Redeeming Culture??

My good friend the Dane thinks those who want to redeem the culture are missing the point.  You gotta read this brilliant post to understand why and then read the comments.  What he says is a little foreign to my way of thinking and he has a great take on the way that community, culture and ideology interact that I am chewing on.  I won't tackle the whole thing here, I'll just reference a couple of comments that are especially relevant:

. . . culture isn't nearly so mysterious a topic as some would have you believe. It's not anything noble or grand. It's not something that moves and breathes. It's not anything like that. Essentially, culture is nothing greater than the natural byproduct of society, or community. When people gather together, the natural reflection of who they are and what they believe is that pile of stuff we call "culture."

And

culture is the environment produced when people in a community interact. So in effect, culture isn't anything tangible at all; it's more the gossamer evidence of who the people in a community are.

He's saying that culture is an effect not a cause.  So, trying to "redeem" or change culture is the attempt to change an effect.  If we change the community the culture will change, but you can't change a cause by focusing slowly on the effect.  In other words wiping the blood away from a gaping wound won't stop the bleeding until you deal with the gaping wound.  And, only the gospel can do this.

I think he's right and I don't think he is advocating merely a pietistic withdrawal from the world around us.  But if he is right, then this changes alot of what we do in the "redeeming culture" dept. 

Thoughts anyone?

Comments

[Laura]

I wish it weren't 50 pages, but I've read and would recommend an essay by Ken Myers that treats the same subject. His thesis is that perhaps our culture has reached such a dismal point because we Christians have too low a view of God's work through common grace. One interesting observation he makes:
"There is nothing in the covenant with Noah, which is the most significant instance in Scripture of God addressing fallen mankind en masse, about holiness. It is most certainly not the mandate for all humanity to be struggling to build a holy community or commonwealth. Not even the people of God in our epoch of redemptive history are called to create a holy culture. The gospel is no longer bound to a particular culture or to a geopolitical institution."

The essay can be found here: http://www.redeemerwaco.org/ComGrace.pdf

[Stephen]

David,
It's an excellent point. Often I find when I think about how things should change here in the UK, I can't get away from the fact that the first thing that should happen is that people should become Christians first! i.e. change the people, change the culture.

[Dustin]

Definitely makes a person think. I believe I agree with much of what he is espousing. My community influences my ideology, which is expressed in my culture. I can also see how many evangelicals are out there trying to put band-aids and ointments on cancerous sores instead of attacking the cancer itself.

I'm not so certain of his ambivalence toward excellence. There's a divorce between the gospel and aesthetics? AIIIEEE!!! Seems to me that the gospel oozes aesthetics. It is presented to us in well-crafted parables of Jesus, written in a picturesque manner by Matt/Mark/Luke/John, and furthered in later epistles written with keen insight and wisdom. OK, maybe Paul was not the best orator, but his skill of writing was excellent. Yes, God can make water of wine, but that doesn't mean we neglect the vineyard. Paul encourages Timothy to stir up his gifts, could that also be a charge to use your talents so as to refine them? What about giving God our best offering, as well? This may not mean the most excellent offering, but it would seem to mean our greatest effort toward that.

At the same time, I can see too great a reliance on aesthetics as well. Focusing on aesthetics does put our abilities before God's. Using my earlier illustration, do we refuse Jesus' water-into-wine saying, "That's nice Jesus, but I was really hoping for a Don Perignon."? Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between. Strive for excellence, and where we fail, God's grace is sufficient.

[Macht]

I responded at the Dialogical Coffeehouse (http://dialogicalcoffeehouse.com/2005/03/what-is-culture.html ). In short, I think he's way wrong.

[Happy Batson-Jones]

Christians aren't going to change the community until they first change their image of themselves. Too many mainstream Christians have accepted the secular community's view of Christianity. That Christianity has a long history of blood and repression etc. Mainstream Christians internalize this guilt-producing view and then start acting politcally correct. Christians need to proclaim all the good Christianity has done through history, and no longer accept the guilt trip. How can the non-believing community believe in Christ if the Christians don't totally believe in the rightness and goodness of their faith?
Deep faith in a believer is very compelling to others.

