I read an interesting news article from the Associated Press the other day, involving Christianity and interaction with culture. I have reproduced it below, and you can find a direct link HERE.

Kids’ Dress-Up Day Draws Christian Ire

REEDSBURG, Wis. (AP) — An elementary-school event in which kids were encouraged to dress as members of the opposite gender drew the ire of a Christian radio group, whose angry broadcast prompted outraged calls to the district office.

Students at Pineview Elementary in Reedsburg had been dressing in costume all last week as part of an annual school tradition called Wacky Week. On Friday, students were encouraged to dress either as senior citizens or as members of the opposite sex.

A local resident informed the Voice of Christian Youth America on Friday. The Milwaukee-based radio network responded by interrupting its morning programming for a special broadcast that aired on nine radio stations throughout Wisconsin. The broadcast criticized the dress-up day and accused the district of promoting alternative lifestyles.

“We believe it’s the wrong message to send to elementary students,” said Jim Schneider, the network’s program director. “Our station is one that promotes traditional family values. It concerns us when a school district strikes at the heart and core of the Biblical values. To promote this to elementary-school students is a great error.”

Schneider co-hosts “Crosstalk,” a nationally syndicated call-in Christian radio show.

After the program aired, both the school and Reedsburg School District office were flooded with calls complaining about the event.

The response surprised Principal Tammy Hayes, who said no one had raised any objections beforehand. She said a flier detailing Wacky Week had been sent home with children the prior week, and an announcement was also included in teacher newsletters.

The dress-up day was not an attempt to promote cross-dressing, homosexuality or alternative gender roles, district administrator Tom Benson said.

“The promotion of transgenderism — that was not our purpose,” Benson told the Baraboo News Republic. “Our purpose was to have a Wacky Week, mixing in a bit of silliness with our reading, writing and arithmetic.”

The theme for Friday’s dress-up day came from students, Hayes said.

“It’s different every year. They basically present the ideas, and they vote on what they would like from Monday through Friday,” Hayes said. “… They did not mean anything by this day. They were trying to have fun and come up with a fun dress-up day.”

About 40 percent of the student body dressed up Friday, Hayes estimated, with half portraying senior citizens and half dressing as the opposite sex.

“I can assure you we will not be having this day (again),” Hayes said.

Reedsburg is in southern Wisconsin, about 60 miles northwest of Madison.

Now, there are a couple noteworthy points here. First, look at the radio network’s declaration, “Our station is one that promotes traditional family values.” For my British readers (and Americans not in the political loop), these are a huge buzzwords in the American political arena right now. The Republican Party touts itself as the “traditional family values” party, luring the Christian Church into its fold. The Democratic Party has taken the bait; rather than exploiting this weakness and catering to Christians and everyone alike, Democrats have reactively defined themselves as the “areligious” party. As a result, the evangelical church- the Body of Christ in North America- has completely blinded itself in its pursuit in the political sphere, wedding herself to the Republican party, and divorcing herself of her Bridegroom- Jesus Christ.

This has resulted in a Constantinian model of ‘Christendom’: trying to “take back America for Jesus,” or “get back to America’s Christian roots.” America’s founding fathers were deists and freemasons. And as students of history will recall, the Christian Church tried this once when it married itself to Constantine’s Roman Empire. The result ultimately lead to a model carried through to the Middle Ages, also known as the Dark Ages- known by this dismal name for this very reason. The fruit of this model was campaigns such as the “Holy” Crusades. Didn’t Jesus said that those that live by the sword would die by the sword?

Do Christians want to take over the government, and make the 10 commandments the law of the land? Does this sound like Jesus, or does this perhaps ring more in tune with Muhammad?

Back to the article: Is this really an issue over, or an attack upon, traditional family values? And to use the words of the station, is this event genuinely “striking at the heart and core of Biblical values”? Is this a legitimate concern, or is this fundamentalist overreaction? Bear in mind, this is elementary school children, meaning under the age of 10. Also, it is the children themselves that came up with the themes for the Wacky Week; not some liberal adult agenda. For the icing on the cake, there was a flier sent home before the event altogether. If Christian parents are so concerned for their children, where was the attention and worry over the flier beforehand?

