I only fight against them because, while some of those are clearly true, they can all be taken too far.  For example, Calvinism can be a good thing but hyper-Calvinism is clearly a bad thing.  The same can be applied too any of those views.

Indeed the gospel is relevent to every culture, however, the presentation might not be.  If you walk up to someone in one culture and call that individual a sinner, he may repent and come to Christ.  In another culture, the individual will ask what it means to be a sinner.  Another will claim their is no God.  And yet another will be in another language all together.

When we have these differences, the gospel should be presented differently.  One expression of the gospel might have to start at creation while another might not need to mention creation (like when witnessing to a Jew or Muslim).  I might present the gospel as being from a personal God who relates to his creation to a deist.  I might present God as a perfect and loving father to a person who was abused by his earthly father.  In this way, the gospel while unchanging is to be presented differently to different contexts.

However, the point of the topic was not to say that the gospel itself should be "made relevant" (though, it is indeed relevant to every culture, every language, and every time), but how we live out the gospel will be different.  A person in Africa will live out the gospel differently than one in China or Europe.  Also, a person will live out the gospel differently in the rural United States than the urban United States.  This is my major point.  A person may use the same principles of Scripture but in different contexts it might look different.

What the conservative biblical side of the relevance movement tries to do is look at a specific context and use biblical principles in such a way that the culture will be redeemed.  Culture in and of itself is not evil but sometimes aspects of it can be.  These aspects needs to be sanctified by Christ as the lives lived in that culture are redeemed.  If I were to plant a church whose main audience is Southern farmers, then this church will look radically different than an audience of college students in New England.  Neither form is wrong or superior over the other so long as the doctrine remains the same.

We Christians often fall into the trap that our own form of Christianity is the correct form.  Every generation when they've practiced Christianity for any period of time begins to believe that they hold the true form of Christianity that all others should emulate.  Because of this, if you do not have a Sunday school then you might be considered a liberal even though home life groups might be better for a different context.

Even with these changes, many things are to remain the same such as preaching, reading of Scripture, worship, fellowship, etc.  Sometimes it just looks different for different contexts.  It has become relevant.  Relevance only becomes wrong when it is forced upon the wrong cultural context or it is unbiblical.

That's why I only agree with one portion of the emerging church.  This video can give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

I agree with the portion of the emerging church that examines tradition to discover what works, what doesn't, what is biblical, and what is not biblical.  This picture gives a very basic idea of the various conservative "types" of Christianity in the United States currently.

That's exactly what I was thinking......

God Bless

His talk was really just him attempting to sell his version of "emergent" philosophy over the other versions of emergent philosophy, and separate his version from the others in areas where they disagree.

In the process of doing that, the shirt he was wearing was a glaring example of the errors that can result from being over-concerned with being "relevant", fitting in with the world, wanting so much to be liked, and accepted by the non-believers.

Supposedly he has toned down his use of crude language and off color jokes and remarks, and to his credit, I didn't see him resorting to that in that video, now he needs to lose the shirt that is demeaning to the Lord.

As I have stated before, he speaks a lot of truth and in most areas is biblical but he needs to focus on the rough edges and stop trying to be popular with the world. He needs to reflect on these verses.

Deu 18:13  Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.

1Co 5:6  Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7  Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8  Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 

2Co 7:1  Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 

1Pe 1:13  Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
1Pe 1:14  As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
1Pe 1:15  But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
1Pe 1:16  Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Did I use the word motives? No!!! When you stop attempting to attribute things to me that I didn't write I will entertain continuing discussions with you. The man admits he wants to be "relevant" to the culture.

1Pe 1:15  But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
1Pe 1:16  Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

By the way, I don't think that 1 Cor 9:19-23 condones, cussing, foul language, off-color sexual jokes, and wearing shirts with images of Jesus with a boom box, all of which he has or continues to do. 

Oh and by the way, since you mentioned the term motives, I will ask the same question, how do you presume to know his motives? 

God bless 

You should know the answer to that since you (1) created the topic about relevance which is the clarion call of the emergent Church and (2) also brought up Mark Driscoll by posting a video of his presentation. 

Implied in your statement is that those in the traditional Church don't attempt to get to know the people they are witnessing to or speak in their language. I do not accept that false premise. That is a straw man.

In addition, God's Word is truth and relevant for all times. It does not need certain "settings", "props", "staging", "hip dress", or "cool terminology, slang, jokes, etc." to be relevant. In my opinion to think that sort of stuff is necessary is to deny the power of the Word of God.

By the way, the Word of God does the reaching and convicting, we don't. We must be careful to not give ourselves more credit than we deserve.

Rom 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 

Heb 4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.