Is that a Christian message?

[JesusYeshuaisLord]

Hi,

This is an intro to the sermon for this week in my church:

“We live in a dualistic system of reward and punishment” (Richard Rohr) where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! This approach to people and to life makes perfect sense to the ego! And it can’t help but position God as the ultimate punisher! But what if there is a different way to view people, to view life, to view God?

I feel like this is a statement from a seeker-sensitive perspective.

Is the statement where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! really dualistic? I mean if something is good then the opposite is bad. When God says something is good then it's good, it can't be bad or half bad and half good. I mean the terms are self explanatory, aren't they?

Plus, God saves but God also has to punish and He will, He said so and did so many times before.

I feel like my church is trying to dilute the gospel in a way so it would be pleasing to godless people. How to deal with this? What to do?

 

[JackRT]

It is comforting to think of our moral decisions in black and white (dualistic) terms but the actuality of things is that a great many of our moral and ethical decisions are in shades of grey.

 

[Randy777]

Hi,

This is an intro to the sermon for this week in my church:

“We live in a dualistic system of reward and punishment” (Richard Rohr) where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! This approach to people and to life makes perfect sense to the ego! And it can’t help but position God as the ultimate punisher! But what if there is a different way to view people, to view life, to view God?

I feel like this is a statement from a seeker-sensitive perspective.

Is the statement where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! really dualistic? I mean if something is good then the opposite is bad. When God says something is good then it's good, it can't be bad or half bad and half good. I mean the terms are self explanatory, aren't they?

Plus, God saves but God also has to punish and He will, He said so and did so many times before.

I feel like my church is trying to dilute the gospel in a way so it would be pleasing to godless people. How to deal with this? What to do?

God does make a distinction between the righteous and unrighteous and neither heritage or ones body size or looks is in that distinction.. Man may include such things but God knows our hearts and innermost thoughts.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hi,

This is an intro to the sermon for this week in my church:

“We live in a dualistic system of reward and punishment” (Richard Rohr) where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! This approach to people and to life makes perfect sense to the ego! And it can’t help but position God as the ultimate punisher! But what if there is a different way to view people, to view life, to view God?

I feel like this is a statement from a seeker-sensitive perspective.

Is the statement where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! really dualistic? I mean if something is good then the opposite is bad. When God says something is good then it's good, it can't be bad or half bad and half good. I mean the terms are self explanatory, aren't they?

Plus, God saves but God also has to punish and He will, He said so and did so many times before.

I feel like my church is trying to dilute the gospel in a way so it would be pleasing to godless people. How to deal with this? What to do?

The intro isn't enough. That could go in several directions - at least a couple of good ones and potentially some very bad ones as well.

It's not very encouraging that they focus on physical aspects unless they are teaching babes in the faith.

But basically it's difficult to give a good answer based only on that.

Is this some kind of "teaser" intro meant to get folks interested and bring them to Church to hear the rest? That kind of focus on "marketing" is not very encouraging either, IMO. If that's what it is.

 

[Ken Rank]

Hi,

This is an intro to the sermon for this week in my church:

“We live in a dualistic system of reward and punishment” (Richard Rohr) where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! This approach to people and to life makes perfect sense to the ego! And it can’t help but position God as the ultimate punisher! But what if there is a different way to view people, to view life, to view God?

I feel like this is a statement from a seeker-sensitive perspective.

Is the statement where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! really dualistic? I mean if something is good then the opposite is bad. When God says something is good then it's good, it can't be bad or half bad and half good. I mean the terms are self explanatory, aren't they?

Plus, God saves but God also has to punish and He will, He said so and did so many times before.

I feel like my church is trying to dilute the gospel in a way so it would be pleasing to godless people. How to deal with this? What to do?

My main concern is simply that he gives only 2 answers... and sometimes the answer will come from a 3rd or 4th or 10th source. In fact, we are so polarized today because people only see up or down, black or white, etc. It really is not a mindset that allows us to prove all things.

 

[JesusYeshuaisLord]

The intro isn't enough. That could go in several directions - at least a couple of good ones and potentially some very bad ones as well.

It's not very encouraging that they focus on physical aspects unless they are teaching babes in the faith.

