I confess, I'm a Christian and I was a relevance addict. Despite my seminary background, I was accused of not being able to proclaim the gospel. But the truth is, I know it full well (Christ died for sinners to make them acceptable to God). but I just did not feel it changes society. Deep down inside, I felt that mercy does not change people and it definitely does not change society, but is really an indulgent message. Also, I did not feel that the message of forgiveness is not relevant for people who face suffering. I am a Chaplain and my work is the allevation of suffering. It was more important that people change or gets comfort than that they know the gospel. Therefore, the gospel goes on the backburner.

      The truth is I will always feel the tension. There will always be a part of me that would ask, how would my message when I teach or preach change people's attitudes or behaviors? Or is the gospel really a comfort to a person who lost a loved one? In my struggle with this question, I have concluded that there really is a disconnect between people's felt needs and the need God addresses through the gospel. There is no getting around it. The story of Thor coming down to earth to defeat Loki who is messing with humanity is more exciting than the story of God coming down to earth to bring forgiveness to humanity. Its true that Christians hope for a final day when God eliminates evil, but that message is not the gospel itself. God is also the giver of law, and his law will triumph in the end with the ending of injustice and suffering. However, Christians are to proclaim and live the reality of the gospel, and for now evil comes and goes. 

      Unfortunately, whether consciously or unconsciously, the relevance trap has diluted the scriptural message. An example is with how certain bible stories are taught. The victory of David over Goliath could be taught as a story of the triumph of faith. If you believe, you can have victory in your endeavors, whether sports, business, etc. Teaching the story this way appeals to a pragmatic and self-centered audience. It sounds harsh but its true that if my "victory" is more important than anything else, then I am self-centered. I could be a nice person on the outside but I could still have a destructive flaw inside. It seems that the purpose of the biblical writers when writing stories of Israel's victory is to put a plug for God's power and faithfulness. David won because God is faithful to his promises and that he is God above all gods, not because David believed. It is true that faith is commended and seen as powerful, but we must also remember that God allowed King David's Israel to fall into the hands of enemies. It is not because they stopped believing, but because they have become presumptious in their relationship with God. God bailed us out before and he will do it again despite our sins. God who is faithful and powerful is the center of the story. 

     Another story that could be mistaught is the story of the woman who bathed Jesus with perfume, an act that was seen as too extravagant. A lesson on this story could become focused so much on the hearer "what are you willing to give up for Jesus?" The gospel writers were interested in proclaiming Jesus as a compelling character, that they have found God in him (that you may know that Jesus is the son of God). It may be a right application for people to give themslves Jesus, but it would miss an important step, reflection on Jesus. Where people want to be entertained and be given quick answers, to jump to the step of application is tempting, but that would encourage legalism. Legalism, despite people's aversion to rules, appeals to an audience that wants quick answers because they are "busy" with other things. We need people to slow down and ask "Who is this Jesus?" and let true devotion flow from a real "experience" with him.