Culture and Change

Culture and Change

"Mature Christians and Christians in places of responsibility, must summon the courage to distinguish, under the Holy Spirit, between unchangeable biblical truth and the things which have merely become comfortable for us. Often one hears people speak of "the simple gospel only," when in reality they do not really care enough... to face what preaching the simple gospel may mean in a changing and complex situation."

-Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There

I like this quote because implicit in it is the realization that there are both changeable and unchangeable parts in Christianity. Schaeffer saw that as the "changing and complex situation" we live in changed over time so too would Christianity have to change to fit it. Schaeffer wrote much about how he was afraid that Christianity did not see the changes in the world around it and so did not fully adjust itself to address those changes. In his mind this is a terrible thing because the Church continues to build up defenses on fronts at which there is no longer any battle raging, meanwhile other areas of the truth are under attack without anyone even seeing or fully understanding what is going on. But there is a danger here that it is clear that Schaeffer sees if you read the rest of the book, that is the danger of acting as though the church were a chameleon and is most truly fulfilling its calling when it fully blends in with its surroundings. As Christianity is in one sense changeable it is in another sense unchangeable. To embrace either one to the exclusion of the other is to risk either becoming irrelevant to the present culture or indistinguishable from it. In both cases the church loses the power to "preach the gospel in exactly the area where it is under attack," in which case "it has not preached the gospel at all." In the first scenario it loses that power because the culture has begun to ask different questions (and ask them desperately) than the church is holding out answers to. In the second scenario it loses its power because the church will begin speak with the voice of the culture, using all the same language but with the meaning of the words hollowed out to fit what the culture already values, and so it will be unable to awaken the world in any of the places where it sleepily walks toward slaughter.

So how does the church walk the line between the changeable and the unchangeable when "cliffs lie on either side," as Schaeffer said? He seems to say that the church must have the courage to look honestly at itself see those places where it is holding out a message that for any reason falls short of the full gospel. If that honest looks reveals something that needs to change, then the church must have the courage to make those changes. But in doing this it must avoid the danger of bowing to another master than God. The pitfall which is present if Christians begin to act as though the truth were entirely changeable is that something else becomes the master, something else begins to dictate what is true and how that truth must be lived out other than God’s revelation. The culture, however much it changes, must never hold supremacy. What our culture values at the time is not the grid by which we understand what scripture is saying or who God has revealed himself to be, the reverse is true. God’s revelation is the standard by which we judge what is true in culture and where culture has taken the truth and twisted it and begun to live by a different gospel.

At times parts of culture will agree with parts of Christianity, and at other times there will be sharp disagreement. The important thing is that we never make the mistake of marrying culture and Christianity in our minds and being more loyal to our own cultural biases than to the gospel. Yes, Christianity must be relevant to the culture that it exists in, but relevancy is not king; Christ is King. No cultural movement is the groom to which the church is promised, that place belongs to another and that is the promise the church must remain faithful to.

"God, use me!"

Have you ever stopped to think about the idea of praying for God to use you? This prayer is not an unusual one—in fact, Christians pray it all the time. The unusual thing is what we expect when we pray it (assuming that I’m not just speaking for myself on this one). Oftentimes we expect that God is going to provide us with this BIG thing. That he’s going to start working miracles through us, changing hearts and minds. However, this is rarely what happens. Usually what God brings us instead is a little opportunity to rejoice in some trying circumstance, or a little opportunity to love someone we know by representing Christ to him or her. When this happens, we get discouraged and upset that our “big thing” hasn’t come yet. However, the truth is that we are never promised a “big thing.” Instead, the Christian life (and the non-Christian life, for that matter) is made up of little things. Little opportunities to rely on God, little chances to display the character of Christ, little daily deaths as we humble ourselves when someone wrongs us or defames us or just pipes us off.

In John 12:24 Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” In this passage, Jesus was talking about himself, but it seems consistent with the whole of scripture that symbolically this is what must happen to us. We must “die to self.” Though this is a Christian cliché, it remains true. The question then becomes, What does it mean to die to self? The answer comes when we look at our view of God.

God is a personal God who is involved in all that we are part of daily. He is sovereign over all our circumstances and promises to “work all things together for the good of those who love him and are called according to His purposes” (Romans 8:28). Therefore, we should face the daily responsibilities, the daily trials, the daily interactions as they are directly placed in our lives by God. We should invest, even if it’s just in a small way, in everyone we know. We should truly care about the individual—no matter who they are—and desire for them to see the glory of the grace of God.

The next time I sit down to pray the “God, use me” prayer, I hope that I can meditate on the truth of John 12:24 and think about the ways that I can die to myself and choose to be humble and accept my daily interactions, struggles, and responsibilities in light of the truth of God’s sovereignty.

