An example would be the 2nd amendment right to “bear arms”. The classic interpretation would say this gives us the right to own guns for our self defense, etc. Someone else might say that didn’t mean for us to store up armaments. Or, they would claim it was “just for that historical period” and should no longer apply in today’s “safe modern world” taking it out completely.

Same with the Bible, in the sense that what it says about homosexuality, adultery, alcohol/drugs, or other sinful ways of life has no bearing on today and are “changed” by simply being ignored in the sense that “well, Jesus never spoke out directly against it” and so the degenerate downward spiral begins. Even some newer “translations” of the Bible reword things to mean something else, or God forbid, remove “His”, “He”, “Father”, for the sake of political correctness.

But the good news in all of this is that at some point, a lot of people wake up and realize that at some level there have to be semblances of truth, and there should be pillars in place to build foundations upon… whether that is articles of our faith or the articles of this nation. Jesus’ reference in Matthew 7 of the fool building houses on sand is certainly applicable here.

However, it’s up to us to fight against the tide of relativism (a tactic used by satan since the dawn of man), because the media, the schools, and quite a bit of parents are knowingly (or unknowingly) setting us up for collective failure.

Ramsey Mays at 6:46pm April 30
ah, my old stomping grounds

Michelle Hannon at 8:57pm April 30
Steven, I agree with you. I think the worst thing in Christendom today is people in church who say they are Christians but are not. These will cause the most trouble for us in the future. More and more though my thoughts go back to Jesus’ warning that the world will hate us because of him. And that I died with Christ the moment I was regenerated. I don’t think that the church’s victory is earthly.

Ramsey Mays at 8:06pm May 4
ultimately mankind is sinful and therefore selfish, and would rather paint themselves in the best of lights (to include making up their own beliefs and contentions of relativity).
when i said, “my old stomping grounds,” i literally meant that i was raised as a secular humanist in charleston, so i get it.

And I agree that it doesn’t take this oft-repeated term of relevance to get results. I was discipled in a rural church, but I was able to be exposed to genuine Christian believers, sincere worship (not exactly the most contemporary either!) and sound preaching. It made me the minister I am today!

At the same time, I was also exposed to, or raised in, the “church culture” from an early age. I was already comfortable in that setting. What we have to consider though is not everybody has the good fortunes of knowing what church should really be like. If they get a bad taste of it early on, it can affect them the rest of their lives in ever trusting it again. This is where other “methods”, “approaches” or “preferences” come into play. People won’t just be attracted (at least not in the long term) by what’s “in” or “cool” at the time or by who goes there, but rather are they authentic?

I think that sometimes we peg down certain “Christianese” terms in the wrong light, and are then-on uncomfortable or unwilling to accept them for what they can offer (when done right). I used to think “traditional” churches were out of touch in a lot of ways, when I would later realize that it depends on the environment that it is in. If one looks hard enough, they can find effective ministries who are discipling mature believers, and changing their community for Christ, in any church style.

Would a “relevant” (in the contemporary sense) church work in Enoree? Probably not. Can it work in Columbia? Absolutely. So on and so forth…

Be blessed and keep up the good work in Enoree!

I also agree that methodology as far as generational worship styles, ethnic cultural engagement, and church polity issues should be minimized as long as essential doctrine is maintained. I especially like what you said at the end of the comment though. I am sure that approach does matter, and that is the reason I comment on relevance. What some clamor for calling it relevance I would call preference. My preference is for a praise band with Third Day like music; however I also must say I have a growing appreciation for quartet style Southern Gospel since I have been in those churches. If I live by my preferences I would never have discoverd Southern Gospel. Further, I am just curious how God would view me changing churches for my preferences? God’s Word says that we are one body. We cannot exist effectively without all members working together in spite of preference.

Most importantly, when I think of the sinful man I was (and still am being transformed from) I am overwhelmed when I think of the supernatural love it takes for someone who is not relevant to reach out and share the gospel with a person who is lost. If it had not been for four or five men in my life who I would not have considered relevant, but who shared the gospel truth regardless of relevance with me, I do not know if I would be a Christian. I am sure I would not be in ministry.! I thank God those men did not care about relevance, but about me. Preach the Gospel in season or out! Even if I am out of season with a brother, I should still share the good news with him!

Thanks for the Iron Sharpening Iron effect. Our conversation has helped me clear up my thinking!

“but I simply think we strive too hard to achieve relevance in the name of evangelism (Should the African church be silent about biblical marriage when faced with converted polygamist men who reflect their African culture?).”

Heavens no! Again, relevance is not to be confused with tolerance of sin. (and I have heard that situation in Africa and in other areas before in seminary, which was dealt with properly from my professors)

Relevance is also about not how you look like (shouldn’t pretend to be something/someone you’re not, as that is a form of vanity) or even what the church looks like, but rather what your approach is.

A good example is how some churches overseas resemble more like sitdown dinner conversations, with food, fellowship, singing (in their native style), intercessory prayer, and Biblical teaching/preaching all while being in the squatting position. Compare this with rural southern church services with an altar, choir loft, and pews. The method (or approach) here is different, but the purpose and what is being accomplished is the same.

This should be no different in how some churches are today in the U.S. In this ever-changing culture, for some folks a traditional church setting is not for them (for whatever reason that is), so they might be more open to a place that feels “comfortable”. And again, the Gospel in all of this should never be diluted.

This is not to say one way of doing church is better than another, but again sometimes our approach matters.

The southerner in me would say it’s due to an infiltration of “godless yankees”, but really it goes deeper than that. Urban settings these days are not typical hotbeds of religious activity, with a few exceptions here and there. Most folks aren’t raising families in urban areas anyways, so they escape to the suburbs (Mt. Pleasant, Summerville, Moncks Corner, etc. all have thriving church scenes)

This kind of goes back to your previous post about being “relevant”. A non-denominational, Bible-based church called Seacoast has many campuses in the Charleston area and has thousands in attendance each week. They are attracting new believers (not just “recycled” ones), partially due to emphasizing the real purpose of coming to church… to mature in our relationship with God and worship Him sincerely. It’s not a country club that many of the traditional churches in Charleston have turned into over the years.

So when the purpose of the local church is lost, the culture around it changes. People lose the reason of why they should bother going, much less listening and believing what the church says. We have to be sure to never lose the real reason why we meet Sunday mornings.

Being truly “relevant” is communicating Biblical truth and sound doctrine into a social context… and sometimes this means a specific demographic (youth, young adults, blue-collar, suburban, urban, etc.) We often have to adapt our style in order to reach them, but obviously we should never dilute the Gospel.