Peter Hamm: But being culturally relevant is not evil. It can be a great good. It’s how Jesus taught, it’s how Paul taught.

“Culturally relevant” is a loaded term with no fixed or agreed upon meaning.  So I’m curious what you have in mind when you say, “It’s how Jesus taught, it’s how Paul taught.”

It’s interesting some of the things you seem to ascribe to me. Let me tell you a little about myself:

My church meets in a gym. We take the chairs up after the service so people can play games on that same floor. We have big screens up front to show videos, etc. We have no organ, we have electric guitars, keyboards, and drums (which have to be behind plexiglass because of noise). I don’t even know the words to as many as 10 hymns. I have led worship for young people for years, using stuff like Hillsong, Chris Tomlin, Jeff Deyo, Planetshakers, etc, never once asking the kids to open a hymnal. And I have no idea what a flannel graph is.

The point: By your standards, my church is pretty relevant, but my point is that it’s ALL irrelevant. I stay there ‘cause the pastor preaches the biblical gospel. And if he stopped, I’d happily go to one of them ‘flannel graph’ churches that preached the biblical message.

Relevant to culture or not - who cares? What’s relevant now will be not so in 10 or 20 years. (Just ask all those churches with the ‘Prayer of Jabez’ bible studies collecting dust in the church basement). We can’t make relevance a goal, because when we do we invariably have to change the message.

How this plays out in youth ministry is this: Our goal is to be relevant so that we can attract kids. We find that kids are more attracted to fun and games, and messages that talk about sex and peer pressure than they are to ‘boring old sermons’ about our need for the righteousness that comes from God.

So, we jetison the biblical call to repentance (not relevant to kids), we get rid of discussions about the holiness and sovereignty of God (also not relevant), and we refuse to talk about the biblical standard of separation from the world system (as the kids would say, SO not relevant) What’s left are youth groups which focus on fun and socialization.

The fact is, church youth ministry IS relevant to kids until they reach a certain age, at which time their interests for fun and excitement begin to conflict with biblical standards for those who are born again. (For example - young boys up until about age 12 or 13 like to run around and play games. The church can be ‘relevant’ by providing these things for them. But by about 14 or so, young boys begin to want to explore their sexuality with young girls, or they want to party, etc. It is at this point that the ‘relevant’ church loses all their relevance in the lives of young people).

And since the goal was to attract kids and keep them, and be relevant to their lives, this goal came in conflict with the biblical call to repentance, changed lives, and seperation from the world system they love so much. The result is that since they’re not saved, they leave church as soon as they are able (when they go away to college).

The solution, whether your church is relevant or not: Preach the gospel, in season and out of season. (I know, way too old fashioned)

CS and Andy,

NO ONE here is trying to say that preaching the gospel is irrelevant.  It’s very tiring to hear the same ol’ “If you mention relevance you automatically mean that you don’t preach the gospel” refrain.  This may not be what you’re trying to communicate, but that’s what comes across…

What we are trying to say is this: the methodology we use to bring the gospel must be something the hearers can understand.

Jesus Himself is the ultimate example for this:  He could have remained in heaven, full of the glory He deserves and left us to what we deserve: damnation.

Yet He chose to come to earth in a way that was relevant: as a human who spoke the language of the people.  He came in a way and spoke in a way that would be understood by those He was trying to reach.

To be relevant to those we are trying to reach is simply being Christlike.

Obviously we should not use means that are anti-Scriptural.  Notice I said “anti” Scriptural, not “un” Scriptural.  We can all point to examples of things in our own churches that are “un” Scriptural (pulpits, crosses on walls, etc.).  No one here is advocating anti-Scriptural means of bringing the gospel.

Brian L.

Daniel:

That’s an interesting perspective that you have regarding being saved and being outside of the walls of a church for so long.  In those years, how did Hebrews 10:24-25 affect you in your walk with Christ?

