Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Are we relevant?

There is article in the latest REV! magazine that indicates that after decades of talking about the church being relevant to people, particularly to our youth, most churches aren’t any further along than they were at the end of the 20th century.

I was thinking about that, and I suppose that many in our community would agree with that statement. And as much as we do to try to be relevant, in the end, we are still perceived as not being terribly relevant.

But on the other hand, most in our church would disagree, and claim that we are very relevant. The church holds the answers to many of the struggles we face. More specifically (I hope) that Christ has the power to transform us from our pain and trials into lives of hope and peace in the midst of chaos. I agree with them.

Yet I also agree with those who still hold that the church is irrelevant. I think that both statements are true to an extent. Perhaps this is another example of perception being everything. For those that are outside the church, and have not benefited from the church, they find us irrelevant to their daily lives. Yet for those who have had contacts with the church, or are part of our church family, they see how relevant we can be.

After all, we have a food pantry that feeds the hungry, we have a Samaritans Loft that houses the homeless, we have many outreaches that help those outside the church know that we care – Valentines Share Boxes, Memorial Day Remembrances, Funeral Dinners for families who have lost a loved one, Prayer and Visitation ministries, sponsoring families at Christmas time, Samaritan’s Purse Christmas Boxes that reach children all over the world. How much more relevant can you be than these? We reach out and touch people when they are hurting and when they need help the most.

Perhaps the bigger issue is how are we communicating this to people outside the church? How do we let them know? How can we be relevant to those that we aren’t currently relevant to? I would love to hear your thoughts…

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think perhaps the originator of that concept, Relevance, had it backwards. The church, the followers of Jesus Christ, should not have to be relevant to children's behaviour. The church should be the standard and children's behaviour compared to that.
Like parents, the church should be setting the standards for love, caring for one another, sources of friends, joy and fun without bad practices. In other words, young people should be looking to the church to have a good time, and learning how to do so, without drinking, drugs, sex, etc.
There are lots of good ways to party, enjoy sports and have fun, but only the ones involving profit get much publicity.
I don't think the church needs to put a whole lot of effort into being relevant to expensive electronic goodies. Other than that, young people are pretty much the same as they always have been, they learn what they hear, what they see, what they experience and are taught. They have lots of energy, need supervision, get to a rebellious stage where they depend on each other, and finally mature into adults----a result of whatever has happened to them along the way.
I see our job as being "where it's at", both physically and morally. Provide places to do things, lots of things to do, and be sure the parents are always welcome too.
But then, I'm an idealist. I'd like to see a return of the Sunbeam groups and others like it. Some of them used to meet 2 or 3 times a week after school and also on weekends.

Spinner

What is the Church?

The Apostle Paul would whole-heartedly answer that question as the Body of Christ.   And I think that all of us would agree with him But ...