Redeeming the Culture-A Response

This post is actually an answer to a post at Jollyblogger, entitled Redeeming Some More Culture. And his post was a response to a post at the Dane, entitled Christianity vs. Culture Interview.

The Dane is interviewing someone named Michael Cossarwal about engaging the culture. Mr. Cossarwal doesn't think we should be doing that. Nor does he think we should be redeeming the culture from the outside. David at Jollyblogger, from what I read there, seems to agree also (I think).

And, I absolutely agree.

Years ago, I attended what is called a camp meeting. As a mostly Presbyterian evangelical/modern-neo-Pentecostal, I didn't know what a camp meeting was. The original ones were held in tents, but in sophisticated Southern California (yes we are laid back, but also sophisticated), tents aren't exactly what would be appealing. So, basically, we met in the church and had meetings day and night with guest speakers. That was the camp meeting. One guest speaker was from the Rhema outfit (The Hagins’ place) and he was actually quite good. In fact, he said something that I have never forgotten as it had such a huge impact upon me. He said the community changes as individuals change. And this is my premise for this post.

He explained that when a family member changes through conversion to Christ, there is potential for the entire family, or at least much of the family to change. And if several families change, then the potential is there for the neighborhood to change. If several neighborhoods change, then the town or city has the potential to change. If cities change, then perhaps states/provinces/territories can change. If states/provinces/territories can change, then a nation can change. And if a nation can change, then the world can change.

There are examples throughout the world today where a large number of people in a town were saved through Christ and the whole town changed. I remember especially one I read about in Latin America. The article was written by the missionaries who worked there, although I cannot remember the exact country.Let's take a microscope there and find out.
First, a lot of the men in the town couldn't find work so they gave up. Others could work but just didn't wish to. The ones who did work were fairly poor. Drugs and alcohol were rampant. Fights and even killings were frequent. Many of the houses were dark and dirty. The crops weren’t growing too well. This is basically what happens when satan is in charge.
After the conversions, the town changed within months. First, the men were motivated by the Holy Spirit to find some type of work, or create their own work. Second, the drugs and alcohol use almost ceased. Third, the fighting and killings stopped. Fourth, the houses became neat and clean. Fifth the crops began to grow to be healthy and mature. And a sixth benefit was the townspeople's approach to those outside of the town. Before, they were mean and hostile to their area neighbors. After conversion, they became kind and giving and helpful. After a year, the town began to prosper, and of course the towns around them took notice, both of the increased prosperity and the change of behavior. This is what is supposed to happen. The objective is for us to answer people when they question us about our manner of life. We get converted FIRST, and THEN as changes occur, and they should, people will naturally be curious. In fact, I know the Holy Spirit will make sure people are curious.

Here is another example that will hit home to many readers.

This is a true story.
Once upon a time, long, long ago, while the rest of Europe was in the Renaissance, working their way out of medievalism, the country in our tale was almost back in the Stone Age. At least they were somewhere between that and the Middle Ages. The people were dirty and dishonest, fighters with each other and anyone else from the outside that dared to visit their country. They were heavy drinkers and idle. The country was cold, dank and dark and the people reflected their surroundings. Then one day, one of their citizens, who had been captured in a war and was made a galley slave, had escaped and came back to this country (OK….you Presbyterians should know where I am going with this…...:).
He had learned from a fellow slave something called The Reformation. Upon hearing these teachings, our slave guy believed in Jesus through grace alone, faith alone and Christ alone.
Upon his return to his country--the dirty, dank, dark one--he began to preach this new message of saving faith. Within fifty years most of the dirty, dank, dark country was converted. And the result? The people began to be known as thrifty, clean, wise, hard-working, educated and so forth. They not only influenced their country, but also another country that was to be the greatest in the world in the future. In fact, it was these people's ideas that was the basis for the new country's constitution.

And what was the name of this formerly dirty, lazy country?
Scotland.

And what was the name of the country they also helped to change through their emigrants?
The United States of America.
Do read sometime about the contributions of the Scotch and the Scotch-Irish (Ulster Scots) to the USA—its history and principles and religion and science and political thought and…and…and……

In the current issue of Christian History, the theme is the Council of Nicaea. One article is an interview with a professor of Early Christian History at the University of Virginia, Robert Louis Wilken. Here is what he said about what happened when the state (Rome under Constantine) became “Christian.”

…by the fourth century…..I don’t think the church was co-opted by the state. It was the other way around: It’s Constantine who changes.

OK..so far so good. But then he says this,

And once that happens it means that the church assumes responsibility for forming the society—a task it didn’t have before.

Yes! And that is precisely the problem we are facing today. And I will be so bold as to add to Professor Wilken’s statement. I will add that the church should NOT assume the task for forming the society but they assume the task to form individuals and THEY re-form the society.

I just finished reading the book every blogger is talking about, Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey. On the whole, I really loved this book and believe it’s a must read for every Christian leader. However, there was one section of the book that I found a tad disturbing. I think it's because I seem to be suspended between the Old School Presbyterianism and the New School. What this means is I am kind of reformist and truly take a more scholarly approach to the Scriptures; but on the other hand, I cannot seem to shed the Pentecostal experiences and theology I learned along the way. Ms. Pearcey basically is a tad negative about the emotionalism and the results of the First and especially the Second Great Awakenings. While I do agree with some of her conclusions, I differ with her problem of the revivals being too individualistic instead of the Reformed emphasis on community.
While I agree that certainly we can become way too individualistic and that is my gripe with much of the Charismatic and some of the Pentecostal community today, isn’t Christianity individualistic?
Do whole communities become converted as a rule? Not usually. Individuals become converted and then THEY change communities IF enough get converted. In saying this, I don’t believe for a moment that we should follow the methods of some of the former revivalists, especially Charles Finney. The Holy Spirit must be the converter without our clever methods.
But, the gospel must be preached. And, frankly today, between the Christian Right emphasis on “saving politics,” and the postmoderns’ emphasis on “engaging the culture,” the true gospel of Christ is getting lost in the shuffle.

People CANNOT come to Christ if they don’t understand why and how. Falling on the floor (only) won’t do it. “Accepting Christ” so we have purpose in our life won’t do it. Romans 10:9,10 makes it absolutely clear that IF the gospel isn’t preached, then how shall people believe? The rhetorical question there is of course—-they cannot believe.

I end this with two items.

First, part of the interview by the Dane with Michael Cossarwal which says it quite well:

Hate to say it, but I think it's all a result of an impoverished reliance upon the gospel as a means to change lives. No longer does the believer actually believe that the preaching of the word is the means to saving grace. So, having given up on the gospel, the believer must look to other means to bring about the kingdom of heaven (or a reasonable facsimile). And of course these other means are inadequate.

And second, Brad's testimony which illustrates completely the change conversion makes. Today Brad is a pastor changing others. That is how he is engaging the culture (my words, not necessarily his...in fact he might disagree with my more narrow view).

We must remember this powerful fact:
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes; first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
Romans 1:16 (NIV)