The name Lonnie Frisbee may not be one that you are familiar with. But Lonnie Frisbee was a key figure in the "Jesus Movement" of the late 60's and early 70's. There was probably no more of a significant representative of the revival that swept through that time than this long-haired, bearded preacher. He was the instrument that God used in both the growth of Calvary Chapel and the development of the "signs and wonders" theology of the Vineyard movement.
This 2007 Emmy-nominated documentary chronicles the life, re-birth, and death of a man whose name has been erased from the pages of 20th century church history. Why? Because Lonnie struggled with the sin of homosexuality throughout his life. He experienced times of victory, but also times of defeat. He died tragically of AIDS in 1993. He presented a dilemma for many. How could God so powerfully use such an unclean vessel? (Of course, the reality is that God has always worked through "unclean vessels.")
Producer, director, and writer David Di Sabatino pulls together the compelling elements of this story through archival footage and interviews. This is a film that is thought-provoking and discussion generating. I highly recommend it for those willing to wrestle with the issues that it raises.
It is available through Amazon.com.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Trinity: Theology has Consequences
(This is a brief theological treatise I wrote about five years ago addressing the importance of the Trinity in the development of Western civilization.)
All men knowingly or unknowingly are theologians. The basis of a man’s theology may come from subjective experiences, observations of nature, religious training, meditative thought, assumptions based upon his own desires (creating a God in his own image), or from an objective source which is accepted as “truth.” This objective source may be the Bible, the Qur’an, The Watchtower magazine, or a host of other so-called “sacred” writings. Regardless of the theology one adopts, we must recognize that it will have consequences, both in the present world and in eternity. It has been said that, “ideas have consequences,” this is particularly true when it comes to the ideas one has about God. It is not only true about individuals, but for societies as well. Cultures are inevitably shaped by their view of God. In fact the word “culture” is derived from the word “cultus,” which is a Latin term signifying “worship.” What a society worships produces it’s culture.
This can readily be seen when one observes the various nations of the earth and the religious system they live under. For instance, humanistic religious systems elevate Man to the place of worship, pantheistic systems, such as Hinduism, worship creation (since God is in everything), and monotheistic systems worship a Supreme Being. This Supreme Being to the Muslim is Allah, to the Christian He is the Triune God of the Bible. He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is here that we find the distinction between a Muslim culture and a Christian culture. Though both are monotheistic in their theology, it is because of the concept of the Trinity that two distinctly different cultures are produced.
Christianity is by its very nature about the one and the many, monotheism with a trinity. God dwells in community, or as the Puritans understood “God is a sweet society within Himself.” Within the Trinity we have an “economic (functional) subordination,” at the same time we have an “ontological equality.” Because of function there is recognition of the executive (the Father) in the relationship, without the loss of the equality of all members. God, in the Trinity, patterns for Man the structure human community is to take. For example, the Biblical pattern for marriage shows the leadership function of the husband, but at the same time the husband and wife are equal. Submission of the wife does not mean a loss of equality with her husband. In civil governments produced by a Christian culture, the executive office (and its accompanying authority) is acknowledged, but he is not superior in the sense of his “being” to other men. He stands under God and His law as an equal with all men, though his function is different giving him responsibility and authority. The Trinity models this for mankind (economic subordination and ontological equality), whereas a non-trinitarian view of God has no such model.
In an Islamic culture, because of its rejection of the Trinity model, there is submission but no concept of equality as it is played at in societal structures. Exhibit A being the way women are viewed in the Islamic world, particularly within the marriage relationship. A wife is not regarded as equal to her husband, but as a possession. Islamic theology creates a hierarchical view of society based on submission to authority. Why do dictators run most Muslim countries? The answer is quite simply: Theology has consequences.
Western civilization is built upon a trinitarian view of God (in spite of the humanist “smoke screen” to the contrary). There is recognition of hierarchical authority (kings, presidents, prime ministers, etc.) and at the same time a recognition of equality under God. This is demonstrated by our understanding of what Samuel Rutherford called “Lex Rex” (Law is King) as opposed to a totalitarian system of “Rex Lex” (King is Law). You have heard the phrase “No one is above the law,” meaning king or peasant, regardless, the law applies. It is the concept that all men stand under the law, which affirms equality. Most people living under the freedom from totalitarian regimes do not realize that the philosophical source of that freedom rests in Christian theology.
