cultural disagreement- a discussion between pastors

I recently engaged in an email discussion with a very dear friend of mine who is also a pastor regarding an article I posted on Ed Young Jr. and Fellowship church. It was pretty brief, and neither of us intended on writing to an audience so please pardon the lack of formality.

I post this because I see the need for dialogue and I appreciate his concerns as well as our ability to discuss this without affecting our friendship. I purposely omitted personal references so that he will remain anonymous and attempted to clean up some spelling errors we both made. His comments are in block quotes and the rest is my response to his initial email

*************************************************************************

Perhaps, instead of jumping to these conclusions, you should just ask me. I trust you know me well enough to know I don’t kowtow to felt-needs, nor have I in the time we have been close friends. I preach long, I preach hard, and if necessary I preach it twice. So, knowing me, hearing me, understanding that I have put some thought into this, you might want to take these things into consideration before jumping to a misplaced corrective.

Let me respond though, so you know where I stand. I’ll just use your post below and answer under each point so that it will be easier to flow with this conversation.

I was seriously troubled by your post and I say this after a few hours of reflection. It dawned on me after reading your post on “Fellowship” that you and I have a radically different philosophy on what church should be about.

I don’t think our view of the doctrine of the church is all that different, I think how we see this expressed in our culture and to the groups God has given us to minister to is different, and that is the issue. This is why I keep discussing the issue of principles and methods. We are told to sing and make melodies with songs and hymns and spiritual songs. Ok, what instruments? How long should the songs be? How many? 3,4,5,10, more or less? What songs? Who writes them and decides which metaphors to use? Assuming they are biblically accurate, what style of worship? How many beats per minute? What melody structure, what timing, what tune should we use? Why? What hymns do we sing? The handful in the New Testament or those developed by progressive reformers who brought new songs to the church? Why those songs? Are they more holy than modern, theologically accurate songs Kaleo sings? If so, why? Do you use PowerPoint? Can you give me scriptural support for its use? What colors do you use for your slides? Why do you have pews? Why do you have white walls instead of color? Why do you have fake stained glassed looking tape over your windows instead of a curtain? Why do you choose hymns so much? Why not mix it up more? How about a 30/70 rule, 30% hymns 70% contemporary (though doctrinally accurate)? Why not write songs yourself to keep things fresh? How about the other way around? How about which Psalms to sing? Do you sing them all word for word? If so in what translation do you use? If not, why? Why do you allow the structure and wording to change?

Do you see my point? It gets silly and at some point since you have to make decisions that are not driven by a verse which tells you what to choose, but rather principles which guide you. But those principles that guide you are expressed in culture. You can not ignore the fact that you use the kind of instruments you do in our culture and not Indian or African instruments. You might say this is just a reflection of the people who attend your church, and I would agree. This means that your decisions are driven by the skills and styles of your particular culture which is represented by your congregation. This is a no-brainer man. Frankly, I’m still not sure why you don’t see this point. Unless you’re willing to stick to a strict regulative principle and change your style to match that of more hyper-reformed churches like the URC, you’re going to make decisions that are guided, but are not specifically mentioned, by Scripture. Sure it’s much easier to have a list of agreed upon rules and regulations, but strictures where we’re given freedom can be just as foolish as an abuse of liberty.

“skilled exegetes of the culture. From conducting interviews on campus, reading the school paper, visiting the myspace pages for SDSU, understanding the diversity and mix of worldviews represented, and engaging in relationships that are deeper than the shallow “see you at church” mentality that shapes how we view friendships. We need to be intentional in our efforts to listen and learn about the issues that are most pressing emotionally and intellectually.”

What scriptural support would you offer for such a claim? Please give something other than Ed Young would give me if I asked him the same question. Dude! This is pragmatism and seeker sensitive Christianity! NO, all you need to do is preach the truth in English

Brother, which geographic dialect of English will you use? Southern, Northeastern, Midwestern, or Southwestern? What group of people in your particular demographic are you intending to reach or communicate to? Are they educated or blue collar? Don’t you see that slang, colloquialisms, dialect, pacing, metaphors, analogies, examples, and many more issues are specific to our particular culture and we are so entrenched that we speak from these culturally conditioned positions without even considering how very much we have been shaped by our culture. This is not simply a pair of glasses we look through like a worldview, it is more like the very lens of our own eyes which we look through- thus complicating the process of uncovering our cultural bias and prejudice.

I don’t give a crap if someone likes how I dress or what kind of car I drive or what kind of music I listen to. I used to care about those things before I became a Christian.

