i had the opportunity of weighing in on a conversation about relevance the other day. relevance is an interesting thing, especially when it comes to being a christian. after the conversation, i was intrigued, so i journaled a little bit. here's what i came up with:
relevance is a pretty complex term. according to webster's, relevance is "bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent." in this way, i guess i can't argue that christians and the church should be relevant. given that the "matter in hand" is God (and i sincerely hope it is), i guess there's no way around the idea that the church should be relevant.
yet whenever i hear a church calling themselves "relevant," i flinch a little bit. part of it i think is simply because i don't like the idea of marketing in church. it just seems out of place to me. it makes me feel like we're selling a product and we want people to come hear about our product. i guess it just seems like if we're marketing one church we should market all churches, since they're all striving for the same thing (or should be). what makes this person or this church "relevant," compared to that one over there?
but beyond that, maybe it's not relevance that bothers me. i think it's more the pursuit of relevance. kinda like in a lot of ways the bible separates "wisdom" from the "pursuit of wisdom"? i don't exactly know what i'm getting at here. i guess i just feel like saying we are relevant followers of Christ should be like saying the same thing twice. maybe the thing is that relevance is an effect, rather than a cause. yeah, that's it. maybe.
like shouldn't we be seen as relevant because we preach the truth of the gospel, and not try to be relevant so that we can reach people with the gospel? i think that might be what i'm trying to say. i think if we pursue relevance, it's gonna continue to blow up in our face every time. the world is filled with person after company after organization, all trying to be relevant, all just trying to keep up with the times. to me saying that i'm a relevant christian sounds like i'm saying, "well, i want to share with you an idea that isn't all that cool. the Bible I'm reading from isn't all that hip. so, instead, I'm gonna try my best to appeal to you. then, maybe you'll hear me out."
the mere fact that the Bible is still around tells me that it's been relevant for quite a while (not to mention it's breathed by God himself). i think if we pursue a book that is as relevant to generation after generation like it is, and pursue the things that it tells us are worth pursuing, it'd be awfully hard for relevance not to be a result. right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
i agree that "relevance" is a touchy word. i don't really like it either. but - i do think that this should be a pillar within the church today. i don't disagree - the word of God is relevant. but we as people are not the timeless word of God. we must at least attempt to stay intune with society and culture so that we can relate to them on a non-threatening level. Jesus didn't avoid culture - he embraced it. we should to.
I think this relevance thing is the downfall of the church. If the word is powerful and the prayers of the righteous are powerful (James), then why is it that we have to keep adding the "spoonfull of sugar" to help the truth go down? Why do we have to reinterpret what Jesus said to make it fit the warm and fuzzy feelings we need to have? "Oh Jesus will bring you peace" contrast with "I don't come to bring peace, but to set brother against brother". "Oh God doesn't really want all your money" contrast with the rich young ruler's order to give it all (yes it does actually say that, not just whatever you're comfortable giving). It's the dumbing down of the bible that has all these relevant christians defending a bible that they don't even understand/read. Why form your own opinion when you can read what Pat Robertson or Dallas Willard or Rick Warren think? I think relevance in the church means: find your cause, then find enough verses in the bible to support it and hope that few of your followers actually read the bible enough to question your approach.
i guess that's the point i was trying to make. sometimes i forget what i'm trying to say in the middle of posting.
my title was "being relevant, being wordly." so what i was trying to say is there's a lot of "relevant" churches out there who are actually just being worldly. if you wanna teach psychology with a little scripture mixed in (ahem Joel Osteen ahem Rick Warren), that's great, but don't call it the gospel. if you wanna provide scripture and biblical living as a supplement to your already-semi-complete life, that's fine, but don't call it the gospel. if i could come up with one theme for the gospel it would be the phrase "give up everything you have and follow me." it's very offensive. really. it's gonna offend a lot of people because a lot of it is COUNTER-cultural, not running alongside culture.
i won't get to far into this... because i feel like i would defend the "relevant church" better in person than on a blog comment. i may even take the time to post about it.
that being said - i really believe the word of God is relevant. it is timeless. but if we are to say get rid of all of the things that we do that are deemed an attempt at relevance - then we should do nothing but stand on street corners reading the bible aloud. because, be careful, you might water it down.
i don't mean that in a harsh way and i am not trying to mock anyone - but that is the way i read this
and don't dis on rick warren. i know that he has written the second most popular book of all time and has probably seen soooo much money from it. but he gives almost all of it back. he hasn't since bought a new house or car. he no longer receives a salary from saddleback. he has tallied up all the money that saddleback has paid him - and given it back. he tithes 90% of everything that he makes. he uses his money - to try and find cures for disease in africa. i would say that he is living the gospel.
i used to be one to step up and crack on rick too. until i heard him speak. i think that he is an amazing leader in the church today. and joel osteen is a pansy who won't stand up and say that without Jesus you goto hell. sorry for the length.
yeah i'm not trying to say by any stretch of the imagination that we should through out anything attempting to be relevant. i think it's important for the church to take a look at culture and both borrow from it and contribute to it. but what i'm speaking of is the church following culture blindly, thinking that it's the only way to reach people. i'm only talking about the churches who embrace culture and trends more than they embrace the word of God, and that's a problem.
for example, take my post on leadership. it just bothers me that we are saying that leadership is an important quality for EVERY christian to have. and one has to wonder if we aren't doing that to be "relevant"--that is, because the rest of the world says that everyone should be a good leader, so the same thing is true in the church, right? not necessarily. romans 12 says that we are diverse members of the same body, that we all have different gifts. it says if you preach, then preach; if you serve, then serve; if you lead, then lead. this leads me to believe that EVERYONE isn't meant to lead. so to impress on someone that leadership is an important quality for EVERY christian is a little misleading.
i didn't mean for this to be any kind of argument, just wanted to mention my irritation at the use of the word for marketing, rather than what it should mean.
by the way, the name calling in my comment was wrong. i hate when people do that to people who are preaching the gospel, and i have no idea why i did it. i think i was trying to be funny, but sometimes funny doesn't translate well through the keyboard. honestly, i feel about those guys kinda like Paul felt in Philippians. it irritates me how they go about it, but they are preaching the gospel, and because of that i am thankful. sorry guys. man i'm so controversial and cool. later.
oh yeah. and the other thing i meant to say is that we just have to be careful. it's fine if you wanna use cool visual projection in your services and go about teaching in savvy way, in keeping with culture in some ways.
but.
the important thing to keep in mind is that the message we are talking about here is, at its core, counter-cultural. love the poor? the greatest are least, the least are greatest? react to being hit by letting them hit you again? the whole idea of the kingdom of God could probably be best described as heading the opposite direction of where the world seems to be heading most of the time. so at some point you have to draw the line or else "being relevant" turns into telling a lie. does that make sense? it does in my head.
I wasn't busting on Rick Warren. I included in that trio the christian theologian I respect the most - Dallas Willard. I think Warren writes a bunch of fluff and capitalized on the mega church movement to sell his fluff, but I don't think he's a bad person for being fluffy.
I was simply saying that within the relevant church if you sugarcoat everything then the people never get it. The preacher could get up and preach the most counter-christian heretical message, but back it up with a skit and two verses and most church goers would pat him on the back on the way out to lunch. Being relevant can't mean letting the congregation slide on THEIR responsibility to be well read and informed. Christ didn't call anyone to have ignorant faith. There's no great reward promised for those who follow blindly any faith that is wrapped up pretty. So, if by relevant we mean non-offensive, no distinction from the world, mostly feel good church, then I think it's dangerously close to the lukewarm church mentioned in Revelations. You know, the one that gets spit out.
Post a Comment