Much of modern Western Evangelicalism can be likened to a defective cookery book in which the methods are specified, but the ingredients are not, or at best are very weakly defined. The preparation details, oven temperature, technique etc are given an inordinate amount of attention but the ingredients are overlooked. In fact, it seems as though almost any ingredients will do, so long as the methods are correct. This article explores the concepts of style and content – relevance and truth, and urges us in our desire to be relevant, not to make truth a secondary matter. Christianity is essentially a religion of content – in that it sets forth truth – as truth to be understood, heeded, nurtured, defended and propagated. Throughout its history Christianity has been characterised by repeated struggles to retain and protect the truth. Not surprisingly, both the Bible and history show that it is precisely when the People of God have taken the truth of His word seriously that they have been most effective. Truth does make a difference. This is content.

Much of contemporary Western Christianity – and in particular “evangelicalism” is characterised by an elevation of style over above content. The last few years have seen a proliferation of books, journal articles, conferences etc. on the subject of being relevant – getting the style right. This trend can also be observed in much of our church life and church growth strategies and so on. I do not question the validity of being relevant in itself – indeed I believe it is the clear teaching of the New Testament. For example the various sermons[1] in Acts show how Peter and Paul use different approaches, arguments and vocabulary for their differing audiences (Jews, Gentiles, and wise Pagans from Athens). However, I believe we are misunderstanding the issues surrounding relevance or style and have failed to give content sufficient attention.

To be relevant presupposes something to be relevant with. Yes, this is an obvious statement, but all too often we have neglected this. This has resulted in our current predicament in which I fear we have less and less to be relevant with. Style and content are not mutually exclusive – but it seems they are increasingly being treated as such. I believe we are in unique times. Never before has orthodox Christianity faced this conflict or choice between style and content. When it comes to outreach and church growth we often look to matters of style and relegate content to second place. Many church growth strategies read like marketing techniques. Style is the issue of the day. Churches used to split over matters of secondary doctrine – that is sad. The issue causing tension today is often style – perhaps this is sadder? If church members have an opinion on anything it is on this – and often on little else. Moreover, because content takes second place, everyone is right. It is all a matter of taste and opinion we are told.

I sense an atmosphere of “panic” in much of church thinking. We are searching for all manner of novel solutions to the problems that we face, but are often doing little more than clutching at straws. This is in part good because it indicates that we are waking up to the enormity of the task that confronts the church in the West at the end of the 20th Century. We have recognised a need. However, all too often the diagnosis is wrong. Change our culinary metaphor to a medical one. Because of a wrong diagnosis we are prescribing the wrong cure. The need is perhaps often for nothing more fancy than healthy God centred churches comprising of committed, praying Christians, who desire to serve God, are passionate about truth and righteousness and who are prepared to be truly different to the prevailing culture. Many of our practices and opinions betray an unhealthy theological understanding. Reading much contemporary Christian material leads me to the suggestion that we have shrunk God (or as Don Carson puts it “gagged” God)

and are now wondering why He often seems to be silent and have little significance. Why? – Because we have made Him insignificant.

We have lost our confidence in the fact that God’s truth is powerful. What we need more – not less, is to be increasingly convinced about the uniqueness of the historic Christian message. Jude urged his early church readers to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” and we must do the same today. Sadly, the content of our faith does not seem to hold much interest. A recent conference on discipleship suggested that evangelicalism is characterised by superficiality, and referred to the church as a “mile wide and half an inch deep” David Smith of the Whitefield Institute has suggested in his lecture “The church in the West at the dawn of the Third Millennium” that evangelicalism has been “sloganised”. It has been gutted of its original meaning. All to often “evangelical” now refers more to style than to content. To be an evangelical sadly often means little more than belonging to a church that has an emphasis on “lively” worship and attracting more members.

The church growth “experts” produce their books and hold their conferences that tell us that unless conditions x, y and z are met, then we will not be a “successful” 21st Century church. This is leading to a situation where all churches are expected to conform to particular stylistic standards. We are told that unless this or that is done, then people will not come in. God can now only work if…if we get rid of pews..if we get a new song book…if we adopt the latest strategy from the United States and so on. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that these things are necessarily untrue or undesirable. What I am saying is that our interest in being relevant has all to often become a preoccupation at the expense of other worthy elements of healthy church life. What I have described are symptoms of something far more serious. There are many reasons for the situation that we find ourselves in. I would like to mention just two.

Firstly, I believe we have misunderstood the concept of culture. Yes, we need to be contextually relevant, But this does not happen by taking on the values of the prevailing culture wholesale, but by proclaiming and living the values that the people of God should model – and this will often mean challenging those cultural elements that are opposed to the truth of the Bible. We are particularly poor at confronting the values of our age and often seem more able to condone or even adopt them. We need to be more prepared to be radical counter culture Christians. Os Guinness, in his excellent book “The Gravedigger File”[2] pronounces that “In terms of her alertness to cultural danger, the Church is virtually in a coma.” Surely the message of the Bible is that the People of God are primarily known as a distinct people, who challenge elements of their culture that are opposed to God’s ways. The people of God are a pilgrim people, but we have become too much like permanent residents. The Bible and history tell us that the church has always had an uneasy relationship with the world. It is when this relationship is at its most friendly that the problems are in fact the greatest. Bishop Dean Inge has made the striking statement that “a church that is married to the Spirit of its age will find itself widowed in the next.”

Secondly, we have misunderstood the purpose and focus of “church”. We have been led to believe that church is for people and in particular the unchurched. I would like to question this presupposition and suggest that the Church is primarily for the glory of God. It is also for the People of God. The Greek word for church – Ekklesia – refers to those who are “called out”. We need to rediscover what it means to be the true People of God, a pilgrim people. This discovery can then successfully shape our worship, church life and mission – not the other way around. Results are all too often taken as sure proof that the methods are right. Stylistic relevance may achieve a certain instant success, but this numerical growth may be without lasting effect. Being contemporary and relevant is essential – but it does not stop there. Commitment, righteousness and faithfulness are perhaps more pressing needs. Unfortunately these are increasingly being treated as a luxuries that we cannot afford, as obstacles that get in the way of relevance.

As we enter the Third Millennium the church must take style and content very seriously. Evangelistic quick fixes are not the solution. The church must be characterised by people who live quality lives for the glory of their God, a living demonstration of the truth and relevance of Christianity to every age and culture. If we do not do this we may find that we achieve relevance to the world at the expense of our relevance to God.

Adam Sparks PhD Student (Theology)

University of Bristol, UK

—————————————————————————- —-

[1] 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 10:34-43; 13:16-41; 14:15-18; 17:22-31

[2] Hodder and Stoughton, London:1983