Catalyst Recap: Jim Belcher (April 21, Lab 2)

Deep Church by Jim Belcher was the Leadership Journal Book of the Year (along with Dallas Willard’s Knowing Christ Today) so his was the session I was most determined to see. It was titled “Deep Culture” and was more about culture than the contents of Deep Church – the traditional/emergent church issue. Belcher was arguing against a false dichotomy in terms of responding to culture – assimilation (lose distinction) and tribalism (withdraw from culture).

There’s a third way: seeking the good of the city (Jeremiah 29.1, 4-7). We are resident aliens (study Daniel on how to do it well). We need to pray for the city and seek its peace. Belcher referred to the Hebrew word for peace, shalom, and described it as peace with God, selves, others, and culture & creation. Instead of walking through all the Q&A, I’ll put relevant materials where they’re, well, relevant. One way we demonstrate shalom to those around us is by seeking to bring peace in our workplaces.

What does this look like? Some corporate coaches that Belcher knows/works with (I don’t remember for sure) focus on healing relationships, ending backbiting, etc… in an organization and it’s a wonder how much that does. They don’t necessarily preach the gospel, but they bring shalom into the workplace using the language of common grace. It can open doors for more explicit sharing, but the focus is on doing good. City planning shalom includes community gathering places where relational shalom can develop within a city. Sometimes shalom is just bringing beauty to a city, a place, a people. An example is the OC Rescue Mission. It is a beautiful facility that inspires people to get back on their feet.

There are two roles for the believer in this. The first is the institutional church. We gather for sacraments, worship, etc… and this body must be distinct. The second role is the ‘organic’ church where the church goes into the world as salt and light on Monday. We need to train people to be secret agents of influence in the world – to bring shalom and equip them to do it well. This means training our children and our college students doing extra work to integrate their faith with what they’re learning.

After this time of study I’m interested in teaching a series at our church along these lines and finding some people or getting some cohorts together for people to unpack how to bring shalom into their workplaces.

Jesus, The Ultimate Fighter?

Interesting post from Scot McKnight's blog recently: http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/02/jesus-and-mma-mixed-martial-ar.html

It's been 10 days since my last post - and that one just told you to go to church! I'm trying to put together a plan that will keep me a little more consistent with content. I'm trying to figure out how it will best work. Check tomorrow or the next day and I'll try to roll out the next plan.

Christ & Culture Revisited: Overall Conclusions, Part 2

This last installment of a Carson summary finishes “Disputed Agendas & Frustrated Utopias.” After speaking of some more sweeping paradigms yesterday, Carson now moves to a less ambitious perspective.

Minimalist Expectations
This view recognizes culture as a storm that we cannot affect, but we help individuals who are being battered by the storm. There is some wisdom that culture cannot ultimately be redeemed until the new heavens and the new earth, but there is surely some temporal good we can do. For example, we can do more to abolish slavery than just rescue individual slaves – or cure diseases, not just individual sufferers. And, Christians can help create culture to make a better world that is passed on to the next generation for the common good.

Post-Christendom Perspectives
Carson gives initial praise to Craig Carter’s Rethinking Christ and Culture and it operates from a post-Christendom perspective. The dividing line for Carter regarding Christendom or post-Christendom is pacifism. The latter are the approved post-Christendom models. The strength of this model is that it discusses what Christians and the Christian community should do, but Carson ultimately has little use for it due to the arbitrary dividing line of pacifism (equating the Crusades with WWII, for instance, as both morally indefensible) and it is ultimately reductionistic.

Persecution
Finally, persecution is a painful reality in the world and, when it is extensive and exhaustive, the blood of martyrs is not the seed of the church. It can be stamped out when the persecution is particularly intense (e.g., Turkmenistan). Persecuted Christians don’t often see themselves as part of the culture, but “other.” However, while some flee for freedom, others stay to try to bring about change. Carson offers that options on how the church should engage in culture are not given to everyone and we must humbly learn from those who are in much more difficult circumstances than most of us find ourselves in.

As useful as all these paradigms and grids may be, culture changes within a generation or two and it must constantly be rebuilt and re-thought.

There is a tension between “This is My Father’s World” and “This World is Not My Home” (in Michael Horton’s words). Both are too reductionistic – as are most options. We need to keep the turning points of biblical theology and flex with regard to how we engage with culture rather than canonizing inflexible paradigms.

Carson’s final words serve as a good summary for his study: “…we will live in the tension of claiming every square inch for King Jesus, even while we know full well that the consummation is not yet, that we walk by faith and not by sight, and that the weapons with which we fight are not the weapons of the world (2 Corinthians 10:4)” (p. 228).

Christ & Culture Revisited: Overall Conclusions, Part 1

Carson begins his final chapter with his summary of the previous five chapters, summarizing that there is not fixed paradigm that is universally transferable, but our discussions of church and state must take into consideration the key turning points in biblical theology (these have been written previously). Then Carson goes through some more recent paradigms that he calls “Disputed Agendas and Frustrated Utopias.”

Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is culturally reactive – even winning some battles in the culture war. This is not a theocracy, but more of a 1950s America. He argues that fundamentalists should not argue that America was based on Christian principles. Rather, it is based on some Christian principles. We wouldn’t want to return to slavery, Carson contends. Hard to argue with that. While this paradigm has social ills that it is particularly passionate about, it neglects others.

Luther & His Heirs
This is the Two Kingdoms view, but Lutherans disagree on how this actually plays out. This view has its strengths, but it can also forget that Christ is Lord over all and that there can be a polarized view of knowledge – a distinction between human reason and divine revelation. Such a sharp distinction can result in letting the government do whatever they want – like Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Beyond politics, to draw too sharp a distinction makes “reason” king and doesn’t allow God to speak into His world via special revelation.

Abraham Kuyper
Kuyper had unparalleled success in articulating a view of church and state and actually implementing it well. He argued that all truth is God’s truth and all of creation is God’s, but the consummation is not yet and so there a tension because the recognition that God is Lord of all is not realized, but Christians are called to speak Christ’s lordship into every area of life. He founded Christian unions and universities, not for the purpose of withdrawing, but to speak into the world. Carson thinks Kuyper shifted to a more liberal position once in power – emphasizing common grace over redeeming grace. Also, once he departed leadership there was a massive decline in Christian influence and the church had become full of the unregenerate members due to “presumptive regeneration.” Finally, this Kuyperian paradigm is helpful when you have the piety of a Kuyper, but it fails when it is not wed to personal piety.

Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Concluding Reflections

You may be wondering why this is appearing instead of Kenya updates. We hit the ground running in Kenya and haven't slowed down. Tonight is our last night in Kijabe. We'll spend the day as tourists in Nairobi tomorrow before heading to London on Tuesday morning. We'll be back home with the kids on Wednesday evening. Once we get home I'll start walking through our two week journey on the blog - with some pictures. But as we were flying to Kenya I finished my summary of the next section of Carson's Christ and Culture Revisited. Enjoy before a steady dose of Kenya.

The church/state relationship is difficult to explore because it is such a broad topic and terms are so flexible. It often ends up being a Christian/state discussion. From this perspective, the starting point is that Christ followers need to ground their identity in their “heavenly citizenship.” It ought to be our primary identity. At the same time, the Scriptures tell us to submit to our governing authorities unless doing so would entail disobedience to God.

Carson agrees most readers of his book would be from democracies as opposed to more oppressive situations that the early Christians found themselves in. It is hard for Christians in a democracy to have an us/them dichotomy that Paul or Luke had. But one way we submit to our government in democracies is to take seriously are part as participants, including doing good to the city. This can be done at several different levels from voting to holding positions of office.

One of the dangers in a democracy, with the goal of doing good to the city and building coalitions (I assume), is to put our values and priorities in secular categories. The effects may be good, but it may indicate a false secular veneer and people think we are fake, or we may be signaling that secular values take precedence and that secularists are correct – theirs is the only position that is “neutral.” This may be a place where the church is separated from the state, but Christians need to engage the public arena.

Carson discusses challenges of Christians living their faith in the state will raise. The issue of funding that might be pulled if religious organizations don’t secularize certain aspects of what they do – even if it serves common ends with state institutions. Even so, the Christian must continue to minister for the good of society. Sometimes it is helping AIDS patients, but at other times it may be lobbying for or against a political issue that the Christian feels is harmful to the society – a casino, for example. The Christian may abstain because of biblical conviction, but they seek to stop it because it has a harmful effect on the broader culture. This is a way of loving one’s neighbor – even if the neighbor doesn’t see it this way.

One of the distinctives of Christianity that comes to bear on how its political engagement will contrast with that of Islam, for instance, is that there is an internal transformation required to become a Christian. With Islam, you can exert your will and become a Muslim. That’s why Islam has a broader vision of a society governed by the Koran. But Carson notes, “In short, we have a high stake in preserving a place for ‘conversion’ that is intrinsically supernatural …, that demands what some traditions call ‘soul liberty,’ and that certainly extends beyond mere practice” (p. 202). Being a significant majority with a pressure to conform to faith doesn’t result in true conversion from a biblical perspective.

As Carson concludes this illuminating and brief section, he makes it clear that regardless of the challenges of navigating these Christian/state relationships, God has called us to do good to our neighbors and to love them in ways that may cross over into government responsibility. Even if we’re told to depart, God has called us to stand firm and do good.

Ultimately, however, Jesus is King of all, but the end has not yet come. So we wait by serving Him through serving and loving our neighbor.

Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Historical & Theological Reflections, Part 2

Yesterday we looked at an overly-broad international picture of church/state relations. Now we’ll do an overly-simplified scan of the American options currently put forth.

