Beyond Culture Wars

[chasingsophia]

So here's everything I have from the Beyond Culture Wars Discussion. Hope I didn't miss anyone.

Joe

<><><><><><>&l t;><><>

Hi all,
An extended quote for you:

----------------------------------------
Recently at my bank, the teller said to me, "You know, I notice you keep depositing these checks that say 'Christians United for Reformation.' What exactly do you mean by 'Reformation'?"

I answered quickly, so as not to anger the mob behind me in line, "Well, we are trying to get the church back to the business of dealing with the big spiritual issues."

He said, "When I saw 'Reformation' I assumed you were against movies and TV and everything. Aren't you talking about moral reformation?"

"No," I replied, "it's not a moral reformation that we are talking about."

"You're kidding," he responded. Still baffled, he asked, "Well, are you a part of the religious right?"

"No. Our issues are not moral or political."

"Well, what is your position regarding gays in the military?"

"We don't have a position on gays in the military."

"You mean, You're a Christian organization, you want a reformation, and you don't have a position on gays in the military?"

"No, we don't. It's not about Christ or restoring the Gospel."

Now the line seemed very long and fidgety. He said, "You know what, you can call my [homosexual] lifestyle an abomination --"

"-- I do," I interrupted, both of us grinning at the response.

"You can call it an abomination if you give me the right to co-exist with you."

"Why shouldn't I give you the right to co-exist? I expect the right to co-exist, and I am a sinner too. The only difference between us is not our guilt and corruption, but in how those two problems have been solved."

Then he asked for more information about our work and its message. "I will hear you later on this," [see Acts 17] was the clear message. Since then, I have taken him information and tapes, and he has even expressed an interest in the possibility of attending church.

But what if I happened to attend a church where he could likely hear the pastor announce that there was going to be a march later in the month to oppose "those radical feminists, homosexuals, and other perverts who are corrupting our wonderful nation"? I am not saying that it is not the church's place to condemn homosexuality; clearly it is. But the church's condemnation is spiritual, not political; it warns of a heavenly sword, not an earthly one [see Romans chs. 1-3, 13]. Furthermore, it offers a heavenly truce for anyone who is willing to put down the arms and embrace God as Father through the blood of Christ. At last, conversion accomplishes what coercion could never secure.
----------------------------------------
Michael Horton, "Beyond Culture Wars," Moody, 1994

In a political season, when Bill O'Reily makes himself to be the bastion against "secular humanism," when every political group will be wooed buy those seeking power, I've found this 10-year-old book wonderfully fresh. I hope you'll find time for it yourself. He reminds us of the historic, orthodox distinction between Augustine's "Two Cities" and of the need for Christians to be culturally engaged -- not as antagonists toward culture, but as participants with a message of redemption.

Surf with God,
Joe

<><><><><><>&l t;><><><><><>< ><><>

hi joe.....was this a typo?

"No, we don't. It's not about Christ or restoring the Gospel."

-also-

Our message is not political, nor can our mission be accomplished through political means, but our message does have political implications, and we cannot just stop being Christians when we vote. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr, laws cannot not change the heart, but they can protect the innocent from the heartless. Also, our message to some extent is moral, as Christ not only purchased our redemption, but also our transformation. A spiritual reformation necessarily brings a moral reformation, the two cannot be separated so easily or artificially. The issue I see raised in this quote, which is important and correct to raise, is that we must be sure to get the order right. The moral transformation comes after the spiritual one. We as Christians constantly need to remind ourselves and the people around us that WE are not against people because of their sin, but for them against those sins, which is the same view God has toward His children. Not disagreeing with anything that has been said per se, just trying to avoid swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. In fact, I continue to struggle with the issue of how I should vote on the issue of Homosexual marriage. Of course it's sin, but should there be a law against it in a pluralistic, secular, post-Christian society? I think I will be purchasing this book. Thanks for the heads up.

rob kafka

<><><><><><>&l t;><><><><><>< ><><>

I'm so stoked that this has prompted some conversation. Thanks, Robert, for reading and responding carefully. I wanted to pass on some of that conversation to the rest, especially as to the meaning of the following piece of Horton's dialogue with his banker: "It's not about Christ or restoring the Gospel."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As I understand it, "it's" refers to "position on gays in the military," not the reformation Horton seeks. That is, "a position on gays in the military isn't about Christ or restoring the Gospel."...