Islam sees the tension that exists in embracing monotheism and the Trinity. They see this as a contradiction, while Christianity sees it as a “mystery” revealed by God. Christianity is aware of the tension in which this truth must be held, in fact it is this tension which has pushed Christians to build a society that emphasizes both unity and diversity and in that way reflect the Trinity.
Islam is suspicious of diversity. Having rejected “The One and the Many,” they can only see unity as reflected in One and reject the diversity reflected in the Many. It is significant to note for example that Islam looks askance at the story of Christ’s life and death being given in four separate Gospels. Their view is that if there are four separate accounts they must all be wrong. This same perspective prevails as they perceive the Bible to be unreliable record, which came through various authors over a time span of thousands of years. The Qur’an on the other hand, came through one writer (Muhammad) over a period of 23 years. To the Muslim mind this makes the Qur’an more credible.
The emphasis on tawhid--making everything united—has huge cultural implications. Notice how little diversity there is in most Muslim nations regarding dress. This is more than simply a fashion statement, or an act of modesty. Islam seeks to create a “oneness” without diversity of expression. Of much greater importance than clothing is the issue of intellectual liberty, in Muslim states this is often viewed as a violation of tawhid and forbidden. Hisham Kassem of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights stated, “It’s not safe to think in this part of the world.” (Ask Salmon Rushdie if this is not true.) In hard-core Islamic countries, any Muslim who converts to Christianity is regarded as having violated tawhid, and may have his property confiscated and possibly lose his life.
Yes, one’s theology is important and it does produce consequences. History and the examination of the development of cultures bear this out. The view one adopts of God shapes all other aspects of his thinking. We, as believers, must be aware of this and not ignore the importance of sound theology.
All men knowingly or unknowingly are theologians. The basis of a man’s theology may come from subjective experiences, observations of nature, religious training, meditative thought, assumptions based upon his own desires (creating a God in his own image), or from an objective source which is accepted as “truth.” This objective source may be the Bible, the Qur’an, The Watchtower magazine, or a host of other so-called “sacred” writings. Regardless of the theology one adopts, we must recognize that it will have consequences, both in the present world and in eternity. It has been said that, “ideas have consequences,” this is particularly true when it comes to the ideas one has about God. It is not only true about individuals, but for societies as well. Cultures are inevitably shaped by their view of God. In fact the word “culture” is derived from the word “cultus,” which is a Latin term signifying “worship.” What a society worships produces it’s culture.
This can readily be seen when one observes the various nations of the earth and the religious system they live under. For instance, humanistic religious systems elevate Man to the place of worship, pantheistic systems, such as Hinduism, worship creation (since God is in everything), and monotheistic systems worship a Supreme Being. This Supreme Being to the Muslim is Allah, to the Christian He is the Triune God of the Bible. He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is here that we find the distinction between a Muslim culture and a Christian culture. Though both are monotheistic in their theology, it is because of the concept of the Trinity that two distinctly different cultures are produced.
Christianity is by its very nature about the one and the many, monotheism with a trinity. God dwells in community, or as the Puritans understood “God is a sweet society within Himself.” Within the Trinity we have an “economic (functional) subordination,” at the same time we have an “ontological equality.” Because of function there is recognition of the executive (the Father) in the relationship, without the loss of the equality of all members. God, in the Trinity, patterns for Man the structure human community is to take. For example, the Biblical pattern for marriage shows the leadership function of the husband, but at the same time the husband and wife are equal. Submission of the wife does not mean a loss of equality with her husband. In civil governments produced by a Christian culture, the executive office (and its accompanying authority) is acknowledged, but he is not superior in the sense of his “being” to other men. He stands under God and His law as an equal with all men, though his function is different giving him responsibility and authority. The Trinity models this for mankind (economic subordination and ontological equality), whereas a non-trinitarian view of God has no such model.
