i had a really good conversation with a church leader friend of mine the other day. he is a leader of a very "contemporary"-style church. [when i make reference to contemorary, i mean as opposed to "traditional" or, the method of performing church services that has seemed to flourish in the 80s and 90s in middle america.] we talked about the relationship between peter and paul and the mindset shift that occurred as the early church was establishing itself amongst the gentiles.
here's the historical climate IN A NUTSHELL:
pre-jesus, those that were religilously acceptable to GOD [in the view of the Jews] were Jews and NOT Gentiles [not jewish people]. jesus came to establish His Kingdom, but the collective body of the Jews, represented by the religious leaders, rejected Him. therefore, Jesus shifted the parameters of those able to be accepted by GOD. He then made faith and not works [or race] the necessary requirement to be acceptable by GOD. [matt 12, romans 11] most Jews at this time had a very hard time [as Jonah did] accepting this shift. after all, YAHWEH was their GOD and the way they worshipped Him and were identified with Him was the way that they were used to, and in their mind, was the only acceptable way. However, they could not refute with Jesus' teaching and Peter's vision of the Gentiles now being made clean and acceptable to GOD. afterall, it was now wrong of them to call anything that GOD has made clean [gentiles] unclean [see Acts 10 + 11]. SO they then decided that if the Gentiles [uncircumcised w/ no dietary restrictions] really wanted to be apart of their GOD and their religion, they had to take on all of the cultural changes and identifications that they, as Jews, practice. most importantly, and offensively: get circumcised and change your entire diet. some jews saw this to be a power move and not what GOD had intended, so they put an end to it at the Council of Jerusalem [Acts 15] SO now, the "church" in their religious control, let Gentiles be identified with Christ without being circumsized or hold to their strict dietary laws. instead, they explained circumcision under the new covenant as a circumcision of the heart, which would then cause outward actions: LOVING GOD and LOVING OTHERS, the fruits of the spirit, etc. Paul was one of the greatest advocates of bring Jesus' Proclaimed Kingdom to the Gentiles and allowing them full-citizenship into it. He entered the culture of the people he had compassion for and using their culture taught them about the GOD who was originally the GOD of the Jews [acts 17], but he taught them not to conform to Jewish laws and habits, but instead to not conform to the world, but to be transformed by the renewing of their mind, trusting in GOD's love and living sacrificial lives for the sake of your neighbor. he would say that "he has become all things to all men, so that he may win some." [I Corinthians 9:19-23] he saw the need to meet the Gentiles in their culture and as a spiritual guide show them where GOD was in their midst that they may acknowledge him and live accordingly.
anyway, back to my conversation:
my friend, who is a church leader of a "contemporary" congregation applied this historical viewpoint by saying that Paul adapted what he was to his surroundings, so that he could engage GOD. and therefore, the "emergent" [18-30 year olds] christians should adapt who they are, in order to meet with GOD in a contemporary worship service. He was say it is a discipline that Paul had mastered, and we should master it as well. the principle being: if you have the opportunity to worship GOD, but choose not to because of an attitude that says "this style doesn't do it for me", that is sin and should not be acceptable or tolerated. we both acknowledged that, at times, we are very guilty of this. [i more than him, probably... him being in his mid-40s; i being in my mid-20s]
i refute. i believe that the historical context applies to our situation in this way:
the Jews could be viewed as the "established church", in our case a church that use a "contemporary" method of service. the Gentiles could be viewed as the "emergent" church, the new comers, the younger generations, those that are "unchurched" in the primarily 18-30 demographic. Most Jews were very unhappy and unwilling to include the Gentiles. But some of those Jews stood up and said that it is important for us, as those with a special gift: a redeemer to make that gift as widely available as possible. and if that means having the name of our GOD pegged to something that we don't understand and consider filthy, then that's what it's got to take. They allowed the branch that was to be grafted in be grafted in such a way that they could continue being circumsized and eat according to their dietary restrictions [if they wanted]. However, they also allowed the grafted branch to grow according to it's own environment. the tree or the root of their faith was the same: Jesus Christ and Him crucified to give us salvation through faith alone, and not by works, while we, in the outflow of our blessing LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS. but the way in which they pursued it and taught it was drastically different; for example: synagogue vs. market place. In the same way, i think the currently established contemporary or modern church should continue to do what they are doing. bless you if it works for you. but in addition to that, they should also plant and bless a church or congregation that does things to the same GOD in a different way, so that they might "win some". all things to all men. become like me so that you can be won.
some more thoughts
I wonder what it was like when people started thinking: hey, let's use a guitar to sing songs to GOD, and let's use drums. and let's stop singing out of a book the same song over and over. let's use movie illustratinos in messages, let's use funny anecdotes in our sermons to supplement the Word of God... my friend speaks so highly of those times, and scoffs at those that are so "old school" that they call those actions inappropriate for the house of GOD etc. he champions change there. but what it has changed to, he doesn't want to let go of. i don't think the change should stop there, i think that change is continuing, but at a faster pace than anyone could have anticipated. therefore, instead of continuing change in an environment that is 1. happy where it is and 2. tired of change, i think there should be a fresh start, with the base to grow off of vastly different. but that is getting off the topic of the conversation that i wanted to outwardly process in this "blog / online journal" any thoughts for those that may have trudged this far through the muck?
again, this was a very good conversation and i enjoyed having it. the whole things was respectful and civilized and encouraging and hopeful and stretching and marked with love, grace, and understanding. it was really quite beautiful.
[a book that tackles and expounds in this general direction is: Emerging Worship: Creating Worship gatherings for Emerging Generations by: Dan Kimbal with a forward by Mr. David Crowder]
