[Note: I played around with the numbers and found that the original entry (above) was only just over 1,000 words, while the comments in response to the entry (and in response to other comments) totaled over 3,600 words. I thought that was pretty cool. Thanks to everyone who contributed. If anyone has something they still want to share, please share...that's the beauty of the internet/blogs, this is going to be here for a long time.]

If I may, although I’m probably the old fogey in this thread, I’ve seen and experienced many of these same kinds of issues throughout my life. As a teenager I was deeply involved in what was then known as the Charismatic Renewal that was taking place in the late 60’s. At any rate, what I want to offer is the possibility that your senior pastor may not have meant any slight? Sometimes we do indeed have communication issues because the speaker doesn’t understand, and sometimes because the hearer doesn’t understand.

I can’t help but equate this with the ongoing argument between the emerging/emergent church and the more traditional church. While I have serious issues with both groups, I see a lot of the arguments are over what various words mean. I even see many examples where the two sides are basically saying the same thing, but using different words to say it. What I don’t see is a lot of effort from either side to try to agree to common definitions so there can be a true conversation.

So, my question to you would be, was your pastor being intentionally demeaning, or is that what you expected, so that is what you heard?

I think that as long as the central message of the Gospel is present, weaving elements of pop culture into worship and ministry can be a very positive thing. It enables us as Christians and the church as a whole to meet people where they are. Also, just because something is dubbed “popular” doesn’t mean that it can’t have a godly message. (Check out the music of Jon McLaughlin if you want a really great example of this. He’s a mainstream artist who keeps his faith at the heart of his message, even though his songs aren’t overtly “Christian”.) Our culture is part of who we are and influences us and the way we choose to live our lives. Certainly, not all elements of popular culture are ones that need to be or should be embraced by Christians, but even if we do not engage those elements, our culture is still impacting our choices. I think it is important to understand how pop culture can be used to further the Gospel and how we might be able to use it to strengthen our witness for Jesus Christ.

One thing I think we need to be careful of, however, is not falling into the trap of thinking that our own attitudes and opinions about pop culture in the church (or any issue, really) are the best thing and that anyone else who thinks otherwise is wrong or isn’t as good as us. For example, the church I currently attend has 1 contemporary and 3 traditional services on Sunday mornings. The contemporary service meets in what is essentially the gym at the same time as one of the traditional services. The sermon is simulcast from the sanctuary, where the preacher always is, but all the church members are hearing the exact same message. I attend the contemporary service and really appreciate the community and worship atmosphere that I find there. What is disheartening to me though, is that through interactions with some of the other parishoners I’ve met and even through the words of the senior pastor, I have come to feel like the people who attend the contemporary service are sort of “second class citizens” within our own church! I can give an example from just this past Sunday, actually. I am also a member of the church orchestra and we play in the traditional services once a month. I was listening to our senior pastor talk about some of the service time changes that we are going to make in the next few months and how they will be beneficial in reaching a broader base of people and allow more time for worship so we don’t have to feel like we need to rush through the service, sermon etc., all of which are great things. Then he said this: “…and I’ve even committed to preach live over in the contemporary service once a month,” like this was a huge sacrifice that he was making and that he was going to come down to our level and actually appear in front of us, rather than always having us watch the sermon on the screen. He also called our service “edgy”, a word that I think has negative connotations to a lot of people. Maybe it was his tone of voice more than anything, but I was genuinely hurt by his comments and his implication that traditional worship is best way to go. Just because our service has different styles of songs and a little different format doesn’t mean that it is any less worshipful or that we are any less connected to God! Personally, I appreciate and see the value in both types of worship. (Just to clarify, I really do love my church. The messages are Biblically based, the congregation is missions focused and passionate about spreading the Gospel.) I guess what I am really trying to say is that we need to be careful that discussions about what may or may not strengthen/weaken the church actually weaken the church and damage the unity of the body of Christ. Healthy discussion is definitely good, but we can’t let our own biases and prejudices close us off from actually listening and giving new ideas a chance. We need to always remember that what we find brings us closer to God and helps us understand His will and His word may not be that for everyone. My faith journey is not the same as anyone elses who is reading this, so I can’t expect that what resonates with me is best for everyone else just because it resonates with me. I believe that God can reach down and speak to people using whatever medium He chooses. It’s not up to us to judge the methods He uses to speak to us. Ultimately, He’s drawing us closer to Him and helping us understand the sacrifice He’s made for us by sending us Jesus. Isn’t that the most important thing anyway?

In response to Minnesota Paul’s last comment: Martin Luther talks about there being two uses of “the Law.” The first is the Civil/Political use, which includes things like speed limits and obeying stop signs. The law in this sense is a gift from God in that it limits sin and promotes common good. The second use is Theological, and the Law in this sense has the purpose of illuminating our sins so that we are aware of how much we need God’s grace (so it serves the purpose of showing us that we are sinful and not capable of saving ourselves, then pointing us to God, to faith, as the way). Calvin’s understanding of the Law is a bit different (he adds a third use), but you can look that up online if you want to read more.

In response to christiangadly and the Apostle Paul’s words (especially Romans 14 and also Galatians): Yes, I agree that freedom comes with great responsibility, but I also think freedom is actually free and free-ing. In Galatians 5, Paul talks about it being “for freedom that Christ set us free.” It doesn’t say anything about Christ setting us free to do or not do specific things, but it says that it is for freedom that we have been set free. Living in a way that shows love to our neighbors and points others to Christ’s hope, love and grace (somehow or someway, not necessarily through outward and blatant evangelism) is something we are free to do, but if we do this out of a perceived obligation or requirement, it will never be genuine (it will never be freely-given love).

But I agree with pretty much everything that’s been commented on here, and I think it’s interesting that a post on whether or not it’s a good idea to engage pop culture in ministry/faith is what brought all of it out. The reality of it is, just having this conversation on a blog answers that question (since a blog is actually part of the new wave in communication and information sharing in pop culture).

If others are reading along, what do you think?

The law of the conscience is by no means universal but it is there for a reason. If it tells you something you are wrong not to listen.

On the other hand, if there is nothing naturally wrong with an action, and the conscience remains quiet, there is no point in fretting over whether an act is right or wrong because the decision was made in good faith.

What do you think? Am I on the right track with this?

I would say that a person who listens to a song with profanity with a good heart for the purpose of gaining a greater understanding is better than a person who helps an old lady across the street for the mere purpose of making himself look pious to others.

Jesus often communicated that it’s not primarily about what you do or don’t do. It is not about lists. It’s about your heart…

Many things in the Bible are black and white; they are indisputably wrong, such as having sex with your friends’ wife. However, is an R-rated movie wrong to see? Is it wrong for a Christian to watch Desperate Housewives? Should you listen to a song that contains profanity? I don’t know. Maybe for you it is okay. Maybe for me it is a sin.* What’s in your heart? Where does that activity take your mind?

* I’m not talking about a Gospel of relativism. The bible is our final authority, but Romans 14 clearly indicates there might be activities that are okay for one Christian and wrong for another.