Is our message moral? I guess that depends on how one defines "moral." But you'll have to read the book to see what Horton means :-)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Here's some more for ya:

-------------------
Around the turn of the century, the Dutch statesman and theologian, Abraham Kuyper, argued for what he called "sphere sovereignty." As prime minister, Kuyper insisted that each realm of life -- the arts, education, science, the church, and the family -- retains its own unique character and mission. The purpose of government was to guarantee the freedom of each "sphere" to accomplish its God-ordained function. For instance, even the schools were run by the families, rather than by public officials, and parents were involved at every level, not just at Parent Teacher Association meetings, because they believed that the family has the authority in such matters rather than the government. It was the government's business to make certain that the nation was adequately defended against aggression and was capable of limiting the ravages of crime and enforcing civil laws guaranteeing safety and liberty. The purpose of the government was not to define the family or the role of the church, as it is now doing with the help of conservatives and liberals alike.
-------------------
Horton, "Beyond Culture Wars," (I hate it that I can't use italics!) p. 100, Moody, 1994

Surf with God,
Joe

<><><><><><>&l t;><><><><><>< >
Robert,
I don't think that the Church's main message to society is the preaching of morals (I'm sure you agree), but even more pertinent to the discussion, the Church's message must not be, "Society, behave yourselves, because God hates sin." A part of the Church's proclamation does need to be calling a spade a spade -- calling sin, "sin" -- but this is Law, and not Gospel. The Law does need to be preached, but only as Paul understood it, in that the Law condemns us. But the Law shouldn't be our incentive to be "better people;" the Law can only tell us we are by nature sinners. The Gospel is the message that Someone has been our Lawkeeper for us. I understand your concern to retain a high view of Christ's Lordship, to guard against "cheap grace," but the erroneous conclusions some come to about personal righteousness because they misunderstand grace doesn't change the fact that this righteousness is indeed alien to us (imputed), and that it is the free gift of God for those who will turn to Christ alone.

This is the Church's message, proclaimed to every politician, every anti-globalization activist, every housewife, every person everywhere. And it has nothing to do with the allocation of tax dollars, or how the State defines marriage, or even how the courts rule regarding abortion.

However, as Christians, you're right: we have to work, and eat, and play, and vote *as Christians*. How could we do anything else? But to a person who is by nature a rebel against God, arguments from the Psalms about when life begins are futile -- pearls before swine, as it were. Yet certainly, if our belief in the sanctity of life from conception is true, it will be corroborated by other evidence, and can be argued for aside from "Before you were in the womb, I knew you." I think Christians -- myself in the boat -- have hidden their illiteracy and intellectual laziness behind "God says so," especially regarding issues like gay marriage and abortion. And it's a confusing of the role the Church ought to play in democratic society: the Church's role is not to elect "conservative, family-values" type politicians, the Church's role is to proclaim man's sinfulness and God's salvation. It's the role of individual Christians -- in the U.S., as public servants, and as voting citizens -- to participate in society and to convince unregenerate people that what we know to be true according to God's word is also true according to "natural law" (in the way C.S. Lewis uses the term).

Joe

<><><><><><>&l t;><><><><><>

Hi Joe!

It?s been good to hear from you, especially with this thought-provoking stuff out of the books you?re reading. Very interesting. I wish we (this mailing list) could contribute our own thought-provoking materials from the stuff we?re reading, regardless of the content. (Academic, spiritual, literary, etc.)

