Category: Missional Church

Six Ways to Engage Culture

Posted on November 20, 2007

 

1. Engage culture prayerfully. We should approach culture just as we should approach all things, prayerfully. What should we pray? We should thank God for the gift of culture, confessing that all cultures contain truth, beauty and virtue, asking him to help us recognize and rejoice in these good gifts, which come down from the Father of lights (Js. 1:17). Alternatively, all cultures also disdain truth, beauty, and virtue. Thus, we are dependent upon God to enable us to recognize and reject those things that are harmfully false, ugly, and immoral. By asking God to give us the perspective of his Spirit, “the Spirit who searches out all things, even the depths of God” (1 Cor. 2:10), we can begin to discern between the things which are true, beautiful and good and the things that are false, ugly, and evil.

2. Engage culture carefully. When approaching any given issue, from parenting to politics, we all have our biases. In order to engage culture well, we must strive to avoid the path of the sectarian and the secularist, of blind rejection and uncritical acceptance. This will require careful investigation into the issues we face, taking the opposing view seriously and weighing its merits. Make a habit of hearing both sides of an issue before you baptize your opinions.

3. Engage culture biblically-theologically. The Bible does not tell you what political party to join, which school to go to, movies to watch, whether or not you should date, or how to respond to cloning. Instead, the Bible offers theological principles which we can appropriate in order to form opinions and convictions about cultural issues.

The problem is that we often start with cultural assumptions about what is right, beautiful and good and go to the Bible to prove them. Instead, we need to bring cultural questions about what is true, good and beautiful to the Bible, reflect on them theologically, and then prayerfully and carefully form our opinions. Thus, we should move from Text to Theology to Culture, not the other way around.

4. Engage culture redemptively; strive to connect your theological reflections regarding culture to redemption. We can redemptively engage culture in two ways: practically and positionally. To practically redeem identify what is broken, what is in need of redemption, and take restorative actions. Ask yourself questions like” “How can I bring the gospel to bear on this issue?” “How can I restore, forgive, or reconcile in this situation?” Don’t become self-righteous and inactive; practice your cultural convictions. Live them out redemptively.

Our practice should flow from our position in Christ. Our actions ought to reveal our redeemed identity, not form our identity. Consider the danger of mistaking your newly formed habits for who you are. For instance, do you think of yourself as an environmentalist or as a citizen of Zion with an environmental conscience? Do you draw significance from being a “pro-lifer” or from being new creation in Christ Jesus? Ask yourself, “Am I confusing my practice with my position?” “Am I finding my significance in what I do instead of who I am in Christ?”

5. Engage culture humbly, recognizing that you have much to learn from a given culture. Read, converse, and reflect on cultural issues with a teachable heart. Ask God to shape your convictions through whomever or whatever he wills. Avoid proud dogmatism and cultivate humble conviction.

6. Engage culture selectively. Realize and embrace the limitations of your own time, experience, interests. Spend your time wisely. Don’t sacrifice time with God, church or family in order to become more culturally savvy. Everyone has been created differently, to live a unique life. Make the most of your experience by redemptively engaging culture, but try to avoid making the experience of others your own. There are too many issues in the world for you to become an overnight expert on Christ and culture.

Adapted from a forthcoming article for Boundless, “How To Engage Culture.”

18-25 Yr Olds Least Likely to Attend Church

Posted on November 16, 2007

A new study from LifeWay Research reveals that more than two-thirds of young adults who attend a Protestant church for at least a year in high school will stop attending church regularly for at least a year between the ages of 18 and 22. Lifeway cites “life change issues” as the primary reason for this decline in church attendance. Life issues includes work demands, moving, off to college.

I can’t help but think that the church is largely to blame for this. In an incredibly mobile society people need a sense of purpose and belonging, not a show and a speaker. If we cultivate community that is on mission, this age group may be more likely to stick with “church” because it becomes a social network in which human longings for purpose and relationship are found.