[Terry]

While this definition of culture is technically correct, I'm not sure it really is relevant. I see some of the rhetoric as a sophisticated way to say, "I'm not one of those offensive type of Christians". It may insolate us from some of the pain of being a part of the wrong type of Christian but I think this is one of those behaviors that we impress ourselves with but no one else. The world cheers it on, but not for the same reasons that we think they are.

I think we have already seen the failure of emphasising the need of individual conversions and neglecting our salt and light roles. It may not be the old pietiest wihtdrawal but it is a withdrawal from the conflict. Why go there again? We have already tried in the early part of the 20th century that approach and I see it as a hugh failure.

[Jeremy Pierce]

I'm willing to grant that culture is an effect. I'm not quite sure why that's supposed to show that culture isn't a cause. Most things that are effects are also causes. This is just a complex cause, because what culture is is complex.

[Dustin]

I think what bothers me is this statement:

"Who should give a rip about culture when souls are on the line?"

Just because culture is an effect, does that mean you ignore it? Don't we usually study culture in order to understand a community (anthropology)? How do you engage a community without understanding their culture? I fear that indifference to culture may spawn indifference toward those participating within it. Still, this discussion is helpful to see that this is not solely a "culture war" as some would suggest.

[Russ Kuykendall]

Dane's understanding of culture and community reads like an "anabaptist" understanding of church that theologically descends from the Schleitheim Confession whose most prominent, contemporary proponent is Hauerwas (See "Illegal Aliens," et al.).

Wouldn't a "high" view of the church account for the church as community that is "in" the world as well as set apart from the world?' Dane cites the NT Scripture from which this question arises, but he doesn't actually account for it.

I come from a tradition for whom the church sits at the centre of our "raison d'etre" -- our reason for being. Historically, our greatest theological concern has been the church -- ecclesiology -- and that theology tends to begin in "Acts" to be fleshed out in the epistles versus classical Reformed theology which tends to start with the Epistle of to the Roman Christians.

But if we were to start with "Ephesians," I believe we would find there a high view of the church as community and of the role of the church's leadership ministry as "equippers. But this high view of the church is integrated with God's wider "purpose in Christ" (Ephesians 1:7-10). I believe that if the church is faithful to her mission, then this will have political consequences, just as the "first generation" Christians' confessing Jesus as Lord was a direct challenge to Roman imperial authority. BTW, I take "political" to be a sub-category of "culture."

This is no less true of the early 21st-century church. The hegemony we face is not the Roman imperial state, but a particular brand of modernist-liberal-democratic hegemony. This permeates the culture. To live in submission to "Lordship" is to challenge this hegemony in a number of ways: it challenges the notion of the autonomous, human person; it challenges freedom and the self-actualized person as definitive of community versus submission to Christ and service to others; and to live a faith-integrated life in "the marketplace" in the professions, in the factory or shop, in the academy, or in the public square.

God's purpose in Christ of bringing all things together as one entails redeeming institutions ("principalities and powers" -- Rom 8:38; Eph 3:10; Eph 6:12; Col 1:16; Col 2:15; Titus 3:1 -- take your pick), redeeming thought ("take captive every thought -- 1 Cor 10:5). What does it mean, "take captive," if not to redeem human thought that already exists?

What was Paul doing at the Areopagus on Mars Hill if not seeking to redeem the culture? (Acts 17). Not how Paul's use of Greek thought . . .

Dane's God is too small.

[The Dane]

THIS JUST IN: 3 out of 5 Bloggers The Dane's God "Too Small"

Well, if nothing else, I succeed in making people think or talk or hopefully both. There are a number of comments and questions here - more than I can possibly hope to find time to answer - so I'll try to tackle some in the order asked/stated.

