The Relevant Schmelevant Church - Kat Unedited

Posted on 05.18.08 in Faith and there are 24 comments.

(Warning: These are my unedited, stream of consciousness thoughts on the relevance of the church. Cynicism ahead...)
I hear a lot about “The Relevant Church.” That Christians need to be more culturally relevant in order to attract more people to church. 

I think that’s a bunch of hooey.

That’s right - hooey.

The last thing the church needs is to try to be is relevant.

What the church needs is to be peculiar. 

Why? Because the Gospel is ALWAYS relevant. The Gospel meets the deepest needs in the heart of every person on this planet. It’s relevant to every hurt, every pain and every moment of suffering.

Having a pastor that dresses cool, playing U2 songs or preparing sermon topics tied in with the latest TV series isn’t what people need. They need uncool, irrelevant people like Mother Teresa or ...let’s see...um...Jesus?… who don’t care about relevance or trends but just dive in and get dirty. People need a church that will jump into their world, who will walk with them through the hard times and be vulnerable enough to let them know that they can be vulnerable too.

Relevance is easy, trendy, attractive and popular.

Being peculiar is hard, sometimes ugly and rarely looks successful to anyone but God.

My challenge to all of us is to do something peculiar this week.

What is peculiar? Here are some ideas, please share yours in the comments.

1. If you see someone who looks down, tell them you’d like to pray for them and ask them what you can pray for. Then do it. Right then, right there.

2. When you ask people how they are doing, really mean it. And be willing to listen for as long as they need to talk.

3. Say something encouraging to the person in your life who annoys you the most. And pray for them too.

So what do you think the church needs to be relevant? To what degree? What are some ways we can be peculiar?

The Comments:

Skip to comment form

I think we can love each other better. Sometimes I think we care so much about who we need to be reaching that we forget about being a real community for each other. When we build each other up it makes us want to build others around us up, and it just keeps spreading and spreading. I don’t think the word “community” can ever be completely fulfilled.

I agree that the Gospel is always relevant.  I disagree in that Jesus - in his own peculiar way - emphasized this “relevance” by his actions in the context of an institution that had lost its direction. 

The cry for relevance by modern culture (Post-Post Modern, actually) is not for a watered down version of the truth.  Rather, it reflects a deep need for the Gospel.  The real one.  The same one that the incarnation of Christ brought to the world.  I do not believe that the Modern (and I MEAN Modern) Church, well-meaning though it is, takes this as seriously as it should.

This does not mean tattoos, cool music and preaching about Bono.  It means living the incarnation as Christ (and his crew) did rather than...(fill in the blank with the appropriate modern convention).

This isn’t a modern concept.  Martin Luther had something interesting to say about it as well…

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

I am getting tired of listening to Christians argue about what the church should be.

Perhaps this might explain why so many people are walking away from God.

How are we supposed to tell them what church is when we can’t even figure it out ourselves without arguing?

Wow. This topic sure brings out the anonymous commenters!

Hello anonymous people. I’m glad to have you here.

Anon - that’s a great quote by Martin Luther…

Anonymous - So you’re saying I should just go out and be peculiar rather than sit around talking writing about it?

I think you’re right.

I think we can respond more fully to the “Who is my neighbor?” question.  Jesus didn’t really seem to be about worrying about Americans first, and then helping everybody else with our leftovers. 

I’m with you on this, Kat.  In my view, one of the biggest mistakes the church made in the 20th century was perpetrating the idea (dare I call it a heresy?) that the gospel is about building strong families and protecting ourselves from the world.  Good and well as those things may be, that’s NOT the message.  I’m afraid that Jesus is not the guy we want in our small group.  It would be too uncomfortable, week after week after week.  Except I kindof doubt that Jesus would come to a small group.  But that’s another topic. 

Great post. However, I’m not sure that my “peculiarity” works in God’s favor all the time…

I think we spend too much time judging ourselves, trying to figure out who is a more of a sinner, rather than just loving our neighbor.  He made it real simple, and yet we try to make it oh so complex.  “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind (and strength) and love your neighbor as yourself.”

Marissa,
Ha…

Susan P.,
Excellent, sucinct, true thoughts, Susan.

I can’t remember the exact quote, but I read something this week about how theology is man’s attempt to avoid doing the very thing the Gospel requires of us. Like you said, God made it really simple for us, but I think often our discussion about what we should do and how we should do it are simple a cover to make it look like we’re doing something - when we aren’t.

Hmm.....I seem to have a hard time seeing my screen - my index finger keeps turning around and pointing at me. Not sure what that’s all about…

So, Kat, what put a bee in your bonnet?

How to be peculiar?  How about looking someone in the eye, someone you would normally try to avoid at all costs?  Just that little thing acknowledges their humanity and their value before God.

