Our pastor at Westside Christian Church spoke last week on the post-modern worldview and it got me thinking (and reading!). I thought about the many churches that are missing the boat when it comes to reaching post-moderns. But I also thought about the many churches that are culturally relevant. My question to those churches and those pastors is this:
What is more important? Relevance or authenticity?
Most would say “both.” It is not an either/or but a both/and. And that is probably right…I’d rather have both! But if a post-modern had to choose between a relevant, “cool” church that is not authentic and a traditional/liturgical (non-culturally relevant) church that is authentic to the core, which would he/she choose? Which would you choose?
Relevancy has to do with methodology (church programming)while authenticity means being true to the teachings found within scripture. Since our culture is always changing we must adapt our methods in order to connect with out culture. On the other hand the message and purpose of the church remains the same. It is possible, and essential, to be both relevant and authentic at the same time.
Very good topic Ahn!
got me thinking.
Post moderns are trying to figure themselves out. Until they have a solidified identity the argument really ends with people who want tradition with flair or Christianity with mainstream culture in mind. Retreating into the anti “cool” argument is potentially as morally shallow as those being accused of “cool” and disingenuous.
Just some thoughts from a reformed irrelevant guy.
James
Just can’t change the message in order to be relevant. The preaching of the Gospel will always be offensive because the message of the Gospel is offensive. God good, we bad, He makes it right, nothing we can help with. To the blind and depraved, that is offensive. To the elect, that is our only hope.