In my post a little while ago about Driscoll’s New Calvinism, I noted that I had some more things to say about the current catchphrase ‘cultural engagement’. Given that the spur to write about cultural engagement came from Driscoll’s post, it might be reasonable to assume that my beef is with him. So I guess I want to say at the start that my comments about this aren’t directed particularly at Driscoll at all; it was just that he happened to use a phrase that, I admit, I find a little unhelpful. It’s a line that everyone everywhere seems to be using. And apparently it’s good if you do it and bad if you don’t, but what I want to know is what on earth does it mean?
It’s a phrase that is made up of two words that say so much, they’re in danger of communicating nothing. Take this definition of culture from dictionary.com: “the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another”. Is culture what anybody anywhere does? Is it what cool people do—what particular groups within society do? Is it anything that they do, or is it only worthwhile things? Are pornography, the theatre, eating ice-cream, car racing, beer drinking, dwarf tossing, swimming, hanging upside down off the local playground equipment, and talking over a latte all examples of culture? The significance of these questions, if it’s not already emerging (pardon the pun), will be seen shortly.
But let’s move on to engagement. I can get engaged to my future wife, engage in nuclear warfare (and, yes, it is unfortunate that these two things are side by side), engage third gear, engage the services of a house cleaner, and engage just about anything I jolly well like.
So is cultural engagement having any sort of relationship with anything that any other human being does?
Now, before you all get upset about me being a grumpy old man riding my high horse, or get annoyed at me because I have failed to engage, let me tell you why I think it’s important.
Firstly, unless we can talk meaningfully about what it actually means to be culturally engaged, it becomes a weasel word that allows you to call some people in and some people out. Cultural engagement is, I think, a description of a vibe. And while I think that there’s a time to describe a vibe, I think, in this case, it’s ultimately unhelpful. For example, if I don’t like your vibe, I say that you’re not culturally engaged, and that’s the end of the argument.
A second issue, though, relates to the question of culture and the idea of redeeming culture (which seems to me to be why everybody wants to engage culture in the first place). The assumption is that this culture thing is something inherently valuable that needs to be preserved. But if culture is just the actions of human beings, then the Bible leads me to suspect that culture requires not so much preservation as repenting of. If we take the Bible’s teaching on human depravity seriously and give any weight to Romans 14:23, then we will conclude that our culture is essentially anti-God.
Now, at this point, we need to be a little careful, so let me slow down a bit and explain what I do mean and what I don’t mean. My last statement enters onto some essentially difficult ground because of the nature of ethics. It seems to me that, according to the Scriptures, the evaluation of any action by any human being involves at least two areas of inquiry: an assessment of the action in and of itself, and an assessment of the motivations involved in the action. For example, I might decide to help the proverbial little old lady across the road. The action gets a tick. I might help her every day because I am hoping to get to know her well because she is a rich little old lady who will be dropping off the perch sometime soon. The action is, all of a sudden, less noble. Of course, while it is possible the action in itself and the motivation involved can be detached like this, they do also work together much of the time. And so my evil intentions will often issue forth evil doings. (Yours will too, by the way!)
The problem with all of this is, of course, that we then have a problem with evaluating culture. Some of what we do culturally is, when viewed from the perspective of the action in itself, morally neutral. For example, drinking coffee is relatively morally neutral (although, of course, the economic conditions of the labourers who produced it isn’t, so let’s assume for the moment that you grew the coffee in your own backyard and did it fertilizer-free, thus lessening your environmental impact). However, as someone in rebellion against God, even your coffee drinking is tainted by your rebellious anti-God stance: everything that does not proceed from faith is sin. Now, we quite wisely don’t want to go around telling people that their coffee drinking is inherently sinful because the nuances required to understand what you are and aren’t saying are too difficult to communicate easily. However, there’s another issue involved: because the life of the person in rebellion against God flows out of their essentially rebellious heart, they will (to a greater or lesser extent) keep creating culture that is anti-God. And so we end up in a conundrum: do we point out the essentially antisocial and anti-God reality that is consumerism? Or do we say that shopping is neutral? After all, you’ve got to wear clothes. (I’m pretty sure, at least, there’s a biblical imperative in there somewhere.)
