David Henderson's main contention in Culture Shift: Communicating God's Truth to Our Changing World is that Christian preachers are failing to effectively connect with contemporary culture, especially in the area of sermon content and delivery. He maintains that our sermons are often communicated in a language that our audience isn't speaking. He graphically summarizes the preacher's dilemma with a postal metaphor: "The world has moved, but it neglected to send a change of address card. We keep delivering the same words to the old address, but no one is home" (p. 16). It is this communication failure that Henderson wishes to address in his book. His goal is to help his reader discover "where the world has moved, and how to meet it there" (p. 16).

He begins by considering the process of communication. According to Henderson, the chief reason we fail to connect with our contemporary culture is because our message is seemingly irrelevant to our intended audience. He uses Bill, a tool-and-die worker, as an example of how quickly the average listener tunes out a preacher's message. In his example, a preacher begins his message by laying out the cultural context of a biblical passage to be preached. Because of this, Bill immediately phases out the preacher's voice and message, never to return. The reason: Bill deemed the preacher's contextual comments irrelevant and boring. The preacher wasn't speaking in Bill's language.

Because of this common tendency, Henderson argues that our sermons must be relevant. According to Henderson, "[s]omething is relevant when it has to do with [our listener's] circumstances, when it bears upon [our listener's] questions and struggles" (p. 24). This definition is ultimately unhelpful, for it is broad enough to encompass anything and everything. If a term can mean anything then, in reality, the term means nothing. The only real point the definition makes is that the material presented must be focused or directed in some way toward the listener. In other words, it must be listener-related.

I personally wrestle with this concept of relevance, for it seems to directly pander to five of the six qualities Henderson addresses in his book as problematic -- consumerism, the entertainment mentality, individualism, secularism, and relativism. The problem is simply that relevance always means relevance to us. The point of reference is always the self, thus all messages must ultimately be self-referential or they are not relevant. However, the words of Scripture are ultimately God-centered. The point of reference is ultimately to God -- His person, works, and plan -- for the Bible is ultimately about God. Though this fact alone has immediate and important relevance to us, this relevance is not so obvious to those who do not approach the Scriptures or biblical preaching with faith. Indeed, if we take the Bible as our starting point, many of the main themes of Scripture that appear irrelevant to the average American, are ultimately, of the highest relevance. Issues such as the Trinity, the incarnation, justification, election, apostasy, the church, etc., are probably not pressing issues of concern in the average person's life, yet ultimately, they are of the highest importance.

Henderson does seek to differentiate between being audience sensitive and audience driven in one's preaching. The former he describes as being sensitive to making the text more understandable to the unchurched; the latter refers to changing the message to make it more acceptable. I don't think anyone would argue that a sermon should be audience sensitive (we have all sat through long, dry, boring, fact-laden, academic and heartless sermons and wouldn't want to impose this burden on others). In spite of Henderson's noble attempts, I think his distinction works better in theory than in practice. The line between audience sensitive and audience driven is fuzzy and easily crossed. Both seem to make the ultimate goal of preaching center around people and their needs rather than truth and its consequences.

With that said, Henderson admirably introduces helpful aids to keep from this abuse. I especially appreciated his comments on the need to redefine what comprises "biblical" preaching:

The term biblical needs to be redefined. It cannot mean merely "from somewhere within the pages of Scripture." In light of the way the Bible is written, as a single fabric of thought stretching from front to back, biblical must mean "in keeping with what the Bible is about." (p. 27)

This redefinition exposes the fallacy that only verse-by-verse running commentary messages are truly biblical messages. Particular passages must be placed in their historical-redemptive context. If they are not, they remain mere moral lessons. Also, there must be a place for extended reflections and meditations on biblical truths, as well as considering a particular truth and its development throughout redemptive history. If we consider that the Bible is structured like a story and not like an encyclopedia of facts, this approach seems to be more biblical.

Henderson also warns that being relevant is not to reduce the truth concerning God or to refashion God into a "divine vending machine in the sky" (p. 29). Too many messages boil down to simply stating that Christianity will give you a better date, better car, better job, better marriage, better health, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Christianity becomes the perfect accessory to one's already set wardrobe. Where are the testimonies about losing friends or family, job, or health, in light of one's Christian commitment? They are often noticeably lacking because we are often preaching "vending machine" theology.

In short, Henderson advocates that we must translate the language of the Bible into the language of contemporary culture. "It is not our place to make the Bible relevant, but it is unquestionably our place to communicate the relevance of the Bible" (p.34). With this I wholeheartedly agree. If only it were truly this simple.

