Sunday

Theory Of Culture

Theory of Culture

        The concept of culture brings many ideas to the forefront of the mind. Some might think of examples of specific heritages or people groups displayed through foods or styles. In this sense, people travel the world to experience other types of cultures. There are aspects to culture, in addition to these tangible expressions of the culture, which reflect a dominant worldview of a people group. "No man can live without a worldview,"  though this worldview is hardly ever brought into critical focus. "For most of us, the framework of meaning by which we navigate life exist 'prereflectively,' prior to conscious awareness." 
        Culture serves as both a description of this dominant worldview, and a prescription for what worldview will be accepted if logically consistent with culture norms. Through his studies, cultural critique and sociologist James Hunter has concluded that "everything hinges on how we understand the nature of culture." 
        After a short period of reflection, we realize that “culture is in fact a much more complicated phenomenon than we normally imagine."   The essence of it “is found in the hearts and minds of individuals - in what we typically called 'values.'" We express ourselves through forms of entertainment in light of these values, and we create political systems and laws to enforce judgment when these values are compromised. "The government is inextricable from the work of culture."   This essay will serve to examine culture from a political and entertainment standpoint, as well as look at the Christian call and the church today.


Politics

        "The work of world-making and world-changing are, by and large, the work of elites.".  This concept is reflective of a top down approach to changing a culture. This approach implies that regardless of numbers, if social reformers are not in the appropriate institution they will not make the difference they are seeking. One influential appropriate institution, where most of the elites flock, is in fact the political realm.
         "The most visible way American Christianity influences the larger society today is in the political realm."   However, I would argue that by focusing on influence through politics only, we are exercising a way of outsourcing a call given to us in the gospel. “In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16).
Believers think of themselves as individuals first, Americans second, and Christians third. Until that prioritization is rearranged, the Church will continue to lose influence, and biblical principles will represent simply one more option amount the numerous worldviews that Americans may choose from. 

I am not arguing that we forfeit the political realm to the secularists. The values, for which the government exercises its judgment, have their roots in the fact that human beings created in the image of God. When this is not the motivation for coercion, the political realm becomes nothing more than a power struggle. "One of the most startling commentaries on this century is the fact that millions more have died at the hands of their own governments than in wars with other nations—all to preserve someone's power." Therefore we need Christian influence in politics.
[C]hristians have an important role to play in the organization that most people think of as 'government' – the state. Indeed, believers have a Biblical obligation to be involved in civic affairs, since that sphere, no less than the private realm, is subject to God's rule and requires a generous dose of Christian 'salt.'

There needs to be a fine balance between engaging with the political realm all the while remaining faithful to our daily witness with those who are not among the elite.
        In addition to the world of the elites, we also need to examine everyday culture being formed through the world of what lay people experience daily: entertainment.


Entertainment

        I am using the term entertainment to encompass both technologies such as social media, television, and forms of music, and art forms such as paintings and films. All popular mediums have a way of not only interpreting the culture of the day, but also of enforcing the culture of the day. The medium is the message.
        "We have created the illusion that we are on our own because technology has empower us to be self-sufficient." The mediation that occurs when technology is used, only feeds this phenomenal concept of being along together. We walk around with our ear buds in, we interact through social media, and we stream our lectures and sermons, all the while never interacting face to face with people, whether they are artists, teachers, or peers. This runs counter to what the Bible teaches about living in community. First and foremost our relationship with Jesus is to be mediated by no one or no thing, but then we are also called to engage in the church body, discipleship, and our immediate community.
        Not only do certain media serve to disconnect us with external relationships, but they can disconnect us from our internal self. When our communications become only one way, we are able to control what we are exposed to. We do not have to deal with conflict, suffering, vulnerability; we can escape.
        "It seems we bow in submission to Aphrodite every time we turn on the television or read an advertisement or listen to music." Entertainment can be worshipped as a coping mechanism and sort of savior from hurt and discomfort. However, when it is engaged in this way it becomes an idol. God pursues, exposes, and saves. Entertainment involves no relation, it covers up and disguises, and inhibits any spiritual growth by distraction.
        In light of the intrinsic attributes of entertainment that run counter to the Bible, why is it that so many churches compromise in this area? They use worldly methods out of a desire to become relevant, all the while forgetting that the church should be naturally attractive to those who are ready for its message. In addition, the church today, as influenced by a culture of tolerance and acceptance, does not know how to rest content appearing as different. Instead, methods are taken to blend with the world, which necessarily compromise the intrinsic exclusivity and offensive nature of the message of the cross.