I have to admit that I agree and disagree with some of the stuff Kuyper wrote of. I agree in that I think, ideally, government should have no place in the affairs of its people, (family, church, education, etc.) however, we don?t live in an ideal world, and from my perspective, as a politically opinionated/biased person as my self (perhaps I shouldn?t be so opinionated), with pressures on both sides from liberals and conservatives to change ?the direction the country is going,? it?s very much a reactionary government. The Left does something, and the Right responds with ?legislation? that affects morality. Again, since I?m speaking from the Right side of the aisle so to speak, I think the country (and the world) for that matter is moving farther and farther from what is right and moral, spiritually speaking. We all know it?s going to happen and is happening, but should we attempt to keep this country from turning into ?godless Europe? as some call it, or other countries that let gay marriage, abortion, etc. run rampant? I don?t know what the answer is, but unfortunately, I tend to lean on an authoritarian gov?t, because it seems to me that if libertarianism and lassiez-faire prevail, then the country will go whichever way it wants, i.e., not in the right direction.

But that?s just me, rambling on and on about things I don?t know enough. It?s caused me to think anyway.

Chris Wonderly

<><><><><><>&l t;><><><><><>< ><><>

"arguments from the Psalms about when life begins are futile"

I hope I am not deviating too far from the main topic(?). The above statement hits home concerning life post-Northwestern College. Having moved on to graduate school at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, I am in the middle of a writhing mass of conflicting religious and secular ideologies, most of which agree on pluralism. "Damn the hierarchy!!" many have chanted in various forms. Proponents of such issues as the sanctity of traditional marriage and the valuing unborn life quickly get dismissed as "Christian." I have been struggling specifically with the issue of same-sex marriage. I have come to the conclusion that outside of a religious context that believes in absolutes, it is very difficult to make any argument for an exclusively Male/Female secular marriage. Statistics can be bandied about in support of all sides.

The point being that if what we believe to be the Truth is in fact true, there must be evidence of it outside of scripture. If I can make an athesist question his beliefs by arguing for the exhistance of a creator through the Laws of Thermodynamics and basic physics, then why can't I do the same for marriage and other institutions I know to be righteous? I believe it must be possible if these were written into Creation.

This is not so much a plea for help or advise, but a better understanding of something I have felt for a long time. Basically that Christianity needs to be understood as being something other than a religion or a belief system. It needs to be something that is known. While the Word needs to be the basis of our knowledge, we must be able to view and use everything outside of it to support and augment it: science, psychology, politics, the arts. To quote Joe, "[We need to] convince unregenerate people that what we know to be true according to God's word is also true according to "natural law" (in the way C.S. Lewis uses the term)."

Joshua J. Van Wie

<><><><><><>&l t;><><><><><>< >

As usual, I pretty much totally agree with you Joe, and you have written with clarity and power beyond what I will probably ever be able to express myself with. But I must some offer POTENTIAL cautions.

1) Making a distinction between the universal Church's role and the individual's role is slightly artificial as the Church is made up of individuals. Of course there are some distinctions, but generally the Church's role is a magnification of the individual's role, not a lessening of it.

2) I totally agree with the necessity of using natural law and general revelation with non-Christians. But we need not shrink back from using Scripture also. To do so is almost to apologize for being a Christian and to deny the power and authority of Scripture. EVERYONE starts with a presupposition about truth. Christians start with the presupposition that God has revealed it in general and special revelation. Non-Christian start with the presupposition that they are independent from God and can rest on their own authority and truth. Sometimes its better to get that out on the table.

3) The reason for legislating morality (and all legislation is moral in nature) is not to keep people from sinning, but to protect "innocent" (innocent not meaning sinless) people from needless suffering. Is it possible that as the believing wife sanctifies her unbelieving husband and children (1 Cor 7:14), that The Bride of Christ can in some respects sanctify the culture/country it resides in, thus keeping people alive and coherent long enough to hear the gospel as you described it? The goal would not be to keep people from sinning, but to try and keep society from tearing itself apart.

"And it's a confusing of the role the Church ought to play in democratic society: the Church's role is not to elect "conservative, family-values" type politicians, the Church's role is to proclaim man's sinfulness and God's salvation."

The Church's role in a democratic society is confusing because the Bible was not originally written to a Church in a democratic society. This whole discussion gets extra fun when you throw people's end times beliefs into the mix, but that is an entirely different discussion.

rob k (kafka not kemp)

<><><><><><>&l t;><><><><><>

Just a quick thought.

