Interlude Presented by B.B. Warfield

If nothing else, I have learned how difficult it is to tackle a huge subject such as culture and break it into a series of concise blog posts.  However, because of its importance, I refuse to give up!  I am committed to posting meaningful, yet brief observations on culture that I hope will help fellow Christians better understand our environment and how it affects us.

In an attempt to provide edifying materials to my patient readers while I develop the series, I have decided to post B.B Warfield’s ”A Brief and Untechnical Statement of the Reformed Faith”

Adapted from Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield-1. Edited by John E. Meeter. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970, pp. 407-410

(with thanks to www.reformed.org)

Warfield’s statement consists of 24 points which I will post individually over the next several weeks.  Warfield’s work is worthy of more than filler material for my culture series, so stay tuned and carefully consider every point.

1)  I believe that God, since the creation of His world, has plainly revealed through the things He has made His eternal power and divine nature, and the requirements of His law, so that there is no excuse for unbelief or disobedience on the part of any man; yet however glorious this revelation, it is not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary for salvation.

Who is Christ (Part 2)

The items listed in part 1 of “Who is Christ” are never to be trivialized when we discuss who He is, however, in terms of the topic of the debate; I believe it in necessary to touch on how the “basics” are manifested in what we call “culture.”

Clearly, cultures differ from nation to nation throughout the world.  American culture is quite different from that of the Japanese, Arabians, or even the British.  Many factors explain this, but primary among them is our origin as a specifically Christian society.  There are many that would try to deny this, but their arguments merely reveal their ignorance; for a careful review of history leaves no doubt about this fact – even to the degree of being specifically Protestant in faith.  Those of you interested in studying the facts should visit the American Vision Bookstore for a huge selection of resources.

This link will take you directly to the AV store:       

This uniquely Christian foundation determined the early priorities of our young nation and continues (albeit in regrettably diminishing ways), to shape our culture.  Even atheists are forced to admit that the man known as Jesus Christ developed a following that has defined Western culture for 2000 years.  I believe that what we term “Judeo-Christian” culture is so ingrained in us that we cannot separate Christ from culture in America.  I would not argue that our culture is Christ-centered by any means.  However, we can not imagine what our culture would be like without Christ. And we cannot even think of the issue without relying on the presuppositions that we possess because of His impact on our culture through the centuries.

At this point, it must suffice to say that we cannot understand all the ways that Christ has shaped our culture.  I will not try to be more specific beyond the following two closing comments:

a)  As I mentioned in the post defining culture, culture unfolds in many ways as a by-product of every day life as the members of that society make decisions based on their values.  How those people choose to spend their time and money translates into culture.  Consequently, Christ continues to impact culture to the degree that the society values Him.  The choices atheists make as well as those made by Christians combine to explain our culture.  Remember too, that what we call ourselves has little impact itself.  Atheists can make decisions that push their culture in a more godly direction.  Similarly, some who call themselves Christians love Jesus in the same way a child loves a teddy bear.  He is not heir true treasure and their choices are likely to be similar to the typical atheist.  (Side Note:  For a revealing look at the meaning of what we call ourselves, specifically “born again,” read John Piper’s book Finally Alive.)

b)  The key to understanding Christ’s relationship to culture is based on our concept of His sovereignty.  At the minimum, He was a remarkable, but mere man whose teachings were incorporated into society by His followers.  The other end of the spectrum (my view) cannot be overstated:  He is the Lord of all creation and He is entirely sovereign over all aspects of that creation, including all its cultures – Christian and non-Christian alike.  If God is not sovereign, He becomes a sort of spiritual Dr. Frankenstein.  In spite of His good intentions, His creation has become a monster which He cannot control

Culture Defined (sort of)

As inadequate as it might be, I believe it is important to at least consider what we mean when we talk about culture.  Entire books have been written on the subject, but I will limit it to one post (and any meaty discussion triggered by comments).

Thinking about a definition of culture, my first response was something like “a set of lifestyles, practices, and values unique to a particular group of people.”  I suspect most of my readers would come up with something similar.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines culture as “the application of labor or other means of improvement…to improve good qualities.”  The dictionary directly relates the term to the common farming idea of cultivating crops.  There is no reference to society, lifestyles, the arts, or anything else associated with my first thoughts about “culture.”