In an Islamic culture, because of its rejection of the Trinity model, there is submission but no concept of equality as it is played at in societal structures. Exhibit A being the way women are viewed in the Islamic world, particularly within the marriage relationship. A wife is not regarded as equal to her husband, but as a possession. Islamic theology creates a hierarchical view of society based on submission to authority. Why do dictators run most Muslim countries? The answer is quite simply: Theology has consequences.
Western civilization is built upon a trinitarian view of God (in spite of the humanist “smoke screen” to the contrary). There is recognition of hierarchical authority (kings, presidents, prime ministers, etc.) and at the same time a recognition of equality under God. This is demonstrated by our understanding of what Samuel Rutherford called “Lex Rex” (Law is King) as opposed to a totalitarian system of “Rex Lex” (King is Law). You have heard the phrase “No one is above the law,” meaning king or peasant, regardless, the law applies. It is the concept that all men stand under the law, which affirms equality. Most people living under the freedom from totalitarian regimes do not realize that the philosophical source of that freedom rests in Christian theology.
Islam sees the tension that exists in embracing monotheism and the Trinity. They see this as a contradiction, while Christianity sees it as a “mystery” revealed by God. Christianity is aware of the tension in which this truth must be held, in fact it is this tension which has pushed Christians to build a society that emphasizes both unity and diversity and in that way reflect the Trinity.
Islam is suspicious of diversity. Having rejected “The One and the Many,” they can only see unity as reflected in One and reject the diversity reflected in the Many. It is significant to note for example that Islam looks askance at the story of Christ’s life and death being given in four separate Gospels. Their view is that if there are four separate accounts they must all be wrong. This same perspective prevails as they perceive the Bible to be unreliable record, which came through various authors over a time span of thousands of years. The Qur’an on the other hand, came through one writer (Muhammad) over a period of 23 years. To the Muslim mind this makes the Qur’an more credible.
The emphasis on tawhid--making everything united—has huge cultural implications. Notice how little diversity there is in most Muslim nations regarding dress. This is more than simply a fashion statement, or an act of modesty. Islam seeks to create a “oneness” without diversity of expression. Of much greater importance than clothing is the issue of intellectual liberty, in Muslim states this is often viewed as a violation of tawhid and forbidden. Hisham Kassem of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights stated, “It’s not safe to think in this part of the world.” (Ask Salmon Rushdie if this is not true.) In hard-core Islamic countries, any Muslim who converts to Christianity is regarded as having violated tawhid, and may have his property confiscated and possibly lose his life.
Yes, one’s theology is important and it does produce consequences. History and the examination of the development of cultures bear this out. The view one adopts of God shapes all other aspects of his thinking. We, as believers, must be aware of this and not ignore the importance of sound theology.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
The Power of Persistence
Jesus spelled out prayer for us very clearly. One day His disciples came to Him saying, ”Lord, teach us to pray.” After giving them a model prayer, He told them a parable about a man who went to his neighbor’s home to beg for bread because of the late arrival of a friend. The neighbor refused to even get out of bed. But the man kept pounding on the door insisting that his neighbor rise and grant his request. Jesus concludes the parable by saying, ”I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs” (Luke 11:5-8).
In another place Jesus illustrates prayer comparing it to a widow whom kept coming and pleading her case before an unrighteous judge. The judge finally said to himself, “Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, yet because the widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, lest by her continually coming she wears me out.” Jesus concludes by saying, “Hear what the unrighteous judge said; now shall not God bring about justice for his elect, who cry out to Him day and night . . .? However when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” Take note that Jesus is equating faith with “continually coming, crying out day and night” (Luke 18:1-8). In other words, faith expresses itself through persistence.
We live in a push button, instant, microwave culture where we can have virtually anything instantly. Unfortunately, this carries over to the way we approach God. We casually ask Him once or twice, then quit and wonder why He doesn’t answer. We are like the man who prayed, “Lord, I want patience and I want it NOW!”
