Jerry Corbaley blogs at Think the Thoughts?
You think Jesus Christ was a good looking Caucasian with long flowing hair.
You worship Jesus Christ as Savior, but not Lord.
You think being rescued from the penalty of sin means that there are no consequences to the sins you commit.
You think your pastor is responsible for your spiritual well-being.
You pray often for the needs of the physical body, and have little appreciation for the spiritual treasure that is yours for the asking.
You think that Jesus Christ would be a democrat or a republican.
You think that America is liable for judgment because of divorce and abortion and have no idea that America is no worse than the rest of the nations.
You think that maintaining a Sunday crowd with marketing is a sign of the blessing of God upon your ministry.
You think worship music is worth as much as preaching.
You think there is a Biblical basis for accredited seminaries, professors, and professional counselors.
You think 30 minutes of prayer a day is more than enough to mortify the influence of the godless upon your children in public schools.
You think that a purpose statement is not a creed for those with short attention spans.
You think that 40-year-old contemporary worship is not a tradition.
You think that the Bible instructs Christians to have a Minister of the Gospel officiate your wedding.
You think that ignoring the greed of the super-rich is acceptable.
You think that defining marriage as one man and one woman committing themselves to each other for life as husband and wife is an acceptable Christian definition of Christian marriage.
You observe special days as holy, like Christmas and Easter.
You think the return of Jesus Christ will be as pleasant as attending a regional Christian music festival.
You think the Biblical term “remnant” is irrelevant.
You might be…and you might not be. Not for me to say.
I think you are right. Amen.
Jerry, you just described a large chunk of my life. It’s true, sad, and the result of generations of gospel inoculation.
Adam G.,
Can one be totally free of the culture in which we are raised? Where sin abounds, grace abounds.
Definitely interesting, thought-provoking items.
Jerry –
I understand what you are trying to do, but I think you paint with too broad a brush and on at least one point, go against scripture.
If you are using ambiguous innuendo at the cultural Roman Catholics or Lutherans, this is a back-fire. But you know you can’t be specific because there are just as many cultural Baptists as Catholics, neither of which are saved; they just go through the motions. Good luck picking them out.
Besides, this “standard” violates scripture:
If you are trying to coral the seeker-friendly crowd or those who are looking for a “concert” environment on Sunday morning, they wish to be entertained; then you might be right.
IF on the other hand you think preaching is of more value than worship music because “preaching comes from the bible,” then I’d say you should examine the quality of your music pastor and his selections on Sunday morning AND you should revisit the planning paradigm between the two of you. You also might be creating an idol in the sermon.
We gather as the body to worship our Lord: to honor him with song, prayer, praise, tithing, and ourselves through the washing of the Word. The worship music on Sunday morning for us is as didactic as any sermon because I make sure that is the case. The messages of the songs or the themes match the scripture is closely as possible, so there is continuity from beginning to end.
Make no mistake, I believe a worship service can be worship and have no sermon as much as I believe a worship service can be worship and have no singing. They are complimentary and equally valuable.
Greg, I would point out that Jerry’s last line makes it clear that he is trying to avoid strict designations and delineations.
“You might be…and you might not be. Not for me to say.”
He put out some ideas, but made it clear that he was not trying to sit in judgment.
Dave,
Is one who serves as moderator a moderate?
It would not be the first time such an accusation has been made!
It is a far worse thing to be immoderate than to be a moderate.
Dave –
I never said he was sitting in judgement, not even by implication. I state below that I didn’t catch the humorous nature of this post (as stated by Jerry below), but that I was trying to understand what he was saying.
If taken one way, fine, if another, then I need more clarification to understand where he is coming from. Take the “holy day” statement. You know full well that sinful prejudice and judgement against Catholics exists in the SBC; with some it rises to the level of anaphylactic shock with some if something appears to be slightly RC in nature.
I just don’t know where Jerry stands and wanted to engage him rather than accuse him of anything.
I made no accusation or implication.
Brilliant list that ought to result in self-inspection at the very least.
The concept of contemporary worship being a rejection of tradition was true at first…so you would have called it–and especially the “Jesus” movement that borrowed folk music of the 60s to model into “praise and worship” music–at the very least counter-cultural.
But the question is whether it is enduring? The 40-year comment suggests it is. But it no longer could be referred to as counter-cultural.
Hi Greg,
The point of the post is humorous self-reflection. I am not intending it to be personal toward any individual or group. “Cultural Christian” is not defined in the post, but I meant it as “one whose Christianity springs from the culture and not from Christ.” Oh yeah, that’s a broad brush.
