In my more cynical moments, I’ve often wondered what
it would be like to attend a seeker-sensitive Buddhist service. Not wanting
their non-Buddhist guests to feel ill at ease, I can just picture the monks—who
usually go about with shaved heads and orange robes—donning toupees and
three-piece suits instead. And rather than chant, burn incense or bang gongs,
they would set their prayers to contemporary music—complete with a five-piece
rock band—replace the rank incense with inoffensive potpourri, and only bang
the gong after the priest made a really good joke during his sermon, which
mentioned absolutely nothing about the Noble Eightfold Path, self-denial or
enlightenment but contained many pop culture references. Afterwards, we’d all
be invited downstairs to partake in a Westernized version of a Chinese meal,
complete with French fries, chicken nuggets, and other non-Asian alternatives.
But if I ever chanced to stop by that same Buddhist
temple on a day when they weren’t doing their seeker-sensitive shtick, I think
I’d be sorely disappointed. Here I had taken time out of my busy schedule to
attend a Buddhist worship service with the hope of discovering what these
unique people were about, only to discover it was all a sham. These guys
weren’t into rock music. They didn’t have hair. And they sure as heck didn’t
eat chicken nuggets! In fact, their lives seemed downright difficult with all
that chanting, mediating, and heavy breathing. Where was the fun in that? Sure,
they had seemed relevant, even innovative at the time. But authentic? Not
anymore. Suddenly they didn’t seem so relevant either…
To my mind, evangelicals are making the same mistake
as these fictional Buddhist monks. In the quest to convince outsiders that
Christianity is still relevant, they have sacrificed the very thing that
attracted people to Jesus in the first place: authenticity. It’s a
self-perpetuating problem: The more relevant evangelicals try to appear, the
less authentic they become, because each step toward relevancy usually involves
compromising one or more of their core beliefs or practices to accommodate
outsiders. Slowly but surely, the distinctives of the faith are lost as
evangelicals become more and more like the culture they are trying to reach
rather than the other way around.
In such a climate, we need to remember that being
relevant is not about jazzing the gospel up or dumbing it down. It’s not about
being trendy or cool. It’s not about selling Jesus like just another quick fix.
It’s about truly living out the faith we profess. It’s about being in love with
Jesus. Ultimately, it’s about being authentic. In an age defined by cynicism,
nothing could be more relevant than that.
Sensitive to Seekers
If this is true, why do so many of evangelicals seem
unable to grasp this point? First, because being relevant works—or at least it
appears that way. Exhibit A: The seeker-sensitive movement. Faced with the task
of evangelizing a nation of shoppers, mega-church pioneers like Robert Schuller,
Rick Warren, and Bill Hybels realized that telling people they were sinners who
needed to deny themselves and take up their cross was no way to grow a church.
Much like their secular counterparts, seeker-sensitive advocates discovered
that appealing to people’s self-interest, particularly their negative felt
needs, was the shortest route to marketing success, with success defined as
adding the greatest number of people to the flock in the shortest amount of
time. And flock they did. These pastors now oversee some of the largest
congregations in the United States.
No one would argue that winning
more people to Christ is a bad thing. However, there is a fine line between
accommodating a culture and capitulating to it. By selling people a
watered-down version of the faith, you may increase your numbers, but are you
really making disciples? Appealing to felt needs and offering Christ as the
fulfillment also veers dangerously close to giving the impression that Christ
isn’t the end, he’s just the means to an end—freedom from depression, financial
success, weight loss, happiness, and so forth. The danger, as Gary E. Gilley,
author of The Little Church Went to Market: The Church In the Age of
Entertainment warns, is that “If someone is able to satisfy his or her felt
needs without Christ, the message of Christianity can be discarded.”[1]
In sum, there is a fine line between
feeding the consumerism of a “market” and genuinely feeding real
spiritual hunger in Jesus’ name. Perhaps the difference lies in whether
our motivation to offer spiritual bread stems from Christ’s compassion or
a church-growth marketing plan.
So the question remains: Does the seeker-sensitive
approach—does striving to be relevant—work? Are more people attending church
today as a result? Not according to David F. Wells, author of God In the
Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams. In 1937,
church attendance in America averaged 41 percent of the population. Just over
50 years later, it was holding steady at 42 percent. [2]
And, according to a recent article in Christianity Today, in 1999 it
averaged 43 percent.[3]
These numbers show that church attendance in North America is pretty much what
it’s always been.
The same goes for church size. Going to Wells again,
in 1890 the average Protestant church had only 91.5 members, not all of whom
were in attendance on any given Sunday.[4]
Today, 50 percent of churches average fewer than 75 attendees per week, and
only 5 percent more than 350.[5]
Thus, although some of the hundreds of churches that employ the
seeker-sensitive approach may be getting bigger, it seems most of them are not.
In fact, evidence suggests these few mega-churches may actually be growing at
the expense of smaller churches in the same way big box stores are
swallowing up local mom and pop concerns. So in the end, the seeker-sensitive
movement may be all about consolidation, yet another example of evangelicals
being discipled by culture rather than the other way around.
