Comments on: culture, part i http://nathandiehl.com/2006/12/12/culture-part-i/ a journal of one Christ-following digerati wannabe. Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:11:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: joe http://nathandiehl.com/2006/12/12/culture-part-i/#comment-86 joe Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:45:20 +0000 http://www.nathandiehl.com/2006/12/12/culture-part-i/#comment-86 Frankly, I could care less about methodology and technique. I am concerned with mission. My mission is to reach the lost, and then disciple them. Any churches mission should be to reach the lost, and to disciple those who are reached. I will need to apply techniques to make that mission happen, but I should never ever let the techniques determine the mission. I believe that a church absorbed in technique is convinced that it is "missional"-that it's techniques are actually expressions of it's mission, while they are actually methods that replace missional thinking. Cal Guy said, "We apply the pragmatic test to the work of the theologian. Does his theology motivate men to go into all the world and make disciples? Does it so undergird them that they, thus motivated, succeed in this primary purpose? Theology must stand the test of being known by its fruit." If contextualizing the gospel weakens it, THEN DON'T DO IT! But, if contextualizing it helps reach someone, without weakening it, then you have actually strengthened it. That's my two cents. If it doesn't make sense, I'll be happy to explain further. Frankly, I could care less about methodology and technique. I am concerned with mission. My mission is to reach the lost, and then disciple them. Any churches mission should be to reach the lost, and to disciple those who are reached.

I will need to apply techniques to make that mission happen, but I should never ever let the techniques determine the mission.

I believe that a church absorbed in technique is convinced that it is “missional”-that it’s techniques are actually expressions of it’s mission, while they are actually methods that replace missional thinking.

Cal Guy said, “We apply the pragmatic test to the work of the theologian. Does his theology motivate men to go into all the world and make disciples? Does it so undergird them that they, thus motivated, succeed in this primary purpose? Theology must stand the test of being known by its fruit.”

If contextualizing the gospel weakens it, THEN DON’T DO IT! But, if contextualizing it helps reach someone, without weakening it, then you have actually strengthened it.

That’s my two cents. If it doesn’t make sense, I’ll be happy to explain further.

]]> By: Todd Helmkamp http://nathandiehl.com/2006/12/12/culture-part-i/#comment-85 Todd Helmkamp Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:49:21 +0000 http://www.nathandiehl.com/2006/12/12/culture-part-i/#comment-85 The power of distraction. The power of distraction.

]]> By: Abby! http://nathandiehl.com/2006/12/12/culture-part-i/#comment-84 Abby! Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:00:18 +0000 http://www.nathandiehl.com/2006/12/12/culture-part-i/#comment-84 If the "trendy music" or the "cool web pages" are the focus of the church, and the only means by which we try to bring people in...where is Jesus? If the Gospel gets lost in the chaos of our attempt to attract any generation, there is absolutely no relevancy. Passion is a beautiful thing, but when it's not a passion for God alone, our devotion only becomes watered down by the vain image we're trying to portray. If the “trendy music” or the “cool web pages” are the focus of the church, and the only means by which we try to bring people in…where is Jesus?

If the Gospel gets lost in the chaos of our attempt to attract any generation, there is absolutely no relevancy. Passion is a beautiful thing, but when it’s not a passion for God alone, our devotion only becomes watered down by the vain image we’re trying to portray.

]]>