The church today

        "Apart from outright illegal jobs like prostitution and drug-dealing, the church today seldom discourages any career path considered by young people or undertaken by adults."  This is entirely appropriate; however, I would argue this is not done all the time by every church. In fact, sometimes it is done within a false dichotomy of viewing jobs that are not blatantly religious as either wrong or neutral.
        "God's intention [is] that human beings both develop and cherish the world in ways that meet human needs and bring glory and honor to him."  Who are we to say that this can only be done through formal religious jobs?
In fact, “Christianity is the only religion that allows for the full expression of the personality of the human being.”  in all fields that are not intrinsically immoral. We are called to apply “human touch to the natural world through the inspiration of God,” Ibid. in all disciplines and vocations.
        We must engage in our fields in a way which is consistent and coheres with our Christian worldview, otherwise we imply either that there are certain areas of life which do not fall under the lordship of Christ, or that consistency and coherence are optional criteria for a worldview. The Bible should be "used as the foundation and the filter"  for examining our fields and our engagement in them, in order to conclude what is appropriate in order for a Christian to remain consistent with their worldview.


Conclusion

        In the second century "Christian intellectuals, not only understood their own theological and biblical tradition, but also had knowledge of the leading ideas of culture." We should today strive to also mimic the men of Issachar who understood their times (1 Chronicles 12:32), in order to faithfully interpret and strategically witness to our culture.
        "Evangelism is not only a means of saving souls but of transforming individuals and, in a roundabout way, the culture."   We must recognize that the conflict underlying which culture is dominant, is between competing worldviews: naturalism and theism, and when we combat the naturalist worldview, the message of the gospel will be properly understood and only then will we see cultural change.
        As individuals in the church, we must remember that in addition to being saved from death, we are saved to a life of holiness and are therefore to never blend with the world. In an effort to not blend, we must also not escape from the culture in which we find ourselves.        
        Church choir voices echo through the air as people sing the hymn line “Turn your eyes upon Jesus, Look full in His wonderful face, And the things of earth will grow strangely dim, In the light of His glory and grace.” How inappropriate is it, that out of a desire to worship our creator we speak of His good creation fading away? We tend to forget, that there will be traces of this earth in the new, and we tend to not acknowledge his general goodness in the world today.
        We are called to cultivate (present tense) the world in which we live. This is done through an effort to interpret, engage with, and transform our culture.

The road trip that changed the world

Sayers and Schaeffer

        Mark Sayers and Francis Schaeffer are both insightful and articulate cultural commentators. They both draw conclusions from their research and observations and show how they apply to worldviews. This essay will serve to show how both of these men engaged with their culture, and will conclude with general principles we can learn and apply in our own engagement with culture today.


