On “Relevance”
Over at Faith and Leadership, Timothy Larsen has posted a withering critique of the church’s never-ending pursuit of the Holy Grail of “relevance.” It’s a pretty short article, and well worth the read. If you are at all involved in church leadership and recognize some of your own experience here, perhaps you will be emboldened and spurred on to determined new heights of (appropriate) irrelevance. If nothing else, perhaps it will evoke a kind of grim laughter for those who have spent any time at all in and around certain expressions of North American church life. Here are a few memorable quotes from what I found to be an insightful (if disturbing) article.
On the problem of “relevance” as a goal:
In other words, the value of “relevance” can easily degenerate into the shedding of the real, solid, indispensable features of the Christian life in a demeaning chase after the latest fads. Such an undesirable outcome is perhaps merely a manifestation of a larger tendency, which has gone on for several decades now, to remake church life in the image of the tastes of 12- to 16-year-olds.
On the ambivalence of youth and the flight of twenty-somethings from the church:
I suspect that they long to encounter something bigger, deeper, older, wiser, steadier and more grounded than themselves, not a sad parody of their own adolescent distractions. Twenty-somethings are unlikely to respond to a sad parody of the trivial cultural preoccupations of the current crop of junior-high-schoolers.
On what our fascination with relevance might say about our approach to the received wisdom and tradition of the church:
“Relevant” can be code for the practice of holding the deep wisdom and resources of the church hostage to the immediate interests of the least discipled and spiritually formed among us.
And finally, on entertainment and the church:
If there is one thing our culture does not have in short supply, it’s entertainment. People do not need to get up on a cold Sunday morning, get dressed, get the kids ready and drive to another building to hear a bit of comedy or see a well-produced skit. Diversions devised by the best professional entertainers in the world are easier to procure than that. Amateur hour from some local wannabes who have forgotten their real mission will not win this competition.
Quite a diagnosis, to be sure.
Rumblings 
Great article!
I think we’re on the same page on this issue – these are the lines I was going to highlight before I read your quotes:
“Such an undesirable outcome is perhaps merely a manifestation of a larger tendency, which has gone on for several decades now, to remake church life in the image of the tastes of 12- to 16-year-olds.”
“Amateur hour from some local wannabes who have forgotten their real mission will not win this competition.”
Sometimes churches just try so hard at everything without asking, “Why?”
And I can’t help but post this video again (I do every chance I get):
Ugh. That video looks scarier every time I see it.
God help us.
Oh man….oh man….
Ryan, I think you linked to the second page of the article, which by the way, I also enjoyed. I found this to be quite a good assessment to the worriment of “relevance”:
Maybe a better slogan would be “If you’re worried about whether or not it’s relevant, then your heart is probably still far away from the things of God.” Or maybe “If you’re thinking that something in our corporate life and worship is not relevant, that’s probably a sign that your Christian spiritual formation is still incomplete.”
Amen.
The articles seems to indicate that youth group has morphed into the church service. ie. a type of youthgroup for adults. And most of the time youth groups aren’t aimed at growing into maturity either. This leads me to think that big youth conferences/revivals, etc, (that focus on entertainment) can often make youth unsatisfied with their own church.. and so this cycle isn’t necessarily something that affects those who grow up and become disillusioned, but also causes youth to become dissatisfied with their home church.. they don’t participate in something that helps them appreciate their own church, or participate in something that helps them grow up. Hmmm.
But while we’re posting videos, this one cracks me up everytime too.
(Hope that works, never posted a video in comments)
EDH – that video was painful!
Oh, and I think every church needs a Carl – “In the Bible it says that we judge a teacher by his fruit. It doesn’t say what to do if the teacher is a fruit!”
Good point, re: the vicious cycle of false expectation and dissatisfaction that can (and does) ensue when churches try to be conferences and conferences try (even inadvertently) to be churches.
As for the video… Well, let’s just say I had to look away in horror a few times! I’m not sure if I should thank you for the link or demand an apology :).