Instead we must be like Jacob, who wrestled all night with the angel of the Lord, and said: “I will not let go until you bless me.” That should be our persistent attitude in prayer. Note Paul’s words; “With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints . . . “ (Ephes. 6:18). [The word translated as “perseverance” is the Greek word proskarteresis, which is a verb meaning “to wait until one’s trial comes before the court” or “to diligently remain at one’s work.”] One of the greatest intercessors in the history of the Church was George Mueller of Bristol, England. He was a man who exemplified persistence in prayer. In praying for the salvation of lost individuals he made this comment: “I have persevered in believing prayer for more than fifty-two years for some, and shall continue till the answer comes: ‘Shall not God avenge His own elect which cry day and night unto Him’ (Luke 18:7).”
I once saw a plaque in a brother’s office that made this declaration: “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education alone will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. That may be an overstatement, and though it does not speak directly to the issue of prayer, there is wisdom in it.
Prior to his becoming Prime Minister, Winston Churchill was invited to come and speak to the students at Harrow, his alma mater. At this time his fame was an orator was widely known. Everyone expected a great feat of oratory, as he would pass on his wisdom to these students. There was a hush over the assembly as he approached the podium. His speech was simple and brief, he said, “Never, never, never, . . . give up.” He then took his seat.
With that one sentence, Winston Churchill electrified the audience. What gave Churchill’s words such power was the fact that he was not merely repeating a “motivational” principle. It was something that he adhered to in his own life. He was a man who never gave up. (I recommend for your reading Stephen Mansfield’s book entitled Never Give In: The Extraordinary Character of Winston Churchill, published by Highland Books.) Though he was not addressing the issue of prayer, his words are applicable to it.
I recognize that effective prayer involves more than simply being persistent (See I John 5:14), but it is a factor addressed in the Scriptures. May we all, by God’s grace, become more consistent and more persistent in our prayer life.
In another place Jesus illustrates prayer comparing it to a widow whom kept coming and pleading her case before an unrighteous judge. The judge finally said to himself, “Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, yet because the widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, lest by her continually coming she wears me out.” Jesus concludes by saying, “Hear what the unrighteous judge said; now shall not God bring about justice for his elect, who cry out to Him day and night . . .? However when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” Take note that Jesus is equating faith with “continually coming, crying out day and night” (Luke 18:1-8). In other words, faith expresses itself through persistence.
We live in a push button, instant, microwave culture where we can have virtually anything instantly. Unfortunately, this carries over to the way we approach God. We casually ask Him once or twice, then quit and wonder why He doesn’t answer. We are like the man who prayed, “Lord, I want patience and I want it NOW!”
Instead we must be like Jacob, who wrestled all night with the angel of the Lord, and said: “I will not let go until you bless me.” That should be our persistent attitude in prayer. Note Paul’s words; “With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints . . . “ (Ephes. 6:18). [The word translated as “perseverance” is the Greek word proskarteresis, which is a verb meaning “to wait until one’s trial comes before the court” or “to diligently remain at one’s work.”] One of the greatest intercessors in the history of the Church was George Mueller of Bristol, England. He was a man who exemplified persistence in prayer. In praying for the salvation of lost individuals he made this comment: “I have persevered in believing prayer for more than fifty-two years for some, and shall continue till the answer comes: ‘Shall not God avenge His own elect which cry day and night unto Him’ (Luke 18:7).”
I once saw a plaque in a brother’s office that made this declaration: “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education alone will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. That may be an overstatement, and though it does not speak directly to the issue of prayer, there is wisdom in it.
Prior to his becoming Prime Minister, Winston Churchill was invited to come and speak to the students at Harrow, his alma mater. At this time his fame was an orator was widely known. Everyone expected a great feat of oratory, as he would pass on his wisdom to these students. There was a hush over the assembly as he approached the podium. His speech was simple and brief, he said, “Never, never, never, . . . give up.” He then took his seat.
With that one sentence, Winston Churchill electrified the audience. What gave Churchill’s words such power was the fact that he was not merely repeating a “motivational” principle. It was something that he adhered to in his own life. He was a man who never gave up. (I recommend for your reading Stephen Mansfield’s book entitled Never Give In: The Extraordinary Character of Winston Churchill, published by Highland Books.) Though he was not addressing the issue of prayer, his words are applicable to it.
