“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Heb. 13:8) What an anchor to our soul that the ‘Author and Finisher of our faith’ remains, in His nature and purpose, just as the Apostles knew Him! Thank God! . . . because almost everything else in Christianity has the likelihood of change. Makes you wonder how the Amish do it?
The following verse (Heb 13:9) cautions, “Do not be carried away with various and strange doctrines (teachings). For it is good that the heart be established by grace . . .” There’s a widespread “unsettledness” in much of American Christianity. Many are like the religious establishment in ancient Athens (Acts 17:21) “who spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing.”
A new prophetic voice, a new doctrinal twist, a new book, CD, conference, or manifestation has the potential to motivate millions of believers to travel, tune in, or contribute, thereby continuing to fuel the American Christian complex. Doubtless that’s better than supporting Hollywood, but how has this consumer mentality, with it’s affection for novelty and image, impacted the visible church? Has it somehow heightened the ‘fashion consciousness’ of God’s people?
“The biggest paradox about the Church is that she is at the same time essentially traditional and essentially revolutionary. But that is not as much of a paradox as it seems, because Christian tradition, unlike all others, is a living and perpetual revolution.”
These words by Thomas Merton (New Seeds of Contemplation; 1961) focus for us a temptation facing the American Church. A few years ago USA Today featured this headline “Faith Embraces Pop Culture, Technology; . . . the tech boom has given (Evangelical Christianity) new platforms to be ‘culturally relevant.’” Feeling forced to “update” her message and method, the church rapidly becomes tradition-less, and in so doing she risks a powerful part of her revolutionary nature.
Now it is true that every generation of believers must find the appropriate language to effectively communicate the gospel of Jesus Christ within their social context. Our time presents its own unique challenges in that area. For example, when I was a kid one could discuss truth as something knowable, and if one referenced the Bible in the discussion, it was usually admitted as an authority of some standing. Not anymore; not in mainstream America.
“Truth is fallen in the street . . . and he who departs from evil makes himself a target.” (Is. 59:14,15) Folks who actually believe the Bible are viewed as ignorant or intolerant by much of our society. So then, making the gospel plain and understandable in a climate suspicious of Christians and indifferent to the Bible is surely a daunting task. God bless every church and saint who makes the effort to clearly communicate about the Lord Jesus with the unsaved.
However, is it necessary for the churches to become “culturally relevant” in order to properly represent the gospel of Christ? Culture is simply the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a group. Until WWII American culture was strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian values. It has since moved dramatically away from those traditional values and beliefs. Our culture is now one of religious plurality and moral ambivalence.
To be relevant one must “have significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand” (dictionary). For the church, then, relevance would involve impacting society with something pertaining directly to its collective issues. Believers would agree the message of Jesus Christ meets the criteria for relevance to any culture. So, the question becomes: Is the “cultural relevance” movement an effort to make the gospel more understandable, or make Christianity more acceptable?
“Culturally relevant . . . means being sensitive to the needs and interests of different demographic groups,” says Kristina Hill, spokes-woman for the Inspiration Network. (USA Today) This sounds much like the Apostle Paul; “I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” (1 Cor. 9:19-22) Yet shouldn’t we make a distinction between meeting people at the point of their fundamental beliefs (in Paul’s case), and reshaping the church’s image and message to be more attractive to a culture that has lost it’s way?
Cultural relevance is valuable only as an individual asset. Christian surfers, bankers, bikers, and stockbrokers relate more easily to unbelievers sharing those same interests. That has always been the case; it makes sense. Cultural relevance is not, however, a church issue, and certainly not a Kingdom issue. Some ministries and congregations may feel concern that the culture does not take them seriously. The Kingdom has no such concerns. It is wholly other than the passing fashions of culture; it is not trying to relate. It simply is. This is also true of the gospel message.
The Apostle Paul “delivered” to the church what he had received, “that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” Later John testified, “Whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (1 Cor. 15:3,4; John 3:16b) The gospel is a straightforward spiritual-moral proclamation addressed to man’s conscience which requires from him a decision for or against it.
“The Word of God permits of no bargaining and cannot be handled commercially. It is not for sale, and therefore it needs no skilled salesmen. The Word of God does not seek customers, and therefore we cannot hawk it, or trade it, and it needs no middleman. It does not compete with other articles that are on sale at life’s bargain counter. Its only demand is that it should simply be itself . . . that it should be allowed to shine in its own glory.” – Karl Barth, 1932
“I write that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the support and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15) The church is not obliged to satisfy the inquiry, “Do you understand and accept me, my background, and my issues?” without first asking the more crucial question, “Do you clearly understand the gospel, and the righteous demands of the Kingdom of God?” It is the primary business of the church to help men grasp and obey the truth that will make them free.
For centuries the church was a place where one could find ‘asylum,’ shielding the seeker from the influences of the outside world. Duke Professor Stan Hauerwas, in Resident Aliens, insists that life in the ‘Christian colony’ should be characterized by those things, both in sort and quality, which simply cannot be found anywhere else. Far from being oriented to culture, the church’s royal commission is to introduce and orient men to the culture of the Kingdom; an entirely new mode of being and relating. In the church we discern “the Body and the Blood,” we initiate men and women into the Body by baptism, and establish God’s authority in their lives. Church is not equipped to be culturally sensitive; her stock-in-trade is heavenly imports, things not available at Pier One, Costco, Starbucks, or some .com.
Consider that the American church has been particularly ‘relevant’ in developing youth/teen ministries. Yet, pollster George Barna has documented that about 70% of teens participating fully in these innovative, highly stimulating, and often hi-tech programs abandon the church in their twenties. It doesn’t work. What works is the gospel, the ‘good news’ that Jesus has saved us from our sins and His Spirit will fill any hungry heart willing to bow their knee and call Jesus ‘Lord.” And that simple message, the message of Jesus and His resurrection, the message of the Apostles and the early Christians, will always be relevant to the deepest needs of anyone, from any culture, from any era. The gospel is, and has always been relevant to us sinners.