Here is a brief article that is worth reading on the debate of Faithfulness and Relevance. This division is a difficult one. I struggle much with many friends who claim to believe the same things I do, but are ready to follow methodologies in church practice and leadership of those who hold differing theologies. Do I need to change? Do they really believe the same things I do? This article does not give all the answers, but sheds interesting light onto the discussion.
Here are a few quotes:
I think the most basic pratical division among evangelical pastors today may be between those who pursue faithfulness and assume relevance and those who pursue relevance and assume faithfulness.
I remember taking a walk with Don Carson once, and Don remarking something to the effect that the first generation has the Gospel, the second generation assumes the Gospel, the third generation loses the Gospel.
Dever argues that this division may give an arminian and calvinist more in common than 2 calivinists if one calvinist is seeker-sensitive and the other is pursuing faithfulness. Sadly, I am finding him to be right. My conclusion, methodology and theology are too closely related to divorce the two in church practice and leadership.
PDF 
hmm. not sure i completely agree.
if faithfulness to the gospel causes me to be irrelevant to culture, am i really being faithful to the gospel? (because i would argue that the gospel is always relevant to culture)
i think probably there is a lot more grey area here than you are allowing for. using a generic word like “methodologies” allows for generalizations that ultimately are inadequate for discussing the wide spectrum of practice in conservative, evangelical churches today. i’d like to see you more specifically identify the methodologies you believe compromise faithfulness and address them independant of the generalization of “seeking relevance”…
what do you think?
David,
First, I would not expect you to completely agree. However, have you read the article by dever? I am not calling faithfulness at the expense of relevance, nor is Dever. If we seek relevance first and faithfulness second then we fail. Even if we first establish our theology and then do not apply it to the methodologies we use we in turn seek methodology first. Ryle on Idolatry has hit home for me. It appears clear that within the church we can set up idols like methodology, community, outreach, homeschooling, etc (some good concepts that we begin to hold too high and are sought over the worship of God). As for methodologies I was vague on purpose. But it would not be hard to figure out what methodologies would be inconsistant. If we look to those that believe in free will for our methodology of how to run a church we will err, if we look to secular business on how to run a church I believe we will fail. Our theology must impact all areas of our life and church life.
Faithful to whom? Relevant to whom?
Aren’t these two separate questions that do not require a hierarchy? What examples do we have of those who have identified for us what a balance between these issues might look like?
As long as we are quoting J.C.Ryle, he wrote in his Biographical Account of William Gurnall, The Christian in Complete Armor, pg xxxiii, “It is better to put up with some things we do not like in a church, than to throw away opportunities of usefulness.”
We must consider Paul, ICor.9:19 “For though I was free from all men, I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the gospel’s sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof.”
Paul’s reputation was irrelevant to himself, but only that Christ would have the gain.
Phil. 1:18 “What then? only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.”
Ryle showed that Gurnall pursued opportunities of usefulness to his flock, village, and especially to the Kingdom. He was relatively unappreciated in his day, however, because he did not become a dissenter, but rather kept focused on Christ and the great commission. He, as did Paul, was willing to flex in order to gain the more. Both were well-pleasing to their master.
So the question is this. When does the effort “by all means to save some” cross a legitimate theological or practical line?
But first, this is not an academic question that must be answered before we obey the great commission! Are efforts being made now, and outreach promoted now, people being trained, resources engaged, prayers and fastings happening now? The focus of these two men was evangelism and edification of the sheep.
What are the boundary lines we fuss about, while the lost pass into eternity? Contemporary worship, contemporary music in traditional worship, Sovereignty vs. active evangelism, etc….
When is it required to downplay relevancy to adhere to faithfulness?
Could Paul endorse drums in the worship? What about worshippers in Africa? Would they have to cart around a piano? What about an electric keyboard, there or in the USA? Pay the music director???
Too quickly and before thinking, we could proclaim that the Regulative Principle is what governs worship in a “well-ordered” church, and that “faithfulness” requires its practice.
Oh? We don’t find any musical accompaniment within a strict adherence to the Regulative Principle. It was only temple worship that required instruments and musicians, which things have passed away. The RP forbids us to bring any thing to God in worship that God has not required.
On the other hand, what is required is not practiced, especially in “well-ordered” churches. Why isn’t “lifting up holy hands” (ITim 2:8) practiced in our churches? That directive is not altered by cultural considerations. All you might say is that no one has holy hands, which makes the prior statement “I would that the men pray in every place” to be pointless.
There are other boundary lines that do have merit. That is what would make for edifying discussion. I’ll leave it up to others.
In light of Paul’s urgency to “save some”, perhaps a more accurate statement of the real issue in the Church today would be to re-phrase the citation from Mark Dever:
I think the most basic practical division among evangelical pastors today may be between those who pursue faithfulness and relevance, and those who pursue the lost.
Our goal must be:
Faithfulness to Christ and
Relevance to all (saved and lost alike, young and old, rich and poor, black and white, male and female, employed and unemployed, single and married and widowed, near and far, simple and wise, ignorant and learned).