I recognize that effective prayer involves more than simply being persistent (See I John 5:14), but it is a factor addressed in the Scriptures. May we all, by God’s grace, become more consistent and more persistent in our prayer life.
Brief Personal Update
In the past three and a half years, my life has gone through some dramatic and significant changes. I praise God for where I am today, even though the pain of the journey was great. I can honestly say that I have found a new love for the Lord, my wife, my ministry, and life in general. If I had known in 2006 where I would be today, and the sense of joy and personal fulfillment I currently experience, I would have celebrated. But in the midst of my valley, all I knew was despair and hopelessness. But God, who is a Redeemer, turned my sorrow into joy and has restored all that I had lost due to my sinful, immoral behavior. Even in recent weeks, God has done exceedingly above my expectations in restoring relationships and the opportunity to recover what had been lost.
Currently, I minister in two different prisons each week. I teach Bible classes and minister to the inmates one-on-one. I have three guys, who were formerly the biggest drug dealers on the east side of Kansas City, attending my Bible studies. I could have pastored a church in Kansas City for a 100 years and never reached them. But God has sent me to them inside the prison walls. I minister to at least 200 inmates every week. I have found more fulfillment and joy in ministering to those in prison than I ever found in preaching at conferences around the world, preaching on several radio stations, and "hob-nobbing" with Christian celebrities. I say - somewhat tongue-cheek - that all friends these days are felons, ex-felons, or preachers.
Sundays I lead a house church made up of those who stuck with me during my darkest hours. Their support for me, both emotional and financial, is beyond what I can express. In addition, I have been involved in a 12 step recovery group for over 3 years that has been a significant help in my life. On top of that, God gave me a new friend over 3 1/2 years ago, a retired Army chaplain by the name of Sam Sanford, who along with my long-time comrade, side-kick, and covenant brother, Dr. Al Sarno, is my "Battle Buddy." I can not fail to mention the importance my friends like Dennis Cole, Jim Cox, and Howard Cordell have played in my life over the past 3 years. They stood with me, and confronted me, in the journey.
On Christmas eve last year, our youngest daughter, Meagan got married. That makes June and I "empty -nesters," which quite honestly we enjoy. We have four great children,three great sons-in-law and a great daughter-in-law, and three tremendous grandchildren. Through our painful journey, June and I have grown closer together. God is so redemptive.
I believe that God has brought me through all that I went through, in order to bear witness to to those in the "valley of darkness" of His unconditional love, His amazing grace, and His redemptive purposes.
Currently, I minister in two different prisons each week. I teach Bible classes and minister to the inmates one-on-one. I have three guys, who were formerly the biggest drug dealers on the east side of Kansas City, attending my Bible studies. I could have pastored a church in Kansas City for a 100 years and never reached them. But God has sent me to them inside the prison walls. I minister to at least 200 inmates every week. I have found more fulfillment and joy in ministering to those in prison than I ever found in preaching at conferences around the world, preaching on several radio stations, and "hob-nobbing" with Christian celebrities. I say - somewhat tongue-cheek - that all friends these days are felons, ex-felons, or preachers.
Sundays I lead a house church made up of those who stuck with me during my darkest hours. Their support for me, both emotional and financial, is beyond what I can express. In addition, I have been involved in a 12 step recovery group for over 3 years that has been a significant help in my life. On top of that, God gave me a new friend over 3 1/2 years ago, a retired Army chaplain by the name of Sam Sanford, who along with my long-time comrade, side-kick, and covenant brother, Dr. Al Sarno, is my "Battle Buddy." I can not fail to mention the importance my friends like Dennis Cole, Jim Cox, and Howard Cordell have played in my life over the past 3 years. They stood with me, and confronted me, in the journey.
On Christmas eve last year, our youngest daughter, Meagan got married. That makes June and I "empty -nesters," which quite honestly we enjoy. We have four great children,three great sons-in-law and a great daughter-in-law, and three tremendous grandchildren. Through our painful journey, June and I have grown closer together. God is so redemptive.
