Posted on 06/03/2004 11:20:45 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Some weeks ago I spoke to a gathering of pastors about engaging the cultural battles of the day. Afterward, the pastors had a lot of questions—but they were also a bit confused. One asked: “But won’t engaging the culture this way interfere with fulfilling the Great Commission? Isn’t this our job—to win people to Christ?”
That people still think this way left me momentarily speechless. “Of course we’re called to fulfill the Great Commission,” I replied. “But we’re also called to fulfill the cultural commission.” Christians are agents of God’s saving grace—bringing others to Christ, I explained. But we are also agents of His common grace: We’re to sustain and renew His creation, defend the created institutions of family and society, and critique false worldviews.
As I spoke, I saw the pastors’ eyes light up in a great “Aha!” moment.
This is a matter on which the Scriptures are very clear. In Genesis, we’re told that for five days, God created the universe. On the sixth day, He created human beings—and ordered them to pick up where He left off. They were to reflect His image and have dominion—but from then on, the development of the creation would be primarily social and cultural: It would be the work humans performed as they obeyed God’s command to fill and subdue the earth.
The same command binds Christians today. We bear children, plant crops, build cities, form governments, and create works of art. While sin corrupted God’s created order, it did not obliterate it. And when we are redeemed, we are both freed from sin and restored to do what God designed us to do: create culture.
Remember, every part of creation came from God’s hand, every part was drawn into the mutiny of humanity against God, and every part will someday be redeemed. This means we must care about all of life. In Colossians 1, Paul notes that “everything” was made by and for Christ, and that everything will be reconciled by Christ; it’s clear that Christians are saved not only from something (sin) but also to something (Christ’s lordship over all of life).
This is why Christians must never limit themselves to evangelism alone or to the “feel good” church. We must not stand by while our culture is hijacked by alien philosophies hostile to the created order. Look at the issues before us: gay “marriage”—an oxymoron which will undermine the family; the creation of life in man’s image, that is, cloning; abortion; and terrorism driven by religious extremists, to name just a few.
If Christians do not seize the moment and act on the cultural commission, there soon will be no culture left to save. But when we do our duty, we can change the world. Look at Christians like William Wilberforce, who spent most of his life fighting—and winning—the war against slavery in Britain.
We need to do the same thing. It means voting wisely, contending for truth, and helping redeem our neighbors and our neighborhood.
Yes, Christians must evangelize the world. But each of us must also work out our role in the common grace in our own lives, glorifying God by helping restore His creation. In so doing, we will bring the majesty of God and His righteousness to bear against the crumbling structures of a fallen society.
The point of the New Testament is that no actual persons are "cleaned up" until they encounter Christ. This view was formed and articulated in the midst of a horrendously corrupt culture.
Are you consistent? Let's play out this principle in your neighborhood:
Let's say you find out there are 5 sex offenders--all of whom have molested boys--living in your immediate neighborhood. But that's okay, you think; you also hear that your Christian neighbors are witnessing to them on an ongoing basis.
The homosexual community has tried to reduce the age of consent law for years. You hear that their lobbyists are on the verge of reducing the age of consent; but you take no action in this "culture war" activity because you've properly prioritized your spiritual agenda by joining your Christian neighbors in witnessing to these sex offenders. You witness to them all the while your son grows from age 10 to age 12, a year in which the homosexual lobby finally comes through and gets what it wants: The age of consent is now age 12.
A sex offender then coerces your son into a sexual activity which prior to that latest cultural skirmish would have been a criminal act. But you've got peace in your soul because, after all, what your son needed was not a proper age of consent law, for that did not address the sin problem of these sex offenders or your son, now did it?
Try on this Scripture for size: "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!" (Matt. 18:6-7)
Yeah, sin is alive and well, Jesus says. "Such things must come" and culture war or not, those things are a coming. But that doesn't preclude us as responsible citizens from prioritizing efforts that not only protect children but also reflect Jesus' obvious deep commitment to warding off those who would do them harm.
I don't even need to use hypotheticals to make this point. Most states do not have enforced parental consent laws that protect their minor daughters from getting abortions. Why? Because Christians take the attitude of "If a Christian girl is 'pressured' into having sex with her boyfriend, what she needs after becoming pregnant is not a parental consent law, for a parental consent law won't address her sin."
No? Then tell me why in Minnesota in the ensuing years after a parental consent law was passed there that the teen pregnancy rate went down in that state? (Teens are not as dumb as we take them to be; teen girls knew that minus the back-up of abortion availability, they would have to face Mom & Dad). And No? Even if it did nothing for the teen, it would certainly protect my grandchild or yours who happens to reside in her womb.