Dustin:
I think that was the first time I've seen "AIIIEEE" in print since reading Tintin so many years ago - and let me tell you, I was happy to see it. It definitely notes something I could have been more careful about stating. I do indeed think that we should be using the talents that God has given us to the utmost. I think that a job well done is our responsibility and that sloth is sin. And so I agree that the literature of Scripture is well-crafted and that ministers of the word should seek to build their gifting and exercise their talents in such a manner that they can increase those talents. That said, I do not think the gospel and/or Christian life and practice necessitates that our community have the best-lookin' stuff. In Genesis 4, it was the ungodly who made the coolest stuff - because that's all they had. I think some Christians have created some excellent works - paintings, musical scores, my father's ceramics and Chinese brush paintings. But I don't think the gospel has made my poetry and better. I know it hasn't made my mother's illustrations of any overwhelming sort of aethetic quality. What I mean by divorce is that I do not think their is any intrinsic connection between the gospel and beauty (since some of my favourite aesthetic works are crafted by hands that are swift to do evil).

Macht:
I'm not certain I communicated entirely properly because you mention that you gather that I believe that the fall of man merely changed our "personal relationship" with God such that if everybody had a "personal relationship" there would be no problems. This is not the case at all. Still, I don't believe the problems between men can begin to be resolved properly until those men are citizens of the heavenly kingdom. And, coincidentally, I don't believe Scripture suggests this is possible either. When I said, "Who gives a rip," I was speaking hyperbolically. I don't mean to say that ONLY soul-saving is important, but merely wished to draw literary attention to its preeminence as a Christian goal (being the Great Commission and all).

Happy:
Hmm, I don't think you're right, here. I don't think self-image has so much to do with it as our trust in God to work through the proclamation of his word. I think that as we denigrate the word by favouring self-help seminars, seeker-friendly soft-peddling of a watered-down gospel, moralism, etc. - I think that as these things become more prevalent in our preaching, the less prevalent honest conversions will become. If we continue on the path of exchanging the ordained power to bring grace to the souls of men for our own ideas of what could work better, then I don't think we should be surprised at the ineffectiveness of our ministry to the world. Plus, though I think deep faith in a believer is indeed compelling, I don't think that deep faith should be in the human expression of Christianity but in the heavenly expression of that: Christ himself.

Terry:
If I represented myself as wanting to not offend at any cost the world, then I misrepresented and I apologize. My argument is not concerned in the least with who is offended and who is not - I realize full-well that the gospel is offensive to the unbeliever and am happy to bear that stigma. Instead, my argument is simply concerned with what I consider to be an unbiblical teaching - and therefore one that may be offensive to biblical principle. As well, I don't think I would ever suggest neglecting our salt-and-light roles - which is why i full well advocate the proclamation of God's word to the unbeliever (shedding light upon the darkness of his soul, exposing the deeds of darkness, and showing the way to safety and giving flavour to life, showing the means to a beautiful and sumptuous heavenly life). I'm not sure how I was misconstrued to be seen as avocating a withdrawl from godly and necessary conflict, but let's be clear - I do believe there to be a furious and calamitous battle engaged daily in which we strive by the power of God for the redemption of the world.

Russ:
I hate to say it, but if my God is too small then yours must be too - for I presume we worship the same God. *grin* I know, I know. You meant that my perspective of God is too small, but I couldn't resist a cheesy quip. I'm not certain which tradition whence you hail - nor even which tradition whence I hail - but though I see great importance in the church (perhaps even penultimate importance), I feel safe in saying that my raison d'etre is Christ and his glory. My theology doesn't begin in Acts, Romans, or Ephesians, but in Genesis and is fleshed out by the historical revelation (i.e. the chronology of Scripture) of the eschatology of the world through the two-aged manifestation of the kingdom of heaven. I agree that the 1st century Christians' declaration of Christ as Lord was indeed a challenge to the Roman political agenda, but I see that more as incidental than being the direct intention. Firstly, wouldn't they declare him Lord even outside the Roman political spectrum and second, if the point was to offer direct challenge, why spend so much time in hiding? I s'pose they could have been of two minds - one of trusting God to see them safely through their challenge to Roman authority and one of fearing the power of man (cf. Elijah with Mt. Carmel and Jezebel) - but this wouldn't likely be my first choice of explanation.

