You wrote: “Thanks Kelly.”

I’m not sure what I’m being thanked for, honestly, but I have to assume that this was directed to me.

I do wonder if you (or Larry) have any thoughts on the questions I posed to you (and, in part, to him).

I believe they go to the very heart of your question and I have to admit that I don’t understand the subsequent silence.

To refresh, they were:

(1) What are the criteria of relevance?

(2) How do you distinguish between a relevant church and an irrelevant one?

(3) How do you distinguish between a relevant church act and one that is not?

(4) What do you mean by “relevant?”

I know that you’re busy this weekend, but I hope that you will, at some point, be able to address them, or at least give some indication as to why they are not “relevant” to the question you posed for us, your readers.

cks

Answering you question to me – I think there would have to be a bit of both going on there. A natural progression to an extent but for that progression to take place there needs to be some disinterest.

It is very reflective of our relationship with Christ. To repose your question in this light – Do you believe the advent of sin (and the pull it has on us away from Christ) is because of our disinterest in Christ or do you see it as a natural progression (based on evil’s plan) for us to move in that direction?

If our faith in and zeal for Christ was strong then we would have less of a disinterest in Him and therefore less of a pull to move toward sin (but not completely because it is a part of who we are).

If our relationship with our local church was as intimate as it needed to be and portrayed the marriage picture that Christ intended, then we would have less disinterest in leaving it for an e-church or a new “progressive” platform of worship. Therefore the progressive platform would not survive because the current platform was getting the job done.

How do you distinguish between a relevant church and an irrelevant one? Or, more specifically, between a relevant church act and one that is not?

What do you mean by “relevant?”

cks

cks

cks

You wrote: “According to Webster’s dictionary the first definition of ‘relevant’ is to have significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand.’ I thought the matter at hand was implied in the word ‘today.’” And: “So I don’t think the question as stated is that ambiguous.”

I’m sure others agree with your take. Since Ant specifically asked me to respond to this question, I felt it necessary first to clarify as exactly as possible what he intended by his question. My questions were meant to clarify, not quibble.

Looking at your Webster’s citation, perhaps you can see how open ended the question is. We might ask: “Does the church have a significant and demonstrable bearing on”–to use your summary term–”today” [which I take to mean something like "our present culture"]?

Well, to my mind, the answer to that question is completely up in the air, depending upon further clarification.

After all, what does it mean for [X] to “have a significant and demonstrable bearing upon [Y]?” We might answer, “to be relevant to,” but that’s rather unhelpful, as the term “relevant” is precisely what is at issue. It seems to me that for “[X] to have a significant and demonstrable bearing upon [Y],” [X] is, in some sense, a driving force–an impelling force–that causes [Y] to do something, to act in a certain way. At any rate, [X] drives [Y] to some sort of (perceived) appropriate action.

Does it count if the local “church” does have a significant and tangible effect, but that effect is negative? I think one could certainly argue that (a certain church) is relevant to its community (and even nationwide) in the sense I’ve outlined above. Unfortunately, its impact is completely negative. Relevant? Yes. Impactful? Sure. (Note all the injunctions against (a certain church).) Helpful? Not at all.

(I wouldn’t count Phelps as a brother in Christ, but I think the underlying point is clear.)

What about Christian abortion clinic protesters? (John Piper, for example [with two other pastors from his church] has been arrested at least once that I’m aware of for peacefully demonstrating outside an abortion clinic in Minneapolis.) If that’s not a culturally-relevant act, I haven’t met one! I have to believe that such conscience-bound Christian protesting is impactful on culture. But, what is the cultural perception of those engaging in such acts of protest? Some undoubtedly approve; others, I’m sure, view them with disdain, even disgust. When three of Bethlehem Baptist’s pastors are arrested for peaceful demonstration against the God-denying horror of abortion, is Bethlehem Baptist acting in a way that is “relevant” to the culture of Minneapolis? I’d say so.

My attempts at clarification were not intended to insinuate that Ant has asked a silly question; rather, he has asked an exceptionally complex one–one that is susceptible to any number of answers depending on what one means by “relevance.”

Just what are the criteria of “relevance?”

When we press on the terms even slightly they explode with rich resonances and unfortunate ambiguity.

It seems that some respondents are answering Ant’s question as if “relevance,” in this discussion, has an agreed-upon definition, obvious to all–something self-evident. And, perhaps it is. If so, I confess, I’m hopelessly out of the loop.

You wrote: “By this I mean I think most local church can and should do better at engaging the issues and the questions of our culture in the language of our culture with far more demonstrable relevance to the culture.”

To your thinking, what would it mean for the local church “[ to engage] the issues and the questions of our culture in the language of our culture with far more demonstrable relevance to the culture?” More specifically, what would a response that has “far more demonstrable relevance to the culture” look like? What specific change(s) would you like to see embraced?

If you have some idea what “more demonstrable relevance” is, then perhaps you can define what “relevance” itself is. I’m certainly interested in your take.

You wrote: “I also think it is more culturally friendly to write out ‘two cents’ than to require people to figure out that’s what all those numbers and decimal points add up to.”

Truthfully, it never occurred to me to spell out the words. I searched my keyboard in vain for the “cents” symbol and, having failed to find it, made do with what I had to hand ($). (I sometimes miss the forest for the trees.) Your solution is certainly simpler.

Best.

cks

That my two cents. I also think it is more culturally friendly to write out “two cents” than to require people to figure out that’s what all those numbers and decimal points add up to.