A more contemporary definition is found in a 1984 edition of Webster’s — “a particular form of civilization, esp. the beliefs, customs, arts, and institutions of a society at a given time.”  This one was much more like my original definition.  Could it be that the idea of “culture” has changed over the years?  Could it be that our pre-occupation with the concept of “culture” is itself a cultural phenomenon?  The fact that Webster’s didn’t even have an entry for the term would indicate so.

Even without a specific entry, there are many points we can draw from the 1828 definition.  First, culture is a result of human effort.  Culture does not spring forth from nature.  At the very least, “low” culture societies can only be called such in comparison to others that demonstrate a higher degree of human effort.  Secondly, culture reflects the summary of those things that a society values.  Human effort is not invested in things that are not valued.  We don’t cultivate weeds.  It is important to note that this reflection of value is based on the sum total of the society.  Not all members of the society may have any use for broccoli, but as a whole, the crop is considered desirable. 

One other element of culture that is not so clear from the early definition is its multi-generational aspect.  It is handed down from generation to generation.  This characteristic causes it to be generally slow to change.  Still, each generation is different and each one determines for itself what it values.  Consequently, today’s culture is different that that of the 1990′s, but even more so from that of the 1950′s.  Culture is never stagnant.

Finally, culture is created by a combination of deliberate acts and as a byproduct of efforts that are not directly related to the results.  In regard to the deliberate portion and speaking in political and social terms; conservatives and liberals are largely defined by their agendas to “conserve” cultural practices or to “liberate” us from them.  In regard to the unintentional element, the effects of cultural change seem to elude all but the prophets and historians.

Culture is created as a result of our daily activities.  It is a natural outgrowth and reflection of our values.  In so much that our values consist of those things that we treasure, it either reflects our love for the true and living God or it reflects an idol (or idols) that has replaced Him.  The Reformed theologian Henry Van Til even called culture “religion externalized.”  In spite of all of man’s efforts, one cannot separate culture from religion or claim to have a “secular” culture.  Culture is the cumulative expression of our religion.

Reboot and Culture Commentary

It has been 2 months since I wrecked the Jeep and sumitted my last post. One would think that I had wrecked the Dell! I am disappointed to have missed the opportunities to post during our annual celebration of the birth of our Savior and the coming of a new year. I came very close to posting on inauguration day, but it would have been very difficult for me to adequately put my thoughts into words on such a dark day.  I can however, summarize them here — I am thankful in the knowledge that our God is sovereign and that His plans are perfect. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

In spite of my inactivity for 2 months, I have returned to the keyboard and I hope to resume frequent updates.  To reboot my regular posting and the conversation on culture, I have selected what I think to be an appropriate passage that I encountered during my recent reading. It is easy to rely on commentaries that men write with the hope of illuminating scripture. More often, we should recognize the biblical commentaries on our lives and practices. This is one such passage:

Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah!
“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.
“When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts?
Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations– I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.
When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil,
learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.
“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land;
but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”
How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.
Your silver has become dross, your best wine mixed with water.
Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not bring justice to the fatherless, and the widow’s cause does not come to them.
Therefore the Lord declares, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: “Ah, I will get relief from my enemies and avenge myself on my foes.
I will turn my hand against you and will smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all your alloy.
And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.”
Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness.
But rebels and sinners shall be broken together, and those who forsake the LORD shall be consumed.
For they shall be ashamed of the oaks that you desired; and you shall blush for the gardens that you have chosen.
For you shall be like an oak whose leaf withers, and like a garden without water.
And the strong shall become tinder, and his work a spark, and both of them shall burn together, with none to quench them.

Isaiah 1:10-31 (ESV)

Christians in Culture (cont’d)

We have previously discussed “syncretism” and ‘sectarianism” as they relate to Christians in culture.  Limiting ourselves to this continuum sort of model presents puts us in a position of debating the gray areas somewhere between the two extremes.  Clearly, this model alone cannot give us a clear answer.

Now we will look at the issue from a different perspective.  In 1951, H. Richard Niebuhr published what has become one of, if not the most, influential Christian work on the topic.  Indeed Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture is one of the most important Christian books of the 20^th century on any topic and remains relevant more than 50 years since its publication.

Niebuhr proposed five different ways to categorize the relationship between Christ and culture:

1)  Christ against culture

2)  Christ of culture

3)  Christ above culture

4)  Christ and culture in paradox

5)  Christ as the transformer of culture

I will comment on the details of each of these positions in the next few posts…stay tuned!!

