There seems to be a developing conversation around church relevance. I don’t say that because people are just starting to become interested in church relevance (that’s been happening since Luther and the printing press), but because some people are really starting to challenge its modern conception. At the Cultivate Conference, I repeatedly heard the same question: “How can your church stay relevant to a culture that is constantly evolving?”
I really appreciate the heart and intention behind this question, but I don’t like it. And I want to replace it with something I think is more biblical and more specific.
I think when someone asks the relevance question, they have good intentions. They want their ministry to have an impact on the culture around them; they do not want to be simply passed off as an irrelevant ministry with nothing important to say, because then God does not receive glory.
I get that.
But the word “relevant” is a charged one. At least for me, the word immediately brings to mind images of trendy music, light shows and projection sreens. And as a man who’s done ministry on a college campus for the last 4 years, I can say that those things have already worn their welcome with the next generation. That’s not to say those things can’t be effective anymore, but they’re certainly no longer impressive, and they constantly threaten to convey an image of a church that’s “trying too hard”. And trust me, there’s nothing more irrelevant than that.
Instead of bringing about images and conceptions of provoking the culture, the word “relevant” often represents ways of copying the culture. Provocation is deeply biblical (Deuteronomy 4:6-8, Matthew 5:16, 1 Peter 2:12); copying is deeply unbiblical (Deuteronomy 18:9, Romans 12:2, 1 John 2:15, James 1:27). I don’t think there’s room anymore in the Church for a word that can mean both. And so “relevant” is on its way out of my church vocabulary.
The entire book of 1 Peter is about existing as holy weirdos in a culture that does not know God. I think we need a terminology and a goal that’s as clear as that book on the issue. A question that sounds a little more “1 Peter” to me would be something like, “How can the church stay peculiar and provocative to a culture that is constantly changing?”
I don’t know about you, but I don’t just want to be known as a “relevant” church that speaks the language of the culture. I want to be speaking the language better than the culture itself, compelling it toward the Kingdom of God. None of these are new thoughts; I’ve heard them a million times before. But somehow this idea hasn’t translated to a shift in language in “Church innovator world” when one of the most-read blogs is still ChurchRelevance.com. Hear me out, here: I have nothing against the blog (it’s well-read for good reason). But I think the term “relevance” is doing more harm than good at this point. The general thinking on this topic is moving in a positive direction, but I’ve yet to see the language follow. I want that to change now.
I think the best way to actually engage the culture has alwas been through peculiarity. MLK, Mandela, John the Baptist, Jesus and the prophets did not gain the culture’s attention because they did things the same as everyone else. In fact, they gained its attention because they did things very, very differently. I think the Church would do well to seek to do the same, and use language that makes this abundantly clear.
I realize it’s a bit weird to call the church toward peculiarity when the Church Relevance movement was actually a response to churches being peculiar in the first place. But that response was against a divinely misrepresentative form of peculiarity. Christians seemed more formal, boring, naive, and ignorant than everyone else. The wild power of God to overwhelm the human soul with grace and peace was utterly destroyed through tradition, complacency and insulation.
And people were very right in wanting that to change. But the fundamental error of the Relevance movement was to believe that churches ought to seek to kill their peculiarity rather than reform it to Jesus’ flavor of peculiarity: The Kingdom of God. As has always been the case, when the Church perceives a destructive pattern, the Enemy works immediately to make sure that the response to that weakness is equally destructive. It happens in my life all the time, and I think it’s happening all over the Church in the relevance conversation. And so “Relevant” has got to go, and I think ”Peculiar” is a fine replacement. Let’s just not swing the pendulum on this one too, eh?
This makes me think a lot about the emerging church. Though not every “new age”, “post modern” or “emerging church” is doing everything wrong. But there is a fine line between being relevant and conforming to the world (Romans 12:2). The church isn’t supposed to be like the world around us. It is supposed to be different. We can’t aim to draw people in by becoming more like them. We have to draw them in by showing that we have something better, something they need. Just yesterday my pastor mentioned that churches “should not turn themselves upside down and inside out” to bring people in. Being seeker friendly should not be the goal. God is the one that turns people’s hearts to seek Him and awakens them to see they need something more. We, the church, are to be examples. When we are truly seeking God, being transformed, God’s will is going to come to be. People that are seeking God should see Him in us when they come to our churches. The presence of God and the Holy Spirit cannot be ignored.
I know a lot of what I said was reiterating the things you did, but I guess that just means we’re eye to eye on the topic
.
Great post. I was just talking with some friends about this last night.
Great content that’s well written. Thanks for a great post
What if a church were to have a yearly week long meeting.
Put it in a nearly impossible to get to location like the desert…
Do Not Advertise…
Do not provide food, water, sanitation, or shelter…
Charge a couple hundred bucks…
Let the message stand on its own.
Would it grow, would it attract tens of thousands of people, over the years?
The answer, yes to all of the above, except for the word church. If your message reaches people, and touches their innermost being, it can happen. The question then becomes, why can’t a church do the above… and then, why not weekly, or even daily basis?
I appreciate your thoughts, but I encourage you to think more outside your experiences and perspectives of what “relevance” means.
Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water by taking the stance of “relevance” is bad, focus on how there needs to be a deeper and less superficial understanding of relevance.