What all of this essentially means is that culture—our actions as human beings—can be viewed from one angle as neutral (neither good nor bad). But when viewed from the perspective of our motives, even what is neutral is essentially anti-God. And because our motives and our actions line up eventually, our tendency as a society will be to keep heading in that direction (even though it might be possible to isolate any bit of it and describe it as ‘neutral’). So when we talk about redeeming culture, what exactly do we mean? Do we mean that we destroy culture? For example, I presume that the goal of the Christian isn’t to make Christian porn; it is to make a world in which there is no market for porn at all. The gospel doesn’t redeem that culture; it just destroys it. Or do we mean taking the kind of morally neutral culture (like my friends who play soccer together on Saturday) and getting them to play Christian soccer (whatever that is)?
The problem, it seems to me, is that in talking about engaging and redeeming culture, we are talking about the fundamentally wrong thing. Culture isn’t a thing in and of itself; it’s the outpouring of human hearts. What needs redeeming is not the culture, but the hearts of my non-Christian family and friends. So I take it that when we talk about being engaged in culture, what we really mean is that we need to be knowing and loving the people around about us, living faithfully for Christ and sharing Jesus with them. But phrased like that, the issues become slightly different.
The phrase “culturally engaged” can (and, it seems to me in various contexts, does) mean almost anything. So for some people, it means Christians should adopt their left (or occasionally right) wing political views, or that Christians should watch certain kinds of movies, or that Christians should be more involved with world aid organizations, or that Christians should … I’m sure you can fill in your own blanks. But nearly all of these things lie on the periphery of what Jesus thinks is important (if you can call being totally outside of the circle on the periphery). Jesus isn’t asking us to engage or redeem culture; he’s asking us to love God and love the people around us enough to live like Jesus and share the truth about him. God wants to redeem people, not culture, by the death of his Son.
I know that there are people out there who mean something like loving people and bringing Christ to them when they talk about engaging and redeeming culture. But I think that the term is hopelessly confused. It will be clearer for everyone if we just use the biblical language. So let’s use the biblical terms, shall we? Let’s love our neighbours enough to know and serve them, and seek every opportunity to share the good news of Jesus.
Wow! Big post, brother and bold claims.
I’m sorry I don’t have the time this instant to read your post again slowly and carefully – I will print it out and aim to do so soon…
But for now, I realise that the ship will sail if I don’t subscribe to this comment thread while it’s ‘hot’.
FWIW, I disagree with your assessment that the phrase is ‘unhelpful’. I think it hits a very important nail on the head… but I’ll read and reflect. Thanks for the post.
hi Paul
this all seems awfully longwinded and pedantic to be frank.
in the way you define culture I think its important that you consider not just actions – what people do – but values, what people believe and cherish.
maybe better terminology would be relational mission?
whatever you want to call it – I take cultural engagement to be the process by which you listen to the beliefs and values of the people whom you are trying to love , which will no doubt mean discovering not just sin in general but idols in particular, as few the odd few good things that are to be received with thanksgiving (the dignified and not deprave bits!)
you are right that its hearts that we are interested in – often there is a collective heart attitude in a particular culture which unless discerned and understood – may mean that our message of salvation/ redemption won’t be communicated in a way that is helpful to our hearer. that would be a-relational mission or cultural disengagement or a failure in contextual missiology. I am not sure we would want to underplay that concern at this point in time, not am I convinced that the terms of engagement are unhelpful.
a failure to really relate to the culture in mission is what Driscoll would call irrelevant orthodoxy. we might not like like his breed of dog but he does have some bite doesn’t he?
not that it is irrelevant in its truthfulness, but rather irrelvant in the sense that we have failed to listen and appreciate the values people we are to love with the gospel. it is sheerly staggering just how badly evangelicals in general and Sydney evangelicals in particular have dropped the ball in this regard.
sure there are many who speak of engagement who I think are in reality far more enmeshed in sinful culture then what they might be willing to see , yet my fear is that we might miss the challenge of just how unrelational and unlistening parts of evangelical church culture has become – and continue on into a correct but alienated existence.
surely you would see cultural engagement in this context as a very helpful endeavour?
(by the way the whole down on Driscoll tone is a little tiring and seems to have become a hobby for some, I am glad you are not bothering with it)
every blessing brother
Shane
Thanks Paul – good post.
