a very dirty word

During the summer, I was sent an email from the Dean’s office asking me to teach a topic to two sections of the Principles of Teaching and Learning course. Having something to say about the topic, I was excited, but being terrified of all I had to do, I ignored the email, planning to respond when I felt less overwhelmed. When I was in the Dean’s office a few days ago, I remembered that email, assumed that I’d missed the class and all was done. Today I found the request, and it is for November. The topic is “Cultural Relevance in Teaching and Learning”. Now I know why I put it aside for so long. I wasn’t at the place I needed to be in order to know what needed to be said in that class. So this morning when I was supposed to be addressing a more immediate deadline, I jotted down some thoughts based on recent conversations and comments concerning this subject.
Here is a portion of one of my random access thought processes:
One of the statements I most often hear, and from some of my dearest friends, who are reacting to perceived dumbing down, or changing of the message in order to connect with the larger culture, is “I don’t want to be relevant, I just want to be holy.” But I’ve never understood this statement. That is, unless I equate it with the contemporary church’s use of the terms “application” and “practical”. A thought paradigm which asserts that every sermon must also include a “practical application” of the subject matter to the life of the listener will immediately define the term “relevance” by means of “perceived need”, or preference based application. Otherwise, the terms holy and relevant aren’t the antithesis of one another. But because of the backlash and tongue-lashing brought by the use of the term, those who seek to find a relevant way to speak the word have begun to avoid the use of the term, and have bought into the accused shallowness of the concept, and claim they’ve moved passed it. Relevance has become a very dirty word.
This is too bad, because Jesus never saw a problem with speaking in the language of the people to whom he brought the gospel.
The bad taste, I believe is caused by having already misapplied the concept of relevance, but having called it practicality and application. The method may look the same, but the message is different.
We often mistake Jesus’ vehicle for the picture painting of the gospel story for the subject matter. Jesus was ultra-culturally relevant, but who would ever question his holiness? Well, the Pharisees did. The religious establishment. All his parables and metaphors were common knowledge and experience for everyone listening to him. We observe how he did things and try to be culturally relevant by imitating him. But in doing so, we have often mistaken his metaphor for his subject matter.
Jesus used financial investments as a metaphor for kingdom investment and spiritual growth. We, in turn, offer financial instruction as a “discipleship” program. Rather than trying to apply our everyday knowledge to better understand God, we try to apply God to get more out of our business, lifestyle, and investments. “Apply these biblical principles to your financial life and you will prosper.” While Jesus said, “apply what you understand about finances to help your understanding of the Kingdom.”
Jesus had a topic and concept that is relevant to all men and women of all time in all cultures. He taught using conceptual parallels that were relevant to their culture. He understood how they thought, and he taught HIS subject matter in culturally relevant ways. We, on the other hand, search for culturally relevant subject matter that we feel will be of interest to people. Rather than using marriage as a metaphor to better understand Christ and the Church, we teach how to apply biblical principles to your marriage. We apply Jesus as a resource for our concerns and contexts rather than our contexts as a means of knowing Him better. The contemporary church calls this “practical application” and scoffs at the idea of relevance as a “dumbing down” of the message. While seeking to be relevant should affect the way we present the same old story, rather than changing the story to one that has perceived interest to a particular group of people at a particular time.