Rave in the Nave (Message vs Media)

Remove all ads!

Just read this ...

This reminds me of an earlier topic touched on here, as to whether the message matters more than the medium used to express it.

This is a pretty bold example. Take an old, old message (like the Gospel of Christianity), package it in a scene that could be taken from any underground dance club ... and what do you have?

 

Well, I think that's not the first time this happens.

Michelangelo painted the walls of the Sistine Chapel. Bach made a new musical-message for the gospel. So dit the in America developped gospel-tradition of a new kind of singing in the curch. Both are very successful music styles.
I think, oh when the saints go marchin' in and tell old pharao, let my people go, did more for the spread of the gospel than a thousand preachers could.

 

I've thought a lot about this one. Given my personal beliefs about God and how He wants us to relate to him, I wouldn't participate in such activities. But I don't see them as inherently evil -- if people in good faith want to worship this way, why not let them? They aren't doing any harm and as far as I can see they are violating no commandments or laws.

 

I think it would possible to argue, that when the catholic ("common/general") church departed from the orthodox ("the right way of belive") church, the catholic were not driven by mainly by thelogical (sp ?) reasoning, but by the wish to appeal to their new followers in western Europe. So, they changed the media to further the spread of the gospel. The same happend with the shism of the protestants. A maker of clocks could not longer make a connection to or find any sense in the catholic customs.

 

Did anyone see the movie "Dogma?" Am I the only one reminded of "Catholicism Wow!"

I think that a campaign like this could possibly work, but only if it were actually spearheaded by young people. Middle-aged clergymen aren't going to look anything but foolish if they try to "get down with the young people." If they can show how religious principles and the clergy are relevant and important to todays youth, and do it in a meaningful way without coming off as phony, I think it could work wonders. But insulting the intelligence of kids will only serve to make them look desperate, I think. Using a facet of popular youth culture to lure people into something totally unrelated doesn't have a great success record.

 

Many Catholics lost faith when Vatican 2 came about in 67? iirc. My aunt was a nun for many years before renouncing the vows because of crazy changes in the church.

My final divorce of the Catholic church occurred because of exactly what Mathetais is talking about. Totally "unorthodox" practices made me detest everything they stood for.

Disco dance for Jesus and sitting in a circle inside a hall instead of a church with young children in the middle. Singing childish songs to keep the kids happy...etc...etc...

I know that that is not the fault of the message or the Great Man that brought the message, Jesus, but it caused me such distress that I decided that I could not stay with the church any longer.

I think that rock music style dances in the name of Jesus are a mockery of everything that he stood (and stands) for. His message and his more explicit teachings are nothing like that.

If people want to rock n roll do it in the proper place, a disco or club.

I think that if people can't fit in with the message then they have to change themselves and not the message to fit their own tastes. What right do we have to interfere with the ethos and intended spirit of the message as portrayed?

My two cents.

 

I think it is sad when the Church tries to be modern and to appeal young people. Firstly it never works, no one that would not have faith will be fooled by another package. One of the few good things about the Church is that it is one of the few remnants of our past and I think we should keep it like it has been for centuries as a curiousity and reminder of our history. The only worth the Church has is as keeper of our cultural traditions and when they lose that they have no justification to exist at all anymore.

 

Like I said, I'm fairly conservative when it comes to worship, but many Christians believe in the vibrant, dynamic nature of the Gospel. They do not believe that it is a dusty old remnant of a long lost past. Christ ate and drank with sinners. David danced before the Lord. Songs and poetry were sung by many peoople in the Bible. The strict laws of the Mosaic law were changed. The church changes, but I believe the message is the same for many of the people worshiping.

That said, though, the idea of trying to slip the gospel past people's minds by coating it with a veneer of modernity is wrong, I think, and if the goal is to trick people into coming to church it will fail. But if the goal is to show that the church has room for all sorts of people, then I don't think it's a bad thing.

 

o.k. Mathetais, i know you've been waiting for this so here goes....

i see nothing wrong in trying to appeal to the younger people, to keep the faith alive you have to have practitioners. making church services more enjoyable for the young is perfectly acceptable and a nice gesture.

however, if without the rock music and upbeat tempo, these people won't attend, then they shouldn't be there. i always thought the purpose of mass was to learn the word and partake in holy communion(in remembrance of...) not to be entertained. if you want entertainment watch t.v. or turn on the tunes.

i guess what i'm trying to say is, if you have to entertain someone to get them to church, don't. we don't need anymore "Bumpersticker Christians", you know the ones, all the Jesus stickers on the overpriced car driving too fast and flipping you off as they pass you. those are the people that have totally turned me off to Christianity, and those are the same people the "modernized" services are geared toward.

oh look, i'm opinionated, who would've guessed?