Regarding your reference to Romans 14:4-6, I agree. I don’t want to go against our Lord’s Word. Perhaps folks can be “fully convinced in their own mind” if they really think about an issue. Personally, I really enjoy the times of emphasis on the Birth of Christ and the Resurrection of the Lord. By my observation, services can be geared more toward trying to impress the congregation, with the program, for the glory of the church instead of trying to impress the congregation with the glory of the Lord.
Also, regarding special days, there are times when the congregation’s expectations regarding Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Memorial Day, and Independence Day become so ingrained that it is offensive if the pastor preaches something that is not culturally relevant.
I wonder what would happen to a Southern Baptist preacher who decided to skip Christmas or Easter. Would they enjoy the grace of their congregation as they exercised their faith in Romans 14:4-6?
While worship can be genuine and holy in a wide variety of formats, I do think the ministry of the word trumps singing.
Whoops, the above should say, “Hi Greg Buchanon”.
“Hi” also to Greg Harvey.
I didn’t catch on that it was humorous other than it borrowed from that great evangelist of red-neck-ism, Jeff Foxworthy.
I got the challenge, but just took issue with a few of your points as though there were for serious thought.
Thanks!
Dave, I’m a bit confused by the list. What would your definition be in a sentence or two?
As happens way too often, I forgot to put guest blogger in the author slot. But your questions need to go to Jerry Corbaley, the author of this fine piece.
Jon,
I can’t give a one or two sentence definition.
The list covers many topics that could be a whole post in themselves.
It seemed good to me to give readers a chance to consider the basis of their faith. I believe that everyone acts upon what they really believe, and that Christian faith based upon what God has actually said is superior to a faith based upon what a degenerating culture says.
The comments on this post could go a wide variety of ways depending on which topic one wishes to discuss.
Which item most raises your curiosity?
Ignoring the greed of the super rich is acceptable. I think many Protestants and especially Baptists overlook things that go on in the business world. They seem to think it’s beyond critique. Protestantism arose alongside modernity and shares in its economic and political arrangements. So these things are often taken for granted.
I think you are right.
Greed is a form of idolatry. Being mastered by greed excludes meaningful Worship of Christ.
One could wonder if cultural Christianity challenges the rich to repent or comforts them in their materialism. In a sinful world, the accumulation of wealth can be interpreted as the accumulation of blessing from God.
Well, yes. But what I wished to highlight is a tendency on the part of Christians to pat business on the back while overlooking its many disturbing tendencies.
Okay. Like driving the workforce to produce with threats? Like removing managers that won’t treat people like manure and replacing them with ambitious organization-climbers?
Across the board, this is quite a good & convicting list.
Yes, Jerry. And paying people wages that are as low as can be while keeping the rest for yourself so you can drive around in a Jaguar and not have to appear very often. And demanding productivity without supplying what’s needed to accomplish that. And devising assignments and duties that can’t really be carried out, at least not without unanticipated problems that no one really wants to hear about or deal with. Yes, all of that. Real hard-working entrepreneurs, they are!
And the responsibility of the worker is?
It seems to me in a “free” system that the worker can go where they please and work for whom they wish. When they do light upon something, they are to work for the Glory of God as if their labors were benefiting Jesus Himself – at the same time they are to be content with what they have been given, never to be covetous or desirous of the riches of others. They are bond-servants to Jesus Christ and are never caught up in the envy of class warfare. These thoughts also seem to be cross to the culture at large do they not?
Of course. But I don’t think that changes the fact that there are serious issues with how bussinesses typically operate these days. Certainly, a lot of other things can be said on both sides of the debate, whether labor or management.
And I don’t think that’s an excuse for our failure to critique this within the church. It was addressed in the letter of James early on in the church’s history. Some things while not challenged forthrightly, were nevertheless disapproved of. As for St. Paul, it seems he was as much a conservative as he was a revolutionary thinker. The gospel as a whole, in fact, eludes or rather transcends our categories.
You paint with a mighty wide brush. Is it your contention that the very fact of establishing a “business” is an operation of greed? Do you have proof that the operations that you find peculiar to the cross of Christ and the Church have been established so main stream as to be “typical”? I think you are being a little hyperbolic in your spreading of nets.
I am not providing an excuse to not critique. On the contrary I am providing balance to your otherwise unbalanced approach. On the other hand, would you not agree with the Scriptural sentiment that one should work with their own hands, and that a workman should receive his due return for his industry and hard work? Would that not also include the entrepreneur whose invention created a little less misery for the betterment of humanity? I have never begrudged such an individual from enjoying the benefits of their hard work – yet it sounds like to me you would. How am I wrong?
