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

Folks forget there were and are Black, Hispanic and Native American cowboys. Ever been to a PRCA sanctioned rodeo?

Don’t forget the cowGIRLS!

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.

Alex,

I don’t have a lot of time for this, but I will just respond quickly here. I think you need to look at what was actually said.,

Shayne say “take out … and insert …” (post #14). That is the language of substitution (which is change), not equation (which is identity). He is pointing out that if we said the same thing about something different (notice that, something different), the response would be different.

Shayne also said, “Alex, I don’t equate them. I’m giving a present illustration that may effect more of us than local cowboys” (post #26). So in direct response to your assertion that he is equating them, he say, “I don’t equate them.” Is he lying? Or are you wrong? Will you give him the prerogative to tell you what he meant?

And in case you missed it, Shayne said I made his case well. It may be that he was referring only to the diversity comment, but who knows. He at least seems to think I understood his point, while thinking you didn’t.

Bottom line: Shayne says you are wrong about what he said. Why not simply admit you misread it instead of doubling down on this mistake?

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.

This is completely contradictory. You cannot assert that Shayne and I are wrong while at the same time affirming what Shayne and I said. If you think that the church should “be striving to witness to everyone without concern for race, ethnicity, and gender and so on,” then you are affirming the pursuit of diversity. You don’t try to reach only those who look like you (cowboys, urban hipsters, white young couple with children, etc.). If you do not think that a should should pursue diversity than you cannot say that the church “should be striving to witness to everyone without concern for race, ethnicity, and gender and so on.”

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.

You apparently have a pretty divergent view of diversity. The pursuit of diversity in church means that we do not pick based on race, gender, etc. We pursue all who are in our community. That is diversity.

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?

Nope, not at all. I have never seen anyone use that definition of pursuing diversity. Pursuing diversity means that we do not limit our pursuit based on these categories. We pursue them all.

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.

You have presented contradictory views. You cannot be for preaching the gospel to everyone and against pursuing diversity. They are one and the same.

Yeah, gotta have barrel racing.

[Shaynus] Don’t forget the cowGIRLS!

[Shaynus]
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.

Shane,

You are right about “diversity bells” and for good reason in my view but bells going off don’t require conclusions and you have explained yourself, I believe, in a manner rather distinct from the original premise. The Bible does not require diversity in results, only in allowance. That is, as long as we are being as inclusive as possible and not seeking to exclude anyone or create unfriendly environments, what results isn’t always going to be the same, even in neighborhoods were the population may be demographically diverse with regard to race and ethnicity.

And so I do agree that we do not want to create an environment, again as Chip noted, that surreptitiously excludes others.

But I would always stop short of feeling that if a church is homogeneous to a large degree, say ethnically, that it would be a de facto failure to be inclusive in polity and practice. So as a rule I believe such a premise cannot be prescriptive though in some cases it may be found to be true. Thanks for your clarity on the matter.

Alex,

I agree that the diversity we seek will not always be achived, but that could be for reasons outside the church’s control. That’s why I always used words like this:

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

To which you said:

The Bible makes no such command or implies no such standard. Now, Cowboy Church maybe have its problems but it seems to me your responding prescription fails just as easily.

I’m just saying that it does at least imply the goal of diversity, or at least that there would be no barriers to a diverse congregation. What I mean by “striving for” diversity is to search for ways that we have unnecessary barriers for people to come and understand. I think you agree with that.

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.

You made a seriously flawed assumption about what I meant. In the future, if you could read tons into what I say a little less easily, I would appreciate it. You say

You are right about “diversity bells” and for good reason in my view but bells going off don’t require conclusions and you have explained yourself, I believe, in a manner rather distinct from the original premise. The Bible does not require diversity in results, only in allowance.

I used the word “striving” very carefully. For a church to strive towards diversity implies that results may not occur. How is what I said later in this thread different from my original premise? At this point I don’t care as much about the original issue as much as the time wasted by Larry and myself defending ourselves against hasty generalizations made by you against my original premise. To claim that I argued later differently than I did in the beginning, is ridiculous.

But I would always stop short of feeling that if a church is homogeneous to a large degree, say ethnically, that it would be a de facto failure to be inclusive in polity and practice. So as a rule I believe such a premise cannot be prescriptive though in some cases it may be found to be true. Thanks for your clarity on the matter.

I’m not saying it’s a de facto failure. But wouldn’t you say it’s much more likely that a 100% white church in the middle of a diverse neighborhood has some blindnesses to how they come across to their neighbors? Isn’t it possible that it’s at least more likely that they’re not really going into all the neighborhoods they should? I would say (not as a biblical rule, but as a matter of wisdom) that when a church does look like it’s neighborhood, it’s probably doing something more right than if there are huge differences between the church and the neighborhood. An extreme lack of diversity could be a warning sign, or it could mean that the community is in sin for racism, classism or social bias. All I’m saying is: let’s strive to be diverse like Paul. He was all things to all men that he might save some. That’s a biblical attitude that’s going to work itself out personally and corporately in a church setting. You probably agree with much of what I just said, but frankly I think you’ve been pretty nit-picky and over the top in the way you’ve pushed back in this thread.