Perhaps it is the Republican Christians that have converted this into an adult agenda.

*****

Jesus was not a Republican. Jesus was not a Democrat. Conversely, the Democratic Party is not Christian, and neither is the Republican Party Christian. Neither of these parties honor Jesus in all that they do. Yes, Christians should be concerned with issues like abortion- but likewise, Jesus said to care for the poor of society. Is this something the Republicans are well-known for?

Neither party has a monopoly on morality. Christians need to divorce the State and reclaim their Bridegroom. Christians proclaim “Jesus as Lord,” not “Republicans for President.” Likewise, the Democratic Party needs to wise up- you’ve been suckered into the trap.

Jesus is interested in changing the hearts of men and women in their everyday lives. The Old Testament Law was about imposing law over people to live up to. Jesus is about changing the hearts of the people themselves, to then walk out the transformed life (the same life that the law tried to get people aspire to, to begin with). Ultimately, Christians do need to be salt and light in influencing their governments, and this is very important. But government is not the chief focus of Jesus, or the Church.

This is why Jewish believers didn’t think Jesus was the true Messiah- they were expecting an earthly King, like King David, to overthrow the Roman Empire and establish his Messianic Rule on earth forever.

Jesus is King over his Kingdom, and reigns in the hearts of the people themselves. It’s not an earthly kingdom. It doesn’t have geographical boundaries, it knows no ethnicity or nationality. It is not tied to a political party. Jesus does not establish a governing structure and rules to live by, but rather says “Love God, and love your neighbor.”

Christianity is not about religion, it is about loving and following Jesus.

-ACR

“Oh, have mercy on me and tell me, oh Lord my God, what you are to me. Say to my soul, ‘I am your salvation.’ Say it loudly enough that I may hear.” -Augustine, 398 A.D.

I have been reading Augustine’s reflections lately, his popular “Confessions.” Augustine is called the father of theology, and is renown as one of the greatest and most influential men in the development of Christian thought. However, Augustine was also a very passionate and moving writer. He often interjects poetic praise in the midst of his thoughts, and it creates a very intimate and engaging atmosphere in his work.

Before becoming such a strong pillar of the faith, he also lived a life of self-admitted depravity. He came to the city of Carthage, which was infamous for its lavish lifestyle of hedonism. He has some very interesting thoughts on the culture, which I found interesting. It is reproduced here in abridged form, below:

To Carthage I came. There I put my ear to the cauldron and heard from within and all around a song of unholy loves.

I did not love, but I loved the thought of love.

And in the depths of my desires, I detested the fact that I could not love more. I looked for something to love, in my love of loving. I hated safety and wanted no path that did not have its snares.

The reason was that inside me there was a famine of inward food. I was starving for You, my God. This was not the sort of famine in which I realized my hunger. Indeed I lacked any longing for incorruptible sustenance, not because I had been filled with it, but because I was empty and loathed it. As a result, my soul became feeble and full of sores.

In misery my soul cast about, seeking sensual objects that could scratch where the pox itched. Yet there was no love to be found. None of these things had a soul, so they could not be objects of love. Outwardly my great vanity appeared refined and sophisticated. So I fell head first into the love that I had so wanted to be captured by.

***

The theater enchanted me with its images of my own miseries. Its plays added fuel to my fire. What makes someone want to be made sad? Why behold doleful tragedies, vicariously experiencing what does not have to be suffered? Yet the spectator wants to feel sorrow at the stories, and this very anguish is pleasure. This seems to be wretched insanity. As more false emotion is elicited by what happens on stage, there is less freedom for one’s own true feelings.

How odd that when one suffers personally, it is called “misery.” When it is vicarious, it is styled as a sort of mercy. How is it compassion to feel made-up emotions about imaginary acts? The one who watches is not called on to help relieve pain, but only to grieve. More applause is given to the actor who can elicit more grief. If the calamities depicted (whether historical or just made up) do not move the spectator to tears, he goes away disgusted and criticizing. If he is moved to passion, he watches intently and weeps for joy.