(Thanks for the heads up on the link to the article in the main post—it should be fixed now.)
Mwahaha.
De wurd form come from da Grik word formulos vich come from da word formularicus vich come from da ol’ Grik word halarious vich mean focus on da peeple at de front ub dee church – so there you go!
The flip side of this are those churches which appear to pride themselves by their lack of connection to current culture.
Just listen to KARI radio at 5.00 p.m. weekdays. Beamed into the Vancouver BC area from a timewarp in the 1600’s.
So Larry’s comment has me thinking that maybe one of the questions worth discussing (if anyone’s still lingering or interested in pursuing this) is how ought the church to be “relevant” and with respect to what elements of human experience?
I think any discussion of relevance needs to consider our order of priorities. Larson’s article (and the companion videos) illustrate relevance for relevance’s sake. Yet Jesus was relevant. Except his relevance wasn’t always popular or pleasing. I guess a biblical definition of relevance would be a good starting point for any church wanting to connect with culture.
When it comes to connecting with human experience, attempts at relevance come across shallow and contrived (again, relevance is the starting point). It’s far more relevant if what a church does connects to deep human needs for healing and transformation (sickness, relationships, etc…) instead of competing with pop culture for an hour a week. I guess I’m saying a church’s relevance needs to be real.
Yes, prioritizing is clearly the best place to start… At its best, I think, that relevance ought to be something that arises from within the Christian story itself. Clearly, if the Christian story is claimed to tell the truth about the world and human beings within it, it will be relevant. Maybe this is what you are getting at in referring to healing and transformation. There are generic human needs that transcend this or that specific cultural moment (i.e., redemption, worship, belonging, tradition) and that are always “relevant.”
I suppose there is always contextualization required, but chasing after the latest trends so that we can effectively “reach” people seems like a non-starter to me. Such efforts will always be in danger of being “late to the party.” I find it highly ironic that one of the trends out there right now is a trend back to the traditions and resources of the historical church. I think this is a good thing—hopefully not just a passing phase.
Maybe the pendulum is always destined to swing hard… Or maybe people are discovering that they can get rock concerts and motivational self-help pep-talks at, well, rock concerts and motivational self-help conferences, and are increasingly wanting something else from church. One can always hope…
Late to the party indeed!
sounds to me like relevant is operating like a sort of euphamistic reference to those characteristics that are either annoying or pleasing about the form of church we choose to be evaluating.
if being too relevant means compromising (all too often personally derived sense of) orthodoxy then it is bad
if not being relevant enough means avoiding application to the real lived experiences of actual people then it is seen to be good
frankly, I hope the discussion can go a little deeper than that.
relevancy also seems to apply almost exclusively to form and very little to function. Again i think talking about relevance can tend to reduce discourse to evaluation of the modes of expression we choose when we gather. here too I hope that we have moved past what happens on a “SUNDAY MORNING” …
If form is the focal point then perhaps Marshall McLuhan’s “The medium is the message.” might be a good starting point…
mdaele, the way I see “relevance” in today’s church, it’s a watering down of Christ’s teaching, catering to “felt” needs.. and other bait and switch tactics. The form does impact the function, just as you said: the medium is the message. Just think what would be the function if you walked into church to blast beats, and couldn’t possibly reflect on the words? I’m sure we can think of other extreme examples, in our corporate settings.
But what does being “relevant” mean for us in our individual lives? Not succumbing to the vanities of our culture, but still being able to speak to them.
Perhaps now we are getting directly into the medium/message distinction that mdaele was referring to. It seems to me that there are two separate issues here: 1) changing the Christian message (i.e., “watering down”) in order to be relevant; and b) changing the form in which the (supposedly) unchanging message is delivered.
It probably isn’t really news to anyone here that some of the slickest and most “trendy” delivery systems are employed to convey some extremely narrow understandings of Christianity. Alternatively, I think that there are very “traditional” liturgies that communicate a theology that would belong at the other end of the spectrum. Our attempts to be “relevant” seem to run on at least these two axes.