My understanding is that the phrase ‘culturally engaged’ comes out of the US and is a reaction against completely disengaged old-school fundamentalists – those who live totally segregated lives and so have no way to truly love their neighbours who don’t know Christ. It’s a way of saying to those people – stop home-schooling, building bunkers and waiting for the rapture.
Is this as big an issue when you move away from that particular US context?
My feeling is that, although we have more work to do, in my context we need to work harder at standing out from the sinful culture of our world. We may have blended in so much that we get lost in the background
Paul, the more I reflect on this post, these less I like it.
There are some gems in here, but there is little that would convince a ‘cultural engagement’ guy… and I feel like the issues are not framed in a way to constructively disagree with you.
Perhaps you have encountered poor reps of the cultural engagement camp – but please separate the person from the proposition. I have also met poor reps of the ‘just preach the gospel’ camp too!
You rightly point us the the main issues and warn us against losing focus on them.
But in the process, the rhetoric sounds seems dualistic and naive.
Thanks Paul for your insights. I think it is very important to define what we mean when we talk about both culture and engagement. I perosnally found that the “stucture/direction” way of thinking about things a useful though perhaps not well worded way of looking at the world. Simply put, all aspects of creation have both strucutre and direction. Aspects of culture, such as the government has both. It is a good god given way of proper ordering of a community. However if an aspect of government, such a welfare policyfor example may or may not be honouring to God. This “direction” or religious orientation is the way in which we can look at “redeeming” that part of the culture. Indeed I would say it is important that Christians should be interested in being involved so that we might have that aspect reflect a God honouring attitude to that area of culture. Expanding this to look further afield, much of culture can be seen this way. It also must be understood that each area of culture, unless seen, ctritiqued and interpreted through the eyes of Scripture, will have a strucutre or religious orientation away from God. Therefore a Christian approach will be fundamentally subversive to the prevailing way in which the “wider culture” orients itself. This gives me a way of understanding my task in the world, and how to live in the culture. It is generally “transformational” aka Neibuhr’s typlogies of how Christians relate to culture. This both reflects the scope and power of Sin as expressed in Scripture, the scope and power of the redepmptive act of Christ on the cross. It also gives a moral compass to how we should “engage” with the culture, or at least aspects of it. Hope this is not too garbled.
Sloppy arguments, Paul.
You took an incredibly broad definition of ‘culture’, added an incredibly varied range of meanings for ‘engagement’, and thus used some definitional fallacies to claim ‘cultural engagement’ was meaningless – largely because you increased its range of meaning beyond breaking point.
Then, collapsing your own definition of culture to ‘just the actions of human beings’, you pursue a reductionistic line of thinking, dichotomising morality into acts and motives, and declaring that total depravity renders all culture corrupt anyway.
Cultures are inherently valuable, because they express the diversity of human nature as formed in the image of God. There is no ‘kingdom’ culture, because culture doesn’t work on that scale. Yet some cultural elements tend towards God-honouring, and others have no place in the Christian life. If we should bring every thought captive to Christ, surely that does involve transforming cultures by the light and the implications of the Gospel.
Frankly, I’m disappointed in the poor quality of your thinking.
Paul, the definition you provide, you have failed to engage (whatever engage means) with…<i>“the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another”.</i>
For starters it does not deal with individuals, but with a group of human beings…it is social. Second, it is something that is significant and thus transmitted through generations. Thirdly it has to do with not one action, but a sum total. Your examples on the whole do not fit the definition at all, nor your logic from then on!
I also have an issue with your stance that all of culture is anti-God (if I have indeed understood you correctly). My understanding (using the definition) is that in the new creation we will have culture… a range of social and significant things that we will do. Some of these things are done in this broken world now (poorly), but because Jesus has provided a way for them to be redeemed, in the new creation they will be done perfectly. I am not suggesting culture will be preserved, but redeemed. Your post only deals with two options, to preserve or destroy. The third option is to redeem. If the idea of culture is inheritantly bad, then I imagine God would not have given us the Bible. If you think about it the Bible is read and believed by groups of people, deals with significant issues in their lives, and is passed from one generation to another!