Do we really love to grieve? Certainly all want to have joy. No one wants to be miserable. So perhaps it is that we are pleased if we can act with merciful affection. Since mercy cannot exist without passion, we stir our passions for this reason alone.

***

So shall we avoid all feelings of compassion? Certainly not, nor is it wrong to take up grief out of affection. But be careful of that temptation to impurity. Oh my soul, whose guardian is the exalted God of my fathers, beware of impurity.

However much someone may be commended for loving others enough to share their misery, genuine compassion is not about looking for some excuse to feel sad. Sorrow is permitted human beings, but it is not to be desired if we would be like You, Lord God.

It was a sign of my desolation that I loved theatrical emotions, and looked for occasions to empathize with fake, impersonated misery. So I loved acting and was attracted to the stage with a passion, even though performances stirred only tears.

Is it any wonder that this straying, hapless sheep, who was dissatisfied with your shepherding, was infected with a foul disease? Since I had come to love unhappiness, why shouldn’t an occasion for it sink deep into me? I didn’t care what I looked at, and it didn’t matter that I was listening to fictions that only scratched the surface of real life. And so it was as if infected claws scratched my skin and left inflamed, swollen wounds and putrid sores. Was such an existence really a life, oh my God?

Augustine here highlights the fascinating trend of existentialism that exists inherently within the human condition. Without God, life is emptiness, and there is no hope for humanity. Mankind, in its Fallen state, cannot be but shackled in its prison of sin. Augustine elsewhere writes, “I fear my own self-deception, for my corrupt heart lies even to itself.” Paul writes in his letter to Rome, speaking of man in his natural state, “No one is righteous, not one. No one understands, no one seeks after God.”

To bring Augustine’s contemplations to today, what relevance do these thoughts bear on our own contemporary context? With particular note to his dealings with the dramas and plays, how does this speak to our current trend of films and sensationalist, engulfing forms of media?

Do we similarly in our culture stir our passions unnecessarily, and does this speak to something deeper that our passions and empathy are intended for? Is this behaviour indicative of a greater purpose, that in our fallen nature, has been tainted and corrupted by our abuse?

I thought this was interesting, and simply figured I would share.

-ACR

EDIT:  I have found a great article discussing modern films in holistic manner.  Here is an excerpt:

Consider this graphic Hollywood plotline: A man travels to Las Vegas to retrieve his cheating wife. On the way back to Los Angeles, the two stop at a rundown motel in Death Valley. During the night, a mob of sexual degenerates surrounds their cabin, threatening to sodomize the man. Hoping to appease the bloodlust, the man throws his wife outside—and when morning comes, the mob has left nothing of her but a corpse. The man cuts up her body and sends pieces of it to his friends… But that’s nothing compared to the bloodbath that follows.

No, this isn’t the synopsis for Saw IV or the latest Quentin Tarantino gore-fest. It’s an update of a not-so-familiar biblical story from Judges 20-21. But imagine if that story were made into a film. How the critics would rant, Christian and otherwise. If told without flinching, the story would earn an NC-17 rating for sure; and there’s probably no way to tell it in a fashion that would cut the rating to PG-13. Of what possible redemptive value could such a story be?

You can read the full article HERE.

This post is strictly theological in nature, without overt points regarding culture.

A Brief History

Throughout the course of history, one doctrine that has come into question in circles is the doctrine of “inherited sin,” or “original sin.” The most memorable case was in the 5th century with Pelagius, who outright denied the doctrine in its entirety. Pelagius taught that man did not inherit Adam’s default sinful nature, but inherited temptation, and had to live and walk accordingly. The ultimate implication of this belief was that man, in his semi/non-Fallen state, had the capacity and capability to contribute his own faith and belief to Jesus’ work of redemption on the cross. Salvation was attained by man utilizing his free, non-corrupt mind and heart, and giving them over to Christ.

