New Venues at Saddleback
- Posted on July 20, 2007
- Viewed 225 times
- (15) comments
A Little Leaven offers up what they think some of Saddleback's new venues should be. Unfortunately, they're trying to use this satire to prove some kind of point... I just think it's humorous...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, your picture will displayed on any website that supports gravitars.
Another anonymous on Fri, July 20, 2007
This works out great! I can drop my kids off in the basement for the “Twisted” service and take the tram across campus to the Server Room in time for the “Geek” service. And if I’m feeling really gluttonous I can catch THREE services on Sunday!
It is funny how one person’s serious biting satire is just humorous to some of us.
Peter Hamm on Fri, July 20, 2007
So, the only style of music that Jesus likes is the kind of church music we did in the 50s? Why? Because, I hate to tell you, but many people like it, and that would make it man-centered, wouldn’t it? Shouldn’t we find a syle everybody hates? (Then again, I’ve heard a handful of hymns that I think everyone might hate…)
I haven’t tried to dialog with A Little Leaven, but I have recently attempted (just so I could say in good conscience that I did) to do so with Slice on this very issue among others. I think as soon as she figured out that I was the same Peter Hamm who posted here (I first went by only my first name, but then, as is my custom, switched to my full name) Ingrid stopped approving my posts. I’m sure A Little Leaven would, too, so I don’t have time to try.
I guess there is only wisdom in a multitude of counsellors if they all agree with you. I guess iron doesn’t really sharpen iron. (Ingrid, if you’re reading this, I would LOVE to know why posts that are not inflammatory and are filled with a respectful tone get eliminated. If you only listen to those who agree with you, you will become very insulated and, actually, less able to defend those things you hold dear.)
In short, the response seems to me to be reactionary nonsense.
The Curator on Fri, July 20, 2007
Peter,
I think you should try to talk with the folks at A Little Leaven. I know with 100% certainty that they would love to talk with you.
BTW, did you get a chance to see the Blazing Saddles Bible Study. That was a real gas!
Kent on Fri, July 20, 2007
Peter says: “I guess there is only wisdom in a multitude of counsellors if they all agree with you. I guess iron doesn’t really sharpen iron. (Ingrid, if you’re reading this, I would LOVE to know why posts that are not inflammatory and are filled with a respectful tone get eliminated. If you only listen to those who agree with you, you will become very insulated and, actually, less able to defend those things you hold dear.)”
Oh Peter, how one sided you can be. Below is a comment on music I posted a few weeks back, on the “STYLE” of music that Perry Nobles church was offering up. Do you know what happened Peter? It was deleted without explanation. Why do you suppose that is? Everyone slams people like Ingrid for her topics on music, saying it’s all about style and not content. I show a clear example of the content behind much of the man centered churches are offering up, and low and behold, there is no defense, so let’s just simply delete it huh?
On the subject of music, here’s the example I posted regarding the efforts of a church trying to “connect with culture” as Perry Noble offers up their version of “American Idol” bringing in songs “Friends in low places” and “Brick House”. Read the following lyrics to “Brick House”, which they had sung in their church.
Verse:1. She knows she got everything
a woman needs to get a man, yeah.
How can she use, the things she use
36-24-36, what a winning hand!
Verse:
2. The clothes she wears, the sexy ways,
make an old man wish for younger days
She knows she’s built and knows how to please
Sure enough to knock a man to his knees.
Yep, really connecting with culture there, that’s for sure!
And read the outcry of those, expecially offended (and rightfully so) women, who wrote into Tony Morgans blog, one of the Pastors who was “ir” responsible for the vulgar presentation.
http://www.tonymorganlive.com/tony_morgan_one_of_the_si/2007/04/box_score_for_a_3.html.
By the way, he closed comments when it wasn’t going his way.
Peter Hamm on Sat, July 21, 2007
Kent, although I have nothing to do with the editing of posts on MMI, you may be right a little, especially because since I posted my comment above, Ingrid has let me know personally that she has no intention of creating a forum for dialogue at her site. (Her exact words I won’t quote because I don’t have her permission, but that is definitely the gist of it.) I was purposefully VERY respectful… but that wasn’t enough. (Again, I only did this expiriment so I could say from personal experience that Slice doesn’t want opinions like mine, instead of just guessing that they don’t.)
In short, I can only conclude that sites such as Slice are often only looking for comments from people who agree with them. MMI, on the other hand, will often delete a post (Todd has deleted mine on a couple occasions and I’m totally not offended by it, btw…) if it is going off-topic… As we are now. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif
The thing I like about MMI is that well-thought out and pertinent comments from people who disagree will be left standing.
As far as they style vs. content issue, your lyric example is clearly a content one, and not a style one. If I have a loud raucous song that celebrates who Jesus is and who God is and what He has done (think the Passion version of “Joyful Joyful” for instance), the style may be what some would think of as “worldly”, but the intent may be great and God-honoring. Some folks don’t see it that way, and they are welcome to stick to they hymnal. But the “venues” at Saddleback are clearly defensible imho.