But basically it's difficult to give a good answer based only on that.

Is this some kind of "teaser" intro meant to get folks interested and bring them to Church to hear the rest? That kind of focus on "marketing" is not very encouraging either, IMO. If that's what it is.

It does look like they do teach babes in the faith most of the times. They are big on community outreach.

I get that in my newsletter so I guess that would reach mostly church goers.

 

[JesusYeshuaisLord]

Thanks everyone for your views. I shall listen to the sermon and see the conclusion/message that is given

 

[aiki]

“We live in a dualistic system of reward and punishment” (Richard Rohr) where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! This approach to people and to life makes perfect sense to the ego!

Reality is a system? 'Cause that what's being described. There are fat and thin people; there are things that are right and things that are wrong; there are short folk and tall. These don't cover the full spectrum of possibilities between opposites, however. And I don't see how acknowledging that there are a variety of opposites observable in reality is an appeal to one's ego. I suppose it's just the speaker's way of dialing in on his topic. I get a little suspicious, though, when someone's trying to make a case for something by setting it in broad generalities.

And it can’t help but position God as the ultimate punisher! But what if there is a different way to view people, to view life, to view God?

God is the Ultimate Punisher. He isn't only this, of course, but there is no reason not to acknowledge that He is going to punish the wicked eternally in Hell. This is an essential aspect of the Gospel.

I feel like this is a statement from a seeker-sensitive perspective.

It certainly seems to be a "milky" (as opposed to meaty) approach to a sermon.

I feel like my church is trying to dilute the gospel in a way so it would be pleasing to godless people. How to deal with this? What to do?

If the leadership at the church is determined to go the seeker-sensitive route, there's little you can do. Certainly, you ought to register with the leadership what you think of this approach to church services. And pray. And work in the church among its members as you can to resist the compromises of this foolish and unbiblical church model. If this doesn't work for you, then I guess you ought to pull up stakes and find another more biblical community of believers to be a part of.

 

[Andrew77]

Hi,

This is an intro to the sermon for this week in my church:

“We live in a dualistic system of reward and punishment” (Richard Rohr) where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! This approach to people and to life makes perfect sense to the ego! And it can’t help but position God as the ultimate punisher! But what if there is a different way to view people, to view life, to view God?

I feel like this is a statement from a seeker-sensitive perspective.

Is the statement where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! really dualistic? I mean if something is good then the opposite is bad. When God says something is good then it's good, it can't be bad or half bad and half good. I mean the terms are self explanatory, aren't they?

Plus, God saves but God also has to punish and He will, He said so and did so many times before.

I feel like my church is trying to dilute the gospel in a way so it would be pleasing to godless people. How to deal with this? What to do?

I would agree with ~Anastasia~ on this.

There is not enough information from what you posted, to make a conclusion.

From the intro you gave, there could be two different directions to go with that.

We realize that we as humans, are flawed, and in dealing with other flawed humans, we have to have a level of 'adaptation'.

Even though I am a free man with no master, I have become a slave to all people to bring many to Christ. When I was with the Jews, I lived like a Jew to bring the Jews to Christ. When I was with those who follow the Jewish law, I too lived under that law. Even though I am not subject to the law, I did this so I could bring to Christ those who are under the law. When I am with the Gentiles who do not follow the Jewish law, I too live apart from that law so I can bring them to Christ. But I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ.​

So from 1 Cor 9, we can see that Paul is saying that when he is with Jews he lives like Jews, and when he is with Gentiles, he lives like Gentiles.

A duelist would say X way is right, Z way is bad. I'm not going to live like Z because that's wrong, and I'll always live like X.

And then a Christian woman duelist would go to the middle east without her bust and head covered, and end up stoned to death. Right? Because our way is right, and their way is wrong.

Now if your pastor was meaning that duelism is not good in this context... then he is correct. We as a Christian people, have got to stop trying to tell pagans that do not know G-d, that everything they are doing isn't the "proper way".

However..........................

If he means that dualism is wrong in regard to basic fundamental morality and our religious faith, then you may have a point. Because if you really think about it..... Jesus Christ our Lord, was the ultimate duelist.

