Should the Church change some theological teachings as to stay relevant according to the advancing of culture and science that we see in this generation?

State some examples please.

1 Like

Can you be specific? What do we base our attitudes and behaviors upon? How does “the church” decide what it stands on? If not the scriptures, what authority should the church rely on and who should decide and what criteria do you recommend?

Since the nature of the unregenerated man has not changed, their actions have stayed the same. Covetousness is still rampent, lust of the eyes for all manner of things still remains, idolatry is everywhere, though the things idolized may be different because of the different technology that we have its still idolotry. So yes the people of God need to preach about those things. As i did in another thread, I brought up the evil of enjoying godless, vain entertainment. Be it movies, tv or music. If it comes from a godless source and proclaims goddless and vain ideas than it should be shunned. People need to heat things like that. But it’s really no different than what the early Christian s would have been tiold to avoid in the form of plays and song.

We once lived in small closed groups, now most of us live in urban settings. We are communicating and getting information from technology. We are specialized more in our work skills, We live longer. We delay adulthood longer. We are dependent more on government rather than community in times of need. We are mobile,and no longer close with family units We watch godless vain entertainment. Drugs, sex, rock and roll. The list goes on.

1 Like

But the message we preach is the same. Repent from sin and self love and place all your trust in Jesus. The Gospel is the power of God to salvation to all who believe. The church of God does not change the message, we do what Jesus and the apostles did, we apply it the way sin is showing itself and hold it out as the way of peace and safety.
If you live in the city or in farm country, its the same. Jesus died to destroy the works of the devil, to set the captives free. Love not the world or the things of the world, if you love the world the love of God is not in you. Thats good news. If God comands us to do something and fills us with His Holy Spirit, then that means we can obey. If He gave us His Son wont He give us everything that we need for life and godliness?
People need to hear these things, it will bring life to those who believe.
People, societies all over the world need to have sin pointed out to them by proclaiming what God says is sin. They need to hear of righteousness and judgment to come, for that is what God says the Spirit will convict them of when He comes.
May the people of God never shy away from preaching these things.

I can agree with you on that, but the way it looks and the way sharing that message is done may be quite different today than 200 or now 2000 years ago. As it applies to the title post here, perhaps the core message remains intact, but the church around it may look quite different.

1 Like

There seems to be a fundamental issue with a major premise behind these questions, namely that the Church dictates theology. This is emphatically not true; the Church has no more power over theology than she does over natural law. Ultimately, the truth remains the truth, no matter what man says. What may change is how the Church, as a whole, interprets what she sees in the general and special Revelations of God to man, (Creation and Scripture, respectively). As we learn more about one, we can use this to illuminate and develop what we know about the other. This is a refining process, approaching the truth in the limit.

Asimov said, paraphrased, “saying the Earth is flat is wrong. Saying the Earth is a sphere is also wrong. However, if you think that saying the Earth is a sphere is as wrong as saying the Earth is flat, you are wronger than both of them put together.” Asimov was talking about scientific theories, but the application to this situation is clear: as we learn more about science and theology, we approach a correct interpretation of both. This won’t affect the core doctrines; those are already right. Now, we iron out the wrinkles in our understanding of secondary doctrines.

As for the culture’s effect, I emphatically state in the strongest of terms: “Absolutely not!” This world is ruled by Satan, and thus what it says about morality and the Almighty means nothing and is nothing. It is inconsistent, irrelevant, and set on fire by Hell. The word of man fades away like grass on a hot day, but “the word of our God endures forever,” as Isaiah testifies.

1 Like

The last paragraph was good for my soul to hear. Thank you.

1 Like

One crucial point here is to distinguish what in teaching is core (stays the same through generations) and what is cultural (may change as surrounding cultures change).

It is sometimes difficult to see what in the practice and teaching of our congregations is cultural or otherwise not essential. Cloths, music and comparable things are easily understood as cultural things. Disagreements pop up when a particular interpretation of certain passages in the Bible is lifted up as an essential teaching. For example, I would list the creation vs. evolution debates within this category.

One way to recognize what is core teaching is to compare teaching in different christian denominations. What is common can be seen as core teaching, what is only told in a minority of denominations is perhaps not core teaching.

Another way to recognize the core teaching is to compare the old Christian creeds. Although these are not something written by Jesus or His apostles, they condense much of what most Christians belived to be essential during the times the creeds were written. What has been added later is probably less important.


I guess I realy dont understand when people say somthing like you said, “but the church around it may look different”. How would it look?
It always sounds like the church caves into the worlds ways so it supposedly remains relevant to the ways of the world. There by becoming a worldly church, which is no church at all. We are to be the light of the world. Shining our light on its darkness and showing the way to Jesus.

1 Like

Being in the world with our God-given eyes, ears, brains, social and cultural awareness and participation, is not necessarily the same thing as being of the world.

The 1st and 2nd century churches began to look a lot different than the earliest (only Jewish Christians) would have imagined. The churches began to include gentiles of all things!

Or some churches of the 18th and 19th centuries could never have imagined churches in the latter 20th and 21st centuries beginning to accept people of all skin colors as equals! Every century has its hangups and prejudices - often with the illusion that the written word supports their particular prejudice and should have all Christians practicing the same things they themselves do which they imagine should continue forever. It’s what happens when a church tries to make itself “Bible-centered” rather than “Christ-centered” as it’s supposed to be. Aim at Christ, and you get the Bible thrown in. Aim at the Bible, and you get neither.

I call that “comfortism”. Changing you ways because some degenerates want to change culture norms etc etc. No one give a @@ . Everyone does whatever he wants. Bashing your "anti-culture " bias to my throat will only result in more resistance. And if the church accepts that bias then sorry im out. 0 tolerance for any cultural change. Only for science. Nothing else. Call me whatever i dont care at all

It should stay relevant, or else the “salt has lost its savor.” Change is hard, but church looks differently now than in colonial or medival times. Churches that don’t change are largely empty today.


Doesn the bible teaches that apostacy will happen? If the church changes to stay relevant it the end it wont be the body of Christ but a cult

On the other hand, if it does not stay relevant, will it then cease to be salt and light?

So what if it will? Ever heard about apostacy? It will happen the Bible says so. Everyrthing good eventually comes to an end.

In some ways Christ was our first Apostate, Nick. The religious authorities of his own religion tended to throw his immediate followers out of the temple. And he himself was not just thrown out - but taken all the way to a cross! May we all have the courage to follow him wherever he leads. We are never greater than our master - but we all can easily sink into being so much less.

1 Like

As Caiphas would scream “BLASPMHEMER”. Jokes aside i dont think God himself couldve been a apostate. Why do you think he was one? Because the religious leaders were so blind that they couldnt see who he was?

That has nothing to do with what i replied to you above.

Sure if people like you (with the same thinking i mean) let the church give in at these anti-culture thoughts or you know change because of the current culture then congrats Mervin you just created an apostate. Me

Just look to Christ, Nick. Let the culture think of you what it must. And that culture includes established and organized religions (including Christianity). As long as you are in good company (Christ’s), you don’t need to worry about all the other labels people (including Christians) want to heap on you.

1 Like

Agreed. But thats betrayal
My own brothers then would betray me. Not the best feeling beign ostracized by your own people ? And beign angry at that so.

Im kinda confused though. Have you voted here? Are you against or for changes? Scientifc or cultural ones? Both? None?

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.