Culture Shock - Part 2

How can we, seeking to follow Christ, have a positive relationship with the prevailing culture, which is not interested in following Christ - and may discourage, disparage or oppose it? It may seem like a new question, but it isn't. Christians of all ages, from Greco-Roman culture, through the Middle Ages, the Enlightment and Modernity and into the current trend toward Postmodernity - have had to grapple with how to follow well within a culture that does not share Christian assumptions or conclusions.

First, I think we need to see culture not as a bad thing, as the enemy (and condemn it) - or as unequivically good (and consume it) - or as irrelevent (and be complacent about it). But, rather, we need to see culture as a good thing, but fallen - something that, like our heart, needs redemption. The picture used on Sunday of a castle ruin - which might be, in some sense, beautiful - but where you could really only see glimpses of the former beauty of the castle - the beauty it once had and was originally meant to have - is one possible way to look at culture (and perhaps all other things needing redemption).

With this in mind, two possible postures toward culture to consider are the posture of cultivation and the posture of creativity. The cultivator first understands that there is good in culture - that we are all made in God's image and reflect it one way or another - well or poorly - and is able to find the good and bring it out, like a gardener encouraging the flowers and removing the rocks and weeds. The creator imitates God in creating what is good, beautiful and true. Either way, we cannot really interact well with culture unless we work to understand ourselves, our fellow men and women and God's truth expressed in creation and in his Word.

(Thanks to Andy Crouch and the Christian Vision Project for helping to categorize our thinking)

Culture Shock - Part 1

What is your posture toward culture?

Many in the church have the posture of condemnation that we talked about on Sunday. Culture is bad - culture is to be withdrawn from, criticized, and causes us to be fearful and uneasy. There is a legitimate desire by some with this posture to be not drawn into, not conformed to the culture of the day. But this desire overpowers and culture becomes a bad thing, and those who are conversant with the culture are often judged.

Also, many in the church have the posture of consumption - the opposite of condemnation. All of culture is experienced indiscriminately. Every movie, every song, every book is uncritically experienced - usually without a lot of reflection on the worldviews or messages contained. It is like eating fast food, we go to a movie and say afterward "I liked it" or not - and on to the next cultural experience. Culture is thought to be indiscrimately good - just a matter of taste - and we cannot intelligently interact with it while we are just consumers.

The third posture we talked about is related closely to the second - the posture of complacency. Those who don't have a strong direction aren't actively pursuing their calling, tend to be complacent about most things, culture included. It is only a movie, only a song ... not much matters - and the impact of culture (and other elements of life) are not closely examined.

All of the above are, in my opinion, misguided postures to take toward culture - next week we'll toss around a couple of more positive ones. In the meantime, we should think about what it means to be "transformed" and not "conformed". Whatever else it may mean, I believe it means that we have to think - to examine - to reflect on culture and our world. Without this, we are bound to be complacent consumers, without much to say to a culture that needs to hear a clear voice.

Sacred Sexuality

The question Chad addressed today was "Why is sex sacred?" He gave a few good answers that I really appreciated. One of the ideas that he touched on briefly was that we are not "just mammals" (quoting Eminem, I think) - that we don' t have to blindly follow our sexual impulses. I want to expand on that a little bit - because I think there is something profound there - about us and about our sexuality.
Sex has a spiritual and moral dimension that transcends mere biology. Morally, of course, sex outside of marriage breaks God's command - but there is a deeper reason why this is so. Those of us who follow Christ are identified as His bride more than a few times. We are the bride of Christ - and we await the arrival of the Bridegroom - when we will be eternally united with Him. We are all, men and women, collectively and individually, feminine with respect to Christ. One of the reasons sex is sacred is that it is a figure, a picture, for the eternal joining of Christ to His bride. This spiritual and moral dimension is integral to sex. God could have figured out some other way to propogate the race. Instead, He made us, men and women, in His image, to bring Him glory in every part of our lives - including our sexuality. That is why sex outside of a lifelong commitment is so out of place. It runs counter to what sex essentially is.
So, we can't have sex without strings ... because we are not just mammals, because sex is bound up with who we are spiritually and morally, who God is, and what His plan is for us.

Easter

Easter is about life from death. Most of us are aware that we celebrate Jesus' resurrection from the dead on Easter. But I am not sure that we think of our own selves - death to life. Colossians 2:13-15 speaks of us in terms of life from death - being brought to life spiritually from the dead. I think we often miss this - we think of a decision, a renewal, a change, a commitment - when we become Christians. We don't often think of ourselves as spiritually dead people who needed to be brought to life. I think it was Ravi Zacharius who said that "Jesus did not come to make bad men good, but to make dead men live."
Becoming a Christian is not like reading a good self-help book, it isn't a medicine that helps me feel better - but a change in identity, from death to life.

Second Panel Discussion

What I liked about the discussion of Genesis 24 on this week's panel as it relates to finding the right person - is that neither Isaac nor Rebekah were "looking" for the right person when God brought them together. Instead, they were becoming the right person for their future partner, and God brought them together at the right time.
The discussion of whether God has "one perfect chosen" person for everybody I thought was very good as well. I think younger people often like to think so, because it makes that relationship seem safer ahead of time. The problem, most people don't have the certainty from the Lord that this or that person is the "one." So making a commitment is always a matter of faith in God, in yourself, and in the other person. The idea that there is one person may be used as a shield to keep everyone away, or as a magnet to keep hanging on to a relationship that is not working. It seems healthier to me to keep the idea of the one person for me in the background, while I work on being the right person for my future spouse and trust God to lead me to a person I can commit to.
Of course, being married, I can testify that once you do commit to another, the question of who is the"one" becomes irrelevant. I have committed to this person, and, if was unsure about God's will before, I at least know what it is now.
The question of finding the right one leads to how much input we give to others - parents especially. I guess it depends on what kind of relationship you have with them - but if not your parent, it is important to get some honest outside input into your relationships, because we do not always see things (especially ourselves) clearly.