I found your reference to "powers and principalities" interesting. Only one of the mentioned references (Ephesians 3:10) could possibly be incorporated as proof of concept (one even goes completely counter by commanding believers to submit to pwers and principalities), and even then, I'm not convinced that some better explanation shouldn't be preferred. And Paul in the Areopagus? My belief was that he was trying to redeem men. He makes mention of their culture as segue, but not with the intent to make that culture holy. His goal seems to be to bring men to Christ. Into the church. You bring up some interesting points (though the anabaptist thing was lost on me) and I enjoyed reading. Thanks.

[Terry]

I'm a little confused by the references to Biblical teaching. Where is the scriptural teaching that we are to ignore the culture? I would take it as a philosophical stand attempting to live within a Christian cultural worldview,...oh wait, how can we get out of this recursive philosophical stand.

[Russ Kuykendall]

Hi Dane--

*Don't give yourself so much credit!* Many of us were thinking long before we read your post . . . :-)

"Anywho" -- to respond to your reply to me:

I should hope that you subscribe to the maxim, "Let Scripture interpret Scripture." That being the case, then you will want to account for Ephesians 1:7-10, 1 Cor 10:5, and the various references to principalities and powers which, clearly, are human institutions (see the Titus reference, particularly). Ephesians et al. make clear that the mission of the church is not exhausted by the Great Commission understood in a radically or atomistically individual sense, only.

Not sure I understand your assertion that Christians were in hiding as qualifying as an argument against engaging culture. After all, Paul's engagement of the Areopagus on Mars Hill, before the Roman authorities, or in the marketplace of Ephesus could hardly have been more public. The Areopagus was a leading intellectual institution. Paul appealed to and challenged the Roman, Imperial state. A consequence of the Gospel in Ephesus was to undercut the trade in idols to an extent that the artisans reacted.

Further, during the first 300 years of the church -- before the Constantinian turn -- Christians were responsible for some 300 to 400 amendments to the Lex Romana -- "the law of Rome." Their influence saw an end to legal infanticide, to the Games to the death, and many, many other social and cultural influences.

Your position is an anabaptist position -- of not engaging the culture, from the Schleitheim Confession of the 16th century. The latest contemporary exponent is Hauerwas in his "Resident Aliens" (my fingers slipped, earlier) -- that's his popular treatment.

University of Virginia Professor James Davison Hunter makes a good case for intentional, cultural transformation by way of networks of elites and "prophetic" leaders, working in concert. For example, the Reformation didn't just happen on the basis of conversion, one by one. Luther's reformation likely would have ended at the Wittenburg door had it not been for the support and protection extended him by the northern, German princes. It was when the Catholic Guises family of France (influenced by Machiavelli) slaughtered some 10,000 Protestant French nobility, merchants, and leaders that the Reformation in France lost its impetus, and many (most?) Huguenots fled to England or Switzerland. Later, the Wesleyan Revival found key support from leaders in the Church of England and in the aristocracy. And so on with William Wilferforce and the Clapham circle, and, and, and.

Again, your God is too small, Dane. Don't limit Him.

[The Dane]

Okay, so I read that Anabaptist thingy, the Schleitheim Confession, and how that was applied to me is a mystery indeed. In fact, I found the view of the Christian and culture spoken therein to be repugnant. So *shrug* I don't know what to make of that...

I do indeed enjoy the power of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture and see that "powers and principalities" sometimes refers to the earthly authority (as in the passage I mentioned that seemed to run counter your point). Still, I don't see Scripture representing our need to redeem political institutions as being nearly so evident as you do. Interpretive static perhaps, but I think I'll need it laid out more neatly, more explicitly than you've so far done.