One (Dodaro), leaning on Augustine (many claim him, even as they disagree with one another), says there can be no justice apart from being Christ-centered. Therefore, a culture must be Christ-centered. Another (Markus) claims there are three spaces – sacred, profane, and secular. It is different from our secularism, however. Secular in his view consists of those things that meet needs and order society. The last Augustine claimant (Johnson) argues that Augustinians must move beyond tolerance, but not claim neutrality because it strips us of what we genuinely hold to. Instead, we tolerate (or better, love?) differences and await the Heavenly City for unity.

Another “mediating” position (Stout) shows how liberal secularists administrate the public arena while they are at the same time part of that arena. He argues for a “thick” tradition that allows for different views and communication. In the end, Carson doesn’t think, however, that he escapes the affirmation of liberal secularism, however.

Next are those who reject Constantinianism in its various forms. Some call for total abandonment of the wider culture (Amish) while others think Christians should engage and do good at all levels of culture, but not do it in such a way that it is a “distinctively Christian product or stance” (p. 179). Others think the church should be the church and it is against the church’s purpose to even have a philosophy of the state.

Others (Stassen & Gushee) try to bring disparate views together – and Carson thinks they do a pretty good job. For instance, they argue that just war adherents and pacifists should focus on their common ground of minimizing violence, not justifying making war – or discrediting it. Carson notes that many books like this one are eager to slam the US, but they ignore the abuses of organizations they laud, like the UN and their “spectacular ‘Oil for Food’ scandal” (p. 182).

The next view (O’Donovan) does not argue for a strong Constantinian model, but it recognizes that Christ is risen and triumphant and all governments are under His feet. Governments are “secondary witnesses to God’s own act of judgment” (p. 183). O’Donovan prefers minimal government, but he argues that the church helped during the Constantinian era to minimize government abuse.

Finally, while there is plenty of Christian left attacking the Christian right (and vice-versa), the most vociferous attack against Christianity and the erection of the wall of separation are the secular “far left,” according to Carson. Carson lists several and notes all Christians are lumped together – from Timothy McVeigh to Tim Keller (one author puts them in the same camp) and what they believe Christians think about the state would be laughable except for the fact that people read these books and believe them. Even the most politically active and engaged believers I know would find these views absurd and not representative of what they believe. Those who seek the “wall of separation” want religion to be purely private and some even think Christians should not be allowed to run for public office!

Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Historical & Theological Reflections, Part 1

This next section, before Carson hits some conclusions deals with some key historical and theological issues surrounding the development of democracy, different ways Christians have balanced church and state issues, and the heritage of other religions, particularly Islam. We’re going to reorganize Carson a little for the purpose of post length. We’ll look at the Wall of Separation in general and then look at Western views of separation and then a little at Islam. The next post will be about the varied American views on the interplay between church and state.

The Wall of Separation
Carson argues that the American and French Revolution, while having some similarities and being close in timing, have a 180 degree view of religion. The American experiment separated church and state to protect the church from government encroachment and establishment on a national level. States were allowed, it seems, to establish churches based upon their preference. The French sought to eradicate the church from public life. It seems we have moved, culturally – at least in some opinions – to a more French approach. A key point in this turning is the “wall of separation” in Everson v. Board of Education (1947).

Internationally, the interplay between church and state is different. England has a state church, but as the culture secularizes, disestablishment of the church is a growing possibility. On the other hand, former communist countries embrace the freedom to bring religion into the public sphere to teach morals in schools (e.g., Hungary).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, observing church/state relationships in America saw the tendency to merge democracy and Christian faith, which he thought a dangerous step. He held to a “two kingdoms” view of church and state. Separate spheres that have their own realms of rule. Frenchman Jacques Maritain loved the American notion of separation (freedom “for” religion) and pleaded that it not be turned into the French freedom “from” religion. Carson fears we have gone the way of the French – or we’re heading there quickly.

Finally, Carson looks to the Muslim world. While some thought religion would wane in the modern world, it has not – and Islam is one of the reasons. Essentially, the Muslim does not value “religious tolerance” in the sense we do. It is “functional atheism.” Carson gives a few basic points that serve as an introduction to his discussion. They will conclude this post on the varied (and obviously broad and overly-simplified) church/state relationships in the world.

…Islam has (a) no heritage of “Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” (b) a rather different view of the nation-state, which is clearly secondary to the ummah, the people of Islam, (c) nothing quite like a national church, still less a denomination, in some Western categories, makes much sense, (d) a sense of historical grievance stemming form the decline of its own influence during the past century and half or so, and (e) a rising sense of power stemming from the “successes” of its own radical elements, from the fiscal power it exerts because of rising oil revenues, and from its demographic advantages in Europe and elsewhere” (p. 191).