Predestination in Perelandra

I read C. S. Lewis's Perelandra for the first time this summer, and enjoyed it immensely. Among the many quotable passages, I found the following particularly interesting (I won't provide any context so as not to be accused of spoiling anything for those who haven't read it):

The thing still seemed impossible. But gradually something happened to him which had happened to him only twice before in his life. It had happened once while he was trying to make up his mind to do a very dangerous job in the last war. It had happened again while he was screwing his resolution to go and see a certain man in London and make to him an excessively embarrassing confession which justice demanded. In both cases the thing had seemed a sheer impossibility: he had not thought but known that, being what he was, he was psychologically incapable of doing it; and then, without any apparent movement of the will, as objective and unemotional as the reading on a dial, there had arisen before him, with perfect certitude, the knowledge "about this time tomorrow you will have done the impossible." The same thing happened now. His fear, his shame, his love, all his arguments, were not altered in the least. The thing was neither more nor less dreadful than it had been before. The only difference was that he knew—almost as a historical proposition—that it was going to be done. He might beg, weep, or rebel—might curse or adore—sing like a martyr or blaspheme like a devil. It made not the slightest difference. The thing was going to be done. There was going to arrive, in the course of time, a moment at which he would have done it. The future act stood there, fixed and unaltered as if he had already performed it. It was a mere irrelevant detail that it happened to occupy the position we call future instead of that which we call past. The whole struggle was over, and yet there seemed to have been no moment of victory. You might say, if you liked, that the power of choice had been simply set aside and an inflexible destiny substituted for it. On the other hand, you might say that he had [been] delivered from the rhetoric of his passions and had emerged into unassailable freedom. Ransom could not, for the life of him, see any difference between these two statements. Predestination and freedom were apparently identical. He could no longer see any meaning in the many arguments he had heard on this subject.

First, this is a great answer to someone who has concerns about predestination, right? "Don't worry—predestination and freedom are identical!"

Seriously, though, this passage raises some interesting questions (the first two more closely related than the third):

1. Is there any sense in which predestination and freedom are identical? (Or at least not in conflict?)
   
2. If they are identical (or merely compatible), how often do they coexist? Only in certain situations, like Ransom's above? In every situation, whether we realize it or not?
3. If you go with option #2 in the passage above ("he had been delivered from the rhetoric of his passions and had emerged into unassailable freedom"), does that shed any light on the sinless state that Jesus was (and is) supposed to have maintained, or that we at some point are supposed to reach?

Discuss amongst yourselves. Or, better yet, post a comment!

We can be Christians without believing in contradictions

I'd like to elaborate on a point Kermit made in his earlier post. I was reading the most recent issue of Touchstone Magazine and came across the following blurb:

I gave the last word in my dissertation to G. K. Chesterton. Part of the borrowed inscription was: "The ordinary man ... has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them."

I have always believed this; one cannot believe the Bible otherwise, nor can he be a Christian, for our faith is built upon the ultimate contradiction: the God-Man, and many others besides. [emphasis mine]

This strikes me as a dangerous idea. In the first place, there’s a world of difference between seeming contradiction (as in the Chesterton quote) and actual contradiction—the latter being something which I do not expect God would want us to embrace. (And by 'contradiction' I mean two claims such that at least one, but only one, is true. So, for example, "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" together produce a contradiction: one of them is true, but they can't both be true.)

At any rate, regarding the God-man: There is nothing inherently contradictory about someone being both God and man. There would, of course, be a contradiction inherent in someone claiming to be solely God while being solely man. But nowhere does the Bible claim that about Jesus, and the apparent contradiction of the God-man, I would argue, can be resolved through careful study and theology (with a little help from philosophy).

I think Chesterton is right that we hold on to two things we know to be true; but instead of endorsing the idea that our faith is built upon a contradiction, let us look for a way to resolve the contradiction, while staying true to the received theological tradition, and so strengthen our witness to those who face intellectual barriers to the faith.

How can there be just one way to God?