A Growing Sense of
Insecurity
A second reason why I believe evangelicals are
tripping over themselves to appear relevant is a growing sense of insecurity
about their place in society. Even while they enjoy more prominence and
influence than ever, evangelicals and their cultural agenda are viewed with
increasing suspicion, cynicism, and in some cases, fear. While evangelicals
believe they are bringing a positive moral influence to society, many outside
the fold see them as perpetrators of intolerance, war, censorship, and
repression. Whether or not such accusations are justified is a matter for
further discussion. My point is, while the culture tends to view evangelicals
as an oppressive, monolithic “Moral Majority,” many evangelicals see themselves
as a persecuted minority. In this battle of cultures, both sides regard
themselves as the victim.
Realizing they have fallen out of favor, some
evangelicals have employed the tactic of affirming points of convergence
between Christianity and culture—particularly popular culture—as a way of
showing that Christianity is still relevant. Dozens of books, articles, and web
sites have been created to this end, including a Christian media conglomerate
that is actually called Relevant. Central to this approach is “mining”
popular culture for nuggets of truth and then using them to build bridges of
dialogue between Christians and non-Christians. It’s the seeker-sensitive
approach for a new generation.
While I applaud the spirit behind this approach,[6]
it also raises some questions: By catering to people’s fascination with pop
culture, are we merely conditioning people to associate the Church (and Christ)
with things that are not even remotely central to the gospel? If our main point
of connection with non-Christians is in the area of the trivial, how do we move
them beyond that to the transcendent? I’m not saying that the arts aren’t
important and that there aren’t legitimate ways of using this cultural stage to
share the gospel. But people are looking for answers that go beyond their
present experience. If all we are offering is a Christian distillation of what
already exists, I fear people will quickly lose interest and resume their
search for—you guessed it—authenticity.
Thus, if we want to have a truly transformational
effect on the world, we must do more than simply mirror our culture. We must
serve as a window to a far greater reality—which is nothing less than the
Kingdom of God. This begins by using points of connection, such as film, to
raise questions that lead people away from a fascination with the trivial and
cause them to ponder the deeper issues of life. For example, we might ask: Why
are we so preoccupied with popular culture? Could it be that our desire to for
entertainment is out of balance, that we are using entertainment to meet a need
for something else? If so, what might that be? How can we restore balance in
this area?
The Root
I suspect a third motivation behind our quest for
relevancy is a deep root of doubt, a sneaking suspicion that Christianity
really is irrelevant, that Christ is irrelevant, that if we don’t do something
to jazz him up or dumb him down, non-Christians simply won’t get it. Perhaps
that’s because in the midst of our outreach opportunities and church programs,
we’ve lost contact with the person at the center of it all. Perhaps, and it
pains me to say this, we really don’t know Christ. We’ve been “in the Word but
not of it.” Our fears about how our neighbors perceive our faith may be largely
a projection of our own insecurities.
Aristotle said, “The unexamined life is not worth
living.” I’d change that slightly to say, “The unexamined faith is not worth
sharing.” I think it’s time to scale back the outreach strategies for a moment
and reacquaint ourselves with the One we are so eager to share. Perhaps we also
need to reassure ourselves that Jesus isn’t just the means to an end; he is
the End. He is also the Beginning. And you can’t get more relevant than that.
When The Passion of the Christ was released
last year, author and pastor Brian McLaren noted that many Christians saw
Gibson’s film as the greatest outreach opportunity in 2,000 years. McLaren,
however, saw things differently.
Do you want the emerging
culture to sit up and take notice? Don’t show them another movie, however great
it is. Show them Christians around the world (starting with those who have been
given the most: us) who care and give and love and move to serve.
There are millions of poor Muslims who see the West
as decadent, strident, arrogant, selfish, careless, and pugilistic, and of
course, they are right. Can you see how offering them a fine movie could just
make things worse? Instead, why don’t we show them some Christians (in the West
but not of it) who are honest, upright, peacemakers, compassionate, humble, and
generous?
Our world is torn by ethnic, class, and religious
hatred. Don’t show the emerging culture a movie about Jesus: show them a
movement of people living like Jesus—people who like him love the different,
even the enemy, whose doors are open and tables are set with welcome.[7]
In an age ravaged by cynicism, McLaren argues,
authenticity is the only valid Christian response. There is nothing wrong with
using a film to share the gospel. But if we are looking to “events” like this
as a way of shortcutting the evangelism process—if we’re using them as a
substitute for relationship—then we really need to reconsider our actions.
People resent the church for resorting to cheap marketing gimmicks to get
others to sign up. That’s not the Spirit of Christ; that’s the Spirit of this
Age. What people are looking for is the truth. And if we fail to give it to
them, our efforts at relevancy will serve only to widen and deepen the gap
between Church and culture rather than bridge it. Outsiders will realize we’re
no different than they are. And, in truth, we won’t be.
[1] The
Market-Driven Church: A Look Behind the Scenes by Gary E. Gilley,p.
21(found at
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cgrowth/mkt.htm).
[2] God In
the Wasteland by David Wells, p. 78. (more data needed)
[3] Christianity
Today, July 10, 2000, p. 20. (author’s name needed)
[4] Wells, p.
78.
[5] Gilley, p.
8.
[6] I actually
review films for www.relevantmagazine.com
and www.hollywoodjesus.com.
[7] Passionate,
But Not for Mel’s Movie (http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2004/cln40309.html).