It is hard to tell which direction Muslim religion/state relationships will go, but in many instances, it is hard to distinguish between the two. There is a strong level of Constantinianism built in, but time will tell how things develop.

Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Survey of Biblical Priorities, Part 2

Different Styles of Government, of Reign
If you read Matthew 20.20-28, you’ll see that there was a political expectation – even near the end – when it comes to Jesus’ reign. It’s a great passage. Be sure to read it. In it, Jesus rebukes the way of the world when it comes to authority. Instead of striving for prestige and praise, seek to serve and sacrifice for their sakes. This is the attitude Jesus had (Philippians 2.5-11).

Transforming Life … and Social Institutions
Christian belief may seem odd and even antisocial at times, but it can also be strangely attractive for some. At the same time, it can be subversive and transform social institutions. Philemon didn’t speak against slavery, but it planted the seeds that would eventually destroy the institution.

In the end, Jesus wins
Tension is inevitable because there is a contradiction between the world and the gospel. But that doesn’t mean, as the world would have us believe, that the gospel is a private truth. It is personal, but it is not private. It is public truth that will oftentimes lead to conflict, but we need to speak the truth, knowing that Jesus ultimately wins.

Summary of the Diversity of Biblical Themes
The church is a “transnational community” under a God who has placed human governmental authorities in place that they should obey – unless it conflicts with what God has called them to. And if it means conflict, the church can take comfort in the fact that God will win in the end.

These basic principles allow flexibility depending on the stance of the government. As change happens within believers, it is going to be beneficial to the state or cause the state to eventually persecute the church.

[Carson concludes by stating there are things Christians should do that are distinct from what the church should do. Someone commented on this in an earlier post and I’m a bit puzzled by how Carson breaks this down. I’ll have to look back because I’m not sure how he draws the distinctions so clearly. ]

Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Survey of Biblical Priorities, Part 1

Carson takes Mark 12.13-17 (“Give to Ceasar what is Caesar’s…”) as the passage that best defines church/state relationships. There are some creative interpretations of it, but it means that, while Jesus has all authority (Mt. 28), it will be contested until He returns and Christians live in the tension of being good citizens while not primarily identifying with any nation or state. This fits with Paul’s exhortations in Romans 13. This fits in our world because many can do good today “within government” in ways that Paul’s people couldn’t. There’s also an OT directive to work for the good of the city – even when they’re in exile (Jer. 29.7). Daniel is a model for serving in government without compromise – even if it meant his death. And Christians are encouraged to do good to all in Galatians 6.10. These basic principles can guide in different cultural contexts and tensions Christians have to think through and navigate.

Opposition and Persecution
Despite the support we should show for governmental authorities, it is clear that there will be opposition and persecution because we operate out of a different set of “norms,” according to Carson. Matthew 10 expects opposition and persecution and it is evident in Acts and Revelation as well (though it shows Christians winning official trials in Acts, too). Sometimes there will not be nationalized persecution, but it may operate on a lower level – state or local. This is also evident in Acts and Revelation.

Differing Fundamental Allegiances

But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." Acts 4.19-20

Paul lays expectations on the church in his letters, not the culture (see 1 Cor. 5.12). There was much sin in the Roman world, but Paul felt no need to legislate against it. The church’s citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3.20-21). The early church had Roman citizenship, but their ultimate citizenship is in heaven. This will set us at odds, inevitably, with those who have no allegiance to heaven.

Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Definitions

Carson begins by noting this is the debate that many people are thinking about when they think about Christ and culture. This is true for me. He also says that to fit under one of Niebuhr’s categories is to be overly-reductionistic in our understandings of Christ and culture. The first section of this chapter deals with definitions. He does this a lot in the book. I suppose it is helpful for a scholar, but sometimes I wish he’d just lay it out and go for it. I understand why he doesn’t – clarity, and all. I’ll lay down some conclusions and then we’ll move forward in the next post. Here he seeks to define – or discuss the difficulties in defining – religion, church, and nation/state.

Religion in the ancient world was related to “the cult.” That doesn’t mean what current culture would define as aberrant teaching. Rather, it refers to the practices of the temple or place of worship. It is a sedentary religion. That is not what historic Christianity started as. It started as a movement that had a vision for life that moved people to a mission. It was counter-cultural. As it succeeded it became more of a “cult” (in the technical sense). It’s hard to be counter-cultural when you dominate the culture. But religion is used by people differently. Some secular worldviews are considered “religious” because they have a vision for life for all people. Carson settles that it is best to let each define religion their own way and discern what is meant from the context.

