A cowboy church is "really different from a regular church"

Too bad God didn’t inspire stories instead of boring old Scriptures.

Without commenting on the Cowboy Church angle, remember that God did inspire stories. Almost half the Bible is story. We just tend to be bad story tellers. Our general circles tend to turn everything into hortatory or didactic preaching. But people have always loved stories and told stories. And God told half of his story in story form.

But while I am here, let me comment on the Cowboy church angle. Churches should reflect their culture and context without the bounds of Scripture. So there is nothing wrong with a cowboy church, per se if the area is cowboy area. Obviously (or perhaps not), that expression needs to be governed by Scripture.

I do think Shayne is right to some degree. A church needs to strive to reflect its community. We have no control over who comes to Christ (even if you think you do). But we have control over whether or not we understand people and have a church culture that is intelligible to them and welcoming to them.

Wonder why the apostles didn’t start a gladiator church, gymnasium church, tent-maker church, fishermen church, slave-owner church, freedman church, carpenter church… . ?

[Brenda T] Wonder why the apostles didn’t start a gladiator church, gymnasium church, tent-maker church, fishermen church, slave-owner church, freedman church, carpenter church… . ?

Excellent question.

[Larry]

Too bad God didn’t inspire stories instead of boring old Scriptures.

Without commenting on the Cowboy Church angle, remember that God did inspire stories. Almost half the Bible is story. We just tend to be bad story tellers. Our general circles tend to turn everything into hortatory or didactic preaching. But people have always loved stories and told stories. And God told half of his story in story form.

Larry,

Of course, I’m not referencing the inspired ones. But the explanation quoted from the website indicates the preaching is stories with some Bible tied to it. If this is accurate, I do not believe it is a faithful example of the priority or sufficiency of God’s Word for the church.

Nor do I think they qualify as Paul’s emphasis when he says the church is the pillar and ground of truth. Surely life stories are more appropriate on Oprah than in the pulpit. Not saying we can never tell stories, but they should be ancillary to the sermon, not central.

Chip,

I was only commenting on your comment about God inspiring stories. I specifically said that part of the comment was not directed at the cowboy church. I don’t know what they do or how they do it, so I can’t comment on that.

[Shaynus] Alex, I don’t equate them. I’m giving a present illustration that may effect more of us than local cowboys. No community is homogeneous in America, and as soon as we say on our church sign that “we are a ________ church” and that _________ isn’t something to do with doctrinal distinctives or focus, then it’s a bad _______.

No where did the article at any place have “white” in view nor did anyone introduce it, you introduced this, hence it is quite present in your mind you have some equation of the two. I believe the implication is present.

But let me be clear about what I was stating since it is difficult for you at the moment. I clearly agree that there are problems with “Cowboy Church” and if you have taken the time to read all my posts the quote by the LCMS is very parallel to what Brenda T. posted so that should be quite clear.

However, in your objection to “Cowboy Church” you made a Biblical unsustainable claim, at least until you can make the case and that was much of what I was responding to regarding your objection which apparently has escaped your notice so let me repost what you said so you may understand what it was I was approaching. Here is your claim post 14:

[Shaynus] The church should be striving to be somewhat diverse, or at least as diverse as it’s neighborhood.

The Bible direct us to present the Gospel and no where, at any place, are we commanded or required to attempt to formulate a congregation that reflects in specific demographic. That is an assumption without theological foundation founded in politically correct philosophy.

I do get the concept of needless barriers, I don’t object to that principle so there is no argument there and never was so you can put your gun away. No one is shooting.

So hopefully you are now clear as to what it was I was responding with regard to your post. Feel free to make your case about the quoted assertion.

No where did the article at any place have “white” in view nor did anyone introduce it, you introduced this, hence it is quite present in your mind you have some equation of the two. I believe the implication is present.