Mark Sayers

        In the book, The Road Trip That Changed The World, Mark Sayers gives a historic summary of how the concept of the road was born. He insightfully traces the development with certain cultural features, and shows how the culture of the road had an influence on culture more generally.
        Sayers highlights certain aspects of the culture of the road, which we can affirm are still evident in our culture today. “It was Kerouac’s motif of the road that provided the spark that would ignite the fire of cultural change.”  It all begins with the concept of rights eclipsing duties, which he calls juvenilization. People go on the road as an escape. The destination is neutral, because life has become more about the journey. This is “one of the great values that our contemporary culture holds dear – that life is a journey.”
         He goes on to show that this way of thinking was not always the case. “The first youth generation, the baby boomers, have struggled with the concept of growing up and thus have simply spawned more generations like themselves.”  We’ve seen a “shift from devotion to entertainment, from discipleship to self-actualization.” “After two thousand years as the driving force in the Western heart, soul, and mind, the Church has been replaced by a new power, secularism.”  Not only was the Church replaced by a new power, but we can see influences within the church from secularism. The American Church is no longer “based around devotion and worship, but rather entertainment.” 
What often goes unnoticed is that this entertainment can come in the form of content-neutral spirituality. When the road becomes the lens through which we see scripture, we end up with a type or moral therapeutic deism. “The uncommitted masses… who want to believe that there is a deeper magic in the world, a benevolent deity and an afterlife, and yet who revel in the hedonistic freedom that a secular worldview brings.”
        This chosen dichotomy is “not an intellectual decision; it is a habit of the heart which [is] acquired through osmosis.”   Because religion has not remained unaffected, it “has thus forfeited its role as the interpreter of social order and has become instead a matter of personal preference and choice, something to be adopted and/or discarded privately.”  “The person of the road, whether believer or unbeliever, lives the whole of or at least a majority of their everyday life as a practical atheist.”
        Sayers comments on this tension, in that “humans are contradictory creatures: we like to be logical, but our actions, wants, and desires are a far more confusing and inconsistent affair.” We have a “desire for a life of meaning and yet a desire for individual autonomy.” This individual “sense of autonomy and freedom rules over social cohesion.”
        How do we deal examine was had happened, and is happening, in light of the Bible? Jesus tells the Sadducees, who were attempting to “fuse hip Greek thought with Judaism,” that they were in error (Matt 22:29. We see Biblical examples, such as Abraham and Jesus, who go on the road for the sake of the kingdom, and Sayers helps us to reconcile this with what has been argued above against the road. Abraham “offers us a road of faith, in contrast to our culture’s road of self.”   “We find Jesus living out His ministry on the road…this journey has purpose and a destination.” These are three key concepts; in contrast to culture, for a purpose, and with a destination.
        As believers called to evangelize a culture of the road, Sayers offers that in order “to find our way out of the impasse of the culture of the road, we must again return to our divinely given vocation in the world.” We must remember that “God’s intention was never to aid us in our escape of this planet but rather to transform life here.”  He also insightfully comments that “the culture of the road offers us pleasures and experiences, but they are disconnected, and ultimately they will leave us wanting.” In light of this, we must compassionately engage our world for the sake of Christ. 


Francis Schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer deals with similar issues in his book, The God Who Is There. He addresses the anit-intellectualism plaguing our culture, and agrees with Sayers on spirituality and how it “becomes exactly opposite to Christian spirituality.” 
Some of his statements even seem to reference the road. In referencing existentialism, he says that “it does not really matter in which direction you act as long as you act.” He also applies the road philosophy to the canvases in art, in that when ultimate meaning is lost, personal meaning can be created on an individual basis, just as artist present their meaningless paintings.
        Schaeffer highlights the concept of truth, and explains that “the present chasm between the generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the concept of truth.” Without a notion of antithesis, people have to compartmentalize everything. Schaeffer labels this compartmentalization as upper and lower stories of truth. In the upper story, we have subject, meaningless, personal preferences, and in the lower story we have facts and science. What we see is that when religion became personalized, it left the lower story of truth where it once was, and went into the upper story where meaning is lost. This is larger due to what Sayers had explained in the concept of the road.
However, he does echo Sayers in that the influences from an upper story – lower story distinction are not always made by a conscious decision by each individual. Rather, it is usually happens unconsciously through osmosis. “The tragedy is not only that these talented men have reached the point of despair, but that so many… really do not understand. They are influenced by the concepts, and yet they have never analyzed what is all meant.”
He alludes to the same tension which Sayers has, which causes the division of “the unity of himself, because rationality is a part of every man.” As humans who have been created in the image of God, we share certain communicable attributes with him, one of those being rationality. He encourages his readers to press into this tension and to use it for the sake of evangelizing. “You are facing a man in tension; and it is this tension which works on your behalf as you speak to him.” 
Schaeffer emphasizes that “Christians should stop laughing and take such men seriously…These men are dying while they live; yet where is our compassion for them?”   We have the good news that we are calling them to “a living orthodoxy which is concerned with the whole man, including the rational and the intellectual, in his relationship to God.”   This is not something that their current worldview can provide. We want to erase the dividing line between the upper and lower story, whereas their current worldview will only reinforce it and therefore reinforce the tension. “Christianity as a system has the [only] answers to the basic needs of modern man.”