Which probably brings us back to David’s call for a biblical assessment of relevance…
Sorry for bringing the picture of food ‘to the table’ (but this is how I am wired). If you consider the choices of food, experts on food, beautiful picture magazines and cookbooks on food… we have, compared to 50, 100, 2000 years ago, you would think that we are the most well nourished generation. But are we?
What we need to be well nourished is very basic. It sometimes comes down to a hearty meal (with good ingreadients, made from scratch) a grateful heart and if possible the company of a friend.
Going back to the picture of the church… I know for me personally, I yearn for a ‘simpler’ worship. May be this is just part of my journey…
No need to apologize for the food metaphor, Dorothee—I think your explanation of it illustrates an important feature of the issue under discussion. It is not always the most exotic or elaborate food (or company!) that makes the meal. Often, we are nourished (physically, relationally) by much simpler things.
I remember one of the happiest meals of my childhood was Sunday evening “faspa” (low German word used by Mennonites to refer to late afternoon meals). Usually, this was little more than bread or buns (zwieback!) with honey, cheese, pickles, sandwich meat, and coffee. Not exactly a gourmet feast, but when enjoyed with siblings, parents, grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, etc, it sure felt like it :).
Perhaps there is a similar dynamic at work in the desire for “simpler” worship? The things for which we “hunger” and which give us life are often so simple.
Thanks for your comment.
Ben Witherington’s blog has a thread which directly relates to this conversation. The Thread was posted today and has deep signifigance
http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/01/26/the-fun-quotient/
its a utube 3-min piece called the Fun Quotient – worth watching.
Is there anything wrong with making church fun? at least part of the time 🙂
So I just watched the Contemporment clip. Loved it when it first came out and still love it.
It occurs to me that a similar clip could be produced pointing out the oddities, taking shots at any type of church.
Speaking from a MB perspective, I don’t have a problem with the style of church represented by the clip. Nor do I have a problem with some of the very traditional simple country churches with whom I’ve had the pleasure of associating. I’ve been in both ‘styles.’ God seems to condescend and use many styles.
The newest trend on the scene that I see is the multi-site model. The mother-ship beams out the head dude’s teaching to the satellite pods – the pods are ministered to by the “campus pastor”. You’d have to be a pretty good public speaker to get me to watch you via a screen every week.
What I find fascinating is that churches as different as the Meeting Place (Cavey) and Mars Hill (Driscoll) are using the same model. [I’d probably watch Cavey from a satellite site but not Driscoll :)]
I don’t know, Larry… I find there to be very little redeeming about that video or that model of “church.” It seems to be all about the spectacle to me (i.e., using “worship leading” to sell CDs at the bookstore?!). I suppose at some level, some elements of it might just be a matter of taste… I just look at that and want to run as far away as possible.
I agree that God does seem to condescend and use many styles to meet people. But just because God can use all manner of styles, that doesn’t mean that they’re all therefore good or appropriate.
We agree that the video is an over-the-top caricature. I loved how the teaching pastor timed his prayer for the worship team to take their place – the little movement of his hands and telling the team to get in place was completely hilarious! Don’t tell me you haven’t at least been aware of people moving onto the stage behind you while you prayed, with you knowing how the transition was going to flow, or when the music was cued to start softly playing under your prayer. Good transitions are a thing of beauty :). What is spectacle are the people who don’t come prepared. Spectacle occurs when the worship service is not thought through and when people fly by the seat of their pants. Regardless of the model of the ‘church gathered’ thoughtful planning should help things flow.
The CD selling was untasteful. Although, I’ve heard Worship Teams telling the Church that their live worship C/D’s were available out back. I think people used the C/D’s as a devotional aid.
