In my last post I tried to introduce my friend The Dane more thoroughly to my blogging circle and at this point I'm thinking he probably doesn't want any more favors from me. I thought this post by The Dane was outstanding and recommended it highly. Unfortunately, not many others were as enamored of the post as I as. However, I do see that Diane Roberts was favorable to the post - so, since she and the Dane both live in Southern California I would like to officially commission, appoint and authorize Diane to seek out The Dane and give that man a hug.
Not being one to leave well enough alone, allow me to stir the pot a bit more. The words that got the whole thing going from the Dane, were these:
. . . 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.
Now, allow me, if you will, to interact with and defend the Dane in this regard.
My take on this is that he was saying that culture is an effect, not a cause. I will say up front that Jeremy Pierce jumped in with one of his usual brilliant thoughts and pointed out that most effects are also causes. This makes sense. Let's say generation one of "community A" starts communing and an effect we call "culture A" is produced. That pre-existing culture will now shape the lives of the next generation and thus will become a cause of the perpetuation of said culture. Don't know if that's what Jeremy had in mind, but that's one way I can see it working out.
But getting back The Dane's words, in a nutshell he has marginalized our efforts to transform our culture in favor of greater reliance on the gospel. In doing so he has been lumped in with anabaptists and others who advocate withdrawal from our society. A good deal of the heat he has taken has been from folks in the Reformed tradition, of which he is a part.
True, he may have used some hyperbole that could give an impression of wanting to withdraw, but I didn't see that, and I think he has clarified himself in the comments. In one clarifying comment on his own blog, The Dane says:
I think part of the problem is that two things are being called cultural redemption: the one is the action of trying to make the unbelieving world resemble the believing world and the other is simply living as a Christian. I think you're talking about the second version when you mention your Christian ethic influencing the way you vote, act, react, etc. I don't have any issue with this - and in fact, see plenty of Scriptural basis for living in a properly Christian manner as a witness to the watching world. Again, my difficulty is with those who believe either that changing the habits of the world (e.g., through legislation) or presenting alternative humanities (e.g., Christian movies, Christian music, Christian bumper stickers) at all aids the cause of the kingdom.
I think you can see what he is getting at in that first sentence - very often what we mean by "cultural redemption" is "the action of trying to make the unbelieving world resemble the believing world."
I like The Dane's little paradigm of community-culture-ideology, but even if we are both off our rocker and completely wrong on this, we still need to think a little more deeply about culture. Whatever culture is, it is related to behaviors and expressions. In other words, culture is an external thing, it is known by what is observed in the lives of a particular people.
To say that culture is about externals and observables may be overly simplistic, but if it is even close to the truth, then the Bible has some important things to say about it. In Matthew 15:19 Jesus says:
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false
testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’”
The
background of this is that the Pharisees were complaining that the
disciples broke the (cultural) traditions of the elders by eating with
unwashed hands. But evil, or uncleanness doesn't come from externals, it comes from the heart.
In the current so-called "culture wars" the culture warriors are engaged in a battle against what they believe to be evil. What Jesus is saying here is that "evil" originates in the heart, therefore it must be dealt with on a "heart" level, not an external level. The way to stop murder, adultery, immorality, etc. is to change the hearts of men.
Similarly, attempts at "cultural redemption" are often attempts at influencing communities or cultures by external means. Colossians 2:20-23 speaks to this:
20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Again, in these so-called "culture wars," the Christian "culture warriors" are seeking to restrain sensual indulgence, whether it be through legislation or through providing better ethical and moral influences in entertainment and business and things like that. Now of course it is incumbent on the Christian to do all of those things "Christianly" and in doing so he will exert influence. But the Christian needs to ask himself how it is that he is seeking to influence those around him. If he is seeking to influence the heart of a person then that is great. But if he is seeking merely to change behavior through external coercion then he is doing the Colossians 2:23 thing - seeking to restrain sensual indulgence by means of techniques that lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Romans 8:3 speaks of the powerlessness of the law to restrain sin:
3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids
If the law of God itself is powerless to restrain sin, why do we think the imposition of certain cultural effects can restrain sin? If the law of God is powerless to restrain sin because it is weakened by the sinful nature, how much more does the sinful nature weaken our attempts to impose Christian cultural effects on our community apart from regeneration.
In the last post Terry Pruitt and Diane Roberts had a little exchange where Terry pointed out that, when he thinks of cultural redemption, he is not referring to politics. Not that politics doesn't play a part in that, it's just that this whole idea of cultural redemption is much bigger.
