Being Cultually Relevant

There is a lot of discussion among Christians lately about reaching the culture.  Many refer to it as missions.  There is also a lot of debate about what the message is that the Bible has for the unsaved.  Some have proposed removing the exclusivity of the cross, the one way.  They propose broadening the path, though Jesus said it was narrow. 

There are two good and biblical goals here that at some point become mutually exclusive.  There is the goal to evangelize and reach a culture in a relevant way.  And there's the goal to be faithful to the authority of Scripture.  When they conflict, we have to consider the question:  How far can or should we go in being relevant? 

We know that mankind is fallen, living in sin.  Therefore at least some of our desires and interests are misdirected and corrupted by sin.  Our sinful natures are in rebellion against God from the start.  But it sure seems that our society is becoming more and more individualistic and more defiant of authority.  Naturally then, the message of Christianity - that we are created to be God's children and must bend our knee to Him - is going to offend not only our sinful nature, but also our culturally-influenced sensibilities.  So how far can we contextualize the Gospel in a culturally-relevant way when the culture itself encourages rebellion against God?  At some point, isn't it impossible to do justice to the Gospel or be unable to accommodate cultural relevance?  These are at their core at odds with one another.

It seems that at some point we can do no more to appeal to culture and can only share what the Bible teaches and let those who will come, and those who will not rail against the message and God.  There's only so much we can do.

Now where that line is exactly, I'm not sure.  But it easy to see cases where not enough effort it put into communicating effectively with the culture and cases where the message has become compromised in the effort.

While we need to have a burning desire to take the Gospel to non-Christians, we also have to begin with an unwaivering commitment to the message, and a pragmatic realization that the message will not appeal to all.  And we cannot compromise the message to those who will not hear it.  Beyond that point we are no longer ambassadors for God, we're peddling a culturally-compromised message.

Comments

[Robert Pavich]

I agree. We are to take the good news to unbelievers.
I believe we are to present it clearly so they can understand it. Beyond that, I don't see why we should try and please them?
If our effort is to make it palatable to a lost world, I would say why? Why do that? To make it more enticing?

Thats appealing to man centered stuff

bob

[Candace Sargent]

First, people don't want to know how much you know until they know how much you care.

Second, modeling goes a long way, and shows practical application which is necessary for words to transcend. Ask yourself, "Would you want to aspire to be more like you?" They have to want Jesus through you.

Third, Paul was a good example of knowing his audience: being more like a Jew when with Jews, etc. Some people call that tactics but it's wisdom: knowing your audience and taking that into account while presenting Jesus.

Fourth, prayer to do what seems impossible to man.

Remember that sincere people can be sincerely wrong, even in the face of absolutely truth.

[Mick Richardson]

I'm sorry to comment off topic, but I couldn't find another contact method.

I'm a college student and I'm writing a research paper on religious blogging. I'd like to include your blog in my research. If you're interested in responding to a few questions via email, please respond and I'll forward you the questionnaire.

Thanks in advance for your time,

Mick

[Damian Alabakoff]

I agree also. Let us not forget the greatest Evangalist in the universe walked this earth, he taught an uncompromising message, raised the dead, and did other miracles to back it all up and yet some still said "no thanks".

All we can do is be faithful to the Good News we have been instructed to share, and have faith that Christ will use us to bring people to himself that no one will snatch from his hand.

Damian

[Markku Koponen]

The way to make Christianity culturally relevant would be to remember to explicitly point out the parts, where Christianity and culture are at odds.

The wrong way is for example the "Jesus loves you and wants to save you" -style. It doesn't take into account the lack of conscious moral guilt nowadays, and therefore is hopelessly culturally irrelevant.

[Chad Winters]

We have a good example from Jonah, who was sent to proclaim God's Word in Ninevah which had a much "different culture" than the biblically based one that Jonah came from, but I don't see where he "adapted" the message to Ninevah's culture. But look at the response he got.

If God had sent an evangelist to Sodom/Gomorrha.... do you think he would have expected a message that was adapted to the prevailing "culture"?

I think this shows that receptivity to the Gospel is God's responsibility. Ours is to faithfully proclaim the message he gave us.

[Bruce Bennie]

What can help make the Gospel more relevant in our culture is for it to be communicated in such a way as it helps relocate the "conscience", stirs up an understanding of the moral shortfall human beings have before God, and enables folks to rediscover a sense of a need for a saviour. Prayer and clear communication will be vital to achieve this. Yes, some folks will argue morality is up for grabs and others will have their conscicence seared, but it is the burdening of the conscience that points the way to the need of redemption. It is here the Christian message can powerfully connect and find relevance for the human heart. The challenge, of course, will not be to brow-beat people, judge people or condemn people, but rather to allow the Spirit to open the eyes so they discover this need within their own lives. Then one does not have to compromise the message, but rather APPLY the message, so that to the hearer it is received as GOOD news.

[Mike]

Melinda said "Naturally then, the message of Christianity - that we are created to be God's children and must bend our knee to Him "...
What???
I can certainly see how that would offend...because that's not the Gospel message. The Gospel is Christ crucified, buried and resurrected to provide salvation from our spiritual death.
Her version implies a sort of unwilling but necessary submission to a king, not the grace that God offers us. Sure, as Christians, we bow to God, but not out of duty, but out of greatfulness to our Father for his grace.

Mike,
What is that grace for, if not the forgiveness of our acts of rebellion against Him? The gospel, as proclaimed in scripture, has three parts - Creation, the Fall, and Redemption. It makes no sense to talk of Jesus crucified for our sins if we don't first start with a creator God whom we were created to glorify and serve, but of whom we have become enemies, deserving just punishment, through our sinful rebellion. The root of sin is our desire for autonomy.

