I recently had an email exchange with some like minded friends Daniel Neades started it off by commenting on Chris Rosebrough's interview with Doug Pagitt :
and also on Doug's interview with Chris, on his own show:
(and yes we listened to the originals as well without Chris's running commentary)
Daniel wrote: It seems to me that it is this whole ‘shape the practice/message to fit with what people are looking for’ approach that is fundamentally in error. Unbeliev- ers don’t know that they need Christ, and mostly don’t want Him when He is offered. Changing what is on offer is to miss the point, however.
And this is exactly where LN goes astray itself, when it seeks to apply business management tech- niques to the church. It wants to ‘innovate’, so that it can reach its market better. But I don’t think any of these guys realize that you can’t innovate in the Church (especially if your innovation has the aim of making your message more attractive to outsid- ers) without changing (and perhaps destroying) the very message that you think you are trying to spread. We simply have not been given the remit to innovate and produce a different ‘kind of spirituality’.
I responded:
Now see, to me this seems kind of a no-brainer. But when you try to explain this to someone who has drunk the koolaid, they just will not accept that you can't 'innovate' without changing the message. They simply don't understand that the MESSAGE ITSELF down through the centuries is exactly WHAT has prevented'innovation' and experimenting with the church or the way the worship service is carried out. So that by 'innovating' you are de facto changing the message.
Christine followed up:
Expanding on what Paula said about the gospel message being the thing, and you can't tamper with it, I think often times well-meaning and truly saved Christians get sucked into this pragmatism because whenever they hear a compromised gospel message, their minds unconsciously and automatically "fill in the gaps."
How can we help these people understand that it is the gospel message - and only that - that has salvific power? I remember as a new Christian, every time I would hear the gospel, I would just be mesmerized. Well, I'm still mesmerized by it six years later. Our pastor gives the gospel every week - and it's rare that I don't cry. The gospel has amazing life-giving properties, both to the lostand the saved. Why don't these "innovators" understand this?
How can we help these people understand that it is the gospel message - and only that - that has salvific power? I remember as a new Christian, every time I would hear the gospel, I would just be mesmerized. Well, I'm still mesmerized by it six years later. Our pastor gives the gospel every week - and it's rare that I don't cry. The gospel has amazing life-giving properties, both to the lostand the saved. Why don't these "innovators" understand this?
and I affirmed:
I echo your post thoroughly Christine. Sometimes the lamest telling of the gospel will take my breath away. Without it, I am lost. I can't believe I made it through so many years without hearing it at my previous church.... how did I not notice it missing??
You know, the only thing I can figure is that they were never moved that way by the gospel message. Not the MESSAGE itself.
Maybe they were emotionally moved by the visual of a passion play, or a Jesus movie, but they weren't really told (and believed) WHY he did it and WHY they need him. They saw a man being beaten and killed, which is emotionally moving in and of itself, no matter WHO it is...and he was beaten and killed for some reason that wasn't explained very well, and they figured it was because he 'stood up for truth.' and we should do the same...
or he was sticking it to the establishment and was martyred for it, or... what? Jesus Christ was not Braveheart, sticking it to the oppressive ruling class. While that was a gripping heroic moving story, it is not the gospel, the gospel "is a better story than that." (listen to 41:00 through 46:15, easier to do through Itunes)