Next, Carson seeks to define the church. He has some good descriptions of what the church is and he doesn’t think it is just two or three people together at a bus stop sharing Scripture together. It is a body of people on mission together (structure is negotiable) doing the things that churches do (worship, Scripture, communion, prayer, etc…). The church has a mission and responsibilities, but he seems to distinguish between church responsibilities and Christian responsibilities. For example, there is an important social engagement that Christians are called to, but it may not be the church’s responsibility. The church should facilitate and encourage people to fulfill the vision of justice, but it should be separate from what the church itself does. This seems to be counter-cultural with much of the social justice emphasis these days. (Note: Carson is not anti-social justice. It just seems that he thinks this is something the church should encourage and provide for on the side – outside the auspices of “church”).

Finally, Carson defines the nation/state. Not sure where the controversy is here. He does note that the nation/state has become the supreme entity whereas there was more intermingling of authority and “religion” in the ancient models. Now the state is largely secular and that has significant implications for the church/state relationship.

More coming soon.

Christ & Culture Revisited: Cultural Forces - The Worship of Freedom, The Lust for Power

Freedom

A high value on freedom comes, perhaps necessarily, with democracy. In fact, which is obviously problematic for Christians, is that freedom can be worshiped. It also raises a host of practical issues that we see played out all the time because there are tensions to freedom.

One difficult tension for the church rolls around each election season. Carson cites a sampling of liberal writers who see Christian conservatives voting a particular way as an erosion of democracy and voting for theocracy. (An insightful writer notes that if political evangelicals got their way (which he doesn’t seem to want) would put us back to the 1950’s, not make a theocracy.) It seems that theological considerations are considered disallowed by some in the working out of the democratic process. Carson seems to speak to this a little later in this section: “Thus every position that is angling for a greater say in the democratic mix is in some sense trying to ‘impose’ its will on others, in the sense that it is trying to build a majority voice, a consensus” (p. 133).

Another challenge with freedom is that the value of the individual is placed so highly that there seems to be no rights of groups to set their own values. When the group values are disallowed, it is simply the work of another group putting their values upon these groups – in this case, those who hold individual rights as superior to all else.

Yet another interesting, yet brief, observation about freedom is how its understanding has shifted in time. Initially it was something that was granted by God and the US sought to make sure the government did not encroach upon it, but it has shifted to entitlements that people expect and the government should grant those freedoms, according to Carson.

Another tension of freedom is that it is both good and bad is that it has to allow some things that we might consider destructive and yet others do not. He uses the example of pornography. Most think negatively of it, but are reticent to limit the freedoms of those who want it for fear the cost of pornography being available is preferable to the cost of losing freedom of choice in general.

Carson concludes with this tension clarified:

The democratic tradition in the West has fostered a great deal of freedom from Scripture, God, tradition, and assorted moral constraints; it encourages freedom toward doing your own thing, hedonism, self-centeredness, and consumerism. By contrast, the Bible encourages freedom from self-centeredness, idolatry, greed, and all sin and freedom toward living our lives as those who bear God’s image and who have been transformed by his grace, such that our greater joy comes in doing his will” (p. 138).

Power

Carson didn’t spend much time here apart to say power is not inherently bad, but the fact that we are fallen people and all of us will be tempted to abuse power in the event that we get it. We should recognize, however, that power is always, from a Christian perspective, delegated from God. Not just for pastors, but for kings as well. It is a lust any would struggle with and we need to use it for good and in a good way if we end up having any at all.

Christ & Culture Revisited: Cultural Forces – The Mystique of Democracy

Carson skims the spectrum of democratic roots from the Bill of Rights to the French Revolution to the Magna Carta and even to contemporary Iran. The Christian will respond to different democracies differently. For example, as persecution ramps up in Iran, Christ and culture are bound to clash. But Carson spends most of his time looking at liberal democracies of the West. Carson seems to agree with Winston Churchill, who stated, “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other kinds” (Carson’s words, p. 123).

While democracy is good, it is not perfect because we live in a fallen world and mankind can corrupt anything. Also, the minority can be mistreated in a democracy or, it is possible for the wishes of the majority to be held captive by the minority as well. The good and bads of democracy, according to Carson are summarized well in this quote:

“For many pragmatic and moral reasons, we may concur that, granted attendant structures and liberties, it is the form of government least unaccountable to the people and least likely to brutalize its citizens without some eventual accounting. It is a form of government most likely to foster personal freedoms, including, usually, freedoms for Chrsitians to practice and propagate their faith. But it has also proved proficient at throwing off a sense of obligation to God the Creator, let alone the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is another way of saying that it is proficient at fostering idolatry. Its freedoms, so many of which are enormously praiseworthy for political, religious, personal, and artistic reasons, include the freedom to be hedonists, to pursue a life revolving around entertainment, to become inured against responsible family life, communal interaction, and self-denying service in the endless worship of massive egos, passing fads, and this-worldly glitter” (p. 127).

While democracy offers many freedoms, it does not deliver the righteousness of God and will, ultimately, come under judgment because we don’t give God His due.