In Matthew 12 and 16 the Pharisees and teachers ask Jesus for a sign (after he had produced many signs already) and he said that he would only give them one more sign, the sign of Jonah. In Matthew 28, after the sign of Jonah (the resurrection) is given, the guards (eye witnesses) tell the religious leaders of the day what they saw and the leaders still rejected the sign. If signs didn't work then, I don't think they will work now.

The spirit has to help us discern spiritual things. So unless the spirit works no amount of signs or logical arguments are going to work. However, the spirit can work through local arguments yet the things of God are often revealed to the foolish in the sight of the world.

I also agree that everyone's world view is informed by something or someone, so I think it is good to state up-front that our worldview is impacted by the Bible.

I don't think that your comment on end times is really that far out of the discussion. I think it is very important. If you believe that the kingdom is going to be ushered in now then political means become very important.

Dean

<><><><><><>&l t;><><><><><>

Maybe my frustration with the whole logic issue is that I get tired of Christians who take morality and ethics at face value. The reply of, "That's just what the Bible says" is not always good enough. I can't take that type of response seriously. And if I can't take them as seriouly as I might ought to, then how is the unbeliever supposed do the same.

Last year, I was talking to Jerry Rose of Total Life Ministries here in Chicago about a similar issue. He told me that he has had the most success in his ministry by establishing himself as logical, intelligent man who is passionate about his faith. By doing so, it is far more difficult for a skeptic to completely dismiss you. Yes, you will still be rejected often enough, but you will hopefully instill the question of "How can an intelligent person believe all that silly God-stuff?" One of the more important things I took from Paul Helseth is that there is an intellectual component to our faith.

The stereotype of the dumb Christian is alternatly my worst enemy, as well as my strongest ally. Strong because people are surprised to find that I am rational, intelligent and a Christian.

Joshua J. VanWie

<><><><><><>&l t;><><><><><>< >

I hear you, Joshua! It might sound trite on the surface to answer a question with "because God says so". But that statement is actually quite profound when you think about it. That said, you make an accurate point that this is not a practical approach when dealing with skeptics, and I wholeheartedly agree.

The Bible is sprinkled throughout with admonitions to involve both "mind" and "heart" in our faith walk. The Great Commandment itself lists the "mind" as one of the things to love God with completely and unreservedly. You are absolutely correct in saying their is a rational, intellectual component to our faith....that only God can satisfy, I might add. And I also agree with you that being seen as rational, but still believing in this "silly God stuff" will make people take some notice. I have a good atheist-Objectivist friend whom I befuddle every time we talk, because he can't reconcile my Christian beliefs with my apparent intellectual side. It totally throws him off balance. And that, I think, is my only standing with him to keep the spiritual conversation going with him.

Along these lines, one of my spiritual heroes is the Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias. I highly recommend his resources and ministry to you.Here's his link: http://www.gospelcom.net/rzim/

In His Grip,
Rick Dillon

<><><><><><>&l t;><><><><><>< >

I suppose I better chime in and "pay my dues" or you guys will boot me out.

By the way, excellent thoughts all.

Joe has impacted me since his arrival here (KC) last fall and the biggest impact he has had on me is his sincere need to know and understand why he believes what he believes. Unless one has a deep passion for what he believes he's but another annoying car commercial (I have a real dislike for car commercials - mute buttons are great! - and sorry if anyone's in marketing or sells cars) or worse yet a blind follower of something he does not understand. He has pushed me to seek a backbone for my Christian body.

Much of what I've come to read (thanks for leaving your books lay around Joe) and have taken to heart turns the '80's and 90's approach to evangelizing on it's ear. My wife and I went through Son Life Ministry's training back in the mid 90's and part of what we were taught was to get the youth out and in front of their peers (or anyone that would listen) and "share" the salvation message. That worked for maybe 1% of the kids because they were the only ones with a deep passion for their beliefs and understood what they believed.

We are called to be in the world but not of it ... Does that mean we ignore "the system"? Does that mean we not run for office? Does that mean we simply cluck our tongues at what happened in Massachusetts on Monday and say "The end is definitely near!" and wait for God's wrath? Nope, nope and NOPE! (although I couldn't help think about Sodom and Gomorra as I watched two guys swapping spit on the nightly news) ... We need to be active where it counts and where we feel we can make a difference. And we need to unashamedly show that we are disciples - BUT in an effective manner ... poised, intelligent, patient and understanding of who were talking to and from whence they came. Rather than shove our salvation experience down their throat ... take time to understand them and their beliefs or lack there of.

