The "pet" word that irritates us more in our circles is
"missional." I am wondering when the focus changed to the world's culture, and I wonder when we'll quit chasing our tail.

agreed; too much of a good thing. a topic perhaps worthy of a footnote became a chapter, then a book, then a genre... alas, bandwagons are easier to jump onto than off of.

I used to tire of discussions about culture and the concept of being missional. Lately I've become convinced that some of that was an excuse for sinful attitudes in my own heart concerning reaching the lost with the gospel of Jesus Christ. I think the whole culture and missional thing can go overboard, but I've been guilty on the other end of the spectrum, too.

We have to know some about the culture so that we can relate to them. Paul knew about the gods and poets of his day. BUT, ultimately, Christ and his bride transcend culture. The more the Church emulates its surrounding culture, the more it gives up its true identity. God's Kingdom is BIG...nuanced cultures are small. Most "missional" and "relevant" churches/ministries/people are choosing culture over Kingdom.

An overreaction to an overreaction?

If the pasted snippet above accurately reflects the whole of Trueman's stance,then I think he may be overreacting to what is an unfortunate overreaction.

There is a fine line between attempting to develop a deeply biblical, theologically robust "missional" hermeneutic (e.g. Christopher J.H. Wright, Leslie Newbigin)on the one hand, while on the other hand, removing the guts of the label for the purpose of mass-marketing the newest church-growth strategy at the expense of Jude 3 (it appears those who have posted do not need names assigned).

The history of doctrine attests that we are masters when it comes "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" (a statement which probably deserves more qualification than space allows). I would hope we are committed to informed, sober-minded judgments instead of sweeping generalizations. Furthermore, It seems that humility demands that we all (at the very least) acknowledge that every church is guilty of some degree of amoral, cultural accomodationism for the sake of contextualizing the gospel (e.g. projection screens, sound systems, electrical instrumentation, modern dress, websites, etc). Who's doing it and who isn't is a moot point. The better question is how do we use culture in a way that is faithful to the gospel.

Culture, whether ancient, premodern, modern or postmodern, is inescapable. We are locked into it and are shaped by it, even when we don't realize it. Therefore, we should be compelled to use it (like this blog), transform it, and oppose it when necessary. We need to labor hard with humility and prayer to wisely use the vehicle of culture as far as holiness allows (as did Paul, Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Luther, Calvin and others), to communicate the "essence" of the gospel in a way that is understandable, accessible, and applicable for those to whom God has providentially appointed us.

P.S. Sorry for the lack of brevity. Each of your comments have been edifying for me this morning (and I hope to those I encounter throughout the day). Thank you, Dan, for your transparency. I too have been guilty of the same.

If it's a choice between chasing culture or returning to (supposedly) biblical 'essences' (!!) I choose neither.

In my culture, it's not overstated, yet.

But seriously it probably depends on how current you are with blogosphere.

A lot of our church members are still not able to distinguish between culture preferences and gospel imperatives.