Random Thoughts (#377)

John spoke out at the conference, which ended well, but something he said was taken as well founded and yet was so very far off. Unfortunately, I was not quick on my feet then and only realized the truth later. He said that people should not seek a worship service that "feeds or suits" them. In context he was saying that the committee for the contemporary service was mistaken to make a service to help bring in new people. At the time I was ill-prepared to answer even while I felt he was wrong. It further upset me that many people seemed to agree, not in a personal sense but in the way that one does when a so-called "superior truth" is presented to them. About an hour later it finally dawned on me. He was way off to claim that only one kind of service should suit all people. It's faulty logic at least and I am so frustrated that I hadn't thought on my feet quicker.

The argument itself is self-defeating as it only need redirected to the original speaker. If I had stood up and said, "If changing the style of service to meet the times and needs of the public is wrong then the services you love are also wrong as they are much changed from the original traditional services. By your own statement any change to suit a persons particular worship needs is a mistake and yet we don't claim that is the case when it comes to the Sunday services as they are."

OR even something like , "Would you leave if the Pastor decided to go contemporary or traditional with 'all' the services? By your own logic neither you or anyone else could complain despite how it speaks to you. What if it were a music style you didn't like or the message was in a different format you didn't understand? You would stay when all it takes is a going a block down the road where the music moves you and the message is more understandable to you? So long as the words are the same and only the efficacy is changing, what is their to fight about?"

The point here being that he accepts one form and not another (and accepting it without a single originating standard to base it on) saying that change is unwarranted or even dangerous which is clearly self-defeating to his cause as he accepted change long ago in the form of the current "blended" service we hold. Yet there he was complaining of the contemporary service, about it's proposed style and use, happy as a clam in his much revised "blended" service. Sheesh...

Anyhow, the service was approved despite several complaints and despite the logical fallacy he put forth, it is fair to say a person 'should' come to a service to worship God and not solely to hear a different style of music they favor. This however, does not speak at all of the mission and calling we all hold as Christians, to reach out and build up the Kingdom as fishers of men. A new service is just one of many ways to do so.