Question that was posed (here) (copied below in its original form):
I have a question about the definition of “culture”. I think of culture more as a two way street - both reflecting people and molding them at the same time. It seems that the weaker ones are molded more and the stronger are the ones whom it reflects (this is tenative and a huge generalization).
However, the emergent movement seems to follow culture and modern (meaning current) philosophy rather than the Word. It’s like looking at the Bible through the lens of postmodernism, instead of looking at the world and all it entails through the lens of a biblical worldview.
I know exactly what you’re talking about in the review of chp 2 concerning the particular minestry, but one’s faith cannot be dictated by other people. A church building is still filled with sinful people, and this gives us great joy to look forward to the only perfect Church ever - in heaven.
What are your thoughts?
________________________________________
My thoughts:
True, the definition of culture is paramount to how we react to the words of Jesus… but we have to remember that all of our known theology was influenced by the culture of the day, namely the enlightenment, and then modernity.
Even Jesus’ teaching reflected a cultural understanding, or influence. So in that sense we must read the Scriptures with different lenses then our own. And in reading we begin to deconstruct (yes, Derrida), or better defined, we begin to look at the text through the cultural lenses of Jesus and his disciples.
The Enlightenment and Modernity brought with it a dualistic theology - separation of secular and sacred… But Jesus did not live in such a realm, he lived life in the grey, life between the ‘righteous’ and the ’sinner’, the clean and the unclean. In doing this he was always moving within culture(s), though not corrupted by them.
Emerging Christians are most definitely following culture, though not in the sense that you espouse. They are trying to take the message of the gospel, which is to love thy neighbor (enemy) as thyself, just as God has loved you and you love God.
When I was in grad school, we had a project consisting of cultural exegesis. Which basically was a project in observing a particular subculture, interviewing the participants, and constructing a plan to show them the Gospel message. In the 60 different papers that my classmates wrote, there were many different routes to sharing the gospel message of love. In this setting an emergent christian flourishes… looking for ways to integrate faith within the daily lives of non-believers.
Like it or not we live in a Postmodern world… a world vastly different than even 20 years ago. A world that communicates, disseminates, and circulates information in the blink of an eye (a shift in epistemology). In this flat world we cannot be stalwarts clinging on to the particular doctrinal pillars of our local church, rather we must cling on to the words of Christ and his commandments to Love one another, and in doing this we bring the Kingdom of God to the here and now… the perfect church is not something to look forward to, rather it is something to take part in. We are to be a light on a hill, salt to the earth, we are holy and righteously broken. And in this humble state we are to be the body of Christ, the incarnation of his will to the marginalized, the poor, and the fatherless.
16 comments ↓
as to this:
I’d say that every traditional/megachurch/western church I’ve been in looks through the lens of modernism. Reason and Rationality are king (not Jesus, regardless of what you might be told/think). No one is purely objective in how they approach *anything* — not a one. Our view of the world is then informed by our reading, regardless of the lens.
It also cracks me up the tirade that some leaders, who shall remain nameless, go on about the apparent speck in emergent’s eye all the while ignoring the hulking log protruding from their own. Ah well. One day Jesus will come back and this too shall be made right.
thanks for the addition b-jones! hey i just started reading, “a community called atonement” by scot mcknight, and i am really digging in… i like it.
also just finished, “dreams from my father” by barack obama… a book i will soon be reviewing… it was real good.
Hello Sam ~
I’ll keep this short, because you hit the “hinge upon all else turns”(Luther): the message of the gospel.
You stated that the message of the gospel is “to love thy neighbor (enemy) as thyself, just as God has loved you and you love God.” This (reference to the second great commandment), and the greatest command (to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength) are quoted by Jesus (Matt. 22:37-40) in a Palestinian/Jewish/Greek culture from the Old Testament (much different culture). So I’m just going to conclude that we can throw culture out the window here, because these commandments are for all time.
Jesus continues (in Matthew)that upon these commandments hang all the Law and Prophets. Law and Prophets = Old Testament. Too bad for your argument the Bible doesn’t end there. Or, really a good thing, because what would the conclusion be if what you quoted above were the real gospel?
A: There would be NO salvation. Why?
Not one person in the entire world can keep that commandment. And that’s precisely why Jesus gives this answer to the scribes and pharasees.
The beautiful thing about the real gospel is that God gave us the Law for the purpose of showing us that we can’t possibly keep it. We can’t possibly earn our way to Him.
