From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Subject: Re: Returning to secular music
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:38:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.135507.20128@samba.oit.unc.edu> danielg@med.unc.edu (Daniel G. Sinclair) writes:

(in response to Ted Krueger's tale of woe):

>Wow, what a major bummer.  Sorry to be nosy, but I didn't quite catch the
>description of the 'unchristian' activity.  Was it reading sf/fantasy?  Or
>something really unmentionable like going to secular concerts or *gasp*
>dancing?  Being in leadership is kinda funny.  Somehow you are expected to
>keep up a certain image as to not offend nobody. 

I'm sorry to hear that too, Ted.  Sometimes people interpret the notion
of freedom in Christ as freedom to goosestep along in neat, orderly
lines.  I hope you can find a church that preaches the Word but still
allows room for individual differences.

>Which brings up an interesting question.  Many times I hear people say
>'Sure, you could do that and it woudln't be sin, but wouldn't it cause
>others to stumble?'  Usually this is in reference to drinking alcohol
>(when I was in England and Germany this summer, I was mildly shocked to
>find *real* fired up Christians going to the pub for a pint after service!
>Here I am sitting in a pub drinking a cold one with what I perceived to be
>mature Christians!  This guy next to me is showing me pictures of his
>missions trip to Romania.  Culture shock...) or dancing (since most clubs
>have sleazy music or atmosphere, I resort to aerobics to satisfy my
>dancing bone).  But I ask you, what kind of message do we really give them
>by being legalistic and prudish?  Sometimes I like to say, 'yeah, I want
>to show them that as a Christian you can love God, be pure (they can tell
>by my speech and kindness), and still be free from 'rules and regs'
>Christianity.  They've seen enough fundies, so they know that 'Christians'
>don't drink, don't cuss, and don't chew.  Maybe they would be changed by
>seeing freedom.'

There are certain things that the Bible clearly spells out as wrong,
and I don't think we need to water down our response to such things
for fear of offending someone.  Sin is sin, and it needs to be called
what it is - ideally in love, and ideally with compassion for the 
one caught in the sin.  

On the other hand, things like downing a pint of Guinness (it *was*
Guinness, I hope :-)), dancing, going to secular concerts, reading 
sf/fantasy novels, etc. are matters that are between the individual and 
God, and can neither be said to be totally right for all people or totally 
wrong for all people.  

I personally had my fill of "rules and regs" Christianity a long time
ago, and I'm convinced that God is more concerned about what I do 
versus what I don't do.  The people who have impressed me most in my
Christian walk, and who have had the biggest impact on my life, are
those who are willing to take risks for God, who are willing to give of 
themselves selflessly in reaching out to segments of society that 
most people ignore, who have a quiet peace in even the most 
trying circumstances, and who show their love for God in countless
ways, including having lots of fun.  They tend to be a joy to be
around.  Maybe or maybe not coincidentally, most of them also tend
to drink a brew occasionally, go to secular concerts, dance, 
and generally cavort like silly people.  

I see God manifested in the quality of their lives.  And if they
shunned all of those things that cause offense to some segment of
the church, I don't think they'd appear any more godly or have any
better witness.  They would, however, be a lot less fun to be around.

>Now I know the standard objections and associated scriptures, but my heart
>is, what kind of Christianity am I representing?  Another example.  I am
>about to start a growth group (cell group, house group, kinship group,
>whatever :) at my home in January.  This sunday, they were taking pictures
>of the leaders for the bulletin board.  Like usual, I was dressed in
>jeans, hiking boots, tshirt and sweatshirt, plus, my hair is kinda getting
>long and wild looking (for a guy).  The picture dude didn't take my
>picture but asked me to dress up a little better and he'd take me next
>week.  |-\  Bummer.  You know, there are tons of nice WMC (white middle
>class) home groups, but where are the long haired alternative types gonna
>hang out?  Not at the Cleaver's house!  Of course the beave won't come to
>my house, but maybe some of the *many* people who want to follow Jesus but
>*don't* want to be part of stale Christian culture (the old one - I really
>belive that a new Christian culture is sweeping in to replace the old)
>will look at my unkepmpt mug and go 'now *that* home group might be worth
>going to - look Mabel, he's not even wearing a button down!!'

There's nothing new there, Daniel, although I applaud your efforts to
buck respectability :-).  There's no "new" Christian culture, even
though from your vantage point it may seem new and exciting - and 
that's good.  There's just the same old Christian culture that was
founded by a guy who hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors
and political terrorists, and who called physically and spiritually 
sick people to come to him so that they might be healed.

People can recognize their sickness whether they're wearing t-shirts
and blue jeans or suits and ties.  And that's what matters.  When
I became a Christian I thought that it was important to go to a
church where everybody had long hair and where the de rigeur
church outfit was torn blue jeans for the men and peasant dresses
for the women.  It was a whole-wheat-no-nukes-share-all-things-in
common-jam-with-guitars-in-somebody's-living-room time, and I'm
glad that it was a part of my life.  Now I hang out with my 
long hair and faded jeans in a big, gothic-looking Presbyterian
church full of suits and ties and stained glass and clerical 
robes.  You know why I'm there?  Because people love Jesus.  

I probably wouldn't have been able to stand it fifteen or twenty
years ago, and I'm glad that "new" Christian cultures keep
springing up to meet the needs of the anti-Cleavers of the 
world.  But it's the same basic stuff anywhere you go.  And I'm
watching a revival sweep through that stale old church now, 
people coming alive to what it means to follow Christ, to be 
a disciple, and it's all happening amidst the old pews and hymnals.
There's room for all of us.  

Wear your sweat shirt and long hair next week and tell the photographer 
to take your picture anyway.  He may not think he needs to do it,
but he does.  And if he still refuses, go home and put on a suit and
tie and comb your hair and then go back and smile pretty for the 
camera.  It's probably not worth making a big deal over.  But 
don't wear any underwear. 

>Anyway to summarize (darn, is this stuff fit for this group?  Let's start
>a group called soc.culture.christian)
>
>	1. what was your faux pas in these churches?
>	2. what activities should leadership refrain from?
>	3. what sort of image should we portray? (to drink or not to
>	drink.  to dance or not to dance.  to wear nice clothes or not
>	to.)
>	4. does anyone else see the new culture rising?
>
>Respectfully and full of hope,
>
>danielg
>
>-- 
>**************************************************************************
>* " When our humanity is in danger, the artistic spirit suddenly lives." *
>*     -Leland Ryken from _The Liberated Imagination_                     *
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-----+-+------+-+-----+-+----+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++

Andy Whitman
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio   (oh, how the counter-culture has 
att!cblpn!ajw  or                         fallen)
ajw@cblpn.att.com