How to be relevant…(it’s not what you think)
Apr 29th, 2010 by admin
I don’t claim to be an expert on this. If anything, I’m the non-expert because I tend to have different tastes and viewpoints from people around me… So in a sense, I ought to be incapable of being relevant to most people, but I found a hack, a work-around. Deep withing the bowels of Scripture is the secret formula for how to be relevant… It goes something like this: Love people, along with a little respect and humility.
A funny thing happens when you love people and respect them, their interests become interesting to you, when they weren’t before. Things that you used to assume were ugly or dumb, you now realize can be funny or cool or clever. You can appreciate music or movies or clothes that might not be right for you…but you can appreciate them because they’re right for the people you love. It’s like rooting for the character in a movie that reminds you of someone else, rather than rooting for the character that reminds you of you.
Love that doesn’t include respect is deformed; kind of like the love between an abusive parent and “good for nothing” children. Real love sees value in the thoughts and tastes of those being loved. When someone loves and respects you as a friend, they learn to appreciate the things you love. They learn to speak your language. They are able to imagine what the world looks like, a little bit, through your eyes. And sometimes when they see something they can know instantly it’s something you would like, and they like it in turn.
What the world needs now is not more relevant Christians and churches, but more loving ones. If you try to be relevant, you just might succeed for the present, but as the culture changes you’ll be left behind. The music, the language, the dress, all of it changes. So why not stay true to yourself, be authentic in who you are, and be loving at the same time? Then you’ll always be relevant.
Related posts:
Hey, how’d you get the CityFellowship webpage on the iPad?
The magic of photo editor! I would have done the other one too, but it’s harder to make the one on an angle look real – the NY Times photoshop person didn’t do such a god job either.