The Media is the Message
Ok, this really doesn't make sense to me.
I understand the whole issue of dialogue. Kudos to the church for being open to dialogue. However, tolling out an anti-Christian/anti-religion tune on church bells seems to send a whole bunch of conflicting signals and messages.
The church has an obligation to be consistent with the message that it conveys to the world, while at the same time continuing to engage in dialogue and discussion with those who don't understand or don't agree. In a football game, both sides want to win, and understand that only one can win. They might respect one another a great deal, yet neither side expects the other side's band to strike up the opposition's fight song. At best, it would seem disingenuous. At worst, traitorous.
Thoughts?
At least it wasn't "Why don't we do it in the road."
Reply to this
To my great chagrin and eternal peril, I've never had an adequate response to that question.
Reply to this
The smell of asphalt is a turn-off?
Reply to this
Actually, no. *sigh*
Reply to this
Forgive me for taking this joke seriously, but "Why dont we [. . .]" should actually be quite a bit LESS offensive to believers than "Imagine."
If the church is more squeamish about playing an openly sexual tune than about playing an anti-theistic one, then it has become a manifest caricature of itself sprung from the realm of popular imagination: "Welcome to church. We love everybody and want to be all-inclusive even of atheists.(More butts in the pews means more coins in the plate after all!) However, sex is naughty!"
After all, the bible teaches that there is an apropriate context for sex, and encourages believers to celebrate sex as a gift from God. I'm not familiar with any biblical proscriptions of road sex. (Though I think chafing of potentially biblical severity would deter most would-be practitioners.)
In the end, an open-minded and inclusive discussion of "Why, exactly, don't we do it in the road?" Would be of more value than the current question: "If we exclude God, can the Church still go around telling people what not to do? If so, we're open to that."
Reply to this
You're always free to take the jokes seriously. I just might not bother to respond
Reply to this
Can we apply James 3 here?
"With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? 12My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water."
Sure, in this example we are not talking about a tongue, but the church does speak, and what it speaks is important. But not only what it speaks, but also what others hear. The church, in playing this song, thinks it is speaking a word of openness and discussion. But is that what people are hearing? They are hearing a song that denies that which the church holds to be true. How can this saltwater come from the living, fresh water of Christ's body?
I agree that the church should recognize the existence of other worldview and attitudes, and be willing to dialogue with them. But the church should consider how it does so lest it start to proclaim the message it seeks to deny.
Reply to this
You hit the nail on the head perfectly, I think.
Reply to this