The former is a question of communication *style*, which we need not be dogmatic about. We shouldn’t automatically cry “heresy!” whenever someone tries to bridge a cultural gap or “speak the language” of their audience.

On the other hand is the issue of content, which we absolutely *must* be dogmatic about. In the article, I am referring to ‘ministries’ in which putting on a show and entertaining the audience has become the point. The Gospel (justification by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone) is jettisoned- explicitly in word or implicitly in deed- in favor of moralistic deism. This should be emphatically opposed on all fronts.

To summarize, *how* we preach is open to innovation; *what* we preach is not.

While we obviously cannot regale our listeners into a genuine love for the person and work of Jesus, we can certainly repel them through cultural friction (whether real or imagined). With that in mind, it is acceptable and even laudable to reach out and seek some measure of common ground via music, film, etc.

As you say, it is not the *condition* for the Gospel, but cultural divisions will often *obscure* the Gospel, and that is the last thing we want.

Of course, salvation is ultimately dependent on God the Holy Spirit. However, we are still commanded to preach the Gospel, and- I think- we should strive to do so with wisdom and a proper sense of acumen.

Thank you for the kind words and insight.

-David Kent
TheDavidKent.com

PS- Bear in mind, I have an extremely high view of Superheroes. ;)

The former is a question of communication *style*, which we need not be dogmatic about. We shouldn’t automatically cry “heresy!” whenever someone tries to bridge a cultural gap or “speak the language” of their audience.

On the other hand is the issue of content, which we absolutely *must* be dogmatic about. In the article, I am referring to ‘ministries’ in which putting on a show and entertaining the audience has become the point. The Gospel (justification by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone) is jettisoned- explicitly in word or implicitly in deed- in favor of moralistic deism. This should be emphatically opposed on all fronts.

To summarize, *how* we preach is open to innovation; *what* we preach is not.

While we obviously cannot regale our listeners into a genuine love for the person and work of Jesus, we can certainly repel them through cultural friction (whether real or imagined). With that in mind, it is acceptable and even laudable to reach out and seek some measure of common ground via music, film, etc.

As you say, it is not the *condition* for the Gospel, but cultural divisions will often *obscure* the Gospel, and that is the last thing we want.

Of course, salvation is ultimately dependent on God the Holy Spirit. However, we are still commanded to preach the Gospel, and- I think- we should strive to do so with wisdom and a proper sense of acumen.

Thank you for the kind words and insight.

-David Kent
TheDavidKent.com

PS- Bear in mind, I have an extremely high view of Superheroes. ;)

I quote from an article on your good blog: "Actions speak louder than words, and teens are not nearly as deaf as we’ve treated them." If you seriously think that teens aren't "as deaf as we've treated them" then why would we talk to them as if they are deaf and cannot comprehend the truth without these devices?

Also, you say: "Their 'faith' is, God help us, a terrifyingly accurate reflection of what we have modeled for them." That being the case, for my children and those I instruct I take this to heart. It is extremely important not to add fluff to your role as a model. That's not to say there isn't joy or happiness or fun. But they will not be the condition for the Gospel. Comics and kids games are good and fun, but Jesus Christ is not just another super hero. My witness will not espouse that nor imply that.

Luke, written in large part to the notoriously “pontificational” (if you will) Greek audience, is by far the longest of the synoptics, giving additional details and insight not mentioned elsewhere. Conversely, Mark, primarily directed to the no-nonsense, pragmatic Romans, is much shorter and "to the point"- almost reading like a script to an action movie. Matthew, mainly with the Jews in mind, offers an expanded focus on genealogies and Old Testament references that would particularly resonate with the people of Israel.

So we see, even in The Bible itself, there is one *message*, but three distinct *approaches* for three distinct audiences.

Are we to chastise the Word of God for being “seeker-sensitive”?

Oh foolish Holy Spirit, inspiring The Bible to compromise with culture in a silly quest for “relevancy”!

If only He could be as prudent as us…

-David Kent
TheDavidKent.com

There will always be grouchy, self-canonized ‘Super Christians’ whining about how "seeker-sensitivity", "relevance", etc. will irrevocably void the Gospel message.

No one with any sense is suggesting that we alter the Gospel to appease our audience or that we can entertain people unto a love of Jesus.

To be sure, there is potential for abuse, and we should guard against it, but this “seeker-sensitivity”/pursuit of “relevance” is not necessarily the boogeyman some have made it out to be.

Consider what Paul the Apostle, inspired by God the Holy Spirit, says in 1 Corinthians 9:

“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.23I do all this for the sake of the gospel…”

Obviously he is not saying that he reinvented the Gospel to suit different cultural contexts or any such nonsense, but he did adjust his *methods* in light of contrasting situations.

And is it any more promising now as a result of the cross pollination between pop culture and evangelical Christianity? Previous efforts to broaden the appeal of evangelicalism simply broadened evangelicalism itself to the point that the contemporary evangelical church is a mile wide and an inch deep.

That would be "da Bomb"!

Am I kewl or what?