Comments on: Being Cultural and Counter-Cultural at the Same Time

By: Traci Henegar

Traci Henegar — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:26:41 +0000

Len and Jason–our Worship team really struggles with this issue, so I appreciate the thought-provoking article. Will take to our next design meeting!

By: Midnight Oil Productions | Reading | Archive » Identifying Your Team?Ã„Ã´s Purpose

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:40:50 +0000

[...] Being Cultural and Counter-Cultural at the Same Time1,063 Views [...]

By: Beth Galbreath

Beth Galbreath — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:07:16 +0000

My, my…I remember this exact discussion happening in 1970 at Garrett Theological Seminary, in the middle of the seminary’s relevance-imposed meltdown into irrelevance (to be fair, campuses everywhere were melting in the same fires). I’ve recently completed a master’s in spiritual formation and evangelism at the same seminary because, thankfully, many folks in the Church (and Garrett) have discovered that what’s needed is a balance, which God provides by grace if we listen. I believe great things lie ahead for the Church – if we can keep up the pace.

By: The MO Guys

The MO Guys — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:06:13 +0000

Steve,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. We wanted to add some of our thoughts to your thoughts.

On point 1.

We?Ã„Ã´d agree that going overboard can make burnout happen pretty quick. But we?Ã„Ã´d also say that we?Ã„Ã´ve seen many times over that a week where less ?Ã„Ãºproduction?Ã„Ã¹ (making it an easy week for producers) makes it harder for people to make connections and engage in heartfelt worship. It takes time and energy to make the message/media/music connect, and not putting in that time means worship that may be more foreign (or disconnected) to worshipers.

Think about it in the context of music. Regardless of song choice, if a musician doesn?Ã„Ã´t practice, learn the chords, and internalize the song, then present it in a way that people can participate, when ?Ã„Ãºpraise and worship?Ã„Ã¹ time begins, the song will likely not be very worshipful. The same is true for writing messages, dramas, and creating media. If we just slap something together, using the ?Ã„Ãºlet?Ã„Ã´s just let worship happen?Ã„Ã¹ mentality, it likely will not be worship, but a series of confusing activities ranging from spoken word to song.

The “way things have always been done” worship is simpler to produce in lots of ways simply because it’s been done a lot, so the production difficulties have been worked out.

On point 2.

This is an interesting point, as on one hand you make the point that worship is missional but on another hand decide that it’s not. It’s gotta be both, as the article discusses. Worship is both upward and outward, and since the missional component cannot be ignored we have to be sensitive to it.

Your thought makes us wonder, how do we know if something is pleasing to God? Is it the worshipful feeling we get? If so, then we run the risk of doing what you warn against, by making it “about us,” as we define worship to be ?Ã„Ãºworshipful?Ã„Ã¹ by whatever that means in our minds. Biblically, Jesus was very relevant (or connectional) in the culture he lived in. He used what he had around him as a way to help people experience truth. We in the church often want to retreat from culture, creating our own clothing, bookstores, music etc. This isn?Ã„Ã´t all bad, but there has to be a balance. Which is of course the point of the article.

On Point 3.

Definitely, we agree that the word “relevant” has some baggage. In fact, Jim’s point (#5) has resonance with us. We are not fans of the word, but wrtoe the article in some ways because the word continues to float around so much.

The fact is, though, worship cannot exist without a cultural context. We just have to decide what context we want. You cannot remove yourself from the context entirely. This is like congregations that histroically wanted to remove themselves from denominational affiliation and ended up creating a “denomination” called “non-denominational.”

If we acknowledge that there’s a cultural context, we just have to ask, which? The further away we get from when a certain worship model was created the more its impact begins to fade. Unless we?Ã„Ã´re really sold out on the countercultural viewpoint these worship models created for previous time (50?Ã„Ã´s liturgy) don?Ã„Ã´t connect very well. So it could be said by someone who doesn?Ã„Ã´t have a church history that this stuff is irrelevant.

Keep posting! We love the discussion.

By: Robert M. Grigg Jr

Robert M. Grigg Jr — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:57:14 +0000

I am impressed with the sensitive hearts of all the commentators. I found the article refreshing even though I am doing battle in what I consider a much more legalistic setting than most. Most of my membership would not even consider the discussion worth having.I am thankful for your thoughtful and loving probing of the edges of what it means to be ‘missional’. Thanks bg