I think one area of disconnect between us is that I see some of the consequences you mention as being incidental to the the goal of conversion (Paul dispossessing the Roman government of its authority; the Ephesian idol-trade being reduced) whereas you see that as part of the point and intended directly by the apostle. I'm not certain how to overcome this difference since I'm not inclined to make the connection without some evidence more concrete and you don't seem willing to allow the absence of the connection without explicit evidence that such things were coincidental.

I *am* interested to learn more regarding the legislative activities of believers in the early centuries but am not certain how greatly that will bear on my perspective - since the activity of Christians in early centuries must be taken with grainual sodium (there were, after all, no small number of religious curiosities developing already in the first century church) and cannot approach the authority of the word.

I'm familiar with the theory of Hunter (though never having heard of Hunter) and am fine with it as regards opening up avenues to make the gospel heard. I don't mind engaging culture. I think anything that sits in service to the real end of allowing the hearing of the word is a good thing. I only object to those who treat the manufacture of a worldly culture camouflaged to look as if Christian - I only object to when this is treated as a goal of Christianity.

Again with the pointless small-God jab? Whatever. In the first place, this topic has nothing to do with the size or power or strength of God. In the second place, Saying something like "Your God is too small" is a waste of time as it is an entirely subjective to your feeling of things - and therefore serves no purpose but to antagonize. I mean if that's what you want fine, but....

[Con]

Wow, what a great blog. I must admit, this is the best blog I've seen in my new blog life. It's gonna take me hours to go through everything. I don't think my wife is gonna like you!

God Bless!

[Macht]

"I don't mean to say that ONLY soul-saving is important, but merely wished to draw literary attention to its preeminence as a Christian goal (being the Great Commission and all)."

Why not draw attention to "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" or to "cultivate [the garden] and keep it" (being the Cultural Mandate and all).

I'm sorry if I misrepresented you in my bit about "personal relationships." I wrote that because usually when I see phrases like "the culture expressed by Christians is necessarily Christian" and "Change the nature of the community and the rest will fall into place naturally. Take a a worldly community, change it into a heavenly one and WHAMMO!" it comes along with the attitude where people tend to think that as long as you have faith and live morally and have good character, that's enough.

I also think this is very wrong: "No longer does the believer actually believe that the preaching of the word is the means to saving grace. So, having given up on the gospel, the believer must look to other means to bring about the kingdom of heaven (or a reasonable facsimile)." When we speak of the redemption of culture, we are not speaking of alternate ways to save people, we are speaking about the restoration of God's fallen creation. But I'm not sure that somebody who thinks that culture is "something created by the community of the world" or a "symptom" can fully grasp this.

To make this more practical, I see no reason to think that by taking a worldly community and changing it into a heavenly one, that we will automatically have just political policies or a stewardly economic system or eco-friendly agriculture and industries. This is because the entire creation is stained because of the fall and these things won't be changed by a simple change of heart.

In the last month or so we've had quite a few conversations at the dialogical coffeehouse about the relationship between the Cultural Mandate and the Great Commission. I'd encourage people who are interested to scroll through some of the old posts.

[Russ Kuykendall]

A more contemporary exponent of the anabaptist approach to culture is Hauerwas's "Resident Alien." Among the things anabaptists have more than a little tendency to do is to adopt a "separatist" stance with respect to "the world." That Christians and the community of Christ should be separate from the world, the state, and human culture. That seems to me a fair characterization of your position. If not, I'd be very pleased to hear differently.

You wrote that you "enjoy the power of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture." If so, what do you do with 1 Cor 10:5 with respect to redeeming all thought or Ephesians 1:7-10 with respect to God's purpose in Christ?