It seems quite obvious that Shane was using an example, such as he did when he said “Take out cowboy and insert young urban hipster” (or whatever the exact quote was). He made it clear that he was switching the referent. He then moved on to a general principle of homogeneity with respect to the gospel built church. There is no reason to think that Shayne was equating the two; that is not a reasonable reading of his post. Furthermore, even if the words might have been read that way (a stretch at best), he has now clarified that he doesn’t equate them, and gracious interaction means that we take his word for it.

Shayne however is absolutely correct about his point. Since the church is made up of people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, since Jew and Gentile are one in the body of Christ, it is entirely biblical to pursue that diversity from the makeup of the community. In fact, failure to pursue people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation is disobedience since the gospel is to be preached to all nations. The principle that stems from that seems to obviously include everyone in the community. So a local church must strive to reach everyone in its community, not just the ones that look like them. A church that has only a single demographic should consider strongly whether or not it is doing something that is creating that or contributing to that. That’s not politically correct. It’s the Great Commission.

[Larry] Since the church is made up of people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, since Jew and Gentile are one in the body of Christ, it is entirely biblical to pursue that diversity from the makeup of the community. In fact, failure to pursue people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation is disobedience since the gospel is to be preached to all nations. The principle that stems from that seems to obviously include everyone in the community. So a local church must strive to reach everyone in its community, not just the ones that look like them. A church that has only a single demographic should consider strongly whether or not it is doing something that is creating that or contributing to that. That’s not politically correct. It’s the Great Commission.

Amen!

[Larry]

No where did the article at any place have “white” in view nor did anyone introduce it, you introduced this, hence it is quite present in your mind you have some equation of the two. I believe the implication is present.

It seems quite obvious that Shane was using an example, such as he did when he said “Take out cowboy and insert young urban hipster” (or whatever the exact quote was). He made it clear that he was switching the referent. He then moved on to a general principle of homogeneity with respect to the gospel built church. There is no reason to think that Shayne was equating the two; that is not a reasonable reading of his post. Furthermore, even if the words might have been read that way (a stretch at best), he has now clarified that he doesn’t equate them, and gracious interaction means that we take his word for it.

Shayne however is absolutely correct about his point. Since the church is made up of people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, since Jew and Gentile are one in the body of Christ, it is entirely biblical to pursue that diversity from the makeup of the community. In fact, failure to pursue people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation is disobedience since the gospel is to be preached to all nations. The principle that stems from that seems to obviously include everyone in the community. So a local church must strive to reach everyone in its community, not just the ones that look like them. A church that has only a single demographic should consider strongly whether or not it is doing something that is creating that or contributing to that. That’s not politically correct. It’s the Great Commission.

Alex, see above. I couldn’t have written a defense of my view any better. No offense, but I think you’re straining at gnats here for no good reason.

Thanks Larry!

Alex,

I think James 2:1-9 speaks directly to this point. While churches are often guilty of respecting people surreptitiously, the Cowboy Church has become blatant in its preferential treatment.

Folks, I realize the reality of the “There is no Jew nor Greek, Bond nor Free” principle. However, I live in an area with many non-English language churches. One cannot be a viable member of these congregations without speaking fluent Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Russian, Romanian, ect. How is this church any different?

[Rob Fall] Folks, I realize the reality of the “There is no Jew nor Greek, Bond nor Free” principle. However, I live in an area with many non-English language churches. One cannot be a viable member of these congregations without speaking fluent Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Russian, Romanian, ect. How is this church any different?

Well, is the language and culture of the modern American cowboy unique enough to require its own church? It may well be, since my perception of the American cowboy is pretty much
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhep5VQkkIng8k3Ro5LckyDGW_OxxR…

[Chip Van Emmerik] Alex,

I think James 2:1-9 speaks directly to this point. While churches are often guilty of respecting people surreptitiously, the Cowboy Church has become blatant in its preferential treatment.

Chip,
I believe I have been quite clear, I am not supporting a cultural orientation, that should be anecdotal.