I think the idea of being culturally engaged is to be in relationship with people outside the church in a relevant way. At the heart of this is to love others, and this includes (though is not limited to) telling them about Jesus, which I think is what you are suggesting we should be doing!
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Paul.
I suggest that this idea has been around since ‘the year dot’ in different forms and it actually leads people to eventually withdraw from sharing the gospel with others – the very opposite to the desired outcome of the catchphrase.
Church-goers are being called to ‘culturally engage’ because they are not sharing the gospel with others. Is this a fair conclusion? Why then do church-goers withdraw from gospel sharing? My hunch is that it’s to do with lack of engagement with God. In thankfulness and joy with what God has done for us, we learn to love others. Telling me to ‘culturally engage’ doesn’t help me deal with the underlying problem (to be God engaged), although there may be some short-term effort.
However, once this idea gets number one priority in the mind and church (and it does) then it is goodbye gospel! Cultural assimilation trumps holiness!
People/Churches can become so obsessed with culturally enlightening and engaging themselves that the gospel thrust simply dissipates – church ends up looking no different to the local school or sporting club or social support club – fetes, fund raising, barefoot bowling, car washing, fitness activities, building makeovers, lifeless talks, trivia nights, endless craft, prayerlessness, no sense of judgement, …… In response to the catchphrase people certainly become very ‘culturally engaged’, so much so, that they forget the graciousness of God toward them and lose any sense of sacrificial love for the lost. The Word is no longer paramount. Church-goers can barely talk about God to each other let alone to outsiders.
Paul is right, I suggest, in highlighting the need for clear Biblical expression of our thinking. We are to do all to the glory of God. Therefore we try to please everyone not for our advantage but so many will be saved. The further we remove our thinking from scripture, the harder it is for us to hear ‘so that people will be saved’.
Di
Hi All,
Thanks for all the comments. I’m not really sure how to respond because there are things flying around all over the place. So let me just make a couple of quick comments.
Shane, thanks for the thoughts about values and what people cherish.
Mikey, I think it depends on who you mean by ‘cultural engagement guys’. If I understand where the term has come from, it is from the emergent church movement. Much of which has dispensed with the gospel to some extent or another. And as I pointed out, I agree with most of what Driscoll has to say on the subject. But the main point of the post is this: what, if anything, do we gain out of talking about ‘cultural engagement’ over against the biblical ideas of loving your neighbour and sharing Christ with them? My suggestion is that it gains you not much but opens the door to all sorts of poor thinking precisely because of the imprecision of the term involved. (Culture is a very difficult beast to define).
And so Seamus, I’m not sure I dichotomized anything that I’m aware of. Just pointed out some aspects of ethics.
Our point of disagreement is basically what we think is fundamentally true about culture. You said:
But I think that the Bible teaches that cultures are inherently anti-God because they are an expression of sinful human rebellion. The classic example for my money involves Paul’s comments about the Gentiles in the New Testament (e.g. Eph 4:17ff, 1Peter 4:3 etc.) The problem is that the Gentile way of life (and I’m not sure what culture is if it isn’t this) is anti-God. And what the Gentiles are called on to do is to repent of it and leave it behind.
The issue does end up depending on what you call culture. For example, music is a gift from God and good. But it is in many places warped by sin to no longer glorify God but reject him. The creation is fundamentally good, but when humans build idols out of it or worship it, our culture is no longer inherently good. If culture just refers to cultural elements (like music, or sculpture) then I am happy for people to say whatever they like about it. But if culture is actually the kind of music we make and the sculptures that we worship as idols, then the culture is no longer an expression of essentially our inherently God-imaging createdness.
The big question is this: is human culture God’s creation or ours? I reckon it’s ours and I think biblically it tends towards the rejection of God (not-withstanding the fact that elements of common grace mean it is not as corrupt as it might be).
Thanks for your follow up comment, Paul. I think you’ve highlighted exactly the point of disagreement, and this is why I think you are wrong:
I think cultures are inherently valuable, as an expression of God’s creation through the sub-creation of image-bearers. I also think all cultures are totally depraved, that in every aspect of the cultures we express, the ways of life humans live, they exhibit sin, because of their sinful nature.
Culture, in my view, is analagous to human nature: inherently good, inherently valuable, but in every aspect affected by sin, in every aspect ‘anti-God’.