Conclusion

        When looking at our current task of engaging with our culture, we can apply many principles from both Sayer’s and Schaeffer’s insight.
        First of all, we must be unwilling to accept a two-story version of truth in our own lives. We must seek to erase this distinction and fight to present Biblical teachings as absolutely and comprehensively true. Only then will be gain credibility to be heard by those embracing a compartmentalized version of truth.
        We must then fight against a culture of the road, by showing that it does in fact leave people wanting. We have something better to call them to, and we should be ready and will to offer it. We should also be willing to do what Schaeffer has called preevagnelizing, when necessary. If we want to present the gospel to someone who will only understand it as an upper story preference, we must first work to show them that this dividing line should not exist.

Saturday

Shredded Chicken lettuce wraps



16 hour work day, it's been a while. Oh crap am I driving?

I'm pretty sure I could make the Denver-Vail drive with my eyes closed at this point.

Trying to study without coffee, yeah right.

Monday

Media Abstention


For ten days, I abstained from as many mediums as possible, including regular television, movies, the radio, blogs/tumblers, and social media including twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and HeyTell. I had not considered myself someone constantly tethered by technology, however the results of this fast were telling.
I was initially caught off guard by the unconscious nature of my habits. The first night I turned on the television for about 30 seconds before I “came to” and realized what I was doing. I ate my dinner in silence, and resolved to go to bed early out of my confusion of how to spend my time in the evening hours. The next couple days I learned to embrace my free time as an opportunity to get ahead on required reading, and even had enough time to spare for optional reading (gasp).  
My relationships were challenged, which was not expected at all. Family and friends were at a loss of how to engage with me, whether that was from entertainment or connecting me. “How do we engage if not in front of a TV,” and “how do I contact you if you are not on Facebook,” were questions I had to address. We dusted off the board games and I had the opportunity to share in more detail the nature of my studies. These conversations proved to be a blessing for myself and my friends, and I was encouraged and affirmed and they seemed refreshed at considering some new ideas they had never thought about before.
As I reflected, while taking advantage of my new found free time, I was able to come to a few conclusions. I have always been quick to notice and hold people accountable who are slipping into callousness, yet I deduced how calloused I myself had actually become. It was not that I had intrinsically been sinning by engaging in these specific mediums, but I had let my exposure to them gradually fog my judgment, steal my attention from the Lord, and lead me into temptation from which I am called to flee. Neil Postman has said that “forms of media favor particular kinds of content,” and I understood how applicable this statement is in light of television and it’s utilization of imagery.[1] Sexual immorality is usually stimulated visually, and therefore television must be watched most responsibly, if not simply abstained from all together.
I read in a personal testimony I had written some years ago, that I had noticed a tendency to busy myself out of fear of what I would find in the silence. After reading that I reflected on how I have let the specific medium of television become background noise in my life, again protecting me from the silence. However, I now realize that silence is not something from which to be protected.
During this media fast when I was too tired to study, yet not tired enough to sleep, I would try to sit still in reflect, but initially had to journal because it was so difficult to simply sit still. As Dr. Groothius has stated, I had to sit still long enough to stop twitching.[2]
I began to reflect on certain patterns. I was able to read through the lines on a current theme I had been hearing through lectures, scripture, and sermons, and noticed that God had been trying to get my attention. What God had been trying to teach me was directly hindered by certain media which, again, had fogged my judgment, stolen my attention from focusing on the Lord, and was what had led me into the specific temptation from which God was trying to free me.    
I mediated on Galatians 5, and was able to see it in a blatantly applicable light. Verse 13 tells us to not use our freedom to indulge the flesh (Galatians 13:5). As believers, I think sometimes we get caught up thinking that abstaining from worldliness is an infringement on our freedom, when in reality abstention is a way in which to experience freedom. This should be obvious as humans whom have experienced the effects of sin. 
Paul tells the Galatians “walk by the spirit and you will not gratify the desire of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16), and in his letter to the Romans explains that “the mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace” (Romans 8:6). James reiterates this point in his letter (James 1:15).
The Spirit should not be seen only as a helper to keep from what leads to death. Paul continues: “Those who belong to Christ have been crucified in the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit” (Galatians 5:24-25). Living by the Spirit should be seen as an inevitability, as it is the only way to continue the sanctification process after the moment of justification. However, in a world overwhelmed by secular media, we should read this as a commandment to intentionally keep from letting our minds be ruled by anything other than the Spirit, so that he may dwell as Lord.
If our worldview is dictated by which lens we see the world through, this will be evident from where our time is spent: engaging in secular culture or spending efforts to become enlightened to Christian truth. Through this fast I was able to see why there is such a tension that exists when Biblical truth is known and yet a secular worldview is practiced. Most of what our media portrays, though sometimes very subtly, is contrary to that which the Bible teaches gives life. Because of this, abstaining from indulging in secular media should be seen as a necessity in letting our lives become controlled by the Spirit.  
In his letter to the Galatians, Paul states first and foremost to no let oneself be burdened again by the yoke of slavery (Galatians 5:1). When we allow our time to be spent influenced by secular media, we are asking to face this tension mentioned above.  
To conclude in the words of Chuck Colson, the best way to overcome this is to

