“Relevant” and “authentic” are two phrases that I am honestly growing weary of hearing. Not because I don’t find value in these ideas as they relate to the Church, but more so because in their over-use, it seems their meanings are losing their original intent. Making the church “relevant” has become an excuse for catering to a specific demographic. The desire to be “authentic” has become an incentive to join in with and adopt the characteristics of the “relevant” Church, potentially losing one’s individuality.
This humble opinion is based on real-life events I have witnessed and experienced.
Making things more palatable does make them easier to understand, but it can also diminish the strength of the original meaning. Hymns have been on my mind a lot lately. I feasted on them as a youngster, but I do see how a generation not exposed to the King James Bible would find them irrelevant:
I am still not sure which is better—reaching more people with the Gospel by making Jesus more likeable and easier to understand or maintaining what makes the truth of Christ special—that it’s not easy to understand and it is difficult to apply. Authentically.
Thoughts?
Ken Rosentrater says
Sometimes I think we over analyze and try too hard. To be authentic is to be yourself, and not to distort who you are in what often turns out to be a strained attempt to be culturally cool. Can it really be called authentic when you are trying to fit in?
Eric Dye says
Dang! That’s a great question/line. I think I’ll be tweeting that now…
Ken Rosentrater says
It just makes sense to me! We don’t have to contort ourselves to be authentic!
Paul Alan Clifford (@PaulAlanClif) says
In logic (not to be confused with “common sense;” I’m talking about the academic study here). There’s something call the fallacy of false dichotomy. You set up two choices, but there are others.
Sorry Kimberly, but “reaching more people with the Gospel by making Jesus more likeable and easier to understand or maintaining what makes the truth of Christ special—that it’s not easy to understand and it is difficult to apply. Authentically.” is a false dichotomy.
I believe that Jesus is likeable and the Gospel is easy to understand. Sanctification isn’t easy and details of theology are often difficult, but those aren’t what we’re talking about here.
We’re saved by grace through faith… Once saved, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, showing our faith by our works (because without them, it’s dead).
Simple: Jesus is God. He loves you so much He died to save you. You only need to accept that and receive Him to be saved.
Hard: Following once you’ve been saved because your old nature wants to fight back against who you really are now.
I’d say using antiquated words is too easy because you don’t take the time to define your terms and you’re not being loving enough to be understood.
Not using modern language violates the doctrine of the perspecuity of scripture. Now, let me define that so that I don’t fail my own test. Scripture (when translated correctly into modern language) is understandable enough that a person of average intelligence can understand it enough to be saved. It’s not loving to insist on old words when modern ones exist that get across the similar enough meaning.
Quick example. Why do we call Jesus, “lord”? Who in your life is your “lord”? I have a landlord, but that’s not the same thing. Isn’t leader, boss, expert, or authority the same thing? In fact, “lord” isn’t the exact same thing as “adonai” in Hebrew or “kurious” in Greek, the Biblical words which we’ve translated as “lord,” so changing to another modern word doesn’t “water down scripture,” any more than switching from Latin to the vernacular did.
I think we need to speak in words that are understandable, so that we’re not adding to the stumbling blocks to faith. Let people decide based on what Jesus said, not based on a misunderstanding of old words (don’t get me started about what people think a “throng” is).
Paul
Ken Rosentrater says
Paul,
That’s good. It’s a challenge to update language and still keep true to Scripture, but it can be done and should be done.
Still, explaining some of the old words can bring greater richness and depth to understanding. I don’t have hard figures to back this up, but it seems our range of vocabulary is shrinking.
Ken