When looking over the landscape of the American evangelical church, one can quickly see a relatively new breed of churches in existence. Many of them are not tied to a particular denomination, and have sleek, modern looking buildings and decor. They seek to be non-conventional in almost every thing they do because the old way is outdated and irrelevant. Over all of their unique activites, they place an umbrella called “relevance”. They wish to appeal to the modern culture’s current fancies by reinventing the image of church. However, some of these churches miss the point of the duty of the church and the power of the Gospel of Christ, in all its solitary glory.
While the spectrum for these churches is quite large, one common thread runs through them all, and it is a thread that they outwardly and proudly display. This is the thread of “relevance”. When a church invokes this title as a part of their mission, one can usually assume certain characteristics to be found of the church. To these churches, being relevant is way more than just the act of avoiding being irrelevant. No, the word encompasses a new, somewhat revolutionary way of “doing church”. This almost obsessive desire to be relevant effects everything from the music, the preaching, the atmosphere, even the decor of the building. One local church writes in its values section of their website that:
“Just because a program or ministry reached the unchurched yesterday doesn’t mean it is effective today. We believe to win the lost we must be willing to continually change our methods but not the message.”
That quote pretty much sums up the mindset behind the “relevance movement” as I call it. According to it, we as a church, must look over the present society, and adapt our church doings to reflect what the culture desires. In other words, we must market the Gospel to appeal to our audience if we wish to have any hope of successful evangelism. The church previously quoted goes on to say:
“To win the unchurched we believe we must present the Gospel of Jesus Christ in fresh, creative ways (illustrated messages, dramas, video, etc.)”
By now, I hope that some of you are beginning to see some of the errors of this thinking. Churches that operate under beliefs such as those previously quoted are allowing the ever-changing culture (i.e. the world) to dictate the way they function. This is a dangerous thing to do considering that the world is majorly made up of lost people in bondage to their sinful nature. This is not what to Bible wants the Church to be influenced by (Romans 12:2). Also, consider some of the implications behind those quotes. According to the quotes, the power of the Gospel is not in the Gospel itself, but in the packaging of it. As I said before, some of these churches build their existence on the mission to be attractive to the culture in order to draw them through their doors. This mindset doubts the power of both the preaching of the true Gospel and the ordinary means of grace outlined to us by God in His Word. The culture doesn’t want verse-by-verse, expository preaching of the Bible, they want “5 Steps to have a better…”. So following the cultures desires, the church becomes Dr. Phil with a few Bible verses; and this is just what these churches “preach”. Scripture gives us a different picture on how the church should deal with society.
In the first chapter of Romans, the Holy Spirit, through Paul, tells us that in the Gospel, the power of God for salvation and a righteousness for believers is found. In 1 Corinthians 15:2, Paul again tells us that we are saved through the preaching of the Gospel. That is how God has ordained for His elect to be brought to Him. The Great Commission tells us simply to teach what Jesus taught, and God will do the rest. We don’t have to strategize a bunch of bells and whistles as bait to unbelievers. For it is not by our doing that God’s sheep are drawn to Him. 1 Corinthians 1:17 puts it perfectly:
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
The Gospel gets watered down when it has to go through the filter of what’s relevant to the culture. It is a paradox when it comes to this; while there is nothing more relevant in the universe to any culture of any time than the Gospel, unregenerate man will view the Gospel as the least relevant thing in the universe. God must first open the eyes of the unbeliever before he can see his need for the salvation that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. And He does this through the Gospel alone.
January 27, 2007 at 5:54 pm
So much for my idea of having a bar in the new fellowship hall to win some sinners.
J.A.M
January 27, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Excellent post. It reminded me of Joel Osteen’s sermon on living at your ideal weight! You know those pork fats just are not healthy for your body. : )
eProps to Mrs. Meiki!
Elise
January 27, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Ditto. Excellent post.
J.A.M
January 27, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I am interested in knowing what preacher/church you are quoting.
Onto the relevance issue… I don’t like it when churches do the “bait and switch” thing either… you know, design themselves to have all the tricks and fads and then say, “God wants to give you a good life… oh, yeah, and he wants you to die on a cross too.” (Jesus said, “Pick up your cross.”) But I do think that we must preach this gospel in ways that people do understand. One of the things that I have come to believe more and more in is this understanding of general revelation. Of course God has revealed himself in his fullness in his son, Jesus Christ, but God reveals himself in many ways… i.e. through being moved by music, film, art, etc. The arts are not new but rather people have been using them for years to dialogue, discuss and express their relationship with God and how he interacts with and in humanity. In some of the evangelical movement we got into the habit of limiting the arts and in turn, limited our expressions. To be “relevant” in my mind is to allow for these expressions to take place.
I don’t know if this is something that I expressed very well, but I think we would agree with this. I have seen you, Caleb, worship through playing the lead guitar. 25-30 years ago that would not have been allowed… in fact, I know some that were excommunicated for “doing such acts”. This kind of judgement and condemnation — the world just can’t understand it.
Let me know what you think.
Chris Pollock
February 24, 2007 at 11:25 pm
I am a member of a Mega Church and only a member. I was saved at that Church. The values that you cited sound exactly like those of my Church. My Church preaches the Bible as true as any can (we are all flawed and no man knows everything). If you do not believe this is right, it would be wrong for you to participate, but if it works and it keeps even one from spending eternity in hell (me), then I’m all for it. I believe you mean well, however you have not attended Southeast Christian Church in Louisville Ky. I would like to invite you. By the way I personally would not mind a bar in a fellowship hall if it would save the lost. As long as the message is not changed what does it matter how it is presented? All Churches are different in the way they approach proclaiming the message. Why try to fault the successful? Aren’t we all on the same team? I would agree that it is dangerous to become close to the world and Churches should be careful that the world doesn’t change the Church while the Church is reaching the lost. In my Church the power of the Gospel is recognized and the packaging is only to get the sinner to listen to it. The bottom line is it is working. Hallelujah!!!!
Ed Utter
February 26, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Here is something that I should have said in my previous post.
I too questioned the Church. (I question everything, as a Berean should). I noticed that when a sermon that was really spiritual was preached, and I was uplifted, very few came forward at the invitation. When a sermon that was not very spiritual was preached the asiles were full of sinners coming forward. This confused me for some time. Then one day the answer dawned on me (or perhaps I finnally heard the Spirit within).
The unsaved can not understand when we speak of spiritual things. They do not have the Spirit that lives within us to teach them. In order for them to understand that they are sinners and condemed we must speak to them in their language.
After they (we) come to the Lord the sermon slowly looses it’s influence and Bible studies replace the sermons importantance.
I don’t think it is wrong to allow the ever-changing culture (i.e. the world) to dictate the way the Church functions. It would only be wrong to allow it to change the message.
Paul did not tell those at Athens that they must turn to the Lord of the Christians right from the start. First he started with their own beliefs (their altar to an unknown god) and then he told them about the only real God. Isn’t that what the “revelance movement” is trying to do?
By the way, as long as the service is being conducted at my Church there is a group in another room praying for the minister and that the unsaved will understand and accept the Lord. How is that for “revelance”?
Ed Utter