I haven’t met any minister who didn’t want to engage culture. The gospel engages. The questions is not should we engage but, “How well are we engaging culture?” Here is the first of several blogs that will look at the priority of “engaging culture.”
First - Current Attempts at Engagement
As an itinerating missionary, I see a variety of pastors and churches, enjoying the latitude the AG allows. I have noticed 3 general attempts (in varying styles & combinations) at engaging the culture.
The first is the “market model”. This model is concerned with putting the gospel in language people can understand. The buzz word is “relevant.” The motto is ‘’Say it (gospel) better!”
The second is the “revivalist” model. This model emphasizes recovery of a better era, or way of doing things or even a recovery of a better feeling. The challenge to the culture is to “get back” to something. The motto is “Say it Again (but louder)”.
These first two are often posited as “the old folks vs. the young bucks”, but my travels have proven that wrong. Often the “revivalists” have the slickest brochures and hippest sermon titles. I have been in “marketed churches” where the content of worship and preaching seemed very traditional, even liturgical. The age of the pastor has had only a small correlation.
Third is the “service model”. This trend says be more “community based” and “service-oriented.” The motto is “Don’t say it, Do it”
Each model has merit. We need for the culture to understand the gospel… We need to have an unchanging message. We have to walk the talk! But it would be a lazy approach to simply say we need to “balance.” Without a proper understanding of culture and what it is we are trying to engage and transform, each of these models could be ineffective at best and dangerous at worst. The next blog will take up the definition of culture.
Discussion Questions
1. Do you see other major models?
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each model?
3. How do the different philosophies of engagement fit together in our denominational context?
Shawn Galyen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
On campus the liturgical and "service" models are much more compelling to students than I would have guessed. Young people seem to appreciate excellent worship bands, but value a church that is perceived as "authentic" even more.
Some weaknesses are perceived, while others are legitimate. A perceived weakness of the revivalist model is that it is trying to do the same things again and again without learning about culture and how to relate to it. Some have even said to avoid culture and separate themselves from it so as not to stain the witness of the gospel, which would make the other models ask, "how can we reach a culture we are seperate from?" A perceived weakness of the relevence model is that it lacks substance, that it waters down the message in order to win easy converts who are our friends but not necessarily disciplined. They set the bar low enough and color it with enough pizzazz that everyone is interested, and the hope is that later the bar can be raised up and discipleship can occur. Finally, a perceived weakness in the service model (I believe) is that it avoids the salvation component of the Gospel entirely and reduces the message to simply "good works," or "loving others." Active evangelism and discipleship are not valued nearly as much as volunteerism and generousity, concepts which are important in the other two models, but not seen as substantive in terms of salvation and worship.
Again, these are perceptions and biases in regard to the three models. Whether someone operating under the models actually behaves this way is a different question, but we need to think about the ways we perceive others and their ministries.
I agree that many of the weaknesses are perceived. And you are right to say that perception is important.
My concern is that our discussion/ dialogue/ disagreement between these various models might keep us from more difficult and important discussions of true cultural engagement. As I see it cultural engagment is is far deeper than different "styles" of approach. We spend much time analyzing "how to" and very little analyzing the worldview & values. All of these models can easily focus on behaviors of the culture. The gospel has not come to manage behavior but to transform people.
I will try to address this further in the next blog.
Let's adopt the Jesus method. Jesus understood His culture and delivered His message of hope and forgiveness with that understanding. He knew that the religious elitist mentality would not accept Him, rather they sought to crucify Him. His disapproval of their "obey us because of our positional authority" attitude was a thorn in their side. We will be criticized for loving our society too. As we adopt a method of love over mandated conformity we will be considered compromisers with the world. Are we ready for such harsh criticism? Our effectiveness will be dictated by our transparency. Our culture needs to see the real Jesus expressed in true Christianity. We can begin learning how our society views us by reading the book "Unchristian" by David Kinnaman. He shows us what our culture really thinks of the church, Christianity and Jesus. As we come to an understanding of our culture we can develop a method that does not compromise the truth of the gospel or our principles while loving contemporary sinners to receive Jesus as Savior and serving Him as their Lord.
Post a Comment