I’m not saying, I’m just saying…

Comments

1. almost says:

   May 10, 2010 at 3:13 pm

   I was on the road last week in lots of meetings and as a result, out of touch with the blogosphere / Twitterverse. A (unTwittering / never-blogging / email only) friend emailed me this video and I laughed. Out loud. A good bit. So I thought I would post it even though I was sure lots had seen it. Well, I just launched my Reader and found…a lot of people have posted it. Sorry for the redundancy, but it was funny for me the second time as well.

   While I often seek to pose ideas that lead to questions rather than stating the obvious…I am going to risk it here. As stated above, this is funny. But why is it so funny? What does this mean for us? What does…I’ll stop here. (smile)
2. Trey Atkins says:

   May 10, 2010 at 4:45 pm

   Fantastic! Why so funny? All the “new” is so traditional that it is painful.
3. Why?, How?, or What? | almost an M says:

   May 11, 2010 at 11:22 am

   [...] What? – So many options here. Perhaps a point for consideration begins with the video in yesterday’s post. [...]
4. Scott says:

   May 11, 2010 at 11:24 am

   Ouch!!! But since it is all for God’s glory it must be ok. Not like God might wonder who is the object of the “worship”.

   Then again the form, in my estimation, is not so much the issue until or unless it detracts from the message.
5. almost says:

   May 11, 2010 at 11:29 am

   Gentlemen – I see a good bit of church planting that is starting with questions about logistics rather than cultural exegesis. It is time, as my Upstream Collective friends say, for the church to begin to think and act like a missionary.

   Thanks for your comments.
6. Tim says:

   May 19, 2010 at 1:53 am

   I love it! I think one of the reasons it’s so funny is because these “contemporvant” services that are supposed to be “out of the box” and different are just as formulaic and predictable as the very traditions it was rebelling from.

   Not that either form of worship is bad (or that worship is binary–you can only do it the “traditional” way or the “contemporary” way), but I do feel there’s this sort of dishonesty (though unintentional) in the current form– everything we criticize past traditions of we are just as guilty ourselves.
7. almost says:

   May 19, 2010 at 10:15 pm

   I agree each form has its place. We have accepted some formulaic templates as the one or two possible ways to do church. It is important that we exegete our culture and that the church then fit our community. We need more understanding, more creativity–and I don’t mean better slides or lighting.
8. Steve says:

   May 28, 2010 at 1:12 am

   Ouch!!! But since it is all for God’s glory it must be ok. Not like God might wonder who is the object of the “worship”.

   Then again the form, in my estimation, is not so much the issue until or unless it detracts from the message.

Leave a Reply