It seems to me (right now) that there are four ways Christians look at the culture around them.
1. - Culture is bad and we should hide from it (think, Amish).
2. - Culture is "secular" and our job is to reach out and bring people back to the "sacred" (which is usually code for "our own Christian subculture").
3. - Culture is amoral. Use it however necessary for the sake of the Gospel (as defended in Emerging Churches - see my critique of that book here).
4. - Culture must be interpreted through Scripture: what's evil is rejected, the rest is used to be culturally relevant.
I found a blog post at The Resurgence that puts together a very healthy view of culture and "cultural relevance" - one that puts a finer point on my view (#4) than I have myself. It's well worth the read.
Here's the link. Read it and let me know what you think.
Hatushili
Monday, February 5, 2007
More on Culture
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Comments on "The Resurgence".
I don't have to dress,or be identified by my culture to witness Christ or to tell others the gospel.People have been getting saved for years thru the seeds planted by those who are different.We are and better be different,we don't belong here,we are visiting.We have a job to do.How we do that job however is where the difference is and needs to change as our culture changes.Do I need to go get a tatoo to win someone to Christ,no,do I need to deal diffrently how I reach one with a tatoo,probably.Thats where relationships are involved,time to build trust and freindship between two people(or more) that are different,so that they will see Christ in you,no matter what clothes your wearing or peircings or tats etc.We need to reach a few in the changing culture,they in turn will reach the ones maybe that see some as too different to listen to or want to build a relationship with.There are enough people who look like I do,(literaly heaven forbide)that are dying and going to hell,they need Jesus also.Win those who want to be diffrent,or are different because of culture change and train them to reach their present culture.A 50 or 60 year old is probably not going to reach to many 16-20 year olds.But the ones he can reach,train to go out and he will reach the many 16-20 year olds.(I'm just getting fired up).But here are the statements made that I do agree with and think we need to focus on.#1 Quote:Our churches should share the gospel message wherever they are and whatever their cultural context. They should be known as people who love God's Word and seek to live differently because of it.
#2 Quote:Churches that are biblically faithful to God's mission will work to relate to people in culture. We who are Christians should look similar to, but not be identical to, our culture.(The rest of this quote I don't totally agree with.)If we don't, people will assume that being a Christian simply means being different—dressing differently, listening to different music styles, and voting the same way. They'll confuse Christianity with a change of clothes, music, and political party registration.
And this last quote I do not agree with at all.
Quote:Why, if we have the timeless truth of the gospel, do we need to concern ourselves with culturally relevant ministry? Because if we don't, the message of the gospel gets confused with the cultures of old.
Horse hockey.The Gospel is the Gospel,it never changes,what is he thinking,God's Word never changes.Did this guy help write the TNIV bible?
I did get some good out of the article,but think we must be careful how we react or comment on the old way of doing things,which will not totally be removed from our world for some time to come,we are in a transition,not a trade deal.
O.K. I must rest and cool off my brain cells now.Bye
That was a great article! I loved the illustration of culture as a house. It’s where we live, it does have good in it and it does have bad in it but it’s where we are. I also liked the idea of living in our cultural “house” but acting differently than others within it because we are in the family of Christ.
The article stated:
“Those who preach against culture are often unaware that they live in one. But the dynamic culture around them is often not the culture of their church. What they yearn for is typically not a scriptural culture, but rather a nostalgic religious culture of days past. The irony of this is that every church is culturally relevant. It is simply a matter of whether the culture of the church is in any way similar to the culture of its community or only meaningful to itself.”
Wow, in my opinion this hit the nail on the head. Wow…
The article also stated:
“The unchurched think that Christianity is a retrograde culture rather than a living faith.”
This statement addresses an idea or view that has been hands-down the biggest stumbling block for my friends in my personal experiences in sharing the Gospel. One of my closest friends grew up a Catholic and as a freshman in high school embraced agnosticism. We have always been very close and open with each other and I have never had any fears about sharing my beliefs with him. He knows exactly what my faith is and what effect it has on my life. However, he, an intellectual going to med. school in New York, cannot bring himself to step “back in time” as he often says to embrace a religion that no longer matters. He has been to our church and several others and he believes that we are clinging to outdated ideals and standards for living. He’s a decent guy and I don’t believe it is the Biblical truths that he finds hard to accept, rather the extra biblical traditions and teetotalisms that we sometimes seem to enforce that get him. To him accepting or even going to church is like denying reality and living in a 1950’s fantasy. This breaks my heart.
Don said: we must be careful how we react or comment on the old way of doing things,which will not totally be removed from our world for some time to come,we are in a transition,not a trade deal.
Don, sometimes I need to be reminded that we are in a transition, not a trade deal. I get frustrated sometimes with the lack of immediate progress, I needed to hear that, thanks.
By the way, this isn't something you're passionate about is it?
Jered said:By the way, this isn't something you're passionate about is it?
If your talking about the old modern way of doing things,no,I wouldn't say passionate,but willing to use what works for where I am,and who I'm around.If your talking about post-modern,again I wouldn't say passionate,but willing to change what I need to,in order to get what I am passionate about to those who need to here it or see it in my life,and that is Jesus Christ.I do believe that both modern and post-modern are still needed today,maybe one,one today and the other another day,but none the less still effective.So I guess if you held a gun to my head and said choose,I would get off the fence and go post,just because I believe I am a missional type christian,but deep down still some old modern ways left in me.I'm not no young chicken,it's hard to learn a new way to "cluck",it takes time. O.K. bye
Hey guys! Sorry for the long lag in making a response... I'm at the conference (the hotel, actually) right now. It's been a lot to proces... more on that later.
For the moment: Don, I think you may have missed the overall context of the article I linked to. They're not saying you need to go out and get a tat. They're saying that we all have a "culture", so it's time we stop saying we don't. Also, it's time we stop insisting on "church" being equated with a by-gone (and now culturally irrelevant) culture. For example, here are a few (loaded) questions:
1. Does anyone in our local culture identify with ties and suit coats anymore? So why does the church (at least implicitly) say we "should" in our gatherings?
2. Does anyone in our local culture ever listen to organ music? Then why does the church (at least implicitly) say we "should" in our gatherings?
3. Does anyone in our local culture know what the phrase "atoning blood" means? Then why does the church (at least implicitly) say we "should" use it in our gatherings?
These are (I think) the kinds of things the author of the blog at Resurgence was talking about. We can't insist that "church" be reflective of a by-gone cultural period.
This has little to do with the modern/postmodern debate, at least little to do with it directly...
Hatushili
Post a Comment