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
-Jesus the one and only Lord.
​

Right? Pretty duelistic I think. Either my way.... or no way. Right, or wrong. Inside, or outside.

If that is what he is saying we need to stop doing, then that would place him against G-d himself. I would change churches. Of course only you know how the rest of that sermon went. So I don't know.

 

[Inkfingers]

Hi,

This is an intro to the sermon for this week in my church:

“We live in a dualistic system of reward and punishment” (Richard Rohr) where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! This approach to people and to life makes perfect sense to the ego! And it can’t help but position God as the ultimate punisher! But what if there is a different way to view people, to view life, to view God?

I feel like this is a statement from a seeker-sensitive perspective.

Is the statement where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! really dualistic? I mean if something is good then the opposite is bad. When God says something is good then it's good, it can't be bad or half bad and half good. I mean the terms are self explanatory, aren't they?

Plus, God saves but God also has to punish and He will, He said so and did so many times before.

I feel like my church is trying to dilute the gospel in a way so it would be pleasing to godless people. How to deal with this? What to do?

I suppose it comes down to the line where nuance becomes postmodern relativism...

 

[JesusYeshuaisLord]

Of course only you know how the rest of that sermon went. So I don't know.

The sermon is this weekend. I'll have your comments in mind

 

[mkgal1]

Is the statement where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! really dualistic? I mean if something is good then the opposite is bad.

Yes, that's exactly what "dualistic" is....when there's only two options.

The dualistic mind is essentially binary, either/or thinking. It knows by comparison, opposition, and differentiation. It uses descriptive words like good/evil, pretty/ugly, smart/stupid, not realizing there may be a hundred degrees between the two ends of each spectrum. Dualistic thinking works well for the sake of simplification and conversation, but not for the sake of truth or the immense subtlety of actual personal experience. Most of us settle for quick and easy answers instead of any deep perception, which we leave to poets, philosophers, and prophets. Yet depth and breadth of perception should be the primary arena for all authentic religion. How else could we possibly search for God?

We do need the dualistic mind to function in practical life, however, and to do our work as a teacher, a nurse, a scientist, or an engineer. It’s helpful and fully necessary as far as it goes, but it just doesn’t go far enough. The dualistic mind cannot process things like infinity, mystery, God, grace, suffering, sexuality, death, or love; this is exactly why most people stumble over these very issues. The dualistic mind pulls everything down into some kind of tit-for-tat system of false choices and too-simple contraries, which is largely what “fast food religion” teaches, usually without even knowing it.~https://cac.org/the-dualistic-mind-2017-01-29/

 

[akaDaScribe]

Hi,

This is an intro to the sermon for this week in my church:

“We live in a dualistic system of reward and punishment” (Richard Rohr) where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! This approach to people and to life makes perfect sense to the ego! And it can’t help but position God as the ultimate punisher! But what if there is a different way to view people, to view life, to view God?

I feel like this is a statement from a seeker-sensitive perspective.

Is the statement where people are either right or wrong, good or bad, short or tall, fat or thin! really dualistic? I mean if something is good then the opposite is bad. When God says something is good then it's good, it can't be bad or half bad and half good. I mean the terms are self explanatory, aren't they?

Plus, God saves but God also has to punish and He will, He said so and did so many times before.

I feel like my church is trying to dilute the gospel in a way so it would be pleasing to godless people. How to deal with this? What to do?

What did the preacher say beyond that?
Like where did the preacher go with it?

 

[JackRT]

Yes, that's exactly what "dualistic" is....when there's only two options.

The problem with dualism is that there are very few things that are exact opposites. People are not either tall or short but there is a complete range of people between the tallest and the shortest. The same holds for almost every other category that we can think of ---- good/evil, beautiful/ugly, male/female, ....

 

[JesusYeshuaisLord]

Yes, that's exactly what "dualistic" is....when there's only two options.

​

Hi Thanks! I think I was more thinking that God's truth and word is always absolute, so there is always going to be something good or evil. He won't call something good, evil and will not call something evil, good.

Like Joseph told his brothers "you meant it for evil but God meant it for good" he essentially called their deed evil but God brought forth something good out of it.

