Well, we've finished our Conversations with Culture series, but certainly not the conversations themselves. I was amazed watching and hearing Randy Gill masterfully bring out techniques and themes in music that we need to give some Gospel consideration. I guess what strikes me most after all of the reflection is the incredible artistry of God. He reveals that artistry in creation itself, as I'm reminded every week when I hike alone with God or with my kids. He reveals that in the Gospel narratives, which the more I study them, the more I am staggered by the depth of literary wonder there. And I've seen through my collegues here and my spiritual family the artistry God has placed in our everyday lives through the gifts of his people and the creativity of humanity.
So, a concluding thought and a question to ponder. The thought: we serve a breathtaking God who has not ceased his creative work. The question: some have legitimately asked, where do we draw the line between finding God in the common and profaning the name of God by connecting conversations about him with aspects of the world? I tend to lean toward Augustine's take, that whatever good that is found in the world comes from God, so like Israel of old, we should feel free to "plunder the Egyptians" and find God anywhere he chooses to reveal himself. In fact, like Paul discovering attributes of God in pagan poetry (Acts 17:28), I find it incredibly honoring of God to find him at work in surprising places. But, I don't want to dishonor him by falling into the trap of trying to water down the Story of God and reduce it to what those in a pop culture would find attractive. Any thoughts on keeping the balance in our conversations and lives? Or, you might feel free to share your own encounters with God and his creative artistry.
Dean
Here's thge Final message on Gospel & Music: http://web.mac.com/woodmontwebcast/iWeb/Woodmont%20Webcast/Podcast/Podcast.html
5 comments:
First, I have thoroughly enjoyed this series of conversations. We in the church have long held to the cliche "in the world but not of it." We've held on for the same reason it's a cliche: it expresses a truth to apply to our lives. But the problem with cliches is that people SAY them but don't HEAR them. They reinforce something already accepted, which is why re-engagement (or re-mixing) is needed. That's what this series of conversations has really impressed upon me, and I thank you for your energy and insight.
Second, there's an author named Terry Pratchett who writes satirical fantasy. In his book _The Fifth Elephant_, an ancient artifact is stolen and is possibly replaced with a fake. The hero, Sam Vimes, is confused when the dwarves apparently accept the fake as the real thing. All he can grasp is that they're copies, not the original, therefore "fakes". The dwarf king answers:
"Suddenly the king was holding his mining ax again. 'This, milord, is my family's ax. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation...but is
this not the nine-hundred-year-old ax of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good ax, y'know. Pretty good. Will you tell me if this is a fake, too?'"
One of the most refreshing things I ever heard you say was when you stated once that despite our attempts to be the first-century church, we had filters in place that meant we had to live those principles as 20th or 21st century Christians. I was still new to the Church of Christ at that time and had no background in the Restoration or Campbell background, so something kept nagging me about the insistence that following first-century practices was not only feasible but prescriptive. To use the above analogy, it sounded like the ax was an heirloom that must be preserved and never restored or changed; it would be original in all facets but wouldn't cut soft butter. Remixing the Scripture and engaging the culture as you've been doing, on the other hand, recognizes that the axe can be maintained and updated while not losing its ancestral nature--AND it'll slice a ham sandwich when you're hungry.
Finally, how and where to draw the line between applicability and sellout? First is to recognize that criticism can always come, no matter where the line is drawn. Second is the question of follow-through: is the form of the message just thrown out for mass consumption, or are you using that as a starting point to draw people into a new world? It's the difference between fishing and feeding the fish: it's all food, but one's got a hook with a line attached. (Sounds a bit gruesome, but we know that we don't have anything to apologize for: we're _supposed_ to be fishers of men.) Third, change the form as need be, but focus on the message. I like to introduce the story of David and Goliath as an example of some righteous trash-talking, but I point out that this doesn't validate the practice as much as it does the circumstance. It's got to grow out of something that it's still attached to; just emphasize the form, and you're back to Tolstoy's cut flowers.
Last, keep in mind that generally the exortations about purity in Scripture are directed to the righteous and/or saved. The message to the culture at large who rejects Christians and Christ is one of repentance, and a message of repentance begins best with common ground instead of competing visions. The considerations that would keep Superfreak out of church have to do with the purity of the churchgoers; those same considerations don't apply, though, if you're looking to keep the church out of the culture of Superfreak fans. They're not good people who need to be better; they're dead people who need life.
"They're not good people who need to be better; they're dead people who need life."
Powerful insight my friend. This to me is the crux, how are non-believers hearing our message? These conversations in this series were aimed at both to church folks (as a model for conversing with the world at large) and the pre-Christian world around us itself. Finding he balance between these two crowds often seems elusive--yet, we can't give up the quest.
-D
"I don't want to dishonor him by falling into the trap of trying to water down the Story of God and reduce it to what those in a pop culture would find attractive."
Great statement which is worth thinking on from day to day. I never want to be accused of watering down the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for the sake of somehow thinking I can reach the unreachable. However, as I look back across my life and specifically my actions, I can identify times when my actions, not my words have done this very thing. For the sake of reaching a group of people, I have at times, participated in cultural activities that are not, and should not be associated with the Gospel message Jesus would have taught.
Thanks for the series, it has been refreshing for me, and it has taught me ways to impact the culture of today with the Gospel message, that is honoring to God.
Alan
Dean, it was great meeting you yesterday. I will look forward to keeping up with your blog!
Amy,
Great to meet you too--feel free to list your blog here too. I'm just getting started, so be patient, but we're happy to let folks know about what you're doing.
God bless,
Dean
Post a Comment