The Stones are Crying Out

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Michelle said:

M

---

Despite the fact, Michelle, that you so profusely apologized for what you consider to be a mistake, may I suggest it does draw attention to the reality, that while the story may appear to reveal the raising of Samuel as fact, it has to be recognized as just as great a lie as the first one voiced by the serpent re: to the ability to raise any one who has died, save it be Jesus Christ who may take that liberty.

[:"red"] "For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

" [/] Eccl 9:4-6 KJV

And the original warning preceding the original lie!!

[:"red"] "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." [/] Genesis 2:17

KJV

[:"red"] "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die..." [/] Gen 3:4 KJV

And a good portion of the world today, some from the best recognized religious persuasions of our day, are still trying to prove the serpent right.

die: to pass out of existence. WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW

COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY

[Guest]

Hey Nico

Sorry if you see this as arguing, or if this topic's character is bothering to you.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

A couple of people have actually told me the opposite - that they thought I was responding well here...that is, in a good spirit; they were/are enjoying reading through all the pros and cons.

There is less division here than you think. Ed and I aren't mortal enemies. We just don't like the same movies.

God once spoke to me in a cheap bar called Lucifer's; that's a part of how I became a Christian; and I have never been back to a bar since; and I can see how God may speak to someone via Narnia, at times, but I would not now use bars to "reach people," and I am just thinking that maybe this kind of movie is a bit over-rated. It's probably not a "must have" for evangelism.

I think it's great that people's interest in God is in some way kindled by this movie. I just think it goes deeper than that; and there is much more than just this movie at work in people's hearts.

[Guest]

hello LHC

I like that Eccl.9:4. Whenever I talk about the state of the dead; I mention that verse first - not verse 5.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Michelle said:

I try not to argue, but sometimes I get drawn into it. It is in my nature to argue (and we know what Paul says about our "natural" selves--'nuff said!). I was born to debate. I'm learning to discuss (that will continue to be a life-long learning process for me!).

M

---

Hello Michelle

I personally don't class your posts here as "arguing." They seem to be in a good nature frame of reference; but I do agree, no further discussion should take place, if we cannot do it in the right spirit. I see some posts here as going even beyond arguing; but for the most part, I think people have tried to take part in the right way. (IMHO)

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Michelle said:

Nico--I agree with your points in general. I don't know if your comments were directed at me or not.

---

They were not.

Quote:

---

I do agree that continual arguing gets us nowhere. I'm sorry if I've furthered "continual arguing," as that is one of my pet peeves.

---

You haven't. Don't worry about it.

[olger]

A good friend of mine (professor at Southern) told me that if he doesn't use Powerpoint in his classes, the majority of students cannot connect with learning. So far have we as a culture moved from reading to visual entertainment, that we have children who are handicapped and they don't know it.

He said this is an observable trend that is getting worse. He assigns reading assignments to his students to break up the fallow ground of the mind.

Regarding the Passion movie (which I chose not to see) Bacchiocchi said that for most Americans, the movie will become their reference "Bible", thus making them vulnerable to error. I do not believe that movies are of great value because of this aspect. Just my thoughts..

olger

[Guest]

Quote:

---

olger said:

A good friend of mine (professor at Southern) told me that if he doesn't use Powerpoint in his classes, the majority of students cannot connect with learning. So far have we as a culture moved from reading to visual entertainment, that we have children who are handicapped and they don't know it.

He said this is an observable trend that is getting worse. He assigns reading assignments to his students to break up the fallow ground of the mind.

Regarding the Passion movie (which I chose not to see) Bacchiocchi said that for most Americans, the movie will become their reference "Bible", thus making them vulnerable to error. I do not believe that movies are of great value because of this aspect. Just my thoughts..

olger

---

Hello Olger

You make a good point re the shifting demographics; which I believe, can also be applied, somewhat to Canada too. The "reference Bible" that many have/will have, is going to change; and not for the better, unless we, as a Church, change in the right way.

[Michelle]

To Olger and Calgary Guy,

It appears that "we" need to start looking at reaching modern America as though we are cross-cultural missionaries. "We" no longer speak the same language as modern Americans.

Perhaps this gets to the heart of what Ed has been talking about here. His church is trying to make the gospel relevant to those it is working with.

We have Adventist Frontier Missionaries who are doing exactly the same thing. One is working with a group that is very picture-oriented, so they have produced a set of studies that has culturally appropriate and understandable pictures to go along with it. Another (actually, I think a couple) is working with a group that primarily teaches through oral story-telling. Thus, they have translated the Bible in Living Sound stories and are recording them for broadcast in the local language (the same has been done in Mandarin for China).

