A WARNING!
See
to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,
which
depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world
rather than on Christ… Since you died with
Christ to the basic principles of
this world, why, as though you still belonged
to it do you submit to its rules:
“do not handle! Do not Taste! Do not
touch!”? These are all destined to
perish with use, because they are based on
human commands and teachings.
Such regulations indeed have an appearance of
wisdom, with their self-imposed
worship, their false humility and their harsh
treatment of the body, but they
lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Colossians
2:8, 20-23
While it may be easy to regulate these
verses to some first century heresy, the overall warning of this and other
texts like it must be heeded. As with
any culture, America
has its conventional wisdom, which appears so good and right that unless the
Christian is careful he or she will simply heed this so-called “wisdom” without
considering whether or not its source is Christ.
CULTURE
To accept ones own culture and its mores
without careful consideration is not prudent.
According to William Larking Jr.[i]
There seems to be an anthropological consensus that culture
is basically ideational;
that is, the
essence of a culture is its ideology or world-view rather than its observable
behavior patterns. Ideology (meaning)
is primary, while behavior (form) is secondary.
The central guiding element of culture is a theological
viewpoint.
The realization that culture
therefore is essentially religious must become a guiding element in any
discussion of how the gospel relates to it.
In a discussion on the Biblical data concerning culture, Larkin says;
[ii]
One underlying assumption of the Bible is that religion
is the integrating
center of a culture, a concept that gets its
strongest expression in the Old Testament.
As a people committed to the reality of God as creator, we have seen
the perverted view of God that resulted from the ‘fall of man’ and ‘tower of Babel.’
It should be no surprise that culture is essentially religious and
therefore, a perversion by a given people-group of the reality of God. Culture is like a ‘theological’ stone
dropped into the pond of life. The extended
definitions of culture are simply the resulting ripple effects.
An uncritical analysis of ones culture might lead one to assume that
ones own culture is morally neutral. In
other words ‘that is just the way we do things in this country.’ Even more alarming is the assumption that
once influenced by the gospel, culture retains its same ‘neutral’ character but
now has the “redeeming element of Christ” to transform it. Again Larkin says;[iii]
“…The fall severely disrupted each of these systems (of
culture), so that in
succeeding generations man, the rebel, encouraged by
Satan, constructed cultures
with religious
centers other than the one true God.
Humanity now stands not only as
expressions of humankind’s efforts to fulfill God-ordained
cultural tasks, but
as the embodiment of their sinful attempts to maintain
autonomy.
Human cultures have attempted to maintain autonomy
apart from the one true God in two generally identifiable patterns.
The first pattern[iv] involves a god or gods to
whom is attributed a divine program for the world. Such cultures can immediately be identified
by a very strong family based community orientation and, sometimes, a negative
suppression of the individual. Modern
examples of this pattern would be the Islamic cultures, as well as many African
cultures. These cultures can be referred
to as theocentric
, (god(s) or God
centered; the first strong “ripple effect” of such a culture is a strong
community orientation.
The second pattern[v] would be a culture that
recognizes the influence rather than control of many deities and demons (as in
ancient Rome)
or a culture that is tolerant to them (as in the more modern pluralism of the
West.) The difference between the two
groups is not the number of deities but that the second group sees the deities
as mere influences. They are not viewed
as the sole or primary determination of existence.
Accepting the influencing
rather
than the determining
role of the
deity(s), results in a system of belief that puts human development and potential
as central. In contrast then, to the theocentric
cultures, these are ‘anthropocentric
” (man is central).[vi]
Two good examples are many of the ‘eastern religions’ that promote
self-awareness and the western pluralism that promotes man as an individual
apart from his religious affiliation.
This, in part, accounts for the fascination of the American mind with
the Far East, while having an almost total
rejection of the Middle Eastern (god-centered) mind. The first strong ripple effect in a
man-centered culture is a people given to individualism.
While I would not attempt to give a comprehensive definition of the
religious culture of America,
it is clearly man-centered. Even its
participants easily see this. A strong,
rugged individualism is glorified in nearly all American Cultural folklore.
