I'm confused about 'out of touch' theology

Here's a little thing that has always perplexed me. I do hear from time to time that traditional Christian theology is 'out of touch' and 'not where people are at' or, worse still, is 'no longer relevant to the contemporary world.'

Now I think there are real senses in which certain ways of articulating the gospel can cease to connect with a culture and the church is always having to recontextualize its message.

However, I suspect that often something else is going on when these claims are made. I imagine that it often simply means something like, "Our contemporary world does not like those gospel claims" or "Those Christian claims are not fasionable." It is not that they are not understood but that they are rejected.

So you'll have to excuse me for not feeling terribly moved by such accusations. 'Not fasionable' is not the same thing as 'not relevant'. We might, for instance, not like the idea that God hates sin but if it is indeed the case then it is very relevant.

Of course, this is blooming obvious and not remotely profound but I am short on profound at the moment so it is random fillers for the moment.


Popular Posts