Law does have both a restraining and teaching effect, even if it doesn't ultimately change the heart. And a Christian-lit culture failing to pour Jesus' passion for little ones into laws protecting its young or doesn't culturally engage the millstone-draped, bottom-of-sea-bound folks are not serving as God's messengers.
We need to culturally intervene by risking our own lives as Lot did to protect those "who have come under the protection of my roof" (Gen. 19:8). And if criminals insist on criminal behavior, we need to pray for the same blindness to strike them so that they cannot prey upon their victims (Gen. 19:11). But I guess that's not very seeker-sensitive or evangelistic, is it? (I guess you can take that up with those two angelic messengers)
Yes and no. My grandfather was born in Germany. In that 1920s-1940s culture, Christians had largely already abdicated the political arena (Luther's two kingdoms theory). At some point, that culture got to its point of no return, and that any true salt and light activity by Christians resulted in the likes of what happened to Bonhoeffer or Wallenberg (Hungary).
That's where the true Greek word of martyr comes into play--where the only way to flesh out that word in a godly way is to lose your life for your witness.
Since many who call the name of Christ will avoid losing their lives, then, yes, their ability to be salt and light is going to be compromised by the surrounding culture.
Beyond those kinds of cultures, being salt and light may not be dependant upon the surrounding culture, but will be largely influenced by it. If you have water pollution but don't really care about the political reality of clean water laws, then don't complain...the polluters have thereby won the day over whatever salt & light Christians could have been as applied to drinking water.
Bottom line: Christians need to go back and read through all the corporate guilt and corporate responsibility passages oultined in Scripture...Luke 10:12-15; Dt. 21:1-8; Prov. 24:11-12; Is. 1:9-17...all the identifical repentance passages of the prophets--those who identified with the sins of their nation even though they personally may have been innocent of them.
I'm puzzled. If, in a hostile culture, they "avoid" losing their lives for their witness, then they are not salt nor light by their own choice. Nor does He confess them before His father, by the way.
Jesus seems to assume, multiple times in fact, that Christians will be salt and light in a culture that hates them and will kill them.
So...is it supposed to work differently?
Are you consistent? Let's play out this principle in your neighborhood:
Let's say you find out there are 5 sex offenders--all of whom have molested boys--living in your immediate neighborhood. But that's okay, you think; you also hear that your Christian neighbors are witnessing to them on an ongoing basis.
The homosexual community has tried to reduce the age of consent law for years. You hear that their lobbyists are on the verge of reducing the age of consent; but you take no action in this "culture war" activity because you've properly prioritized your spiritual agenda by joining your Christian neighbors in witnessing to these sex offenders. You witness to them all the while your son grows from age 10 to age 12, a year in which the homosexual lobby finally comes through and gets what it wants: The age of consent is now age 12.
A sex offender then coerces your son into a sexual activity which prior to that latest cultural skirmish would have been a criminal act. But you've got peace in your soul because, after all, what your son needed was not a proper age of consent law, for that did not address the sin problem of these sex offenders or your son, now did it?
Try on this Scripture for size: "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!" (Matt. 18:6-7)
Yeah, sin is alive and well, Jesus says. "Such things must come" and culture war or not, those things are a coming. But that doesn't preclude us as responsible citizens from prioritizing efforts that not only protect children but also reflect Jesus' obvious deep commitment to warding off those who would do them harm.
I don't even need to use hypotheticals to make this point. Most states do not have enforced parental consent laws that protect their minor daughters from getting abortions. Why? Because Christians take the attitude of "If a Christian girl is 'pressured' into having sex with her boyfriend, what she needs after becoming pregnant is not a parental consent law, for a parental consent law won't address her sin."
No? Then tell me why in Minnesota in the ensuing years after a parental consent law was passed there that the teen pregnancy rate went down in that state? (Teens are not as dumb as we take them to be; teen girls knew that minus the back-up of abortion availability, they would have to face Mom & Dad). And No? Even if it did nothing for the teen, it would certainly protect my grandchild or yours who happens to reside in her womb.
Law does have both a restraining and teaching effect, even if it doesn't ultimately change the heart. And a Christian-lit culture failing to pour Jesus' passion for little ones into laws protecting its young or doesn't culturally engage the millstone-draped, bottom-of-sea-bound folks are not serving as God's messengers.
We need to culturally intervene by risking our own lives as Lot did to protect those "who have come under the protection of my roof" (Gen. 19:8). And if criminals insist on criminal behavior, we need to pray for the same blindness to strike them so that they cannot prey upon their victims (Gen. 19:11). But I guess that's not very seeker-sensitive or evangelistic, is it? (I guess you can take that up with those two angelic messengers)
Your scenario of the sex offenders is not how I think. So, entertaining as it is, it is an extended straw man and a waste of time.