Overall, I think the biggest problem plaguing true communication in a church context lies in the lack of community often experienced in churches. Every community becomes defined by certain identifying values and goals. In describing these goals, every community begins to speak their own language. The golf community knows of its "fours," "birdies," and "mulligans." The faith community also has its special language, designed to grant greater access to its riches. Many words we use are not common words in the world, but very special words to those inside the community (e.g. "grace," "fellowship," "blessing," even "church"). The unchurched, if they are to share in this treasure, need to be "churched" in order to understand. They need to learn the language, if you will. A good preacher who is aware of the needs of his listeners will generally know when certain individuals fit the "unchurched" bill. When this occurs, he can take special notice to carefully define words that are uncommon in modern parlance. Obviously, the size of one's church affects one's ability to do this. In smaller congregations, there can be a greater awareness of where people are at in their faith. In larger congregations, or megachurches, this will be more difficult, if not outright impossible. Perhaps this is why some megachurches have resorted to presenting every message at the lowest possible level of difficulty. However, this is a mistake. Every message must not always descend to the lowest level of understanding. This is uncaring to the mature and irresponsible for the young -- we all must grow up eventually.

Henderson follows this chapter with practical advice on better understanding our culture. Overall, this advice is helpful. Yet, it is somewhat tragic that this chapter even exists. Personally, I find it unfortunate that this engagement with culture has to be explained. Missionaries entering a new culture have always done this kind of homework concerning their target culture. It is high time that we Americans realized that we are missionaries to our culture and thus we must understand our culture if we hope to engage and influence it. Many of the recent books advocating a "missional church" concept have been helpful for me in this area.

The main portion of the book deals with six features that are indicative of modern culture and hinder effective communication with contemporary people. These six features are consumerism, the entertainment mentality, individualism, secularism, relativism, and the need for significance and meaning. He addresses each feature with two chapters, the first gives the historical background for the quality being addressed and the second presents practical suggestions concerning how to communicate in light of the impact of the respective quality on this environment.

He begins with consumerism. We are a culture constantly deluged with an overwhelming amount of advertisements concerning countless consumer commodities and options. This environment fuels our obsession to consume products, services, and sadly, even people. Henderson seeks to demonstrate how the message of the Gospel can be communicated in light of this environment. This chapter, perhaps more than any other, highlights how numerous difficulties arise in the attempt to make the Bible relevant to a consumer mindset. As Henderson readily admits, the Christian message cannot pander to this mentality, but must reveal its inadequacy:

God calls everyone to approach him not as consumers but as creatures standing before their Creator… A consumer stands over, with the freedom to pick and choose, mix and match, return or exchange at will. But a follower of Christ stands under, having relinquished the freedom to pick and choose. He or she is submitted, committed, under the sway of another. The disciple is no longer a buyer but a person bought at a price. Products don't call their buyers to obedience; Jesus does. (pp. 59-60)

In light of the contrast between the consumer mindset and the biblical call, Henderson's practical comments leave much to be desired -- perhaps precisely because there is little room for relevance in such an environment. Henderson advocates encouraging the weighing of the benefits of the Christian faith or promoting informed comparison among religious options. These suggestions have the affect of reducing the message to just another advertisement to be heeded or discarded. There is a danger whenever the Gospel message is equated with other products on the market. Though many don't seem to recognize this, the danger of crossing the line from pronouncement to advertisement is great.

Consider what now appears to be a standard feature in American Christianity -- marketing the gospel as advocated by George Barna. Barna believes "the major problem plaguing the Church is its failure to embrace a marketing orientation in what has become a marketing-driven environment" (Marketing the Church, 1988, 23). Barna presents the Bible as "Exhibit A" in his series of proofs defending his thesis (Ibid., 29). "The Bible is one of the world's great marketing texts" (Ibid., 29). Jesus, as the master marketing specialist, "communicated His message in diverse ways, and with results, that would be a credit to modern advertising and marketing agencies" (Ibid., 32). According to Barna the church is not only in a market but is itself a business. Its product is a relationship with Jesus and each local church is a franchise.

Obviously, there must be some common forum in which the gospel can receive a hearing, but it is dangerous to make that common forum a place of trade and profit. The ramifications of treating a relationship with Jesus Christ as a product and the gospel as Jesus' advertisement are devastating. At the very least, it is bound to impact the communication and (even worse) the content of the message.