You, it appears to me, think all culture is anti-God, <i>inherently</i>, and you make this substantive, a sine qua non, of human culture. You wouldn’t, I presume, apply the same argument to human nature, otherwise sin would be the essence of human nature and redemption would be impossible.
That, I take it, is the reason ‘redeeming culture’ is a viable way of speaking. Our cultures are sinful, but they are not necessarily so. In the new creation, won’t their be culture without sin? Shouldn’t there then be sanctification of culture, of ways of living, in the now?
Hi all
I must apologize for my last post and its blatant hypocrisy. my manner was inappropriate.
Having made a curt and dismissive statement, I then went on to talk about the importance of listening and relational engagement. having just re read it – it looks pretty stupid – and unravels the very point I was trying to make.
if I in any way gave the impression that Paul’s article was not worth engaging with then I am deeply sorry.
my frankness should never trump love that listens well before it speaks.
Grimmo has spent a lot of time thinking about the article and writing as he did – and I am thankful that it has forced me to consider his argument and work through the important subject of how we as gospel people interact with a world in rebellion- and how we speak about such things. a worthy conversation.
Thanks for your work Paul. My understanding of engaging with culture is as follows:
Engaging with culture means:
1.Being involved in culture (without sinning) – observe it, read it, understand it. Don’t shut off from our world and have a fortress/seige mentality. To my understanding culture = people. So I try to make friends with people through the things I am into (surfing, being a tired Dad of small numerous children), people who don’t go to a church.
2. Critiquing culture – filter culture through the grid of Scripture. Some aspects of our culture are good, some aspects are neutral, some are wise, some aspects are unwise and some aspect are just downright ugly and sinful. (This is why I think Church History is such an invaluable tool – we can learn from the mistakes of the Church in the past where it failed to critique the culture Biblically but did the reverse -for another thread perhaps).
3. Contextualise to our culture – How can I love people in our culture and proclaim the gospel to them in a way that is relevant? Wearing a shirt that says “Smile Jesus loves you” simply won’t do. (I recently found this shirt that I really wanted to buy and it says:
)
“1# Reason why I need Jesus” – I SUCK” – perhaps I should wear this?
4. Communicate with our culture – What is the language of our culture? How are ideas being devloped and expressed? What ethics are being promoted and practiced?
5. Understand our culture – Who are the cultural gatekeepers? Who are the heralds of our culture? What is the equivalent of church for the unbeliever? (The Pub? The Footy Stadium? The beach?)
That is my take on engaging with culture. Perhaps the term is overused?
Please don’t misunderstand me Paul, I hear what you are saying. I think it is important that engaging with culture does not become another term to add to Christianese, but I do think it is important.
One last thing…
I found it interesting that you state rather strongly that:
“It will be clearer for everyone if we just use the biblical language. So let’s use the biblical terms, shall we? Let’s love our neighbours enough to know and serve them, and seek every opportunity to share the good news of Jesus.”
This seems to be more baby-boomer language from the 60’s and 70’s. Paul uses the term ‘sharing your faith’ in Philemon 6 but he is actually not talking about evangelism and no where in the NT is proclaiming Christ referred to as ‘sharing’your faith.
Thanks again for your article. It was good to engage with it!
Thanks for your clarifications, and grace in receiving strong criticisms – it’s a very attractive mode of response!
I get what you’re driving at and agree that love, mission and ‘God-engaged’ (H/T Di) are very helpful biblical categories in constructing the biblical structure.
However as a ‘systematic’, ‘missiological’ or ‘pastoral’ category, I think cultural engagement is helpful to single out.
in fact, the fact that is it such a loose temr (as you pointed out in your post) means that it does not necessarily imply cultural-assimilation or being trendy.
That we <b>ought</b> to be culturally engaged is, I think, beyond question. <b>How</b> we go about doing it is informed by our wider theological structures.
Mikey,
I think we can go further
there is no imperative about cultural engagement – we are engaged and can’t escape it.
how we are engaged, will as you say, depend on broader theological convictions. We could do worse than look at Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited for some ways forward here.
Michael K – love it, brother, that is a real moment of clarity in this discussion. Thanks very much for your brilliant insight.