As a leader your told never expect your followers to do something you're not prepared to do (or have done) Christ approached many people at all levels of society and in a manner He expects us to as well. Let's NOT share Christ because of our fear of human rejection. Let's just be prepared to do it well.

Dan (Joe's Landlord)

<><><><><><>&l t;><><><><><>< >

An anonymous reply:

Has the homosexual community defined what they perceive marriage to be? What is their definition? And isn't marriage a biblical idea and not a secular one?

[Rrose Selavy]

I feel like I'm Christian bashing a bit, so I apologize to all in advance.

Here's my rant on the issue of same-sex marriage.

I was listening to Paul Crouch of the imfamouse Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). He was talking about how the ministers of the early television era viewed this new media as a tool of the devil and largely boycotted its use in their ministry. Crouch was lamenting this missed opportunity of his generation--seeing how secular powers, not the church, used this new technology to infiltrate nearly every home in America with its message. He views this failure as a major setback for the Gospel and as something that will be difficult for the church to recover from. We didn't see the possible results of our inaction.

Over the past several decades family values have been erroded, more and more children are born out of wedlock, divorce and repeat marriages are on the rise. Traditional marriage and family are no longer seen as anything sacred. This is true of the secular world. And if statistics are reliable, we Christians are right along for the ride. A self proclaimed Baptist (I heard her say so), Britany Spears' starter marriage lasted just over a day. That's a bad example, I know. I'd just rather not think of several members of my own family who have been in similar situations.

This has been the case over the last 50 years and now we Christians are up in arms, pleading to the public to "Save our traditions!", "Marriage is sacred!,"Say NO to Adam and Steve!!"

I'm sorry, but we lost our authority in the matter years ago when our divorce rate equaled the rest of the nation's 50%. Now we are crying when someone else threatens to tread on our watered down, hallowed ground and suddenly we remember that marriage is a God ordained institution between man and woman till DEATH DO US PART!! So often I feel like it's our own damn fault that this and others like it are even an issue.

We missed our chance to be in America's living room, and we've been playing catch-up ever since. We didn't even care about upholding our own morals and values and we wonder why they are being compromised to the point of meaninglessness? This is the result of our own inaction that began decades ago.

This is why I often feel like I have to apologize for being a Christian.

I do not know what to do.

God, help us and forgive us for our hypocrisy.

[derwen]

Hear, Hear. I don't think that's Christian bashing at all. It's simply honest examination of the state of affairs in our society, alas.

[derwen]

Originally posted by Joe Bancks:

An anonymous reply:

Has the homosexual community defined what they perceive marriage to be? What is their definition? And isn't marriage a biblical idea and not a secular one?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is a worthwhile point. I was reading a political column about this issue--no spiritual issues were raised--and the author asked the question, If we redefine what marriage is, what's to prevent me from marrying my sister, or my dog, or three women? Will it come to that eventually?

I like Rob's comment about the need for law to keep society from destroying itself. I also agree that it's not the Church's job to dictate whom to vote for, but I think it is the responsiblity for a Christian to be active in his government, and to vote in such a way that allows society to remain cohesive and stable.

[chasingsophia]

I do not know what to do.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's a part of what Horton tries to get at in the second half of his book: What to do from here? His solutions, based on the suppositions he argues for in the first half, are more or less along these lines:

* Since the main problem is theological -- that is, since American Christians' main problem is their bad thinking (bad theology) which bears fruit in their practices -- we must work to restore sound Biblical preaching and teaching in the Church.

* Christians must return to the public arena, out from our sheltered subculture. I listened to a "White Horse Inn" edition (the radio program Horton co-hosts) wherein he said something to the effect of, "to solve cultural problems one must use cultural tools." Make better art. Write better books and music.

* We must become better at arguing for the logical soundness of our various causes (Horton also argues well against calling any piece of legislation "christian"), without resorting to "Gay marriage should not be allowed because homosexuality is a sin."