 

[mkgal1]

Rohr often mentions the need for us to embrace paradoxes (not absolutes). I was just reading reviews for a book (not even related to Rohr's writing specifically) but this comment seems relevant to this discussion:

"The great spiritual writers knew that truth can be found most often in paradoxes and contradictions. To find light you must go through darkness. To seek knowledge you must admit that you know little. To live you must die to self." ~ James Martin, SJ, author of Jesus: A Pilgrimage​

Most likely, that's the direction this upcoming sermon will go (if it's going to follow the premise of Richard Rohr's quote that was used as the "teaser"). And, yes, it's most definitely a Christian message.

​

 

[JesusYeshuaisLord]

So after hearing the entire sermon, I'll try to write about what was said (this is numbered), what I heard and how I feel about it (in italics), so you get a complete picture of it all.
I might sound judgemental in my opinions which I write below, but this is my sincere opinion. I want to be transparent in my interpretation of it. And if I lack grace, I pray that God would reveal to me that I need to show grace.

1) Singers sang 'The Climb' from Miley Cyrus. Pastor said it illustrates this sermon series very well. The pastor tried to find the music so they could play it at church so they ended up getting in touch with the producer of the song who sent them the arrangement for the piano. The producer said he was a christian too and believes God gave him the notes for the song.

My opinion: That didn't sit well with me as I don't understand why we should sing secular song in church even if it illustrates some points of the message. Especially a Miley Cyrus song.
I also don't want to go to church and have to listen to a secular song again when all I hear during the week all around me are those.

2) Pastor asked if we enjoyed the song. Don't think any one said yes or no. So he said ''some people might be scared to say what they like, good thing we are talking about egos.''

My opinion: I took it that he kind of alluded that if we didn't like the song it was probably because of our ego. There could be another reason. For example, that you don't agree with the message of the song. For example, that the song says that it's not about where you end up but how you experience the present moment. I personally think Jesus would say that what is important is the present moment, what you do, how you do it and where you end up.

3) Pastor said that the climb is about the journey and that it's a downward climb (in the sense of less of me more of others and God).

4) Pastor started talking about the ego and basically said "the ego makes you compare and measure yourself to others". And that "the ego wants an upward climb.
Ego wants to fill the space that is meant for God, with itself."

My opinion: I can agree with that.

5) "The ego is always in pain. If there is something wrong inside of you it's not you, it's your ego. There's nothing wrong with you , God loves you but there is something wrong with your ego."

My opinion: That can be debated still.

6) "If you are easily offended, it's not you, it's your ego".

7) He read the lyrics of the song. Then proceeded to show us how/why we are not breaking, "through the word of God". Wants us to discover that "we are not our ego."

8) He proceeded with telling us how he got the music (from the music producer (he apparently produced for beyonce and all these hollywood artists), i assume he is from hollywood, i don't know..), The story seems like a miracle from God.
Then He said "we did all that because we wanted you to be blessed."

My opinion: A psalm would have really blessed me more than a miley cyrus song. I just want to make sure that the song and the way they got the song is from God and not a lie of the devil to get into our church.

9) - After talking about some of his life experiences, pastor adds: "The ego is never satisfied by our performance". So then he talks about how we don't want to associate with this or that person because of our egos. I guess at that point it's a criticism of sometimes as christians or people we might be judgemental and fail to see the person but only the acts and lifestyles of people and ourselves.
- Then talks about Paul "reached the point where he doesn't think about himself anymore whether he does something good or whether he does something bad. He doesn't connect it to himself".
- Also sites CS Lewis "because the essence of gospel humility is not thinking more or less of myself, it's thinking of myself less."
- Goes back to Paul in Ephesians who says that "we are blessed, adopted, redeemed, forgiven, included, marked, sealed and made alive." Pastor asks if the people feel alive and adds "we can play the game with joy and life because the battle has already been won, that's the gospel truth"

My opinion: I see where he is going but I understand that that might not be the whole truth. This truth sound self-centred to me. The Gospel truth for me is more that Jesus made himself a servent and saved believers through his death and resurrection for the Glory of God. Now I'm not saying that that's not what the pastor believe, I'm just saying that's what I heard him not say in the above message.