Brian L:

“NO ONE here is trying to say that preaching the gospel is irrelevant.  It’s very tiring to hear the same ol’ “If you mention relevance you automatically mean that you don’t preach the gospel” refrain.  This may not be what you’re trying to communicate, but that’s what comes across…”

Actually, more of my emphasis this time has been focused on how the preaching of the Gospel has been conspicuously absent from youth groups and how social activities are instead made the norm.  So many kids are dying today without the knowledge of the saving grace of Christ, even though they dutifully attend church and participate in age-related groups within their churches.  This is a travesty, and relates back to the numbers of people who fall away in that 18-30 age range.

I did mention relevancy insofar as my last post, in line with Andy’s comments.  I believe that the sensationalistic entertainment and adherence to fads and novelties going on is a distraction to the preaching of the Gospel, but that is not totally related to this topic.

--
CS

Let’s remember the point of this article. This is how the issue of relevance came into the discussion.

The original question was why do kids leave the church in droves when the get to a certain age. Many posters here have said that the reason kids leave is because the church is not relevant. They further go on to point out that we need to be relevant, just like Jesus was, and that’s the solution to not losing our kids.

OK, let me see if I follow:

(1) If the church wants to stop losing kids, then we need to make the gospel relevant to their lives.
(2) Look at Jesus, He was the ultimate person who made the gospel relevant.

This so called ‘answer’ has been bounced around forever, and what this ‘need to be relevant’ misses is this:

VIRTUALLY EVERYONE WHO FOLLOWED JESUS LEFT HIM!!!

So, according to the logic of many who have posted here, the problem is that we’re not relevant, and we need to be relevant like Jesus, and then, just like Jesus, we won’t lose our kids.

So, if we try to relevant the way that Jesus was, as many of you suggest, than we should EXPECT to lose most of our kids, since that is exactly what happened to the ‘relevant Jesus’ many of you speak of.

Could it be any plainer by YOUR OWN SUGGESTIONS and YOUR OWN STANDARDS that way you say we should do did not, and does not, work.

And too carry on just a little bit more, to make sure you understand what you guys are saying, let me spell it out. Either:

(1) Jesus didn’t attempt to be relevant (In which case then why should we) OR
(2) Jesus did attempt to be relevant but it didn’t work to keep people around.

But unfortunately, many here want to have it both ways and say that we need to be relevant like Jesus, and that is the solution to us losing kids.

I’m sorry, but the biblical record doesn’t allow for that opinion at all.

As a matter of fact, the biblical record only allows for this: Jesus told stories that had some relevance to those who heard him, but that relevance had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether they continued to follow him. Nothing.

So why do you guys think it’s the solution for us if it wasn’t for Jesus?

threegirldad,

Last time… I don’t want to be drawn into this again.

Because as I said, I’m really not willing to take the time to prove this point… again… in this forum.

Just one disturbing thing, though… when I mentioned Jesus lack of exegetical theological preaching and definitions of theological terms and you asked for a scripture to show that, I can only ask if you are kidding. The VAST bulk of Jesus teaching is devoid of the kind of exegetical preaching that many seem to feel is the “one right way” today (not that I don’t appreciate the kind of preaching that these folks do, I do… I really do). He told stories and parables… LOTS of them. He gave specific instructions about how to live life… LOADS of it. Read any chapter or two of the Gospels and you are confronted with it.

He died for us, but first he lived among us and told us how to live, not just how to believe.

I defined cultural relevance just fine, thanks. This particular site, MMI, has always a great place for discussion about innovative and relevant ways to bring God’s good news to people in our time and place. Some of you disagree with the idea that we should use what appear to be far too “entertaining” methods in order to do that.

Perhaps there is a site where they talk about how misguided the modern church is all day that you’d like to join in the conversation at that place. This is, I’m hoping, not it. And I don’t think it was the original point of this post either.

Andy writes

“The error that you and others here are making is the error of pragmatism, that is, trying to define ‘what works’

That is not our job, our job is to follow Christ’s command to preach the gospel, and to disciple true believers. “

Scary oversimplification. If everybody knew HOW to best preach the gospel and disciple true believers, this site and others like it would not exist. It is indeed our job, with the help of God’s Holy Spirit, to figure out how to do that in our world.