Hi Seumas,
I think we are having a slightly different conversation to some others, so let me respond to you individually. I suspect that we would both say some very similar things at the end of the day. And your post has clarified this for me.
I suspect that we are talking about ‘culture’ as an ideal versus ‘culture in the wild’ (to create two new terms). I would agree with you that ‘culture’ in the ideal is not inherently sinful. That is, there will be a whole way of life practised to some degree or another by Christians now and realized in perfection beyond the return of Jesus. That way of life overlaps with certain realities about the created order that are good, although scarred by sin. So for example, marriage is a good gift from God. But sin leads to many terribly scarred marriages.
And so there are all sorts of things that don’t need to change when you become a Christian. Were you a hairdresser? Remain as a hairdresser. Were you a father or a brother? Remain as a father or brother. (Because these parts of culture are reflections of God’s good created order).
However, I do think that ‘culture in the wild’ i.e. the culture that we experience in the world we are currently living in, which is produced by inherently sinful people, is naturally sinful. That is, it grows out of a worldview that rejects God.
So, while I wouldn’t say human nature per se is inherently sinful (otherwise, Jesus couldn’t participate in it), I would say that post-fall human nature (untouched by the regenerative power of God) as we experience it is inherently sinful.
Now, as inherently sinful people, producing inherently sinful culture (but with the caveats already mentioned about common grace and participating in God’s creation that still bears the marks of his goodness), we live in a culture that is as much to be tossed out as redeemed. I think that’s why Peter can tell his readers that they have been redeemed from the empty way of life inherited from their forefathers (1Peter 1:18).
So one of the things that I’m searching after is the fact that the New Testament doesn’t talk so much about redeeming culture as leaving one culture behind and entering into a new culture, created by acting in a godly way in God’s world (but again, encompassing a whole bunch of common elements with the non-Christian world – like music, art, family, relationships etc.)
So in answer to your questions:
In the new creation, won’t their be culture without sin?
Yes, absolutely.
Shouldn’t there then be sanctification of culture, of ways of living, in the now?
Yes, absolutely.
But my problem is that I really struggle to find anywhere in the New Testament that speaks about redeeming culture as such. But I find lots of references to God redeeming people. And what happens as people are redeemed is that a new culture is created. I guess I am suggesting that the biblical language speaks about this more as a knock down, rebuild job than a quick slap of paint over the old structure kind of thing.
And so to other comments above.
Josh, I really like your 5 points. And if that is what is meant by engaging culture, then I am in hearty agreement. I also take your point about biblical language. I think maybe I should have said “proclaim the gospel”. Point taken.
So in response to a whole bunch of other stuff here. Yes, let’s get to know people, how they talk, what they are interested, and let’s love them and talk to them about Jesus. This is all good stuff. (Actually, not just good stuff, but crucial stuff).
But do you not think it would be helpful to talk about the heart of our mission in terms of people rather than culture? I do want to see a changed culture, which I think will be the result of redeemed hearts. And so what I want to engage is people, rather than culture per se.
As I acknowledged in my original post, I agree that some people use the terms about engaging culture and redeeming culture in that way. But I would also contend that there are many places where the language is used unhelpfully. And part of the reason for that is that I don’t think, biblically, ‘culture’ is the primary thing we are trying to engage or redeem.
Dave,
I take your point about engaging my definition. I think it is that there are two things connected in my head in a way that I didn’t communicate very well. If culture is what we pass on as a social group from one generation to the next, I can’t work out how to distinguish that thing in any particular way from the actions of each of the individuals involved. Culture is passed on by the actions of individuals in the relationships they are a part of. So we could talk about a family culture, as well as societal culture etc. (and they would all be interlinked, although able to be differentiated in various ways). In sum, I am not sure how to talk about the ‘sum’ of what we do, apart from the bits that make it up.
On your second point about culture and it’s “redeemability” I think my points to Seumas above will clarify why, while I can appreciate how it is possible to use ‘redeem’ language of culture, I don’t think it represents the heart of the biblical picture.
‘That we ought to be culturally engaged is, I think, beyond question. How we go about doing it is informed by our wider theological structures.’
Mikey, this doesn’t sit comfortably with me.
