Is the Cross and the Church relevant? A pastor at Chicago's Jesus People USA and the frontman with the Resurrection Band, Glenn Kaiser responds.

Glenn Kaiser

When faced with the question "Are the Cross and the Church relevant?" one could respond, "What does one mean by 'relevant'?" A basic definition of relevant is, "having to do with the matter at hand". Let's begin with the Church.

Most everyone has heard the story (perhaps experienced it as well!) about the mausoleum-funeral parlor sort of place with a lot of old and older people who have memorised the boring sort of stuff they do in such places. The word "church" conjures up such images in the minds of quite a few people. Of course, that is NOT what it's about in the New Testament, nor in (thankfully) many places in the world today.

Yet, we have seen the ignorant, even brutal things done in the name of "Christianity" and therefore conclude that "church" is at best a stupid concept, at least foolish if not actually bigoted. At worst, it might be considered destructive in terms of today's gay-bashing, abortion clinic bombings, racist/fanatic policies (did someone mention Northern Ireland?) and so forth.

At the extreme end of things, the Church might be thought of as actually dangerous, but I think most would agree that Church in the real sense has very little to do with the everyday life of the average person. For many, it seems quite irrelevant.

In the Bible's history - take the book of Acts alone, not to mention commonly-held world history, we get a different picture. Yes, gross injustices have been done by many claiming to be Christians, but it can be easily argued that believers have not been alone in abusing their neighbour rather than loving him/her! Do a short study on the number of hospitals and clinics founded by missionaries and ask yourself again if the Church has been irrelevant.

Biblically speaking, the Church is not a building. nor a structure, nor simply an institution. While all of these figure in the equation of what many think of as "church", the biblical word simply refers to a gathering of followers of Jesus Christ. An assembly of "called out ones". Are there good and bad followers of... anyone/anything? Of course. But the Church must be considered by the typical attitudes and behaviour of its people. Let's rephrase the question: are individual Christians who collectively constitute the Church relevant to society?

Ask those who have been served by them.

As for the cross? If one considers the incredible love for people that Jesus demonstrated, and if one realises exactly WHAT he accomplished on the cross and what it means to the human race in time, space and history, one would be insane to not humbly thank him and receive the gift of forgiveness and eternal life that Jesus purchased for us through it.

Further, those Christians who mature into living examples of the love Jesus displayed on the broken tree will pour themselves out to serve and not simply control or utilise their fellow man to their own selfish ends.
If love is relevant to us, so is the cross.

Yet the church in the practical sense is only as relevant to the world as it allows the cross to be relevant to it. When the Church discards the preaching and daily embrace of the cross of Jesus and its implications, then it renders itself irrelevant to a society and culture in deep need of love, biblical ethics and morality.

The Bible speaks of the "priesthood of the believer". Those Christians who habitually bicker, gossip and fuss over a multitude of relatively unimportant issues are ministering. They "serve" (the actual meaning of the word "minister") self and Satan and agree with all who oppose love, forgiveness and mercy. Those who live as enemies of the cross cannot love God much less the true Church - Jesus' blood-purchased family.

I am convinced that the pettiness and selfishness of many claiming to be Christians is the basis for many rejecting both the cross and the Church.

How truly relevant is the cross to those believers who spend their time backbiting, complaining and grumbling about the leadership, the music director, the worship team and those Christians meeting in another building down the road? Do we rarely thank and praise God and encourage those who do the bulk of the serving? Do we offer to serve as well? What sort of priests are we? How relevant to a society big on accountability while individually full of independence and trash talk IS a church that offers only the same?

I am convinced that no devil in hell can do as much damage to the relevance and reputation of the Church as a load of self righteous, self centred, self satisfied, continually immature Christians who won't SERVE but continue to dictate policy in the local church. End of rant.