…A first time visitor to The Bridge made this statement to me following our gathering this Sunday
It struck me that she made a distinction between truth and relevance.
She was a very engaging, obviously intelligent women, and she has come to understand what the church has been selling for some time: truth and relevance are different.
How did we get to the place where a relevant church was not a church that stood on and preached strong Bible?
I was thrilled she was at our community, and thrilled she enjoyed it, but I hated the experience she had with church. She has attended a huge local church before spending some time in Seattle, and attending Mars Hill, and coming to see a difference she had been feeling for some time.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not drinking the haterade…I have no beef with mega churches, or even with seeker sensitive churches. I think to a large degree they serve a purpose within the universal church by more effectively attracting the unchurched and dechurched.
At the same time, if I have heard it once I have heard it a thousand times…”I just felt like I graduated”…”I just needed more”…”something was missing”…
How are we as a community going to correct the misconception that truth IS the most relevant thing we can provide someone. The two are not different…and if it is not founded in truth, no matter has slick, flashy, or cutting edge…IT ISN”T RELEVANT!
Are we to simply come to see different churches serving different purposes?
Are “relevant” churches in need of a truth makeover?
Are “truth” churches in need of a relevance makeover?
What has been your experience? What are your thoughts?