28.1.07
Cultural Relevance
It's a phrase that's used in a great many in churches, especially in the new "Post-Modern" and "Emergent" experiments. But I'm not sure I understand it. What needs to change in the church to be "culturally relevant"? Are we simply talking about the medium of the message, or are we talking about the message itself? If it is the message, I am very afraid for the future. Perhaps the message that the Church is voicing is not theologically correct or too simple or to complicated, but that message should certainly not be determined by the culture in which we live. My worry is what is the true path this ideology will take? Do our leaders understand the danger of this mindset?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I realize much of what is talked about when discussing relevance is style and medium, ie; the types of services and the actions of the church. But this begs another question, if so much of what and how we do church is fluid and influenced by our culture, why are we doing it in the first place?
Amen.
When I was "pastoring" there for a while, this topic consumed much of my time, energy and thoughts. Then Darren D. said to me once, "This issue of the emergent church isn't nearly as big and important as the church has made it out to be. You [Wade, et.al.] just can't see that because you are too immeresed in it."
Now that I am no longer immersed in it, I don't think I've heard the topic brought up once until now. Many of the kids at school go to church, but they still swear and drink and the like. Yet, they don't hide the fact they went to church that week. It's almost as if church is the refuge from the day-to-day.
So I ask (and I know I am not the first at all), if church is to be the refuge, the sanctuary, the ethereal place to experience the divine, then why are we trying to take that away by making it seem like every other social setting in our society? What sets church apart from hanging out with friends anywhere else, except that we all sing together and watch our language? Shouldn't church be different instead of relevant?
The emergent/post-modern question is inevitably a pointless one. Any attempt to filter Christianity through a worldly philosophy is not only idiotic, it borders on blaspheme. The idea that the message of God can be better understood or better shared by using our own philosophical ideology as a base betrays the distance we have come from the Sacredness of the Word and the Church in respect to our God (and perhaps even how Holy we do or don't see God.)
more too come... processing
It seems to me that this is a classic case of sin. One of the things that I've noticed lately is the fact that all sin (at least I'm pretty sure all of it) has one thing in common: It tells God that we don't really have faith in Him. When it comes down to it sin is relying on our own moral code instead of the one God gave us. In fact, a sociologist would tell you that our moral code is just a replica of the moral code of the culture in which we live. You can see where I'm going with this. God through His Word, and by His very nature, is opposed to this world. He is in opposition to our culture. Not because our culture is a horrible blasphemy (although it might be just that) but because it is not His. It's ours. We're proud of it. That's the problem. When we begin to be proud of our church and proud of our programs and proud of the culture in which we live we take a step closer to that place where Lucifer found himself when he was thrown out of Heaven. No wonder we're so inclined to pride. I think it's a direct attack on the church and I think many have fallen to it. To follow the christ is a path of humility, not pride.
To quote Al Pacino, as Lucifer, in "The Devil's Advocate" (which was on t.v. recently)...
..."Vanity is definitely my favorite sin."
Post a Comment