The logical conclusion is that we are sinners, deserving hell, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were DEAD in transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” (Eph.2:4-5).
If you don’t understand the reason for the Law - to expose our need for a Savior - and the Truth of the Gospel - God’s provision as Savior, then there’s no way anything else could possibly make sense, theologically, because this is the heart of it all.
Please dwell on this, and contemplate how the Really good news changes the way one sees Truth, culture, and everything else in the world.
2 Comments–
1) In regards to throwing culture out the door: Contextualization. Paul was a master at this — moving in to different cultures and using them to impart truth. You never throw culture out the door. Disastrous things tend to happen when you do.
2) “…the heart of it all.” Interesting choice. I’d still contend that Jesus is at the heart of it all. Or perhaps better put, God’s desire to reconcile all to Himself. This is where it begins. The nuances of Law and Grace? Rather periphery. I’ll grant you though that the gospel is better phrased as “Repent! The Kingdom is at hand!” and not so much as specific elements that fall into that (enemy/other love or otherwise).
And a third comment to top it all off:
3) If I had to guess which camp you stood in, it’d be the particular reformed camp holding folks like Macarthur and Piper, et all in high esteem. The “culture=evil” talk is quite reminiscent of Macarthur in fact. I’d encourage taking a gander at pretty much anything Tim Keller has said (from Redeemer Presbyterian Church in downtown NYC). Awesome stuff. Both reformed and quite missional.
I should be studying for exams, so I’ll just say a few things:
I think the message of Jesus et al transcends culture. Culture is an earthly construct, and I disagree with Brandon that disastrous things happen when you throw it out (sorry if I’ve misunderstood your point). I think once you recognize culture is not the source of any intrinsic Truth, but rather a vehicle to convey it, you free yourself from any phantasmal objectivity that a hardened cultural view binds you to. What defines a “culture” is as shifting and infinite as fish in the sea. While it may be necessary as humans to relate the Message to our relevant cultural understanding in order to bring it home, it no more legitimates that culture as a source of Truth than the paper and ink used to write the Message down in the first place.
I must confess that this analysis borrows heavily from the deconstructionist atmosphere I’ve been inundated with lately, but I don’t think such an association is inappropriate.
Brandon~ I think you misunderstood my bit about culture. Maury helped my cause, because I agree. Culture should only be considered one aspect of our tactics of understanding exactly what Jesus, the apostles, and other spirit-inspired writers said and meant. When I said that we can throw out culture, I was referring to the fact that God’s commandments that Sam quoted as the gospel are meant for all time and therefore they transcend cultural references.
In response to Brandon’s #2, I’d say Really the heart of it all is God’s revelation of Himself. In our relating to Him, first comes the fact that we can’t (Law), then the promise of His reconcilliatory act of a Savior (Prophets), and the work of Jesus Christ in redeeming His fallen people (Gospel). The commandment to love Him and love others can only be fulfilled after we have been transformed by His grace.
And to Brandon’s #3: thank you? You’re right, and I don’t mind being labelled like them. Side note: the “‘culture=evil’ talk is quite reminiscent of” more than just MacArthur: Edwards, Luther, Augustine, Paul…Jesus. But it’s not that “culture” is an evil entity in itself. Culture itself is indifferent because it’s not really a thing. It’s the fact that culture is made up of people, and that’s what makes it evil.
Probably did misunderstand a bit but I do take issuse with one of the points. The issue I have though is that neither Paul nor Jesus ever did specifically label culture as evil. And I don’t see how you can put them in the same breadth as some of those folks (particularly Macarthur…between *The Truth War* and recent comments I have trouble taking the guy seriously anymore). In fact the NT Apostles and Jesus pulled the best bits out and related it directly toward Jesus — Contextualization. Look at the Paul’s discourse about the Athen’s unknown God:
17:22 So Paul stood80 before the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious81 in all respects.82 17:23 For as I went around and observed closely your objects of worship,83 I even found an altar with this inscription:84 ‘To an unknown god.’ Therefore what you worship without knowing it,85 this I proclaim to you. 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it,86 who is87 Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by human hands,88 17:25 nor is he served by human hands, as if he needed anything,89 because he himself gives life and breath and everything to everyone.90 17:26 From one man91 he made every nation of the human race92 to inhabit the entire earth,93 determining their set times94 and the fixed limits of the places where they would live,95 17:27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around96 for him and find him,97 though he is98 not far from each one of us. 17:28 For in him we live and move about99 and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’100 17:29 So since we are God’s offspring, we should not think the deity101 is like gold or silver or stone, an image102 made by human103 skill104 and imagination.105 17:30 Therefore, although God has overlooked106 such times of ignorance,107 he now commands all people108 everywhere to repent,109 17:31 because he has set110 a day on which he is going to judge the world111 in righteousness, by a man whom he designated,112 having provided proof to everyone by raising113 him from the dead.”