This drew sharp criticism from Augustine (a man who you did not want to draw sharp criticism from). He fought vehemently against Pelagius’ teachings, arguing that man not only has an inherited sinful nature, but that this has made him entirely corrupt, not capable of pleasing or following God. So persuasive and strong were Augustine’s arguments, the Council of Carthage adopted them as orthodox and discounted Pelagius as a heretic.

Next, Semi-Pelagianism arrives. This line of thought differs from Pelagianism in its presuppositional rejection of inherited sin. However, the practical implications are carbon-copied from its predecessor, arguing that in spite of the Fall, man is still capable of pleasing or following God, so long as he gives over his life to Christ.

Fast forward to the Reformation. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others ignited the explosive movement, and Protestant Christianity was steadily progressing. A minority of thinkers, followers of the deceased leader Jacobus Arminius, were unhappy with the official doctrines of the newly established church (read: Calvinism). They submitted for review the “Five Articles of Remonstrance,” which argued for what is now called Arminianism. These five articles proposed ideas bequeathed from Semi-Pelagianism, and mirrored it upon scrutiny.

In order to review the five articles, the church assembled the Synod of Dort. The synod was composed of significantly over one hundred leaders (154) 102 leaders, gathered from across Europe, even including a small number of non-Christians. The agenda was to scour the scriptures in light of the views held by Arminians, and see if their views reflected the teachings of scripture. This process was not hurried, and a prolonged seven months were dedicated to this task.  (EDIT: The Synod met for 154 sessions during this 7 months [not 154 members, as I had mixed up my numbers].)

The result was that the Synod was not able to reconcile the teachings of the Arminians with the Bible. As a result, the Synod drafted up five rebuttal points against the five Arminian points, now known as the “Five Points of Calvinism.” However, as has been pointed out in the past, theologizing in a reactionary manner is not always the most appropriate; beginning with scripture would be more suitable. (As a noteworthy aside, many nominal Calvinists are “four point” Calvinists, most often struggling with Limited Atonement. Perhaps this strong consensual hesitation on this point can be attributed to this “reactive” method of developing the doctrine, and it needs to be reconsidered. On the other hand, perhaps students of Reformed theology simply need to take the study further on the subject.)

Preface

Let me preface these thoughts with an interjection. Many people insist that the soteriological debate over Calvinism/Arminianism is fruitless. To a certain degree, I think this is true. Most people, when discussing polarizing issues, simply become more polarized. However, when discussing other related issues into which these are interwoven, more productive discussion can result. There are important implications for the everyday life of the Christian that are involved with these two camps. Arminians rightly contend that Calvinism, in its unbridled form, can degenerate into a slothful fatalism. However, biblical Calvinism is irreconcilable with this, and does not encourage this type of ultimate end.

Likewise, Arminianism teaches that Christians are capable of losing their salvation. Salvation is dependent on the effort of the believer, not on the sustaining work of God. This has vast, dangerous implications for everyday life. It is noteworthy that not all Arminians hold to this point.

As another foreword, I do not intend for this to become a polarizing, Calvinism/Arminianism debate. To deal this directly with the issue will not yield fruitful discussion. Rather, my intended audience are those who already subscribe to the Reformed tradition, or open-minded Arminians who are interested in these thoughts.

An Hypothesis

J. I. Packer made the point that Calvinism is not so much five points, but one thesis expressed in five facets; the sovereignty of God, even within the innermost workings of salvation. I would likewise contend that Arminianism ultimately argues for the sovereignty of man, which is a fundamental point for my further developments.

Here are my thoughts in a progressive, bulleted format.

1) In the Fall of man, sin tainted humanity to its very essence and core. Every facet and element of man was tarnished by the effects of sin. This includes not only the morality of man, with a new disposition toward evil rather than good, but also in the rationale of man; man does not have the power to rationalize to the truth. “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). One of the by-products of sin is self-focused, man-centred thought- in contrast to God-centered and God-focused thought, as intended in creation.