Christians and Culture #5

Based on the two definitions I have presented (sectarianism and syncretism), I would like to frame our overall question of how Christians should relate to culture in terms of balancing ideas of sectarianism and syncretism to avoid both sins.

Since we are talking about “balance,” we will likely run into areas that appear to be grey areas.  In reality, I believe that the issue is more black and white than one might think; and these grey areas are mostly, if not entirely, founded in the differing worldviews introduced earlier.  If you did not read the post introducing worldviews, I suggest you do so now as we are about to expand on that topic now.

LINK TO WORLDVIEW POST

As mentioned, these worldviews are simply a set of preconceived ideas and “core” assumptions.  I consider core assumptions to be those that we don’t realize that we have and so never even think to challenge.  Our worldview acts as a filter through which we see and judge everything subconsciously.  Acceptance or rejection of human evolution over millions of years by equally intelligent individuals is largely dependent upon worldview.  A person that views the world from a Biblical perspective starts with an assumption that the Bible is true and sees the flaws of evolutionary science.  A person with a secular Humanist (note:  I would be very interested in your comments regarding how worldview may have influenced this definition) worldview starts with an assumption that man-made science can explain everything, and he cannot accept the concept of a creator.  I suspect that you have studied this concept in a psychology class but in that setting, it was probably called a paradigm.  Basically, a worldview is one form of a paradigm.

I am convinced that, for the typical American, core assumptions (and hence worldview) are based more on culture than on Scripture.  Daily exposure to secular Humanism, especially in the form of public education, shapes our worldview without our being aware.  Worldviews are taught more by modeling than direct teaching.  Few of us have been TAUGHT that public schooling is the best method for education – we have simply accepted that because it was the method that was MODELED for us.

Anti-Christian models of reality are pervasive in American culture at the shopping mall, in the books and on the movie screens.  At a minimum, these models desensitize us.  For many, they become the definition of what is acceptable and even to be embraced as progressive.

DSC

Next:  What if the Bible were our ONLY source of information…

Syncretism

Syncretism – The tendency to blend the world (culture) around us into the Church.  This includes the incorporation of beliefs and practices that are contrary to scripture.  Syncretism is typically a gradual process in which seemingly small accommodations to outside beliefs lead to further, more damaging compromises.  Over time, the result is an essentially new religion that shares little with the original faith.

Like the term sectarianism, syncretism is a pejorative word and as such, it is seldom used.  Syncretism is often promoted as a “good” thing under less controversial names such as “becoming relevant,” “broadening the appeal,” or even a scripturally savvy term taken out of context like “becoming all things to all people.”

Examples in today’s society are often not as clearly seen as is the case with the Amish and sectarianism because they have been incorporated into our worldview as “normal.”  One obvious example, however, is the practice of celebrating Halloween.  Originally a celebration honoring the dead, the holiday was recognized as an important part of the cultural lives of the pagans with whom the Church wished to “become relevant.”  In spite of Church endorsement, the resulting “All Hallows Eve” and “All Saints Day” have little, if any, Christian meaning.  Nevertheless, most Christians have incorporated the rituals and regularly celebrate the holiday; seeing it as harmless fun.  Other examples range from what many conservative evangelicals would consider outrageous to subtle compromises that only the purest puritan might recognize.

The Biblical examples of syncretism are many and serious, especially in Kings and Chronicles.  Solomon and Jeroboam are key examples, but most kings (in both kingdoms) between Solomon and the exile are accused of this sin because they embraced the pagan gods of the people around them and permitted the worship of those gods to take root among God’s people.  See especially 1 Kings Chapter 11.

Can you think of examples of outside culture being incorporated into the Church?

Christians and Culture — Options (Part 1)

What are the different ways in which Christians might respond to the culture around them?  For the next couple of posts, we will look at two essentially opposed approaches: “sectarianism” and “syncretism.”

Sectarianism

Definitions (in my words-not copied from the dictionary):

Sectarianism – The tendency to be removed from the world (culture) around us. This term is especially used in relation to religion and most easily can be understood by the example of the Amish.  Even when misguided, the idea of “purity” is a key focus of sectarians.  In extreme cases, this focus leads to sectarians having no contact with those outside of their sect and thus they become irrelevant to society and incapable of impacting others.

Other extreme cases of sectarianism contribute to political and/or social differences which then lead to hatred and violence such as exist between the Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam or between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.