However, a man-centered culture is faced by an enormous problem. Man has a long recognized need for community,
such as would be recognized by its interdependency with others. As a Christian, I would define true community
as an interdependency that involves both God and others. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart,
and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind and
Love your neighbor as yourself. (Luke 10:25-37)
Individualism runs counter to this fundamental need. As one can see by the ratio of counselors to
people in the American world, many basic problems are not solved by this
individualistic culture we live in.
Simply put, man by himself is very lonely. Individualism merely perpetuates this problem
and cannot solve it. A man-centered
culture is the story of a progressive search for a model of living that can
both retain rugged individualism and, at the same time, resolve man’s basic
created need for community.
The 60’s movement, among other things, involved a strong effort to
return to a commune style of community.
This, alas, was doomed to failure partly because the cultural
programming of individualism was an insurmountable obstacle. In other cultures where the premium on
individualism is not so great, a close communal system has worked well for
generations.
CORPORATIONS
Modern western man has found a solution (of sorts) to this tension
between his need for community and his search for individualism. This solution could be called the CORPORATIVE
MODEL. To understand this solution, one
needs to first look at the definition of the corporation. The Standard College Dictionary defines it
as:
“…the assumption of a body… endowed with the rights,
privileges,
and responsibilities of an individual, but distinct from
those
of the individuals making up the group.”
What a breakthrough! Modern man
can now create an entity that exists only on paper through which he can relate
to others whether it is at work, play, or worship. He can participate without liability and then
go home and retain his own individualism.
His only responsibility is that he does not violate the integrity of
this entity (which does not really exist). This entity can buy, sell and
trade. This entity can, to a limited
degree, be controlled; but “praise the culture”, it cannot control the
individual. Now a person can enjoy some of the benefits of interdependency
without the threat to his individualism.
CHURCH
Western Christianity is strongly reflective of this addiction to the
corporative model. Are we not guilty of
creating this thing we call “church” which, like the corporation, is endowed
with the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the individuals, but is
nonetheless distinct from those making up the group? Do we not expect the satisfaction of a
community to be evoked from this thing on paper we call “church” which we can
go to or leave as we please?
With hearts of compassion we should be ministering to the needs, but
instead we hear phrases like, “the church needs to begin a ministry to the …
(as if “the church” is something other than our individual selves.)[vii] In making statements
like this, are we not asking for a corporative entity to replace our own
religious responsibility? Or how
about when we say, “If the church does this, I’ll help.” What does this make the church, except
something other than ourselves?
It is, in part, the creation of this “corporative” church – while we
continue our own cultural search or individualism – that has caused endless
division in the body of Christ. I am
firmly convinced that at the heart of the hotly debated issue of church
authority is a cultural rather than a Scriptural struggle. Few will deny that Christ is the single
authority of the church of the Scriptures.
But the problem is that the authority of Christ does not fit the
model of a corporative church.
You may protest, “Who makes the decisions on a practical level?” Don’t
you often really mean, “Who makes the decisions on a corporate level?” Without
the problem of corporate decisions, the “practical” decisions of the church
become holy living, good deeds, compassion, loving one another and the
like. These decisions are clearly
addressed to individuals in the community of God.
Who would deny that our Lord’s Word, declared by faithful men,
constitutes the obligation of obedience?
But who is in charge of decision-making in the corporate church since it
is not to be found in the Bible? Too
often when one hears the cry that “So-and-so is not submissive to authority”
what is really being said is that “So-and-so does not recognize the legitimacy
of an entity that does not really exist (I.e., the corporation of the church).
Often, this thing we call “church” is the creation of a religious culture
given to individualism, not community.
This corporative church is a religious “high place” in which we fancy we
can worship God. This is not a neutral
cultural choice. It is a much
indulged-in fantasy of western culture that gives the notion that “church” is
something you may leave and then go to another thing called “church”: My friends, do not ever think of leaving the
church that Jesus built.
Even ‘love and good deeds’ are assigned to a “department” (or was that
the benevolence fund?) of the corporative model that is quite apart from our
individual responsibility. Like the
clean-up crews after a traffic accident, we have our counselors, missionaries,
youth directors, and even a funeral director (or was that the pastor?)
