theo|digital

One of my newer friends is Josh W, the slightly older brother-person to my good friend Matt. Since he (and Matt) both live two hours from me in Champaign, about the best we got is idea exchange, and I’m liking Josh’s thoughts on some of our culture discussion. Having done some studies in theology from a Catholic perspective, it’s a different voice. So Josh, I’m gonna have a go at a few of your most recent comments.

–
Here’s what strikes me as odd about these characterizations – none of them talk about culture as it relates to evangelization.
You catch me off-guard on your observation here. Evangelism is not the first thing I think of in the starting conversation about Christianity and culture.

Maybe first, I’m still thinking of culture in a pretty wide sense. Driving a Japanese-made car. Blue toothbrushes. Required volleyball games during high school P.E. class. Cheerios. Walking on the right side of the sidewalk. Socks. Shaking hands. Smoking or non?

In other words, I want to think of culture first like fish to water – invisible, ubiquitous, and necessary. This lets me emphasize what I have in common with all other humans. We are all fish. And we all swim in water.

To that extent, I think TM Moore isn’t that wrong when he says most Christians seems to fall into his “culturally indifferent” category. Not only have they not spent a serious amount of time pondering their culture, but they haven’t even thought about the category.

Many more conservative Christians *have* spent a more time thinking about how to react to certain pop art productions of culture – music and tv. This is small compared to the wider pie. We can have lots of good discussion here, but the point is, to discuss Christianity and culture might be to discuss immoral effects of economic systems or cultural understanding of sexuality before we get to Scrubs.

I’m way off your thoughts. Back to them.

So few observations (not in order):

Culture can be engaged to evangelize non-believers.
One, is to notice you start with the Christian/non-Christian divide. I hardly deny its reality (I’m a missionary!), but I’d want to begin with same-ness before walking toward difference.


We celebrate liturgical seasons like Advent and Lent, Christmas and Easter… things like the rosary, litanies, etc.)
Second, you speak of Christian ritual which some Christians (particularly the liturgical and Catholic traditions) celebrate. Isn’t this Christian culture? By that I mean, it isn’t the natural culture of the girl working at Best Buy today – it’s very foreign to her. Popular American culture and liturgical church culture seems about as far apart as Iranian culture and sushi. Two different cultures colliding or perhaps, if they attend a “inter-cultural function” – in some awkward dialogue. I guess when I’m speaking of how Christians should engage culture, I’m not thinking of how a Christian culture engages a secular culture. This is also to start with both difference and establishment.

(Unless we are making an assumption that general culture and Christian culture are actually the same or similar, but that’s Christendom, and I assume we’re agreed that the world of the Holy Roman Empire is not today.)

But I think what’s most interesting is the idea of using culture as a tool. Culture can be used or engaged in order to accomplish a goal. Back to our fish/water analogy. How does that work?

These were random thoughts. I’m sure Josh will have more. Hopefully next I’ll get to John Howard Yoder and Duane Friesen.

Relating to culture part III… on the way to thinking about The Golden Compass.

So, we looked at Niebuhr’s types to give an example of some of ways Christians have thought about relating to culture, and to notice that there is a significant spectrum of Christian thought on the issue. I mentioned that Niebuhr’s types have some problems – not the least of which is that they’re vague (for starters, he doesn’t clearly define “Christ” or “culture” – good thing we tried).

Can we relate to this one better? T.M. Moore just released his book Culture Matters: A Call for Consensus on Christian Cultural Engagement a few months ago. He lists six way he sees contemporary Christians relating to culture:

1. Cultural Indifference. Most Christians. Don’t spend lots of time thinking about their engagement with culture. Generally participate the same way everyone does, and their conversation topics, habits, fashion and values are fairly close to the society they live in.
2. Cultural Aversion. Culture is an evil to be avoided. This group is “highly sensitive to the ways contemporary culture threatens their beliefs, morals, and institutions. Culture is “of this world.” Legit culture is sanctified by church traditions (potlucks?) or “for the gospel.”
3. Cultural Trivialization. Christian bookstore culture. Testa-mints. Do not reject current cultural forms (pop music) but want to Christianize it (contemporary Christian music). Narrow idea of culture (music, inspirational books, bumper stickers), and focused on personal. Otherwise fall into the “indifferent” category.
4. Cultural Accommodation. Christian conviction to be non-judgmental about cultural preferences. Intentionally pluralistic, intentionally “accepting.” All cultural practices are equal and deserve dignity.



5. Cultural Separation. Christian schools, Christian yellow pages, Christian teen clubs. Broader view than the trivialists; not as fundamentalist as the aversionists. Parallel Christian culture envelopes all of life for Christian family and friends. “Safe,” little interaction with wider culture.
6. Culture Triumphalism. Voting for the right candidates will help us advance the Kingdom, return the country to a moral culture. Suppress harmful culture through government or powerful cultural influence. Outsiders can find it threatening.

Moore goes out of his way to say that these aren’t ideal types – in fact, many Christians function in and out of all six. Our wavering stance reveals that we conflicting convictions.

(Relating to culture part II… on the way to thinking about The Golden Compass.)

