This is the second in the series in CedarCreek trying to answer some vexing questions. I'd written about the first sermon in the series here.
They started by showing a brief tour around the Creation Museum at Cincinnati. In the same way that shadow lets us know about the Sun and the steam (from a kettle) informs us about heat, we must look to see. Sounds familiar? Yes, a mix of creationism and intelligent design. And this way, they changed the question of "Who made God?" to "What God made?" and maintained that we must think about the latter before the former.
And then Pastor Powell, being unhappy with secular humanist thesis of "we came from nothing and go to nothing", proceeded to make the question of "What is the Point of Life?" the main topic. And the major points:
1. Life is Perfect for Eternity (Ecclesiastes 3:11)
2. How do I Prepare?
3. Get to Know God (John 1:12)
4. Become like Christ (Roman 8:29)
5. Practice Service (Ephesians 2:10)
6. Share Life's Points With Other People (2 Corinthians 5:19)
I'm not going to make my blog into a theology blog. Still, I don't find the answer to the original question by listening to the answers to other more important questions. And like the last week service, I was not looking to get an answer for myself. But when I get advertisement for something, I expect to receive exactly that, not a substitute.
Well, actually he did answer the main question: it's not reasonable to speak about creating the uncreated. Fair enough. But if that answer is supposed to convince an atheist, who does not even believe in the existence of God (let alone accepting Him as uncreated), it hardly serves the purpose.
To the sidenotes. There was one interesting ad rolling on the big screens: if you attend the 9:00 am service on Sunday, instead of the noon service (which is the most convenient and hence the most preferred and the most crowded) you could have a chance to win a car. Isn't it cool to see such an ad before a worship service?
And there were some reserved seats in the back, separate from all others, for the junior-high lifegroup. They would enter the auditorium just for the warm-up (prejam) music and the special music. Then, they would leave for they special room.
If all these attractive special groups are meant to accustom younger people to church, wouldn't it be a better idea to include them in the service in whole? After all, a worship service that is dominated by Rock culture shouldn't be so boring to these young fellows. And in my opinion, the sermons given here for grownup people are understandable and appropriate for teenagers as well. So, why should they leave the communal worship place and receive a lighter version of the message in isolation from their families and others? Shouldn't church worship be a familial and communal experience? It appears that I'm siding a little bit with Borgman and his arguments in his Power Failure book.
Before the live broadcast of the sermon, Pastor Bernard (Toledo campus lead pastor) made a couple of announcements. And among them: while a visitor had complained that he comes to church for worship not "free tea", a 5-grader (I'm not sure about the grade) was understanding enough to commend them and send them donations.
Or explaining about rumors such as "CedarCreek people are making money for themselves", "they receive six digit salaries", "Pastor Powell has 2 Jaguars" (the car of course) and alike. He went into great length as to explain that Pastor Powell does not have any Jaguar and his old Ford is so rundown that it makes noises and he didn't remember even seeing a radio or CD-player in it.
Plain and simple, such allegations (that I have read on the net) are mudslinging, probably by people who are not happy with a strong rival snatching their customers in the marketplace of religion. I've had my criticism of their commodification of religion and McDonaldization of religion in my previous posts here and here and also their holding chocolates for kids (lost or not lost) in my first post on CedarCreek. But even as a strong critic of their methods (and also their conservative exclusionary theology under the guise of rock concerts), I find such rumor-spreading abhorrible.
The founders of CedarCreek come from Fortune-500 backgrounds (and it clearly shows in their business oriented corporate church). If they were so desperate for personal gains, why on earth should've they abandoned their promising career (where they could've really made six-digit salaries) just to establish a church?
They started by showing a brief tour around the Creation Museum at Cincinnati. In the same way that shadow lets us know about the Sun and the steam (from a kettle) informs us about heat, we must look to see. Sounds familiar? Yes, a mix of creationism and intelligent design. And this way, they changed the question of "Who made God?" to "What God made?" and maintained that we must think about the latter before the former.
And then Pastor Powell, being unhappy with secular humanist thesis of "we came from nothing and go to nothing", proceeded to make the question of "What is the Point of Life?" the main topic. And the major points:
1. Life is Perfect for Eternity (Ecclesiastes 3:11)
2. How do I Prepare?
3. Get to Know God (John 1:12)
4. Become like Christ (Roman 8:29)
5. Practice Service (Ephesians 2:10)
6. Share Life's Points With Other People (2 Corinthians 5:19)
I'm not going to make my blog into a theology blog. Still, I don't find the answer to the original question by listening to the answers to other more important questions. And like the last week service, I was not looking to get an answer for myself. But when I get advertisement for something, I expect to receive exactly that, not a substitute.
Well, actually he did answer the main question: it's not reasonable to speak about creating the uncreated. Fair enough. But if that answer is supposed to convince an atheist, who does not even believe in the existence of God (let alone accepting Him as uncreated), it hardly serves the purpose.
To the sidenotes. There was one interesting ad rolling on the big screens: if you attend the 9:00 am service on Sunday, instead of the noon service (which is the most convenient and hence the most preferred and the most crowded) you could have a chance to win a car. Isn't it cool to see such an ad before a worship service?
And there were some reserved seats in the back, separate from all others, for the junior-high lifegroup. They would enter the auditorium just for the warm-up (prejam) music and the special music. Then, they would leave for they special room.
If all these attractive special groups are meant to accustom younger people to church, wouldn't it be a better idea to include them in the service in whole? After all, a worship service that is dominated by Rock culture shouldn't be so boring to these young fellows. And in my opinion, the sermons given here for grownup people are understandable and appropriate for teenagers as well. So, why should they leave the communal worship place and receive a lighter version of the message in isolation from their families and others? Shouldn't church worship be a familial and communal experience? It appears that I'm siding a little bit with Borgman and his arguments in his Power Failure book.
Before the live broadcast of the sermon, Pastor Bernard (Toledo campus lead pastor) made a couple of announcements. And among them: while a visitor had complained that he comes to church for worship not "free tea", a 5-grader (I'm not sure about the grade) was understanding enough to commend them and send them donations.
Or explaining about rumors such as "CedarCreek people are making money for themselves", "they receive six digit salaries", "Pastor Powell has 2 Jaguars" (the car of course) and alike. He went into great length as to explain that Pastor Powell does not have any Jaguar and his old Ford is so rundown that it makes noises and he didn't remember even seeing a radio or CD-player in it.
Plain and simple, such allegations (that I have read on the net) are mudslinging, probably by people who are not happy with a strong rival snatching their customers in the marketplace of religion. I've had my criticism of their commodification of religion and McDonaldization of religion in my previous posts here and here and also their holding chocolates for kids (lost or not lost) in my first post on CedarCreek. But even as a strong critic of their methods (and also their conservative exclusionary theology under the guise of rock concerts), I find such rumor-spreading abhorrible.
The founders of CedarCreek come from Fortune-500 backgrounds (and it clearly shows in their business oriented corporate church). If they were so desperate for personal gains, why on earth should've they abandoned their promising career (where they could've really made six-digit salaries) just to establish a church?
No comments:
Post a Comment