Are you a youth pastor? I feel your pain. While I drive a Jaguar XKR I let the first owner pay for 90% then I paid a tithe of its sticker price.
Rob, I was not talking about that. The people I have in mind are no creative geniuses. I’m referring to people who have these operations where they can’t actually do the work themselves because they don’t know how, so they get others to do it and then collect the money and grow rich over it. It happens often. The most obvious case is the telemarketing scheme. Someone has enough capital to rent a space, install some computers, and pick up some employees. The rest is a joke, or would be if the guy at the top weren’t making so much money off it. But it’s business.
No, there is something wrong these days with companies and businesses. People who have enough money can start something, but that doesn’t mean they have knowledge or skill. They hire others for that. Then when things don’t work out they start a revolving door. It’s silly. Oftentimes, they couldn’t actually deal with the customers or produce anyting, they just expect everyone else to while they get rich off the enterprise. Much of it is charletenry.
Here is a “live” example. Today, national news media are addressing the removal of a picture of Jesus from a school where the picture has hung for many decades.
Which is more important? Decrying the removal of the cultural Jesus, or pointing out that the picture misrepresents Jesus entirely. The Jesus in the picture is false and has always been false.
As usual you have missed the point.
CB Scott,
Do you hate me, CB?
No, Jerry, I do not hate you. Does the fact that I state that you missed the point of the meaning of the removal of the picture constitute hate in your frame of reference?
No, CB. The fact that your comment was personal and disparaging leads to wondering where such a comment comes from. The fact that your comments to me are personal and disparaging for over 6 years leads me to ask you to consider where the personal disparagement comes from. My efforts to communicate with you by email and personal phone call remain a disappointment. Yet something drives you to seek to publicly confront me. I don’t think the blogs are the place for that.
Feel free to engage in the discussion. Present your point of view. Your point of view is as valuable as mine. Be prepared to encounter points of view that differ from yours, for there is more than one “point”. It is premature to conclude that “as usual, I have missed the point”. I only listed one of many.
Jerry,
I will ignore the cry-baby part of your comment and respond to how you missed the point of the removal of the picture.
First, you are right. The picture is not an accurate rendering of Christ as he appeared during His incarnate presence among humanity. It was and continues to be an artistic rendering from the mind of an artist, as are multitudes of paintings and even portraits of historic figures. (I know of a few portraits of SBC figures which rendered them as much slimmer than they were at the time of the painting.)
However, what the removal of the picture does state loud and clear to those of us who are followers of Christ is that the “difficult times” Paul wrote of in 2 Timothy 3 are upon us and we must be prepared accordingly.
That is the point you missed, Jerry.
CB Scott,
Thank you for clarifying, a little, “the point” you were referring to above.
Ignore. I don’t think the word means what you think it means. To “ignore” part of my point of view, privately, would be to abstain from addressing it at all. To state, publicly, that you are going to ignore part of my point of view and then label it with a term of contempt publicly, is inconsistent with the meaning of “ignore” unless, perhaps, you intend to influence the readers to share your contempt. Is this your intent? Are you aware that this tactic is often shared by those described in 2 Timothy 3? If you will kindly refrain from disparaging me, I will gladly refrain from pointing out what you are doing.
I agree with you that we are entering into the difficult times described in 2 Timothy 3. The efforts to remove the picture of Jesus Christ from the school is one more instance of the American culture rejecting the wider acceptance of Christian values America held in the past. Is this part of your point? If so, I agree.
I agree with you that “The picture is not an accurate rendering of Christ as he appeared during His incarnate presence among humanity”. Careful and scholarly language, well done. Would you go so far as to say that the picture is a false image of Christ? The picture is not who He was, and is not who He is. If so, then what might God’s point of view be as a result? Would God be upset if a culture rejects and removes a false image of Who He is?
The point of this whole article is to generate discussion about the American cultural point of view and the Biblical point of view. Thank you for your participation.
I would be interested in reading a more in depth response from you regarding how the removal of the picture is “the point” regarding 2 Timothy 3, and how followers of Christ must be prepared to respond.
Jerry,
What did you do, interview folks in my church?
Jess,
Thanks for the chuckle!
I didn’t interview your brothers and sisters, but I worship the One Who does search their hearts and minds. My burden is to always sort out “me” and let Him sort out “them”.