“demand something better—to seek out, as Paul wrote in Philippians, whatever is noble, right, pure, admirable, and to 'think on these things. Paul is commanding us to discipline ourselves to reflect on excellence. And he doesn't limit that to spiritual things, either. The command applies to everything—the music we listen to, the books and magazines we read, the films we watch." [3]

 Groothius, Douglas. Orientation Lecture, Denver Seminary, August 24, 2012.
Postman, Nail. Amusing Ourselves to Death. Harrisonburg: R. R. Donnelly & Sons, 1987.
Colson, Chuck. "Elvis Mania," Breakpoint with Chuck Colson. June 1993, 17.



[1] Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death, (Harrisonburg: R. R. Donnelly & Sons, 1987), 9.
[2] Douglas Groothius, (Orientation Lecture, Denver Seminary, August 24, 2012).
[3] Chuck Colson, "Elvis Mania," Breakpoint with Chuck Colson, June 1993, 17.

Tuesday

Meditation #2

(...) God is necessarily good. Therefore, any conclusion we come to which portrays God in a negative light, necessarily has false premises or misunderstandings. Ethics are a reflection of God, and are therefore necessarily good. What the bible teaches can have arguments which prove their goodness, various unbiased apologetics, but at the end of the day is it in their essence to be good. Therefore, any conclusion we come to which claims the ethical teachings of the Bible are not in fact good, necessarily has false premises or misunderstandings.

Monday

Meditation #1

It is a curious idea to me, comprehension, both of writing and of reading. I have concluded and (then) find the desire or passion behind the importance of the conclusion. I retrace my thoughts to lead my reader to the same conclusion, yet I can't help but summarize, as this is my second time in this thought journey. This I struggle in meeting the minimum length requirements, do I also succumb to in-articulation? Is that a even a word? I am reminded that my goal is to be conversant, or my knowledge is gained in vain.