If ‘culturally engaging’ means relating to people so as not to give offence in terms of eating, drinking, dressing stuff, …. then I agree with you. However I get the feeling people mean more than this.
I take it that Christians are to be thoroughly ‘culturally engaged’ with heavenly culture/gospel culture. That is our big aim, effort, thinking in life. People who share this gospel/heaven culture will of course live amongst another culture –the culture of Satan, seen in all cultures of the world. As gospel cultured people one of our ‘values’ will be explaining the gospel to others with clarity in love.
Being ‘heavenly cultured’ does not lead to walling up/withdrawing from culture … it leads people into the fire, the lion’s den and a difficult life.
We need to be encouraged to be ‘disengaged’ from this world’s culture, so that we can talk to people about Jesus and our heavenly culture, don’t we? So that they can join ‘God’s culture’.
Always feel free to correct me.
Di
Thanks for your reply Paul. In your reply to Seumas you said,
<i>”But my problem is that I really struggle to find anywhere in the New Testament that speaks about redeeming culture as such. But I find lots of references to God redeeming people. And what happens as people are redeemed is that a new culture is created. I guess I am suggesting that the biblical language speaks about this more as a knock down, rebuild job than a quick slap of paint over the old structure kind of thing.”</i>
I do not think you can separate people and culture (I think this has already been alluded to by others). If this is the case, in redeeming people, culture is redeemed – not re-created. I am not suggesting this means a quick coat of paint, it is still a totally new building, but as a house it still contains a lounge room, a kitchen, a bathroom and many bedrooms (as there are in our Father’s house!!), just like the old one. There are still connections between the old and the new.
I am curious as to why you think culture will not be redeemed. I know you have tried to explain the inherent sinful nature of man which permeates our culture, but I think it would be helpful if you could suggest a specific example of this and explain your understanding of why it will not be redeemed.
Hi Dave,
I am not sure quite why you say:
I get the feeling you don’t think I believe that. But I thought I had already made that point? (It just makes me wonder if I’ve missed something).
Anyway, onto the main point. Given your point about redeemed people and therefore redeemed culture, why wouldn’t you also use the language of re-created people and re-created culture? (Or possibly better, we are a new creation in Christ, the old has gone and the new has come – which would lead naturally to talking about a new culture). This seems to be very biblical language to me.
I think 1Peter 1:18 says that we need to be redeemed from our old culture (the way of life handed down from our forefathers). And the image of the old life and the new life is of putting off and putting on. So while, as I keep pointing out, there are all sorts of elements of continuity, I think if you were to try and summarise the New Testament language, the emphasis is on an old culture put away and a new one taken on. In fact, in it’s most extreme form, the image is of dying and rising again. The old man is put to death and the new one created in the image of its creator takes its place.
So, to get a feel for my confusion, I am trying to work out how culture is redeemed? In other words, I can see how I am the same me before and after I became a Christian and before and after the resurrection (albeit, in other ways a totally different me). But in what ways is that true of culture?
Are symphonies rewritten so that their reflection of anti-God culture is taken out but the essential symphony remains? Are art works redeemed by changing them so that they are appropriate to line the halls of the new creation? Will the great buildings of ancient civilizations be rebuilt so as to stand in the new creation? Will the customs of long extinct people groups be somehow present in the new heavens and the new earth?
My question is: what exactly do you mean by culture being redeemed?
Di’s last comment has helped me see what I think is a fundamental difference in thinking that we are struggling with. It appears as though we are each saying one of the following…
1 – There are two types of culture – God’s culture and Satan’s culture. One will go and the other will stay in the new creation.
2 – There is only one type of culture…ultimately Satan’s and it will be destroyed.
3 – There is just one type of culture. It is a part of who we are, and so it currently reflects our sinfulness, but one day it will reflect our perfection.
I am suggesting the third is the way we should view culture. I would be interested in what others think. I think we need to sort this out before we determine how/why and should we engage with culture.
Interestingly, the glory and the honour of the nations will be brought into the temple in Rev 21:26: a reference to the transformation of cultures, perhaps?
I am not an anthropologist either, but as that obviously isn’t stopping anyone else from having a go here, I’ll join in.