I guess I’ve seen too many people move along in their faith through the model being cartooned to right it off completely. And I’ve seen something of the same in the more simple settings also. And I bet some of us could tell horror stories of mind-numbing, spirit silencing ‘traditional’ church services (I know I can).
By the way, what do you think of the mult-site model? That is one model I have a hard time getting my head around. Unless, you’ve got some real top talent doing the bulk of the teaching out of the mother church.
The thing is, I’m not sure if the video really is an “over the top caricature.” I think it’s actually just explicitly naming a lot of things that are probably going on underneath the surface.
I’m not advocating lack of preparation or lack of sensitivity to transitions or anything like that. Far from it! I think that these things are important. I just get really turned off when it seems like a slick production for an hour on Sunday morning is the end goal. Of course, I realize that I can be overly cynical… And I realize, that, as you say, there are “mind-numbing, spirit-silencing” traditional perils as well…
Re: the multi-site model, my initial impressions aren’t terribly positive. I think this approach to ministry can exacerbate what is already a very personality/performance-driven understanding of church ministry (at least in the evangelical world).
And now, I have a question for you: what do you think of my musings below about the inevitability of at least some measure of “irrelevance” in how the church is perceived. I think this is the flip side to video on Witherington’s site you linked to above. We will not (and ought not to be) “relevant” to all people at all times. Some people simply aren’t asking the right questions and have the wrong expectations of church. I have some reservations around the “if you make it fun, they will come” approach to church.
The first thing that goes, if you truly believe yourself to be in the presence of the Lord is a required sense of self satisfaction. Relevance is not only irrelevant, to the heart that loves, it is an embarrassment.
It seems to me that the definition of “relevant” has gotten mixed around somehow…Mr. Larsen’s church says “If it’s not relevant, it’s not God”. Shouldn’t that read “If it’s not God, it’s not relevant”? When I think of a church that is “relevant”, I think of one that starts with the God and teaches me how to apply that in my life, today. What form the worship takes, whether there is drama used to convey the message, how funny the preacher is (although a good story thrown in there never hurts!) – all those things don’t really matter as long as they point me back to God. Never water down the truth, never try to avoid offending people if it’s the truth they need to hear. And how relevant is the church Monday to Saturday? Are we involved in our community? Would anyone but our own congregation miss us if we closed up shop? If not, then how relevant are we?
Another important set of questions, Kara. As you say, we’ve been talking mainly about relevance as it pertains to our corporate worship gatherings. But obviously this is only a (small) part of what it means to be the church. Your questions take us from “is church relevant to/for me?” to “are we, as Christ’s body, relevant to our community and to the world?” In some ways, that’s a much bigger, and more important question that moves us beyond our own particular preferences and tastes…
One thing worth throwing into the mix here is the possible merits of irrelevance (perceived or real). In both cases—whether in the case of a worship style or in the church’s life and role in the community—it seems possible to me that we could be deemed “irrelevant” and that this wouldn’t, in fact, be a bad thing. To put it bluntly, some people just aren’t interested (enough) in the right things and it’s not our job to accommodate to this. The language of worship and the life of discipleship are both areas in which we need to be trained and grow into… Just because someone finds a church’s worship, or even its role in the community to be irrelevant, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the church is at fault. Sometimes, people need to learn, whether through experiences in their life or through the persistent witness of the church or some combination of these and other things, to find different and better things relevant.
[this post responds to Ryan’s post above. i don’t see a little ‘reply’ button at the bottom of his post.]
Ok, for sure there are evangelical churches out their very performance, stage-production driven – so maybe the video isn’t completely over the top. I’ve read about some of the big mega-church plants down South that have bowling alleys etc. So maybe the video isn’t all just over the top. I guess I’m thinking of some of what I consider good (albeit not without flaws) churches that have hot bands, strong ‘pulpit’ and what look like a slick production from someone looking for a reason to be put-off.
Multi-site – yes the model appears quite personality driven. And your observation is confirmed because I can envision watching Cavey via satellite feed but not Driscoll (every once in a while I listen to Cavey via Ipod).