Keller on Evangelism as Process

Posted on November 8, 2007

Most other programs of evangelism are “crisis” oriented, usually bringing the person to a decision very quickly through the signing of cards and through the praying of a sinner’s prayer. Research shows that the more varied ways a person hears the gospel, and the more often a person hears the gospel before making a commitment, the better the comprehension, the less likely of “reversion” to the world. ~ Redeemer Church Planting Manual

Church Planting and Praise Rock with a Twist of Theodicy

Posted on November 8, 2007

Two of the most popular articles at the Times this week addressed matters of faith. Ben Ratliff covers a story “Plugging in to Make a Joyful Noise to the Lord.“Stanley Fish addresses “Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God” in his regular column. Before addressing the content of these articles, a word on their relvance for church planting.

The first article reveals a music-focused growth strategy for churches. Niche bands are created for each generation from kids to grandparents. While this is not entirely new, the explicit statements made by the pastor give me pause. Should we plant churches based on music style? Does this not lead to the worship of worship? The second article touches on a universal theme–suffering. This is always relevant to church planting. Just ask a planter! Perhaps more insightful are the host of comments on why many NYTs readers agree with the anti-biblical assertions made by Fish and Ehrman. These perceptions of the Christian faith, while often untrue, are nevertheless obstacles to people embracing the true Christ and having true faith. We do well to read consider some of them if we want to connect the gospel to the intellectual and emotional issues of fellow citizens.

Ratliff’s piece focuses on High Desert Church in Ca, examining their praise rock and musical philosophy. Though there is not much new in this article, there are a few quotables: “Tom Mercer, 52, the senior pastor, ‘you don’t decide who you’re going to reach and then pick a music style. You pick a music style, and that determines who’s going to come.’” At High Desert there is a band for every age group from kids (punkpraise) older adults (Classical). Is this a case of musicolatry, savvy church growth, consumeristic worship, or reasonable contextualization? Does exponential growth based on musical preference pay too high a price for mono-generational community?

The theodicy (justification for evil) article by Fish is intriguing more because of the 300 plus comments (which church planters would do well to read) than the actual article itself. This article does summarize two forthcoming books on the subject, one by Ehrman titled “God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer” and other by renowned former atheist Anthony Flew “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. How, he asks, do merely physical and mechanical forces – forces without mind, without consciousness – give rise to the world of purposes, thoughts and moral projects? Flew identifies conscious purpose in this world. He then posits that a conscious God must be responsible. What God is not a matter he has tackled. Where Flew’s work is steely in logic, Ehrman’s approach is stirring in compassion. Instead of taking the typical philosophical approach, his concerns rise from angst of over suffering he has witnessed. Christians would do well to heed his compassion and look to Christ to emulate it.

Nothing much new in Fish’s questions and assertions regarding the nature of God and the problem of evil. Several things he fails to acknowledge:

  1. God is sovereign and purposeful in the evil that exists (simply points to the absurdity of Adam and Eve story). Man is culpable. This is not antimony; it is compatability. God sovereignly works in concert with human reponsibility to redeem our lives or condemn them. We are responsible and he is sovereign.
  2. Although human culpability for Adam’s Fall may seem like a virus, the fact is that Adam was our best man, with the best set of circumstances, to best represent humanity. If Tom Brady can’t get it done, then I certainly cant.
  3. If an all-powerful God is good, it does not follow that he will not permit evil or suffering. As a not-so-all-powerful parent, I not only permit but mercifully inflict pain upon my son when he reaches for the stove. Pain can be redemptive and redirect self-destructive behaviors.
  4. If God is god, then his sovereign freedom is not a threat to our happiness. If God is the most important person in the universe, and our greatest satisfaction comes from knowing and delighting in him. If he is sovereign and free over evil and all things, then he must use his freedom to harness all things towards showing his god-ness. If indeed he is God and we are not, should we not be in happy and holy awe when he makes his god-ness shine brighter for our enjoyment and his praise, against the dark backdrop of suffering? The theater of his glory includes tragedy in service of eternal glory and human happiness?
  5. God sacrificed himself in order to put death to death and to slay suffering and evil. Christ is the ultimate answer to any theodicy. God is all powerful, all good, and will end all suffering, death and evil for those who hope in him. The promise of a new creation minus any tears is the bright future of God’s good and broken world. The death of his historical, miracle-working, compassionate, transfigured and resurrected Son is the downpayment of his full pledge to redeem and renew all things.