Comments on: Book Review: The Out of Bounds Church? By Steve Taylor

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 18 May 2005 06:05:22 +0000

thanks. I have noted this review in my blog (www.outofboundschurch.org), and also responded to some of the comments you make. I appreciate the review and your generous comments and welcome the chance to dialogue if you have the time. steve http://www.emergentkiwi.org.nz

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 May 2005 22:41:04 +0000

Andrew,
I actually bumped it up in my reading list due to your recommendation, though I thought you'd have more comments in it.
I'm still figuring out what exactly everyone's meaning when they say “missional,” but I did like the way Ryan Bolger presented it last Friday. I don't think I have a problem agreeing with you that we must at least be missional.
Thanks for the comment

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 May 2005 19:31:42 +0000

aha . . you see . .. i told everyone it was a really good book
steve and myself, apart from both being kiwis and both having bad hairstyles, both believe we must be missional before being emergent . . and if necessary . . . just missional.
its a book that is worthwhile buying, and i dont say that often. it sits on my shelf and its a good one to give to people.
thanks for your fair [agreeable] review

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 13 May 2005 02:37:06 +0000

Of course the review only scratches the surface. As I read the things taking place in EC regarding art in worship, much of it seemed like it would distract from God instead of point towards Him. What I'm suggesting is that we don't just write art and drama off as bad, but perhaps we engage more on a point by point basis. I think it's plausible that drama and dance were elements of the early church assemblies (I still haven't had time to read my 'worship in the early church' books), but I doubt they would have had dances that were the same that took place in pagan temples.
In the book, DJ-ing is mentioned quite a bit. Personally, I prefer old hyms. But I can see where some people find it easier to worship to the style of a DJ. What matters whether it's music, art, drama, etc. is not so much the style, but the content, and in some cases the context in which it takes place.
One example of where I think it the context is inappropriate appears on page 120. “I attended an alternative worship service in the UK on Trinity Sunday, 2001. Participants were asked to make friendship bracelets by weaving three threads together into a bracelet to remind them of the triune God. It was a superb example of takeaway spirituality, a pause in which participants might weave textures of the worship experience into their lives.” I'm quite clueless on how making a bracelet can “weave textures of the worship experience into their lives.” It seems to me that if we want to worship a triune God the best thing to do is to pursue Him with heart and mind, not make bracelets.
Something John Mark Reynolds talks about that I agree with is encouraging the artists in our congregations. This doesn't mean we love everything they do. 98% of it will probably stink, and we should tell them as much so they can improve (is most Thomas Kinkade's stuff really that good?). Every once in awhile art will be produced that will inspire, enlighten, and capture our hearts in a way that points toward God. That seems very worthwhile to me.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 13 May 2005 01:26:21 +0000

I am not totally opposed to “art” in worship, but where do we draw the line? Does the line depend upon cultural considerations? And the age-old question: what about drama?
Just want to hear your take Murdock.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 12 May 2005 16:53:11 +0000

As a footnote, the author, Steve Taylor, blogs at http://www.emergentkiwi.org.nz and has a blog spefically for his book at http://www.outofboundschurch.org