Correction: whatever you did as a "zealot" you stopped doing when you met Jesus became a fulltime apostle. Not every Christian is called to full time ministry, and it's a good thing, too - where would tithes come from if nobody had secular jobs?
For those NOT called to fulltime ministry, political activism ("zealotry", lawfully expressed), fishing, the arts, carpentry, and all other honest lines of business and cultural engagement are lawful for Christians, and the political realm arguably needs more Christian influence than any other.
I have a secular job.
No, you've nailed it. You've basically given a description of Jesus' seed parable: "The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away." (Matt. 13:20-21).
Jesus in this parable described four environmental variables: birds (evil one); rocky soil (persecutors & troubles of life); thorns (worries of life & deceitfulness of wealth); and good soil (crop reproduction).
All four are present in every culture. However, some cultures' soil is more fertile than others. Likewise, some cultures' soil is more rocky than others, especially in the persecution realm. So, if we as Christians, can contribute to providing fertile vs. rocky cultural soil, why don't we do it? Why abdicate the tilling of the soil to those who want to destroy God's seed? Why settle for a rocky soil that you downright know results in joyful folks who have received the word to fall away? (Do not more folks fall away in a rocky-soiled culture vs. a fertile-soiled culture?)
But your underlying premise is correct: We are hated; don't be surprised. "In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." (2 Tim. 3:12)
But just because Jesus warned us (John 16:2-4) about this doesn't mean that's the optimal environment for witnessing. If it was, Paul would not have asked for prayer from the Thessalonians "that we may delivered from wicked and evil men" (2 Thess. 3:2) as Satan already had stopped Paul again and again from revisiting them (1 Thess. 2:18). Again, I go back to 1 Tim. 2:1-4. The objective of all of these prayers mentioned there is a God "who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (v.4). But this is best done in an environment of "peaceful and quiet lives" (v. 2)--not in the contexts of 'say Nero or Caesar is Lord or you will become a party-torch.'
The bottom line w/that scenario is that the most important societal laws Christians can invest in producing are those protecting the young. Although in my original mention of porn I said teens and young adults, certainly young adults can fend for themselves whereas I don't think we should leave pre-teens and hormonal-laced teens to fend for themselves when it comes to what can be an overwhelming onslaught of images; otherwise, hard-core porn-sellers right next to high schools? (like I've seen in CA) Well who cares from a Xtian perspective?
But, of course, you only addressed porn as it pertained to those who can fend for themselves. Do we not share a corporate responsibility to deflect some of the vice industries from easy access to our young people?
If a Christian is "bothered" by porn, what he needs is not a porn law. And a porn law will not address his sin problem.
Let's see if we can drive with parallel applications of this principle: "If a Christian is 'tempted' by an abortion, what she needs is not a pro-life law. And a pro-life law will not address her sin problem."
Okay, if my scenarios up til now are "not how I think" then please explain what folks are supposed to derive from statements where you may say that porn laws (or pro-life laws) won't address folks' sin problems.
But that's where your reasoning leads.
We've discussed this before, and you ended up conceding that Christians should be good citizens, vote, etc. Since voting is an exercise of governmental power, I assume that you don't consider it sinful for a Christian to hold office and exercise other forms of governmental power -- as a judge, a congressman, president, etc. (Is this a correct assumption?)
If so... then WHAT sort of laws should Christian congressmen vote for? What sort of decisions should Christian judges hand down? For that matter, what kind of candidates and propositions should Christians vote for? Should the scripture inform our decisions on these matters, or not?
If so, then, how is it that you are against political action by Christians? Certainly politics *by itself* saves nobody, but it can hardly be denied that politics an sometimes either promote, or retard, certain kinds of social wickedness.
Her baby does.
I'm not "against" political action by Christians. There is no New Testament list of accepted and proscribed actions, so I can't offer one, nor would I want to, nor is that even what the issue of the thread is.
The issue of the thread is one of emphasis rather than of sorting through possible political acts to build an "oK" pile and a "bad" pile.
Again, the point under contention: Colson (whom I respect muchly) thinks we (the church) should engage in some sort of "cultural commission" to "reclaim" our culture. I assert that this passion involves multiple un-biblical assumptions, some of which are:
1. that there is a "cultural commission" for the church that has any thing like a scintilla of the meaning of the Great Commission. To think this is patent nonsense. He thinks it for his own psychological reasons: because he is a wonderful Christian man who loves America and he needs to have some sort of biblical mandate to do what he thinks will save America.
2. Said "cultural commission", if acted on, will work. It will not, in the long run. There is no New Testament warrant for thinking that way. There is every NT warrant for thinking the opposite.