10) Then he spoke of an experience that happened to him recently which got him to pray to Jesus that he was tired of trying but that he wanted to go home to Jesus and feel him again like he did once before. He did say that he prays a lot for others but that he forgot to pray about his relationship with Jesus.

11) Pastor showed a picture of how he sees going home to God is like: That was a picture of Jesus hugging a joyful child.

My opinion on the whole sermon: I guess the message was 'Know who you are in Jesus and you'll make it' or something like that. I guess I'm actually confused about what the message was...Maybe it was about stopping to try to be good. I found that the message was more about the self than Jesus and God even though what he wanted to convey for a death to self. Maybe the song didn't set my mind up to understand the message? I was annoyed that the song was sung and couldn't move past it.
I was so hung up on it because I've been struggling during the week with the news, films, music and what is going on in real life (like I said in my intro post in the introduce yourself forum). I feel like this world is so unholy that when I go to church I want to go to a holy place where I get good and clear spiritual food. I want to go to church not to be all emotional and dealing with what and how I feel (like in the everyday) but to be told about an amazing God and saviour. I want to go to church and contemplate his glory! And read about what He did.

Hopefully the way I laid it out is not confusing and that i conveyed the main ideas correctly. Opinions and comments more than welcome. Thanks for reading!

 

[~Anastasia~]

So after hearing the entire sermon, I'll try to write about what was said (this is numbered), what I heard and how I feel about it (in italics), so you get a complete picture of it all.
I might sound judgemental in my opinions which I write below, but this is my sincere opinion. I want to be transparent in my interpretation of it. And if I lack grace, I pray that God would reveal to me that I need to show grace.

1) Singers sang 'The Climb' from Miley Cyrus. Pastor said it illustrates this sermon series very well. The pastor tried to find the music so they could play it at church so they ended up getting in touch with the producer of the song who sent them the arrangement for the piano. The producer said he was a christian too and believes God gave him the notes for the song.

My opinion: That didn't sit well with me as I don't understand why we should sing secular song in church even if it illustrates some points of the message. Especially a Miley Cyrus song.
I also don't want to go to church and have to listen to a secular song again when all I hear during the week all around me are those.

2) Pastor asked if we enjoyed the song. Don't think any one said yes or no. So he said ''some people might be scared to say what they like, good thing we are talking about egos.''

My opinion: I took it that he kind of alluded that if we didn't like the song it was probably because of our ego. There could be another reason. For example, that you don't agree with the message of the song. For example, that the song says that it's not about where you end up but how you experience the present moment. I personally think Jesus would say that what is important is the present moment, what you do, how you do it and where you end up.

3) Pastor said that the climb is about the journey and that it's a downward climb (in the sense of less of me more of others and God).

4) Pastor started talking about the ego and basically said "the ego makes you compare and measure yourself to others". And that "the ego wants an upward climb.
Ego wants to fill the space that is meant for God, with itself."

My opinion: I can agree with that.

5) "The ego is always in pain. If there is something wrong inside of you it's not you, it's your ego. There's nothing wrong with you , God loves you but there is something wrong with your ego."

My opinion: That can be debated still.

6) "If you are easily offended, it's not you, it's your ego".

7) He read the lyrics of the song. Then proceeded to show us how/why we are not breaking, "through the word of God". Wants us to discover that "we are not our ego."

8) He proceeded with telling us how he got the music (from the music producer (he apparently produced for beyonce and all these hollywood artists), i assume he is from hollywood, i don't know..), The story seems like a miracle from God.
Then He said "we did all that because we wanted you to be blessed."

My opinion: A psalm would have really blessed me more than a miley cyrus song. I just want to make sure that the song and the way they got the song is from God and not a lie of the devil to get into our church.