A question confessing Christians must address is, "What are the consequences of the Gospel and Lordship?" What are the consequences of confessing that Jesus is Lord? That is, that He is Lord of All? Lord of the past, present, future. Lord of all culture. And so on. For NT and later early Christians to confess that Jesus is Lord (KYRIOS) was to knowingly ascribe to Jesus a claim that was in direct conflict with the claim of Caesar to be KYRIOS -- God. This was not merely incidental, but intentional, much as the seven plagues inflicted on ancient Egypt were a direct attack on the Egyptian pantheon. Was it an accident -- "incidental" -- that the Apostle Paul spoke to one of the leading intellectual institutions of the Roman Empire -- the Areopagus? Frankly, to suggest that is to stretch credulity.

To understand redemption solely interms of conversion is what I'm taking issue with in respect of how "big" your God is. You mentioned Genesis. A central claim of Genesis is that God created "the heavens and the earth" -- all of it. The Fall tainted it -- all of it. All of it is in need of redemption.

Christian influence on the Lex Romana before the Constantinian turn is palpable. In the earliest days of the church, Christians would regularly roam the streets in search of infants who had been exposed to the elements by mothers and families who did not want them. They urged people to give their unwanted babies to them. Abortions were likewise rampant, and, here, again, Christian influence changed the Lex Romana with respect to abortion. Christian influence diminished and saw an end of gladiatorial spectacles to the death. The Apostle Paul's letter to Philemon is all about the cultural consequences of the Gospel as a slave returns his master, Philemon -- a master Paul urges to accept Onesimus (his slave) as a brother. Again, not incidental, but intentional.

Redeeming culture is more than opening up avenues for the Gospel to be heard. The Good News IS that Jesus is Lord, and that He came to redeem all creation, including human culture (Luke 2:18). As the opening lines of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Roman church make clear, God makes Himself known in creation -- so that no one is with excuse. Christ came to redeem that creation.

[Terry]

To The Dane,

I surfed your self dubbed best multimedia blog because you have multimedia in spades. In fact you DO have multimedia in spades. Neat phrase.

Given that you are extremely talented and produce tonns of cultural items, apparently some during boring meetings, you are actually engaged in the culture quite a bit. (A tonn is a new metric of measure, it is related to exactly 27.4 spades.) Having explored your site a little I find your conversation sort of funny. We usually talk about "engaging the culture" as a means of expressing to Christians who have been involved in seperatists movements to see that there is more topics than "getting saved" and there are more ways of expressing things than sermons, hymns, testimonies and traks. (And I don't mean it to be flannel graphs either. As far as that goes I don't think we are engaging the culture by producing so-call Christian romance novels.) While I enjoyed the Gummy Bear video quite a bit, I would not call it Christian just because you made it. I'm not saying it is anti-Christian nor un-Christian either. It is just a fun video.

Rather than preach here, I'm going to write further on my Series on Withdrawing From Society.

[The Dane]

Russ, Macht, and Terry,

I will have responses to your thoughts later when time allows (likely tonight), but I thought I would happily point out quickly that though I do gots multimedia in spades, the title of Best Use of Multimedia in a Blog was not self-determined but instead granted me by the Diarist Awards: http://www.diarist.net/awards/archives/2004q2-winners.html

Not that I'm adverse to granting myself all sorts of awards and commendations, but credit where credit do and all that jazz.

[Renee]

Thanks for posting that. I have to agree with a lot of what MC said. My mother and I had this discussion just this morning (before reading your blog). We have both gotten caught up at times in the fight against the culture and we discussed that really our purpose here is spreading the Good News and that there is salvation. Getting caught up in what the world wants to do is a diversion (of the devil) and a way to keep one from their intended mission/purpose as a follower of Christ. Now, this does not negate rebuking another "brother" from falling into the ways of the world while proclaiming to follow Christ (that would be in a sense, promoting false teaching in the name of Christ).

I think Stephen above hit on a good point also:

"His thesis is that perhaps our culture has reached such a dismal point because we Christians have too low a view of God's work through common grace."

In a sense Christians have lost faith in what Christ can do and put more faith in man filling the gaps.

Just some thoughts.

