The Gospel according to.........Nirvana?!

[Jason B]

We've probably all heard about these "The Gospel according to ...." and someone is named. I've seen "The gospel according to Peanuts" (Charlie Brown and friends), "Gospel according to Disney", The Gospel according to The Simpsons", etc. Anyway, what about when this stuff enters the church? Should we allow the popculture icons (I'd even says idols) to speak to the church, or to unbelievers on behalf of the church in order to "bring them to Jesus"? Is it possible to teach people to to live godly, when our very method of evangelism is the the music of the ungodly?

Recently a church began a new series called "Nirvan Speaks" in which the church plays Nirvana music and then a message is preached based off the lyrics. This type of stuff has happened more an more frequently in the churches, and at first it seemed innocent enough when some churches were using "I Love Lucy, Andy Griffith, and even the Simpsons" to teach adult sunday schools. (I was opposed to the idea then, I remember hearing about this and thinking it must just be an isolated fad, until I walked by a whole display at a Lifeway Christian store of this type stuff). But as it is with everything worldy, thre is no solid line, it keeps on moving. I'd make the argument that when someone tried to teach people the Bible based off the actions of Barney Fife they had already gone too far, to say nothing of the ungodly themes of The Simpsons. But it seems gone are those days, as some churches went for bigger cultural icons like the Beatles. But that wasn't enough, at a church in South Carolina the preacher famously came out to "Highway to Hell" and played Guitar Hero (literally) during church service. And now a church has decided to do a series called "Nirvana Speaks."

If you don't know anything about Nirvana, they are an alternative rock band, that started in the late 80's in the Seattle punk grunge sub culture. They eventually became wildly famous and lived out the lives of rich and famous rock stars, culminating in the lead singer being addicted to heroin, and eventually committing suicide, and thus becoming a subcultural icon. The songs are admittedly "about nothing" at best, and outright wicked at worst. There is no redeeming quality in the songs, they will not be appearing in any hymnbook near you, nor will their lines be repeated in heaven. Yet their lyrics are now considered the most cutting edge and relevant way to win people.

Below is a post from I put on facebook which generated a couple hundred comments in 2 days. What say ye?

(facebook post)
Count me out on this newfound and celebrated fad of using "Nirvana" to "speak"in the church or to unbelievers. Isn't the scripture sufficient? Is God's message made greater and more plain through using the lyrics of a man who was a heroin addict who committed suicide and a band whose biggest hit of all time was a "song about nothing", to say nothing of other titles like "Rape me". Should we use secular songs as a preaching text? Should we use them in our church services? I'm shocked at how far many are willing to go. I'm shocked that "Heaven Must Sound Beautiful" because apparently Michael Jackson, John Lennon, Elvis Presley, and Jim Morrison are there. Is ANYONE lost anymore? Heavens not going to sound beautiful because all these people who abused their bodies through drug abuse and immorality are there, heaven will be beautiful because we will all worship God singing HOLY, HOLY, HOLY. All these people and their wickedness are going to be cast out, forever separated from the presence of the Lord, for the kingdom of God is a place wherein dwelleth righteousness and none of these unbelieving and immoral person will be there (Rev 20:7, 2 Pet 3:13, 2 Thess 1:6-10, 1 John 1:6, etc). Where are clear voices in the church? Is this the only or best way to evangelize in the 21st century, through the Beatles, Nirvana, AC/DC, Guns N Roses, The Simpsons, I Love Lucy, and even Andy Griffith? Is the message of the cross so weak? Is the Word of God of no effect? Must the spiritually dead be quickened not by the life giving Word, or the preaching of the cross, but by the message of a secular immoral and ungodly popculture?

Shaking my head in disbelief.

[Sister Alvear]

Today people have some mighty weird ideas about preaching the gospel...I remember I love Lucy when I was a kid...lol...Don't see how the gospel and all this stuff goes together...Guess I am toooooooooooo old....

[Truthseeker]

Sad!

[houston]

He's not even considered apostolic or pentecostal. Why do you care what he does?

[Nitehawk013]

I wouldn't use someone like NIrvana, but I have thought it woudl be cool to use music, video and such multimedia to accent the message in the past. Use "entrance music" and such.

Because it is all we have ever known I fear we think that traditional preaching is somehow this God inspired model of oratory. Therefore we shouldn't add music, effects, etc to it. "The Word should be enough to move people" is what we all hear.

Hears the thing though: it's all tradition. What we call preaching isn't the same as that in the NT scripture. Teh modern model is more from philosophers, not preachers. Further, Jesus didn't just "preach the word". He used real life examples, stories, object lessons, etc. Paul appealed to popular philosophies at the time and used cultural references. So why do we somehow think the only appropriate thing is for a man to stand behind the pulpit and hoop and hollar about somethign from the word? Why not use music, culture, etc in order to accent the message?

