“Therefore, everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.” (Matthew 7:24-25)
In general, the church has struggled to define its relevance to current culture. It has battled with two questions: Why do we do the things that we do, and why shouldn’t we do what the culture is doing? A subtitled question for the second would be “What are the limits to the push to be culturally relevant?”
In some cases, the drive to be culturally “with it” has resulted in producing churches that have thrown Jesus into the backseat. He’s not even riding shotgun anymore. In other situations, churches have asked the risky question, “Why not try this? Would Jesus be upset by it, or is it just different than what has always been the tradition?”
Jesus’s teaching about the house built on the rock versus the house built on sand brings us, literally, to the foundation of the issue. I mean, “who builds on sand?” is the logical question. In recent years, we’ve seen many crumbling houses built exactly there. Some in sinkholes, others on hillsides where erosion has deemed the structure unsafe to live in. In some of the situations, the “bad” foundation isn’t discovered until later on when it’s too late to change anything.
It makes me wonder if, in the beginning, the sifting sand looked solid? Did the decision to build seem like a great idea, a creative project that was going to connect with those seeking the truth? Did it look rock solid? When did the foundation become more about cultural leanings and less about Christ?
Regarding the church, there is a certain mindset that holds firmly to the idea that rock-hard resistance to the winds of change is the way of the faithful, while others argue that such rigidity eliminates the freedom the gospel brings.
In addition, the church and its members have a habit of trivializing what it means to have a solid faith by putting disqualifiers into the question. Can you be anchored to the Rock and still drink a margarita? Does being Rock-Solid mean that playing the lottery is an indicator of a lack of faith? Can I stay close to Christ and still cuss?
Going back to my opening question, it has been difficult for the church to define its relevance to culture, and also what being set free by the gospel means and what it looks like.
The vitalness of being anchored to the Rock is evident in the cultural antagonisms that pull in various directions. “WWJD”- what would Jesus do gets verbalized in vastly different ways by different people and groups. What is a sign of waywardness to one group is a sign of devotion to another. Changing the world for Christ will always meet resistance from those who want the world to change in another way. It seems that Christ-followers too often have to battle against culture and other Christians. In reading the epistles of the New Testament, the struggle was evident back then as well. Pressures from those outside and tensions and warped beliefs from some of those on the inside made for lengthy letter correspondence. Of course, that was the early church in various locations and hostile cultures. They were communities of believes trying to figure faith out.
I’m not sure what our excuses are. Staying close to Jesus always seems to attract sand and wind.
Words from WW Blog 