IT'S RELEVANT

“Relevance” is a slippery term.

It seems that today, the relevance of something (which we will now refer to as the package) is understood to be predicated upon two premises: (p1) that the package is important, and (p2) that the recipient appreciates the package. Only when these two conditions are fulfilled that the package is judged to be relevant. Thus, negatively:

(a)    The package is irrelevant if it is an unimportant thing, no matter how the recipient appreciates it.

(b)   Similarly, the package is irrelevant, no matter how important it is, if the recipient does not appreciate it.

This kind of thinking, however, when transposed into evangelism and mission, has radical consequences. In fact, the above formula is probably the common mentality of today, made evident by the rise of contextual and sociological studies in missions. The necessity of the so-called “indigenous theology” is also grounded in the drive towards “relevance.” The problem with this is that the trend tends to emphasize (p2) in the equation. I wonder whether there are still contextual theologians around who still consider the package as essentially important regardless of whether it is appreciated or not by its recipients. In short, is the Gospel still the good news if it is considered “foolishness” by Gentiles and “scandal” to Jews (1 Cor 1:23)? Is it worth it to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ when it arouses animosity against the God and the Church that proclaims it? Does the Gospel lose its essential importance when it is not understood?

Here we must distinguish between evangelical relevance and intellectual relevance. Going back to the equation above, intellectual relevance emphasizes the presentability of the package in such a way that it is understood and appreciated (p2). To accomplish this, the evangelist might need to remodel (or worse, add ingredients to) the Gospel so that it fits the taste of the recipient. Worst still, the evangelist might need to prune the Gospel content (John 3:16) in order for it to be appetizing. For the evangelist of this type of relevance, the Gospel content, like the one preached by the early apostles and presented in the four Gospels, possesses no integrity on its own, and has no power on its own to effect transformation in the lives of its hearers without prior careful crafting. This is a highly anthropological model of evangelism. I believe that intellectual relevance is important too, but I wonder: Is the exalted position we ascribe to it a lot more than what it should really have?

Evangelical relevance, on the other hand, grounds relevance not on the appreciability or acceptability of the Gospel, but on the primary fact that God saves. I am not arguing, however, that a sloppy presentation of the Gospel is sufficient. (My argument does not need a reduction ad absurdum response.) My contention is: in mission, the category “relevant” should not be grounded upon appreciability, but upon the essential importance of the Gospel. To reverse the order, and to argue that evangelical relevance is irrelevant without prior intellectual relevance displays an unspiritual way of thinking. Of course communication is essential. To be understood is important. But the Gospel we are communicating is not a human insight; it is rather a spiritual truth (cf 1 Cor 2:4-5). The Gospel in its scandalous claim that humanity is sinful and in need of redemption through Christ the Son of God needs to be presented unashamedly (Luke 9:26; Rom 1:16).

 Perhaps the main reason we want to be pleasing to the world is that we want to avoid persecution. We are pressured by the world to be in uniformity with its standards, and failure to be so is equivalent to persecution. Of course suffering is unpleasant. Pain is an event that we do no wish to encounter. And if pain still meets us in the way, our first reaction is to seek the comfort of a pain-negating medicine. But we should wonder whether by avoiding suffering we are also avoiding the call of Christ to take up our crosses and follow him (Matt 10:37-39; 16:23-25; Mark 8:33-35; Luke 9:22-24; 14:26-28). We should wonder whether by avoiding persecution we are actually anti-Christians, people who are qualitatively different from that of the early Christians and martyrs. The early Christians, (except perhaps the apologists), did not seek social and intellectual acceptance at the expense of witness. Rather, they sought to be witnesses at the expense of social and intellectual acceptance.

We should really ask other related questions: Does our noticeable avoidance of persecution not in itself a counterwitness? If we do not want to suffer for something that we think is true, then how can we persuade others to commitment to such truths? Are we not actually communicating that the truth we proclaim is not worth suffering or dying for? Are we not presenting a Gospel that no longer calls to repentance, but only calls for acceptance? Are we not promoting a Christianity that does not offer something that the world does not have? Does the fact that we do not have the confidence to speak the Gospel of Christ in its simplest form (which is already given to us in God’s accommodation) express our unbelief in the power of the Holy Spirit to make clear to all what is foolishness to Gentiles and scandalous to Jews? If we do not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to convict the world of its sin and ignorance, then how can we even communicate the Gospel of repentance? If we do not have faith in the Holy Spirit, are we not actually asking people to join us in believing something we ourselves do not really believe in? Should we conform to the pattern of the world’s reasoning, or be transformed by the renewing of our minds? (Rom 12:2) Should we obey rather obey human stipulations than God’s commission to make disciples of the Servant-Lord (Acts 5:29)?