Christ & Culture Revisited: Cultural Forces – The Lure of Secularization

The third chapter discusses four cultural “forces” that affect Christ and culture and how they should be challenged or accommodated. We’ll do a post for each. The first is the rise of secularization. This is the goal to push religion to the periphery of life, not having any bearing on public life and it is considered intolerant if it does. It is most prevalent in the universities where it should be so private as to become invisible. Secularism can end up being “religious” in its own right, according to Carson. He says, “It strongly advocates its own view of the ultimate good, it articulates its own belief system, it establishes its own code of ethics” (p. 117).

There are three “seductive subtleties” to secularization, according to Carson, that Christians need to be wary of. Secularism is thought to be an inevitable advancement in the wake of the Enlightenment. This is not a given, according to Carson. There is also a pressure to drift toward a cultural Deism or civil religion. This is what Jefferson and Paine hoped for and Carson contends the loss of this civil religion is not a loss of Christian commitment. Rather, it is a form of secularism itself. Finally, there is a strong divide that limits “meaningful interaction” between Christians and secularists. They may have much in common, but if they do, it is for different reasons. Carson says this is an inevitable divergence in worldviews. Christ and culture are heading in different directions in this context.

Carson doesn’t comment any further, but I think that Christians still need to contend for the public good in culture as an aspect of loving their neighbor – even if the neighbor disagrees it is a good thing. This is contrasted, however, to contending to hold onto a golden age of the past.

Christ & Culture Revisited: Redefining Postmodernism

This is still the third chapter of Carson’s book. After defining culture – he actually says “Refining Culture” – he goes on to discuss postmodernism and how it should not keep us from talking about Christ and culture. He reasons this discussion is necessary because Americans have become suspicious of metanarratives and “grand syntheses are impossible” (p. 87). This has a devastating effect on the authority of the Scriptures, obviously, because they communicate God’s story in human history and communicate how we are to engage culture. A postmodern culture, at best, believes truth is perspectival and nobody has authority.

Carson is not a postmodernist, but he argues that a “soft postmodern” and a chastened modernist are not far apart. His epistemology is essentially that we can know truth exists – through revelation or otherwise – but we do have perspectives that emerge from our cultural background, etc… that color how we view truth. That doesn’t mean truth is irrelevant or non-existent. Instead, it means that we may have an obscured vision of it. Truth remains and it is our responsibility to seek it and conform to it as it is revealed. (This doesn’t seem far from NT Wright’s epistemology in his New Testament and the People of God. It makes sense to me, but some of the philosophy students in my class came unglued.)

In short, a worldview is a view of the world that accounts for reality – answering the key questions of existence. It doesn’t account for everything completely, but they make sense of the world. This whole chapter (last two posts) sets out to defend Carson’s project of discussing Christ and culture. Truth exists, even if it is challenging to discover and culture is definable, even if the edges are fuzzy.

Christ & Culture Revisited: Defining Culture

This series has been on hiatus for a little bit (almost a month!) – and it’s likely to be a bit spotty because blogging with consistency is difficult and Carson’s book isn’t a quick read. To get to the most recent post go this way or this way. To the issue at hand!

One of the critiques people have of Niebuhr’s book is that he doesn’t define culture and he actually changes his working definitions/assumptions based upon the perspective of Christ and culture he’s talking about. Carson doesn’t seek to define culture, but seems to argue that we can come to a fairly common understanding of culture even if we don’t agree on all the details.

By refining culture, Carson seems to just deal with a lot of questions that say we can’t do it. I’ll let you read the details, but he seems to settle on the fact that cultures share many commonalities even as people are part of different subcultures. For example, there is American culture, but within it there may be a New York city culture, a Midwest culture, and a Louisiana culture. There are distinctions, but there are also similarities that set it apart as a broad culture as opposed, say, to French culture. If we want to go the other direction, American culture and French culture may unite to create a broadly “Western culture” that is distinct from an Eastern culture that emanates from Asia.

And one can, obviously, be part of a culture and yet be distinct from it in certain ways. Because Christians are part of a culture, this does not mean they are absorbed into it with no distinction. Even though one can be fully American, this does not mean one cannot be fully Christian. The two terms will overlap, but they are not mutually exclusive.

There are helpful distinctions and analogies that clarified my thinking, but this wasn’t an area I felt terribly cloudy in to begin with. Maybe my “feel” of culture is similar to Carson’s – his may just be a little better thought out! :)

In closing for today, one helpful thought was the fact that, based on the non-negotiables of biblical theology, Carson recognizes that certain themes may be emphasized based on certain cultural situations. This isn’t to say the non-negotiables are negotiable; it is to say that certain emphases are appropriate at different times. Some may call this waffling, but I doubt that will be the case when we look next at Carson’s approach to postmodernism (I could be wrong, however. I haven’t read it yet!)