I'll just check back every 5 years or so for a progress report on the "cultural commission". I predict it will fail demonstrably.
This is a fair question and I realize I didn't answer it.
It has never been clear to me where the line is, because, again, the New Testament doesn't answer it. From the perspective of the NT, the individual is supposed to devote his life to the exercise of his gift of ministry and from such seeking first of the kingdom his personal answers come.
The post-apostolic church, though, struggled with this question a great deal and a strong tradition developed that Christians shouldn't be engaged in directly coercive occupations: i.e. soldiers, political offices, etc.
That tradition submerged with Constantine, of course. (And that sure worked out well.)
Later, such groups as the Anabaptists and their descendants decided they couldn't be coercive. Their traditions continue, and i have sympathy for their stands.
I personally could not hold political office.
I vote. I vote for minimal government and lower taxes. I do not vote for candidates who want to pass laws which will impose Christian values on non-christians, except where those values will protect others from having values imposed by force on them (abortion, for example).
So I am almost a libertarian, I suppose you could say, and almost a pacifist. But not quite, in both cases: I don't share the view held by many libertarians that taxes are illegitimate, since both Jesus and Paul had no issue with taxes. And you obviously can't have a government without coercion -- in fact, the government simply IS the sword.
I don't mean to give you a tour of my mind, I'm just trying to answer as honestly as I can.
One more thing: you asked "what sort of decisions should Chrsitian judges hand down?"
Answer: those that are in accord with the laws as they exist. if those laws violate his Christian conscience, tough. He has no right (and certainly no biblical commission) to impose his Christian values on others if those values are not reflected in the laws. If he can't rule by the written law, he should step down.
A legislator is different, because his role is different. He has no duty to vote for "Christian laws" -- there is no such thing -- and his role is awkward because he has no model to go by. He is left with a few terse statements from the NT (Paul, mostly). At the same time, many moral laws are so clear they need no further analysis (thou shalt not kill) and any law which violates that sort of clear line he cannot support.
I don't believe a legislator could follow the NT carefully and succeed. He would be voted out of office forthwith in almost any jurisdiction in he land.
I believe the origin of this idea comes from certain writers such as Francis Schaeffer and CS Lewis. Lewis, as I recall, made a comment to the effect that the clergy wasn't supposed to do everything, but, that "....the application of Christian principles to, say, education or trade-unionism, should come from Christian schoolmasters and Christian trade-unionists..." and that "good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason than that bad philosophy needs to be answered."
Or, to put Lewis' point another way, the culture will be reformed when many individual Christians apply their faith and convictions to their particular profession or sphere of influence -- whether you're a philospher, a pre-school teacher, or a politician. As I see it, this is simple discipleship, simple obedience. Hence, "reclaiming the culture" is nothing more, less, or else than the earthly side effect of Christians obeying God. Note well that I said "side effect", not primary goal. Calls to "reclaim the culture" are therefore (a) wrong if they prioritize reclaiming Earth over claiming Heaven (Seek ye first..), but (b) right if they shake socially complacent Christians into awakening to this particular, oft-neglected aspect of discipleship.
I'll just check back every 5 years or so for a progress report on the "cultural commission". I predict it will fail demonstrably
Alas, I doubt it will be seriously tried, because the vast majority of American "Christians" don't actually have a biblical worldview and hence don't make biblical decisions about any area of life -- certainly not career or cultural engagement.
I don't recall Jesus instructing the Centurion to resign his commission. And Paul the apostle described sword-bearing magistrates as "ministers of God" to keep public order. But this doesn't surprise me, as some of the most on-fire, serious Christians I've ever known, have been cops.
That tradition submerged with Constantine, of course. (And that sure worked out well.)
Oh, you'll hate these guys: Christian Exodus
what sort of decisions should Chrsitian judges hand down?" Answer: those that are in accord with the laws as they exist.
You and me and Robert Bork agree: Judges interpret the law, they shouldn't invent it. However, clearly judges on the other side ARE inventing law -- re: abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, etc -- and so any judge (Christian or not) who followed the law would be an improvement.
A legislator is different, because his role is different. He has no duty to vote for "Christian laws" -- there is no such thing... At the same time, many moral laws are so clear they need no further analysis (thou shalt not kill) and any law which violates that sort of clear line he cannot support.
Plenty of laws DO violate those clear lines nowadays. No deep theology is necessary to discern that abortion is murder.
This is magnificent and we fully agree right here, at least. (emphasis mine, of course)
And anyone who alludes to Frances Scheaffer and C.S.Lewis I count a companion, whether he wants me to or not! :-)
Warmest regards.
Urendi Maleldil!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.