
Read here
“The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments, epistemological and ideological. Both are based on subjectivity. First, because of the subjectivity of the human object, anthropology, according to the epistemological argument cannot be a science; and in any event the subjectivity of the human subject precludes the possibility of science discovering objective truth. Second, since objectivity is an illusion, science according to the ideological argument, subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics, third-world peoples (Spiro 1996).
But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,”
(2Tim 3:13-14 NAS95S)
•Ongoing battles over embryonic stem-cell research and end-of-life choices gave an impression that evangelicals wanted to impose sectarian values on society.
Although 38% of Americans call themselves evangelical, only 9% actually agree with key evangelical beliefs, says research firm the Barna Group. In a surveys of 4,014 adults nationwide, conducted over four months in 2006, "one out of every four self-identified evangelicals has not even accepted Christ as their savior," says George Barna.
I can’t run the risk that she finds out about this prior to the actual engagement…and posting her picture on the site could definitely increase the odds of her hearing about it.
It is said that emerging Christians confess their faith like mainliners—meaning they say things publicly they don't really believe. They drink like Southern Baptists—meaning, to adapt some words from Mark Twain, they are teetotalers when it is judicious. They talk like Catholics—meaning they cuss and use naughty words. They evangelize and theologize like the Reformed—meaning they rarely evangelize, yet theologize all the time. They worship like charismatics—meaning with their whole bodies, some parts tattooed. They vote like Episcopalians—meaning they eat, drink, and sleep on their left side. And, they deny the truth—meaning they've got a latte-soaked copy of Derrida in their smoke- and beer-stained backpacks.
This could hardly be a timelier book. More and more people are coming to the realization that the materialism, the rootlessness, and the hedonism of this consumer's paradise we've built for ourselves are taking America down a dead-end road. E.F. Schumacher shows where liberals and conservatives go wrong, and Joseph Pearce makes Schumacher relevant for a new generation -- one that despaerately needs to hear Schumacher's message. Pearce shows why "small is beautiful" is the only sane and human response to our insane "supersize me" culture.
Let it be clear from the outset that my "questions" about the Reformed regulative principle for public worship do not spring from doubts about what I take to be its main thrust. As for many years, I continue now to be convinced that worship must be scriptural (i.e., consistent with Scripture) and, indeed, limited by Scripture. For who of us can say confidently how God wishes to be worshiped except insofar as he has told us in Scripture? If there are principles of worship to be found in nature, these cannot be understood rightly except through the "spectacles" of Scripture; for when we try to reason without Scripture, sin distorts our vision. And Scripture is quick to condemn those who walk according to the "vain imaginations of their own hearts" (Jer 3:17; 7:24; etc.)Read on...
Still, it is one thing to affirm the sufficiency of Scripture for worship, another thing to work out a cogent theological account of it. And in trying to develop such an account, I have run into some questions which either I am unable to answer correctly or which call for changes in some traditional ways of understanding the principle. So I place them on the table for discussion; I hope to learn from my readers.
As a boy he was, as befitted a pastor's son, intensely pious, but he lost his faith during his late teens and abandoned the study of theology. He replace belief with freelance philosophizing, upon which he brought to bear the intensity of involvement he had withdrawn from religion."Later he talks of "pitiable priests" in this way:
I pity these priests. They go against my taste, too; but that means little to me since I am among men.This is our vital role after all isn't it? To show men their own imprisonment and bondage to fruitless desires and in so doing display the inexpressible joy and fulfillment that comes form bondage to Christ? This is freedom. Nietzsche himself seems to understand that we were not meant to be our own gods and goddesses in The madman when he declares we have killed God,
But I suffer and have suffered with them: they seem to me prisoners and marked men. He whom they call Redeemer has cast them into bondage -
Into the bondage of alse values and false scriptures! Ah, that someone would redeem them from their Redeemer!"
Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must not we ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it?"Truly, we were made for another, and in communion with Him is the fulness of joy.
And he who lives in their (the priests) neighborhood lives in the neighborhood of black pools, from out of which the toad that prophet of evil, sings its song with sweet melancholy.This is a staggering statement of truth from Nietzsche...
They would have to sing better songs to make me believe in their Redeemer: his disciples would have to look more redeemed!