After our discussion this past Sunday night at Bible study about the exclusivity of Christianity, I felt that I should write a blog about it. If you weren’t there, we started a new series on “Some Common Objections Considered” where we are looking at some of the toughest objections against Christianity. This week we talked about one of the most common objections: how can you believe that Christianity is the only way to God? What about all the other religions? Isn’t that arrogant and offensive to believe such a thing? Another way this objection is often put is this: it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere. All religions are essentially the same and all the paths lead to the same God. We talked about the most common illustration used by adherents to this objection: the 3 blind men and the elephant. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant and describes it differently (one says the elephant is long and flexible because he’s touching the trunk and the other that it is broad and flat because he’s touching the side, etc.), but they are all describing the same thing. So the illustration leads us to believe that all the religions are somewhat right and somewhat wrong but no one has the whole truth. It leads us to think that no religion has the right to look at the others and say they are the only right one. What can we affirm about this objection to Christianity? Several things: certainly that peace, tolerance, and inclusion is a good thing to strive for. Certainly that many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. Also we must say that religion in general does divide people because it produces pride in the heart that we have performed the truth and others have not. We should be quick to affirm that this objection corrects a Western cultural arrogance toward all things not Western in the past. We should also be quick to affirm that many religions do share certain ideas and concerns. But ultimately, I think we must gently and respectfully challenge this objection to Christianity based on several things. First, it requires us to uphold ideas that are completely contradictory as equally true which contradicts logic. For instance A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time. Christianity says that Jesus is the only way to God and the Savior of the world whom we must believe in to receive eternal life, but Islam says that Jesus is only the fifth of six great prophets, not as great as Mohammed. It says that Jesus was only a good teacher and the way to salvation is through submission to the will of Allah. These things cannot both be true at the same time. Ultimately, we must say that 2 + 2 = 4 and not 5, 6, or 7. Any truth claim is by nature exclusive because it says that the opposite truth claim cannot be true at the same time and the same way. So we must acknowledge that this is not just a problem with Christianity but with any religion, or worldview for that matter, because they are all by nature exclusive. Second, if in our effort to promote peace, respect, and unity, we say that all religions are essentially the same, we actually do great violence to each individual religion. What I mean by this is that to say that all religions are essentially the same, you would have to gut each religion of major teachings, even to the point where that religions own followers could hardly recognize what is left. Again, if you say that Jesus is just a great teacher of morals as all the other religious teachers are (Mohammed, Buddha, etc.), then you are tearing out the very heart of Christianity which says that Jesus was not just a great teacher but God come in the flesh and to pay the penalty for our sins. In other words, the cost of this kind of unity is radical disrespect to each tradition. Is that really what we want to do? Lastly, the inclusivism that at first seems so humble and peace-promoting is actually just a “covert exclusivism” (see Dr. Tim Keller’s talk on “Exclusivity: How can there be just one true religion?”). What I mean by this is that for us to say that all religions lead to the same God would mean that we would have to believe that God is an impersonal force who really doesn’t care what we believe or how we worship him or choose to live. In actuality, this is a very narrow view of God and who He is; it necessarily excludes Christianity, Islam, and Judaism because of their beliefs in a personal God who does make certain demands of us (which, by the way, is excluding a huge chunk of the world’s population). And by asserting this view as the one true view of God that trumps all others, it seeks to convert us to its view just as any other religion does. Though they often say how arrogant it is to say that only one religion could be true, those who hold this view (even though many don’t realize it) are in actuality saying that only their view is ultimately true. So, what at first looks inclusive is, in reality, just as exclusive as any other truth claim. That leads me to my conclusion: all truth claims and religions and faith statements are by nature exclusive – we can’t get away from it. So the real question is: which exclusive truth claim will you and I believe and why? Which truth claim, as we consider them, is most intellectually credible and experientially satisfying? Which religion will by it’s necessarily exclusive beliefs best lead us to be the kind of people the world needs – people who love their enemies, pray for those who persecute them, and center our reality on a God who actually dies for and forgives those who kill Him? I submit that Christianity is the best answer.

