mrcrowder.com

Excuse me, but I may still cringe when I talk about having to be “relevant.”

I’d much rather see myself as “counter-cultural.”

In a very simplistic way, I’ve tended to see being “relevant” as pandering to the culture for the sake of fitting in long enough to have an impact. It’s a lifestyle bait-and-switch. Some believe, with good insight, that working hard to be “relevant” could compromise the message of the Gospel. That, somehow, relating the Gospel to certain things within culture ultimately undercuts the power of the original message Jesus preached. 

It’s trendy to be against “relevancy” and be in favor of “living counter-culturally.”

The difference is that being “counter-culture” is supposedly about living in a way that goes against the stream and, by virtue of its display, exposes the inconsistencies and problems (sin) within the system (culture). 

It’s something we always have to wrestle with.

Relevant or counter-cultural?

Are there some places the Gospel just won’t go?

Jesus lived about 33 years. He did public ministry for the last 3 of those. We only have a handful of glimpses into his life before he went public. 

At best, we can glean that he was normal-yet-different. Normal in that he went about life pretty much like an average young Galilean man. Different in that, well, he seemed to get noticed when he felt like it.

He was good at blending in. He was good at standing out.

He was good enough at blending in so that no one so much as had a sniff as to who he would become. 

He was good enough at standing out, when he wanted to, that he made wise, educated men marvel at his insight as a young boy. 

What exactly did he do his first 30 years?

Did Jesus live counter-culturally? Did he live relevantly?

Did he spend time earning the way he lived the last 3?

I don’t think things are always as cut and dry as I may act like they are.