Culture is indeed the shared values and practices of a group. The question to be asking here is: which group are we talking about? We have a national culture which assumes things like universal adult suffrage, the immorality of slavery, and the necessity of tinned beetroot on hamburgers (that doesn’t mean that every Aussie likes burgers with beetroot, just most of them). But under that national culture are a vast number of subcultures. Surfies, Goths, and the people who socialise at the RSL are examples, as are the expat subcultures, eg Greek-Australians share values that are unique to their experiences. Subcultures go right down to family level (we all have special family expressions and customs). But below that is the way each individual relates to both the national culture and the subcultures to which they belong. Yes, your church is a subculture. So is your denomination and your Bible study group.
I imagine that “cultural engagement” is a shorthand for several different messages.
1. There are some subcultures that the regular Christian subculture(s) are not engaging with, so those people are not hearing the gospel.
2. Have you examined your church subculture to see if your practices (rather than the gospel itself) are keeping large numbers of potential members out?
3. Our church is reaching more subcultures than yours, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.
Have I missed anything?
Hi Paul. Thanks for your thoughtful reply!
I do wonder if a part of the confusion is in our understanding of what it means for us to be redeemed and this is confusing our understanding of culture being redeemed. You agree that there is continuity…but you think the NT generally (if you were to summarise it) speaks about the old dying. I assume from what you have written (pls correct me if I am wrong) that you see our redemption as being more about a complete knock down rebuild (complete new house), to a face lift/renovation.
In the new creation, my heart will be the same (as I already have a new one, c.f. Ezekiel 36:26, though I imagine with some continued growth and maturity as I come to maturity in Christ) and I will have a new body…the problem of the flesh will have passed away (Romans 7:15). My conclusion is that in Christ the inside has already been renovated now, and when Christ returns the external will be renewed. To return to the house renovation idea, although a completely new house by the end of it I remain in the same shape now, with the same rooms (these rooms might include places where I am creative, relational, emotional…which when combined with other people express themselves to form culture). I do not think redemption will remove these things from who I am, but it will change them.
Now, at the end of your comment you changed the definition of culture! You now seem to be suggesting that it is the things we refer to as being ‘cultured’, such as symphonies and works of art! You know, the boring stuff (spoken like a typical Aussie philistine!). I think this is misleading as an art gallery is not always a place of culture, but a museum of culture, or a historical record of culture, and even then, more often than not a reflection of culture. I would prefer to stick with your first definition of culture! To redeem people is to redeem culture. This is because our culture reflects who we are. Yes, as you have rightly said this means it reflects our sinfulness. There is, for example a culture of pornography in our world. It is sinful and it reflects who we are. But how does it reflect who we are? Ultimately it reflects the fact that we were made for and desire connection. This basic part of me will not be lost when I am redeemed, it is fundamental to who I am, I was made for and I desire connection. What will happen though is that I will see pornography for the lie that it is, and I will seek and desire my connection is healthy ways. Does this mean there will not be nudity in the new creation? When I look at Genesis…nudity appears to be good when there is no guilt and shame around! Just like we are transformed, the culture will be transformed.
So what does it mean to be culturally engaging? I guess with the idea of pornography it means showing pornography is a lie by the way we live, it means accepting the human body for the beautiful part of God’s creation that it is, it means reaching out and connecting with people in a real and meaningful way, it means living and sharing the truth that guilt and shame have been dealt with, it means accepting that we are sexual beings…and so on. What it does not mean is standing up and telling everyone porn is a sin and they are going to hell. It might be true, but it does not engage the culture, it merely condemns it.
Hi all,
In probably about a week’s time, the talks from the British conference New Word Alive (http://newwordalive.org/) will go up for download, and Dan Strange’s track on Cultural Apologetics from the first week of the conference seems to be dealing with exactly these things, and perhaps gives a better name to refer to some of it by. Definitely worth a listen, and definitely helpful in thinking all these things through!
Hi Dave,
Sorry to take so long to get back to this. I want to continue the discussion but have been pushing to get some stuff done by Easter that I’m still not going to get done!
I think your 3 different proposals touch on the issue well, and it’s what we need to talk about. But I am away from my desk now till next week, so at best we might continue it then. Although happy to hear we’ve kind of passed the moment.
I pray Easter might be a reminder of the goodness of our God and Saviour.
Grimmo.