Best,

Shayne

[Shaynus]
I’m just saying that it does at least imply the goal of diversity, or at least that there would be no barriers to a diverse congregation. What I mean by “striving for” diversity is to search for ways that we have unnecessary barriers for people to come and understand. I think you agree with that.

To state that the Bible implies a goal of diversity or that we should strive for it and then to say striving simply means removing unnecessary barriers is to attaching a false meaning to your category because it is an incomplete meaning.

In other words, when you refer to “the goal of diversity” or “striving for diversity” it cannot mean, simply because you wish it to mean, removing unnecessary barriers. That isn’t striving for diversity, that is removing unnecessary barriers. To strive for diversity means to actively recruit people based on unbiblical considerations. Removing unnecessary barriers is a passive work that allows whatever results come as they may. But to strive for diversity means to attempt to actively control those results. I understand you mean one thing but you are saying another thing with a different meaning when you use the terms “strive for diversity” or the “goal of diversity”.

Here is an elementary example:

It is Halloween and we put candy out and remove all barriers so whoever wishes to have candy may without consideration as to who is getting it and who is not. That is not striving for anything, that is allowing whoever wishes to respond to the offer. But to strive for results of a certain kind (that is the goal of diversity, not just whomever but categorizing people and considering their person such as race and so on strictly forbidden in the Bible) of people means to actively prefer one over the other in recruiting candy takers. So, no matter how much you wish “striving” or “goals” to mean something passive such as simply removing barriers, they do not.

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.

[Shaynus] You made a seriously flawed assumption about what I meant. In the future, if you could read tons into what I say a little less easily, I would appreciate it.

No, I did not flaw in what you said when I took your words as they were stated. You asserted the church is required to have diversity, it is not. Now, later you attempted to clarify that the words you used had different meaning than they did as you stated them but that was not my fault for reading them both with their normal definitions and their grammatical structure in the appropriate manner. Rather, it was your choice of terms which communicated something other than what you had in mind. But again, you have clarified yourself and now I understand what you wished to have said.

[Shaynus] I used the word “striving” very carefully. For a church to strive towards diversity implies that results may not occur. How is what I said later in this thread different from my original premise? At this point I don’t care as much about the original issue as much as the time wasted by Larry and myself defending ourselves against hasty generalizations made by you against my original premise. To claim that I argued later differently than I did in the beginning, is ridiculous.

Well, if you believe you have wasted time that is your fault, not mine. No one is forcing you to respond. And the original issue may not be important because to stay on your original assertion is to stay in a context of flawed articulation, I don’t blame you for preferring to move to your clarification.

Yet, still, you err. No where in Scripture is the church directly or by implication commanded toward diversity as results, it is a false measure not supported in Scripture. Congregational demographics is always an anecdotal issue with respect to us humans and Christ’s church. The Scriptures only direct us to strive toward “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel”. As long as this is being done the demographics of a church are irrelevant.

But I would always stop short of feeling that if a church is homogeneous to a large degree, say ethnically, that it would be a de facto failure to be inclusive in polity and practice. So as a rule I believe such a premise cannot be prescriptive though in some cases it may be found to be true. Thanks for your clarity on the matter.

[Shaynus] I’m not saying it’s a de facto failure. But wouldn’t you say it’s much more likely that a 100% white church in the middle of a diverse neighborhood has some blindnesses to how they come across to their neighbors?

If you feel safe making such assumptions, fine, that is your business. I feel compelled by the Scripture, “Judge not according to appearance but judged righteous judgment” (John 7:24). So such assumptions, to me, begin with unwarranted damages even if they are found to be untrue. We aren’t warranted to begin with such prejudices.

[Shaynus] You probably agree with much of what I just said, but frankly I think you’ve been pretty nit-picky and over the top in the way you’ve pushed back in this thread.

Well thank goodness you haven’t been nit picky in least and no doubt we are finished with our exchanges on the matter seeing you have declared it a waste of your time so I won’t look for any rebuttal. :)

To state that the Bible implies a goal of diversity or that we should strive for it and then to say striving simply means removing unnecessary barriers is to attaching a false meaning to your category because it is an incomplete meaning.

In other words, when you refer to “the goal of diversity” or “striving for diversity” it cannot mean, simply because you wish it to mean, removing unnecessary barriers. That isn’t striving for diversity, that is removing unnecessary barriers. To strive for diversity means to actively recruit people based on unbiblical considerations. Removing unnecessary barriers is a passive work that allows whatever results come as they may. But to strive for diversity means to attempt to actively control those results. I understand you mean one thing but you are saying another thing with a different meaning when you use the terms “strive for diversity” or the “goal of diversity”.

