Contextulization in the church: getting out of the way
The last few years I’ve experienced a lot of pushback on the “modern American church.” I’ve noticed that people tend to voice their disagreements to me because I speak highly of Andy Stanley, and they look at my dad’s blog and see how much he talks about leadership, which is one of the “new values” of the “modern American church.” I guess that makes me qualified to discuss this with them…?
To get everybody on the same page… here’s some short buzz items to describe what I mean by “modern American church”:
- Values church growth
- Has a cool worship band
- Likes the multi-site idea
- Small groups (what’s Sunday School anyway?)
- Has a Twitter account
- Admires Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Andy Stanley, etc.
- Talks about leadership development
Now, if I were to boil down the arguments of all the people who oppose these things, here’s what it would be:
You win people to what you win them with.
Translation: If a person comes to your church because you have cool lights and a cool worship service and cool programs for their kids, then they become committed to cool lights, services and programs for their kids… not Jesus Christ or the gospel.
And there’s huge truth to that. Church-hoppers are in the market for the “right” church. If another church comes along that offers a better product than the current one, or the current church no longer brings satisfaction, then they’ll just go to another church. Easy.
The response, then, is to criticize churches that are striving to be modern. Why try to be “cool” if you’re just going to win people to a “cool” church?
I think the debate consistently neglects the right definition of contextualization. With the right definition, I think both sides gain merit, tension grows for both sides to alter the way they do ministry, and the Church (big C) becomes more effective.
Contextualization is getting out of the way… not paving the way.
This is a very slight difference that changes the paradigm surrounding church models. The church’s job is to remove distractions, not to make Jesus seem more appealing.
Here’s how that plays out:
- Relevant worship music is used because that removes an obstacle- people would expect to hear music like this.
- Lights are used because that removes an obstacle- that’s what people would typically see today if music were being played on a stage.
- Leadership strategies are implemented because that removes an obstacle- poor organizational culture only hinders the work of the church.
You don’t play relevant music to make people see how cool Jesus is. You play relevant music so people are still listening when you tell them how cool Jesus is.
This is huge for both sides.
- You can’t decide to avoid relevance in the church because then you lose your voice in culture.
- You can’t try to win people with relevance because then you win them to relevance… not to Christ.
Both sides get in the way of the gospel. Ultimately only the Spirit will save a person, so our job is to get out of the Spirit’s way. Our job is to be contextual.
Museum church
I’ve seen a lot of interesting things in Europe so far. I’ve spent the first few days in Rome, and on Monday I went to the Vatican. Our group got to see the Sisteen chapel, St. Peter’s Basilica, the world’s largest collection of historical artifacts, and a bunch of other really cool stuff. (What an uncultured way to describe it: really cool stuff)
The church is so beautiful, but it was so weird seeing a place that used to be used for worship being used as a museum. Tourists from all over the world come to experience the beauty of the architecture and art, but what does that reflect about the church itself?
It’s almost as if people come to observe “what people used to believe”, as if Christianity is a thing of the past. When the church building becomes a museum instead of a gathering place for people to come and worship the living God, true Christianity dies.
Most people would agree that’s true, but I wonder what implications that might have for the church in the North American context. When we are too attached to the past, we can lose anticipation and motivation for the future. Andy Stanley says, “When your memories exceed your dreams, the end is near.”
While this is true, I don’t think this means we should abandon tradition altogether. We have to embrace our Christian heritage, without compromising the vision and mission of the gospel. It’s a tension that must be managed.
What are your thoughts on the tension between the past and future? How does the church embrace tradition without becoming traditional? How does the church celebrate a legacy without becoming a museum?
Summer plans
Last week was an eventful week for my family. My brother got married on Friday in Rose Mary Beach, Florida, and it was a very cool experience. On Saturday, my family drove me to Atlanta for my flight at 6:00 PM.
I’m spending the Summer in Europe with some other students and professors from Moody. We’ll be taking classes and touring Italy, Germany, and Switzerland. I’m taking Pauline Epistles I (1 & 2 Corinthians), European Reformations, and Systematic Theology I.
It’s going to be an exciting and stretching Summer. I’m very introverted, so meeting people and experiencing new cultures and things like that stress me out a lot. For some reason, though, I keep putting myself in those situations (which I really don’t understand).
So, I would like to ask you to intentionally pray for me this Summer. Pray that I would be well-rested, quickly break out of my shell, and grow a lot this Summer. Pray that the group would do the same, and that we would all mesh well.
I look forward to sharing what I’m learning and thinking as we move the on deck circle to Europe this Summer. Stay tuned.
The contemporary church
When I was in elementary school I remember going on a trip with my family and a few other families to observe “contemporary services” at a few churches in Birmingham, AL. Our family was at a large traditional church at the time, and they were considering the possibility of adding a contemporary service.
Contemporary services are second nature now. Everybody has some form or variation. What’s interesting to me, though, is how churches think that having a contemporary service automatically makes them more likely to grow and reach young people. The thought is that by having a guitar on stage and letting people wear jeans that somehow young people will want to come to church. (Ironically, these are also often the same people who criticize churches for “entertaining people” and watering down the gospel.)
