Relevance Revealed -- Ecumenical, Eccentric or Eclectic?

Friends,

I put these thoughts together over the past few months...yet, I thought it was a timely time to post them since this is a subject that has come up a couple of times recently in discussion. I have been amazed at the similarity of thought that I have encountered in many conversations with church leaders recently -- shepherds, deacons, preachers and others who have come to the realization that "something has to give in the brotherhood"...and particularly in relationship to the question of relevance. There are churches all across the state, the country and the world that are struggling with the question of relevance. In relationship to relevance, some churches choose to go a different course than "the norm" altogether. Many times, young families either seek to change or leave their current situation or leave the fellowship of the churches of Christ altogether because they recognize that the churches where they worship are no longer relevant to them or to the community around them. Many of these Christians begin anew with new method principles, traditions that are more in line with their spiritual and cultural needs. The danger for a lot of these fellowships is ecumenism. They are willing accept any doctrine (without discernment) as long as it is not narrow-minded (which is their one caveat). This is admirable in some respects…as a fresh start and approach minus the negative aspects of the previous situation can be a good thing. However, some become arrogant (purposeful) or ignorant (unwitting) in their presumption that they can change doctrine and still be acceptable in God's sight. These people go too far, "throwing the baby out with the bath water" (so to speak), doctrinally (and even spiritually) in seeking to be relevant, all while engaging in their new methodological practices. These groups may be relevant culturally, but not so Biblically. They often sacrifice doctrine for superficial growth. The "I'm okay, you're okay" approach to theology just doesn't work the same as it does with psychology ;-). There must be a respectable balance Biblically and methodologically in order to be relevant in the eyes of the Lord. Too many of these types of churches are theologically shallow, tickling itching ears (milk, but no meat) in order to grow quickly and gain status. Yet, so many of them are a house of cards... and when the trials come and there is no genuine Biblical foundation, they fall apart. We see an example of this with the religion of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 3. He called for his followers to worship according to his secular, state religion that had many followers, but was not God-fearing or genuinely spiritual. Ultimately, it collapsed, as have so many other ambitious religions throughout history. The Athenians (Acts 17:21) were admonished for a mindset whereby they seemed to accept many things without discernment. The church at Laodicea (Revelation 3:14-22) had become enamored with their wealth and culture at the expense of spirituality and we know the outcome of the message...rejected by the Lord.
Another group is the eccentric...those who have no tolerance for any change whatsoever, but who insist that they themselves and others hold strictly to their particular set of beliefs. For the eccentric, the church should be precisely the way that it has been for 30, 50 or 100 years. Unity respects the mindset that we can be (perhaps even vastly) different in our thoughts, opinions, and practices, while remaining Biblically true and still be in fellowship with each other. Eccentrics believe that everyone must virtually think alike, practice alike, be alike -- not only doctrinally, but methodologically, as well. This may be uniformity, but it is not unity. This mode of operation is far more fear than it is faith in its inability to delineate between doctrine and methodology. It has been well-stated in other places, that there is no room for any type of philosophy or thinking that could be just as Biblical -- if not more so -- but does not fit the status quo or "party line." These churches are also guilty of tickling itching ears, but with the working principle being..."your message had better be in agreement with what I already believe (traditionally, doctrinally)." These groups generally fracture until only those who can truly tolerate one another and are willing to be in agreement with the unique uniformity mantras of that particular congregation remain. Concerning resistance to change in every respect, the irony is that change does happen in these places, as change "changes" them anyway...and so it has been proven over and over, usually to the point of obscurity, or death. Of the two perspectives related to relevance, this latter perspective has been by far the most prevalent in our particular fellowship...as well as in other denominational groups. The Judaizers (culturally Jewish Christians) who were continually troubling Paul (as did the Jewish leaders with Jesus) fully believed that they were right and holy. Yet, their arrogance in relationship to their "theology," and resulting blindness to the Lord's will and leading, was their undoing. As Paul continually affirms his apostleship in 2 Corinthians, he also indicates that those who opposed his teaching and authority would have the same reward as the unrepentant Pharisees. The church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7) had a strong Christian name and reputation at one time, but they, like Laodicea, were severely lacking...having forgotten their First Love.
The final perspective is related to groups that are eclectic. These people are able to be discerning in and of themselves so as to be able to challenge long-standing traditions and other church "cultural phenomena" so as to see whether their methodologies are helping or hindering their ability to be relevant for Christ to the communities in which they reside. They are able to do this in a way that does not sacrifice genuine Biblical authority, although they are often accused in such matters by "eccentrics." The "ecumenics" think that nothing (or that perhaps, everything) is sacred and everything can be challenged, Biblically, whereas the "eccentrics" believe that any methodological change is always going to lead down a "slippery slope" to changing doctrine. The eclectic is able to discern the difference and the balance in relationship to those things that are matters of doctrine, matters of opinion and matters of method. The eclectics are those who are able to be the most relevant to the community because they are the most balanced and are able to make the necessary methodological changes in order to be relevant without making the expensive and tragic mistake of sacrificing doctrine. The "eclectics" are like those in the fellowship of Christians at Philadelphia (Revelation 3:7ff) who apparently were able to discern and understand the times and the culture that surrounded them. They were able to be persevering, holding to the Word without sacrificing the Spirit, open to the Lord's leading so that He could use them in mighty ways to spread His message and bring people to Christ. Eclectics understand and choose the best right doctrines and methods, being open-minded, typically, and open to the leading of the Lord in ways that may be out of their "comfort zones," but are willing to do so because it is the right spiritual thing to do. This requires a lot of faith and courage, but as these people come to understand, these virtues are their own reward. Eclectics do not see "fellow followers" who are different from them as the enemy...neither do they have to be in "full" fellowship with them. But, in the spirit of Christ they are able to positively encourage those who are like them and those who are different from them spiritually and doctrinally to try to get to the same place -- the heavenly home. (See Mark 9:38-40). Food for thought.

Don