I love it when you start these conversations!  Another great topic, Kat. 

agreed.
one very peculiar this is loving your enemies, as you pointed out.  not just not being mean back, but going out of your way to show them love.
i get a chance to do this during my second job as a cashier at a grocery store.  we get some rude dudes that come through.  i have to fight the temptation to put their bread and eggs underneath the watermelon.  i make it a point to be extra considerate to these people.  currently they are the closest thing i have to personal enemies.
it’s not so much about being relevant as it is being real and alive and active.

@ euphrony, I love your comment, and to be honest, that’s not an easy thing to do. Maybe that’s how we know it’s the right thing to do, huh?

I recently read a fictionalized series about a commune in Missouri that lived by the Diamond Rule (which I had never heard of before) which is to live so that other’s lives can be better than your own.  This, in my opinion, would be very peculiar as we are happy to help people in lesser situations, but would we be willing to swap with them?

A lot of times I think that a church does need to be in the present culture, and present generation.  The church gets into a pattern of doing things a certain way, and those things can become outdated.  The next generation needs to be able to relate, and I think that newer songs and more up to date things are somewhat important… but not THE only point, or focus, just part of it. 

I do agree that peculiarity is good, peculiar and different from the world, in the way of love, grace, mercy....

To somewhat agree with Kristen, peculiar does not have to mean archaic.  But, conversely, relevant does not have to mean identical to modern culture.

I’m not all that into relevant church myself, but I can understand the draw. Isn’t relevant trying to become what is most important to someone? I prefer the word “transforming” to describe my Jesus and church- transformation which calls life to break out of a planted seed, grow, bloom, bear fruit, make more. Transformation of myself from tyrant and capricious god on my poorly manufactured throne to bowing my knee to God’s best for myself, community and world.

Ah, good discussion, all.  Here’s my thought. I think all of these ideas, including having a relevant church or peculiar church or transforming church are brought about b/c we the church see areas we would like to work on.  I apologize for putting all those in the same pot, but I do it only to make this point:  we the church want to be effective.  We want to reach people, we want to make a difference, we want to make an impact on our world. 

That’s a good thing!  Our world likes labels.  We like to put a name to everything.  It helps us compartmentalize and sort through I suppose, but when it all comes down to it, I think we can agree we the church have a common goal:  to share the good news. 

Maybe it means reaching people on a familiar level.  Maybe it means tending to those in need.  Maybe it means changing things up to catch their attention.  Maybe it means more one-on-one time with people, even people that we don’t get along.  Probably it means all those things.

Can one congregation meet every need?  Whew, it’s hard.  I guess each congregation must make its own decision for focus.  But we are all collectively the church.  If each member makes an effort, the congregation will see the impact.  And then the collective church will grow. 

I’m not saying “let’s not access what we could be doing better"-but “i’m glad we want to be a better church.  let’s do whatever we can.” We probably need a focus shift every once in a while, cuz it’s easy to get in a systematic groove.

I’ve been thinking about this all day and thinking about 1 Peter 2:9 where it says we are a peculiar people. peculiar meaning: odd, unusual, not common. and asking the lord am i unusual? in some ways i am and in some ways i’m not. but i guess i realised today that i want to be more peculiar.

as far as seeking/wanting to be relevant i haven’t found that scripture or even the concept in the bible.

great post.

I think that this is a great discussion - one that needs to be had in many circles. 
I think that Kristin hit the nail on the head…

Here’s the thing:  Like it or not, we are all part of the ‘modern culture’.  We breathe it when we leave the four walls of the church.  We bring it into those four walls when we enter.  It informs so much about the way that we perceive LIFE in general.  Again, this is not a new concept.  Look at the Old Testament...or the New Testament, for that matter.  Both are thick with stories and verbage which, while we can glean much insight into the nature of God from them, lose a significant amount of their richness OUTSIDE of the era/culture of their origin. 

Don’t believe that this is true?  Why, then, do we have Strong’s Concordance, Bible dictionaries and pastors who explain to us why a certain passage or phrase is REALLY significant when understood “as such”.

I believe that the Modern Church is afraid of the modern culture.  Afraid that in accepting certain facets of it (The Culture) it will somehow lose its identity.  This, by my reading, is the same issue that Jesus addressed in his interactions with the Pharisees.  By my reading, everything that Jesus did and said SCREAMED of relevance.  And much of it was aimed at that culture.  And the ones prior to it.  And the ones to follow.  But - make no mistake about it - his practices (while ancient) were novel to the time.

