That beats the premillenial chant (or whatever that is supposed to be) by a wide margin. Maybe not the Gregorian chant and Handel’s Messiah though. Sometimes I think Atheists are closer to the Gospel than the majority of evangelicals. They are much more enjoyable to be around (most of the time), laugh more authentically and even know how to sing and relate to the blues. They can also be much more sympathetic and empathetic to the human condition we all suffer through. Sorry for my attempt to wax philosophically.
But I guess the point was that rock and roll is for atheist’s not Christians (upper case) trying to be relevant and “planting seeds” with the current musical style in vogue. I often miss main points though.
Just listened to that again this morning and got another chuckle out of it. Steve Martin is a wild and crazy guy with that controlled and insane (is that a contradiction?) look in his eyes.
I am trying to spur on a dialog on how to deal with people in the culture who do not share our confessional beliefs and how most evangelicals botch it all up with the approach of trying to be relevant. However, no one is biting.
John, I don’t know that a set of rules exists for how to relate or live with non-believers. It all depends on each believer’s abilities and calling. I don’t think you can script it. And maybe the reason why evangelicals fail is that they have a habit of trying to turn friendship into a formula.
Sometimes I think Atheists are closer to the Gospel than the majority of evangelicals. They are much more enjoyable to be around (most of the time), laugh more authentically and even know how to sing and relate to the blues.
If one can “relate to the blues” I think it might be more precise to say that s/he may be closer to law than gospel. But judging by the sentimentalism of evangelicalism it’s hard to know what they’re closer to, since it’s neither law nor gospel. Maybe it’s the self they are closer to, as in golden calves and will worship.
And I do believe the term for formulaic friendship is called “friendship evangelism.”
Great points- I often think we forget (or try to suppress) that we have a lot more common ground with unbelievers than we want to believe (I think it is more in the realm of experience rather than doctrines and beliefs- we often turn this around and try to relate to unbelievers from a belief perspective; however, I may be wrong with that thought). Perhaps that is one of the reasons why we still suffer in this life. We rarely get taught a good creation doctrine too.
My response needs a bit more clarity added to it. Our beliefs are antithetical to those who do not believe in the 5 Sola’s of the reformation. However, in our experience of life in the kingdom of man we have much common ground with unbelievers. We differ only in our experience of the Kingdom of God which 2Kers interpret as life in the Church. We can be tolerant of those in our lives in the kingdom of man (as long as they are not outwardly disobeying the civil laws we all have to be under) but not tolerant of their beliefs when we are functioning in the kingdom of God at Church. The neo-Cals and evangelicals (and all non-confessionalists) confuse these categories which results in all sorts of relational confusion. I was just trying to spur on some conversation and dialog of how others have reconciled this type of thinking in their lives outside the Church (kingdom of God). It seems to me we should relate to others in the kingdom of man differently than neo-Cals and evangelicals do. It may be helpful to kind of compare and contrast how others are going about doing this. At least that is what I am probing for. I realize there is not a formula for doing this but there may be some model we can follow for our thinking. I have found myself being confused about how to face some relational situations in my vocational life and I think it is helpful to get some clarity in my thinking.
Old Life 
That beats the premillenial chant (or whatever that is supposed to be) by a wide margin. Maybe not the Gregorian chant and Handel’s Messiah though. Sometimes I think Atheists are closer to the Gospel than the majority of evangelicals. They are much more enjoyable to be around (most of the time), laugh more authentically and even know how to sing and relate to the blues. They can also be much more sympathetic and empathetic to the human condition we all suffer through. Sorry for my attempt to wax philosophically.
LikeLike
But I guess the point was that rock and roll is for atheist’s not Christians (upper case) trying to be relevant and “planting seeds” with the current musical style in vogue. I often miss main points though.
LikeLike
Just listened to that again this morning and got another chuckle out of it. Steve Martin is a wild and crazy guy with that controlled and insane (is that a contradiction?) look in his eyes.
LikeLike
I am trying to spur on a dialog on how to deal with people in the culture who do not share our confessional beliefs and how most evangelicals botch it all up with the approach of trying to be relevant. However, no one is biting.
LikeLike
Trying to be relevant (read: hip and cool). I learned that (read: thing) from D.G. Hart’s book on Nevin- love that communication and clarity tool.
LikeLike
John, I don’t know that a set of rules exists for how to relate or live with non-believers. It all depends on each believer’s abilities and calling. I don’t think you can script it. And maybe the reason why evangelicals fail is that they have a habit of trying to turn friendship into a formula.
LikeLike
Sometimes I think Atheists are closer to the Gospel than the majority of evangelicals. They are much more enjoyable to be around (most of the time), laugh more authentically and even know how to sing and relate to the blues.
If one can “relate to the blues” I think it might be more precise to say that s/he may be closer to law than gospel. But judging by the sentimentalism of evangelicalism it’s hard to know what they’re closer to, since it’s neither law nor gospel. Maybe it’s the self they are closer to, as in golden calves and will worship.
And I do believe the term for formulaic friendship is called “friendship evangelism.”
LikeLike
Darryl and Zrim,
Great points- I often think we forget (or try to suppress) that we have a lot more common ground with unbelievers than we want to believe (I think it is more in the realm of experience rather than doctrines and beliefs- we often turn this around and try to relate to unbelievers from a belief perspective; however, I may be wrong with that thought). Perhaps that is one of the reasons why we still suffer in this life. We rarely get taught a good creation doctrine too.
LikeLike
My response needs a bit more clarity added to it. Our beliefs are antithetical to those who do not believe in the 5 Sola’s of the reformation. However, in our experience of life in the kingdom of man we have much common ground with unbelievers. We differ only in our experience of the Kingdom of God which 2Kers interpret as life in the Church. We can be tolerant of those in our lives in the kingdom of man (as long as they are not outwardly disobeying the civil laws we all have to be under) but not tolerant of their beliefs when we are functioning in the kingdom of God at Church. The neo-Cals and evangelicals (and all non-confessionalists) confuse these categories which results in all sorts of relational confusion. I was just trying to spur on some conversation and dialog of how others have reconciled this type of thinking in their lives outside the Church (kingdom of God). It seems to me we should relate to others in the kingdom of man differently than neo-Cals and evangelicals do. It may be helpful to kind of compare and contrast how others are going about doing this. At least that is what I am probing for. I realize there is not a formula for doing this but there may be some model we can follow for our thinking. I have found myself being confused about how to face some relational situations in my vocational life and I think it is helpful to get some clarity in my thinking.
LikeLike