Here’s a thought I’ve been stewing on for a bit and as I’ve read different blogs and seen different pastors attack other pastors regarding cultural relevancy…
Within the discussion of cultural relevancy there seems to be two streams of thought. If not rightly defined these streams of thought are confused with each other and typically darts are thrown by Pastors and church leaders towards other churches because of their “cultural relevancy.” The two streams appear to be 1)Cultural relevancy in content and 2) Cultural relevancy in expression.
Cultural relevancy in content is the dangerous one. It’s the stream of those who seek to change or alter the message of the Gospel and the Scriptures. The results are disastrous and while motives may be good (“we want more people to love Jesus”) the very “Jesus” their heralding is a cheap watered down version of who Jesus really is.
I can site numerous examples of where this has taken place. The priests and prophets of Israel who God contended with in Hosea 4 for not instructing the people. Thomas Jefferson and the bible he created by cutting out parts of the Scriptures he didn’t like. The post-modern/emergent movement which in a effort to be “cultural relevant” with the message of the Gospel proclaimed no gospel at all. This stream is to be avoided at all cost.
Cultural relevancy in expression is something altogether different. This is merely doing the work that any missionary going to a foreign field would do. This is surveying the landscape of the community you live in and proclaiming or expressing the Gospel in such a way that it connects with them. This is not watering the Gospel by any means, it is removing barriers for people so that they can engage and or hear the Gospel message. It’s is becoming “all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” as Paul says in 1 Cor. 9:22.
Examples of this would be at the most basic level language. We do not preach in Hebrew or Greek, we do not have pew Bibles that are in Hebrew and Greek, we preach and provide Bibles that are in English. We do this because English is the language of the people we have been called to lead and serve. And if a basic definition of cultural includes a peoples group language then we are correct in expressing the Gospel in English to an English speaking audience. I would posit the Catholic church and their use of Latin as a counter example of where cultural relevancy is not being expressed properly (all other Catholic church issues aside).
Music could be another example of where cultural relevancy in expression will and does vary between geographic regions and even congregations within the same community. None of these expressions of cultural relevancy water down the message of the Gospel, they can if the content is changed. However, singing Hymns or non-hymns, southern gospel, R&B, punk rock, rap, or country in and of themselves do not change content, merely expression.
Unfortunately all too often darts are thrown and friendly fire is taken over the issues of expression, not content. Content must be contended for and defended. Fierce wolves will try and do infiltrate the local body and believers and seek to dilute the message of the Gospel and authority of the Scriptures. The Devil is prowling around seeking those whom he can destroy. Content must be contended for.
To the same degree that content must be contended for, expression must be allowed. You and I should be the last ones to fire darts at another ministry simply because it differs in expression. Our evaluation and support of a given church or ministry organization must be made on its content, not it’s expression of the Gospel message.
(Disclaimer: There are indeed times that the expression of a church is blatantly wrong and ungodly. In these occurrences I would argue that the expression is being driven by the content so where a church has greatly erred in their expression there is more than likely great error in their doctrine. )
