Since posting Stigma of Christianity, I have been thinking about the general idea of relevance. As the church, we believe we need to be relevant in our culture influence souls for Christ, and we see that in practice in the scriptures. Paul made a great effort at relevance with sharing the good news with the Greeks by working his explanation through their Tomb to the Unknown God in Athens. All of the Gospels are written so as to be relevant to their audiences. (The Epistles were as well, but I see the Gospels as more missionary in purpose while the Epistles were instructional to the churches.)
Today, one of our relevance attempts en mass have been through politics: by-in-large aligning ourselves with one party for religious reasons and defining every political action through the lens of Christianity. Has this been successful? Politically, we're a force to be reckoned with, but we're also the enemy and/or laughing stock of so many that do not align with our stances. Personally, I believe this "religious right" political force has peaked and will wain at least some in the near future.
Has this made the church any more relevant? It has definitely given us more media headlines, but do headlines and relevance align. I'd say no. On a national scale, these headlines and activity have created the very stigma I'm talking about. Relevance comes, in my opinion, when the church is quietly meeting the needs in each of its individual communities, when we are touching lives around us rather than debating issues.
But now I'm brought back to John 15:18-25 where Christ tells us the world will hate us. If we're working to be relevant in our world, then aren't we working to not be hated? My natural tendency is definitely to try not to be hated as best I can within my own moral guidelines.
This seems to be an enigma to me, but I am coming to this conclusion:
I believe our charge is to spread the good news. We are given examples of doing this in many ways: through open-minded discussions, through preaching, with miracles, through our living testimonies, etc. All of these are methods that find relevancy in the situation at hand to better share that gospel. Christ concludes his discussion in John 15:25 with the statement that we are fulfilling the prophecy that "they hated me without reason." So, I'm not to work to be hated. I don't have to worry about that. It's coming in some form no matter what. I'm not to condemn or shout or display banners and protest signs, or push my morality (even though correct according to biblical teachings) upon those who are lost and thus by definition don't follow that same code. I'm to love them, tell them the good news in a way relevant to their situation, and then disciple those that accept that news.
(note: This doesn't mean that I become apolitical or a wet blanket when it comes to morality. I stll intend to vote and to even express my views. But I don't think my religion is best proclaimed through taking political or moral stances on issues.)
Technorati Tags : christianity, stigma, relevance, gospel
Posts
2 comments:
I don't think being relevant and loved are the same thing. You can be relevant and still hated. In fact, perhaps the more relevant the church becomes, the more hated it may become because it's message is actually being understood.
I think of relevance kind of like vhs and dvd. VHS used to be the thing everybody had a vcr. People still have vhs but I don't go out and buy movies on vhs anymore because I realize that in the future it will be obsolete. Now the content on those tapes is not obsolete just the format. I buy movies on DVD so that I can play them.
VHS will go the way of 8-track, it might be cool to look at but they are no longer relevant.
Our Christian message is not wrong just our format. People nowadays jsut don't understand the old format. We're trying to shove big bulky tapes into dvd players.
As far as betting on political horses.... I think it's dangerous for the church to align itseld so closely with one party. Billy Graham once endorsed Nixon. He even let him speak at one of his crusades. After the watergate stuff Graham said he would never again endorse a candidate.
How much money do Christian organizations spend on political lobbying? What kind of lobbying tactics do we use?
I guess I'm trying to process through the question: how effectly can we spread our message when we are doing things that put a bad taste in the public's mouth? Can we even get an audience through these methods anymore?
Your analogy for relevance is interesting. Let's take a look at the format.
In terms of relevance and the love/hate question from the world, I'd love to hear others' opinions, especially in this post concerning western culture and particularly the US. (I believe there's a whole other dynamic the church is facing in other cultures around the world.)
Is the church being hated more these days? If so, are we being hated because our message is being understood?
Post a Comment