He’s directly pulling out what many would consider evil about the culture and immediately turning it around for the Gospel of Christ. There really isn’t anything in Jesus and Paul that sounds like “Culture is evil” but contrast that with the words of John Macarthur earlier this year “…drive for cultural contextualization is a curse.” I’m sorry but I don’t buy it. That is the stance that’s utterly against everything that is mission in the NT. Spend some time with missionaries on the field if you don’t think culture is at all important; prepare to be blown away. To perhaps better put it, incarnation (what Jesus did) is all about seeping GOD into the cracks of society (the cracks that exist within culture). Granted I’m probably just around vastly different types of people.
(and I do agree that the Gospel transcends culture — everything has its context though and its impossible to avoid. the apostles used the peoples context they went and we should to. all the talk about how its NOT frustrates the heck out of me because those pushing this package a completely Americanized Gospel(TM) to push off on people that is NOT doing what Christ did.)
Oh and as far as disastrous things happening when culture is completely thrown out of the picture: Check out Vincent Donovan’s autobiographical tale of mission to the Masai people called *Christianity Rediscovered*. One of the best books I’ve read in the last 5 years. It’s chiefly about his realization after a lot of time with the people that no one was coming to Christ and then his process of stripping the Gospel of the trappings of our culture and incarnating it into theirs and the vast tribes that gave their lives over to Christ as a result. Great, great book.
Strange to find in the blogoshere ones who would identify themselves along with those Paul found in Athens: “For all the Athenians and the foreigners who were there spending their time in nothing else but to either tell or to hear some new thing.” Acts 17:21 NASB
True, Paul “this babbler” (Acts 17:18) did seemingly compliment the Athenians’ appreciation for all things religious. But can you not see the clear irony in his words to these self-proclaimed philosophers (lovers of knowledge) “Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you”. (23) And then he proceeds to tell them that their ways in “times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent”.(30) Hardly does he accept their culture as adequate or useful, but something that must be rejected, turned from, repented of, “because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom he has ordained.”(31)
I hope that you can see that your focus on “culture” (whatever that is, really) is much akin to the idolatry of the Atheninans. Let me echo Paul “we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is . . . something to be shaped by art and man’s devising.” (29)
Before you delve into labeling me or associating me with someone whose book you like or despise, please notice that my references were from the Holy Scriptures alone. If you must label me as a way to brush me off, please just stamp me as one who believes that God’s Word is sufficient.
And concluding adventures in completely missing the point…
The passage is self explanatory. And contextualization. Want more Paul?
From 1 Corinthians 9:
9:19 For since I am free from all I can make myself a slave to all, in order to gain even more people.8 9:20 To the Jews I became like a Jew to gain the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law)9 to gain those under the law. 9:21 To those free from the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from God’s law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law. 9:22 To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some.
9:23 I do all these things because of the gospel, so that I can be a participant in it.
Imagine that…contextualization/cultural engagement is a means of participation in the Gospel.
Again, it’s now bowing to everything–it’s living incarnationally. Moving into the neighborhood, so to speak, just like Jesus did.
Takahik~ you took the words right out of my mouth in your explication of Acts 17. I’ve always been disturbed by how people misread it; Paul is really giving the Athenians a backhanded compliment to, as it were, “tee them up” for his Big Bertha blow to their pride. I should probably let you address the next scripture contextualization as well, as you seem much more proficient than I, but I’ve got my Bible open, so here it goes…
Brandon~ You quote 1 Cor 9:17-23, but lets take it back further to get some cultural-contextualization. Paul is writing to the Church at Corinth, a city so “morally corrupt that its very name became synonymous with debauchery” (MacArthur commentary - apparently my posterboy). The christians at Corinth had major issues with clinging to the pagan culture around them, and while Paul’s epistles to them are full of correction, they also include a lot of great doctrine, because as he says in Romans 12:1, the way to not be conformed to the ways of this world is to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”
In 1 Cor 8, Paul addresses what we call “Christian Liberty” - he uses the cultural problem of to eat that which is offered to idols or not to eat. Those of stronger conscience know that “an idol is nothing in the world” and therefore are not bothered by eating meat offered to an idol, but those who are weaker still feel the pang of a former sinful life of idolatry. It is not a sin to eat it, but Paul warns that it is a sin to violate your conscience, because you will callus the warning system toward sin God gave you. Therefore, Paul tells the stronger believers to “beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.” He talks about this very thing in Romans 14 as well. Moral of the story: protect your brother’s conscience in grey matters.
