I hear the word "relevance" floating around these days. A lot of books that talk about the core values of the postmodern church spend a bulk of their energy on the concept.
They say that churches have lost their relevance to the non-believer. We're no longer connecting with the unchurched. So, I see churches immediately try to act cool, throw the candle-lighting and acoustic music in the background, and get a website up and use artsy videos. But is that really being relevant?
What does that really mean? I hear it all the time, and obviously have an idea of what it means. The dictionary says
"having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand."I was reading "Love is the Killer App," a very good read by Tim Sanders which I look forward to talking more about. But, I came across his definition of relevant and I really liked it:
"Determined to a large degree by the frequency something important appears in your life. Milk and bread are relevant to someone's life, farraris and orangutans are not."The important word that jumped out to me was "frequency", something I didn't find in any other definition, but it seems, particularly in the fast-paced cultural context we live in today, to be an important add-on.
Relevance, to me, is in constant change. Today's "candle-lit, video-enhanced, cool music" may be tomorrow's disconnection. The New Testament serves as (among other things) an inspired and eternally relevant case study of how the early church itself adapted and evolved with constant change and new challenges. They had a constant pulse on the most up-to-date cultural climate, and a single change in cultural change would cause the church to react instantly. Not only that, but it was even proactive, anticipating change ahead.
The problem today is church's are talking about being relevant, but by the time they think they're doing the latest thing, the unchurched says, "yeah, that's been around a while, and actually, we've already moved on to something else." In other words, we may be able to understand relevance, but we certainly can't keep pace with it. A lot of churches were designed to fit within the modern concept, a very structured, top-down pastoral approach that has (and sometimes does) had it's time of success. Unfortunately, our culture has decided to change on us, (these days, due to technology and the information age, change is going at record velocity) and many are either adjusting right away, very slowly reacting, or just plain refusing.
I could go on forever on this subject, but simply put:
In place of a fixed structure that is to fit all, Eikon should be about advocating a flexible, adaptable, evolving structure that is developed to meet the current needs. The key word is adaptability to change, and that will, in turn, increase the frequency of importance to the needs of the unchurched as well as the body of the Christ. There will be no sacred cows here at Eikon and we want to be held accountable to that.
That, in my opinion, is what being "relevant" is about in the 21st century church.
your thoughts