Marketing the Gospel to a narcissistic generation

Marketing the Gospel to a narcissistic generation: 

adapting to the culture vs. adopting the culture

As many churches focus their efforts towards becoming more missional, the same issue seems to keep rising to the top of the kettle on the stove - namely: How do we, as a church body, reach a culture that is decidedly counter establishment and, potentially, post-modern? How do we minister to the needs of those who have decided that the way we currently do church is unsatisfactory for meeting their needs?

The answers to those questions tend to cause a fair amount of strife within the evangelical community, sometimes driving a wedge between various groups, thereby hindering honest fellowship. Conflict arises, in short, when old paradigms are questioned and new creative methodologies are posited.

Not surprisingly, the methods addressed, as well as the reasons for conflict, increasingly point towards  generational differences. If I were attempting to be snarky, then I'd say that the conflict within evangelical circles boils down to disagreements between the Jim Wallis Emergent Church Liberals and the Pat Robertson Religious Right Republicans (but... I'll forgo the snarkiness). Yet, this attribution to mere generational differences is unsatisfactory, in my opinion. To be sure, there are certainly individuals, on both sides of the issue, who are guilty of being inflexible with regards to the debate, but I believe that the generational issue is but a symptom of what is truly ailing all of us.

At the heart of the issue, I believe, is our inherent greed for the self. We are, in fact, selfish to the core. The extent of our affluence, health, and order is virtually unmatched in history. Yet, with all we have, we strive for more - even when couched in terms of how we want to worship God. We want things on our terms (whether we're Christian or non-Christian, by the way), and our entire economy is grounded on our ability to deliver what the customer wants (provided we make a profit, of course).

While the inflexible older generation of evangelicals seems to be unwilling to change what they perceive to be the best way to do church, the younger generation seems to be, conversely, willing to change. One group perceives the tried and true methodology as effective, with the sub-culture being at fault, while the other group perceives the current methodology as hopelessly ineffective, with the culture being at fault. Both groups, though, while sincere in their desire to evangelize the lost, seem to put their hopes in the approach.
However, I can't help but think that, all things being equal, the test of time should tip the scales in this regard. Tradition. Tradition and doctrine. What was it that Chesterton said?

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.

And C.S. Lewis?

Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But the map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God--experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you or I are likely to get on our own way are very elementary and very confused.

This is not the answer that many younger generation pastors want to hear. It is the answer, though, that they need to hear. It is indeed unfortunate that many Christians who would wish to reach a certain sub-culture within our culture run the risk of ignoring the wisdom of the elderly while catering to the wants of the young.
Greg Koukl, from Stand to Reason, likes to say that we, as Christians, are to be about adapting the Gospel (free registration req'd.) message to the culture rather than adopting the mores of the culture. In a recent interview (free registration req'd.), with Stand to Reason, J. P. Moreland reminded us that we, as Christians, are to be counter-cultural. Indeed, in Rodney Stark's book, The Rise of Christianity, we read of the manner in which the early Christians, based on living out their Christianity, countered the cultural dispositions of the time regarding women, the unborn, the sick, and the poor. The point to note is that the early Christians weren't catering to the wants of the culture (no sub-cultural element here), but were ministering to the needs of the culture - wherever those needs happened to be.
Needs vs. wants; hurts vs. annoyances; selflessness vs. selfishness; responsibility vs. rights.
A post at Mere Comments tells us about the angst many parents go through when deciding what to name their little darling children. Individuality, it would seem, is paramount. It used to be you would select a name congruent with your family line, or demonstrative of your beliefs, or related in some way to the manner in which your child came into the world. Not so in our self adulating society in which personal distinction is heralded above all else. Hence, it is not surprising that consultants are hired to advise on the best possible monikers for your offspring.
Some would argue, though, that we are a much more relationally connected culture than that of even our recent past. As such, wouldn't we want to, as Christians, engage the sub-culture in methods that capitalize on this honest approach? From David Wells,

I think there is a lot of truth in that phrase ["the medium is the message"]. This argument that the message is preserved while the means of delivery is changed is a misleading proposition, because the message being delivered almost invariably is stripped of its theological content. ...The pulpit is replaced by a Plexiglas stand. And then the Plexiglas stand disappears and you have people on barstools.
...But subtle messages are being sent by all of this. In an earlier generation, the pulpit was at the center of the church. It was visually central. You saw it. Oftentimes it was elevated. And this was a way of saying to the congregation, "The Word of God that we are about to hear is above normal human discussions. We’ve got to pay attention to it, because it is authoritative."
Now we have replaced the pulpit not even by a barstool, but by a cup of Starbucks coffee, which speaks of "human connecting." And human connecting has become more important to us than our hearing from God. Now when we make these kinds of changes to our method, we are really making changes in the message that is delivered.

One wonders how Christians can adapt a Gospel of selflessness and responsibility with a culture of relational narcissism? Is it so much to ask that the younger generation actually listen to the older generation? Is it so much to ask that the older generation be open to the possibility of actually living out their Christianity?

The Gospel, at times, may seem irrelevant to believers and non-believers alike. Our typically Western  approach, pragmatically speaking, is to alter our delivery - fine tune the pitch so as to meet the wants of the recipient, thereby making them happy (for the moment). Yet, too often, we attempt to make the Gospel pragmatic before attempting to understand the text of the Gospel. The Gospel is - the good news; it is not a cure-all self-help program. It is the narrative of our Lord's time on Earth. Our first questions, upon reading it, should be with regards to how it demonstrates Jesus' identity and what our responsibilities are in being His disciple. Only by understanding this context can we begin to see our responsibility in accessing the deliverance it can and will provide.
Of what ultimate concern is it to us, as Christians, that both Christians and non-Christians may consider the way we do church to be boring, unnecessary, and hypocritical? Is there a point, in our delivery of the Gospel, where we draw a line in the sand and state, "No, we will not cater to your wants!"? Is there a point, in our delivery of the Gospel, where we will not move away from the message that God is commanding everyone to repent of their sins?
It seems to me that, if we are to be Christians in the world, then we are to be about ministering to the needs - of the world - the entire world. If there are any sub-cultures to be addressed, then they will be addressed within the body of Christ - where they should be.

John MacArthur tells us, in recounting what John Piper has said, regarding Augustine, Luther, and Calvin,

The thing that I'm drawing out of this... is that at all points, where these people began to turn the history of the church, it was based upon a breakthrough in their understanding of scripture. It came about through exegesis. It came about through a commitment to exposition. This is greatly encouraging to me, because there is so little of it going on today. The idea today is if you really want to affect society, put the Bible aside - people can't connect with it - speak to them in cultural terms - tell them stories that they're going to be interested in - speak in relevant language and relevant paradigms and relevant experiences, etc., etc., etc.
...going back to these men [Augustine, et. al.] ...we find that they were largely expositors. If you are a pastor you are a preacher - you are not an entrepreneur - you are not a CEO - you are not quiz show host - you are not a barker in a carnival - you are not a salesman. You are a preacher of the Word of God.

Certainly, adopting the values of a narcissistic culture, in the hopes of being relevant, is inappropriate. Yet, how does one adapt to the values of such a culture without insulting such a culture? The dreaded phrase "you're wrong" would seem to be the only true approach. In a self-righteous culture, however, personal autonomy denied amounts to blasphemy of the highest degree.
(Article published on http://rustylopez.typepad.com/newcovenant/2007/08/marketing-the-g.html)