2) Even in the New Testament era, education was highly esteemed and elevated. Greek education found its beginning and end in focusing on man, whilst Hebrew education found its source and fulfillment in God (Marvin Wilson, “The Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith,” p.291). The entirety of Western civilization is built on the foundations of the Greeks, finding its roots in Hellenistic philosophy, thought, and society. This is manifested in modern period movements such as Rationalism, Humanism, Naturalism, and Darwinism.

3) In biblical study and theologizing, man applies this same human rationale to the study of the scriptures. This fallen, man-centered worldview is the lens through which man applies himself to God’s Word. Without careful deliberation, this unintentionally develops into a man-centred, man-focused theology, whereby man is the fulcrum and crux of salvation.

4) Therefore, Arminianism is the fruit of a Fallen hermeneutic and man-centered worldview. It selfishly argues for the sovereignty of man, over and against the sovereignty of God. This can be seen by each of the Five Points of Remonstrance, summarized as the inverse of Calvinism’s “T.U.L.I.P.”

***

I realize that this isn’t a popular topic of discussion, and even less popular will be this assertion. There is a degree of credibility to a dialectical approach, whereby one upholds simultaneously the paradoxical truths of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. While this has its attractiveness, and is always at least a possibility, Christian exegesis all the way back through Luther to Augustine has yielded the former proposition; that God is sovereign, and salvation is an undeserved gift of grace.

Arminianism is a result of the Fall, and is an interpretive lens applied to scripture that is unintentionally man-focused. This develops into a man-centered soteriology that is ultimately outside of the holistic picture of scripture.

-ACR

“As the two great books, of nature and of scripture, have the same author, so the study of the latter does not hinder an inquisitive man’s delight in the study of the former” - Robert Boyle, The Excellency of Theology Compared with Natural Theology, 1674

Louis Berkhof made the point in his Systematic Theology that God’s self-revelation to man is the prerequisite for any knowledge of him. Theologians have identified two methods and means by which God bestows this knowledge: general revelation and special revelation.

General revelation is God’s revelation to all man through all things, as displayed in creation itself. “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Rom 1:19-20a, ESV). Creation itself is wrought by the hands of God, and as such is a display and testimony to the Creator.

“Special revelation” is the theological term used to refer to God’s more explicit revelation of himself to man. This includes his appearances to man, such as his communion with Moses,but most notably the text through which this knowledge is transmitted to us: the Bible. The scriptures are God’s special, divine revelation of himself to man. Contained within we can see God’s great overarching plan for humanity, unfolding in our midst, to which we have been called to be a part of. This special revelation does not make it to everyone before they pass their time on earth, which is why it is important for the church to spread the gospel to the nations.

In recent history, there has been a misunderstanding of the role that creation plays in our understanding of God. With the rise of Darwinism, the Church has reactively defended the traditional view of the Creation account, and rightly so. Evolutionary theory developed enough that science, as a discipline, rejects the notion of a Creator-God. However, this defense of Creationism by the Church escalated into a hostility toward science as a whole, and formed a dichotomy between the truth as revealed in scriptures, and the truth as presented by science. One is forced to choose between science or faith- and the two are, as argued, irreconcilable. I stand in the line of many before me, proposing that this tension is a false dichotomy.

Science as a discipline makes its aim to study the universe, or what the Christian would call Creation, in every form and shape that it takes. This can be physics, biology, psychology, sociology; each and every facet of scientific exploration. However, for the Christian, this study is on the subject of God’s Creation, and likewise his General Revelation. Therefore, any study conducted rightly and properly, will yield knowledge that is profitable and instituted by God.

With this point in mind, there should be no hesitation on the part of the Christian to accept science. On the contrary, science should be embraced and endeavored more rigorously by Christians than any others! Science, when conducted rightly and properly, will ultimately only reveal what God created there from the very beginning. It is important to note the disclaimer of “when conducted properly,” because Christians need to weigh scientific findings against scripture, and science also changes its hypotheses as data and observations change over time.