He's right of course. It's just that, in our day and age politics takes center stage and for many evangelicals, politics is what they think of first when they think of cultural redemption. Even though she is using a slightly different paradigm than the Dane has proposed, Nancy Pearcy hints at this in Total Truth where she quotes Bill Wichterman, policy advisor to senate majority leader Bill Frist as follows "politics is downstream from culture, not the other way around." Wichterman is getting at the same thing as he realizes the powerlessness of the law.
The point is that changing cultures or changing communities or whatever you want to call it begins with changing hearts. I think that's what The Dane was getting at in saying that if we change communities, culture will naturally change.
This whole debate is strangely reminiscent of the old fundamentalist-modernist debate. Modernists were fundamentally concerned with cultural transformation. Because they had fosaken biblical orthodoxy and because they had forsaken their beliefs in things like substitutionary atonement, and the exclusivity of Jesus they had to redefine what it meant to be a Christian. So, they redefined Christianity in terms of values and principles. Modernists were the original advocates of Christian values.
The difference is that today, Christian "culture warriors" do believe in the exclusivity of Jesus and they realize that having Christian values doesn't save anyone. But what today's Christian "culture warriors" do seem to believe is that cultural change can be a catalyst to heart change. On the one hand I'll buy that to a point. I'm going back to Terry Pruitt's reminder that culture is much bigger than politics. I do think that arts and media and things like that can reach the heart in a way that legislation can't. Not that these things can replace the gospel, but these things can portray the beauty of the gospel in such a way that the heart is drawn to the gospel.
But even that is not a given. Arts and media may portray the beauty of the gospel in a wonderful "pre-evangelistic" way and yet the beauty of the gospel won't be recognized by an unregenerate heart.
This is where I think modern Christian culture warriors should listen to J. Gresham Machen. Whereas modern culture warriors may think cultural change can be a catalyst to heart change, Machen understood it to be the other way around. Consider these words from Christianity and Liberalism:
But though Christianity is individualistic, it is not only individualistic. It provides fully for the social needs of man . . .
But the state, even when reduced to its proper limits, has a large place in human life, and in the possession of that place it is supported by Christianity. The support, moreover, is independent of the Christian or non-Christian character of the state; it was in the Roman Empire under Nero that Paul said, "The powers that be are ordained of God." Christianity assumes no negative attitude, therefore, toward the state, but recognizes, under existing conditions, the necessity of government.
The case is similar with respect to those broad aspects of human life which are associated with industrialism The "otherworldliness" of Christianity involves no withdrawal from the battle of this world; our Lord Himself, with His stupendous mission, lived in the midst of life's throng and press. Plainly, then, the Christian man may not simplify his problem by withdrawing from the business of the world, but must learn to apply the principles of Jesus even to the complex problems of modern industrial life. At this point Christian teaching is in full accord with the modern liberal Church; the evangelical Christian is not true to his profession if he leaves his Christianity behind him on Monday morning. On the contrary, the whole of life, including business and all of social relations, must be made obedient to the law of love. The Christian man certainly should display no lack of interest in"applied Christianity."
Only--and here emerges the enormous difference of opinion--the Christian man believes that there can be no applied Christianity unless there be "a Christianity to apply." That is where the Christian man differs from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that applied Christianity is all there is of Christianity, Christianity being merely a way of life; the Christian man believes that applied Christianity is the result of an initial act of God. Thus there is an enormous difference between the modern liberal and the Christian man with reference to human institutions like the community and the state, and with reference to human efforts at applying the Golden Rule in industrial relationships. The modern liberal is optimistic with reference to these institutions; the Christian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned by Christian men. The modern liberal believes that human nature as at present constituted can be molded by the principles of Jesus; the Christian man believes that evil can only be held in check and not destroyed by human institutions, and that there must be a transformation of the human materials before any new building can be produced. This difference is not a mere difference in theory, but makes itself felt everywhere in the practical realm. It is particularly evident on the mission field. The missionary of liberalism seeks to spread the blessings of Christian civilization (whatever that may be), and is not particularly interested in leading individuals to relinquish their pagan beliefs. The Christian missionary, on the other hand, regards satisfaction with a mere influence of Christian civilization as a hindrance rather than a help; his chief business, he believes, is the saving of souls, and souls are saved not by the mere ethical principles of Jesus but by His redemptive work. The Christian missionary, in other words, and the Christian worker at home as well as abroad, unlike the apostle of liberalism, says to all men everywhere: "Human goodness will avail nothing for lost souls; ye must be born again."
