Repackaging God (part 3)
This post is part of a series of posts. Be sure not to miss part 1, part 2, part 3, part4 and part 5.
I suppose it’s not so much repackaging God as it is finally presenting him in his TRUE light. I’ve heard it said, just preach the word, preach it directly and people will see God, and be attracted to that. I’ve heard it said, you don’t need any of that “cool” stuff like fancy music or whatever, you just need true spirituality. Can we trust that people will be attracted to true spirituality? And what is true spirituality?
Which is more reflective of God and his glory? A powerful sermon, or a boring sermon? A good worship band or a bad worship band? Seems like a boring sermon distorts God as much as some atheists do.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything attractive in this world comes from God. We are corrupt and therefore often we will be attracted to corrupt things. We don’t want to bring corrupt things into the church in order to attract people.
Can we trust human beings to be attracted to God? If so, the question is how can we more fully reveal God in church. Do boring sermons actually reveal God to people? What about an awesome worship team? What about an artist painting a beautiful picture?
Powered by FireStats
21 Comments, Comment or Ping
searchingfortreasures
huh. this is pretty interesting stuff, daniel.
keep it coming.
Apr 17th, 2007
eCsuPA
i think boring sermons bring ppl closer to God. theres nothing hyped up about it. its genuine, its real. people who are really searching wont be turned off by authenticity. i mean, yea its boring. and yea we need to keep the quality of our work pleasing to God. but at the same time, we dont want to hype up sunday service, our church and especially our faith.
Apr 18th, 2007
randplaty
But that’s the point. Boring sermons make God seem boring. Is he really boring? Isn’t that then distorting God? Maybe the boring sermon is NOT genuine. Maybe it’s NOT real. Maybe it’s NOT authentic. And that’s why people who are searching ARE turned off by boring sermons. I’m sure you know of searchers who were turned off by a boring sermon.
Apr 18th, 2007
J_Pole
Hello,
I apologize in advance for the length, but you really gave me some things to think about!
Your posts have been very intriguing, and I wanted to share some of my thoughts on this post.
You are correct. It is not that God is repackaged, but God is shown in truth. At any point in the OT, NT, or current times, humanity relates to God in the truth of who he is. He isn’t repackaged; he is simply showing us more sides to his character.
I want to answer your question, “Can we trust that people will be attracted to true spirituality?” People are attracted to spirituality, in general. If they weren’t, the Oprah show wouldn’t still be on the air. It’s the word “true†that makes the distinction here. I don’t think, as Christians, we should be concerned with making our spirituality attractive. This walks the line of catering truth to fit the audience. And, that is something we should avoid at all costs. How many times did people come to Jesus asking about salvation, only to walk away because the truth was not attractive to them? Making the truth attractive is not the same thing as making the truth available. Paul said he was all things to all men that he might win only a few. This may sound like he wanted to dress-up the truth to be more attractive to his audience, but in reality, he wanted to make the truth available to them so they would see it applied to all people, not just a specific group. He did not present Christ in one light to one Church and then in another light to another Church. He showed them the same Christ, but he met them at different levels.
The presentation of truth is important, but we need to understand that truth is not dependent on the presentation. So, a boring sermon, a mediocre worship team, etc. are all performance based. It has nothing to do with the message they are presenting. Truth will be truth regardless of its form. We should be concerned only when the presentation alters the truth. The alteration of truth can be nothing but heresy, because it changes the truth of God into a non-truth, in other words, evidently false. But, just because something is boring does not mean that it alters the truth.
Humans throughout centuries have been attracted to the truth of Christ without all the bells and whistles of Rick Warren-like sermons and Matt Redman-like music. These are modern inventions. I have no doubt that the truth of Christianity is not dependent on these things, and that people who are honestly seeking truth would at least evaluate Christianity regardless of its presentation.
Just some thoughts
Apr 18th, 2007
Twin_Mustang
it’s harder to attract people to God than most people think. xp it makes me realize that it’s really all just the Holy Spirit’s work, not mine.
