Comments on: Can We REALLY Impact the Culture? Looking at Christianity from the Outside

By: jon swanson

jon swanson — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Thanks for pointing to this. What is so remarkable in how he tells the story is the amount of getting away from culture shows up rather than 1) getting closer to Christ and 2) getting better at describing that relationship and 3) getting better at being really good at what we do, not as in "really good for a Christian" but as in "really good". So much of what the people being described are doing is talking about creating a separate culture, staying inside a sub-culture. And that's not how to change the world. Argh.

By: detweiler

detweiler — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

You can always count on Canada to offer some much needed

perspective on our American myopia.

Basically, he has pointed out that evangelicalism in America

is just varied forms of Amish religious expression. We know

what the horse and buggy type of Amish faith looks like.

Most of us, simply enjoy our TVs, iPods, computers a bit too

much to go for hard core Amish. So we modify it and justify

it but talking about 'going out into the world' and 'changing the

culture' when it is just Amish retreat dressed up in war paint

and plasma screens.

A complete waste of time. Because the only way Amish faith

really works is when you go about living out your faith and

become so unique and refreshing and alternative that people

pay money to take pictures of you--living out your faith.

Of course, it also turns your faith into a bit of a museum piece

but isn't that exactly what the Canadian TV segments were?

With the exception of xxxchurch which truly crossed over into

the culture in a Christlike way--going inside the porn convention--

everything else was just window dressing to make it look like

we were interested in something other than maintaining the

cultural power and status we last experienced in the 1950s.

I'm not interested in turn back the clock ministries or

movies simply because I wasn't alive in the 1950s.

Happy New Year!

By: Royzoner

Royzoner — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

That would be a great sketch: we should all just do Amish wear and grow upside down beards, rant and rave at how we need to reach the world.

It was interesting that after all the subculture hype & media, the reporter still had this question: "What do you want me to know? What do I need to know?" and no one could answer him, really.

By: Mack

Mack — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Royzoner hit it on the head – At the end on the piece here are these Christian who are suppose to be evangelists who were given the perfect opportunity to really witness to this knock off John Stossel type and they talked about themselves instead of the real message of Christ and what He has done. Shame, shame, shame. I hope Phil will agree the teens who are preparing to go to Hollywood to work in the film industry with an attitude will be eaten alive and will either have to change or plan on a life career of working at Burger King.

By: Stevan Speheger

Stevan Speheger — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

OK, let’s take a step back and see what we’re trying to accomplish here. The Great Commission tells us to go forth and make disciples. Of course, a person cannot become a disciple without first being a convert. The scripture also tells us that one cannot come to Christ without the Holy Spirit first drawing him. Our role, at different times, is to plant, water, or harvest.

Stop and think for a moment how you reacted to the first presentation of the Gospel you received. Then, consider how many exposures you had before you responded with a total life commitment. Finally, consider your state of mind and spirit when you did respond, and the “trigger point” that generated that response. Each of our “personal testimonies” would vary greatly based on our personalities, our upbringing, our environment, and all those things that make each of us a unique individual.

Now, if our purpose in the media is to “help God” by creating and presenting these “exposures” designed to plant, water, tend, or harvest we must realize that one size definitely does not fit all.

I’m certainly in favor of producing the highest quality programming possible. But, is it possible to put forth any program that presents, or even supports, our faith and world view without it being put down by some of those we wish to reach, no matter how high the quality? Or, to put it another way, if win the respect and praise of unbelievers, have we concealed or watered down the message to the point where our effort will make no progress toward the objective?

Bottom line, like the producers of commercials, we must make certain that we have a specific target audience and desired objective for everything we produce. If you aim at nothing, you’ll hit it every time.

Yes, we need to be interested in anything we can learn about how we are perceived by those outside of the kingdom. We can learn a lot from these observations. But, just because one self-proclaimed unbelieving reporter looks disdainfully on some evangelical Christian ministries, we shouldn’t hasten to condemn them. Let’s all seek God, do what he asks us to do, and not spend a lot of time criticizing those who may be getting a different message designed to reach a different segment of our diverse population. God will judge them (and us) by the fruit.

By: Mack

Mack — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Indeed God will judge the fruit. When the two “Evangelist” are asked in the last segment by the reporter “what do you want me to know” – HELLO, is this not the perfect opportunity for what they say they are all about – being Evangelists? Their reply was not Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He died for your sins so you could have eternal life, instead they said, “We want you to know that all Christians aren’t what you think”. To be an evangelist is to be on point – salvation to those you have the opportunity to speak to, not wine that your not understood.