The homepage of the 9Marks.org website poses the following question: Is Your Church Reflecting the Culture or Shaping It?
That is a great question. In fact, that very question is being asked by many various groups (Emergents, church growth experts, church planting organizations, postmil thinkers). About the only Evangelical group that is not interested in the issues that this question poses are the Pretribulationists. Why? Well they simply don’t believe in the premise of the question, because they see the world as a hopeless cause and believe the only hope for the church is to be Rapture-rescued.
But everyone else seems to be captivated by the difficult issue of shaping cultures in this world. Some are approaching this issue biblically; some are not.
The trouble lately has been that the Emergent Movement fad took the concept of “the church creating culture” and actually defined it as something that looks more like “the church relecting the culture.” In other words, the emergent movement seems to be better at “contextualizing” the gospel to the culture rather than letting the gospel “create” a new redeemed culture in this world that reveals the character of God.
Many biblical Christians have seen the numerous flaws in the worldviews and ministry philosophies of Emergent proponents. Sadly, that is as far as things get — just disagreement and argument.
Let me pose an alternative to the Emergent Movement crowd — lets see how “open” pomo minds really are. Let me pose this alternative method of shaping the culture, transforming the culture that does not require churches to compromise with this world.
Simply put: here are two easy ways that the church can shape the culture.
- Organize and implement a biblical eldership
- and promote biblical marriages.
Okay. Let’s back up for a minute so I can explain myself.
What is the ultimate purpose of man? It is to glorify God; to reflect the virtues and character of God. God is a Trinity; He is three equal persons forming one Being. All of His eternal qualities are practiced within a holy relationship. Such as, He loves an equal, has authority over an equal, submits to an equal, etc.
In order for mankind to reflect such characteristics he must be in a similar relationship. Therefore God said of Adam, “It is not good that man is alone.” Adam was good, but his environment was not good; it was not condusive to reflecting many of God’s attributes that are only practiced within a covenant relationship of equals.
In order for man to glorify a covenantal God, man must have an opportunity to practice covenantal living.
So, back to my point:
When a church operates with a biblical eldership (with plurality and parity) then that church manifests a culture that is foreign to anything in the world. What work environment, what business operates with the same virtues as a biblical eldership? None! So how can such a work environment exist in a church? It exists only because of the Gospel of Grace.
Or consider a biblical marriage: two equal humans, responsible for different roles, covenantally bonded together as “one flesh” (one being), practicing parity while at the same time practicing authority and submission come together in marriage for one express purpose — to glorify our Creator! That is the most noble and holy relationship known to humanity. It requires virtues that seems to be absent in the sons of Adam. How is marriage possible — only because of the Gospel of Grace.
So there you have it: I believe that a church that is led by a biblical eldership and is filled with biblical marriages will have a profound impact on the culture in which that church is located. In other words, the culture around such a church will be righteously shaped!
How is such a church shaping the culture? Such a church is demonstrating the attractive and impactful power of the gospel of grace. No culture will be able to successfully ignore or effectively suppress the culture of grace that such a church will create.
Any church can do this. Indeed, every church should be doing this. Every church should have a biblical eldership and godly marriages. The institution of the family and of the church are still the two most powerful culture-shaping forces in any culture.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Can you give an example(s) of a well known pre-triber who is not interested in impacting/shaping the culture? I am not debating the possibility, but wondering if this is true and you can give examples of such men or if this is another dig on our pre-trib brethren. Just curious!
D.Mac,
Thanks for the inquiry, but I have chosen to refrain from naming any names of "well known" pre-tribers lately because it is unhelpful to the real purpose of this discussion. I appreciate that you were just wondering and not looking for a debate, but trust me — if I were to quote even one guy by name then all the attention will be focused on that personality rather than on the real issues at hand.
The reason I ask for names is because I think it is an unhelpful caricature of the pre-tribers. I listen to the Bible Answer Man rant against pre-tribers and the names he drops are guys that most sound evangelicals recognize as out there anyway. Then someone mentions John MacArthur and the discussion changes. Names do matter- and it is helpful. There is a enormous difference between Benny Hinn and C.J. Mahaney and yet they are both non-cessationists. This is just my two cents- not a cause for debate just consideration. I am sure there are pre-tribers who are asking the question posed by 9marks and yet still believing that the rapture is just around the corner. Just a thought!