REALLY? YOU PUT ABSOLUTELY NO THOUGHT INTO WHAT CLOTHING YOU WEAR? THEN WHY NOT WEAR BELL BOTTOMS OR SPANDEX BIKER SHORTS? WHY WEAR THE STYLE OF JEANS YOU WEAR VERSUS Z-CAVARICHIS FROM THE EARLY 90’S? MY POINT IS THAT YOU DO THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS MORE THAN YOU CARE TO ADMIT, OR ELSE YOUR WIFE WOULDN’T LET YOU OUT IN PUBLIC SINCE YOU’D EMBARRASS HER AND THE FAMILY. TRY WEARING G-STRING SPEEDO NEXT TIME YOU GO TO THE BEACH BECAUSE THEY KEEP YOU COOLER IN THE HEAT AND SEE WHAT KIND OF REACTION YOU GET. I just realized I’m typing in caps, sorry.

What a weight that was lifted when I could stop trying to be cool! When you attract people to the church by convincing unbelievers that you are cool like them you do them an injustice. You have already set them up for a “consumer mentality.”

When have you heard me struggle with how I look or to be cool? I’m not very cool, and I’m totally cool with that. I don’t think it’s bad to think about how we present ourselves since we’re to do all things to the glory of God (yes even how we adorn our bodies), I’m just not obsessed with it. I try to dress in a way that is tasteful and somewhat hip, but truth be told, I don’t really focus on it all that much since I wear what I think looks good and that’s that.

Exegeting the culture has more to do with stories they believe, what poets or writers shape their thinking than it does their particular fashion choice (though this would reflect their particular worldview). Film, music, etc. are all powerful ways in which our culture is given its cues and taught its values. Are you saying that understanding film, music, and art are a waste of time? If so, let me suggest you read many of your reformed brothers more carefully, starting with Schaeffer. Francis Schaeffer said “There is no better way to understand the basic world view of a period of history than studying its art forms.” And I wholeheartedly agree. The Lordship of Christ extends to the whole of our lives and therefore we live in movement to see all things brought under His Lordship and reign, even art, even film, even music. My point has little to do with the clothing you wear or the car you drive, and more to do with a particular worldview. A philosophy of life and ethics which encompasses how we view ourselves and the world we live in. Are you saying that understanding this has little value? If so, then most of Paul’s epistles should be chucked out because he is addressing such things in a very skillful and educated way. He didn’t just give blanket statements about God, but pressed God’s character and Holy standard in such a way that his audience understood. He used specific points unique to their situation and culture. He knew Greek and Roman law, culture, as well as his thorough training in Judaism. You see him address different audiences in different ways yet with the same message. If you don’t see this, then brother, I don’t know what to say. One thing we learn through Biblical theology is context and historical setting. This historical setting is nothing more than the cultural situation and beliefs at a particular point of history. Consider the gospels- different audiences, written to different people groups to tell the same overall story which revealed Christ in a way that best understood by to those audiences. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all have a different ways of articulating and bringing out certain truths about Christ and His work because they are written to Jewish, Greek, Roman, and Gentile audiences. They land at the same airport, but take routes here and there, or omit certain things that God by the Holy Spirit didn’t think was pertinent in one of the particular gospels. How about Christ? He came to this world, born a man, born a Jew, at a particular time of history within the cultural setting and context of first century Palestine. He ate the food, spoke the language, and wore the clothing of his culture. Would he have been more holy by adopting a style and dialect of his language spoken 400 years prior? No? Then why do we idolize the reformation in the 16th century and attempt to move back to the 200 year span between the 16th and 18th century in our reformed churches? Those churches had their own problems, and if they were truly going to be old school, they would have gone back to the 2-3rd century forms which would then make us more like Islam than we care to believe since we are getting stuck in a particular romantic point of history rather than living coram deo each day.

Why do you study and read about the Jehovah’s Witness Watchtower literature, Mormon’s, Islam, etc.? Is it to adopt their style and become a syncretistic sell out? Or is some other motive at work that seeks to understand what they believe so that you can more effectively speak the gospel to them at the point of their greatest misunderstanding? I would suspect that it’s driven from your desire to know a understand them better- if not, as Schaeffer would put it, we’re playing a twisted and sick game of just beating people in arguments rather than loving people as image bearers. Why then do you see what I do with attempting to understand the culture and what they listen to, watch, or read as anything different? More and more your culture is passing you by and you’re sitting back and saying “I just preach the gospel and don’t worry about all that stuff.” To some degree that’s true, but it sure is lazy. I wouldn’t do that with a Muslim or Mormon, so why would I do it with a spiritual post-modern that is awash in error? All of the years and hours you have studied and debated JW’s and you sit now it a place of teaching others how to do the same to preach the gospel to them, why is this different that what I’m doing? I’m equipping the saints to effectively preach the gospel to their culture, and you know what? They’re doing it. People are coming to church, hearing the gospel and being soundly saved by the truth of a bloody cross and empty tomb. I’m attempting to communicate in a way that not only speaks the same language, but I can retell their worldview and story and answer it with the gospel. I’m not an expert at this, quite the contrary. I still preach hour plus sermons that are pretty in your face and upsetting, and that may never change, but I do desire to listen and learn about their objections to answer them effectively. I can’t just give broad brush statements in a sub-cultural Christianese and expect that these people understand what the heck I’m talking about. If you don’t care about what they think or how they feel, than you really don’t care about them. I don’t have to adopt their view when I listen, just like you haven’t adopted paedo-baptism or mormonism.