A second feature of our culture Henderson highlights is the entertainment mentality. Our visually stimulating and leisurely society has created an overwhelming glut of entertainment options. Because of this, our demand for entertainment has increased, even intruding upon areas of life that are not intrinsically entertaining. As Neil Postman writes in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, the dominant means of entertainment -- television -- ends up trivializing everything it touches because it really only does one thing well, that is, it entertains. Because of television's vast influence, news, politics, sports, and even religion now must be entertaining in order to keep our attention. This shift has drastic implications for preachers, who are also expected to be entertaining. Sustaining the attention of people demanding entertainment in all things becomes a difficult task for preachers.

Henderson's practical comments on connecting with an entertainment culture are helpful, however, they may be overly demanding. What preacher, no matter how good, can truly compete with the great actors of our day? What presentation, no matter how exciting, can truly match the excitement of a sporting event? We are obviously at a disadvantage. Many of the hints Henderson gives are helpful, but ultimately, we will have to teach our people that they shouldn't come to church expecting to be entertained. In this context, I'm not sure if Henderson's comments about including drama and multimedia are helpful. They may actually encourage the hunger for more entertainment rather than real engagement with the One who is life, truth, and the way. In short, Jesus may not satisfy the hunger for entertainment, but he can and will satisfy the hunger for forgiveness, relationship, and meaning.

A third feature of our culture Henderson addresses is individualism. We no longer consider ourselves primarily in light of our relationships with others, but in light of our own individual self-importance. This impacts our ability to attain and maintain genuine relationships. Relationships are demanding and difficult, and generally involve sacrifice in order to benefit others. In our individualistic society, we are not prone to sacrificing ourselves to pursue beneficial relationships with others. As Henderson writes, we don't want to be alone, but we are not sure how to be together. Real self-giving relationships are on the decline because of our rugged individualism.

Henderson's practical suggestions in this area were helpful to a point, although I think he left his best ace uncovered. As he states, we must preach the centrality of self-denial for the sake of others, the importance of relationships, and the danger of self-reliance. Furthermore, we must make more corporate applications in our sermons, calling on the entire body to respond together for the sake of one another and the good of the whole. All of this is fine, but it does not strike at the root of the problem. More importantly, we need to preach the importance of community and the real nature of love.

Our anemic ecclesiology is often the reason we cannot get people to take individual relationships or larger communities seriously. God has always been about saving a people, not individuals. Individuals are saved, insofar as they become a part of something bigger than themselves, as they become part of a believing community -- whether Israel in the Old Testament or the Church in the new. Because of this, the importance and centrality of the church in God's saving work must be preached. The unity that this calls for as well as the commitment to one another this demands ("we are members one of another") should be prominent themes in our message.

Even more importantly, we must preach that love is always other-directed. Love is the sacrificial, self-denying, self-giving of one person to another for his or her benefit and good. Love is the ultimate goal of all our teaching (1 Tim. 1:5). Love is the ultimate missionary program (John 13:34-35). Without love, all our efforts are worth nothing in God's eyes (1 Cor. 13). Faith alone is nothing without "faith working through love." In my ministry, I have encountered many naval-gazing Christians curving in on themselves seeking to discover if they have true saving faith, and not enough Christians reaching out to others through sacrificial service, evidencing by their loving deeds the genuineness of their faith. In short, I think Henderson really misses the boat in his correctives-the supremacy of love and the necessity of community should have been given more prominent attention.

Henderson then considers secularism. His comments here are helpful, but I think he could have said more about the need to emphasize mystery in our message. There is a hunger for transcendence that is palpable in our culture. Our interest in angels, ghosts, the occult, and the afterlife is evidence of this. Often we are telling people through our preaching that life is a problem to be solved and Christianity has all the answers. Instead, I would advocate teaching that life is a mystery to be lived and Christianity best illumines the nature of this mystery. The further we penetrate into mysteries the greater the mysteries appear, so that there is no end to the search, and no reason to ever pretend we've arrived.

Finally, Henderson considers relativism, and the need for significance and meaning. But for the sake of space, I'll conclude.

Henderson concludes by arguing that the way we present the gospel needs to change. I agree completely. The old standards (The Four Spiritual Laws, Steps to Peace with God, The Bridge) were fine in their day, but they do not connect to our contemporary culture. In light of our present cultural setting, our message must emphasize the hope of restored relationships, the importance of community, individual significance and meaning in light of participation in the redemptive story, and the place of mystery in the Christian life.

Henderson has done a commendable job at pointing out many of the difficulties in communicating the Gospel message in our contemporary culture. His analysis of the modern situation was very helpful, although I didn't always find his correctives as equally valuable. But, overall, this is a fine book, and a great introduction to important issues.

© Richard J. Vincent, November 15, 2001