The Necessary Relevance and Irrelevance of the church and the church
The Necessary Relevance and Irrelevance of the church:
I am reading Bryan Stone’s book, “Evangelism After Christendom” which offers an approach to evangelism after the Modernity. Part of this means a rejection of the church’s desire to be relevant to its culture. Instead, part of the church’s faithful witness to culture is by being different. Yet this goes against the practice of most churches which desire to engage their culture in meaningful ways. I think there is room for agreement in both of these positions when we are clear what we mean by “church.” I think there are two ways one can faithfully use the word church:
1. Church as a politico-economic faith community; and
2. Church as a local organization dedicated to the systemic and organized proclamation and worship of Jesus.
If these are both faithful uses of the word church, then the church (#1) must be irrelevant to its culture. To use an example close to my heart, the church (#1) cannot simply be an organization that teaches better money management than other not-for-profits that do that sort of thing. In this sense, it has to be irrelevant to a culture consumed with economics. However, the church (#2) must be relevant in proclaiming and practicing Christian faith in its culture, which means teaching financial management to people swamped with debt. This teaching is incredibly relevant, but irrelevant in its content because it should help to create that new faith community where money is not status. (The necessary point to the church (#2) is that it doesn’t teach financial management for reasons of self-perpetuation. That goes against the church (#1) being irrelevant.) The Good News of the church (#1) is not financial management, but the Good News of the church (#2) can come through financial management.
Another example one could use is sexuality. The church (#1) must be irrelevant to its culture in that it asks completely different questions about sexuality than its culture, but the church (#2) must be completely relevant by understanding sexuality is a prominent issue facing its culture. The Good News of the church (#1) is not its promise of sexual fulfillment within its teaching, but the Good News of the church (#2) can come through its relevant teaching on sexuality.
I am reading Bryan Stone’s book, “Evangelism After Christendom” which offers an approach to evangelism after the Modernity. Part of this means a rejection of the church’s desire to be relevant to its culture. Instead, part of the church’s faithful witness to culture is by being different. Yet this goes against the practice of most churches which desire to engage their culture in meaningful ways. I think there is room for agreement in both of these positions when we are clear what we mean by “church.” I think there are two ways one can faithfully use the word church:
1. Church as a politico-economic faith community; and
2. Church as a local organization dedicated to the systemic and organized proclamation and worship of Jesus.
If these are both faithful uses of the word church, then the church (#1) must be irrelevant to its culture. To use an example close to my heart, the church (#1) cannot simply be an organization that teaches better money management than other not-for-profits that do that sort of thing. In this sense, it has to be irrelevant to a culture consumed with economics. However, the church (#2) must be relevant in proclaiming and practicing Christian faith in its culture, which means teaching financial management to people swamped with debt. This teaching is incredibly relevant, but irrelevant in its content because it should help to create that new faith community where money is not status. (The necessary point to the church (#2) is that it doesn’t teach financial management for reasons of self-perpetuation. That goes against the church (#1) being irrelevant.) The Good News of the church (#1) is not financial management, but the Good News of the church (#2) can come through financial management.
Another example one could use is sexuality. The church (#1) must be irrelevant to its culture in that it asks completely different questions about sexuality than its culture, but the church (#2) must be completely relevant by understanding sexuality is a prominent issue facing its culture. The Good News of the church (#1) is not its promise of sexual fulfillment within its teaching, but the Good News of the church (#2) can come through its relevant teaching on sexuality.
Labels: Emerging Church, Practical Theology