Andy,

Yes, I’m trying to bow out of the discussion… but…

yes, what Jesus did worked. It worked by God’s standards, not man’s.

Should we do what Jesus did? Churches like mine insist that that is just what we ARE doing… For instance, our tagline is “Reaching People, Changing Lives” and when we explain that to people in our membership class, we always state that WE reach people, and GOD changes lives. (So we only have to do half our mission statement… pretty sweet...)

“Our job is to preach the gospel. Period. It is God who saves people. Period.”

I AGREE! But that does NOT mean that the method we use at different times is inconsequential. Certainly Jesus changed emphases and methods from time to time and so did Paul, depending on the audience and the place. That is ALL WE ARE SAYING and that is, for me, the original working out of cultural relevance.

“It’s either that or, by your standards, Jesus was very, very unsuccessful at His ministry and should have spent more time here with you guys so you could teach Him how to do it better.” I don’t know what any of us has said to make you say something like that. Your rhetoric could tone down just a little, if you don’t mind.

Andy, if you are so convinced that Jesus was a failure why are you a Christian?  If his ministry was such a failure why is Christianity so widespread?  If you don’t believe in what Jesus taught, go back to being Jewish and only read the Old Testament.  Or since you seem to believe you know better than Jesus, start your own cult.

Preach the Gospel your way, don’t worry about reaching young people, don’t worry about saving lost souls, disciple your true believers (only those that believe exactly as you do), and leave the rest of the church alone to do God’s work.

You seem to believe everyone but yourself is preaching false Gospel.  What happened to make you so cynical?

Daniel,

I never said that I thought Jesus was a failure. My point was (please reread), when YOU set up attracting and keeping people as the standard, and YOU set up cultural relevance as the standard, then YOU make Jesus Christ out to be a failure.

I think the point I’m trying to make is this:

Many people here think the way to reach young people is:

The Gospel Plus Something Else

Whether that Something Else is cultural relevance or cute stories, etc.

I think the way to reach young people is:

The Gospel.

And the reason I think we shouldn’t add that Something Else is that as soon as you do, people begin to have discussions as to whether or not that Something Else works, or what would make it more effective for reaching the lost.

Eventually, and this happens all the time, the issue then becomes whatever that Something Else is, and the gospel takes a back seat. Go back and look at the posts in this discussion, everyone is supporting their favorite Something Else.

Or, as Paul says:

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.

Grrrrr.  Well, there’s nothing like pouring over a post multiple times, only to miss a mangled html tag.

[forehead slap]

I don’t know the solution to this. However, I do know that when my children were in high school, they did not find much to interest them in youth activities, mainly because the adults in charge presumed that all teens wanted to do was play sports and listen to Christian rock, neither of which appealed to my kids much.  There was very little substance in anything--the main point always was having fun.  I think many adults involved in teen type ministry do so to try and relive their youth.  Thankfully, my kids weathered the years, and still attend church, but I attribute some of that to the fact that they were not terribly involved in any youth group. 
I don’t really understand the extreme focus on fun.  I just re-read the Book of Acts, chock full of evangelism as it is, and there is really no mention of fun…

Let me add one more thing.  Our church does not separate the youth from the rest of the church for worship, which I believe has helped my kids stay with the church.  We don’t even have a nursery.  On Easter, our oldest member attended on her 100th birthday.  What a statement about the promise of the Resurrection for ALL by having ages 0 to 100 worshipping as one!  What a statement to the youth of our congregation that we are all in this together!  Kids want to have fun, sure, but we let them down when we are so afraid the Gospel will bore them, that we make it fluffy fun. God’s message is as deep as the ocean; we give them a babbling stream.  When they hit adulthood with adult problems and stresses, no wonder they leave the church.  They’ve outgrown the fun and feel they were misled…