It’s hard to have a good discussion about “Christ” and “Culture” unless you define some terms. Particularly “culture” – what do we mean by the word?

The etymology of the word is helpful. It comes from the Latin word cultura which originally meant “to tend” – referring to agricultural concerns, that is, to care for crops or livestock (though it could even be applied to worship of the gods in the same sense – tending to the god’s needs). We still use the word culture in this sense in bio-science context – “a bacteria culture.”

Later it was applied to the tending or caring for humans – specifically the human mind; yielding a definition that encompassed things that cultivated the mind, such as study of knowledge, philosophy, or art. Eventually, world travel and resulting perspective forced the word to become plural – cultures – but also created a distinction of high culture and low cultures – European vs. folk or primitive cultures. Thus to become “cultured” was to be schooled in high culture. The advent of media has created (and legitimized) a category of “universal folk culture” we call popular culture, and the slowly the playing field has been leveled. This allows us to look at culture in its broadest sense, that which humans bring that is not “nature.”

Culture is a “work and world of meaning.” This is Kevin Vanhoozer’s definition, in which he means to say that culture is made up works – texts that can be “read” and worlds – the vision projected by those works. Any human creation, habit, idea can be examined as piece of culture.

From that perspective, we can discuss both what culture is and what culture does.

An anthropological perspective provides a classic approach to what culture is. Edward Tylor (1871) wrote that culture is “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, law, art, morals, custom, and any other capacities and habits acquired by man [sic] as a member of society.” This perspective would assert that culture is uniquely human; animals do not possess it. This is the distinction between nature and culture. Human culture, however, is arbitrary, based on the system of knowledge that a particular people or ethnic group uses in common. ( a post-modern critique of the anthropological definition would point out that a) cultural groups are not so neatly segmented, isolated, or defined, and b) the viewpoint doesn’t describe the influence of power).

Sociology as a discipline studies the structures in society – such as government – that form an entity distinguishable from the individual. Culture is not that structure, but could be described as software to the hardware of societal structures.

Biblical studies might look at culture from the perspective of the cultural mandate in Genesis 1.28, “be fruitful and multiply.” This is the command given to Adam and Eve to tend and cultivate the garden, and add their unique contribution, the influence and effect of spirit on nature.

What culture does might be summed up in four parts:
a) Culture communicates meaning. Every piece of culture is communicating, and the messages are both explicit and implicit (often even more powerful). Messages could be understood as signs, narrative, discourse, etc.

b) Culture orients. Culture gives us a mental structure to understand and operate in our world. In the past one could say that institutions like church and school provided these necessary frameworks, but today media perhaps represents the largest orientating influence.

c) Culture reproduces itself. We train and pass on culture to our children. Again, in the past this could be seen more as a function of formal education, but is from a variety of sources. Small segments of cultural information that are transferable have been called cultural “memes” (and are not unlike biological genes).

d) Culture cultivates. That is to say, it forms us. This could be related to spiritual formation – understanding how the environment, its habits and messages, build our character and form our convictions.
(ps – I’m doing this from memory, but it completely leans on Vanhoozer, and these four idea at the end are his summary)
Dang. Sorry for the super-long post. I get going.

Tony Campolo: The Changing Politics of Evangelicals – Politics on The Huffington Post: “

Stay on the lookout for this new movement. It has a great appeal to a great many of the younger Evangelicals who, while still pro-life and questioning gay marriage, want to embrace the broader agenda espoused by Red Letter Christians.

These younger evangelicals may not necessarily vote Democratic, but they certainly are no longer safely in the pocket of the Republican Party. Instead, they are prone to declare with Red Letter Christians that Jesus is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. When asked about party affiliation, they are likely to say, ‘Cite the issue.’ On some issues they will go with one party and on some issues they will go with the other.”

Article includes observations on the 4-way split for conservative Evangelicals, why some Evangelicals might vote for Clinton, and accurate thoughts about the “younger evangelicals” who aren’t left or right.

My friend Ty wrote a recent post on many Christian’s reaction to the fantasy movie The Golden Compass. There’s certainly been plenty of news coverage.

I had wanted to write something, but I haven’t read the books or seen the movie. And as much as this should stop many of us from speaking up (out of simple humility), it often doesn’t. Ty has read the things, and has that foundational moral authority to add to the conversation.

But of course, here I am, commenting. Much of my interest and what I’m currently studying is Christianity, culture, and communications, so perhaps we’ll forgive a few wider observations.

The Real Issue is Theological Worldview
To the extent I’ve listened in on conversations between Christians about the movie, they’ve been about what percentage Phillip Pullman is atheist, or if CGI polar bears are anti-church. But if we listen closely, we realize the argument isn’t about the message of the movie. It’s about theology. “How should Christians relate to culture?” is an operative Christian question since the 1st century. People don’t tend to put this in their “Statement of Faith” (right under “The Bible” and “The Holy Spirit” sections). But most Christian communities have pretty strong views on how this is supposed to work. The difficult part is that most couldn’t articulate that.