The western version of the Good Samaritan is one who sees the victim,
then gets to the nearest megaphone and calls the local “camel-bulance.” In fact, if he so much as touches the poor
beggar, he will get his ‘tunic’ sued off for not contacting the nearest “victim
aid” corporation protected from such liability.
We must understand that upon becoming believers in
the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we have undergone a crucial cultural shift. We are God-centered and no longer man-centered
AREN’T WE? If so, then it cannot
be said that we belong any longer to the western culture.
To say “when
in Rome do as
the Romans,” means only to speak, live, and present truth in such a way that
the gospel is understood in a given culture.
It cannot mean to accommodate the gospel to the religious perversion of
any given culture.[viii]
New ripples should be seen emitting from the believer which indicates
that a new cultural grid is now in place.
One of the first, and most apparent ripples is a community/relationship
based on reality. Now we “love one another
just as Christ loved us.” No longer do
we look after our own concerns but “also after the concerns of others.” Yes we are fully individuals; “But to each
one is given the manifestation of the Spirit FOR THE COMMON GOOD.” 1Cor 12:7
To attempt to live out the community/relationship-based demands of the
Scriptures and to also remain essentially tied to the American culture is an
absurdity. Very much like the 60’s, the
success of such an attempt is doomed. It
is absurd because of the culture’s religious type attachment to individualism that denies the possibility of an alternative to the
corporative model. Like a small boat
paddling against the strong currents of life, our best attempts to succeed
while remaining in the cultural grid are inevitable failures.
Brothers and sisters do not miss the point. Having left the principles of this world,
please do not give up and return to the convenience of the corporative
model. Oh, yes, the more corporative we
become, the bigger we will grow. But we
will only be accommodating the comfort zone of our culture. Such a model is not acceptable for a Child of
the King whose culture is bound in the kingdom of God.
Have we become addicts of a cultural narcotic, sniffing the empty
promise of the culture we live in? WE DO
NOT NEED THE CORPORATIVE MODEL!! We belong to the community of God and should
not be imitators of this world.
Our call is not to redeem culture, though, like salt we cannot help but
influence it. Our call is not to change
culture for the better, for the righteousness of the ungodly is like filthy
rags. Our call is to be the culture of
God and to call others to it. “Repent,
for the Kingdom
of God is at hand!”
FOOTNOTES
[i] William Larkin Culture and
Biblical Hermeneutics, pp 193; Baker 1988
[iv] The first group is what Raphael
Patai calls “Teleologic (Missiology; An International Review Vol 8#2
[v] This second group is called
‘polytheodeministic,” in more primitive cultures, and “polytheopluralism,” in
more modern cultures. This is a much
more diverse group due largely to the decentralization of a specific deity.
[vi] It is sometimes argued that this
second group is simply the deterioration (or progressive) stage of the first
group and therefore all groups are ultimately man-centered. This is probably true in the same way that
Larkin described it (quoted above) as “maintaining autonomy.” To describe this
as stages rather than distinct groups, however, does not effect the discussion
of this paper.
[vii] For instance in a recent “Church
Bulletin” in Denver
the following announcement was made.
“We
are asking for your help…we are all very thankful for our Trinity facility and
would appreciate your help in caring for it. If you are the last to leave,
following a meeting or whatever, please… We would really appreciate your help
with this request.” -- The question that needs to be asked of
this announcement is who is the ‘we’ and who is the ‘you’? Does this not reflect an unintended but very
false view of church largely because of the incorporation necessary to have a
building?
[viii] Language and symbols are the
vehicles by which the perverted essence of culture is communicated. It is interesting that these appear to be the
“bridges” through which God does enter culture.
The symbols of baptism and circumcision, for instance, have precedence
in pagan culture, as did the Ark of the Covenant, the Ten Commandments and many
other items of O.T. worship. Their usage
in Scripture, however, does not in any way validate the “host” pagan cultures
from which they came. This is also
apparently true of many of the names God gives Himself in the Old
Testament. This, then, should be a clue
as to what our point of contact should be; namely language and symbols. These ‘accommodations’ should be accompanied
by a radical reinterpretation of both the language and symbols in the light of
the Kingdom to which we belong.
