What does it mean for the church to be relevant?
It’s the wrong question.
Wrong because that’s never really the question to begin with; it’s always loaded with arsenal of other ulterior inquiries like “how is this going to make us more money?” or “how is this going to attract a demographic of people that have left our organization?

Wrong because it’s always playing a cyclical game of catch up.

Don’t believe me?
In the 60’s it was “how can we mirror the success of what’s already happening with television.”
In the 70’s it was “how can we mirror the success of what’s already happening with the hippy folk rock movement.
In the 80’s it was “how can we mirror the success….” Ok, there was nothing great about the 80’s. Let’s just try and forget that decade all together.
In the 90’s it was how can we mirror the success of mega corporations.

Today, we've simply created  an awkward conglomerate, trying to model all things hip from Coldplay covers in worship services to scarf-wearing metro-pastorals in front of lights and backdrops that make Broadway look a little less flamboyant.

We need to go all the way back to the 50’s to find this reality flipped upside down. The movie, Ray, the bio-epic about the life of Ray Charles, does an excellent job of describing this culture clash. Charles was one of many innovative artists who decided to take music birthed inside the church and import it into the dimly light night clubs and smoky bars where people, whether they found themselves in pews on Sunday mornings or not, spent their Friday nights (I know none of us can relate to this today but use your imagination).  Check out this clip: