Chapter 18 CULTURAL ENGAGEMENT THROUGH BLENDED INSIGHTS

As we have seen, the cultural situation in the West has forced every minister to adopt some model of relating Christ to culture. Many ministers, I believe, are largely unaware of the presuppositions, historical roots, or weaknesses of their model, or of the biblical merits of other models. Yet if you’ve come this far, I hope no one can say this of you. Nevertheless, you are still operating from within your own model. You have a personal history, temperament, church tradition, and ministry context that leads you to emphasize certain ways of relating to culture. In this chapter, I will offer practical counsel on how to operate faithfully and skillfully within the model you inhabit.

SEEK THE CENTER

The first principle is that proponents of each model should do their best to discern and incorporate the insights of the other models. Referring again to the illustration on page 231, each of us should “seek the center” — i.e., to seek to face and operate close to the illustration’s center. The main way to do this is to appreciate the seminal insights of each model, so we’ll summarize them again here.

The Relevants are especially inspired by the coming shalom and restoration of all things. They emphasize the importance of a church that exists for others, doing sacrificial service for the common good. If the Christian faith is to have any impact on culture, the time must come when it is widely known that secularism tends to make people selfish, while general religion and traditional morality make people tribal (concerned mainly for their own), but the Christian gospel turns people away from both their selfishness and their self-righteousness to serve others in the way that Jesus gave himself for his enemies. Just as Israel was told to “seek the peace and prosperity” of the great pagan city of Babylon (Jer 29:7), so Christians should be well-known as people who seek to serve people — whether they embrace Christianity or not.¹

The Transformationists have a keen sense of the effects of the fall on human culture; their main focus is on thinking and living in all areas of life in a distinctively Christian manner. Most of our churches’ discipleship models operate by drawing laypeople out of the world and into the life of the church - which can be unhelpful. D. Michael Lindsay’s Faith in the Halls of Power shows that Christians who are deeply involved in cultural centers and institutions feel largely unappreciated by and alienated from the church.2 Few churches actively support people to follow Christ in both their private and public lives, but the Transformationists are filling this gap.

The Counterculturalists point to God’s redemptive strategy of calling out a distinct people for himself; their lead theme calls the church to be a contrast community and sign of the future kingdom, if we are to have any witness to the world. Those who advocate this model rightly argue that Christians who work as individuals dispersed within cultural institutions cannot give the world a Christian vision of human flourishing in the same way that a community can. The church can provide the best setting for shaping a Christian’s worldview for work in the world.3

Those holding the Two Kingdoms view revel in the goodness of creation; their basic idea centers on the dignity of secular vocation and the importance of doing this work in a way marked by an excellence that all can see.4 The distinctiveness of Christian work will have little impact, directly or indirectly, unless it is accompanied by excellence. Martin Luther is reported to have been asked, “How can I be a Christian shoemaker?” and to have answered, “Make excellent shoes for an excellent price” — in other words, be the best shoemaker you can be. The very act of honest work, even in its simplest forms, even when it is difficult to do out of a discernibly Christian worldview, is a wondrous good in and of itself. And therefore farming, police work, and other vocations in which we serve the common good are vehicles for God’s love and care to the degree that they are done very well - with utmost skill and honesty.

These are the driving themes of the models. Each is represented as a line radiating out from the center of the grid. The farther you are from the center, the more you hold a particular model’s theme reductionistically, with little regard for the insights of others, and therefore stand in great danger of failing to honor all of the biblical themes at the same time-creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. The center of the diagram, near the meeting of the axes, represents a place where there is a greater reliance on the whole cloth of biblical themes-marked by an effort to hold together the realities of creation and fall, natural revelation and special revelation, curse and common grace, the “already but not yet,” continuity and discontinuity, sin and grace. The closer you are to the center of the grid, the more you hold your theme in balance with the other themes. This is a Center Church model for cultural engagement in which we seek to avoid the imbalances of triumphalism or withdrawal in the existing models and are equally loath to commit either cultural compromise or cultural withdrawal. A Center Church approach seeks to blend the cultural and biblical insights of all the models into our actual practice and ministry.5

For example, the Two Kingdoms model rightly lifts up the dignity and divine significance of all work done by all people. Regardless of who is doing it, any work done with excellence and skill that serves other people and the common good should be appreciated and celebrated by Christians. However, the Transformationist model points out the idolatries animating our lives, including our work, and therefore values work done from a distinctly Christian understanding of human flourishing. To combine both of these attitudes enables Christians to be both humble and appreciative of nonbelieving colleagues and yet not satisfied with doing work according to the reigning standards and philosophies in their field.

Miroslav Volf titles a section of his book A Public Faith “Two Noes and One Yes.” This means, first, saying no to what he calls “total transformation” — to a goal of transforming the whole culture we inhabit. What Christians build culturally is not like the modern cities (Brasilia is the best example) that are built from scratch. It is like rehabilitating an existing city while living in it. It means, second, saying no to what he calls “accommodation.” Finally, we say yes to “engagement,” which Volf describes as “expressing the middle between abandoning and dominating the culture… what it might mean to assert one’s difference while remaining within it,” of “leaving without departing.”7

Volf continues to spell this out by describing three stances that Christians can take to a particular element of culture. They can (1) adopt it as something acceptable, (2) take up the element but transform it from within, or (3) reject it and even work to abolish it in a society for the good of all.8 By locating a large part of Christian difference in the unique biblical understanding of human nature and human thriving, Volf bridges a gap between the Transformationists and the Relevants. He makes shalom a critical goal of our culture making, yet insists that the common good be given biblical definition and content.2

I believe each model has at its core a unique insight about the world and a fundamental truth from the Bible that any professing Christian must acknowledge. And therefore, those within each model should seek in humility to find the genius and wisdom of the other approaches to better honor God’s Word and his will.

KNOW THE SEASON

So we should learn from all of the models, but does this mean the ideal position is one that does not fit into any of the models, that straddles the lines perfectly and balances all the insights and emphases of the models in perfect symmetry? I don’t believe so, for two reasons.

First, H. Richard Niebuhr believed that Christianity’s relationship to a culture went through a cycle. 10 He pointed to three stages of a historical cycle and how they follow one another.11

  1. In the beginning, we have what Niebuhr calls the “converted church” in which the church and culture are sharply dissimilar and at deep odds with each other. The church is alien to the world. In this situation, the church emphasizes its distinction from the world and has strong standards for baptism and a high level of accountability within the community for Christian practice. It also engages in aggressive evangelism.
  2. Next comes an “allied church” stage in which the church “enters into inevitable alliance with converted emperors and governors, philosophers and artists, merchants and entrepreneurs, and begins to live at peace in the culture they [these influential culture makers] produce under the stimulus of their faith.” During this stage the church becomes far less rigorous in discerning signs of repentance and faith. Many people come into the church simply out of cultural pressure. The difference between the church and the world diminishes to near zero. At some point the culture itself begins to drift from its Christian roots because the church is no longer a spiritually dynamic force. Rather than the church shaping the culture, the culture shapes the church.
  3. What happens then? A stage of renewal: “Only a new withdrawal [into the church as a contrast community] followed by a new aggression [of evangelism] can then save the church and restore to it the salt with which to savor society.”

Niebuhr wrote in 1935 that this cycle has happened three times, and he was thinking of Western civilization when he laid out his stages. 12 Of course, to talk of three stages falls short of the complex reality. For example, Niebuhr is right that Christianity became corrupt, declined, and managed to come back. But did the reformers in the past face the hostile secularism of the modern West? I don’t believe so; it is clear that to reengage a post-Christian society is not at all the same as evangelizing a pre-Christian society.

Here is one example. The pagans of the first and second century were astonished at the Christians’ compassion for the sick and the poor. David Bentley Hart explains that Christians essentially invented orphanages and hospitals - no one had ever thought of them. Nicholas Wolterstorff makes the case that the idea of human rights came from Christian reflection on the imago Dei.13 Christian compassion was therefore unique, attractive, and compelling to pre-Christian pagans. In our post-Christian society, this approach to human rights and commitment to compassion have been preserved, and therefore Christians’ compassion and championing of human rights have a less dramatic effect on nonbelievers today. Indeed, because Christianized, European America committed genocide against Native Americans and allowed and promoted the African slave trade, the Christian faith is given little credit for the massive good that it has done for Western culture. Addressing post-Christian pagans is not at all the same as addressing pre-Christian pagans.

I want to adapt Niebuhr’s proposal and suggest four seasons in the cycle of the church’s relationship to a culture.

  1. Winter describes a church that is not only in a hostile relationship to a pre-Christian culture but is gaining little traction; is seeing little distinctive, vital Christian life and community; and is seeing no evangelistic fruit. In many cultures today, the church is embattled and spiritually weak.
  2. Spring is a situation in which the church is embattled, even persecuted by a pre-Christian culture, but it is growing (e.g., as in China).
  3. Summer is what Niebuhr described as an “allied church,” where the church is highly regarded by the public and where we find so many Christians in the centers of cultural production that Christians feel at home in the culture.
  4. Autumn is where we find ourselves in the West today, becoming increasingly marginalized in a post-Christian culture and looking for new ways to both strengthen our distinctiveness and reach out winsomely.

At first glance, it seems that the Counterculturalist is most appropriate for “winter” (when there is a need to recover and nurture real Christianity); the Transformationist for “spring” (when cultural institutions are increasingly filled with Christians who need to be discipled for culture making); the Two Kingdoms for “summer” (when there is widespread cultural consensus on what human flourishing looks like); and the Relevance model for “autumn” (when many are still open to the gospel, but people are also beginning to question the relevance of faith for life). regard

This lineup is still too simplistic, however. For example, the American South and Sweden are both parts of post-Christian Western culture, but huge differences exist between them. In many parts of the American South, the church still has a great deal of public influence and positive — it’s still summer there. In addition, the models in their most unbalanced forms are never fully fruitful in any time or place. So for example, many champion the Counterculturalist model as the proper response to a post-Christian culture. It is often pointed out that the original monastic orders saved Christian civilization and evangelized pagan Europe. But is the new monasticism as effective and aggressive in its personal evangelism as were the original monastics? Many in the Counterculturalist model are in such a pitched reaction against the individualism of seeker churches and church growth movements that the message “you must be born again” is lost.14 Instead, they say, we should simply be a loving community that carries out justice and seeks peace. Often those with a Two Kingdoms mind-set place an emphasis on evangelism and discipleship, which, as we have seen, is especially crucial for a season in which the church is marginal within a culture. 15

So there are no simple answers to the question, “What season is it?” Yet it is a question that we must ask. If all these models in their balanced formulation have biblical warrant, where will we situate ourselves? The answer is not simply an attempt to hit on the perfect balance between all four all of the time. As we have seen, each model has a “tool kit” of biblical themes and approaches, and our present cultural season helps us better understand which tools we need to take out of the kit and use. 16

FOLLOW YOUR CONVICTIONS

The second reason we cannot simply call for a perfect union of all of the models is that each one tends to attract people on the basis of their different ministry gifts and callings. As the apostle Paul has famously told us, while all Christians must have all the Spirit’s “fruit” (or character virtues), no Christian has all of the Spirit’s gifts. Paul indicates in such places as 1 Corinthians 12-14; Ephesians 4; and Romans 12 that God gives each Christian one (or perhaps more) spiritual gift that equips him or her to serve others in the name of Christ. So the model we embrace will likely be influenced by the temperament and spiritual gifts we possess. How, then, do we discern what our spiritual gifts are?

As a pastor helping people answer this question over the years, I have noticed that people’s differing gifts are often revealed by the different human needs with which they resonate. Evangelizing is a duty of a Christian, as is helping the poor. But these ministries are also gifts - some people are especially gifted to do evangelism, and others to show mercy to those in need. 17 I often encountered people in my church who pressed me about particular ways that our church was failing in ministry. Some were passionate about evangelism; some were insistent we reach out to the needy; others bewailed how disorganized we were whenever we tried to do evangelism or mercy! I came to realize that some had the gift of evangelism, some of mercy, and some of administration, and their gifts made them particularly sensitive to certain kinds of problems. As their pastor, I needed to warn them that their gifts were giving them a bit of tunnel vision, but mainly I needed to train and release them into the area of ministry the Spirit was calling them through the distribution of his gifts.

I believe something similar (and related) is happening when it comes to these models of Christ and culture. As I read books by people who have thought through these matters, it seems that virtually no one can be neutral, unbiased, and uncommitted to a particular model. I have quoted from the works of Daniel Strange, Miroslav Volf, James Hunter, and many others - but as balanced and nuanced as these writers are, they usually show they are most comfortable with one particular model and most conversant with one model’s set of tools. Michael Goheen has done deep reading for years in the “missional” writings of David Bosch, Lesslie Newbigin, and others; has incorporated much of what we call Counterculturalist thinking; and yet considers himself a Kuyperian.18 Kevin DeYoung wrote a blog post in which he critiqued both the Transformationist and the Two Kingdoms models. He drew this conclusion:

Perhaps there is—I can’t believe I’m going to say it — a middle ground. I say, let’s not lose the heart of the gospel, divine self-satisfaction through self-substitution. And let’s not apologize for challenging Christians to show this same kind of dying love to others. Let’s not be embarrassed by the doctrine of hell and the necessity of repentance and regeneration. And let’s not be afraid to do good to all people, especially to the household of faith. Let’s work against the injustices and suffering in our day, and let’s be realistic that the poor, as Jesus said, will always be among us. Bottom line: let’s work for change where God calls us and gifts us, but let’s not forget that the Great Commission is go into the world and make disciples, not go into the world and build the kingdom. 19

Nevertheless, DeYoung wishes to identify most with what he calls the “careful two kingdoms theology.”? 20

CASE STUDY: WILLIAM STUNTZ A good case study of Christian cultural engagement and impact is the late William Stuntz, formerly professor of criminal law at Harvard Law School. Though he was an evangelical Christian and conservative Republican who was open about his faith and politics, when he died of cancer at the age of fifty-two, The New York Times paid him a remarkable tribute with a full op-ed piece on its editorial main page by Lincoln Caplan.21 It said that his scholarship in the area of criminal law was so strong that he had refuted the other thinkers and had a “profound” influence on the field. One of his accomplishments, according to the writer, was the incorporation of mercy to the marginalized without undermining rule of law. And yet the writer recognized that his arguments were not just skillful, but grounded in his Christian beliefs. While “literally defining the field,” Caplan wrote, “he was living his faith.” The piece also pointed to his inspiring example as he dealt courageously with cancer and faced his impending death with grace.

Here we see a man who definitely engaged and influenced the culture, brought his faith and its distinctive worldview to bear on the field of law, did it with undeniable excellence, and showed compassion for the poor within his theories of justice. In spite of the fact that he worked in places that largely disdained the Christian faith, the combination of his clear commitment to the common good, the integration of his faith with his scholarship, and his undeniable skill and excellence combined to make a real difference.

Another important observation in the case of William Stuntz is that he did his work first at the University of Virginia and later at Harvard, two major institutions with a lot of “symbolic” or cultural capital (see sidebar on “Symbolic Capital” on p. 185). Many Christians share with many Americans an anti-institutional bias, and therefore they grossly underestimate the power of institutions to shape culture. Hugh Heclo’s little book On Thinking Institutionally can go a long way toward correcting this mistake.22 Here the Counterculturalist model serves us poorly, since it tends to see all worldly institutions as part of “empire” and no place for Christians to serve. However, in the case of William Stuntz, Christian excellence was available for all to see precisely because he functioned in one of the main public cultural institutions. All of the biblical warnings against pride, love of wealth, and hunger for power must be kept in mind, and not all cultural change automatically flows from elite circles at the very top.23 But Christians should still seek to be a faithful presence in the major cultural institutions.24

Why do each of us tend to feel most comfortable with one of these models? My view is that it has to do largely with our gifts and calling. There is little doubt that people with gifts and a personal calling to serve the poor tend to be attracted to forms of the Relevance or Counterculturalist models. People with the greatest passion for evangelism will tend to appreciate the Two Kingdoms or perhaps the Transformationist model. Many have charged Transformationism with being the Christ and culture model that only college-educated people with an intellectual or academic bent can love or even understand. All of these observations are correct to some degree.

So what does this mean? I believe it indicates we should inhabit the model that fits our convictions, whose “tool kit” best fits our gifts. Once we know our model, we should be able, depending on the cultural seasons and context, to use tools from the other kits. On this point, Andy Crouch’s distinction between postures and gestures is a vivid and elegant way to express this flexibility. Crouch sees our basic model or stance toward culture to be a “posture” — our “unconscious default position”–but a “gesture” is an ad hoc move that briefly seems to come out of another model. A person whose posture is highly antagonistic to culture in general might still in a gesture accept some particular cultural trend, while a person whose posture toward culture is mainly friendly may still in a gesture feel a particular cultural element must be completely condemned.25

REMEMBER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORGANIZED AND ORGANIC

One of the greatest points of tension between the models is in the way they understand the mission of the church (which will be addressed in the next section). The traditional understanding of the Great Commission is that the church has been given the mandate to go into all the world to preach the gospel in order to make disciples of men and women from all nations.26 But three of the four models seem to add significantly to this mission. Many fear that emphasizing mercy and justice, or political and cultural engagement, will displace or at least severely erode the church’s capacity for evangelism and discipleship. In reaction to this emphasis, many are adopting a Two Kingdoms model, which clearly insists that the mission of the church is only and strictly to preach the Word, evangelize, and make disciples. While warnings about the “social gospel” are warranted, I believe we must still come to grips with the Bible’s call to the Christian community to do justice and love mercy. But how?

At this point it is important to remind ourselves of the critical distinction between the “church institutional” and the “church organic.” Abraham Kuyper taught that the church institutional was the gathered church, organized under its officers and ministers. It is called to do “Word and sacrament”-to preach the gospel, baptize, and make disciples. This he distinguished from the church organic, referring to all Christians living in the world who have been discipled and equipped to bring the gospel to bear on all of life. We should not think of Christians out in the world as merely distinct and detached individuals. They are the body of Christ, the church. As Christians in the world, they are still to think and work together, banding together in creative forms, being the church organic that the church institutional has discipled them to be. Theologian John Bolt writes the following:
In Kuyper’s view, Christians who go out into their various vocations do so neither as direct emissaries of the institutional church nor as mere individual believers … Christian social, cultural, and political action does not flow directly from structures and authorities of the church, but comes to expression organically in the various spheres of life as believers live out the faith and spirituality that develops and is nurtured in the church’s worship and discipline.27

Michael Allen points out that H. Richard Niebuhr himself failed to distinguish between the rights and responsibilities of the Christian and those of the church, and this oversight has been deadly to mainline churches. Allen contrasts the mistake of the “spirituality of the church” doctrine that led to the Southern U.S. churches’ support of slavery with the opposite error of mainline Protestant denominations that have become deeply and institutionally involved in politics. “One story shows a church that will not address any social ills, even the evils of chattel slavery, while the other tale portrays a church speaking authoritatively, even lobbying, with regard to very detailed political action plans.”28 Kuyper’s distinction solves this dilemma well. A church that is educating and discipling people to do justice in the public sphere will have to be sensitive to social issues and ills in its teaching and preaching, and yet it will not make the fatal mistake of becoming a lobbying group and losing sight of its main mission.29

This distinction helps to bridge the gaps between the Christ and culture models. If it is maintained, then those becoming enamored with justice and cultural engagement will avoid falling into the error of the older mainline churches that lost their vision for evangelism and discipleship. On the other hand, faithful churches concerned to maintain the mission of the church as disciple making will disciple people to evangelize — but also to engage culture and do justice.

ACT, DON’T REACT

I’ve become convinced that one of the reasons we have not seen more balanced cultural engagement “near the center” is that many of us are not choosing our Christ and culture model in the right way. Instead of looking at Scripture, the culture, and our own gifts and calling, we tend to form our views in visceral reactions to the behavior of other Christians. In other words, we stand here and not there because those people are there and not here. While it is true that all of these models draw on older antecedents and patterns that have been in the church for centuries, there is a tendency for their contemporary versions to be defined in reaction and hostility to one another. The various groups are like large tectonic plates along which major and minor eruptions and quakes happen constantly. Each camp is calling the church to do different things, and they regularly attack one another for the ways they emphasize their differences. Indeed, they can most easily raise money from donors by depicting themselves as the faithful antidote to the other groups.