Christ & Culture Revisited: Critiquing Niebuhr, Part 2

Carson argues that cultural engagement for Christians cannot neglect the key turning points in the Bible. He now sets out his non-negotiables of biblical theology and then he’ll give further critique of Niebuhr in light of these non-negotiables. What are the non-negotiables?

Creation and Fall
Every person is precious and created in God’s image. We were created innocent, but have fallen into sin. Sin isn’t just doing the wrong thing, but rebellion. The greatest commandment is love God; the second is to love your neighbor. Rebellion against God, idolatry its varied forms, has social consequences as well. We see goodness around us, not because we’re mixtures of good and evil, but because of God’s common grace.

Israel and the Law
The basic storyline is this: God chose His people and gave them a law that touched on every part of their lives, pointing out that God’s call applies to every bit of their lives. Carson says it “…turn[s] the fundamental idolatry into detailed transgression” (p. 50). While we get hung up on the laws for living, there is much more space given to the tabernacle and temple – the way God’s people stand before Him and have their sins atoned for. Israel is a theocracy. There’s no separation of church and state, but there is a difference between priest and king (contrary to most of their neighbors of the day). Finally, all of this is embedded in the larger story of Abraham and his seed, which is embedded within the story of fall and redemption.

Christ and the New Covenant
Jesus is incarnate. He is God in the flesh to dwell among us and He comes proclaiming the Kingdom of God. The kingdom is God’s reign as evidenced in the arrival of the King, His preaching, and the preaching of His disciples – and works of power. And yet it is has not come in fullness. There are still weeds among the wheat (Mark 4). The Kingdom has come, but it will still come in fullness when the King returns. Jesus’ death fulfills the OT sacrifices and is a ransom for many (Mark 10.45). This death establishes the new covenant in Jesus’ blood (1 Corinthians 11.23-26). When Jesus ascends, He sends the Holy Spirit and builds the community of the new covenant, the church. It is built with every tongue, tribe, and nation and has to deal with God’s and culture’s claims. The rest of the book is devoted to navigating this tension.

Heaven and Hell
God has called us to be responsible in the here and now, but Scripture speaks often of heaven and hell. Christ and culture issues, then, are not resolved simply on a temporal plane. We need to take eternity into consideration as we navigate these challenging issues.

Final Reflections on Niebuhr
Carson concludes this chapter with some more critique in light of these biblical theology non-negotiables. He says these need to be considered “simultaneously” and “all the time.” With this in mind, Carson disqualifies Christ Transforms Culture and almost disqualifies Christ of Culture (but not totally). But he is generally critical of rigid patterns of Christ and culture. Instead, context needs to be taken into consideration and all of these elements need to be considered “simultaneously” and “all the time.”

Finally, communities of faith must live in tension. Christ is sovereign over all, in one sense, but we also live in small communities committed to Him where His reign is realized more fully. We are both residents of the New Jerusalem and Los Angeles or Houston or Minneapolis. So we live in this tension all the time – at least until Jesus returns. The rest of the book looks, I believe, at living this tension in the different contexts Christians might find themselves in.

Christ & Culture Revisited: Critiquing Niebuhr, Part 1

The last of my Christ and Culture posts was March 8. I walked through most of Christ and Culture by H. Richard Niebuhr. (Search the Culture posts or go back to March 8 and trace them backwards, if you’re interested). In some of those summaries I leaned on the work done by DA Carson in his book Christ & Culture Revisited. Carson is grateful for Niebuhr’s work, but seeks to build on it. After spending his first chapter summarizing Niebuhr, his second chapter serves to correct Niebuhr. After this chapter, Carson will build his own theology of Christ and culture, but he takes at least two chapters (out of six!) to deal with Niebuhr’s seminal work because he recognizes it has framed the conversation for more than fifty years. This post will look at some issues in Niebuhr’s work – strengths and weaknesses. The next post will deal with how biblical theology needs to fit into the discussion of Christ and culture.

Carson applauds Niebuhr’s comprehensive spectrum while at the same time recognizing he is a man of his times, leaving out the Two-Thirds world perspective. Admitting Niebuhr can’t be blamed for writing fifty years ago, Carson does question his inclusion of Christ of Culture liberalism and Gnosticism. Quite simply, Carson says they go so far afield of confessional orthodoxy as set forth in the Bible that he finds it hard to call them Christian at all. He cites texts that make it clear orthodoxy and heresy did, indeed, matter in the early church (see Galatians 1.8-9; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4; 1 John). Carson concludes this section wondering if it should be a fourfold paradigm rather than five.

He next moves to Niebuhr’s use of Scripture. While it is noble that he attempts to ground each view in Scripture, he finds little to support Christ of Culture liberalism and he forces John’s gospel into Christ Transforms Culture Universalism. Carson takes him to task for making John say what he clearly did not say – and even Niebuhr recognizes John doesn’t go far enough in the end. This view gives up too much of the non-negotiables of biblical theology (next post).