Regarding relevance – of course the church gathered will be viewed as irrelevant by a great many people (after all we close our eyes and talk to our invisible friend). And I absolutely agree that trying to be relevant, however we interpret the word, can push us into ludicrous behaviour. I just thought the Witherington Fun Video was worth a laugh. We take all this way too seriously. And IMO, any model of church needs a healthy dose of fun. [look at the ‘survivors’ or graduates from the early years of the Coaldale scene. Some scars from ‘funlessness’ / seriousness exist to this day.]
I liked what the poster said about wanting to be helped/equipped for Mon-Sat by what happens during the Sunday event – so I hope preachers don’t make everything feel as though things happened back in “Bible times.”
Well, hopefully I’m not someone who is “looking for a reason to be put off,” although I do recognize that I have these inclinations that must be warred against :). I don’t want to sound like I’m “anti-fun”—I actually thought the Witherington video was pretty cool, if not a suitable for a comprehensive ecclesiology (not that I am even remotely suggesting you were saying it was!).
Re: the Coaldale scene, well I suppose we’re all recovering from some forms of church that weren’t as healthy as they could have been :). Having said that, you’d have a hard time getting too many negative words about Coaldale from me. I’m quite certain that my experiences there have formed and shaped me (positively or not) in ways that I would have a hard time articulating. I appreciate my history immensely. No church gets everything (or even many things!) right, but, as you said above, we are blessed beyond measure to follow a “condescending God” who has seemed pleased to work with what he has.
It seems my ‘Coaldale’ comment was close to home. My bad. And I sincerly apologize.
My reference was to the period 1930-1940ish a different time/era.
Oh no, I didn’t interpret your comment negatively at all, Larry! No apology necessary whatsoever. Seriously.
I’m very familiar with the impression of Coaldale your comment alluded to, whether from personal experience or stories from family members, friends, etc. I think your “seriousness” allusion certainly applies—to Coaldale, and many other MB churches from that time period. My response was more of just a musing on how we are all shaped by imperfect churches and the theological significance of this fact…
Mircea Eliade, writing about similarities in religions, observed that the way we worship is given to us by our god(s). They tell us the right way to worship them. One can see this in the Bible in the covenant given at Sinai and one can see it in the background in the New Testament.
I think the problem we face in modernity is that worshipping god(s) is no longer relevant. People once believed that good fortune and bad were determined in the heavens. In the West today, few believe that is how things work, even among those who go to church. So the god(s) are just no longer relevant. We are all practical atheists. If we believed worship made a difference, then we would all take part and we would do it in whatever way we thought would please the god(s), because, after all, that is what it would take to have a good life.
This does still happen in some churches. But such belief as that takes is rare in the West. Most are concerned with cultural or marketing relevance. Many of the rest are obsessed with politics. Few believe god(s) really make a difference.
Yes, this is certainly how many see it. Practical atheism is alive and well—even in the lives of the most devout believers.
I’m not sure it’s quite as simple as saying that we no longer think of god(s) as determining our fortunes in the same way as the ancients therefore our worship is irrelevant and/or disingenuous. I don’t think this view gives either us or the ancients enough credit (presumably they noticed that proper worship didn’t always lead to the desired outcome—it wasn’t just a transaction). It’s possible, I think, that our conceptions of what is “relevant” and how can (and do) change and grow over time. One does not have to believe in God in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons as those in the ancient world in order for one’s worship to be meaningful.
Clearly different religious cultures at play…Do evangelical expressions of Christianity provide a context for contemplative/meditative worship of God? Is it our priority as followers of Christ to empower the self so as to determine right courses of action or are we first called to an interior relationship with Christ whereby the Holy Spirit directs our choices?
Perhaps the real problem for Christians today is that too many of us really no longer trust in the supernatural power of God. We have become something akin to political activists and we are simply marketing an ethos that we believe to be superior to other man inspired alternatives.