[Larry]

No where did the article at any place have “white” in view nor did anyone introduce it, you introduced this, hence it is quite present in your mind you have some equation of the two. I believe the implication is present.

It seems quite obvious that Shane was using an example, such as he did when he said “Take out cowboy and insert young urban hipster” (or whatever the exact quote was). He made it clear that he was switching the referent. He then moved on to a general principle of homogeneity with respect to the gospel built church. There is no reason to think that Shayne was equating the two; that is not a reasonable reading of his post. Furthermore, even if the words might have been read that way (a stretch at best), he has now clarified that he doesn’t equate them, and gracious interaction means that we take his word for it.

Shayne however is absolutely correct about his point. Since the church is made up of people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, since Jew and Gentile are one in the body of Christ, it is entirely biblical to pursue that diversity from the makeup of the community. In fact, failure to pursue people from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation is disobedience since the gospel is to be preached to all nations. The principle that stems from that seems to obviously include everyone in the community. So a local church must strive to reach everyone in its community, not just the ones that look like them. A church that has only a single demographic should consider strongly whether or not it is doing something that is creating that or contributing to that. That’s not politically correct. It’s the Great Commission.

Larry,

Well if what you stated represented what Shane asserted with regarding to his “white” reference, it might be worth the response but neither does what you are stating represent Shane’s comment on that nor my own position for that matter. You are confused on both as I see it.

But to the other claim of Shane and once again here is the assertion in question:

The church should be striving to be somewhat diverse, or at least as diverse as it’s neighborhood.

And this is wrong. The church should be striving to witness to everyone without concern for race, ethnicity, and gender and so on. The very consciousness of such demographic factors makes people “striving for diversity” guilty of considering one’s person or as Chip stated, acting surreptitiously. It should be of absolutely no concern what a person’s race, gender, ethnicity or cultural orientation when witnessing.

And this is where you and Shane and those holding to this view err. The Bible does NOT want us to view people as black, white, male, female, hipster or whatever with regard to the gospel and our witness to them, but as lost men and women. So to pursue diversity is to violate this very Biblical standard because it now considers race, gender and so on in witnessing and the growth of the body.

In others words, if our congregation doesn’t “match” the diversity of our community — we determine who we’ll go after with the Gospel based on skin color or social class or whatever? Sorry, that smell test on that fails miserably and instantly.

As to your sermon about preaching to everyone, I have already affirmed this and so you have the wrong audience, I am not contending with that. So I have made my point and will give you whatever last word you need if you need any.

What I’m asking the church to do is to sit there and wonder at the diversity of their church and at least ask the question “does my church match the diversity of my neighborhood.” If it doesn’t in obvious ways, then I would then ask a follow up question: “why?” If the answers to that question are legitimate, then that’s fine. But if the church may be creating intentional social or racial uniformity when the Bible calls us to preach seek every tribe and nation. Do you think Paul didn’t consider culture, social values or

Alex, we are agreed that we should pursue every tribe, nation, people and kindred. But you say “so to pursue diversity is to violate this very Biblical standard because it now considers race, gender and so on in witnessing and the growth of the body.” I’m not saying we should pursue diversity for diversity’s sake. We shouldn’t pursue it like the world as if it were the goal. But I think it’s a leap to claim that all pursuit of diversity is wrong. For example, here’s how it might look. A church might find that a certain practice or emphasis is creating massive homogeneity in their church. Let’s say they emphasize how to shepherd a child’s heart every Sunday. That might be good, but it’s probably an over emphasis that will hurt diversity. Over time, some singles may not feel welcome. They see a good emphasis, but feel like since they don’t have children they’re not included. So for this church to pursue diversity may look like this: talk about child-rearing a lot less and other issues a lot more. Does that make more sense?

Alex, I think you read words like “diversity” and all kinds of bells and whistles go off in your conservative Christian head that don’t necessarily need to go off.