I’ll be honest with you, I think you’re dealing with some cultural snobbery at work because you seem to look down on us and others that don’t follow the same form as you do. Brother, let me suggest that it isn’t me that needs provides scripture on this issue, but you who should quote scripture which tells us the exact method and form which you prescribe as the standard. If we agree theologically, and you don’t have a strong biblical case to support your critique of how we do things, than I would be careful with your distaste so that you don’t start sounding like the URC church and look at us as the church on the outer ring somewhere, and yours as the true church. I’m being facetious, but you understand my point.

“Seeker driven, felt-needs, pragmatic churches don’t help the cause of the gospel to change the whole person, it complicates the process by appealing to one specific sensibility without addressing the others.”

My point is that if the “foot” that you start out on is “felt needs” you have started off on the wrong foot.

You will inevitably gather a people who’s first priority is not truth but “being cool”. This is what the whole Calvary Chapel movement was built on.

Where did you get this from? Did I say anything about being cool? Did I say that we start with their felt-needs? What I’m talking about is addressing them at their real-needs which can only be answered with the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. Every problem they face and need they have can be answered in Christ. So why not learn what their real needs are? When I evangelize, I ask a series of questions and attempt to discern where they are at spiritually, and what they believe and understand. We do this even with Christians when we counsel them. We have to learn where they are putting their hope so we can lead them to understand and believe the gospel of grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. What I’m doing is no different. I mentioned in my post that seeker churches prohibit the gospel, so why do you build the straw man of the Calvary example and felt needs comments when you and I are in agreement.

Furthermore, I think video venues are stupid. You were on the right track when you thought they were stupid too. Driscoll needs to wean people off of “Driscoll” and have actual elders preaching to these people. The whole thing just wreaks of pragmatism.

Sure, you can think they are stupid, and I don’t think they are the best thing either, but can you tell me what mountain you inhabit which gives you the right to peer down into the heart of Mark Driscoll and his elders, so that you know he’s caving in to a cult of personality? I don’t agree with Mark, but I know the whole story and what he’s facing with the city. He’s turning people away every week because he doesn’t have enough space and can’t plant churches fast enough to handle the influx of people. Are you saying that we automatically dismiss this as a work of the flesh? C’mon. Then we need to say the same to Spurgeon who had the same problem and Metropolitan Tabernacle and asked his members on many occasions to stay home so the visitors could have a seat in the packed out, 5,000 person, church. He utilized every modern form of technology available to him to get the message out. I’m not saying he’d use a video venue, nor am I saying I would. Frankly, I don’t like the idea. But that’s easy for me to say since I’m not faced with turning away 200 people a week because I don’t have enough space for them, and until that ever happens, you and I should not be so quick to judge what we’d do since you don’t know the whole story behind how Mark has dealt with this issue.

And by the way, he is having his elders rotating in and preaching at these locations when needed. So, as much as many might think it stinks of pragmatism, so do some of things we do if we carefully examined our forms and methods we have adopted for no other reason than it works and seems not to contradict scripture.

You are my friend and my brother. Please listen to the attached mp3 and be honest with yourself and your approach. Scratch that. I linked it.

You are my friend too, and I love you as a dear brother, but you have to stop being so quick to judge attitudes and intentions which is reserved for the Word of God. I enjoy our conversations and think they are stimulating, but more and more I realize that much of your concerns are not principles as much as there are methods. I have to give liberty and charity over such issues. Whatever I may personally think about what Kaleo is and how we do church, I’m not going to call you out in judgment because we feel we’re being more biblical. We are attempting to live out semper reformanda in our time. This means that we are always checking our doctrine and practices against scripture to both limit and free our methods. The Scriptures are not only about strictures, but also freedoms. We desire to live with both. Do what you do, the way you do it if your conscience in clear and I’ll continue to pray for you. But please don’t take the approach that we’re junior varsity and you’re varsity because your form is more traditional than ours. I get that feeling form you sometimes, and it grates against my last nerve. Reformed dudes are always screaming for verses to prove what we do, but I really do think that what we do is not only in accord with the historical church, but also with many great reformed thinkers of our own day. To dismiss culture is to dismiss the people that make up culture. Culture is not a thing it is a people group that expresses its beliefs and values in all forms of living. I think the only position that makes sense of the cultural mandate, and the entire panorama of redemptive history is to seek to reach and change people in this culture so that this culture changes into a Kingdom culture through the power of the Gospel. That will not be done through sectarian pious babble, but in thoughtful, tearful, humble and loving courage which the gospel brings to free us from fear and pride so that we can engage these people and retell their own sorrows with the hope of Christ as their answer.

Your brother in Christ.