By: Steve Ormond

Steve Ormond — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:08:01 +0000

As a layperson involved in leadership, I have a few thoughts on this subject:
1. Whatever is done must, of necessity, be the kind of worship that can be “produced” (sorry) week in and week out without burnout. I have begun to realize that some of the value of doing things the way that they have always been done is the very fact that the participants can spend more energy on worshipping the Lord, rather than worrying about and producing the latest and newest thing.
2. The participants must be taught that worship is not about us, it’s about the Lord of the Universe and about others. Whenever I’m tempted to think that what I believe are my needs should be fulfilled in worship, I’m reminded that Jesus was not worrying about meeting his needs while hanging on the cross, rather he was meeting His father’s needs and the needs of others. If we are to emulate Jesus, the question should always be: Is this worship pleasing to God and are others being fed? In this light, worship’s relevancy could be a mere distraction or it could be the heart of the matter, since God’s purposes are always relevant and Man’s purposes often are not.
3. The word “relevant” cannot stand on its own. It is an adjective used to describe something else. The question is always “Relevant to what?” Whether dead or alive, worship is always relevant to something, either relevant to ancient traditions, liturgy, old folks, young folks, hip hop culture, rock and roll culture, professionals, workers, farmers, etc. It is never irrelevant. While we may not like the focus of its relevance in a given church or tradition, it is not correct to describe any worship as irrelevant. I believe that we should move toward relevancy for God and for the others who we encounter who need to hear the good news and experience the liberating joy of true worship. Maybe that’s what is implied by the general use the term “relevant,” but I worry about its use because often it seems to be another way of emphasizing my needs over those of God and others.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

By: Jim Galbreath

Jim Galbreath — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:14:08 +0000

For me, the word “relevant” is loaded with too much baggage, so I try to recast it in terms of “openess” and “connection.” As pastor, I strive to be open to the experiences of people around me, rather than forcing them into my preconceptions. As preacher, I try to connect with the lives of the people with whom I am sharing the Gospel hope, instead of trying to force them to wear a particular pair of theological wading boots.
Some weeks that openess is more successful, and that connection more solid, than it is other weeks. And sometimes, the openess and connection are both great, but the issue is simply not as profound as it is other weeks. So my growing edge is to try pushing that openess and connection deeper into the heart of people’s soul needs. Out of that struggle to discern God’s leading come images, metaphors, and words that are “relevant,” not because of their pop culture status or traditional use, but because they connect the thirstiest places in questing human spirits with the most nourishing and refreshing Living Water.

By: Jay Mason

Jay Mason — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:49:34 +0000

We try to help congregations walk this line every week. Some are better suited for it and other lost there relevance 50 to 100 years ago.

By: The MO Guys

The MO Guys — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:37:17 +0000

The reference to Peter is relevant (haha). Peter and Paul, as two leaders of the early church, exemplified this debate well in Acts 15, which is a great illustration of this discussion. There the big argument was over Jewish law applied to newly converted Gentiles. Paul and others wanted to be more culturally accommodating while others were more interested in making followers abandon their old cultural practices and take on new religious ones. Good thing he won the argument too or our faith would probably have a much smaller scope today.

We think this illustrates the paradox perfectly.

It also implies the problem with the counter-cultural viewpoint. Yes, the way of the cross is narrow and few become disciples. Yet narrowness can become inaccessibility with the human tendency to glorify our individual pathway to God. To paraphrase Paul, what is the narrow way for one may not be for another. Christian history is littered with separatist groups, from monastaries to denominations, that find personal holiness in removing from culture, but ultimately die off. This is a radical idea, but we see this in a way as selfish. For a congregation to be truly engaged with culture is for a congregation to be missional. It is doing things that as a believer one might not really want to do for the sake of mission, of proclaiming Jesus. It is easier to focus on personal holiness than to be engaged in society because in the former, all we have to worry about is ourselves.

The problem with the cultural viewpoint comes, and we think this happens often, when the struggle of the counter-cultural life is minimized. In these congregations the emphasis is placed too much on accessibility and in the process the way of the Cross is lost. This is ultimately self-defeating, as a congregation can draw people to Jesus but is incapable of closing the deal, so to speak.

By: MD Turner

MD Turner — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 15:51:13 +0000

How funny is it that I was just discussing this with my pastor last night? We were looking at plans for “Holy Week”, including Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. Maundy Thursday, we will have a foot washing in our church. Being a fairly “contemporary” church, this will be a new concept for most, and will be a stumbling block to many, who will decide not to attend because it will seem just plain weird. Some of the religious traditions seen in liturgical churches seem to be saying, “It does not matter if worship is relevant. We provide the services and people may attend or not attend, but we are carrying out what we believe God has called us to do.” I understand the underlying belief…that in the words of Peter, we are to please God, not man. I also feel very torn that where we are may be way ahead of where our people are. People often have to be lead along step by step. Some things that we introduce in worship are leaps beyond the level of maturity, and I don’t mean age. I have seen people in their senior age firmly set on hymns because that is what they like, not because the message means anything to them. (Others love the deeper message contained in the hymns and hate the seeming shallow message in choruses!) Torn is the word, but I think it is okay to be torn. It makes us spend more time on our knees, seeking God’s guidance rather than thinking we have got it all figured out, and thereby sinking into mediocrity.