I have a great deal of respect for both Dever and Keller and would love to hear your thoughts on the relationship between evangelism and 'renewing the culture.' I'll lay my cards out a little bit on this one. I think Dever accurately sees ultimate cultural renewal as being the work of God eschatologically (Rev. 21:23-24). Moreover, I tend to agree that the primary responsibility that Christ gives to the church is to makes disciples of all nations (Mt. 28:19-20).
I am afraid, however, of being reductionistic. We are called to love our enemies, seek their good, and prove the purity of our religion by caring for those in need (Mt. 5:43-47, James 1:27). Moreover, the early church was known for its care for the poor both within and outside their community (Acts 2:42-47). Can the imperatives of Christ be ignored?
I agree with Dever that the book of Revelation depicts culture spiraling out of control until it is renewed at the Second Coming and the inauguration of the New Heavens and the New Earth (Rev. 20-21). I agree, therefore, that we should focus most centrally on rescuing people from the coming judgment and making disciples of Christ. BUT, true disciples of Christ follow his commands (1 Jn. 1:6). These commands include being honest in our business practices, loving our enemies and seeking the welfare of the poor. Yes, I think disciple-making takes priority, but it seems to me that disciple-making should lead believers to bring the gospel into every area of life that they find themselves, that is, their culture.
Please help sharpen my thoughts on this important question if you have time.
12 comments:
I don't think they understood your question.
Oh, Matt's bringing out the big guns. =)
I do have some thoughts on this, unforunately they won't come out tonight. Maybe I can get them up tomorrow.
My word verification was Martiv: Is that a martyr on Mars?
Don't leave the two of us who actually read this blog hangin Scott.
Haha...that was Matt...how ironic
if by "two of us" you meant "three of us", i completely understand. This may be over simplified, and I gotta run so I won't ramble too much. Both the redemption of culture though living lives in obedience to Jesus and evangelism (also obedience to Jesus) are begotten by love for God in a born again human being, they're both wins, and should be happening together. I agree with Dever, that the redemption of culture will not happen until Jesus comes back. It also appears to me that the best way to actively redeem the culture is to share the gospel in words and deed, and pray that God would open hearts to recieve Jesus, be born again, and become culture redeeming gospel sharers.
The trouble comes when you try to define "sharing the gospel through deeds." By its very nature, the gospel is a message that must be heard (Rom. 10:14-15). So, then, do we have the right to prioritize with word over deed or do we obey both imperatives equally?
Thanks Andrea, that's twice as many that read mine. =) My response was delayed due my present responsibilities and massive time difference.
Aaron might have said what I plan to say in 1/3 of the words.
Cultural transformation is one place where the resurgence of Reformed Christianity and I arne't completely seeing eye to eye
Let me clarify that before the Keller/Driscoll disciples start circling. =) Transformation is something that Christians should be seeking. As those born of the Holy Spirit, it’s built into our spiritual DNA. The Spirit is renewing our minds and hearts to forsake sin and seek holiness and do good deeds. So it shouldn’t be any surprise we seek to stop abortion, give to missions, adopt orphans, use fair business practices (yes, that can include fair trade =P), do good to our neighbor, give to the poor, expose deeds of darkness, etc.
Where Keller and I don’t agree is here: (Well, I may only be diverging with his disciples and not Keller himself.) Is cultural transformation going to work? I believe that result is up to God. Maybe law intern Jack Harkness shows up to the most ruthless law firm in New York and because of the grace of God, he brings the Gospel to the partners, they repent of their sin, and claim Christ as their Lord. That place is transformed into one that becomes know for advocating the poor, doing pro bono work, and becomes known for its justice and fairness. And maybe Jack shows up, speaks about Jesus at lunch on day 4, and promptly gets fired.
In either case, Jack will be praised by God on the Last Day for his good deeds.
No matter how many Christians moved into the cities, or countryside, or Africa, cultural transformation is not guaranteed. What is guaranteed are saved, redeemed, souls who love Christ, their brothers and sisters, and their neighbors. God himself guarantees us that will happen.
I don’t want the church to go off on another wild goose chase like neo-evangelicalism has been doing. They want transformation and acceptance in the larger community, but I think they've given away the Gospel, the only thing that makes the church truly different. One quote I taken to heart is from a blog I frequent, “The Gospel is the solution to culture!”
I just don’t want overemphasis on culture. There’s a lot of talk out there in the circles that Keller, Driscoll, and even Dever frequent. We already have a hard enough time remembering and preaching the Gospel. We need mature Christians before we need cultural transformation. A transplanted tree takes time to put its roots into new soil. Once it grows and matures it provides much shade for the surrounding area.
Last thing, I promise. =) I don’t want Christians to be discouraged because they might not have an influence in any place. Live out your obedience to God in view of the Gospel of Christ. Nor do I want to discourage new and creative ideas like working in Haiti, Blood/Water mission or a thousand other examples.