One of the basic features of church life in the United States today is the proliferation of corporate worship and music forms. This, in turn, has caused many severe conflicts within both individual congregations and whole denominations. Most books and articles about recent trends tend to fall into one of two categories. "Contemporary Worship" (hereafter CW) advocates often make rather sweeping statements like "Pipe organs and choirs will never reach people today." "History Worship" (hereafter HW) advocates often speak similarly about how incorrigibly corrupt popular music and culture is, and how their use makes contemporary worship completely acceptable.
Contemporary Worship: Plugging In?
One CW advocate writes vividly that we must "plug in" our worship to three power sources: "the sound system, the Holy Spirit, and contemporary culture." But sever problems attend the promotion of strictly contemporary worship.
First, some popular music does have severe limitations for corporate worship. Critics of popular culture argue that much of it is the product of mass-produced commercial interests. As such, it is often marked by sentimentality, a lack of artistry, sameness, and individualism in a way that traditional folk art was not.
Second, when we ignore historic tradition, we break our solidarity with Christians of the past. Part of the richness of our identity as Christians is that we are saved into a historic people. An unwillingness to consult tradition is not in keeping with either Christian humility or Christian community. Nor is it a thoughtful response to the postmodern rootlessness that now leads so many to seek connection to ancient ways and peoples.
Finally, any corporate worship that is strictly contemporary will become dated very quickly. Also, it will necessarily be gauged to a very narrow market niche. When Peter Wagner says we should "plug in" to contemporary culture, which contemporary culture does he mean? White, black, Latino, urban, suburban, "Boomer," or "Gen X" contemporary culture? Just ten years ago, Willow Creek's contemporary services were considered to be "cutting edge." Already, most younger adults find them dated and "hokey," and Willow Creek has had to begin a very different kind of "Buster" service in order to incorporate teenagers and people in their twenties.
Hidden (but not well!) in the arguments of CW enthusiasts is the assumption that culture is basically neutral and that thus there is no reason why we cannot wholly adopt any particular cultural form for our gathered worship. But worship that is not rooted in any particular historic tradition will often lack the critical distance necessary to critique and avoid the excesses and distorted sinful elements of the particular surrounding culture. For example, how can we harness contemporary Western culture's accessibility and frankness but not its individualism and psychologizing of moral problems?
Historic Worship: Pulling Out?HW advocates, on the other hand, are strictly "high culture" promoters, who defend themselves from charges of elitism by arguing that modern pop music is inferior to traditional fold art. But problems also attend the promotion of strictly traditional, historic worship.
First, HW advocates cannot really dodge the charge of cultural elitism. A realistic look at the Christian music arising from the grassroots folk cultures of Latin America, Africa, and Asia (rather than from commercially produced pop music centers) reveals many of the characteristics of contemporary praise and worship music--simple and accessible tunes, driving beat, repetitive words, and emphasis on experience. Much of high culture music takes a great deal of instruction to appreciate, so that, especially in the United States, a strong emphasis on such music and art will probably only appeal to college-educated elites.
Second, any proponent of "historic" corporate worship will have to answer the question, "Whose history?" Much of what is called "traditional" worship is very rooted in northern European culture. While strict CW advocates may bind worship too heavily to one present culture, strict HW advocates may bind it too heavily to a past culture. Do we really want to assume that sixteenth-century northern European approach to emotional expression and music (incarnate in the Reformation tradition) was completely biblically informed and must be preserved?
Hidden (but not well!) in the arguments of HW advocates is the assumption that certain historic forms are more pure, biblical, and untainted by human cultural accretions. Those who argue against cultural relativism must also remember that sin and falleness taints every tradition and society. Just as it is a lack of humility to disdain tradition, it is also a lack of humility (and a blindness to the "noetic" effects of sin) to elevate any particular tradition or culture's way of doing worship. A refusal to adapt a tradition to new realities may come under Jesus' condemnation of making our favorite human culture into an idol, equal to the Scripture in normativity (Mark 7:8-9). While CW advocates do not seem to recognize the sin in all cultures, the HW advocates do not seem to recognize the amount of (common) grace in all cultures.
Bible, Tradition, and Culture
At this point, the reader will anticipate that I am about to unveil some grand "Third Way" between two extremes. Indeed, many posit a third approach called "blended worship." But it is not as simple as that. My major complaint is that both sides are equally simplistic...