definitely do not agree with everything Mark Batterson writes, but I do appreciate the way he encourages his readers to think.
I do agree that we do need to think more!!!
Thanx for this link Aaron. I was challenged to think beyond where I am. Holla!
Post a Comment