If we look at modern society and say, hmm, they are really drawn to visual images on the TV/big screen, should we then say, oh, we must make them conform to the way that "we" do things, because "we" are doing them the right way? If we are willing to contextualize our religion for those in Africa and Asia, shouldn't we be willing to at least attempt contextualizing for "our" modern society in North America?

In this case, in contrast with what Olger says, "I do not believe that moview are of great value because of this aspect," shouldn't we, in fact, be striving to find a way to use this medium to "speak to" those we are trying to reach? (FWIW, I don't watch movies on a regular or even semi-regular basis--I find very little of value there--so I would actually agree with the sentiment, personally--but this is not about reaching out to ME, it's about reaching out to those who do find "value" in movies.)

Let it be noted, I am not encouraging (or discouraging, for that matter) the use of Narnia. I'm attempting to look at this in a broader context. (which is where Stan and some others have been for a while, I believe.) We *could* continue to attempt to mold the "postmoderns" to our view, just like we *could* require our missionaries to use NAD-specific paper-based Bible studies to teach their people-groups. Wouldn't be prudent (to quote Dana Carvey), wouldn't accomplish much, but it would make "us" feel much more comfortable with what is going on (which is, of course, of utmost importance--TIC mode on).

I honestly am not trying to put words into your mouths, gentlemen. Nor am I accusing you two gentlemen of saying (or even implying) this. Just that your two sets of comments have been rattling around in my (relatively empty) brain all day today, and I finally realized why (yes, I am dense!). This is a prevailing thought pattern anywhere the organized church is (we have similar situations here in HK--why don't we address some of the *real* issues that residents of this wealthy and ultramodern city have?).

M

[olger]

Hi Michelle: Thanks for your thoughts.

The world is full of people who are desperately looking for stability and something solid.

Progressivism fails to satisfy this need because it is fundamentally based upon the "desire" for constant change. That said, there changes needed in our lives. Reformation & revival. Ours is a reforming movement.

Harsh unyielding conservatism is not helpful either. The Lord will lead us to walk in wisdom if we follow. What is needed? It seems to me that there are two great needs in Adventism. A return to the Word, and a gift of the Holy Spirit.

How do you see it?

Kindly,

olger

[there buster]

Two points.

1. The fundamental truths of the Gospel are eternal, and therefore are unchanging.

2. Those fundamentals must always be expressed in the context of a particular culture. Sinc cultures continually change, the expression of the gospel must continually change, so that eternal truths may be received.

The greatest problem the church has today, is failing to recognize the difference between the unchanging truth and the need to express it differently.

Jesus said we cannot put new wine into old wineskins. That's because old wineskins lose flexibility, become brittle. It's increasingly clear to me that existing congregations in much of the world have become rigid and brittle, and cannot accommodate the the new wine necessary for the changing culture.

This thread confirms that conclusion.

[olger]

Thanks Ed:

It seems to me that there are two great needs in Adventism. A return to the Word, and a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Sitting at the feet of Willow Creek has not furthered the mission, the consecration, nor the numbers of the largest church in our state. Perhaps something more is needed.

Have a great week,

olger

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Sitting at the feet of Willow Creek has not furthered the mission

---

Perhaps you speak from experience? Have you been to Willow Creek?

I have not. What Willow Creek does or does not do is not part of my calculations.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Some are trying, but there is always the 'fear' factor! Some of us are slow learners..,

---

The fear is natural. After all, learning means encountering the new, and we have no "stock answers" for the new. The problem isn't slow learners, it's those who persistently claim there is no need to learn, only to "go back" to some imaginery utopian past.

Move forward, make a consistent effort to meet comtemporary people where they are, and your faith will be both shaken and stirred. Those are opportunities for growth.

Fail to move forward, seek some idealized imaginery past, and your faith will atrophy from misuse.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

The fear is natural. After all, learning means encountering the new, and we have no "stock answers" for the new.

The problem isn't slow learners, it's those who persistently claim there is no need to learn, only to "go back" to some imaginery utopian past.

---

I've noticed the same problem in politics ... hmmmm ...

[Nicodema]

OK back to the topic at hand ...

I'm really intrigued by the symbolism of new wine, old wineskins in this context ... this is a theme that has come up for me before too ...

