A few days back I wrote on “Worship music, what’s all the fuss about“. In the back of mind I could not stop thinking about how many churches just get frozen in time. They stop being culturally relevant. I’m not against hymns personally, and that’s not really the point, but I wonder if this is the case where a church just refuses to move on with its culture, and that’s why they only sing hymns. Now I’m not arguing that we should embrace everything that our culture is doing. However, we do need to some extent remain culturally relevant if we intend to reach this generation with the gospel. Have you ever walked into a church and swore you just went back in time about 50 years? Do you think that is good? I know some of you are thinking “COOL”. I think that a church should reflect its neighborhood, and its culture, and that would of course include it’s music. I don’t expect for a church in the Mid West to necessarily be the same as a church in Southern California were we go to church in sandals and shorts and sit on our surf/skate boards 😉 Anyhow, I hope you get what I mean.
It’s the same issues with the pastor wearing a suit? It being required, we (pastors) stop wearing suits in our church sometime last year. Hardly anyone wears a tie on Sunday morning anymore. I wore a tie this last Sunday, I woke up feeling a bit rebellious 😉 Again, I’m not against a church choosing to be more formal and traditional just wondering what is the most effective way to reach people with the gospel, especially young people. And do we need to be thinking about these sorts of things? I wonder if the church I now attend will be dead, and not relevant 30 years from now because we won’t stop singing our Hillsong songs, and we still dress the same way, and preach the same sermons, that have nothing to do with the time we live in???
I have been on vacation for the last couple weeks, maybe I have had too much time on my hands and my brain is just too relaxed. Michael Patton blog about a similar issue last month, you can read his post here “My Experience at LifeChurch.tv“
the archives near Emmaus 
I’m not sure how I feel about this. There are some days when the “culturally relevant” madness makes me want to go settle down in a good Catholic or Orthodox church where this is not the driving factor. On the other hand, I have been in churches where we used King James English in our songs which just didn’t feel natural at all. I think you are right to note it should be whatever comes natural for the congregation, but even this is hard because not everyone in a congregation has the same things that fit this criteria. I really have no idea!
I do believe a church should be culturally Relevent by adding new songs and trust im not against hymns either but when the same fifty choruses every other song service it becomes stale. But also we have to realize that alot of churches dont want to become culturally relavent because they are stuck in tradition and their afraid to change.
Brian, my position on this is purely subjective. I was raised Catholic and I never really understood anything, could have been my parents fault they weren’t exactly good role models or faithful either. I don’t have good memories of going to Catholic church, so I on the other hand don’t want anything that is at all like that.
I guess we need some variety in our churches 😉
True, variety ain’t bad at all.
I like what is written in “Pastoring the Sheep in Small Churches.” (Sorry but the name of the author escapes me at the moment.) The author states that nothing in a church should be sacred except the gospel message of Jesus Christ. Not the songs, not the pews, not the order of service. NOTHING!
I believe that while maintaining the doctrine of the apostles, we also need to have a shallow end in our pools so to speak. It is not the worlds responsibility to be relevant to the church, it is our responsibility to be relevant to the world.
This DOES NOT mean that we change or twist what the Word of God says to fit around the worlds ideas, but rather that we allow those things that are not scripture to be changed as the times change.
YPW,
My only concern with this is that we are feeding a consumerism that is ruining people by wrapping it in the packaging of “soul winning” and “evangelism”. By giving people what they wants like we are Sears or Century Theater we fail in discipleship. Likewise, a recent NY Times article documented clergy burn out and many suggest that the pastor as salesman has led to such high expectations that we are driving our shepherds into the ground.
Brian,
I am thinking more in terms of our ability to communicate in such a way that is meaningful to the generation in which we live in. For example, and this is not the best one but I hope it makes the point. We should be preaching out the NLT (pick your choice of modern English translation), because it is the closest we have to the common English of the day, rather than preaching out of the KJV (or some other archaic translation). We should not be singing hymns because they are culturally dated, and they are from another time period when that sort of worship was culturally relevant to those people at that time. It isn’t that they weren’t good, but rather that that they have exhausted their usefulness to have any sort of meaning to the current generation.
Speaking of the scriptures in his book “The Last Word, N.T. Wright” makes these comments that I believe can be applicable to this discussion, at least he makes a similar conclusion.
I think that we need to, through the Holy Spirit speak to our generation through “new and God-given viewpoints”. He goes on to say, and he makes an even stronger point here:
I can say the same for hymns, it’s not that they were bad, but they are no longer relevant for the ongoing life of the church. Or whatever it is that we want to hold on to for, because well darn it we have always done it that way.
Robert,
As concerns hymns I am not sure it must be either-or. If theologically useful we should retain it. Hardly anyone wants to say good-bye to ‘Amazing Grace’. That is one of my favorite songs of all time.
We need more creative artist in the church that know how to repackage. We should have contemporary songs, yes. We need them because there is no reason to stop writing. Likewise, we shouldn’t ditch a hymn because it is old. We need to remix it a bit, maybe, but not discard it.
Of course, if a song sucks, it doesn’t matter what era it is from, it simply sucks! 🙂
Brian, I’m only using hymns as an example don’t mean to pick on them per se. But I would say “if they are culturally useful we should retain them”, Amazing Grace in my opinion is still culturally useful, especially if you sing to the tune of “The House of the Rising Sun” ;). It just so happens that it is also a great theologically written song. I love it as well.
Very relevant article to my decision I have this week. Our church, in order to appeal to one certain culture, is having a church service and a guest preacher from that particular cultural background (more agrarian and less formal in nature). There are a few members who disagree with this trend, especially since the church is located in a predominately suburban neighborhood with lower class racial minorities. Some folks feel it would appeal only to persons outside our context. So, some members are not showing up on Sunday. The last time we had this service, I like, Robert, was a rebel, and dressed in a shirt and tie. I am considering a repeat.
Rod, I just thought it was a bit of irony that in order to rebel against the current trend was to wear a tie. But I’m all for not wearing a tie, or there being any sort of dress code at church.
IMHO: if your church is not, it should be making an effort to reach this “predominately suburban neighborhood with lower class racial minorities.”
I think that all churches should be making an evangelistic effort to reach it’s community, and the church should reflect it’s community. Even at my church, and we are a pretty good at reaching out to our neighborhood, we don’t properly represent our community. Makes sense?
@Robert,
I am with you, man. I try all I can to reach out to the community but the church is choosing to go in another direction right now.
Jadon Lavik is one artist who is making hymns modern. I’ve only heard a couple of his songs, but I found them to be quite good modern renditions of classic hymns.
I think the people leading a church should just do whatever feels natural in regards to culture. As long as they’re not going out of their way to be cool and hip or purposefully being old timey then I’m fine with whatever. People are gonna choose to go to a church for all kinds of reasons and the cultural relevance is just one possible thing that may matter to people along with things like preachings, worship, community, programs, etc. Just love the Lord and be real.
Another great discussion topic!
I think it’s a must for churches to be relevant so that they communicate (without watering down) the message of the gospel to the current culture(s). But at the same time it is detrimental to the Church to use the principles or ways of the world. For example – using graphics and excellent music as the world does is good relevant communication, however adopting the mindset that numbers=success or toe-stepping mentions of refraining from sin is bad is a large problem in relevant churches.
So drawing the separation between acceptable methods of communication and mindsets of the world is crucial in my opinion. Be in the world but not of it.
Jesus was relevant in His teachings to people, He used everyday object lessons and stories that had to do with common place events or things which the people would understand at the time. He was relevant and effective but He did not compromise His mission or message – stepped on toes and shook the place up.