I believe that God has brought me through all that I went through, in order to bear witness to to those in the "valley of darkness" of His unconditional love, His amazing grace, and His redemptive purposes.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Christ and Culture
Over half a century ago, H. Richard Niebuhr (brother of Reinhold) wrote a significant little book entitled Christ and Culture. It became one of the most influential Christian books in the 20th century. This book continues to cause discussion in the theological world due to Niebuhr’s articulation of the five ways historically Christianity has interacted with culture. Though Niebuhr does not fit neatly into the “evangelical” world, there is much for evangelicals to gain from examining his famous “five types.” Evangelicals have, and do, inhabit all of Niebuhr’s types. Each type has some degree of merit and worthy of discussion, as believers seek to define how they should – and should not – interact with contemporary culture. I trust that my brief condensation of the five types will be helpful as you personally wrestle with this issue.
The first type is “Christ against culture.” It characterizes what can be described as “the sectarian impulse.” Niebuhr refers to this as the “new law” type. Christians in this mode see the world as hopelessly corrupted by sin. The Kingdom of God comes to supersede it – currently in the purity of the church, and ultimately in the messianic kingdom. The emphasis as it relates to culture is the call to “come out from among them and be ye separate.” This viewpoint has traditionally been represented by such groups as the Mennonites, the Baptists, Pentecostals, and the “Holiness” churches.
The second type is “Christ above culture.” This was the perspective of Thomas Aquinas and remains the view of many Roman Catholics today. In this view, all that is good in human culture is a gift from God. But to be fully realized, this good requires Christian revelation and the mediation of the Church. For example, Aristotle’s insights can be received by the Christian joyfully (as they were by Aquinas), but these truths need Christian theology to accompany them in order for their full understanding to be recognized. Before Aquinas, this view was reflected by some of the apologists in the early church who allied themselves with Plato. In today’s evangelical world we find this type represented by missionaries who emphasize anticipations of Christian revelation in the beliefs of non-Christian cultures. (For a study in this I would recommend the book, Eternity in Their Hearts by Don Richardson.)
The third type is the model of “Christ of culture,” in which the conflict between the two gives way to a harmony between them. Christians in this mode seek to discern and then champion the highest moral common ground between the teaching of Christ and the noblest values of contemporary culture. Niebuhr associated this view with Germany’s “Cultural Protestantism” of the late 19th and early 20th century, Victorian liberals, and the American Whigs such as Thomas Jefferson. Today, American evangelicals frequently exhibit this perspective when they closely associate God and country.
The fourth type is referred to by Niebuhr as “Christ transforming culture.” This perspective finds it representatives for evangelicals in the Puritans and the revivalists (John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Charles Finney), who were trying to both evangelize and bring about social reform. In this type the Kingdom of God is to come to social structures as well as individuals. Business, the arts, the professions, family life, education, civil government – all are to come under the rule of Christ and all must be reclaimed in His name.
The fifth option is called by Niebuhr “Christ and culture in paradox.” This is the view attributed to Martin Luther, and is the view of Reinhold Niebuhr. In this type, Christians live within a strong tension. On one hand, they believe that God has ordained worldly institutions and that we must work within those institutions the best we can. On the other hand, we must affirm Christ’s kingdom that has invaded the world here and now. Thus, under God’s providence, we follow a path that can seem crooked and unclear as we try to honor what is divinely ordained in the culture, while at the same time living out the distinct values of the Kingdom of God as best we can without compromise.
I believe that these five types must be held in “tension” with each other. I believe that each of these types can be scripturally validated. I believe that at some points there is the “intersection” of types. I would ascribe to the view that the fourth option is God’s ultimate intention teleologically as it relates to Christ and culture. Yet I believe I see validity in the other alternatives at various stages in the movement toward that end.
Allow me to present some questions that I believe are worthy of discussion. I believe the church needs to understand the times and the cultural environment in which it lives. When one considers the varied circumstances and cultural situations, under which Christians in the world live, each of these types have a certain degree of merit. The cultural situation in much of the world at the present is different than what we find here in the United States. Is it possible that the type most suitable for the church in China to follow be different than the type expressed by the church here in the U.S.? Does the cultural environment determine the primary mode in which the church should relate to the culture? Did the church in the first-century relate different to the cultural environment than the church in 17th century England? Were these not two distinctly different situations requiring different approaches to the culture? Is the approach different when dealing with a pagan or “pre-Christian” culture, than when dealing with a “Christian” culture (or a “post-Christian” culture – as Francis Schaeffer described Western civilization)?