Finally, Carson discusses the historical examples and canon. The point being that the historical examples don’t fit neatly into any of the five paradigms themselves and Niebuhr’s attempt to ground each of his examples in Scripture over-emphasizes a “canon within the canon.” Instead of picking an over-emphasis and running with it, Carson argues for a contextual approach that takes the engagement of Christ and culture from the perspective of the entire canon and letting that speak to the parameters of the engagement and letting the context decide which elements of the fivefold pattern should be used in a given situation.

Next … biblical theology!

Christ and Culture: Christ TRANSFORMS Culture (conversionist), part 2 (Historical Examples)

His historical example is St. Augustine (and he mentions John Calvin, too) who has a significant view of sin, but also looks forward to the transformation of culture in human history – and he was a key figure in the movement from a Caesar-centered Roman empire to Roman Christendom. Niebuhr states, “Christ is the transformer of culture for Augustine in the sense that he redirects, reinvigorates, and regenerates that life of man, expressed in all human works, which in present actuality is the perverted and corrupted exercise of a fundamentally good nature” (p. 209). Augustine’s conversionist trajectory, in Niebuhr’s view “set before men the vision of universal concord and peace in a culture in which all human actions had been reordered by the gracious action of God in drawing all men to Himself, and in which all men were active in works directed toward and thus reflecting the love and glory of God” (p. 215). But Augustine doesn’t go completely this way. He looks forward to an eternity with the elect and defends the church culture. He seems to think this curious given the groundwork he has laid for a conversionist theology.

His more contemporary proponent is a fellow named FD Maurice. He seems to be the one person closest to pursuing a legitimately conversionist perspective. Maurice believes that Christ is King and each man must respond to Him, but to focus on sin is to give it too much credit and to become self-contradictory because we are called to respond to Jesus our King (and do, whether they believe Him or not). Culture is good because it is always in relation to the Word and the attainable goal of the world is to shift from self-centeredness to Christ-centeredness. But given that sin is an illegitimate object of attention and Maurice views all of creation as good because it is related to the Word, I’m not sure how this doesn’t collapse into a universalism that avoids requiring people to come to terms with Jesus.

Anyone more familiar with this out there who can explain it better?

This is the last of the five perspectives from Niebuhr. I’ll read his post script, but I’m not sure if I’ll post on it. However, DA Carson critiques Niebuhr in light of biblical theology. I may give some highlights of that while Niebuhr is fresh in my mind. I hope this has been enjoyable for someone. I wish I could say it has been for me. Enjoyable or not, however, this is why I blog … so I can at least try to articulate some thoughts from all the books I read. If someone gets something out of it, great. If not, it’s been a good discipline for me.

Christ and Culture: Christ TRANSFORMS Culture (conversionist), part 1 (Theology)

This was the most difficult chapter for me to nail down what Niebuhr was trying to communicate. Carson reports that, since this is the only view he does not critique, some believe this is his view. There’s nothing articulated to this end; it’s just what some think. Each particular aspect seems clear, but they don’t seem to fit into a cohesive whole together. He does note that conversionists are much like dualists, except for the fact that they have a more hopeful view of culture.

This view is based on three theological convictions. First, God created the world as a prologue for redemption. It is good in and of itself. The next conviction is that sin has twisted or corrupted creation, but it is still essentially good. Finally, anything can happen in history because God is sovereign and eternal life is a quality of life now, not just eternity hereafter.

His biblical text is John’s gospel where the flesh/spirit dualism is broken down in light of the incarnation. The Word came, not to condemn the world, but to save it. While creation is essentially good, it has become “self-contradictory” and rejects life that God offers it. It is twisted and corrupt, but God wants to bring an eternal life to it. In fact, the eschatological future is made the eschatological present in John, according to Niebuhr (Carson 26). Niebuhr does recognize that John is not fully conversionist because there is clear particularism within the universalism that is also so prevalent.

This actually doesn’t seem too far from Luther’s view (dualist) – until we get to the historical examples. As this view distances itself from the dualist perspective it gets more confusing – at least for me.

Gospel in a Pluralist Society: The Bible as Universal History (ch. 8)

Newbigin notes, even through the words of a Hindu friend, that the Bible is history like nothing else. It makes unique claims and stands apart from other religious literature. Not only does it refer to history and dates and events, but it refers to a purpose and a future with a hope. This is indeed unique and, if the history unfolding as we speak has no purpose, our actions have no purpose. The biblical story shows us purpose and gives our actions meaning. This history is embedded in a particular people and we are to view our events through the perspective of these people as we participate with them in viewing our world through the text that interprets their experience (I find this perspective a little troubling). We use the biblical story to critique our own culture – as a competing plausibility structure. When we live “in” the biblical story and are a continuation of it, we live as people of hope, being chosen to live in the alternative plausibility structure to the world we live in.