I appreciate your disagreement with my opinion that it actually is helpful to be reminded that [the vast majority of] pre-tribers are not interested in the theological premise of "culture transforming ecclessiology."
I preached as an itinerant evangelist for TEN years in pre-trib churches. NOT ONE was interested in "culture transforming ecclessiology." Why? Because they basically believed that such is un-biblical because the church is not here to transform cultures but individual people. Pessimism dominates Dispensational pre-millennialism.
You make it sound like in your comment above that the pre-tribers I am talking about are "out there" or radical that most pre-tribers would reject. But that just is not true.
Thomas Ice, for example, says, "It appears that wherever Christianity has come to dominate the culture, and has lost that dominance, it has never been revived as a significant force. This is not progress it is regression. At this point in time, history supports the premillennial notion of the global spread of the gospel, while at the same time the church becomes increasingly apostate. Postmillennialism fails to account for the fact that if there is going to be a fulfillment of millennial conditions predicted in the Bible, it is going to be only as a result of a revolutionary intervention of Jesus Christ at His second coming in order to introduce new factors which are discontinuous with the present age. It will require the personal presence of Jesus Christ Himself to role back the curse and to rule with a rod of iron. Only the premillennial model provides the changes necessary to implement a millennial golden age."
I think this one quote illustrates exactly what I am referring to. Notice that Ice allows his eschatology to dictate his understanding of ecclessiology and even soteriology. Notice his reference to a so-called "golden age." He is stuck in old arguments and therefore is missing the real point of what even my article is about. And in the end he is completely pessimistic about the power, influence, and success of the gospel and the Bride of Christ. Indeed, fatalistic would be a better word.
With that said, would you like to give your opinion on the true premise of this post. Do you believe that the gospel and the church can transform the cultures? Do you think that it can be by living out the gospel through biblical elderships and biblical marriages?
Jason, as I read through the discussion and try to sort this out in my understanding, what bible verses teach that the Gospel will transform culture? It's clear that looking back in history we can see where the gospel has definitely influenced culture, but where in scripture do we find that the gospel will transform a culture that is absent from a lost man coming to repentance? I agree with your premise, but what bible verses support that view as opposed to the bible verses that Thomas Ice holds to?
Jason,
The gospel transforms people and people make up the culture therefore the gospel transforms culture. The church certainly models to the world the transforming power of God's sovereign grace by the way they conduct themselves (1 Pet.9-12) and by His grace that has a transforming effect on individuals, which leads to a transformation of culture. Biblical eldership and godly marriages are certainly great examples, so is love displayed to one another (John 13:35).
How about the book of ACTS? Everywhere the gospel went it transformed the culture.
I disagree. The book of Acts repeatedly demonstrates that the gospel transformed people's lives. Nowhere do we see it transforming the culture. Now I do agree that the culture must have been impacted by everyone who became a believer, but focus is clearly on the gospel impacting people's lives.
D.Mac,
I take that as an Amen.
Adam was commanded to tend the garden and populate the earth — which is, at its essence, cultural transformation.
We must realize that God did not save us just to individually bless us; rather He has saved us to unite us with His Church so that we may together manifest the culture of heaven.
Just as Job's faith manifested itself by being a father to the fatherless, defending the defenseless in courts, and taking care of the needs of society — our "individual" salvation should not isolate us but transform us into people who interject ourselves in this word in such a way that we glorify a God who has interjected himself into this world.
John M. Frame said (as quoted by 9Marks):
The task of the church is the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20)—to make disciples, teaching them "to observe all that I have commanded you." By God’s grace, we train believers in obedience. That obedience inevitably transforms culture, as it has done now for nearly 2000 years. Christians have made huge contributions to learning, the arts and literature, the treatment of women, the abolition of anti-biblical slavery, the care of the poor, the sick, the widows, and orphans. Sin, of course, has impeded our mission; but the grace of God working through his people has accomplished amazing things.