9) - After talking about some of his life experiences, pastor adds: "The ego is never satisfied by our performance". So then he talks about how we don't want to associate with this or that person because of our egos. I guess at that point it's a criticism of sometimes as christians or people we might be judgemental and fail to see the person but only the acts and lifestyles of people and ourselves.
- Then talks about Paul "reached the point where he doesn't think about himself anymore whether he does something good or whether he does something bad. He doesn't connect it to himself".
- Also sites CS Lewis "because the essence of gospel humility is not thinking more or less of myself, it's thinking of myself less."
- Goes back to Paul in Ephesians who says that "we are blessed, adopted, redeemed, forgiven, included, marked, sealed and made alive." Pastor asks if the people feel alive and adds "we can play the game with joy and life because the battle has already been won, that's the gospel truth"

My opinion: I see where he is going but I understand that that might not be the whole truth. This truth sound self-centred to me. The Gospel truth for me is more that Jesus made himself a servent and saved believers through his death and resurrection for the Glory of God. Now I'm not saying that that's not what the pastor believe, I'm just saying that's what I heard him not say in the above message.

10) Then he spoke of an experience that happened to him recently which got him to pray to Jesus that he was tired of trying but that he wanted to go home to Jesus and feel him again like he did once before. He did say that he prays a lot for others but that he forgot to pray about his relationship with Jesus.

11) Pastor showed a picture of how he sees going home to God is like: That was a picture of Jesus hugging a joyful child.

My opinion on the whole sermon: I guess the message was 'Know who you are in Jesus and you'll make it' or something like that. I guess I'm actually confused about what the message was...Maybe it was about stopping to try to be good. I found that the message was more about the self than Jesus and God even though what he wanted to convey for a death to self. Maybe the song didn't set my mind up to understand the message? I was annoyed that the song was sung and couldn't move past it.
I was so hung up on it because I've been struggling during the week with the news, films, music and what is going on in real life (like I said in my intro post in the introduce yourself forum). I feel like this world is so unholy that when I go to church I want to go to a holy place where I get good and clear spiritual food. I want to go to church not to be all emotional and dealing with what and how I feel (like in the everyday) but to be told about an amazing God and saviour. I want to go to church and contemplate his glory! And read about what He did.

Hopefully the way I laid it out is not confusing and that i conveyed the main ideas correctly. Opinions and comments more than welcome. Thanks for reading!

I'm trying to get the idea from what he actually said, and it seems like he basically started out on humility vs pride, which is a good message. Though it never would have set well with me to use a Miley Cyrus song either. There's plenty of Scripture to talk about that.

From there it seems to devolve into feelings. Feelings are ---- well they can be nice, or they can be unpleasant, but they aren't supposed to be the focus of our spiritual life.

It sounds like your pastor is longing for that "first love" experience, which is a common place for people to find themselves once God decides to let them grow a bit. People aren't taught what to do with this stage, so many react out of their feelings and just want the intense comfort of the babe-in-Christ period to return. (I know I certainly did!)

Overall that's the impression I get. I think your pastor is wanting to preach a good message. And the first part had good kernels. It IS our "ego" (a root of pride) that causes us to be offended at people, and all those other issues as well, and we do well to work to root that out. But just telling people to do it isn't going to help. You need tools and need to know how to cooperate with the grace of God in doing so.

I hope that doesn't sound harsh. I think your pastor's heart is in the right place. It's just that there's a bit more understanding available that could add to that message.

 

[Inkfingers]

I don't understand why we should sing secular song in church even if it illustrates some points of the message. Especially a Miley Cyrus song.
I also don't want to go to church and have to listen to a secular song again when all I hear during the week all around me are those.

I was so hung up on it because I've been struggling during the week with the news, films, music and what is going on in real life (like I said in my intro post in the introduce yourself forum). I feel like this world is so unholy that when I go to church I want to go to a holy place where I get good and clear spiritual food.

I agree with your post but wish to give particular highlighting to those two points in addition to that.

Sermons with Miley songs are wolves in sheeps clothing.

 

[JesusYeshuaisLord]

I agree with your post but wish to give particular highlighting to those two points in addition to that.

Sermons with Miley songs are wolves in sheeps clothing.

I wouldn't say that about this pastor as I know he has a true heart for God but I do think they are going astray with their song choices and some of their messages, they haven't been the best recently. We used to have this pastor that was really good at selecting scripture and really delve into them providing background and original meaning and such but he moved to Australia which is a shame. Now it feel like my church just want to be modern. There might be too many young people in the organisation of the worship I think. I will pray and ask God for help so that the true gospel might not be traded for what is popular and easy to swallow.