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

Good and Evil — Wrap Up

The prophet Isaiah warns us; “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).  Critics outside our faith and false teachers within it would have us believe that certain things are acceptable and others are to be rejected.  How can we know what is true?

The Bible is clear that discerning good from evil is expected of God’s people.  Consider Romans 12:9:  “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.”  The writer of Hebrews clarifies the matter in Hebrews 5:14 “But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.”

Discerning good from evil comes from practice – from studying the word of God.  While the Holy Spirit guides us, our human nature deceives us.  Without solid foundation on the Word of God, we cannot distinguish good from evil.

Another Move…

 

Picking up where we left off before the flashback, Heidi returned to public school after 2 years of homeschooling.  Before the year was over, however, we were moving to a new state once again – from Wisconsin to southern Ohio.

 

This time, Heidi had matured emotionally and was not influenced by the fear of fitting in with a new group of peers.  Lori and I still did not have the conviction necessary to reject public schooling out of principle.

 

For the remainder of that year and the entirety of the next, we were not what most people would consider a homeschooling family.  Sean, who was living with his mother, attended public school; Heidi attended public school; and Morgan was pre-school age at four.  Peyton arrived on the scene during the summer between the two school years.

 

In spite of not actually homeschooling during this time, it was then that we (by God’s grace) became functionally aware of one of the great truths of education – that education is not something that only occurs between bells ringing in hallways.  We are learning during every waking moment.  Education is something that occurs from the time you rise up to the time you lie down. 

 

“You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.”  Deu 6:7 (ESV)

 

I say “functionally” to distinguish our awareness from that to which all people would agree.  In conversation, all parents would acknowledge and agree that from the moment they are born, children begin learning.  Indeed, it is within the care of parents that children learn to walk, talk, eat, etc.  Proactive Americans have even been known to begin training their children in the womb with things such as soothing music.  In spite of this awareness, there is a sense that parents are not directly responsible for certain fields of learning.  Mathematics, science, grammar, history and such are left to “professionals.”  This belief will be the topic of several upcoming posts.  For now, I will summarize this functional awareness as the recognition of education as a life-long lifestyle as opposed to a season of life.  It is a walk-along, talk-along method of training that is holistic in that all areas of education support, rely on and overlap other areas.  It is the acknowledgement that education serves a purpose other than merely preparing for the next step in education – there is an end goal toward which education is aimed that is beyond the pursuit of “personal peace and affluence.”

 

Failure to grasp this distinction leads to parents becoming disconnected from the learning processes that their children are experiencing and comatose in their own ability to continue learning.  In our nanny-state mentality – in which we increasingly rely on government to provide all our needs – it has resulted in a virtual abdication of parental responsibility in the academic training of our children.  If our children can’t read or write (and many of them cannot), the schools are at fault.  Poor ACT and SAT scores are the result of under funded school districts.

 

A second aspect of this awareness was the realization that learning consists of much more than academic subjects.  Our presuppositions are formed by the constant exposure we have to our environment.  What constitutes “normal” behavior?  What is the model for family life?  What is my place in the family?  How do I balance my place as an individual with my role as a member of a group?  How do I respond to authority?  What is truth?  All of these questions are answered by our daily interactions with people, not in a classroom.  The underlying assumptions about life are formed subconsciously moment by moment and become a set of “absolutes” that are much more difficult to reshape if necessary.  This “sacred” nature of our presuppositions is firm in our thinking largely because we are seldom aware that they even exist!  They are the subconscious framework through which we evaluate everything around us.  They are the foundations of our worldview.

 

This realization has been the key for us.  An understanding of presuppositions and the establishment of a Christian worldview automatically excludes public school as an option.  Regardless of how well the government system might be able teach the mechanics of mathematics, it does so using a model that explicitly excludes God.  The presupposition is that God is irrelevant and has no place in education.  It teaches anti-Christian values by ostensibly excluding our Creator from the process.  True education cannot be achieved because “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” Proverbs 1:7a (ESV).  There is no fear of the Lord in the public school system, therefore true knowledge cannot even begin in that setting.

 

It was during this time and for these reasons that the homeschooling option became less preference and more conviction.  We began to realize our desire was rooted in more than the obvious issues of carrying guns, distributing drugs, teaching evolution, and applying peer pressure.  My resolve was still inadequate to address Heidi’s schooling, but this was when I knew that I would do anything within my power to retake the responsibility and the authority that God granted parents to train our younger children for His purposes.

 

David