Thursday, November 17, 2005

Christ, Culture, and the Church - Part 1



I just finished Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy. I have read several books by McLaren and enjoy his writing style. However, his books and the theology and philosophy from which they spring are not as strong as they might be (to be generous in my criticism). There was some thought-provoking material in Generous Orthodoxy and some stuff that just makes you yell out in frustration. More on that later, but on to the point …

One thing that the emergents have tapped into better than the traditionalists, in my opinion, is the interaction with culture. While we might take a different view of culture to some degree, it seems to me that emergents have struck a chord with culture that is worthy of thought for the traditionals. For instance, in a chapter entitled “Why I Am Incarnational,” McLaren laments the fact that missions has often been cultural in nature—an attempt to convert people to a Euro-American lifestyle. I am no expert missiologist, but I find that critique to have some merit, particularly in American Fundamentalism.

I am troubled that fundamentalists, at times, seem to have an unspoken set of cultural values that must be accepted to be truly Christian. As I say, I think it is unspoken and unadmitted and some of you right now are protesting that you have no such set of values. But I can’t help but think it is there and having grown up in fundamentalism with no intention of leaving it, I don’t say that lightly. I say it to provoke our thinking.

Take for instance, our Sunday attire. It is likely that any visit to a fundamentalist church on Sunday morning will find most of the congregation dressed in suits and ties and dresses (hopefully on different people). In fact, I get mailings from one large church in the western US, built (as I understand it) almost entirely on “old fashioned soulwinning” where pictures of the auditorium during services show a high use of technology and a congregation filled with people in suits and ties. Should we really believe that people in southern California just automatically wear suits and ties on the weekend? I would hardly think so. At some point, that became the church culture for them. One Sunday at my church, I was standing welcoming people with a long time member beside me. A couple came in the door who had visited a couple of times from the community. They had no church background of which to speak. On this particular occasion, she had on an outfit of dressy shorts (mid thigh) with a matching jacket. Now, shorts in church on Sunday morning are not my preference to be sure. But the man standing beside me said, “Pretty soon she will realize we don’t dress like that around here.” I was stunned, though I tried to hide it. I said, “Hey, I am just glad she’s here. They need to hear the gospel.” I thought to myself, why would we even think of suggesting a “dress code” for someone to come and hear the gospel. That couple came for a while, and eventually dropped out. I can’t help but think that part of it was because they didn’t “fit in” with a majority of the church.

Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with wearing suits and ties and dresses to church (unless you wear them all at once), but think about the message it sends. Look at the people on the platform and those serving in roles such as teachers, ushers, and offering takers. They are the pacesetters of the miniculture of the church. When you are new, and you look around and realize that most if not all of the people do a certain thing, you will feel the pressure to conform to their “culture,” be very bold and buck the “culture,” or just go somewhere else (or stay home). We could multiply this example in a number of areas, about which we might have debate about their legitimacy (body art and piercings; hair styles and lengths; etc.). But the culture is there, and it is an applied culture, often without clear biblical mandate (or unclear biblical mandate for that matter).

What’s the answer? I don’t know. I am concerned about it. I think it differs depending on the particular mini-culture in which one ministers. My thoughts are in development on this, but I throw it out for consideration. I can’t help but wonder if the mandates of Acts 15 and the Jerusalem council don’t fit in here. Perhaps one day I will blog my perspective on this passage, but whatever else it might teach, it certainly teaches that we should place no more on people than certain things. What “things” fit that in 21st century Christianity? Well, perhaps we should give it some more thought.

Whatever the conclusion, we cannot withdraw from culture. They are the people to whom Jesus came, and they are the people to whom Jesus has sent us. God forbid that we withdraw from them because they are not like us. And God forbid that our goal in mission is to make them like us. Let us be satisfied to lead them to be like Jesus.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Larry,

I too just finished McLaren's GO book as well. I agree with many of your sentiments, but I still struggle with the lack of confrontation of the culture from the EC movement. Although I agree that we should learn to read our culture better (which I think the EC movement as a whole has done fine), there must needs be a confrontation of culture, regarless of the cultural context (e.g. colonial, African, Indian, Chinese). In other words, identifying cutlutral trends is not enough, but evaluating them biblically is critical. My frustration (as I am sure with you as well) is that the EC accepts all opinions or forms of culture as equally valuable, that is no one being right or wrong.

I think your closing statements are helpful, but how do you think this fits in with what Paul says to follow me as I follow Christ?

Just wondering

Larry said...

I agree that the EC is weak on confronting sinful culture. They have not biblically evaluted much of culture. My fear with fundamentalism is that sinful culture is not the problem. It is that we have withdrawn from non-sinful culture and created a sub-culture that can't minister to anyone not already in it.

One of the fundamentalist weaknesses, if you will, is that we have a hard time communicating with people who do not already share our basic "foundational" worldview (to use an EC/PM term). A post-foundationalist aproaches truth from a very different perspective and we are not prepared to have a meaningful conversation to illustrate the weaknesses (and absurdity) of some of post-foundationalism.

As to the "follow me as I follow Christ," I think the key there is "as I follow Christ." Paul did not want "Pauline clones." He wanted Christians, maturing. Inasmuch as we follow Christ, we should model for others to follow. But let's "be more Christian than Christ" (to quote one of my seminary profs).

Thanks for your comments.

pastor mike said...

I just stumbled on this...

Thank God someone else is having these thoughts.

I've grown up in fundamentalism, am about to take my first pastorate, and I have had some of these same questions.

I believe that, whatever form this interaction takes, it's going to be much more difficult. In retrospect, it's pretty easy to set up the parameters of a subculture around what was dynamic fifty years ago, assume that everyone who does those things gets it, and those who don't get it are in the list of wicked people who are multiplying because Jesus is almost here.

It's easier, and it's a breeding ground for pride, and in my work with teenagers, it led to a lot of amused bewilderment, or jaded sarcasm, or both.

Now I will have the chance to do the hard work of changing the subculture of a church to reflect these concerns. I fully expect it to be a lot of work, but I'm pretty excited about the chance God's given me.

I pray God's best in your ministry, and I look forward to your further thoughts in this and other regards.

Oh, and I'm excited to see someone else who seems to be from my neck of the woods reading emerging church literature and seeing value where it exists. Keep it up.