One of the parallels I notice: in Jesus' day the entire perception of what constituted true faith, true experience with God, etc. was all wound up in what the Pharisees and other religious leaders of His day taught the people to think. A lot of what Jesus said -- the framework in which He put forth truth -- was in direct contradistinction to the existing framework. No wonder it ruffled feathers!

Is today any different? People perish of spiritual hunger and thirst for want of meaningful contact with God's Spirit and God's Truth -- just as they did back then. And just as it was back then, often it is the "old guard" staunchly defending their comfy corner on things, not wanting to confront any imperfection or lack in their world, which stands between the needy soul and the Saviour.

The old wineskins "burst" because they are not supple enough to bear the required framework alterations in the temple of Truth. TRUTH remains the SAME, but the old wineskins don't see it that way. They have lost the distinction between the God they worship and the conceptual temples they build to worship Him in. They believe themselves struggling to preserve the "pure wine" when in reality they are only busting hump to preserve themselves and their comfort zones.

Just some thoughts ...

[Gail]

Just butting in here...

This Sabbath we went to visit a church in Vancouver that is designed for non-churchgoing types.

The music was pretty modern, and I felt uncomfortable with it, so I was mostly an onlooker during that time. BUT when it came time for the sermon, the pastor delivered a very profound message in very few words and used quite a bit more Scripture than many I've heard lately from both conserative and liberal-styled services around home.

The pastor took a lot of time explaining the Scriptures to the attendees, in depth. I appreciated that. He was giving those babes some pretty hefty meat, taking pains to use language that is familiar to them

Thumbs up for this one <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

[Michelle]

Gail--you touch on something that I've been uncomfortable with for the past 12 years. That is, almost no Bible texts from the pulpit. My context is--when we lived in China, we attended our little church 3 times (until the undercover cops started attending as well, and the "pastor's" mail was getting intercepted and his phone was tapped), and we noticed that 1) everyone brought his/her Bible; 2) everyone brought a little notebook; 3) the "sermon" time was in actuality a Bible study with everyone studiously taking notes throughout.

My husband, in his position as an administrator and church elder, is asked to preach rather more often than he's comfortable doing. The last time he preached, we were in the smaller of the two places we meet for church, and he asked people in the congregation to read different of the verses he used (so for each point, he'd have 3-5 verses that people read). We noticed 1) people paid a lot more attention; 2) there was verbal feedback during the sermon (apart from the verses being read); 3) the children were paying attention (my son even raised his hand to read a verse and read it loudly and clearly when it was his turn).

A pastor taking the time to explain the scriptures means that the children can understand, too. My boys really try hard to understand and pay attention, but 1) with translation it is difficult to retain the train of thought and 2) most of the people speaking speak in words and thoughts that are frankly irrelevant to children (and to many adults, as well).

M

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Michelle said:

To Olger and Calgary Guy,

It appears that "we" need to start looking at reaching modern America as though we are cross-cultural missionaries. "We" no longer speak the same language as modern Americans.

Perhaps this gets to the heart of what Ed has been talking about here. His church is trying to make the gospel relevant to those it is working with.

We have Adventist Frontier Missionaries who are doing exactly the same thing. One is working with a group that is very picture-oriented, so they have produced a set of studies that has culturally appropriate and understandable pictures to go along with it. Another (actually, I think a couple) is working with a group that primarily teaches through oral story-telling. Thus, they have translated the Bible in Living Sound stories and are recording them for broadcast in the local language (the same has been done in Mandarin for China).

M

---

hello Michelle

You make a lot of sense here. This is quite true; and I have no trouble supporting what you say in this post, or in your last post of this topic.

I am mainly saying here 2 things. One: it is not true that the Bible is so "irrelevant" to most people today in NA. It is irrelevant to only certain, minority segments of society, sometimes dubbed as "contemporary," and two; it is really wrong to generalize/categorize the sincere Christians all over the world who would not use certain types of "vehicles" to make the gospel more "relevant" to "contemporary" society.

I am finding that the Bible alone, free of any gospel gimmicks or deceptive trains of thought is actually very relevant to almost anyone in any class of society. It has more to do with the spirit in which the "evangelism" is done; than with what it is done with. This is something that "Contemporary Theology" cannot address, as it rotely condemns anyone who does not agree with some aspect of it.

And, I do agree with you; it is a good idea to try and adapt our means and our methods; but I really see a need to go by some clearer guidelines, in some cases.