Machen understood the cultural implications of Christianity. Contrary to pietist and anabaptist philosophy he didn't advocate withdrawal from "wordly" spheres of influence. He also understood that Christians have an ability, obligation and privilege to influence those around them.
But the last paragraph I quoted is especially on point. There can be no "applied Christianity" unless there is a "Christianity to apply." Christianity is not a set of cultural norms, it is a message of redemption through the gospel.
I would not for a minute try to tar modern Christian warriors with liberalism - they are very different than the liberals Machen was fighting in that they embrace this message of redemption. However, I do believe Machen has words that our Christian culture warriors need to hear in relation to their attitude toward what they are doing:
The modern liberal is optimistic with reference to these institutions; the Christian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned by Christian men.
I could be reading the Christian culture warriors wrong but so many of them seem to be very optimistic with regards to their efforts to change cultural institutions, even independent from regeneration. Machen said that we ought to be pessimistic about institutional (cultural) change "unless the institutions be manned by Christian men."
And by the way, for the sake of my friend The Dane, I want to point out that this shows that, even though he may not have been quoting Machen, his words fit squarely in the Reformed tradition.
I'd like to propose a couple of more thoughts that bear on this discussion. We often equate the progress of Christianity with the "Christianization" of society. In other words, one of the ways you can know that Christianity is thriving is that the culture, whatever it is, is looking more and more Christian. A long time ago in a galaxy far away I read something I can't quite footnote right now where an author talked about reports of massive revivals in Africa. They were unimpressed because they didn't see much societal change as a result. I think that's a fair example of what I am talking about. I'll leave aside the arguments about what a Christian culture would look like for now and simply say that I don't think you can support this notion either biblically or historically.
If the progress of Christianity is measured by the Christianization of society what are we to make of Jesus' words promising persecution to His followers and promising His followers that the world would hate them? John 15:18-21 says:
18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.
John 17:14 says:
14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.
I John 3:13 says:
13 Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you.
I don't know how else you can interpret those verses than to acknowledge that 1) Christians are not of this world and 2) therefore we are to expect the hatred of the world. In those verses, the fact that the world (and it's cultures?) turn against Christians is not to be considered an unusual thing - it is par for the course for the Christian.
In Philippians 1:27-28, Paul says:
27 Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel 28 without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God.
This passages gives us a paradigm for responding to opposition. We aren't to be alarmed by it and we are to see it as a sign. But what kind of sign? Today's Christian culture warriors tend to see opposition as a sign of the stifling of the gospel, the obstruction of the faith. Paul said we are to see it as a sign of salvation. Commentators have a difficult time with this verse, but I am simply pointing out that, whatever is in view here, Paul does not view opposition as a sign that the gospel is failing to progress.
This is pertinent to our discussion because the ostensible goal of cultural redemption is to provide a an environment (culture) where the gospel can thrive. Apparently that wasn't a concern of Jesus or Paul. They didn't seem to think we need a friendly environment for the gospel to thrive, nor did they think a hostile environment was evidence that the gospel was not thriving.
Many of us assume that the gospel grows best in a culture that is friendly to Christianity. But that is not the case at all, either biblically as I've just mentioned, or historically.
The gospel thrived in the early church, as recorded in Acts, in the midst of great persecution. Christianity grew enormously in the midst of the persecutions by the Roman government and many of us think the seeds of corruption in the church were planted when Constantine "Christianized" the empire. I'll leave that argument alone for now and simply point out that the spread of the gospel wasn't dependent on a friendly environment then. And, there is pretty good evidence that it's not dependent on a friendly environment now. This past week, a believer who has lived in China for ten years wrote me with the following words about China:
The Lord is working there like no place on earth. In 1949 there were less than 1 million Christains and now the estimate is close to 100 million ... I am not sure the history of the world has ever seen such a massive outpouring in such a short period.
The Chinese culture is terribly hostile to Christianity yet Christianity is growing in unprecedented ways there.
So again, the point I am making to the Christian culture warriors is that, whatever way you may choose to influence the culture, you can't equate the "Christianization of culture" with the progress of Christianity, either biblically or historically. True, it may be that, as the gospel progresses through a culture the culture will become more friendly to Christianity, but my point is that there is not a one to one correlation between the two. And a second point is that a culture that is friendly to Christianity may pose as great a threat or more to the gospel than a culture that is hostile to Christianity - see James 4:4 on that. It doesn't have to be that way, but it may be that way. A "Christian-friendly" culture is not always a blessing. Check out this post for some thoughts on the immense difficulty of being a Christian in a "Christian" society.