What a ridiculous straining at gnats. How exasperating. It looks like you’re fine with defining your own terms, but you won’t let me do the same. Where is the dictionary definition of “striving for diversity?” Is Alex Guggenheim the sole proprietor of the term? I believe I can say what I mean about it. Why in the world am I forced into your definition of “striving for diversity?” You have your own assumptions about terms. In forums we should be really trying to learn what each other means by what we’re saying, then judging the rightness or wrongness of the idea. Instead you launch into attacks about an idea being biblical or not, without first asking if you understand. It seems to me that you’re more interested in doing wordplay than engaging on the ideas. That’s why it’s a waste of time to engage with you.

You can say what you wish about the words you use but generally most people learn the word meanings and then abide by them when communicating instead of using words and then demanding their meaning change based on how they wish them to be understood.

You aren’t the first person I have encountered who wishes to either reduce word meanings or change them altogether in order to make an argument. So, now, back to the topic, eh? I mean, you have wasted yet more time again. :)

Alex, one of the first rules of effective discourse is that you recognize that people know best what their own views are. It’s also long established practice that for the purposes of argument, each party is free to stipulate what it means by the terms it uses.

It’s the only way to make the debate about the real points of disagreement rather than who has a “correct” definition of some term.

As long as either party insists he knows best what the other’s position is, that party is really only debating with himself.
It’s pretty pointless.

Aaron,

Well it seems to me that maybe you taking your own advice here might be a good idea. I never told someone what their views are, I told them what the words they used communicated though they had something else in mind. And after they explained their intent I accepted it thought I did not accept the claim that their initial words communicated otherwise. There is a difference. And that is my view.

So no one is insisting on knowing anyone’s position better than the author, rather the initial choice of words and the subsequent need of its author to clarify them since they did not accurately represent what he intended to say is what was at issue.

But I am not sure what you believe your ending post (which is a week after the last post) is suppose to do for enhancing the communication here, it seems to me to be a rather pointless and posturing jab that misses the nature of the disagreement in the first place.

Of course, Alex.

Alex,

I would take your point if we were talking about denotative language where you could point back to a dictionary. But we were talking about the connotation of a phrase. You can’t speak with absolutes about connotative language. You can only say what that phrase means in your experience, so you can’t rightly accuse me of “[reducing] reduce word meanings or change them altogether in order to make an argument.” That’s what’s going too far.

Shayne

Shane,

Every word has a denotation or explicit meaning. Words that are connotative are not without the denotative meaning, words are not “either” denotative or connotative. Words are always denotative but sometimes also connotative, that is they possesses additional properties which are meant to be identified in certain contextual uses.

To “strive for diversity” is rather denotative. One might add that there is a connotation that does not describe the “striving” but the denotative meaning of “strive” does not disappear and that meaning is fundamentally is “to put effort toward”; that property does not change.

So to the OP, no one should be striving for any certain demographic, rather striving to bring the gospel to all men. How that impacts a local church’s identification or a fellowship of church’s identification, particularly when using the expression, “Cowboy churches” is a worthwhile consideration.

I am of the opinion that those in these geographical locations understand its use is descriptive, as one of the articles states:

of a fast-growing network of churches that often meets in arenas to listen to preachers on horseback and has links to the cowboy culture.

The latter part, “links to the cowboy culture”, though, concerns me and I believe needs to be understood. Human culture should be anecdotal in a congregation. That is, it serves the gospel community and not the gospel community serving it. If I go to Mexico and go to a faithful Christian church, no doubt I will find that church existing in a setting of Mexican culture such as the food being eaten, the instruments used to play and sing sacred music, the clothing worn and so on.

However, the primary culture should be Christ and Christ alone. The Mexican church should see all of its members, not as Mexican but as Christian brothers and sisters with race and culture being anecdotal. And apart from providential language barriers, if they are faithfully teaching God’s Word I should be just as at home there as I am in my home church because it is a spiritual setting with spiritual teaching and spiritual emphasis and edification.

My social comfort and any awkwardness is irrelevant to my spiritual needs and endeavors. I should not care about the cultural setting of a local church, rather its spiritual setting. Unfortunately this emphasis on human culture has been permitted, by conservative Evangelicals and even some Fundamentalists, to be elevated beyond its anecdotal role.

So, if the cowboy church is simply wanting people to understand that the cowboy culture is anecdotal but still inform people that this is the setting so visitors won’t be caught off guard, fine. But I do believe that there is a very real danger of such churches coming to the point of elevating this cowboy culture higher than it should be and believing that the culture is primary and not anecdotal. I believe this, not because “cowboy culture” is inherently this way, that is it will dominate the spiritual culture or church culture, but because it happens within every culture where the leaders lose sight that the culture of the church revolves around Christ. Christ is the tribe and colors, Christ is the language and Christ is the cause for spiritual unity and fellowship with one another.

If it is denotative, please point me to an agreed upon definition, other than by Alex.