Apr 18th, 2007
kanfood
I agree that ” just because something is boring does not mean that it alters the truth.” However, just because something is attractive/entertaining/interesting doesn’t mean that it has to alter the truth. Suppose that there are 2 sermons, both deliver the truth (no watering down), but one is boring, the other one interesting. Which one would you rather listen to? Which one would a seeker be more willing to listen to? I would say that though the holy spirit will still work regardless, but God is glorified more when we presented him more accurately - that is, he is not a boring God. I’m not saying that there’s no value for boring sermons. It’s just that, to be honest, I’d much rather listen to an interesting, captivating sermon than a boring one. Often times, a captivating sermons are the ones that really capture the glory and greatness of God and of Christ more accurately, thus drawing me to desire Him more.
I think a lot of us worry too much about performance based services (worship, sermon). As fallen humans, we have a tendency to want to glorify ourselves rather than God, our motivations behind giving a good sermons or leading a great worship time is totally wrong. We need to examine ourselves constantly and let God search our hearts. But delivering a boring sermon or not pursuing excellence in our work should not be the way to safe guard human-centerness, or for the sake of knowing that ”it must be the holy spirit working’. It’s always the holy spirit working when someone comes to Christ. But the responsibility to communicate God’s excellence through our work rest upon us.
Apr 18th, 2007
searchingfortreasures
Wanted to chime in here. I don’t think “interesting” has to mean “watered-down” (which it sounds like J Pole thinks?). The gospel IS attractive to sinners. It’s POWERFUL. It’s AMAZING. It’s draws you. It captivates you. Why should pastors be dull on the pulpit, reading their scripts in monotone — when God is passionate and exciting? I hate boring sermons. I think sometimes we are too solemn and sombre. I don’t think God is like that. We are on THIS SIDE of the resurrection… I think that when we tell the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH, it naturally IS powerful and engaging, exciting and interesting.
Good sermons, good pastors, good worship team = good idea. I like what kanfood concluded, “the responsibility to communicate God’s excellence through our work rests upon us.”
Apr 18th, 2007
sc_q_jayce
Mary Ann, JPole essentially said that performance has no bearing on truth. You’ve completely strawman’ed her argument.
Daniel, I’ll respond to your previous comment and this post later today when I’m done with office hours.
Apr 18th, 2007
randplaty
I think Mary Ann is saying that performace does have some bearing on truth. Is that what you’re saying?
Apr 18th, 2007
J_Pole
kanfood: I agree with what you are saying. But, I was responding to his quote, “Seems like a boring sermon distorts God as much as some atheists do.” Which would imply that boring sermons alter the truth. Again, though, I do agree that well-presented sermons/worship will attract more people. I just don’t think that the nature of truth and the attractiveness of that truth is dependent on the presentation.
searchingfortreasures: I wasn’t arguing for or against a boring vs. dynamic presentation of the Gospel. I also agree with you, the truth of the Gospel is very attractive to both believers and sinners. However, my point is truth remains truth regardless of it’s wrapping. If someone professes faith at a Church Revival, where the speaker is dynamic and passionate, his/her faith is exactly the same as someone who reads a bland, technical, theological article and decides that what the article presented was truth. One situation was attractive, intriguing, but the other was more “boring”. Either way, the truth remains truth.
Apr 18th, 2007
sc_q_jayce
Daniel, performance has bearing on how truth is received and perceived.
Apr 18th, 2007
randplaty
I think the question is not powerful sermon vs. boring sermon, but rather boring sermon vs. no sermon at all.
Maybe sermons can be true, but the truth is a meager truth? Maybe it has to do with the fullness of truth rather than an incomplete truth? Like a powerfully presented sermon more fully captures the truth than a boring sermon. But the boring sermon is still true? Maybe “distorts” was not the correct word, just like “incorrect” was not the correct word in my last post. But can truth, if it’s really truth, be meager?
Meager truth is probably better than no truth at all.
Apr 18th, 2007
sc_q_jayce
Truth can be meager; it has to do with how you perceive and receive it. I bet you don’t continuously flaunt about the fact that 2+2=4. I haven’t seen a Xanga post yet where someone is ranting about how amazing it is that 2+2=4.
