One of the buzz words in evangelicalism today is relevant or relevance. This word is usually part of the jargon used by purportedly cutting edge churches - often the so called seeker sensitive or purpose driven types - churches typically staffed by and geared toward younger, educated, tech savvy suburbanites toting to worship services, if not their bibles, the latest coffee confection from Starbucks.
These churches, while admirable in their zeal to reach people with the gospel, have reinvented how church is done in order to do so - from the style of music and the use of drama and video media in worship services to discipling their members by way of elective classes and special interest groups. However they may differ one from another in detail, one thing is certain: this is not your father's Baptist church!
This is a bold statement, for I cannot imagine a church anywhere that doesn't believe that its message and mission are relevant. Is there a pastor, priest, or vicar anywhere who intentionally offers his congregation what is irrelevant - a treatise on welding or a recitation of all the Joneses in the metropolitan phone book? Why assert relevance? It is plainly meant to distinguish these types of churches from those who have not adopted their methods and style of church. Those who have not are, by implication, deemed not relevant.
This is where the relevant churches suppose the distinction stops. That their relevance is solely a matter of method and style. For some this may be true. But for many I suspect that there is a more serious difference, not simply of style but of substance. In many of these churches the focus has shifted in a subtle but deadly serious way.
Looking at the teaching/preaching coming out of these churches on a Sunday morning one finds not expositions of scripture but a series of life lessons; not "Christ crucified" but principles for successful living. The focus is not on God's glory and the coming Kingdom, but on life in this world. We are not pointed to the hereafter but are fixated on the here and now. Furthermore, the emphasis is not on Christ's Lordship and our obedience but on methods, and mechanics, and our application of principles. The life which relevance theology produces is not so much "a participation in the divine nature" (2Pet.1:4) as the Bible describes it, but one of realized human potential.
With this recognition it becomes plain how churches based on the theology of relevance are not proclaiming the old gospel in new terms but have embraced what is essentially a new liberalism. Recall that classic liberalism disdained fundamentalism's focus on doctrinal truth, personal conversion, and spiritual longing for heaven on the one hand and on the other preached a version of Christianity that would help the common man in this present life. Thus was born the social gospel with its crusades against poverty, ignorance and disease. But the focus was on this life.
The theology of relevance mirrors liberalism in that it too, is essentially humanistic. What was uppermost in classic liberalism was not so much God's glory but the betterment of man's life in this world. This "man is the measure" principle is not so much voiced but assumed in relevance churches. "If they can't use it, it isn't important" seems to be what guides the teaching ministry of these churches. How do you use the doctrine of justification by faith or the Trinity in daily life? While these doctrines hold vast implication for daily life, most relevance driven pastors are not theologically driven as much as they are pragmatic in approach. And since the average American evangelical is more interested in money management and parenting than in justification by faith or the glories of the Trinity, that is what they shall have. Relevance theology is relentlessly utilitarian in this way. God is not presented on His own sovereign terms but is used to provide a superior "way" of maximizing life in this world.