Contemporary services may have been a big deal to previous generations, but most everybody in my generation thinks of the contemporary church as normal. I don’t know anybody my age who would be shocked and marvel at a worship team, or who would be surprised they could dress casually. The contemporary church is not the draw it used to be.
The problem with this is that churches are just getting back into the same traditional cycle they tried to leave. Fifteen years ago, services geared towards college students were new and exciting. Today, those services are the norm. Nothing new has emerged for students (at least that I’m aware of).
It doesn’t take an expert to see that something else is coming. Something new is going to emerge. Based on a few conversations I’ve had with church leaders who are a little older than I am, I’d say it has less to do with a style and more to do with an attitude of intentionality. To use Rick Warren terminology, it’s going to be a purposeful process of moving people from “come and see” to “come and die”. This really excites me, because I think that’s what I’m most gifted and passionate about.
You’ve probably seen this same dynamic I’m talking about, so in your mind, what’s next? What’s the new thing coming? What big shift will the church take? How should the church change? What’s the next “contemporary”?
Gaining perspective: Ezra 3
Recently I was reading the book of Ezra, and I came across an important reminder: Pure hearts take precedent over pure projects.
While the Jews were in exile, a man named Cyrus became king of Persia. The Holy Spirit stirred Cyrus to issue a decree that the people should return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple that had been destroyed. God birthed this vision in the hearts of many people, and around 50,000 or so Jews made the journey back to Jerusalem.
Their purpose in returning was to rebuild the temple. This was extremely important to them, because the temple was the literal house of God. As long as it laid in shambles, the rest of the world would look at Judah’s God in disgrace. On a personal level, it probably made the Jews question God’s power, faithfulness, and presence.
Now, with that in mind, here’s what’s interesting: Their first order of business when they arrived in Jerusalem wasn’t the temple… it was their heart. Instead of getting right to work, chapter 3 describes how they set up the altar, celebrated the Feast of Booths, and each offered sacrifices are required in the Law of Moses. “6From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings to the LORD. But the foundation of the temple of the LORD was not yet laid.” Ezra 3:6 ESV
Before they even started the project God called them to, they got on right terms with Him. They were sent to Jerusalem by the most powerful man in the world to rebuild the temple of God. Talk about a pure objective! But, they recognized that pure hearts take precedent over pure projects.
The same is true for us today. It’s easy for me to become so obsessed with dreaming, planning, and critiquing the projects I want to do for God someday, that I neglect my relationship with Him. It’s easy for good things to get in the way of developing a good heart. Don’t let that happen to you today.
Pure hearts take precedent over pure projects. What are you working on today that might cause you to neglect your heart?
Democratic culture
It’s interesting to me how embedded the concept of democracy is in American culture. Kids on playgrounds all over the United States make decisions about which game to play at recess by voting. If you go around the circle and 4 kids want to play football, and only 3 want to jump rope… you play football.
I was at an after-school program recently with some elementary school kids. Before I started the Bible-study portion we were playing some games. The kids were trying to decide between playing a game called “Guerrilla, Man, Gun” or “Mount, Knight, Chariot”. There was some disagreement, and eventually an argument broke out. Rather than intervene, I decided to watch and see how they would handle the situation. Finally, once sides were clearly formed, a kid spoke up and said, “Look! It’s 7 against 5! We’re playing ‘Mount, Knight, Chariot’!”
What caused him to rationalize the solution this way? Is it human nature to settle small disputes like that by way of democracy, or is that something ingrained in our American way of thinking? Do kids choose games by way of democracy all over the world? Does 7 against 5 hold any weight in other cultures?
Obviously underneath this argument was a sense of entitlement that Americans have. We assume we should have a choice in which games we play. But when it actually comes to making the decision, is this a normal reaction? Would children in India or China settle the argument this way?
Cultural relevance
Recently I was listening to a Christian radio station that had a commercial about them being “culturally relevant”. The plea was for listeners to consider donating because they were “engaging culture” with Christian music. A day or so later, I drove by a church whose marquee sign said, “Our pastor wears jeans… so can you.”
I’m sure both of them have entirely pure intentions. They want to reach people with an unchanging, eternally relevant message- what a great ambition. Here’s my problem, though: People, churches, and organizations that are relevant… don’t have to talk about “relevance” at all.
If you want to be relevant, then just be relevant and stop talking about it. The minute somebody says, “We’re a relevant bla bla bla reaching people bla bla bla”, they’re probably not as relevant as they think. Talking about cultural relevance is not culturally relevant.
The gospel is already culturally relevant. Guilt, pride, jealousy, loneliness, greed, depression, insecurity, anger, etc, etc, etc are never going away. In fact, that’s why God made the gospel. Let’s just be committed to bringing people grace and truth in the midst of their problems and stop talking about how culturally relevant we are.
This is not meant to be a slam against the radio station or church marquee. I just think it could be helpful for those claiming to “engage” the “younger generation” to hear from a member of that generation.
What’s your reaction when you hear buzz words like these?
