Relevance, is it a sin? It has been a hot topic among Christians lately and it has been on my mind a lot today. There are a lot of new churches out there proclaiming to be relevant or emergent. Many have been under attack from some who claim that by delivering the message in a new way they have distorted or destroyed the message.
This may be true in some cases, but not all. Sometimes you have to deliver the message in such a way as to get the current generations attention. For those who feel that this is wrong let me remind you that God made a donkey speak:
(26) Then the angel of the LORD moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. (27) When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat her with his staff. (28) Then the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”
(29) Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”
(30) The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”
“No,” he said.
Numbers 22:26-30(NIV)
Not enough for you? Jesus spoke in parables all throughout His ministry. Sometimes you have to talk to people on their own level in order for them to understand.
Is it a sin to change the message? Yes and a deadly one at that:
(15)Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. (16)He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV) emphasis added
Relevance though is not a sin, even Paul did it:
(19)Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. (20)To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. (21)To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. (22)To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. (23)I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (NIV) Emphasis added.
No, delivering the message in a new and exciting way is not a sin. Not delivering the good news at all, THAT is a sin!
I find it refreshing when Christians attempt to find relevant ways to discuss their beliefs…as opposed to the old fashioned brow beating and hell-fire and brimstone tactics that seem to be the the only trick that the Christians that I hear complaining about “relevance” seem to have.
Will relevance save Christianity from it’s coming demise? no…but it might slow it down.
Hey, thanks for stopping by. I think the atheistic view that Christianity will go away is a bit of a pipe dream. They have been trying for over 2000 years and still haven’t made us go away.
There are places and times even for the hell fire and brimstone preaching. It greatly depends on the audience and the message.
Ya know, the even more interesting part of the story of Balaam and his donkey is the fact that Balaam was a sorcerer who used divination to obtain his knowledge. And God still spoke to and used him. Perhaps because of the relevance of his “skills” to the princes of Moab and Midian.
Either way, it is time for the church to stop forcing people to submit to their rules and traditions of religion. It’s time we act out the gospel of Christ in the way He did – with love and compassion towards all.
Couldn’t agree with you more on the atheistic pipe-dream. John Lennon made a similar prediction once. So did Neitzsche, Lenin and countless others. And even for all the power that the roman empire could muster to annihilate the first century church, it not only survived but flourished. It wasn’t until the church began to see prosperity that it began to falter.
Nietzsche, that’s the name I was trying to remember. He was the one who claimed Gods dead, guess he was wrong!
Yes, Michael is very gifted in that area. We have a couple in our church who are similarly gifted, it’s fun to watch them work with the youth.
It’s a very challenging question, I agree – first, determining the “real” message, and then, how best to disseminate it. I believe that scripture, apocrypha, and canonical writings are all rife with politicizations of previously purely ethical directives. It makes the river of scripture frustratingly muddy at times. One exciting analysis of this process is in this book: http://www.powells.com/review/2007_07_14. I have to say, when I’m told to “read the bible,” I always ask myself, “greek or aramaic?”
I had actually read misquoting Jesus once. The problem there is that even that author had his own agenda. Most authors leave out things that may get in the way of their beliefs. Do I think there are textual and factual mistakes in the bibles of today, yes. Do I think that the Bilbe has it mostly right even when that is considered, yes again. I highly recommend the book Can We Trust the Gospels by Mark Roberts http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/books1.htm He has some good insight into this as well.
First off, thank you both, Jeff and Wink, for the wonderful compliment.
Second, I can’t help myself with this one. But anytime I think about Niethzsche’s remark that “God is dead” I’m reminded of an old Benny Hill sketch. A brick wall with graffiti all over it and a bit that says “God is dead- Fred” and below it another bit that says “Fred is dead – God”. It always makes me smile.
And finally, I discuss/debate the infallibility of the scriptures with other believers all the time. Not because I’m trying to change anyone’s mind, but because relying completely on the wording leads to a sense of legalism. (“the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” – 2 Corinthians 3:6) Also because I have questions that aren’t answered in the texts as they’re translated. I want to see if anyone else has the same questions, or the answers to them. So far, not many do.
Ultimately, I believe that the Bible is not infallible in it’s translation – in it’s wording – but in it’s underlying message – the Spirit of the word. I believe that it is the Spirit of Truth (which is the Holy Spirit) that is “embodied” within it’s pages. And that’s why the Bible is still reliable as God’s word.
Many believers think I’m a false teacher for believing this. But the only opinion that matters to me is God’s. And since the Holy Spirit hasn’t convicted me of this, I must be OK.