Todd Rhoades on Sat, July 21, 2007
Exactly right, Peter. And that’s why some of Kent’s comments have been deleted in the past. Matter of fact, I think I actually asked Kent to refrain from commentting ONLY because of the tone of his commenting. (That’s a nice way to say he was one of the three or four on my banned commenters list).
Some of you were here in the past when there were a whole group of people who railed against everything we discussed here at MMI. Those days are no more because I took control of the forum from people like this. It was killing the freedom of those who wanted to comment (who didn’t want to take all the abuse).
And those of you who still read know that we still have quite a few people who disagree… but they do so respectfully. (This week’s discussion on alcohol was a great example). They are respectful of other people and of the site owner (that’s me).
Bottom line… Some of what you say, Kent, could add real value to the discussion. The way you say it, though, doesn’t. That’s the difference.
I think that Peter’s point is that, on the other side of the fence… the way you say it really doesn’t matter. If you disagree, your’re shut down. And I think your last comments (that you’re talking about that I deleted) were probably the last ones I’ve had to delete. It’s a very rare thing.
OK… back on topic. This was a Friday humor post. Let’s treat it as such.
Have a great weekend.
Todd
Leonard on Sat, July 21, 2007
Kent, my responses to you were also deleted. At first I thought I posted them wrong and they did not go through then I realized Todd had deleted them. I actually am grateful he did since the reason I responded to you was your tone and willingness to condemn people over situations you were not even there to wittness.
As for the topic, I would find it really funny if not for the intent behind it. This kind of satire actually is IMO nothing more than fuel for unbiblcal hostility towards Warren. When friends roast friends it is funny, when people less than friends roast others, it is harshness, when people who are opposed roast someone, it is mockery. The responses on a little leven simply showed this satire only fueled the critical spirit of the slice crowd.
I am really a funny guy with a great sense of humor, I get jokes and know how to kick off my shoes with the best of them. I am even, many times considered irreverant, it is just that this one struck me as more fuel for the fire than satire.
Shane Montgomery on Sat, July 21, 2007
WOW! I may be in the minority but I have always been concerned with the whole “Many venues, one campus” movement. This piece of satire is an example why - does creating “unique and personalized” worship experiences based on peoples musical preferences advance the mission of the church or (this is just my opinion) does it dilute our identity as a body and create divisions of “us” and “them”? In every bit of humor there is a little truth - this truth is one that has concerned me for a while now.
Dan Moore on Sun, July 22, 2007
Shane…great observation. It is something I have wrestled with. Music does enhance the worship experience. I think what we have in the U.S. is a grouping of cultures. I have watch movies and videos of missionaries who worked among third world cultures. Usually they work with one particular culture. Music is often composed on what native instruments there are and the melodies are often a reflection of their culture. But I did notice that the worship was not for the people but for God. The music often had a slight difference from the music of the culture. I suspect that is the struggle in the U.S. Does music give honor and glory to God? Or is the primary emphasis to please the crowd? It is a very thin edge we walk on.
Kent on Sun, July 22, 2007
“And I think your last comments (that you’re talking about that I deleted) were probably the last ones I’ve had to delete. It’s a very rare thing”.
Todd, with so many Post, I’m sure it’s hard to remember everything. But there was someone else, “Jennifer” I believe who posted the same concerns about the music at Perry’s church as well. And by no means was the tone bad. Yet… it was deleted just the same.
Todd Rhoades on Sun, July 22, 2007
You obviously have a better memory than I do, but that’s ok.
Kent on Wed, July 25, 2007
Leonard says “the reason I responded to you was your tone and willingness to condemn people over situations you were not even there to wittness”.
Leonard, One does not have to witness first hand an event for it to have happened. Was slavery made up, and not truly exist in this country because you were not there to witness it? Is it therefore condemning to call slavery wrong because you weren’t there to see it personally? We are not required to see something personally Leonard to comment on it and make a judgement as to whether it is right or wrong.
The event in question did happen, it’s not denied by the one who promoted it, it was in church and it was wrong. Was I there? No. Did I have to be there for it to happen, for it to be wrong? Absolutley not. And by the way Leonard, it’s on YouTube.
Leonard on Thu, July 26, 2007
Kent, I am sure the event happened, I am sure slavery happened, I am sure your tone is why I responded. You came across like a giddy schoolgirl who was so excited you found something wrong with your brother’s church. Your tone was “I knew there was something wrong, now I have the proof!” Next time you post the sinfulness of churces try to at least come across sad instead of like a kid who is excited he just found out his sister got grounded because she always gets away with stuff. If you are just going to defend your tone, don’t bother. I am not interested in your defense.
Kent on Thu, July 26, 2007
Leonard,
You jump around like a wet oily fish trying to defend what is clearly unbiblical. Then, when the discussion reaches a point where you can no longer defend something on it’s own merrits, you result to personal attacks to boost yourself, I’ve seen it in other post as well.
Todd Rhoades on Thu, July 26, 2007
That’s laughable.
Kent, go to your room.
And don’t come out until I tell you.
Todd
Page 1 of 1 pages
Post a Comment