This discussion of christian liberty does not end with the chapter number - Paul gives this idea in chp. 9, as the reason he does not want to be a burden on anyone and cause them to think that he is financially motivated in his preaching or that he will twist the words of Christ in order to please people so he could make a living. He preaches by conviction, and nothing else gives him boast/joy/pleasure.
Paul does not want any burden or cultural stumbling block to be attached to the Corintians’ view of the Gospel, which is “Christ crucified”, because the gospel is itself enough of a “stumbling block” (1:23). This is why it is wrong to change your tactics if people don’t come to Christ, Brandon, if you were in the first place not knowing “anything among [them] except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (2:2). The gospel doesn’t change, because it is universal; it transcends culture, to use some of the language from the above discussion.
In 1 Cor 9, Paul is talking about not offending the consciences of the different groups when he was among them, so that they wouldn’t think he was sinning. If he came into the Jewish camp, and acted like a pagan (under “christian liberty”) they would think he was sinning against God, and therefore would not listen to a word he said. If, on the other hand, in the house of a Gentile, he did not eat the food because it had been sacrificed to their idols, they would also be offended and would not listen to him. Because of christian liberty (what he is talking about), his christian conscience is free to participate in the in the social necessities to open opportunites to present the gospel with different groups without offending them. That way, when he offended them with the gospel, they would know that it was purely the gospel that is offensive, not just Paul.
My point: Paul does not change the gospel message in order to keep from offending people or to make it more applicable, or any other mutation people perform today. He only changes mannerisms about himself that Don’t matter so that people will listen.
Alright. I think you are coming at my posts with a lot of baggage from somewhere. Contextualization/cultural engagement *shouldn’t* imply that you have to change the core of the Gospel. No where do I say that (and I don’t think Sam does either).
My point is that you can’t ignore/throw out the context that people find themselves in, and you have to speak to that (speak means more than just talking here). Paul does in BOTH of the passages I list above. In Acts 17, he co-opts something that the Athenians know, pointing them directly to YHWH in the process. In 1 Cor 9, well, that’s just telling it how it is (as far as engagement is concerned) — we should be doing it!
The idea that we don’t have to, that it’s not necessary is very western (and very modernistic in the “reason alone” sense). And that’s a trapping that we need to be able to recognize and strip from ourselves. When we don’t, when we ignore the contexts people find themselves in, bad things happen. In the story of Vincent Donovan above — disciples weren’t being made until he met the people where they were. I have had IMB missionaries tell of places where they can make a few disciples by avoiding cultural engagement but reproducing, life/spirit-filled churches are non-existent until the culture engaged. The missionary I spent most of June with last year spent much time expressing distress at the state of missions in Africa at large, how these westerners were coming in, dealing with things as westerners and planting churches that devolved into syncretic messes within months because the missionaries had no bases on which to engage the culture.
And that’s where I’m going to stop.
I think my baggage might be people taking scripture out of context with itself, and using words that don’t really have meaning. Most of the problem might be misunderstanding.
As long as missionaries and evangelists share the real gospel, and not some watered down version, all is well. But I’m not naive enough to think that is the case. The problem I exposed way up there in this discussion was a false gospel: Loving your neighbor as yourself. The true gospel is man’s inherent need for a Savior, and God’s gracious provision for His own atonement in the work of Jesus Christ. The reaction by one convicted by the Spirit is conviction and sorrow over one’s sin, acceptance as Jesus as the only way to salvation, repentance (turning) from sin, and surrender to and love of the Lordship of Christ. Is that the gospel they were preaching? If so, Hallelujah, because the Lord was glorified, and if He chose to draw people to Him, all the more praise to Him!
