Today there are 2 wrong approaches I see all the time. The first is the approach taken by fundamentalist Christians who throw out the baby with the bath water by rejecting culture and labeling anything non-traditional (traditional being the last 100 years or so) as taboo. The second is the approach taken by liberal Christians (e.g. Emergent churches) which accept all culture to the point of pushing sound doctrine to the dusty corners of the church in order to make room for all the shiny happy people. I believe that since culture is constantly changing, our answers and approach to these questions must also adapt, and we must use the Scriptures as our guide.
John 17:15, 18 "I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but keep them from the evil one. As you have sent me into the world, so have I sent them into the world." Jesus does not ask for us to build little Christian walls around our church so that culture doesn't encroach. Instead he prays to his Father to keep Christians from sin as they encounter the culture head on. His concern wasn't to keep us out of the world, but was for what we did while we were there. He doesn't want to keep us from culture, but from sin. We can't reach the world and fulfill the great commission if we are separate from it, and we can't reach it if we appear to be just like it.
Ed Stetzer, a church planter, has developed 3 questions while teaching a Biblical worldview. What aspects of culture do we receive? What aspects of culture do we reject? And what aspects of culture do we redeem? These questions must be answered if we are to take the message of Jesus into the world. As Christians, I believe it is our joy to be able to engage the culture for Christ and move the name of Jesus forward. Our worldview greatly influences how we do that. Do we view culture as completely and totally lost, or do we see the value that culture inherently has as being a part of Gods creation? Furthermore if we take the stance that unfamiliar culture is without hope and has no value, then how do we ever hope to reach it with the Gospel?
Discuss.
6 comments:
I'll throw in my two cents...
What do we receive from culture: I think that culture has producedand continues to produce things that fulfill the Biblical standard set in Phil. 4 of being worthy of spending our time on. These are the things which are objectively beautiful, noble, and praiseworthy by virtue of their reflecting God's character in some way (the source of all true beauty).
What do we Reject: I would say just the opposite. Things which tell lies about the character of God. Things which are not beautiful and do not edify.
What do we Redeem: I do not believe in Christianizing secular things so that we can use them and call them Christian. Changing Facebook to Jesus's Facebook shouldn't make John any more accepting of it. I do believe that Christians have the ability to create works of art, music, and literature that are far beyond what the secular world can produce simply because we have a better subject to sing, write, and paint about. Again though it comes back to an objective definition of aesthetics and morality. Are there things, categories of things which are objectively good and others that are not so? I believe that Christians should feel free to participate in and work at beauty in objectively good/beautiful things/genres but not in the opposite. Another way to say this might be that there are appropriate and inappropriate mediums for Christians to express themselves. The appropriateness of the medium being determined by its original purpose, conformity to biblical standards of worth (beauty, nobility, admiration etc.). Christians can redeem a given cultural genre or trend only insofar as it conforms to this standard of appropriateness. So for example, Handel helped redeem Classical music by writing the Messiah, but Christians cannot and should not try to redeem the mafia by killing people in Jesus name.
This is all very general. I realize that. More specific application is needed. Just wanted to get the ball rolling.
Nice reply. Its good to know someone else on this blog actually has deep thoughts from time to time.
I have not forgotten you Blake! I have been thinking and writing in response to you, but I'm a little preoccupied with having to fight of a fiery headed mongrel about if I'm a legalist or not. Liberal, fundamentalist, legalist, heretic... What will you guys call me next. Man, if I thought you guys would have responded like this maybe I should have just made fun of your moms! It sure would have been less painful for me!
I hope you don't think I'm calling you out in this post or anything. I was just sharing my view point and what I've been learning about.
John Germeroth,
Are you mistaking our (and your) attempts at sharpening iron as personal attacks? Am I being discouraging?
Joey, No way man! I can be ultra sensitive about some things, but it has been so encouraging to read everyones words. The discussion is affirming more than anything that we are all like minded.
As I've mentioned previously, I've greatly missed our ridiculous discussions. It's been particularly hard for me because the lack in fellowship I have experienced in medical school. Medical students (even devout Christians) are often too preoccupied with tests and grades to want to really discuss deep theological issues.
Anyway, for the record. You guys are not hurting my feelings or making me feel attacked. (Warning: bountiful sarcasm to follow) When you're alone in a position and surrounded by opposition, it's always an affective tactic to pretend to be injured by "the overwhelming attacks." Pity is a powerfully persuasive tool!
I'm just looking forward to the future discussions. I have lots of questions to ask you guys! And not just about facebook either. I think I'm willing to put that one to bed...
Post a Comment