With one voice, emergent and seeker-sensitive church leaders point to THE one issue they believe is the root of any church’s failure to grow: not speaking the language of the culture.  To make the point that cultural relevance is scripturally mandated these leaders to a man (a woman, a person?) cite 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 - Paul’s “all things to all men” passage. This text is used to justify cussing in the pulpit, rock music in the worship, sexual innuendo in the skits, and a hundred and one other “culturally relevant” expressions, all so that Unchurch Harry doesn’t feel the least bit uncomfortable within the confines of the sanctuary (er, ah, I mean auditorium - or is it a theatre?).

Brad Powell writes in Change Your Church for Good: The Art of Sacred Cow Tipping: 

In order for people to genuinely benefit from and apply God’s truth to their lives, they have to hear it in a language they can understand.

That’s stating the obvious, isn’t it? Who doesn’t recognize that if I’m in Russia speaking English no one is going to be edified?

But Brad isn’t using the word language in reference to words. He’s using the word language in reference to the behavior and actions of those within the church, what Brad later defines as “Christianese.” It is this “church language” that is unrecognizable to the world. It is our forms of worship the world doesn’t “get,” so our forms of worship must be reshaped by the demands of the culture.

So instead of illustrating the awesomeness and holiness of God by singing an outmoded song like “Holy, Holy, Holy” to which Unchurched Harry can’t relate, Brad had someone sing Joan Osborne’s blasphemous song What if God Were One of Us?, part of which says: 

What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us;
Just a stranger on the bus,
Tryin’ to make his way home?

Brad chose this song, he says, because “[I]t’s a song that relates to most people’s desire for God.” And he justifies using it on the basis that Paul said, “I have become all things to all men that I might by all means win some.” But did Paul really mean to suggest that singing blasphemy is justified if that’s what it takes to win a lost person to Jesus?

John MacArthur offers an accurate exegisis of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 in Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes Like the World:

The first sentence in that brief excerpt shows clearly what Paul was talking about. He was describing not his willingness to sacrifice the message, but his willingness to sacrifice himself to preach the message. He would give up everything - even become ‘a slave to all’ - if that would promote the spread of the unadulterated gospel. His desire to win souls is the heart of this text, and he repeats it several times: ‘that I might win the more’; ‘that I might win the Jews’; ‘that I might win those who are under the Law’; ‘that I might win those who are without the law’; ‘that I might win the weak’; and ‘that I may by all means save some.’ SO winning people to Christ was his one objective. In order to do that, Paul was willing to give up all his rights and privileges, his position, his rank, his livilihood, his freedom - ultimately even his life. If it would further the spread of the gospel, Paul would claim no rights, make no demands, insist on no privileges.

And that is precisely how Paul lived and ministered. Not that he would modify the message to suit the world, but that he would behave so that he personally would never be an obstacle to anyone’s hearing and understanding the message of Christ. He was describing an attitude of personal sacrifice, not compromise. He would never alter the clear and confrontive call to repentance and faith.

Paul was not suggesting that the gospel can be made more powerful by adapting it to a certain cultural context. He was not speaking about accomodating the message. He was simply saying he would not jeopardize his ability to preach the message by unnecessarily offending people. If the message was an offense, so be it: ‘We preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumblingblock, and to Gentiles foolishness’ (1 Corinthians 1:23). But Paul would not make himself a stumblingblock to unbelievers: ‘Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God’ (10:23).

For a fuller exploration of this subject, see chapter 4 in MacArthur’s Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes Like the World. Dr. MacArthur later makes the point that Paul…

…never adapted the church to secular society’s tastes. He would not think of altering either the message or the nature of the church…by contrast, the ‘contextualization’ of the gospel today has infected the church with the spirit of the age. It has opened the church’s doors wide for worldliness, shallowness, and in some cases a crass, party atmosphere. The world now sets the agenda for the church.