I present this to you for your consideration.
The first type is “Christ against culture.” It characterizes what can be described as “the sectarian impulse.” Niebuhr refers to this as the “new law” type. Christians in this mode see the world as hopelessly corrupted by sin. The Kingdom of God comes to supersede it – currently in the purity of the church, and ultimately in the messianic kingdom. The emphasis as it relates to culture is the call to “come out from among them and be ye separate.” This viewpoint has traditionally been represented by such groups as the Mennonites, the Baptists, Pentecostals, and the “Holiness” churches.
The second type is “Christ above culture.” This was the perspective of Thomas Aquinas and remains the view of many Roman Catholics today. In this view, all that is good in human culture is a gift from God. But to be fully realized, this good requires Christian revelation and the mediation of the Church. For example, Aristotle’s insights can be received by the Christian joyfully (as they were by Aquinas), but these truths need Christian theology to accompany them in order for their full understanding to be recognized. Before Aquinas, this view was reflected by some of the apologists in the early church who allied themselves with Plato. In today’s evangelical world we find this type represented by missionaries who emphasize anticipations of Christian revelation in the beliefs of non-Christian cultures. (For a study in this I would recommend the book, Eternity in Their Hearts by Don Richardson.)
The third type is the model of “Christ of culture,” in which the conflict between the two gives way to a harmony between them. Christians in this mode seek to discern and then champion the highest moral common ground between the teaching of Christ and the noblest values of contemporary culture. Niebuhr associated this view with Germany’s “Cultural Protestantism” of the late 19th and early 20th century, Victorian liberals, and the American Whigs such as Thomas Jefferson. Today, American evangelicals frequently exhibit this perspective when they closely associate God and country.
The fourth type is referred to by Niebuhr as “Christ transforming culture.” This perspective finds it representatives for evangelicals in the Puritans and the revivalists (John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Charles Finney), who were trying to both evangelize and bring about social reform. In this type the Kingdom of God is to come to social structures as well as individuals. Business, the arts, the professions, family life, education, civil government – all are to come under the rule of Christ and all must be reclaimed in His name.
The fifth option is called by Niebuhr “Christ and culture in paradox.” This is the view attributed to Martin Luther, and is the view of Reinhold Niebuhr. In this type, Christians live within a strong tension. On one hand, they believe that God has ordained worldly institutions and that we must work within those institutions the best we can. On the other hand, we must affirm Christ’s kingdom that has invaded the world here and now. Thus, under God’s providence, we follow a path that can seem crooked and unclear as we try to honor what is divinely ordained in the culture, while at the same time living out the distinct values of the Kingdom of God as best we can without compromise.
I believe that these five types must be held in “tension” with each other. I believe that each of these types can be scripturally validated. I believe that at some points there is the “intersection” of types. I would ascribe to the view that the fourth option is God’s ultimate intention teleologically as it relates to Christ and culture. Yet I believe I see validity in the other alternatives at various stages in the movement toward that end.
Allow me to present some questions that I believe are worthy of discussion. I believe the church needs to understand the times and the cultural environment in which it lives. When one considers the varied circumstances and cultural situations, under which Christians in the world live, each of these types have a certain degree of merit. The cultural situation in much of the world at the present is different than what we find here in the United States. Is it possible that the type most suitable for the church in China to follow be different than the type expressed by the church here in the U.S.? Does the cultural environment determine the primary mode in which the church should relate to the culture? Did the church in the first-century relate different to the cultural environment than the church in 17th century England? Were these not two distinctly different situations requiring different approaches to the culture? Is the approach different when dealing with a pagan or “pre-Christian” culture, than when dealing with a “Christian” culture (or a “post-Christian” culture – as Francis Schaeffer described Western civilization)?
I present this to you for your consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