Now some have argued that cultural transformation is the work of Christian individuals, but not of the local church. They argue that the latter should be limited to the area of the "spiritual," the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. But the spiritual/secular distinction is not biblical. The gospel as proclaimed by John (Matt. 3:2), Jesus (Matt. 4:17), Philip (Acts 8:12), and Paul (Acts 19:8, 20:25, 28:23, 28:31) announces the coming of the kingdom of God, a new order of righteousness, peace, and joy (Rom. 14:17). In the kingdom, we do all things (not just "spiritual") to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), all things in the name of the Lord Jesus (Col. 3:17). It is plain that care for the poor, orphans, and widows is part of that.
Is a failing school system, then, for example, the responsibility of the local church? Education is part of our kingdom responsibility (Deut. 6:6-9, Tit. 2:12), part of the gospel of the kingdom. This may mean encouraging believers to educate their children at home, or in Christian schools. It may mean advocating a new commitment to excellence in the public schools. It is better that schools not be administered directly by the church: that is not necessary and it can be a distraction. But where there is no alternative, yes, the church may start a school, bringing to its children (and even to children of non-Christian parents) the riches of human knowledge within a kingdom-centered worldview. There are legitimate questions as to how best to handle such matters in different localities. But the question is not, whether the church has a responsibility, but how should it undertake that responsibility. The gospel of the kingdom is comprehensive—good news for every aspect of human life.
And, before anyone "goes there" — this is not a Presbyterian thing: See Michael Horton for an example of a prominent Presby who doesn't believe that the church should worry about transforming the culture.
Speaking of Presbyterians, Philip G. Ryken is quoted as saying: Does Scripture call the local church (by which we mean the local church as the local church, not as individual Christians) to the work of cultural transformation? For example, is a failing school system the responsibility of the local church?
There is a sense in which the answer to this question must be "no." The church's primary calling is to preach the gospel and to worship God in the ministry of the Word, the sacraments, and prayer. While the worship of God and the proclamation of the gospel have a transforming influence on the surrounding culture, this does not happen directly, but indirectly, as the people of God live out the implications of their faith in every aspect of life.
Yet there are also ways in which the answer to this question must be "yes." In its priestly ministry of intercession, the local church prays for the needs of its community—all of the areas where the surrounding culture needs to experience the transforming influence of the gospel. In its prophetic ministry of preaching and teaching God's Word, the local church disciples its members to fulfill their various callings as parents, teachers, artists, students, politicians, business people—callings that have culture-transforming power. In its diaconal ministry of mercy, the local church offers practical service in the name of Christ—service that transforms the lives of the poor, the homeless, and the elderly, as well as children, prisoners, and internationals. In these ways, at least, the local church is called to the gospel work of cultural transformation.
A church that regards such transformation as its primary goal may well miss its more fundamental calling to glorify God in preaching the gospel. Yet a church that minimizes the importance of its legitimate calling to cultural transformation may fail to do the full work of discipleship or of bearing full witness to the kingdom of God.
To take education as an example, a failing school system ought to be a matter of deep concern to Christian people. In appropriate ways, it can also be a legitimate area for local church involvement. Local churches can and should pray for the education of local children. They can and should support local Christian schools through their benevolences. Where permitted, they can and should lead Bible studies, provide Christ-centered religious education, or do other evangelistic work in local schools. Where invited (as is the case in Philadelphia), they can and should respond to the request of the civil government to offer spiritual and educational mentoring to local students.
[Philip G. Ryken is the senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and is the author, most recently, of What Is the Christian Worldview (P&R, 2006).]
I'm sorry to say, but after reading all the quotations that would support the church being responsible or called to transform the culture I still take issue with that idea. The biblical support these men provide is, at best, scant. True we, the church (both individually and corporately), are called to be salt, a city set on a hill, and light in this world. Those terms do not speak of transformation. They speak of preservation, a model of the ideal, and holiness. I agree that we can demonstrate how we should live, but if we live a Christ-like life doesn't Jesus say that we will be hated by the world? He doesn't say that we will transform the culture. God does use the church's (individual and corporate) witness to transform lives, but without His intervention no lives would be transformed. Only once lives are transformed is the culture impacted; and I would argue that cultural impaction is usually not the norm, but is really seen in larger spiritual awakenings.