Could it be that these two realms of obedience live best when they live together, and so emphasize each other?
I agree with both Aaron and Scott. Aaron is correct in pointing out that it is a false dichotomy to think that if we are going to embrace the ministry of the Word, then inevitably we must neglect the ministry of deed. I think this is part of the reason why God gave both the office of elder and deacon to the church. Of course, we must remember that the deacons' first priority is to care for the needs of the saints in the church and then the needs of our neighbors. Of course, beware of the false dichotomy.
I also agree with Scott that we can overemphasize cultural transformation to the point that we lose the centrality of the cross and resurrection and personal discipleship. The fact is that as Christians we do not like to be ridiculed and we are going to be ridiculed for sharing the gospel, not loving our city. Therefore, the temptation will be to drop the gospel. Again, this does not have to happen, but it often does.
Another concern of mine, is that in the missional/culture redeeming conversation international missions is often forgotten. We cannot lose our vision and action for the nations.
Cultural transformation may come as a result of Great Commission work, we pray for that, but I think that at the end of the day it is a result. Still, we must love our neighbors and our enemies.
Good words Matt, I really like how you brough up int'l missions.
I've been thinking the current trends of Christians in America. Right now we seem fixed on making high quality multimedia and film projects. These endeveours take a lot of manpower and resources. Though overseas is in my job description, it stills blows me away how far the American dollar goes.
I ask: Are we really been wise with our money by using it on multimedia? Sometimes it seems like another way to avoid the really easy, sometimes painful work of personal involved in the lives of others.
I think its a very relvant topic, espeically since some folks are call this the post-literature generation. Another sad reality. =(
Thoughts
Since Matt just chastised me about ignoring this post, I thought I would add a bit. Before I start, I need to say two things: 1) I didn't watch the video yet; 2) lately it seems that everything I've been learning has been about balance.
In regards to "redeeming" or "transforming" culture, I think it's helpful to use culture strategically to preach the gospel. That doesn't mean that we "fix" culture, but that we can enter into it to some degree and "speak the native language" in our preaching of Jesus. So, multimedia can be redeemed in the sense that it glorifies God. And, when you get into a "is this money best spent" debate, the answer is often unclear, or "yes" in both cases. Do people come to know Christ through multimedia? Sure. Would they come to know Christ if that money was spent in some other way to preach Jesus (forgive my lack of another example)? Sure. Would both glorify God? Absolutely. Therefore, I think both show money wisely spent. And, if people aren't coming to know and love Christ through either, then certainly I think you should reevaluate.
If we all step back and think about it, I think we'll see that the Christian life is incredibly complex and demanding. There's a lot to do. Our mission is enormous; but it's also our collective mission. By that I mean that we cannot do all things alone as individuals, we cannot do all things as a local church, and we cannot do all things as a national movement, etc. I think we should aim to be faithful to Jesus to the greatest extent in our context. If we have much, we need to be faithful with much; if we have little, we must be faithful with little.
I don't think Driscoll goes too far to say that there are parts of culture that need not be rejected, but can be transformed for Jesus-glorifying use. But, whether culture is transformed is, as was stated, up to God. As 2 Corinthians 2:14-17 so wonderfully expresses, we ought to be an aroma of Christ wherever we go, to be lovely to some and stinky to others. We should reek of Christ in our actions, but in all honesty, I don't think culture can be THOROUGHLY renewed until the Second Coming. I mean, read 1 Corinthians. Aren't we still dealing with the same sinful culture in slightly different garb 2000 years later - 2000 years of God's bride spreading to all parts of the planet? Throughout the Bible, God's people are called to be different from their surrounding cultures; and hidden in this is the assumption that culture is full of sin. It's going to be there. If culture could be thoroughly transformed, persecution would cease to exist, which doesn't seem biblically possible.
So, when I think of "renewing the culture," I lean to interpreting that as "renewing some cultural elements": we can take some parts of culture and use them to glorify God and preach the gospel. And, we need to know that we CAN glorify God through good deeds that are not preaching the gospel, but that doesn't mean we can throw away the preaching of the gospel. So, a good act done by a believer that does not involve preaching the gospel glorifies God; however a lifestyle full of good acts and devoid of the gospel would not be glorifying to God. You need both, and we should desire both. Whether either leads to salvation is up to God.
Finally, I'll end with an Ed Stetzer quote that I hope I never forget: "The most biblical church is the one where the cross is the only stumbling block to the unsaved." I believe he means that we should do as much as we can to make our churches accessible to non-believers (i.e. make them culturally relevant) without losing the cornerstone of Christ crucified for sin.
Any thoughts in response?
Oh, and I think our goal ought to be making disciples (individuals), not fixing culture. Though it seems like a good thing, I think such a focus is off the mark.
Post a Comment