The Slander of J.K. Rowling

With great shame and sadness, I have witnessed the church's reactions to the Harry Potter books over the last several years. This isn't so much a blog to defend the Harry Potter books- although I have read them all and will read the seventh one after it comes out tomorrow night. The Bible clearly calls witchcraft a sin- particularly looking to a supernatural power to control the circumstances of life for your benefit rather than looking to God. This is the story of I Samuel 28. The question is can stories that exist in a world where people use magical powers be edifying and appropriate for Christians. First, let me ask for consistency. If it's the use of magic that makes the Harry Potter books bad, then Disney movies, fairy tales, the Lord of the Rings, and the Chronicles of Narnia must also be regarded in like manner. The reality is all of these stories exist in worlds where we realize people have certain powers given to them that we don't have. We don't feel encouraged to try to seek out the wardrobe to find Narnia, nor to build orbs that will allow us to see as far as our wills will allow us, or to summon fairy godmothers. What these situations do is illuminate how people use the power they are given. Also, in the Harry Potter stories, the magic is taking place in an alternate universe that coincides with our own real world- much in the way that occurs in The Chronicles of Narnia. I don't want to go more into the biblical view of magic, imagination, and stories. Because in the attacks on JK Rowling, the author of the series, by Christians, they have not focused here. Instead, they have participated in the spread of lies to attack her character. In an article in the satirical, fictional, comedic paper, The Onion, they report how the Harry Potter books have increased the enrollment into satanism and quote several kids who are inspired by the characters of the story and demean Jesus Christ. Then, they even quote JK Rowling as even saying that she wants to lead people away from Jesus. This is all very satirical. The problem is that Christians have taken those quotes and spread them as real. There are websites that post them as if they are true. One sight claimed that the initials of JK stand for Jesus Killer. I have heard people tell them that they heard that Rowling's intentions were to have evil and darkness triumph in the end of series. On the eve of the seventh book coming out, I would be shocked if that were the case. This has been what has embarrassed and made me ashamed for the church. Nowhere is a Christian allowed to spread lies and slander about anyone in the Bible. Ephesians 4:31 says, "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you." Christians are called to point out things they disagree with, and to point out and warn against dangerous ideas that are in our culture, but never is a Christian allowed to show disrespect towards another human being or to communicate in an unloving way with someone. In an age of increasing celebrity tabloidism when we feel free to comment on the lives of assorted movie and music stars, it's easy to de-personalize celebrities- to treat them as if they are not someone's daughter, someone's mother, much less a being created in the image of God. Our human sinfulness always wants to make ourselves superior to other people. It's easy to do that with celebrities by assuming the worst about them and cutting them down with our friends. Shame on us. We must always speak about people, even celebrities, as if they were in the room with us- in a way that expresses love and concern for them as a person. Let us all be quick to listen and slow to speak- even about people we might disagree substantially with.

Living Counter-Culturally for the Kingdom of God...

Last night at the Artisan we talked about our culture's idols. I'd like to revisit that discussion and carry it forward in another direction. To catch up, at the Artisan we talked about how idolatry doesn't always look like golden calves and burning things on altars, and if we limit our search to those "idols" we will miss all the ways our culture and our own selves worship things other than God every day. An idol is anything that displaces God as the center of worship. Idolatry is asking created things to give us that which is only to be found in the Creator. It is bowing down and turning over the practical, everyday rule of our lives to lesser things than Christ.

I once heard a story about a pastor who went to India and had a conversation with the wife of a pastor planting a church there. He asked her if she would ever consider coming to America and visiting it. Her response was that she did visit once and never will again because she could not stomach the idolatry she saw there. Mind you, as they were having this conversation they were in a place where there were idols lining the streets, with blood and chicken feathers everywhere, and it was in that environment that she said that she would not return to America because she could not stomach the idolatry she saw there.

Idolatry is something we see elsewhere, but when we look around at ourselves we just think of it as entertainment, as climbing the ladder of success, as providing our security, as sport and hobby, as luxury and comfort, as efficiency. We do not see it as idolatry, but sometimes it is.

The idols of our culture might reveal themselves in what we sacrifice for. Or perhaps in what we spend our resources for. What is upheld as a valuable life in our culture? What is seen as a wasted life? What is our culture most proud of? What is heaven according to the culture? What would be hell?

Christians are called to worship the true God only and always, and as they fulfill that calling at times they will stand out from the surrounding culture that does not share that value, but worships and serves other gods. This "standing out" has always been a part of God's plan for his people, that they might be a light to the surrounding world, that they might live after the truth and be a demonstration of that truth to all who see.

My question is this: how are we to follow that calling in our culture today? How do we live counter-culturally and display what the worship of the true God looks like in this generation? Think about how you have answered that question in your life and then if you have something to add to the discussion, post a reply on this thread.

Blog Post #1: Introductions

Welcome to the first official blog posting on the first official Veritas blog...

I suppose a good place to start with this blog is with the vision of what we want this blog to be, so here it is: (in no particular order)

1. We want this blog to be an extension of the discussion of things we are talking about in Veritas (at the weekly meeting, in Bible studies, from books we are reading, etc.). A weblog gives everyone opportunities to speak that aren't always possible sitting in an auditorium. We can all go home and digest the things we will be talking about and then have the time to sit down and articulate questions we still have and then use the blog to continue the conversation. And so everyone profits from things that people in the community are learning.

2. The Veritas staff and others will be posting things that we are learning or thinking about every now and then whether they have to do with things that we are talking about at the Veritas meetings or not. Anything is fair game in these posts: book/movie reviews and discussions, posts about things happening in culture, things God has been doing in the community or teaching us in our lives, etc.

3. The rest of this list is up to you, I suppose. We are excited about the potential of this site and where it will go in the future. We hope God uses the conversations on it to help people to understand and embrace the gospel more and more as we seek God's truth for all of life.

More is coming... looking forward to much conversation.