This tendency to react rather than act — lies behind the reductionistic impulse at the extreme of each model, an impulse that becomes self-defeating in the end, leading to imbalance and unfaithfulness to the full biblical witness. So what should we do about this problem? I end with some practical exhortations.

  1. Avoid arrogance. It is extremely easy to believe that the culture model that has helped you the most is the best one for everyone. It is especially easy to feel superior if you compare the strengths of your favorite model with the weaknesses of the others. Don’t do that. Do not think that your particular tradition is “the new thing God is doing” and all the others are fading away. A balanced assessment shows that none of these particular traditions are dying. Each has serious weaknesses but also great strengths.

KEEPING THE MISSION CLEAR

Michael Allen points out that the Westminster Confession (31.4) assumes what Kuyper called “sphere sovereignty” when it states, “Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary.” Allen notes the pragmatic balance. The church as institution is to stay out of direct political engagement. It holds out the possibility there may be civil issues that are “extraordinary” — as when a great injustice or wrong is being done about which the Bible speaks directly. But even in extraordinary cases it is still called “intermeddling.” By implication, Allen says, “Pastors and local church leadership would likely speak to societal and political issues only with rarity and great care.”30

  1. Avoid blame. If you have grown by adopting another culture model, you may feel angry or betrayed by the former one. You may have had good or bad personal experiences at the hands of cultural elites, which may have influenced you unduly. You may blame a certain model for all the troubles of the church because rabid proponents hurt the last congregation of which you were a member. Forgive, and look for places where you can repent. Try to remove the personal histories as you think about culture. Look at the Bible, the cultural moment, and your gifts.
  2. Avoid frustration. If you are in a church or denomination that does not share the cultural model you feel is best, it can have a radicalizing effect on you. Opposition can push you into more extreme forms of your position. Don’t let conflict make you too rigid a proponent for your approach.
  3. Avoid naïveté. Some people say “a plague on all your houses” and insist that one church transcend all models or incorporate them all. Because every church and Christian has history, a temperament, and a unique take on various theological issues, every church and Christian will be situated in some tradition and model. It is inescapable. The gospel should give us the humility both to appreciate other models and to acknowledge that we have a model of our own. So enjoy the strengths of your position, admit the weaknesses, and borrow like crazy from the strengths of the others.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION

  1. Keller writes, “If all these models in their balanced formulation have biblical warrant, where will we situate ourselves? The answer is not simply an attempt to hit on the perfect balance between all four all of the time.” We must also learn to discern the current “season” in the cycle of the church’s relationship to a culture.
    • Winter-a church that is hostile to culture, seeing little fruit; embattled and spiritually weak.
    • Spring- a church that is embattled, possibly persecuted by the culture, but is seeing growth.
    • Summer - an “allied” church, highly regarded by the culture with Christians in the centers of cultural production.
    • Autumn - a church that is increasingly marginalized in a post-Christian culture, looking for new ways to reach out winsomely.

In which of these four seasons do you and your ministry peers find yourself right now? To which signs or factors can you point as proof? Does this change when you consider your context nationally or regionally? How is this current season of cultural engagement different from that of the previous generation of church leaders?

  1. Andy Crouch’s distinction between postures and gestures is “a vivid and elegant way to express this flexibility” needed for balanced cultural engagement. Crouch sees our basic model or stance toward culture to be a “posture” - our “unconscious default position” - but a “gesture” is an ad hoc move that briefly seems to come out of another model. Can you cite an instance when you embraced a gesture that didn’t match your typical posture? What were the reasons that led you to do this?
  2. What do you think of the distinction between the role of the church as an organized institution and the church as an organic body of individual believers? How does this distinction aid in thinking about cultural engagement and the mission of the church? Do you believe it is a biblical distinction?
  3. Keller writes, “Many of us are not choosing our Christ and culture model in the right way. Instead of looking at Scripture, the culture, and our own gifts and calling, we tend to form our views in visceral reactions to the behavior of other Christians.” This chapter closes with four practical suggestions.
    • Avoid arrogance.
    • Avoid blame.
    • Avoid frustration.
    • Avoid naïveté.

How can you seek to avoid reacting to the extremes of other models? Which of these four concerns is most relevant to you?