Now, some may say that I'm being too picky and it's all just semantics. Well yes, I am being picky because semantics are important and we should always strive to be both accurate and precise in what we say. Feel free to point out where I have not been.
Thabiti Anyabwile is the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman and the author, most recently, of The Decline of African American Theology (IVP, 2007).
Thabiti tackles this issue with the following response:
What is primary in the church is preaching, applying, and living the gospel. The church is to make disciples and teach those disciples to observe all the Lord commands. The gospel is central and without the gospel a "church" ceases to be a church. So nothing that comes under the banner of "cultural transformation" is to displace that most central of concerns.
Having said that, does not Christ command his people to do some things that touch upon cultural transformation or social issues? And insofar as the church is to teach disciples to obey all those commands, then I think on some level we’re in the business of "cultural transformation" (though that’s a hideous and misleading label).
I really dislike this question. It’s problematic in two ways. First, the question forces us to make a decision that’s too blunt or sweeping. It’s "all or nothing." And, I think it may suggest that there is a "letter" to be obeyed without necessarily attending to a corresponding "spirit." For example, I can’t think of chapter and verse (which the question seems to call for) that assigns the role of "cultural transformation" to the church qua church. And yet, I can’t reason that there is no role for the church when there are plenty of places where Christians universally are called to do justice in their cultural setting. What does it mean for there to be such a universal call to Christians and there to be no role for the church qua church (a gathering of said Christians in a particular locale preaching, administering the ordinances, and living out the faith)? The distinction the question imposes between the church and individual Christians breaks down, I think, when you’re talking about obligations Christians are universally to observe.
A second way in which the question is problematic: it seems to (a) assume a political and social context where government and perhaps a non-profit sector are intact and responsible for such things as education, and (b) overlook extraordinary social problems. So what is the church’s responsibility regarding cultural transformation in a developing nation (which is most of the world) where there are no basic governmental structures and no non-profit sector as in the United States? And can we comfortably conclude the church has no role to oppose things like the slave trade, sex trafficking, abortion, or provide disaster relief in famine or hurricanes?
We could rule some of these things in by exception. That is, we could say, "of course the church has a role in those limited extraordinary cases." But if it has a role in such cases, why does it not have a role in the more mundane, ordinary, or chronic situations? Are we to organize mercy when the problem is glaring, but remain disorganized and disinterested when they are "every day"? I can’t see that.
So, right now, I’m left to conclude that there is Christian liberty in deciding whether a local church will involve itself in this or that social issue. A great deal of discernment is required, for obviously not every social issue is "close" to the church’s core mission, and there is a long history of social causes displacing gospel order. In my experience, Christians are generally nervous about exercising the liberties that Christ provides. Perhaps this is a corporate exercise in that nervousness.
The gospel transforms an individual from the realm of separation from God's blessings into a personal relationship with God. This personal impact of the gospel is often taught by preachers
But the gospel does more than just have an individual impact on a person. The gospel creates a counter-culture called the church. The church not just a collection of individual Christians but a community, a culture. Those who only believe in an individual gospel often miss the communal implications.
Individual Christianity is quite simple, but living with other Christians in a world that both hates Jesus and needs Jesus is very complex. Such living is the essence of true discipleship and requires a community of grace and truth to achieve.
The Apostle Peter urged the church as "sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation." (1 Pet 2:11-12) Notice, on one hand Peter is urging for abstinence and on the other hand is urging engagement. Thus are the complexities I am talking about.
Peter recognized that there are dangers of both cultural accommodation and cultural withdrawal. No one sees the good deeds of those who withdraw from the world. On the other hand, people who accommodate the culture are never persecuted. We're to go in deeply, but to stay very different.
As a counter-culture we should be both priestly and servant-hearted. Those who want to be legalistic and have an us-against-them mentality tend not to be priestly. Those who are only interested in social issues tend not to talk about hell and wrath.
