Monday, February 05, 2007

I can't post a comment to my own blog at the moment - so this is for Graeme and anyone else interested in the myth of cultural relevance.

Graeme says

“...the methods by which the early Army evangelised were very much reliant on cultural relevance. I believe that ignoring this fact actually devalues the work of those early pioneers.”

The early pioneers had no strategy – they were reactive to the Spirit within them. They acted naturally. Apart from ‘The darkest England’ scheme you will find no record of any of the pioneers either together or individually drawing up a strategy. They did what they did because they were so inspired. Take Railton for example - perhaps our greatest pioneer - an effective evangelist in Africa, Turkey, Germany even Japan and China - he had no plan or strategy (true he was an incredible linguist) but apart from that all he had was his poverty, a heart full of love and the courage to preach.

I always think we tend to forget the purpose of that very first spiritual gift given at Pentecost – it was the ability to communicate with people who had a different language – the gift was cross cultural communication.

Graeme continues “We need people who are prepared to seek ways to put across the very real message that the majority of people in this world are going to Hell. What are the ways of doing this in a culturally relevant way? How can we take the modern day cultural icons and redeem them for use by the Kingdom, in the same way as throughout Christian history those who have gone before did? I am strongly committed to the cause of holiness, but the Lord is leading me to ask the questions about the methods we will use into the future in order to communicate and fulfil the divine charge of Matthew 28:19-20.”

I am glad that you are ‘strongly committed to the cause of holiness’ and that you are asking questions about the methods we will use to communicate in the future – both of these points are very encouraging.

But if you look back at the history of revival the leaders did not deliberately set out to hijack the cultural icons of their day - whether it's Edwards, Wesley, Caughey, Finney, Palmer or Booth they had no plan. The simply followed the leade of the Spirit.

I think that true holiness will answer the questions you are asking – holiness gives us all the Spirit’s gifts and collectively they are our armoury in the area of communication.

I believe we’ll find the answer to these questions on our knees just as our forbears did. I am certain from the content and tone of your posts that this is where you often are!

I hope this response doesn’t sound anti-intellectual – I just think it is so important that we don’t let our own creativity get in the way of what God wants us to do – I have seen this happen in the UK.

Eg. Open air meetings - on a Sunday morning at 10 am in front of a double glazed house their pants - but on a Friday night at 10:30 pm in downtown club land (as the drunks and party goers reel onto the streets) they are brilliant - ask Cory Harrison.


Much love and prayers
A

5 comments:

Captain Andrew Clark said...

I think we're often mistaken to think that the early Army was culturally relevant. The church didn't like the Army, and the amount of persecution that was around showed that a lot of people didn't like them either, but we grew you see.

It wasn't necessarily using the idioms of the day, it was being different and striking, unlike anything else around that attracted people.

As Andrew B says, you try an open air at pub closing time, or try marching down a street on your own with something stupid like a flag and you'll see how quickly you can draw a crowd and preach the gospel.

As I said in my comment back a few blogs, prophetic relevance trumps cultural relevance...we'll use cultural relevance when it helps advance the gosple....but lets face it, the vast majority of our corps will never be able to keep up with cinema, xbox, Ipod Nano, and all the rest....

there has to be something different and I'd argue, along with Jesus, that the world will be attracted by love amongst disciples and they will be won with a full gospel leading to holiness and a passion for aggressive Christianity.

thats my tuppence for today :o)

Andrew C

Anonymous said...

Andrew B: I fully agree that the early Salvationist and especially the early Church were reacting to the Spirit and I give praise to God for sending Him so that this faith of ours is so much easier to communicate.

I would dispute that no strategising took place at all, because I believe that the Spirit is in us as we act on his ideas. Sometimes this is totally spontaneous, but at other times is after careful consideration. Saying the Spirit only works in one way is, in my opinion, restricting the power of the Spirit.

As I said, I know from my own family history that my great, great grandfather Thomas Estill, also a great, if somewhat unsung, leader of the early Army was a great strategist who oversaw the expansion of the Army in 7 different territories.

Andrew C: I suspect that a lot of the persecution that the Army faced was partly because of their effective use of the cultural idiom of the day. The difference was that they were redeeming it and making it an effective tool for winning the masses.

Please don't fall into the trap of believing that cultural relevance is only about an all singing, all dancing, multimedia senses fest. This is simply not true. Instead it is about understanding the people we live amongst and how they understand the world.

I believe that we receive this insight through the Spirit, and that he then prompts us to act in ways that will most effectively meet the needs of the communities he places us in. However, I do not believe that we should limit the ways in which he speaks to us. We are called to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Why did the Lord choose to give me a strategic mind if He didn't want me to use it for His Kingdom?

I suspect that we actually agree on most things but are simply coming at them from different perspectives. Neither is more right than the other, but sharing in discussion can hopefully add to our understanding.

Captain Andrew Clark said...

On the contrary, the Army grew in spite of their methods because the preached boldly against sin, worldliness, drunkenness, and offered the only way to Jesus. Now in todays world, it doesn't matter what you wear, but if you stand in a crowd and preach against sin, you're going to be persecuted? Don't believe me? Give it a go.

What you suggest as cultural relevance is not what everyone else means by cultural relevance. For most of the church it is about singing, dancing, multi-media sense fest, weak theology, etc etc Now, I 'm glad its not like that for you.

Finally, I'm not saying at all that your shouldnt use your brain. I;m not sure where you got that from. Simply pointing out that cultural relevance is not the material that will build the church.

I guess I'll say for the last time: "we are culturally relevant to the extent that it helps the gospel, otherwise, prophetic relevance trumps cultural relevance at every turn."

Anonymous said...

When i was growing up, we'd use the word 'relevance' to cover up worldliness.

Captain Andrew Clark said...

...well, I wasn't going to say that xander, but well done. There is sometimes a bit of that going on (not always though).

:o)