Relevant Theology

A present push in the North American context is for the church to be relevant. However, what that actually means is regularly being debated. What is it that makes a church relevant—the carpet, liturgy, felt needs, music style, programs, architecture, video screens, Jesus? And who gets to decide what is actually relevant—church consultants, pastors, believers, unbelievers, church boards, culture, Jesus? They are reasonable and important questions for us to thoughtfully and collegially consider.

Lutheran theology has much to offer in this regard. Perhaps the most familiar element might be the historic confession of faith contained in the Third Article of the Apostles Creed, along with Luther’s explanation of it in the Small Catechism. The Creed reminds us of the relevance with which the church has spoke for millennia: I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Christian Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. To be sure, the role of the Creed is not to seal faith into the confines of nostalgic certitude, but to give it a living voice—one that has a historic familiarity and authentic sincerity—one that has absolute relevance as to what it is and what it does.

Luther’s explanation then provides a perspective on the challenges of being relevant: “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel…” For Lutherans, then, the relevant church is the church that boldly proclaims the Gospel for the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

However, it would seem that more than a few LCMS Lutherans are not so sure. Presently, the thought by some is that a culturally relevant church will translate into a growing church. Thus, the logic follows, “If we can just get our church to be relevant we can grow our church and therefore grow God’s kingdom.” But the challenge comes in who is defining what is and what is not relevant.

In terms of our culture, “Boomers” had their say for a time, but now “Gen Xer’s” and “Millennials” are taking their turn. Interestingly enough, each of their voices have been heard by the North American church. In the hopes of being relevant, “Boomers” brought on the “Church Growth” movement. But that didn’t cut it for Gen Xer’s. They wanted something different and something more honest. Thus they protested the Church Growth Movement and created a whole new movement of their own—the Emergent Church Movement:

“Too often in recent years, church leaders have acted as if being sensitive to seekers means sliding into a one-size-fits-all, franchise, clone, mimic-the-model mentality. Too often, we exchange one set of rigid traditional styles and methods and ways of thinking for equally rigid ‘contemporary’ ones. Too often, we have acted without sufficient reflection, without thinking deeply about the profound relationship between church and culture, between past and present and future, between our methods and our message. And we have been gimmick-prone and thoughtlessly (sometimes desperately) pragmatic, without being as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents (Matt. 10:16).” These are the inflammatory words Brian McLaren offers as part of his forward to Dan Kimball’s book, The Emerging Church. It is no small indictment.

For Emergents, the certainty and arrogance of the Church Growth Movement led to its inadequacy and failure. Thus, they created a counter movement with the hopes of becoming relevant to the people of the 21st century. This time, it has been said, it will be a movement that lasts and will eventually constitute no less than sixty percent of Christianity. At least, that is what fellow Emergent, Phyllis Tickle claims in her book, The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why.

Curious, is that it is a movement that is self-described as a “conversation” and is decidedly ambiguous about making definitive theological statements. As such, it seems that the hope is the movement itself will become the “relevant” factor that will bring new growth to the church. However, it remains to be seen if this will truly be a lasting change, or just another generational “movement.”

With all that said, what is it that, at least for some, makes Lutheran churches and Lutheran theology irrelevant for today? And what measurement is the basis for such an assessment—statistics, consultants, attendance, Jesus? And how does that evaluation square, not only the history of the Holy Christian Church, but the historic confession of faith subscribed to by LCMS Lutherans and expressed in the Third Article of the Apostles Creed? Here an honest and collegial dialogue with those of differing perspectives is entirely desirable.

As always, this blog aims to move past partisanship and demonizing of those who disagree, and endeavors to thoughtfully, honestly, and collegially, foster the goal of talking about the mission of the Holy Christian Church and what it means to be authentically Lutheran, while “discipling all nations” in the 21st century. For those willing to enter the fray, I welcome your constructive thoughts and reactions.


Rev. Woodford


2 responses to “Relevant Theology

  1. Marcus Williams, Missoula MT

    This is another great post! This is probably one of the biggest issues facing Christianity at the present moment. I too desire for this type of conversation to take place. I have a lot of friends who are Evangelical Christians and a lot of our conversations surround this idea of the relevancy of Church. To them Lutheranism is not relevant because it doesn’t fit todays culture and the way that the world wants the Church to go. I would say that the definition of church relevancy in todays mainstream Christianity is “loud” and clear, and I do mean this as a pun. For Lutherans the relevancy of the Church should be God’s Word and the preservation of it. Unfortunately a lot of denominations or “non” denominations are catering to the flesh in the hopes that the Church will grow. I’m speaking of course about their worship style. This seems to be what makes Church “relevant” or not and so judgment is being placed on Confessional Churches who refuse to change their worship styles because evidently that is what we need to use to make the Church grow. But we know that the Church grows by way of God’s Word, out of fear of decline some have brought a practice into the Church to make Lutherans seem more “relevant” and have chosen to abandon our historic liturgy which provides us with the correct understanding of worship and contains the very Words that have the power to create faith. All I want is for a conversation, a REAL conversation to take place, about this issue. But unfortunately it always goes one of two ways, one people point to their Church numbers as confirmation that God is growing them through their “relevancy” or two they say “I worship my way you worship yours” without so much as answering the question of what true worship is, whether Christ is truly among us in the service, or how we should act during worship and the list continues.

    I’m not sure if this is the direction you wanted the conversation to go but to me worship is the main thing that speaks to a Church’s “relevancy”. The method that I have tried is by way of a blog as well. It can be found at There are a few articles there about what the Lutheran Church believes about baptism, the Lords Supper, decision theology, etc in the hopes that people would read and understand what the Lutheran Church believes and why so that there pre-conceived notion about the LCMS would hopefully go away. Thanks again for the post. God bless.

    -Marcus Williams

    • Dear Marcus,
      Thanks so much for your considerate post and for your efforts at your blog. The desire to have these “real” conversations with our fellow Lutheran brothers and sisters has been a desire of mine for quite some time. As I love them dearly, my endeavor has been, with all gentleness and patience, and yet with all honesty, to facilitate such conversations as best I can, particularly within my own congregation and pastoral circuit, and hopefully now in this venue as well. I think you are correct in observing one of the primary ways in which these theological differences can be seen is in worship. I do hope to address this as tactfully and collegially as I can in future posts, but for the moment, I will say that I think there is room for the use of various instruments in the Divine Service that, when used in all propriety, (volume included!) can wonderfully accompany the Church’s liturgy. However, when such instruments, whatever they are, turn from accompaniment, to performance or entertainment, they detract from the point of the Divine Service and undermine the giving of God’s gifts of grace within the liturgy. Thus, you will note the centrality I have for the liturgy. But, as I beleive you noted on your blog, the word “liturgy” is no longer fully understood. But more on that later. Thanks again.


      Rev. Woodford

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s