Bailing Waters Comments on Missional

Church and Change has adopted the Becoming Missional model, which means turning the Sunday service into something the anti-church people like. Since Church and Changers hate Lutheran doctrine and worship, the method is perfect for them. Likewise, store owners should change their business model to appeal to burglars.


From Bailing Water:

Anonymous said...
"One side says there is danger in changing things. I think if you are prudent, change is OK. On the other hand I see this clinging to tradition just as dangerous."

No! This is the biggest strawman fallacy in this entire debate. The Church and Changers try to portray liturgical worship as a stagnant clinging to the way things have always been done. This is stupid and untrue. The liturgy is very accepting of change. That's why it has been used by Christians across the world across the centuries. The liturgy is the basic framework upon which all sorts of different musical styles and settings can be placed. High mass at the Vatican and a liturgical service in the African bush will look completely different, yet they are both the liturgy, they both focus on Christ, no man.

Contempo worship, on the other hand, is not about small, prudent change. It is about abandoning 2000 years of wisdom and history and tradition for the sake of modern trends. Think about that for a second. This is the first time in the history of the Church in which Christians have seen fit to reject wholesale everything the Church has ever done for the sake of doing their own thing and following their own desires. That's what is truly dangerous.

November 21, 2008 8:55 AM


Anonymous said...
I think we are talking about two different things. If I keep the important elements and use a different music style, I believe there is nothing wrong with this. What's wrong is clinging to high church litugical saying this is the ONLY way and not willing to budge one iota. That is dangerous.

November 21, 2008 9:38 AM


Anonymous said...
Part of the CG methodology is to start small or as an addition or as a temporary trial. Well, a little yeast leavens the whole lump. And dynamic change is the professed goal of church growth advocates. So it won't stop - as evident by those having their foot in the door already.

What's interesting, though, is the research has been done (as Freddy's posts have attested) and the methodology is a documented failure. Yet, for some reason, we should give it a shot in the Lutheran church to see what the Holy Spirit can do with it here. We're trying the same failed methods but expecting a different result. Insanity. Maybe this time it will be different...

I think it's difficult to be prudent with the experimentation because it opens up so many subjective alternatives - making church a social science project; constantly having to reinvent itself to keep up pace with the culture - a culture that abhors Christ. And once we see church as a place to go for what becomes primarily an emotional experience, we'll see the mega-church down the street can do it much better.

What is the purpose of church? Is it not to feed the sheep - even, gasp, those in the fold? What is the need that everyone has and everyone needs to feel? Forgiveness of sins. That doesn't need to be marketed, it just needs to be proclaimed. You can't minimize the Law to lessen its offensiveness. The Gospel isn't sweet without knowing the fatal situation of the flesh. This can't be watered down to make people feel comfortable. This can't be marketed to convince people it's a good buy. The Gospel doesn't need man's innovation. It only needs proclamation.

The beauty of the Divine Service is its Gospel proclamation in a reverent fashion before a Holy God with a focus on Christ. Rock and roll was designed to be associated with rebellion and to focus on man. Well, let's try hip hop then, or country, or whatever ... as long as the words include Jesus.

I believe that many of those entrapped by the CG methodology really have good intentions with a love for the lost. But we all know where even best intentions can lead.

Rob

November 21, 2008 10:18 AM


Anonymous said...
"If I keep the important elements and use a different music style, I believe there is nothing wrong with this."

And what exactly would you consider "the important elements"? And who are you to get to decide what's important or not? Two-thousand years of church history have taught us what's important and what's not.

Besides, the contempo crowd does not advocate retaining the liturgy while changing musical styles. The contempo crowd favors dumping the liturgy in favor of chancel dramas and reading mission statements in the middle of worship. Or are those the things that you deem to be "the important elements"?

November 21, 2008 11:18 AM