Essentials vs style

The medium is the message. The important part is that, as a message, the style is a subjective communication and not an objective right/wrong. While one can speak of "compromises" in such areas, much confusion and ill-will could be avoided by using the term "personal compromises" instead, since it may not at all be a compromise for another person who gets a different message from that medium.

 

Contextualizing the approach and methodology doesn't sacrifice the message which is behind them. It is false to say that they are the same. In India I present the Gospel contextualized methodologically different than I do in the Southeast United States. It is out of necessity if not pure common sense.

What works in breaking down barriers for the unchurched to consider the claims of Christ is different from one situation to the next. There is much cultural exegesis which must happen so we can appropriately contextualize the method which we present the same Gospel.

Paul did the same and lived the same: 1 Corinthians 9:19-23
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

The Gospel message is not sacrificed by a different methodology or look to it. The essential is Christ, His crucifixion, and resurrection.

I can express that soundly with multiple methodological approaches appropriate for my context.

The goal is to take the cultural motifs, remove the sensuality, and present the Gospel in a context which is approachable by all.

That's a harder question that depends on your view of preferences. The big thing is to make sure your preferences don't supercede and replace the essentials and doctrinal matters, but that we approach matters through a kind of theological triage (to quote Al Mohler) wherein our essentials (Trinity, divinity of Christ, etc.) aren't superceded by our doctrine (priesthood of believers, baptism by immersion, etc.) which aren't superceded by our preferences (worship style, drinking, can women wear pants, etc.)

Well, let the slings and arrows begin I suppose
Good thread.

 

I believe in the regulative principle of worship.
I believe all elements of worship proscribed in the Bible are very important and that we should not add or subtract from them.

BUt we must separate the elements from the circumstances.
The circumstances of worship leaves a lot up to a local congregation such as the instruments to be used, the time of service. The order of service comes under this as well.
Certianly less important things like pews or theatre style seating or movable chairs are totally circumstantial.

What is contained in the doctrine of music and of the prayers and preaching are important.
Keeping man made ways of worship out are good too.

As far as music goes, the principles apply to everyone but the exact way you do things is up to you as far as the style etc.

 

Two songs...

The first song is heavy metal. The second is rap/hip hop.

 

Ha -- I was going to do that next!

Great minds...

 

The first song is Petra. The second is "Out of Eden". For the record, I've never heard either song. I got the lyrics off a web site that includes heavy metal and hip hop Christian music lyrics.

 

It's interesting to hear of such an interpretation, especially with the second song!

 

For the record, Petra's nowhere near close to heavy metal.