Some of the Options
What are some of the theological “options?” Meaning, are there a number of competing views that faithful Christians through time have had? Yep. The most famous were written by theologian H Richard Niebuhr. The book was called Christ and Culture (1951), and he came up with five possibilities he saw in church history:

1. Christ against Culture.
Essentially: Culture is something to be fought or guarded against.
Overheard: “Come out from them and be separate.”
Who: Strong versions of this are associated with Christian fundamentalism or Christian separatists. Monasticism. Tolstoy.

2. The Christ of Culture.
Essentially: The highest/best Christian culture culminates in Christ’s teachings.
Overheard: “God is love”
Who: Mainline/Liberal Christian denominations. Social gospel. Kant.

3. Christ above Culture
Essentially: Culture can embody limited grace and truth but is essentially flawed; Overheard: “Jesus is the coming King”
Who: Catholic Church. Some Reformed tradition. Justin Martyr. Thomas Aquinas.

4. Christ and Culture in Paradox
Essentially: They are in separate spheres, like church and state.
Overheard: “Give to Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is God’s”
Who: Luther.

5. Christ the transformer of Culture
Essentially: Engage culture with the gospel, try to change it.
Overheard: “let’s go change the world for Jesus”
Who: Today’s moderate evangelicals, but many people seem to like this one. Augustine.

(That’s a quick sketch, and I’m sure I don’t have it 100% right. But that’s the idea.)

The thing is, these examples can be misleading, and they’ve gotten a lot of critique in recent years. Guess I’ll have to do a few more posts on the subject. Eventually we may even get back to Christians and movies.

New Testament exam complete!

What do I get asked? Well… here. I think I can write most of the questions from memory:
——-
2 hours. You may not use the Bible, books, notes of any kind.

Quick answer: Book/Chapter. Parallels not required.
____ 1. “Cleansing” of the temple.
____ 2. Peter says, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God”
____ 3. More than five miracles
____ 4. Words of institution for the Lord’s Supper
____ 5. OT scripture linked to Jesus’ triumphal entry to Jerusalem
____ 6. OT scripture quoted by Jesus from the cross according to Mark & Matthew
____ 7. The crucifixion
____ 8. Explicit teaching on discipleship
____ 9. “no one knows the Father except the Son”

More Quick Answer
____ 10. One of the words translated miracles that is usually negative in the Synoptics but positive in John.
____ 11. Author of “ugly ditch” concept between history and faith.
____ 12. Christological title used by early church that is not used by Jesus.
(a few more I can’t recall)

Short answer. Explain:
1. David Hume’s argument on miracles.
2. Jesus’ mercy code over the holiness code.
3. The title “Son of Man” (include OT and NT usage)
4. Four important arguments for the resurrection
5. The theological significance of the resurrection (eight points)

Short Essay.
Using both what he said and did, explain Jesus’ understanding of himself. Reference specific passages. (this answer includes Christological titles, but mostly 7 actions Jesus took that were prophetic, messianic, and sacrificial)

Long Essay
Do a full treatment Luke’s account of the Lord’s Supper.
(Luke 22.15-20. this includes parallels, Passover, OT background, last week timeline, both external and internal evidence regarding signficant textual variants, kingdom of God, “this is my body,” and theological signficance)

The wisdom of crowds: “w00t!” voted word of the year.

On the list of things I like to think about when I’m bored thinking of other things, this is in the top 50. Classic question: should English dictionaries adapt to what is spoken, or should English speakers adapt to what is written (in those dang dictionaries)?

hint: the evolution of language happens (you mean you don’t breeze through Early Modern English e.g. KJV 1611?) , so practicals and nuanced answers are a must. Historical linguistics, w00t!

You always know that when i don’t have a picture with a post, I’m feeling pretty crunched.

This is it, down to the wire at end of my first semester. All my written papers turned in (what a relief!).
Tuesday - 1:30pm – I write my “take home” final for Cultural Hermeneutics. My hardest. I’m going to bed knowing that if I took it now, I’d probably fail… so much work to be done in the morning. I’m betting sleep is a more needed help right now.
Wednesday - study New Testament all day
Thursday - 8-10am New Testament Final
Friday - 8-10am Christian Theology Final.
10:01am – endorphin rush and wild behavior.

But I don’t think it’s available my my Treo 700p yet… not sure why – the cute cutout in the video looks a lot like it!

ps – What am I doing? lots of studying for finals! They’re this week… ending Friday the 14th.

A quick blurb for Ignite 2007. Our little network of campus-based churches in the Great Commission Ministries world are bringing back a start-up version of the Ignite conference in downtown Indianapolis right after Christmas: Dec 28-30.

I have super memories at being at these when I was a student and staff at I-Life, and hoping a lot of my friends there (and new friends!) will make the trip. It’ll be to fun to re-connect, worship, learn, eat, laugh, and remember again that this thing called the Kingdom is done together, not apart.

Plus I’m getting to help coordinate parts of it, and will probably even get the chance to slow down enough to teach a workshop session. You know – you could come listen.

If you haven’t registered yet – do it quick! The regular registration fee jumps up to “late registration” I think on the 6th of Dec. I registered in time for the “early” fee.