Relevant: a discussion on semantics

I've become aware that there is a controversy in the "church world" about "relevance." I'm also aware that this isn't breaking news, but I'm not really on the cutting edge, so it takes me a while to figure these things out.
To set the stage (as I understand it) briefly:
Some churches attempt to practice "relevance," which generally seems to mean that they try to package the gospel in a way that appeals to 21st century [American] people. [I'll limit myself to Americans, since I am one and know them the best.]
Other churches attempt to stay true to traditional forms, which generally seems to mean that they try to package the gospel in a way that seems tried-and-true to them, which perhaps was proven to have appealed to people at some point.

I'm confining this relevant-not relevant argument to churches which really do want to be the body of Christ on earth. That is, they seek to preach the gospel and make disciples. I'm making this distinction because I realize that some churches are not actually interested in doing these things. They are happier being social clubs or believers-only pow-wows.

Churches which practice using "culturally relevant" forms to package the gospel (CRF churches, for short) usually seem to believe that those churches using traditional forms to package the gospel (TF churches) are out of touch, out of date, and out of luck. TF churches seem to believe that CRF churches are on a slippery slope (to hell, I presume, although they don't usually finish the phrase), having traded God's absolutes for cultural relativity.

I've heard, understood, and have in fact agreed with the arguments on both sides, about how people won't stick around to hear the gospel if the church experience isn't delivered in a way that they can relate to, and on the other hand, how church shouldn't be comfortable to unrepentant sinners. But, in my theologically uneducated opinion, the argument over "relevance" is mostly an argument about semantics. And I think both of the sides, as I've described them, are wrong.

I think what makes a church relevant is whether or not it is proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's not about the music or the video projectors or the multiple screens or the video arcades. It's not about the hymnals or the stained glass windows or flannelgraphs. It's about the MESSAGE delivered via these tools. Yes, some forms of communicating may be more successful with one demographic group than other forms. Some may find multiple screens and light shows to be distracting, while others may find wearing a tie to church and singing from a hymnal to be stulifying.

But is the church really being the body of Christ? Do we love people as he did? Do we care for their needs? Do we call them to surrender to him, to reach for more and more and more of him? Do we oppose sin, yet lovingly help the sinner to see there is hope and forgiveness in Christ? I'm sure there are things I've left out, but I think these are some of the things that makes a church relevant. People may want to be entertained, but their true NEED is to know Christ.

I'm making my head hurt.