[Blue]

Culture - cause or effect? It's both. It's a circle. And it - our culture and every culture - belongs to Christ. And we are to reclaim it for Christ for it and they are His. We are to be the salt. And yet, especially today, we seem to be merely following contemporary culture. We seem to want to avoid the costs associated with being different - with being salt. We flirt with the gods of our age. Our love - that gift from God - is our most radical and powerful cultural affect. As we share and express His love and our love - in all areas of life, in all areas of culture - we will change our culture.

[cwv warrior]

Sorry, I didn't read one single comment cause it will distract me from what the article said. The Dane is doing the Christian split thing (spiritual/cultural), I think but from a different angle. He is saying it is inevitable, I say it's a mistake. Christians who don't live their faith out in culture are the reason for his argument. If our Founders had lived as Christians, or our current president, for that matter, it would be clear that Christian activism and politics could be revolutionary. Slavery would have been nipped in the bud and Pres. Bush would not be growing the government like a bad weed. I don't see culture as a byproduct, separate from humanity. It is a reflection. My faith has grown leaps and bounds BECAUSE of the culture war. If Christians were engaging culture, changing it from within, permeating our world, (it's not ethereal), the witness could not be missed and the people interacting would "produce an environment" (culture) conducive to faith, which would "produce an environment..." There is no disconnect except that Christians fail to synergize their faith and their world.

[cwv warrior]

Hallelujah, Blue! I just read your comment below mine. I didn't mean to ditto you, but ditto for sure. Right on!

[Diane R]

For some time here I have commented on this very thing, that the problem with the Christian Right is that they are trying to change the effect. And in the 30 years of trying to do this they have accomplished very little of what they promised us.
However, if we change the root cause through transformation of man himself through conversion, that will have a BIG effect upon the culture.
It doesn't mean we cannot engage the culture in a meaningful discussion of our Christian worldview, but the gospel must get into the conversation with clarity or our efforts will be misguided to say the least. And that is precisely what is wrong with both the seeker sensitive and emergent church movements IMO.

[Jon S.]

Maybe we should think of culture as a natural byproduct of life, and a good metaphor is agricultural.

For example, if you don't like grits, instead of complaining about it, you should plant something other than white corn.

Does that make sense? I have a head cold, so correct me if I'm bogus.

[Terry]

Diane R.

The Christian Right is not what I would think transforming the culture is all about. While politics is an important part of culture, it is hardly the only thing. I would not read into transform culture as meaning merely the Chrisian Right. I would put efforts which I would put somewhat left of center in the area of transforming culture.

One of the problems with efforts to transform culture is that preacher types have told Christians how to do politics without really knowing the field. The same is true of art, public service, child care, care for the elderly, and a host of other things. The preacher is to proclaim the gosple and disciple the congregation. Once the body is truely mature, Christian writers, public servants, and artists can practice a thinking in these fields of endeavor as Christians. I have been involved in software developement for a number of years as a tester and writer of documentation. As I do these activities I try think as a Christian. Honesty in my testing without being brutal would be a part of that. Excellence in clarity in the documentation would be another. But more philosophically, I align myself with the free software movement. I also am concerned about the poor having access with the Internet, I'm sorry to see that there is no free dial-up Internet services anymore which make access to the Internet affordable to those without jobs. I could go on but I think you get the idea.

Some of the signers of our constitution were preachers and truly active in politics. They were great men of God and were not wrong to have a foot in both activities, sort of like I have a foot in both technology and my lay ministry. But in today's Christian Right is something very different. My good friend the Jollyblogger has written extensively about their mistakes and presumptions which not only made them ineffective but unwise. While we may critique them, I want to be careful I do not de facto excommunicate them from the church without a trial. I feel that want to be careful that I do not get into a us versus them with the Christian Right. Perhaps it goes the other way also but I must be careful about my reactions.

If I am not mistaken Diane you are involved in more than one human feild of endeavor. I would put your thoughts in feild of psychology as a effort to engage/transform the culture. A person's inter-personal relationships is more important than their party affiliation.