He quotes a 1966 resolution from the World Council of Churches saying, “the world must set the agenda for the church.”

Os points out, in contradistinction, what all great theologians have known. He follows Augustine as well as Lewis when he says that the Christian faith is both world affirming and world denying. We are to speak the word of the Lord into our culture, he reminds us. The Lord is sovereign, not the culture. Though certainly, like the apostle Paul, we have our hearers in mind, and very personally so, when we seek to speak the word of the Lord to them. Indeed, the gospel of Jesus Christ is good news for every culture, so it is most relevant to this culture, as Os points out!

Anyway, this is a really great read, so, do pick it up if you get the chance and be challenged to practice what he calls “resistance thinking.” In short, he says this is: “the way of relevance with faithfulness.” Or at length, it: “balances the pursuit of relevance on the one hand with a tenacious awareness of those elements of the Christian message that don’t fit in with any contemporary age on the other.”

Thanks for your thoughtful, humble question/response to this post. You wrote:

“We cannot dismiss cultural relevance in the church as just another passing fad. We must simply remember that the message stays relevant no matter what decade it is, but our way of communicating that message can and, in my personal opinion, should change with in the cultural context.”

Amen. However, I think that decisions to change our way of communicating the eternal message of the Gospel can be made for the wrong reasons, with unintended consequences. That’s the point here. For instance, I may see the church down the street starting to use video because we live in a video culture. So I start looking for movie clips, and organize a video team, and start spending massive amounts of money on projectors and software for the purpose of staying in touch with the folks in my culture, who don’t like to read or hear preaching. Without a careful examination of my motives (do I just want to be on the cutting edge?), a thoughtful anticipation of the consequences (what will we have to STOP doing in order to START doing this?), and a theological basis for my actions (what biblical truths am I seeking to communicate more clearly through these changes?), I run the risk of idolatry, and possibly hindering my communication the Gospel.

One more thought. I wouldn’t say that balance is our goal (commitment to Scripture vs. seeking to be relevant), but rather basing everything we do on a careful, thorough study of God’s Word. If we give ourselves to what God clearly lays out for us to do when we gather, we’ll have less time to pursue things that might be a distraction to those priorities.

Thanks again for reading and responding. Feel free to follow up.

It’s true that Christ came and presented something different, something that no one expected, but there were reasons He was different. First and foremost is that the people didn’t know what they were expecting. They wanted a conquering king, but what they needed was a Redeemer. The prophecies called for both, but the one is required before they other.
Second, He was Christ. How different from everyone else around you can you get? God incarnate, the Second Adam, the Son of Man, the one born without sin. I don’t qualify for any of those titles. Yes, He came to be and live as a man; To feel, taste, touch, and understand what it means to be human, but he was and is still God.
So…different, of course, but because of that He talked in ways that the people would understand along with they ways that they wouldn’t. His use of parables was commonplace for teachers of Christ’s day. The stories He told had characters that the people could respond to. In essence, they were relevant to the day and time. The truths are universal, but there are reasons no one understands what faith like a mustard seed means today.

I completely agree that we cannot idolize relevancy. We can’t and shouldn’t idolize anything. But we cannot dismiss cultural relevance in the church as just another passing fad. We must simply remember that the message stays relevant no matter what decade it is, but our way of communicating that message can and, in my personal opinion, should change with in the cultural context. That includes the American context, not just overseas.

Of course, what I think was meant here was an extension of what we as Christians are called too…an exemplary life, being above reproach. Which is different, from being culturally relevant. You can be relevant without being steeped in social vices. In any case, we really should make the separation here. Just a few of my thoughts.
A.T.H.

Like I wrote at the end, it’s simple a few of my thoughts nothing more. I understand what you mean in you post. We cannot live a life of sin and attract sinners to a life with Christ. There must be a difference in our lives, but I believe calling this being relevant is a bit misleading. On the other hand I’m not quite sure what to call it. Still I believe the key here is balance. Thank you for your blog, it’s one that I will certainly be returning too. As a young worship pastor it gives me another chance to see things from a perspective other than my own.
A.T.H.

I’ve been a part of Sovereign Grace Ministries for almost seven years now and just realized this site existed. Thank you so much for allowing the Lord to work through you as you provide worthwhile material that draws our attention to Biblical truth and doctrine. God has used your worship in music much in the process of transforming my life, and I never tire of the truth-filled music of Sovereign Grace Ministries–from old to new!

Thanks again.

In Christ our Savior,
-Franz Schneider
(Providence Community Church, Denver CO)

The Os Guiness quote sums up well the challenge that we face - that of finding in what ways we are supposed to be the same (relevance), and in what ways we should be different (faithfulness) to the world. It is a timely moment for us to think on this, as it is a key lesson of the incarnation - that Jesus became like us in every way yet was without sin - the same but different. The question then becomes for us - how do we “incarnate” Christ to this generation - making the divine visible and accessible to this culture, being in the world but not of it.

I actually think that we are all - including those who seem obsessed by relevance - seeking this same goal. We need though a more thorough biblical framework and shared language for this task, to enable us to find a way forward beyond the sniping that so often typifies the debate.

I think that the cross gives us that framework - Jesus’ life was shaped by accepting servanthood, sacrifice, and suffering in the pursuit of God’s life-giving agenda. This stands so much against the use and pursuit of wealth, power, and pleasure that are behind many of the idolotrous attitudes you identify.

Thanks for your contribution. God bless you for the coming year.