A second thought that bears on this discussion deals with the fact that all of our righteousness is as filthy rags or rubbish in God's sight (Isaiah 64:6, Phil 3:8). This goes for all acts of "civic righteousness" that we may do while unregenerate. Of course these verses apply specifically to the unregenerate and I would not say that the obedience, or righteous acts, of a Christian are filthy rags. This goes for all of our attempts at cultural redemption. I want to be clear that I am not saying that the efforts our cultural warriors put into redeeming culture fall into the "filthy rags" category. At the same time we do need to think about what we are communicating to the unregenerate.
In whatever way an unregenerate person conforms himself to some form of Christian cultural standard, he has to remember that this may turn out to be something which, in the end, becomes a barrier between him and God and incurs God's displeasure. This is what Paul is getting at in Philippians 3. He was the model of a godly citizen - zealously keeping the Old Testament laws (on which much of our redeeming culture efforts are based) and finding in the end that they did him no good - they were all rubbish in God's eyes.
One of the things Tim Keller points out in some of his writings and sermons is that when a might move of the gospel is evident, righteousness will be preached against as much as sin. It is not only our actual transgressions of the law that we need to repent of but also our damnable good works. Consider these words from George Whitefield in his sermon "The Method of Grace."
FOURTH. Further: before you can speak peace to your hearts, you must not only be troubled for the sins of your life, the sin of your nature, but likewise for the sins of your best duties and performances. When a poor soul is somewhat awakened by the terrors of the Lord, then the poor creature, being born under the covenant of works, flies directly to a covenant of works again. And as Adam and Eve hid themselves among the trees of the garden, and sewed fig leaves together to cover their nakedness, so the poor sinner, when awakened, flies to his duties and to his performances, to hide himself from God, and goes to patch up a righteousness of his own. Says he, I will be mighty good now, I will reform, I will do all I can; and then certainly Jesus Christ will have mercy on me.
FIFTH. But before you can speak peace to your heart, you must be brought to see that God may damn you for the best prayer you ever put up; you must be brought to see that all your duties, all your righteousness, as the prophet elegantly expresses it, put them all together, are so far from recommending you to God, are so far from being any motive and inducement to God to have mercy on your poor soul, that he will see them to be filthy rags, a menstruous cloth, that God hates them, and cannot away with them, if you bring them to him in order to recommend you to his favor. My dear friends, what is there in our performances to recommend us unto God? Our persons are in an unjustified state by nature, we deserve to be damned ten thousand times over; and what must our performances be? We can do no good thing by nature: `They that are in the flesh cannot please God.' You may do many things materially good, but you cannot do a thing formally and rightly good; because nature cannot act above itself. It is impossible that a man who is unconverted can act for the glory of God; he cannot do anything in faith, and `whatsoever is not of faith is sin.' After we are renewed, yet we are renewed but in part, indwelling sin continues in us, there is a mixture of corruption in every one of our duties; so that after we are converted, were Jesus Christ only to accept us according to our works, our works would damn us, for we cannot pt up a prayer but it is far from that perfection which the moral law requireth. I do not know what you may think, but I can say that I cannot pray but I sin, I cannot preach to you or any others but I sin, I can do nothing without sin; and, as one expresseth it, my repentance wants to be repented of, and my tears to be washed in the precious blood of my dear Redeemer. Our best duties are as so many splendid sins.
SIXTH. Before you can speak peace in your heart, you must not only be made sick of your original and actual sin, but you must be made sick of your righteousness, of all your duties and performances. There must be a deep conviction before you can be brought out of your self-righteousness; it is the last idol taken out of our heart. The pride of our heart will not let us submit to the righteousness of Jesus Christ. But if you never felt that you had no righteousness of your own, if you never felt the deficiency of your own righteousness, you cannot come to Jesus Christ. There are a great many now who may say, Well, we believe all this; but there is a great difference betwixt talking and feeling. Did you ever feel the want of a dear Redeemer? Did you ever feel the want of Jesus Christ, upon the account of the deficiency of your own righteousness? And can you now say from your heart, Lord, thou mayst justly damn me for the best duties that ever I did perform? If you are not thus brought out of self, you may speak peace to yourselves, but yet there is no peace.