I think I agree with what you’re saying about missionaries - I think you’d agree that they should immerse themselves in the culture so that they can relay the true gospel the best way possible. That’s why I think that mission trips are silly and that a missionary is one called into a life’s work.
But the Word of God is always primary, and people are always second. I’ll I’ve heard is culture, culture, culture, as if that’s the most important thing in evangelizing. Jesus Christ and Him crucified is always first, and how to best portray that is when all the secondary stuff comes in.
Well–my words were chosen exactly for their meaning. Nor did I take scripture out of context. I said exactly what it plainly says, particularly within its context.
And, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I can tell you that mission trips aren’t at all silly. Here’s just two of many reasons: (1) they expose people *directly* to God’s work in the nations (particularly to His work outside of their comfort zones); (2) they encourage and build up those full-time “on the field”. Not only that though, if we are being honest about our faith which I think you want to do, we are all sent people following a sending God. Regardless of where we are at, what we are doing, who we are with, “mission” should be part of our lifeblood. If there exists an us/them distinction between church laity and missionaries, there exists a disconnect that desperately needs correction. No one gets off the hook for this — If we are going to claim Jesus as Lord, we have to consciously step into what He is doing, wherever He is doing it, regardless of what it looks like.
I am sorry in that I did not more quickly and more clearly identify the root of your misunderstandings: You do not know what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is. “They are trying to take the message of the gospel, which is to love thy neighbor (enemy) as thyself, just as God has loved you and you love God.”
Brandon, maybe you can help us with a little “more Paul”, but this time you might quote him from a better translation (see the P.S.) after you read him in context (not of your culture, but the context of the letter he is writing. Chapter 9 of 1 Corinthians has Paul describing his self-denial for the sake of the gospel. While he does defend his actions that have apparently resulted in him being accused of inconsistency, he states that his reasons for his actions are to aid in furthering the gospel, never contextualizing, watering down or changing the Gospel message. In fact, he only appears to be participating in the “culture” of the Gentiles as he states: “to those who are without law, as without law, _though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ_, so that I might win those who are without law. (1 Cor. 9:21) He was never really without the (moral) Law, and held himself under the (higher) law of Christ, even if “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.”
Some term what Paul was talking about as “pre-evangelism”. I hope that this is what you term as “contextualization/cultural engagement”.
Ali is right: “culture, culture, culture” today seems to crowd out “gospel, gospel, gospel” At what point do you emulate Paul among the Corinthians and “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” (1 Cor. 2:2)?
Remember that the crucial element of any successful evangelism in any time or place is never our carefully constructed strategies, but the initiative of the Holy Spirit. He must lead. He must convict. He must transform. He gives them ears to hear. He gives them faith to respond.
Those who think that sinners are saved due to their new-and=improved, book-worthy techniques should examine Who has always been the soul-winner.
The historical fact of the death, burial, and resurection of God the Son is central. The good news that Jesus’ death satisfied God’s righteous anger towards us must be our primary proclamation.
Your quote of 1 Cor 9:23 “be a participant in it.”
leads you to a (joyful, but) errant conclusion: “Imagine that…contextualization/cultural engagement is a means of participation in the Gospel”
Better:
“fellow partaker of it” NASB
“that I may share in its blessings” NIV
“be partaker of it with you” NKJV
Paul was already a recipiant of the gospel, from years before. He says that his self-denial allows him to share in its blessings WITH OTHERS. is he blessed by his fellowhip with new believers with whom he has shared the gospel? Certainly. Does this make him a participant? in the finished work of Christ? I would be careful with that terminology; I suppose, in that we die with Him, and live in Him, but I still think that it give connotations of a works-salvation to claim that we “participate in the Gospel” .
I sincerely hope that this is just all about words. But as the great theologian Rush Limbaugh says, “Words mean things.”
For the furtherance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I am yours.
I grow weary of responding to people not listening at all so I’m going to make this short and respond to one point alone:
the NET bible, which I used, is by far the most accurate translation I’ve read, known for being more accurate than than any of the ones you have listed. See bible.org for more info. Incidentally, participant means anyone *taking part* or a partaker. Or a sharer. All three mean the same thing.
And I stand by what I wrote. In fact, you back it up to a point with what you term pre-evangelism, which I think is a bad term because there shouldn’t really be anything “pre” about it but whatever–but you just for some reason are unwilling to accept the terminology. Again, no where do I say this means changing the Gospel at all.
Leave a Comment