I honestly don’t believe that - in wanting relevance - “The Culture” is trying to tame the Gospel.  Quite the contrary, actually.  I think that people are seeking the same full-on Gospel that redeems whores, thieves, tax collectors, lepers and me.  I think that (much of) the Modern Church seems irrelevant to “The Culture” because it has forgotten about THAT Gospel and substituted for it a quasi-gospel based at least as much on the traditions of man as on the teachings of our Lord.

” like it or not, we are all part of the ‘modern culture’.  We breathe it when we leave the four walls of the church.  We bring it into those four walls when we enter.  It informs so much about the way that we perceive LIFE in general.”

Anon, you have some very thoughtful insights.

i’m not sure as chistians ( and i’m not saying i have this cornered these are just thoughts )modern culture should be the lense through which we perceive life.

the challenge for us as christians is to perceive the moder culture through the lense of the word of god.

i totally concur with, Gods work in each generation is unique and different. but i don’t know if i agree with “ everything that Jesus did and said SCREAMED of relevance”

in terms of jewish traditions, yes jesus was relevant. but jesus pretty much offended the majority of people that he came in contact with. you look at the samaratian women at the well, the woman caught in adultry, healing the leper on the sabbath. he went into his “modern culture” and did things RADICALLY different. jesus never saught to be relevant. he was very clear on his purpose.

just my thoughts

Amy,
“we are happy to help people in lesser situations, but would we be willing to swap with them?”

That just rocked my little brain…

I left this one alone yesterday so I could think about it.

I think we somehow make it too hard.  Everyone is tied up with conversations about “community” and “relevance” and what they mean. 

While we are trying to decide, the world is dying without Christ.  Susan P is on track I think.  Its the direction we all need.

As far as being relevant, we need to do what Jesus did.  He was relevant to the crowd he was with.  But I think you can boil it down to one thing: he brought the “Good News” to those who needed it.

To the poor it was one message.  To the rich it was another message.  To the religous leaders it was one message, to the godless it was another message.  But to all of them, it was the good news that was relevant to them.

Deemus - well put.

Athena - thanks for your comments.
I absolutely agree that, as believers, we should view the culture through the “lens of God’s word.” But I challenge you to consider what that really means. 
Keep in mind that God’s word is unchanging (and I think that you and I agree on that point).  How then can we balance the apparent differences that we read in the Bible?  At one point God’s word indicated that to eat certain foods was forbidden and that you should destroy your house if you couldn’t get all the mold off of the walls (read Leviticus).  Later, God’s word suggested (to Peter) that it was acceptable to eat all foods (I know that the larger purpose was to inform Peter that it was okay to eat with non-Jews (incredibly culturally relevant)…but the writers of the Scriptures make a special point to indicate that all foods were made clean).  Admittedly, Jesus had nothing to say about moldy walls…so this might still be an area where we’re all in sin…
Still – what changed?  Not God’s word.  And you can apply this to any number of contrasts between the Word of God in the Old Testament and the Word of God Become Flesh Dwelling Among Us (later written up in the Gospels).  The thing that changed is the culture and the WAY that the Word of God was applicable.  Culture will change - this is unavoidable.  And the beauty of the Word of God is that it is – at the same time - Eternal, Unchanging and Living and Active.  And if the Word of God can’t be shown to be relevant at a given time to a given group of people then it will be rejected.  And – frankly – it’s very difficult to demonstrate its relevance from a historical context.
The very fact that Jesus hung out with the Samaritan woman exhibits the relevance of the Gospel.  It’s as if he’s saying to the Church (read:  Pharisees), “Look – you think that this person is unclean and forbidden.  I don’t.” This may not seem like a big deal to us but – in the context of that culture – it was probably huge.
If Jesus was really God and sinless (warning…rhetorical statement) then we can feel comfortable doing what he did.  We don’t know all of the transactions that occurred between Christ and the “Modern Culture” of his day.  All we have are the things that made the cut and got into the Bible.  We do see that he treated different groups of people very differently.  To the Institutional Church of the time he was offensive because he challenged their values and told them that their hearts were wrong – that they needed to change their way of thinking so that they could be aligned with him.  To those outside of the Institution (read: sinners) he showed them that their needs could be met in him, that they could be aligned with him FIRST.  This isn’t to say that he didn’t want to address their sins – but it seems that he first acknowledged their needs, validated them as people and showed his acceptance.  It’s THAT that I don’t think that we are doing.  So I think that Christ still wants us to do THAT…and that the specifics will look different in THIS culture than they did when he was talking to people in person.

BAM! Anonymous comes out of hiding!  You nailed it! I’m so sick of our ultra cool ministers and rock/praise bands with thick rimmed glasses, starbucks drinks, tatoos working on their Macs. Ok, so that was a little rant....
I’m just like you. I don’t care how they look I just want somebody real.

Share Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

URL (optional):

Smileys

Remember me.

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:

My Twitter Posts