Also, I don't get the impression that Melinda meant that statement to be exhaustive in regards to the message of Christianity, but rather a facet of that message that runs in conflict with our American mentality.

[Aaron Snell]

Sorry - that was me above.

[Alvin Colón]

Certainly this is an issue that must be struggled with. The Great Comission commands that all peoples be reached and evangelized; peoples who obviously had and still have different cultures. Were it not for this, one could encounter this difficulty and avoid it without considering oneself to be acting unfaithfully or in disobedience to God, but Christians believe that Christ commanded it and so must accept it as accorded responsibility that must not be shirked. Personally, I believe that God does not ask for what is totally impossible, giving, rather, to his servants the ability to accomplish assigned tasks (Matt 18:26). Cultural barriers cannot be cited as an excuse by those who think salvation and the Gospel message impossible to propagate. Of those who do cite this excuse God asks "Was my arm too short to ransom you? Do I lack the strength to rescue you?" (Is 50:2). God can reach across any barrier.

Culture can be a hinderance and an impedance to the communication of two individuals preventing one or both from understanding the relevance of what the other is attempting to convey, and an understanding of this obstacle is helpful to making a Christian messager more effective, but let us realize that the communication of two individual if unimpeded by nothing more than culture is the communication of two idividuals and it is the individual and not the culture that is saved.

Any two human beings have humanity in common, and shared humanity is what makes the Bible relevent today. Culture has changed and by definition is dynamic, but the human being is still the same. A child born today has all the same knowlege at birth as a child born centuries ago and must go through the same maturation process.

Humanity is the only requisite that God set before Jesus for salvation to be relevant to human beings and this is the only requisite that we must satisfy for the offer to apply. It is in this commonality of shared humanity and not the differences that a solution can exist to the challenge of making the ancient Gospel relevant to modern people.

**********
Happy Columbus Day everyone.

Christopher = Christ bearer

Columbus = Dove/peace keeper

Translates as:
Cristoforo Colombo in Italian
Cristóbal Colón in Spanish

Ironic historical name.

[Mike L.]

--we should probably change it to Leif Ericsson Day, lol!

[Robert Pavich]

Just to add another observation if I may.
I guess what I'm trying to say is to make the gospel culturally relevant is to "compromise it".
I see no problem with trying to communicate the pure message of:
Mans Rebellion
Repentance
Faith in Christ
Salavation

In a way that someone can understand..I use the courtroom analogy all of the time because people know what a courtroom is, they understand what it is to be condemmened, etc...
I think that is the proper method to reaching lost people...

Not inviting them to "pot lucks" or "God styled Mocha Cappaccino bars" in hopes that they will absorb enough to repent and be saved or twist the message so much that it will be acceptable to them...the Gospel isn't acceptable to a fallen creation...it goes against his very nature...I understand that...
bob

[Robert Pavich]

Just to add one more thing;
I had the major privledge to witness to a co-worker yesterday.
I explained Sin, his personal sin, his need for a savior, his destination (hell) without a savior, I begged him to consider what will happen after he dies.
He shook my hand and thanked me for explaining the Gospel message so clearly so he could understand it.
I didn't mold the message to suit him, but I did tell him why I was sharing that with him....because I love him as he is a fellow human and I'm commanded to love him. I then told him that telling what I had told him was the most loving thing I could do for another human; to give them the words of eternal life....
He really was appreciative.
No perferting of the message to suit him...just the truth spoken in love...

bob

[M. Cruz]

I agree. People in general (and especially in our individualistic culture) do not want to bow to anyone or anything. But that's the message of the Gospel - there is one God and one way. This is, by nature, offensive. So offensive that Jesus was killed because of it. That's the level of hatred in the human heart toward God. Preaching anything less than Jesus Christ is Lord of all is compromise.

[Alvin]

I like Markku's comment. There is much enightenment to draw from the story of Jonah. Jesus certainly thought so and used the story of Jonah as an example calling it the only miraculous sign given to this generation despite the fact that he performed miracles and was not in Jonah's generation as we might use the word today. Considering that Jesus is God any of his own miracles were easy, but that many in a gentile society with a culture that was so radically different from the Jewish culture that it was disgusting to prophet sent to them should choose to believe in the God of Israel, is what Jesus calls a miracle.

Jesus used this name "Sign of Jonah" in reference to his death and resurrection on the third day, which sounds unlikely enough in and of itself, but also in reference to the fact that Gentiles, though he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt 15:24), would later believe this story. This spreading of belief in God's word is an even greater miracle.

In many ways the existence of a Church proves the Gospel message in that the Church's existence is a miracle. I don't know about anyone else writing in this blog, but I have no Hebrew heritage that I am aware of, and that belief in Jesus should exist in me or my family though we cannot trace our ancestry to any resurrection witness is a miracle. Somewhere in my family's history a cultural divide was bridged and somewhere in my own life (though I can't point to a single moment) whatever held me as distinct from the Church and separate from God in my mind was erased by the one who can cross any divide and erase any boundary.

[Alvin]

Sorry that's Chad comment I agree with. Although I also like Markku suggestion about being forward with the differences.

[jason]

I agree we cannot compromise the message because we are no longer ambassadors for God, we're peddling a culturally-compromised message. Jesus didn't compromise His message, and His was were radially against the Jewish culture...eating with tax collector and prostitutes. Our job is to be "in" the world not "of" the world and to be an example, not to beat people over the head with the gospel. We are to be the evidence that God is alive and up to something in this world.