Yet that is true. The weight, however, is lost on us who cannot appreciate set theory and logic.
Apr 18th, 2007
kanfood
2+2=4 is truth, but I would consider this as incomplete truth also. 2+2=4 is just a tiny subset of math. In order to appreciate the fullness and beauty of math, one must know more than just 2+2=4.
Apr 18th, 2007
sc_q_jayce
Re: Cindy
“Jesus saves” is truth, but I would consider this as incomplete truth also. “Jesus saves” is just a tiny subset of the whole of the Gospel, and also of God’s revelation. To appreciate the fullness and beauty of the revelation of God, one must know more than “Jesus saved me,” although that’s sufficient for salvation.
Anyway, I don’t really see your point. Can you expound, please?
Re: Daniel’s comment
A powerfully presented Sermon can have the same truth value as a poorly presented sermon, but it may just make someone more receptive to hearing it. On the other hand, a complete academic discourse on Ancient Near East culture may bore the heck out of most people but to an anthropologist Christian, it would fascinate them to no end. Reception depends. Whether truth is captured is something we can determine by looking at the message’s content. Whether people received it is dependent on many factors. Consider open-air preachers which are regularly shunned by people. The truth of their saying is there… but the presentation shatters the reception often. There are many effective ones, though, I admit.
Apr 18th, 2007
kanfood
Jason: i agree with your response to my comment. So now I don’t understand why you cited the 2+2=4 example.
Apr 18th, 2007
randplaty
What a fabulous discussion!
Jason: That is the exact point of asking this question. You are saying that the same truth can be presented in two different ways. I am asking, can it really? Is it really the same truth if it is presented in two different ways? Marshall McLuhan said “The medium is the message.” In otherwords, you cannot separate meaning from language.
I think that’s why God sent Jesus, because no medium was sufficient to carry the truth, except Jesus himself. You cannot separate the truth of God’s love from the medium (Jesus).
Apr 18th, 2007
J_Pole
randplaty: I don’t think that because a truth is presented differently makes it not the same truth. I don’t think that’s what Jason was saying, either… There is a song that has lyrics simply saying, “God is love and love is God.” When a pastor preaches a sermon on 1 John 4, God and love, it is the exact same truth, the same message, it is merely presented differently. I appreciate your quote, but I don’t necessarily see that it is correct. (Maybe I’m misunderstanding it?) When someone sings “God is love”, is it the music or the content that makes it truth? The presentation is only what catches our attention. But, again, it goes back to the fact that a truth remains consistent and constantly a truth regardless of the presentation or situation.
Something not to forget is that God attracts and draws men to his truth. John 6 says this, “36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. ” Jesus had just done miracles in front of the Jews; he was presenting the Gospel in an amazing, dynamic, truthful way that was consistent with his character, but what came from it? They refused. It’s not the presentation that draws people in to the truth, it’s the Father.
Apr 18th, 2007
sc_q_jayce
Bah. I’ll have to continue later. Office hours went way overtime.
Apr 18th, 2007
disgruntledservant
the means of communicating is not the same thing as the thing itself that is being communicated. before people thought that morning star and evening star were two different stars, but in actuality they were the same star. just because someone says something doesn’t mean that it is true.
the story of Jesus and God is there whether we say it or not. it is revealed in nature, in the complexity of our beings. God doesn’t need us to reach out to people. We are blessed that he utilizes us to reach people. The Gospel speaks for itself, not histrionics.
Apr 20th, 2007
randplaty
J_Pole: Everything you said I agree with, but I am asking us to look at the issue in a different way. Why aren’t we offended when we hear a boring sermon? If Jesus is the medium through which God presented the truth to us, and God completely humbled himself to the point of becoming human in order to reach us, why can’t the church humble itself to try to reach non-Christians in ways that non-Christians would more readily understand? What are some ways that the church can humble itself to reach non-Christians?
Apr 20th, 2007
Reply to “Repackaging God (part 3)”