By its deeper definition, relevance is not about gimmicks, cloning, copying, or imitating. These are shallow foundations of novelty that are as fleeting as the cultures they pursue.
True relevance is first seeking to understand someone’s deepest needs and minister to them. This is simple, but it takes (1) time and (2) personal sacrifice. Unfortunately, some aren’t willing to make that investment.
If you have the basics of ministry covered (i.e., the gospel, Great Commission, love commandments), then every bit of being able to understand someone’s culture will only increase your chances of being able to effectively connect with them (or be relevant).
Authentic connection is true relevance. This type of connection takes many forms be it peculiar and provoking or familiar and nurturing.
Copying culture is easy. Ministering to a culture’s specific needs is much more difficult.
Merely copying culture without the ability to authentically connect is hazardous because it makes Christianity seem unappealing and deceptive. Yet adapting to culture while being able to authentically connect often produces greater results.
Holistically speaking, I think relevance is much, much more than copying gizmos and fashion, but I also think it is more than peculiarity.
Kent,
I really love your definition of relevance and highly respect the diligence with which you clarify and reinforce your brand.
And if my experience told me that the culture around us defined “relevance” as you do, (if the word brought to mind images of authentic connection, sacrifice, and ministering to the human soul), I would be the world’s biggest proponent of the word.
Sadly, (as dictionary authors would tell you), a word’s definition is not so much determined by some inherent truth or meaning, but rather by the way in which the culture uses it, and the meaning that everyday people attach to it.
So although “true relevance” may very well mean what you say it does, I still take issue with the word being used as it is in church circles because most people I know take it to mean something far less meaningful. And it seems a more realistic solution to me to find a new word rather than fight the uphill battle of re-defining a word that’s had so much mileage.
“But the fundamental error of the Relevance movement was to believe that churches ought to seek to kill their peculiarity rather than reform it to Jesus’ flavor of peculiarity: The Kingdom of God.”
Great thought. Enjoyed your post very much. Thanks.
I understand, Mikey.
I agree that many contemporary evangelical subcultures (as well as other church types) define relevance in the way you discuss.
Yet I also believe that the vast majority of Christianity’s 39,000 denominations (or subcultures) do not define relevance this way or even ever discuss the topic.
I think your thoughts are an extremely important discussion to have, but I think it is also important for readers to know that it is a problem with some and certainly not all churches. I don’t want any one church subculture be it Baptist, Emergent, Reformed, Charismatic, Contemporary Evangelical, or Right-Wing Politics to speak on behalf of the global church.
Thought provoking and very well thought out…my concern is that the church, in some cases, has let methodologies come before message. Which, I think, is the same thing you’re addressing. Yes…the message needs to be delivered in a way that those you’re called to minister to can hear…but I pray that message will overtake methodology as the conversation leader…
Enjoyed meeting you in Chicago!
Well yes I do agree that the preaching should not just be methodical but a message from God, not what people wants to hear but what God wants the people to hear.
My major concern is that a church is not any different from any social club like Golf club. Why? Well, people just go to have a good time and come back and live their own lives, until next sunday. shame!
I pray will get back to the scripture ACTS 2:41 to the end is what a churh ought to be regardless of which part of the world it is. God help us!!
Just found this post today. I’m currently writing a post for our “One Prayer” series about wanting to see the church become relevant. I’ve read through the comments and post and still think the definition of relevant here should be challenged. I agree that culture defines words and situations more than a dictionary, but I can’t think of anyone that uses the word relevant in the sense of copying culture or staying “hip.”
It seems the discussion in this article is about the method of the message more than relevance. We can try to keep up with culture in a copycat fashion and not be relevant. We can be thought provoking and trend-setters and not be relevant.
Regardless of the method used (new or old), being relevant has more to do with whether or not we are making a difference in our culture. We can bring the Gospel through new, thought provoking methods and make a difference to some or we can use old, copycat methods to reach others. Staying relevant requires knowledge of your particular neighborhood/culture/people so that you know what will minister to them and make a difference in their lives. If you’re not in an area where “ahead of the trend” is making a difference in the lives of people, you’re not relevant despite your best efforts.
Just my two-cents that nobody asked for
No matter what changes we may be speaking about, when we mention “church”, we’re talking generally about the conventional, congregational structures where believers have traditionally gathered together. It is difficult to imagine such an institution, with its architectural limitations, budgetary and political expectations, staff-led environment, and its contemporary music (which has become, yes, even “conventional” in ityself) to be consistently relevant. Movements here and abroad are indicative of many believers taking a hike from this model because of all the above. If they do not find it relevant themselves, how could it be for those who don’t believe?
I agree with Kent in that we need to “understand someone’s deepest needs and minister to them.” That means “we”, as individual Christ-followers, not the church as an institution. His mention of “authentic connection” is really what the culture has always wanted: a genuine individual who accepts me as I am, loves unconditionally, doesn’t take himself too seriously, and has a deep, unmistakable faith and relationship with God, and engages consistently with others on a one-to-one basis. If Christian communities are not encouraging Christians to be that and forge those kind of relationships that adapt without adopting, then we don’t understand the gospel. What those kind of communities look like is a topic for another conversation, bit I’d like to be known as peculiarly provoking, loving and accepting of my non-Christian colleagues and friends.