Relevance can be a tricky concept to define. Dictionary.com defines relevant as “bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent.” There are various ways to be relevant, and, of course, different things or groups of people to try to be relevant to. Thus, I’ll break this impulse down into 3 groups.
Missional
This is being relevant at it’s best. It’s what I wrote about last week. This is people seeking to make the gospel message intelligible to the non-Christians in the surrounding community. This is done in a variety of ways in which Christians “go to” the people, instead of waiting for them to show up in church sometime.
With Culture
This involves Christians being active in mainstream culture, and rejecting the idea of having a Christian subculture. What makes this different from “missional” is that people are primarily engaged in their own interests, rather than reaching out to other people in a way they can understand. This does not preclude Christian witness, in fact, it can create situations where that is possible. This participation in mainstream culture does not necessitate a sell-out of any Christian values or doctrine. For an example of this, check out Relevant Magazine.
Some have accused Emerging Church of having a “cult of cool.” Although I would call that charge false, there is little doubt that many emerging church people do tend to have certain interests in common, things like U2, coffee, and “progressive culture.”
In-House
This type of relevant is a mere updating of existing church models. The classic example would be a large church that adds another service that has worship lead by guitars and drums. It is an attempt by churches to “be relevant” to the preferences of their own (especially younger) members. Some critics lump such groups in with the Emerging Church, but it’d be more accurate to consider such groups (if none or few of the other “emerging impulses” are present) to be the next generation of “seeker-friendly” churches.
0 Responses to “Emerging Impulses: Relevant”