Russell,
I didn’t mind your reference to South Park, and agree that we need to understand the secular/humanistic world view if we are to successfully minister to the world. But I also relate to the other viewpoint (and am in fact married to that viewpoint!) and will try to represent it.
I believe you assumed most of us have watched the show, and I suspect that is not the case. Many of us believe that we are strongly affected over time by what we read and watch and listen to. If we aspire to that which is good and beautiful, we shouldn’t watch the crass and negative. For example, it is good to watch the John Adams series and bad to watch garbage like South Port.
Now of course we need to connect to the world, but why not do it thru positive activities like mission? The John Adam’s series certainly shows us human weakness, but the characters also demonstrate virtue. Why read Hollywood tabloids that glorify casual sex? If you believe we need to swim in the sewer to understand the sewer you will need to better explain why that is the best way (necessary) to relate to the world.
My wife’s reaction was she can’t do anything about South Park except refuse to support it by watching it. If the goal is to better understand the younger generation, then make that the focus of your sermon application.
Speaking for myself, I find it helpful to read books like Schaeffer’s The God Who is There, Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism, and Strimple’s The Modern Search For The Real Jesus (which you lent me!) to understand the non-Christian world view and how to communicate the gospel to it. Some of these concepts might better communicate your point than simply looking at examples of Godlessness and stupidity. Of course there are risks involved with getting too scholarly and theoretical as well.
Lastly, I didn’t hear any complaints about the sermon, until I asked. The congregation appreciates your scripture driven sermons and the way you connect to the congregation. We are truly blessed!
Sola Scriptura!
Good points, John. However, permit me to clarify on a few things:
I actually assumed that the majority of the congregation had Not seen south park (hence the explanation it was a foul show and you probably shouldn't watch it). Indeed, a close look at the sermon shows that I don't reference the show at all, but rather cite an article featuring an interview with the creators of the show.
I agree with you about swimming in the sewer....we don't want to swim in the sewer -- nor do I commend swimming in the sewer. Indeed, I do try to commend positive media (quite frequently indeed ... as I did commend the John Adams series several weeks ago) however I suggest that the world about us has become more of a sewer than most realize. In engaging with the world, I don't believe it entirely helpful to have everything mediated.
For instance... Francis Schaeffer is helpful ... but his cultural critique is only helpful if you've actually done a little bit of what Schaeffer did and interact with the cultural products of his time. Schaeffer actually read Dylan Thomas, actually listened to the music of John Cage, actually looked at the art of Picasso. Schaeffers whole mantra was that you had to honestly engage people where they were....and that required listening.
Then, there is my liberal arts upbringing. In my understanding, actual evidence is much more compelling than summary or inference. It is more powerful for me to actually show you the vapidity of the worldview of the Creators of South Park by using their own words.
Finally, my goal wasn't to help us better understand the younger generation ... my goal, as I explicity stated in the sermon, was to illustrate that modern cynicism is in diametrical contrast to the earnestness of joy.
Thanks for jumping in .... hope others are willing to join in the discussion too.
Russell, I am assuming that this is where I compose the note to you! Amy and I both liked the sermon a lot. Amy notes that she is often with kids while sub teaching who exhibit the dark side (e.g., in their clothing, jewelry) but she feels a lot of hope for them. Your sermon affirmed to Amy that they are seekers and that we should not be afraid of how people's outward appearance and actions come across. Thanks again.
Bill
Dear Russell, You probably don't want to hear another word about South Park, however, John showed me the blog site comments. What comes across to me, and may explain some of the reaction you got, is that there was a disconnect with your assumption that most of the congregation is unfamiliar with South Park. I think most people, even if they don't watch it, are aware of it. And even though you were actually referring to a magazine article, once you mentioned "South Park" it was hard to get back to your point.
Also, if you need to explain at length what the point of a cultural reference is, then quite possibly that cultural reference isn't worth the effort as it can feel like too much of a digression. Surely there are enough examples of cynicism in today's society without needing one that requires elaborate explanation.
You know I love your sermons and the good news is that we are all listening attentively!
In Christ,
Mary
P.S. How about some horicultural references instead of pop culture? Did you know that the brown area inside of evergreens is referred to as a "dead zone"? While the exterior of an evergreen can be vibrant and green, they are difficult to cut back because the dead zone inside will be exposed. Not too much of a segue to the public face presented by the church vs. the spirituality inside, or an individual's works/activity on the outside vs. interior stagnation, etc. Just a thought...
I wanted to comment on the Ray Ortlund quote.
“Have you transitioned from being frustrated with a reluctant God who isn’t cooperating with your agenda to being comforted by a God who is lavishing you with grace upon grace? How does anyone turn that corner? By going back to the gospel that made us Christians in the first place.” (120)
“The heart sings when we accept how little it matters that we are in control and how much it matters that God is in control for us, when we discover how little it matters that we are able and how much it suffices that God is able on our behalf.” (122)
I think the point he makes in the passage you quote is enormously important and one that I missed most of my life.
After my father passed away, I started looking at the important things in life a lot more closely and the truth of what Ortlund says here came out as I was comforted in my grief. It is hard to explain how a grieving heart can "sing" but that's exactly what happened to me when I realized "how much it matters that God is in control for us."
On my way home from the office I listened to the podcast of this sermon and noticed some important points Russell made that are worth comment.
First, just after the South Park example, Russell repeats the word "tragic" several times in his description of the perspective and the spiritual state of the show's creators. Often I think that we forget how starkly contrasted the perspective of our wordly culture can be when we are peering out through our stained-glass windows. Sometimes it is important that we are reminded of the tragic state beyond our windows. Reminded not so that we may boast (as some do) but that we may worship God for our salvation.
Which is the very point that Russell makes in the sermon from Isaiah 12 when he repeats that Christ is the spring of salvation in reference to verse 3.
As Russell repeated the language about the glories of God, I heard how this contrasts with the tragic perspective and condition of so many in our culture. And if not for the grace of God and the work of Christ, our own tragic condition.
I understand some are offended by the show but Russell points that out and notes that it is a profane show that will offend us ... should offend us. But we should also see the tragedy and its contrast to the glory of the Christ of our salvation.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Commenting by HaloScan