The term “sectarian” is nearly always used as a deprecating term, and is often applied to those who take a stand based on principle and are unwilling to make concessions.  Homeschoolers, for example, are often considered to be sectarian because of an unwillingness to compromise their beliefs even when the local school district is a “good one.”

In spite of the negative connotations of the term, we are all, to some degree, sectarian.  At some point, we draw the line and exclude ourselves from some culture or element of culture.

Next time:  Syncretism.

The Starting Point

At the end of my last entry, I mentioned that this post would “define the starting point.”  The starting point is simply understanding that there is no such thing as an “objective” or “unbiased” perspective on anything.  We all have a set of values that act as a filter through which we view the world.  Hence, instead of beginning our discussion looking outward at the culture, we will restrict this first look inward toward ourselves and the filter through which we see the world – our worldview.

I hesitate to open this topic for two reasons:  1) The term “worldview” has been overused and has lost much of its meaning.  2)  It is very difficult to fully appreciate the depth of the concept, and I fear that it will not be possible to do the subject justice in the space and time available.  Still, it is not possible to deal with the culture question without reviewing this fundamental concept.

Note:  Trying to cover just enough has made this one of the most difficult posts I have written.  (I am still not satisfied with the flow, order, and content of the post; but I need to finish since I have blown my “post every-other-day” hope right off the bat!!)

Before we consider our impact on culture, we have to evaluate culture’s impact on us.  We have to begin understanding that, based on values we have adopted; our sub-conscience is constantly evaluating the world around us.  Our mind begins to compile and categorize the data before our conscience mind even begins to process the information.  Throughout this process our presuppositions and assumptions are more relevant in determining our judgment than we realize.  With apologies to the individual that originally used it, I am reminded of the following analogy:  does a fish know that it is wet?  Does it have any understanding of the meaning of dry?  Let’s face it; the fish’s worldview is all wet!

Some of us have deliberately cultivated our worldview, but I think the majority of us don’t even know we have one.  Having the “right” worldview requires us to acknowledge having one.  That is why I call this the “starting point.”

What is your worldview?  Christian?  Secular?  How can we even know?  Just because we believe ourselves to be Christian, we cannot assume we have a Christian worldview.  How do other Christians view the issues and events that unfold around us daily?  How did our Christian parents and grandparents understand the world?  What about the great thinkers and leaders throughout the history of the Church – men such as Augustine, Luther and Calvin?  What about the apostles during the first century?

I recommend you visit the following websites to get a much more complete overview of worldviews:

www.americanvision.org/worldviewwar.asp – American Vision will send you a great CD message (FREE) reviewing how American Christians’ worldviews have been compromised and redefined by our godless and humanistic environment.  Highly recommended!

www.christianworldview.net – This site is a terrific review of the impact of worldview in all aspects of life.  It’s a good place to start while you are waiting to receive your CD from American Vision.

www.nehemiahinstitute.com – The Nehemiah Institute is dedicated to evaluating and developing a Christian worldview.  Download their PowerPoint presentation, and if you have $4 to spare, take their online worldview test.

I warn you, after studying these materials you may be surprised at what you learn about your worldview.  Be prepared to be challenged as you recognize ways to think more like a Christian.  I prefer not to get into comparing scores in this forum, rather take what you learn privately and work to apply it in your life.

DSC

Christians in Culture — Prologue

There is a great debate among evangelicals regarding the relationship and interaction between the Church and the culture.  How should the Church and the individual members therein strike the balance between being “relevant” and being “set apart”?  “In, but not of”?

The next several posts will be dedicated to the discussion of Christians in culture.  This is obviously a huge topic that could be the sole theme for a blog, so I will not claim to be exhaustive.  At this time at least, I do not expect to address a large number of specific details of the debate (music, clothing, etc.).  Rather, I plan to review what I consider the biblical principles behind the debate.  I will present my ideas on how the principles might be applied to the specifics, but do not expect a resolution to the rock music vrs hymns battle during this series.

Within those bounds, I hope for a significant number of comments to fine tune the direction of the discussion.  Much of what I intend to post will be drawn from material that I prepared prior to starting this blog.  Therefore, I hope (but refrain from promising) to increase the frequency of my posts to every other day.  This, of course, is dependent somewhat on the “fine tuning” mentioned above….

Next:

Installment #1 “Christians in Culture:  Defining the Starting Points”