I point this out in reference to our current discussion because in our current discussion we may find ourselves advocating things for which we need to call people to repentance. In the so-called "culture wars" we call people to sexual purity, to ethical goodness, to be good fathers, to be honest politicians, to make movies that reflect Christian values. Yet, someone may do any or all of the above and those may be the very things we need to call them to repent of in order that they might find Christ. In another sermon Whitefield speaks of the great danger of those who have been raised in or have adopted Christian principles:
Conversion is not changing from one set of principles to another. You who have been raised with Christianity are in the greatest danger of being zealous for orthodox principles without being transformed by them into the image of God. Others think that they are converted because they have reformed their lifestyle. However, reformation is not renovation. The outside of the platter may be washed while the inside remains filthy. A person may turn from profaneness to morality and therefore believe that he is converted, yet his heart is still unrenewed.
You have not heard me, I hope, speak a word against reformation. You have not heard me speak a word against being good. No, both are right in their place. However, you may have this kind of conversion and yet never be truly converted at all.
I raise this last issue because of the danger of a schizophrenic ministry. One of the problems a Christian "culture warrior" faces is that he may communicate that God will be happy with you as an individual or us as a nation if we conform outwardly to certain Christian principles. That is exactly what the apostle Paul denied and what Whitefield and Keller and others have sought to communicate. This outward righteousness, apart from regeneration, is a thing which will damn you.
So, as I finally bring this thing in for a landing let me acknowledge that this does not have to be an either/or thing. There are many who are fighting to "redeem culture" and who are fighting with equal vigor to proclaim the gospel. Although I think I am pretty close to The Dane's thinking in these matters I really have no problem with this, as long as they keep a couple of things in mind.
First of all, moral transformation of an individual or a culture is not the same as regeneration. As long as our culture warriors and redeemers keep that in mind and communicate that I am fine. But they need to communicate it explicitly - in general moral transformation will provide temporal, civic benefits to individuals and society, but it will not earn anyone God's pleasure. God's pleasure comes through repentance and that repentance is for the things from which one has been transformed and repentance for the things into which one has been transformed apart from faith in Christ. Repentance from one's "wicked ways" is not a turning to more outwardly righteous ways, it is a turning to Christ.
Secondly, I think our "culture redeemers" need to keep a proper biblical pessimism in mind, a la Machen, with regard to their redeeming activities. Remember, Machen was pessimistic about the abilities of unregenerate man to reform cultural institutions. He was very optimistic about the ability of the gospel to regenerate men and therefore to bring about cultural change.
In that vein, I think our "culture redeemers" can continue to do much of what they are doing as long as they keep things in proper perspective. Biblically, redemption is tied inextricably to the gospel - where there is no gospel there is no redemption. People may reform by changing their ways, but they are only redeemed as their hearts are changed by the gospel. God is not pleased with outward renovation, He is only pleased with repentance and faith. In one of Macht's comments on the last post he said:
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.
I think what Macht was getting at when he wrote this is he doesn't think that just because most or all of the individuals in a society become Christians the culture of that society will automatically look Christian. He's right about that - this is what the whole sanctification process is about, it's what discipleship is about. It stands to reason that, as individuals, we look more and more Christian as we grow in Christ and such a society would do the same. On the other hand, I would point out Jesus' words in Matthew 23:25-28
25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids
Jesus is saying that if we'll just clean the inside of the cup, i.e. regeneration, then a natural process will commence in which the outisde of the cup (culture) gets cleansed. Of course I think Macht and the Dane would agree that the culture/community gets transformed through a process. But let's not miss the full force of what Jesus is saying here - the gospel is powerful in and of itself to transform individuals and cultures/communities. And, for anyone who wonders what I mean here I am not advocating some kind of decisional regeneration where I equate the transforming power of the gospel with a mere "decision for Christ." But that's for another time. The point is that God is after repentance and faith, not mere outward conformity.
Finally, what we do in the community or in the culture doesn't depend on results for justification. In other words there are things the Bible commands us to do, ways we are to live, that we do regardless of whether or not it influences the world around us. We might "redeem culture" by all our efforts, and then again we might not (ok, I know that wasn't worded in the best reformed way but I think you get the idea). Regardless, the bible commands that we live Christianly. This means we shun the anabaptistic or pietistic mindset of withdrawal from the world around us. This means that Biblical principles inform all we do, as they say from the bedroom to the boardroom. All of our interactions with nonbelievers will be driven by our faith and in doing so we will exert a powerful influence on those around us.
But we won't judge the success of our efforts based upon the response of the world to us. Nor will we confuse outward reformation with gospel redemption.
Recent Comments