I have many questions about who is really "missing out on the inspiration" here.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

calgary_guy said:

I am mainly saying here 2 things. One: it is not true that the Bible is so "irrelevant" to most people today in NA.

It is irrelevant to only certain, minority segments of society, sometimes dubbed as "contemporary,"

and two; it is really wrong to generalize/categorize the sincere Christians all over the world who would not use certain types of "vehicles" to make the gospel more "relevant" to "contemporary" society.

---

Calgary Guy: Hey, does that burr hurt? It looks painful. Ouch.

First of all, the BIBLE is RELEVANT to EVERYONE, whether they recognize that or not. Doesn't matter what "walk of life" they come from. Our job is to present Scripture in a way in which they understand and can make use of. You wouldn't insist everyone in some remote village in the jungle learn English so YOUR job would be easier in evangelising them. No, you would learn their language -- at least, I would hope so, or else hope if not, then you would have the perspicacity and foresight to get out of the way and let a real missionary take the job on.

Second, this group called "contemporary" is not the "minority" you make it out to be. They are actually in the majority, come from all points on the socio-political spectrum, and in a very real sense constitute the next generation -- you know, the ones who will be running things when you're bedridden and in diapers with Alzheimers. You know, the ones who will be making a living and making babies and making the world what it is tomorrow when you and I are in our graves, buddy, and the world has ceased to give a rat's pinky what you or I thought about things.

This has NOTHING to do with "gimmicks" or "new theology". It has everything to do with taking the time to BOTHER to try to communicate with others on terms they can grasp. Period. End of issue. All that tommyrot about "gimmicks" and "new theology" and "the minority of those called contemporary" and all the other bullhide here is just a pile of blathering strawmen and ostrich puke. They pull their heads out of the sand, regurgitate this timeworn tripe their GRANDPARENTS harrumphed about three generations ago as if they'd invented it themselves! -- and stick their heads right back down into the sand again. Why are you parroting their ruffled-feather lies?? Come ON, you are smarter than that, and more reasonable. I *know* you are. Don't let fear take you by the shorties that way!

Time marches inexorably forward, like it or not. You can play the curmudgeonly ostrich if you like, but don't imagine it's going to make a bit of difference. Those who have seen the future are still going to move forward into it, leaving behind those ranting and railing and moaning and complaining about it. The fact of the matter is, if the old guard had done its job we'd be home now. Time for us to move over. A new generation is coming!

[Guest]

LOL...I don't wear "shorties."

I can see by reading your post Nico that we are in agreement re the need to try and be relevant.

It's just too bad that those who are "contemporary evangelists" in the Church have to be so hard-headed towards people who are not "contemporary." It's amazing how fast they turn off the "relevant" switch when they try to show them their "error."

[there buster]

Quote:

---

It has more to do with the spirit in which the "evangelism" is done; than with what it is done with. This is something that "Contemporary Theology" cannot address, as it rotely condemns anyone who does not agree with some aspect of it.

---

Quote:

---

too bad that those who are "contemporary evangelists" in the Church have to be so hard-headed towards people who are not "contemporary

---

Look at your first quote. Who is it being hard-headed? I have never questioned the "spirit" in which traditional evangelism is done. I would not think of arrogating such judgments to myself.

You have no idea how I use Scripture, yet you are quite free with your characterizations of it.

You have no idea what my theology is, or that it is regularly vetted by seminary professors and SDA editors, among others, yet you blithely smear "contemporary theology."

And "rotely condemn?" This is breathtaking. You haven't expressed an original thought in this entire thread.

You made a swipe at "sitting at the feet of Willow Creek," which was false, and you ignored my response.

Is there no smear or insinuation beneath you? Is this the brand of Christianity you peddle?

Talk about hard headed. Jesus continually said, "He that has ears, let him hear." Some people don't have ears, and will never hear. You keep smugly judging straw men of your own imagining, and when they are disproven (as in your "Willow Creek" accusation), you never admit your mistake.

The Bible says that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart." Well, whenever the truth is proclaimed, some are amazed and awakened, others are hardened. This was true in Pharaoh's day; it was true when Jesus won the common people and enraged the Pharisees; it was true when the Millerite movement ignited ordinary people and upset religious leaders of the day.

What happens, calgary_guy, is not that we who are daily engaged in the effort to express eternal truths in language that will be understood by the vast majority of society "turn off the 'relevant' switch" when talking to captives of the old wineskins of hidebound tradition. The Word of God is living, and active, and relevant, but many traditional SDA's can no longer distinguish between the content of the gospel, and the means by which that content is conveyed.