Paul, I think your comment here goes right to the heart of the problem with the quest for relevance.
I think that there are certainly corners of the evangelical world that do provide a context for “contemplative/meditative worship of God.” I’m not sure that this, in and of itself, is the solution to the problem. In fact, I think that often contemplative/meditative traditions can be (and are) accessed precisely as a means of empowering the self. We human beings can be remarkably resourceful and selective in our pursuit of selfish ends. Practical atheism is alive and well across the spectrum of Christian faith and practice.
I think Paul was probably referring to inward turn associated with Augustine, rather than the narcissistic or selfish one common in our day.
I think his second paragraph goes to the heart of the problem with the quest for relevance.
Thanks, Ken. I must confess I am not too familiar with St. Augustine’s perspectives on the interior life. My understandings, such as they are, have been influenced by my reading of St. Teresa of Avila, her contemporary, St. John of the Cross and the more modern reflections of Thomas Merton.
I suppose everything has a wrong potential, Ryan and it is prudent to warn of the possible misuses, but what if, for sake of discussion we assume there is a right application of contemplative/meditative prayer. The question then becomes, is such an activity essential to the Christian understanding of relevance? The Christian understanding of what truth is lived like?
Is our Lord’s Holy Spirit led sojourn into the desert for 40 days unimportant to His ministry or a necessary precursor? Is it coincidental that several biblical accounts of our Lord’s activities either begin or end with Him alone, engaged in prayer with the Father? What kind of prayer is it that leads to a sweating “like drops of blood” in Gethsemane?
Just what is this great Advocate that our Lord bequeathed us, this “Spirit of Truth” that remains “with us” and “in us”? If such a spirit does really exist how are we to engage with it?
Too many questions, I know.
I can think my way through a lot of praxis, but what of purpose. My purpose, your purpose, our purpose. How do I think my way through that?
Absolutely. I think one of the gifts of such practices are the way they force us into silence and listening. These are rare and precious commodities in our hyper-active, uber-connected, over-stimulated times… I think your identification of the importance of prayer in Jesus’ life is very good and appropriate.
Re: purpose, well I suppose there is no shortage of ways to think about these questions. My general strategy is to do my best to act upon what I think is clear and trust that clarity will arrive about what is fuzzy. I can keep myself pretty busy with Micah 6:8 and Luke 10:25-28… It seems to me that in these passages (and many others, of course) purpose and praxis are part of the same package.
Augustine’s inward turn leads to discovery of the soul, of God within us and in each other and in the creation.
Rilke has a great story about the man who worked with stone, Michelangelo, that is such a beautiful expression of this inward. In the story the narrator is telling the story to a friend. God asked Michelangelo, “what is in the stone.” M. said you are. Later in the story God asked M., “what is in you.” Same answer. It was at that moment that M. realized it. The story was about M.’s inward turn. The story ended with the narrator or the friend asking “where are we, then?” The ends there with the narrator and his friend “warmly holding hands.” Unity with God.
That is the path of the inward turn, the way of Saint Theresa, Saint John of the Cross, and Thomas Merton, and all the unknown monks as well. By the way, I wonder if you have ever read “The Orchards of Perseverance” by David Perata. Ordinary monks, not saints, not prodigies, telling the story in their own simple ways.
No, Ken I haven’t. Though I did spend time earlier today browsing the web site Of the Abbey of New Clairvaux, it looks like a beautiful place. I have a great book by Paul T. Harris, “Frequently asked questions about Christian meditation.” It helps keep me focused on the simplicity of contemplative prayer.
Speaking of simplicity, I imagine that St. Teresa, St. John of the Cross and Thomas Merton would more readily identify themselves as being people of simplicity than they would describe themselves as saints and prodigies.
I hope to visit the Abbey of New Clairvaux someday. I have spent some time at Prince of Peace Abbey which is near me.
I will look for the book by Harris.
You are surely right about St. Teresa, St. John and Thomas Merton.