Not with Nirvana of course, but there is plenty of good music that could be used.

[Titus2woman]

While I completely agree with you Jason there is one small point I'd like to make with no offense intended.

Jason said: "heaven will be beautiful because we will all worship God singing HOLY, HOLY, HOLY. All these people and their wickedness are going to be cast out, forever separated from the presence of the Lord, for the kingdom of God is a place wherein dwelleth righteousness and none of these unbelieving and immoral person will be there (Rev 20:7, 2 Pet 3:13, 2 Thess 1:6-10, 1 John 1:6, etc)."

It can be words like these that help to open up a place in peoples minds and hearts for things like 'the gospel according to Nirvana'... Because while they can RELATE to Nirvana, they might have trouble relating to what you are saying which talks about who is out but not how to get in... and presents the picture of a place that many people would not want to go anyway. I've heard young people say that if heaven is like it is described by preachers- A deafening roar of "Holy, Holy, Holy/Worthy, Worthy, Worthy forever and ever" they'd rather go to Hell. While I'm sure those are flippant remarks of youth, I strongly believe we can learn from them.

Jesus Christ was relevant in His time and for all time... We, as the church, are sadly failing to share Him and the true gospel message the way He shared. From slanted descriptions of heaven, to using Bible translations in 15th century old English, and keeping a 1940s dress code we are not reaching people.

The true gospel message is still the best thing going when presented in a way that can be easily understood by the one hearing it. Explaining concepts like the new heaven and the new earth, the ages, the millennium reign, etc. seems to be sadly lacking in our churches. I talk to Christians almost daily who have NO idea what the Kingdom of God might look like even while they pray 'Thy Kingdom Come!'.

If believers have the true gospel they don't need nor will they except another. When they have an understanding of the life that awaits the believer and the joy in the world to come they see we have something they want... And if for any reason there is a disconnect and they don't get it... well... Our job is to fix that

Judgement begins at the House of God (1 Peter 4:17)

[bbyrd009]

I have to agree, T2W. While I avoid suicides in music,
and detest Nirvana, I put them above several olde-tyme gospel faves.
I might have gone with Pink Floyd, or the Talking Heads,
but the bottom line, I think, is that as long as it is doing some good,
let it do some good?

"But as it is with everything worldy, thre is no solid line, it keeps on moving."

so I might be condemning it in a year; but I also note
that I have just recently been convicted that the
Holy Spirit does not generalize; the temporal line moves,
although the spiritual line does not.

[tv1a]

There is biblical precedent for using secular examples. Some of the Psalms were tunes used by pagans. Paul quoted pagans. Jesus rarely used the Torah. He taught in parables. It is possible to weave the Gospel using pop culture. I used Pink Floyd's Comfortably Numb in a Sermon. A friend of mine played Sympathy for the Devil and preached about how Satan plans to destroy people. The preacher had over 200 people in the altar.

This has inspired me. How can I make a sermon from "My Red Solo Cup"?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by houston

He's not even considered apostolic or pentecostal. Why do you care what he does?

I consider him Apostolic and Pentecostal and Charismatic and Holiness. I respect this young man and what he is doing. When I see him and his ministry it gives me hope for "the Church" which is often perceived as out of touch with reality.

In his message on Mars Hill in Athens, the Apostle Paul took his "text" from the inscription on an idol that he had seen which was called agnosto theos or "unknown god." He then spoke to those people using arguments from natural revelation and quoted Greek philosophers/poets with whom they would have been familiar. From what I understand this would have been in August AD 51 and the group to whom he spoke would have had about 30 members. Paul then went from the known to the unknown and preached Jesus Christ and His resurrection. What was the response? "32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” 33 So Paul departed from among them. 34 However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them." (Acts 17:32-34) We don't know how many actually believed and accepted the message but some did.

Paul left there and went to Corinth in September AD 51 and followed his usual method of speaking in the synagogue.

The Apostle Paul used other things to illustrate his teaching like an analogy to military service and warfare (Ephesians 6:10-18; 2 Timothy 2:3-4), athletic competition (1 Corinthians 9:24-27; 2 Timothy 2:5), betrothal and faithfulness (2 Corinthians 11:2), farming or housebuilding (1 Corinthians 3:5-9).

I preached a message on "Mama's Prayers" and used the words of a song by Merle Haggard with that title. I've also taught a Bible class on 7 Pictures of a Believer based on 1 Timothy chapter 2.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Sam

I consider him Apostolic and Pentecostal and Charismatic and Holiness.

Why? He doesn't consider himself the first three.

Personally, I like him. We had some good discussions. He shared with me some of his experiences, and some reasons that he left.

He is reaching people that you and I possibly can't. I don't disagree with his method.