« Who's Their Daddy? |
Main
| CT: It's All About Jesus »
Evangelicals and "the Culture"
Conservative evangelicals often have a negative attitude toward “the culture.” I have seen this demonstrated repeatedly when I was growing up in a homeschooling environment and continue to see it in many evangelical magazines and blogs. “The culture” is deemed to be something bad and it is assumed that the church is not or ought not to be influence by “the culture.”
I suspect that this view grew out of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy of the past century. Fundamentalist grew more and more marginalized from what they viewed as a secular and hostile culture. The word “culture” seems to have become a synonym for the bad aspects of the current culture.
Unfortunately, this is an imprecise use of the word “culture.” I think it serves only to confuse non-Christians and to help Christian thinking remain fuzzy. It seems I hear daily ranting about how the church has been influence by “the culture.” Of course, I generally know what people mean and agree that the Church should not follow its home culture into sinful behavior. I just wish Christian could try to use the word “culture” in a more accurate way.
The use of the term “the culture” somehow implies that the church is not a part of “the culture.” That is not true. Christians in America or wherever they live generally speak the same language, eat the same food, watch the same football, drive the same cars, vote in the same elections as non-Christians do because they are part of the same human culture. All those things are part of “the culture.” Even the impetus towards separatism and libertarianism is part of American culture.
Using the word “culture” to refer to only bad element of the culture promotes fuzzy thinking. Somehow, evangelicals talk like “the culture” is ONLY pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, relativistic and that we should reject “the culture.” But what about things like democracy, eating with forks rather than chopsticks, wearing blue jeans, moving away from parents after high school, universal suffrage? Those things ARE cultural, but if we define “the culture” in only negative terms, we have no category for those things that are neither Christian principles nor non-Christian sins.
The truth is, we are all part of at least one culture and that culture contains both good and bad elements. Because we are all born and raised in a certain culture, we are all members of a culture. I think this is the way that God created humans to be. We exist in societies because God created us as social beings. The societies we create together are unique because God has gifted us with a diverse earth and the ability to be creative. Culture embodies our beliefs, attitudes, technology, tools, art and more.
Because humans are sinful, all human cultures contain sinful elements. Christians within each culture need to recognize which elements of their culture are sinful and reject them. But that does not mean they should or must (or even can) reject the entire culture. Christians should rejoice over those things in their own culture which are good and true. They should seek to preserve those element.. And those things which are neutral are theirs to choose to keep or change as they wish.
At its root, the problem we face is not "the culture." The problem is sin. Every culture composed of sinful human beings will contain sinful elements. We are not here to somehow purify "the culture" by our constant complaining and campaigning, but to represent Christ to a dying world.
I agree with what you're saying, but I haven't come across the word 'culture' used in the way you suggest. I wonder if it's American conservative evangelicals who put the negative slant on the word? Certainly in the UK (where I come from) and Cyprus (where I live) culture is generally considered either neutral or given a good/bad slant depending on what we're referring to. It could be that since most Europeans are so used to travelling to other countries, we see culture more for what it is.
Cypriot culture is very Christianised in the Greek Orthodox sense (something like 97% of the population call themselves Christian) and there's a very low violent crime rate. The latter is good, but cultural Christianity isn't necessarily: it means people speak the right language, and think they understand whta it's all about. Almost everybody goes to church at least sometimes, because it's culturally appropriate to do so. It means the church has a large number of nominal Christians.
It's said that the church only grows and thrives when it's counter-cultural, and I think there's some truth in that. But that doesnt'mean we should reject all that's cultural (since much is positive) or that we need to be deliberately counter-cultural. Just that we need a different focus: on Jesus.
Woohoo! Go girl! I've been thinking along the same lines. Engaging "the culture" is engaging people in our culture. You made my morning with this Hannah.
Hi Sue,
Re: I wonder if it's American conservative evangelicals who put the negative slant on the word?
I wonder too. Here we don't say "the culture" - although I've occasionally used it in blogging as I have so many US readers. But we are multi-cultural - lots of different cultures here in NZ and evangelicals tend to think of people and particular groups.
This is a bit convicting...I'm going to have to stop being so sloppy with my use of the term culture, or "the culture." When I speak of engaging culture, I'm INCLUDING the church!
Thanks for this Hannah, you've brought me some clarity this morning.
Along the same lines are those that would promote other cultures as so much better than our own. For example, other cultures are more agricultural, more family-oriented, etc. and this is lauded as the way we should be. (It seems that some missionaries are guilty of shunning their own culture for the culture they have been visiting, instead of seeing good and bad in each.) Unfortunately, these same people are not willing to work inside of this culture but move to an entirely different culture for one aspect that they deem good.
I agree that we American evangelicals have been quite sloppy in our critique of culture (I count myself chief among all sinners on this one). We take the Biblical warnings about "the world" and worldliness and "the flesh" and rather than expanding on the meanings of those warning, we lump them under the aegis of "the culture".
I think your analysis is right on -- it goes back to the fundamentalist/modernist controversey (but I suspect it has roots in the techniques used by revivalists such as Finney -- see Ian Murray's great book on Revival and Revivalism and his contrast between the first and second great awakenings).
If culture is the sum total of human achievement (as I believe sociologists define it), then we find both sin and glory in culture. And our calling is to be salt and light in the culture (Matthew 5) and to pray for the peace of the city in which we are placed (Jeremiah 29).
Great thoughts, Hannah. That's definitely some ambiguity we need to clear up.
Rhea, you are right on! I have been guilty of that in the past, because I neglected to recognize God's sovereignty over our geographic locations as much as anything else. I was ironically forgetting that it is God who put me into a particular family of a particular economic status in a particular country, etc., and that is where God's will for my life begins. Hrm. I needed reminding of that today, too - thanks.
Good article.
I blogged about something like this - I believe that we can engage the culture, without embracing all parts of it. The example that I used was Goth. Yes, it's a style of dressing, but if I see a young Christian who is beginning to dress in that way, and embrace that subculture, I am cnocerned, because Goth, by their own definition, glorifies the dark side of life.
We are a part of our culture, and we help to make it what it is - but we also need to be as gentle as doves and as sly as serpents in knowing what to accept and what to reject.
My responses in reverse chronological order:
Ellen, I'd be interested to read your post. I must confess, I used to dress partially Gothic when I was a teen. I had very short hair which I dyed jet black, six earrings in each ear, a belly button ring, and all my clothes were black. Some of the music I liked tended towards the dark side too, but I fortunately never got into it very far. I agree that we need to be very discerning.
Russell, I am wondering about Finney's influence. Last year, I took an excellent class in seminary on the history of American and Canadian Christianity. It's fun to see how we got to where we our now. If I can get that book you mentioned, I'll read it.
Rhea, Yes, there are those who promote other cultures as better than our own. I tend to be somewhat of a Christian cultural relativist, myself. That is, I tend to see all cultures as tainted by sin and thus all needing to be carefully evaluated. I do think some cultures have superior elements in them and that some have elements that are superior to corresponding element in our culture.
Sarah, I'm glad I brought some clarity. No matter how much edit, I always worry that I wasn't clear enough.
Catez, From reading your blog recently, I thought you might be leaning in this direction too. Engaging the culture is really engaging people in the culture.
Sue, I do think it may be an American thing. South Korea is at least one-third Christian, but I haven't heard culture used in a bad sense among Christians here. BTW, I visited the Limassol area of Cyprus five years ago. It was a beautiful island and the ruins were fascinating. Do you speek Greek well?
Hi Hannah,
Thanks for your response. I am not so much "leaning" in that direction - I've always been from that perspective. Engaging the culture is engaging people - although we also engage issues/aspects of our culture (still involves engaging people but is a little different). I think in terms of aspects of culture. As you say, there's good and bad. I like Marla's point about the world - she provided a nice piece of the picture I think.