For example: Christians have always maintained that the universe had a beginning and origin. Years ago, scientists rejected this idea, and argued that the universe was the ultimate constant; it had no beginning or end. As researched progressed, the evidence and data pointed to the opposite fact: that indeed, the matter in the universe was moving and expanding, and that it had an origin and starting point. This is now the scientific consensus known as the “Big Bang.” However, Christians maintained this truth in the midst of science’s incorrect findings.

Let me offer the opposite situation: In 1616, Galileo was proposing a new idea that shook the world. He proposed that the earth was not the center of the universe, and that the sun did not revolve around the earth. Through his studies in astronomy, he concluded that the opposite was the truth. The Christian Church was outraged, because this went against the “teachings of scripture.” Psalm 104:5 says, “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “the sun rises and sets and returns to its place.” Galileo was brought before the Pope as a heretic, and forced to recant his teachings. However, this is clearly simply a misinterpretation of scripture, written from a terrestrial vantage-point, interpreted literally when the text is poetic.

Christians have been on both sides of the fence. Special revelation is the ultimate authority, and acts as a guide for the study of God’s general revelation. However, the study of God’s general revelation can offer insight into the interpretation of the scriptures.

Science is the ultimate authority of secular culture, much in the same way that the scriptures are the chief measure for the Christian. Dialogue needs to be made by the discerning Christian to reconcile these two, and abolish the false dichotomy that fundamentalist Christianity has created.

Some Discussion points:

On Theology- “Old Earth Creationism” and “Young Earth Creationism.” Was the earth made in six, literal 24-hour time periods, 10,000 years ago? Was the earth made billions of years ago, as current understanding of science suggests (general revelation), and each “day” was a poetic time period?

On Culture- (1) Evolution. Is this the next Galileo? Is science interpreting the data correctly? Is the data even present?

(2) Intelligent Design. Should it be fought for in schools? Is it for the private sector, or public sector?

These are just to start some ideas flowing. Feel free to take the dialogue in any direction that you are interested in.

Faith and science are not at odds with one another. Christians should embrace science, as it continues to shed more light and corroborate God’s revelation in scripture. As discussed in the comments so far, “All truth is God’s truth.” The pursuit for truth should be advocated in every arena, so long as the conclusive findings are balanced and guided by God and his revelation.

-ACR

“And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.” - Stephen the Martyr, Acts 7:22

Further Reading: Alister McGrath, ‘Christian Theology,’ pp. 116-120. “The Theology of the Relation of Christianity and Secular Culture.”

For anyone looking for an introduction to Christian Theology, Alister McGrath’s book is by far the best I have encountered. Most volumes on theology are systematic theologies, and are overviews of what the Bible teaches on different doctrinal subjects (creation, salvation, baptism, etc). The unique thing about McGrath is that his is a blend of both systematic theology, and also historical theology; that is, an account of what theologians of history have written on subjects as well (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Barth, etc). In his introduction, he writes that his intention is not to persuade the reader as to what to believe (systematic), but rather to introduce the reader to what has been believed (historical).

His book has three sections: (1) Church History (Patristic, Middle Ages, Reformation, and Modern), (2) Sources and Methods of Theology (General & Special Revelation, Theology & Philosophy, etc), and (3) Systematic Theology. Click on the photo to see a very thorough online text of the book.

I decided that since the main overarching theme of this blog is to discuss theology, and the Christian Church’s interaction with culture, it would be suiting to hit this topic first. The first question that one must approach is the method in which the two interact. H. Richard Niebuhr outlined five historical means by which the Church has interacted with contemporary culture in the past. Here is a summary of his outline, as noted by Alister McGrath:

1. “Christ Against Culture.” This view encourages opposition, total separation, and hostility toward culture. The values of the Kingdom of God, on this view, stand in contrast to those of the world. Anabaptists stressed the need to form alternative Christian communities, often in rural areas. They refused to have anything to do with secular power or authority, rejecting the use of force.
2. “Christ Of Culture.” This approach is more or less the direct opposite of the previous view, in that it attempts to bring culture and Christianity together, regardless of their differences. A world-affirming approach can be found in nineteenth-century German liberal protestantism, which tended to amalgamate German culture with Christian ideals. Liberal Protestantism was inspired by the vision of a humanity which was ascending upwards into new realms of progress and prosperity. The doctrine of evolution gave new vitality to this belief.
3. “Christ Above Culture.” This position attempts to correlate the fundamental questions of the culture with the answer of Christian revelation. The famous maxim of Thomas Aquinas can be seen as underlying this approach: “Grace does not abolish nature, but perfects it.”
4. “Christ and Culture in Paradox.” This model rests on what could be described as a “dualist” approach, which holds that the Christian belongs to “two realms (the spiritual and the temporal),” and must therefore live in the tension of fulfilling responsibilities to both. Niebuhr saw Martin Luther as an excellent representative of this understanding of the relation of Christianity and culture. According to this model, the Christian community must expect to live in a degree of tension with the world. Luther set out this tension in terms of his doctrine of the “two kingdoms” - the “kingdom of the world” and the “kingdom of God.” These two very different realms of authority coexist and overlap, with the result that Christians experience the tension of living in one kingdom, yet trying to obey the authority of another.
5. “Christ Transforming Culture.” This model includes “conversionists” who attempt to convert the values and goals of secular culture into the service of the kingdom of God. Augustine, John Calvin, John Wesley, and Jonathon Edwards take similar positions.

I think that an eclectic approach is the most appropriate, but perhaps the fifth point resonates the most with me. However, that being said, there is an element of truth (and some faults) in each of the first four in the list as well. Each can offer distinct insight into how Christians can approach their daily living, being “in this world yet not of it.”

In the early church, the big dilemma facing Christians was to what extent Christians should assimilate culture into Christianity. This was of particular importance as the church founders and fathers were trying to lay out the church’s beliefs and ward off rogue heresies, and establish sound doctrines and creeds. Would it be compromising the Christian faith to adopt methods of secular philosophy into the “process” of dialogue? Could Christian writers draw on “classical modes” of writing, in order to communicate the faith, or is this method tainted and fallen?

Justin Martyr noted that the “seeds of divine wisdom had been sown throughout the world,” and that Christians were therefore at liberty to draw upon classical culture, in the knowledge that whatever “has been said well” ultimately draws upon divine wisdom and insight” (McGrath 117). This has many implications, and was criticized by some. Tertullian famously wrote, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What relevance has the Platonic Academy for the church?”

However, Augustine built on Justin’s idea with a more critical approach. He wrote that “If those who are called philosophers have said anything which is true, and consistent with our faith, we must not reject it, but claim it for our own use.” Augustine himself quotes the passage in Acts (noted above) where Moses was educated in “all the wisdom of the Egyptians.”

That is enough for now, but it’s something to think about. Are Christians meant to be monastic, isolated from culture? Are Christians meant to adopt and absorb culture?

Jesus said we are to be salt and light in the world. I don’t like it when I’m eating, and there’s a huge clump of salt in one large pile on my food. Salt should be scattered, permeating throughout. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is like a small amount of yeast, that eventually leavens all of the flour.

There is no contradiction between being involved with culture and yet distinct from it. We need to avoid the mistakes of the liberal protestants that overly assimilate culture, and the opposite pietists that withdraw from and avoid culture. We can take what is good and true in our culture and “redeem” it for the Kingdom.

That’s all for now.

-ACR

My name is Aaron Rathburn. I am a student at the Bible College of Wales (University of Wales, Bangor), and am pursuing a bachelors degree in theology (B.Th.). I have a wife and one daughter, who live here with me on campus in Wales, UK.

This blog is meant to be a commentary on issues related to theology, Christianity and the Church, culture, politics, and more. Please feel free to engage in the comment sections. The nature of these subjects is such that there are many valid opinions, and thoughtful discussion can be very fruitful.

Thanks for visiting, and please join the conversation!

-ACR