Skip to main content

Bible over culture

This continues my series on immigrant ministry.

* * * * *

Avoiding the problems of culture and capitalising on its benefits requires robust Biblical discernment and discipleship.

The Bible is not a cultural artefact, but objectively authoritative over all cultures. It has universal authority over all people everywhere, for it is the written word of the one God who created all people in his image to worship him. An aspect of being made in God’s image is that we are God’s speech-partners, able to appropriately respond to his speech-acts in his written word. The basic practices of grammatico-historical exegesis are sufficiently universal that anyone who reads a translation of the Bible in their own language will discern the gospel clearly enough to put their trust in Christ, and conform their life to Christ.

The Biblical narrative of salvation-history is vital to this hermeneutical task. It also provides the resources for Christian engagement with culture. Don Carson says that a comprehensive view of the great turning points of Biblical redemptive history – creation and the fall; Israel and the law; Christ and the new covenant; and heaven and hell – permits a nuanced Christian response to culture.
[T]here are elements in any culture to which the gospel may legitimately appeal, even if […] the adoption of the gospel will inevitably transform that culture in important ways. [Don Carson, Christ and Culture Revisted (Eerdmans 2008): 61]

We may add to this Jesus’ example of using culture to subvert culture. In the first century, eating with people meant accepting them. So when Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, he communicated that he had accepted them. This counter-cultural acceptance was often resented. So we need to use culture to subvert culture. We need to exploit culture ways of behaving and relating to clearly communicate Christian counter-culture.

Okay, that all sounds very grand, but how does it actually work...? What does enculturated counter-culture look like? I'll post some thoughts in a coupla days, based on Carson's work. Stay tuned!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...