"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” Mark 7:13

People like me have a choice. We can spend our time trying to do the impossible--finding a way for rigid old wineskins to stretch enough to receive the always new wine of the gospel--or we can turn our energy to the task of reaching those who are truly thirsty.

So don't be surprised if we don't have a lot of time for the former.

Don't be surprised if you don't hear more from me. I've got a deadline for a chapter of an outreach book coming up.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

by Ed"Is there no smear or insinuation beneath you? Is this the brand of Christianity you peddle?"

---

Ed

I appreciate your "outreach" tips here. Good luck to you; you will need it.

[Nicodema]

Actually I don't think Ed will need "good luck" at all. The Spirit of God is evident in his life and he's doggone smart too, and from what I can see, isn't about to let his time be wasted on anything that would distract him from pursuing his calling.

As for me, well, I didn't think you'd appreciate what I posted -- and that's your perogative -- but my opinion remains unchanged.

[Michelle]

QR frame:

It is very easy for misunderstandings when we are talking about cultural issues. It is easy for us to think that our realm of work is the best. It is easy to make inferences and insinuations out of best intentions. It is easy for us to think that since God has called us to XY or Z ministry, that we are in the "best" line of work.

I don't want to throw the baby out with the tepid water. We're on the verge of another argument, it seems, and the relevant issues are not being discussed.

CalgaryGuy--these questions are for you. I am curious what you think in these areas:

1) Do you think that "the way it's always been done" is okay to continue with? Why or why not?

2) Do we need to "learn the language" of postmoderns, just as we learn the language of people in another country?

Nico and Ed (and anyone else): How are we integrating the deeper spiritual issues with postmoderns? I think we have perhaps been talking about "introducing" and learning "their" language, but where do we go from there? At what point are we making unacceptable compromises?

I really want to know how those reaching contemporary postmoderns are doing it. It's highly relevant. Nico, Ed, and CG are all making interesting points, but I'm afraid that we're moving back toward the finger-pointing go-nowhere game again.

So, why don't we start with this. Ed, what does a church service at your church look like? From the moment a newcomer walks into your church, what does he/she see? Encounter? Hear? And then three months down the road, what is he/she learning? How? What kind of discipling is going on?

I am intensely interested in this discussion continuing for many reasons. Let's see if we can leave the claws in for a little while and just talk about it. If you see something that annoys you, try to wait a few hours or a day before "coming back at" whoever.

And I hope I haven't offended any of the three of you. I really want to learn something and am getting tired of the personal diversions.

M

[Guest]

Quote:

---

by Michelle - CalgaryGuy--these questions are for you. I am curious what you think in these areas:

1) Do you think that "the way it's always been done" is okay to continue with? Why or why not?

2) Do we need to "learn the language" of postmoderns, just as we learn the language of people in another country?

---

hello Michelle

I don't intend to argue here. I like your questions; and my real "beef" here is not because I am stuck on "the way it's always been done." In the bginning of this thread; I did state that I thought Narnia was not a good vehicle to use for making the gospel "relevant;" and I still do hold to that. The responses to my saying this have really tried hard to make that say that I was saying it is wrong to do things differently, or to "make the gospel more relevant;" but where have I actually said this even once here? I am actually very angry too, at the tone of responses here to me, or to anyone who agrees with what I said about things like Narnia; but I maintain, that Narnia and Simpson's are really poor choices to use for the aspired to intentions of gospel relevance here.

And I maintain that if anyone wants to hang onto the kind of attitude expressed here when I stated an objection to one of many possible vehicles for more relevant evangelism; that they do need some "good luck." I have shown this thread to a number of people; including an ex-Adventist; and I actually cannot repeat what one of them said about what has been done here. And they were not talking about anything I wrote. I am sorry if that sounds too personal or if it seems like an argument; but we do need to face our attitudes and be more accountable for them as we "reach" people. And I do mean we. I have learned the hard way that "where there is success there is danger." That's a physical fact; it is not an opinion; and when we have leading evangelists publicly ripping someone apart for disagreeing with one thing that they are doing, the way that has been done here; it is time to just say something. There may be some "success" happening now; but what is the danger lurking behind those shadows of disagreement?

Actually; I am currently reading a magazine by the Wycliff Bible Translators Of Canada; it is called "Word Alive." They have really got the right idea in terms of making the gospel relevant to different culures; but I am out of time for now. I will finish talking about that; and your questions as soon as I am able.