I have done my share of traveling in foreign countries, both pagan nations and atheistic nations. I can tell you as an eyewitness that Christianity transforms cultures.
I have seen it also transform the culture of a school and the culture within family units. I have seen it transform governments. I have even seen churches effectually influence the unbelieving population of communities.
The Pharisees saw the power of Jesus upon the entire nation of Israel — not just individuals but "the whole world" was being affected by Jesus.
The Apostles saw entire cities transformed, even to the point that riots broke out in Ephesus as the economy was being influenced by the gospel.
Rome was affected to its core by the church. The entire city of Geneva was transformed by the John Calvin's ministry. The Westminster Assembly produced the most blessed years in Great Britian's history.
Everywhere Christianity goes it advances the civilization of cultures.
Jesus has come to bring peace and joy to the world. The church is the Body of Christ fulfilling the Messianic ministries of Jesus through the power of His Spirit. Yes, this transformation does not happen apart from the conversion of individuals, but, even more so, Christianity doesn't produce individualism. Rather, it produces community and community produces culture. And the power of the culture of Christianity is more powerful than the influence of any worldly culture.
We should love the culture in which God has placed us and seek its "peace" as God told his people in Jeremiah 29:7. Our church is leaven, salt, a city set on a hill.
As taught by prophets, apostles and preachers for millenniums, Christians should strive to develop a counter-culture. We are an outpost of the kingdom of God, the body of Christ. Jesus incarnated himself into humanity in order to reach humanity. Why? Because humanity was not the problem but the prize. God loves humanity — we were created in His image for His glory. Jesus loves the world and came to release us from teh bondage of sin.
We should be conversant with the culture around us, yet in worldview, values, and lifestyle, we should demonstrate chastity, simplicity, humility and self-sacrifice. (E.g. We are quite different in the way they understand money, relationships, human life, sex, and so on.)
"Culture" is a set of shared practices, attitudes, values, and beliefs which are rooted in common understandings of 'the big questions'—where life comes from, what life means, who we are, and what is important to spend our time doing in the years allotted to us. No one can live or do their work without some assumed answers to such questions, and every set of answers shapes culture.
Most fields of work today are dominated by a very different set of answers than those of Christianity. But when most Christians enter a vocational field, they either a) seal off their faith from their work and simply work like everyone else around them, or b) simply spout Bible verses at people to get their faith across. We should help the people of God to know how to persuade people by showing them the faith-based, world-view roots of everyone's work. We should help the people of God to know the implications of the gospel for marriage/family, art, business, government, journalism, entertainment, and scholarship.
Some Christians may ask, "How can we form a community that is rich and deep in love for one another and exhibits to the world the distinct life, individually and corporately, that we have in Christ?" The answer is: we must demonstrate every day of the week how the gospel effects our leadership/structure/decision making, our infra-structure, our music and arts, and our ethical themes. In other words, everything we do (4-wheeling, quilting, eating, career, athletics, working out, worshipping, teaching, parenting, friendships) matters to God… and God matters to everything we do. We haven't just been saved from hell but we have been saved to glorify God in this world so that people may see our works and glorify our Father in heaven. So our Christian lifestyle is our culture and our culture exists right in the city in which we live. In fact, our culture is best for our city and we hope the city is transformed by our living here.
Jason, my eyes are bleeding from reading all the material.
All you needed was one verse. Matt. 28:19 says to go and make disciples of all nations. Of, not in.
God gives that directive to His church. He never implies that we are not to fulfill it, or that he will give us a pass. His expectation, and His promise (Gen. 28-14: in Abraham's seed, all the families of the world will be blessed) is that this will be fulfilled.
And yes, it does happen soul by soul, household by household. But His disciples turn the world upside down (Acts 17:6).
Stephen Um says: All peoples, institutions, and groups are interested in changing, renewing, or transforming society by impressing their core values on the culture. For that matter, we cannot help but make an impact on our culture. The minute anyone opens his mouth, he is speaking in a particular language, from a particular cultural context, with a particular worldview vision of morality and various definitions of what he believes to be the "true", the "good", and the "beautiful." As such, no one should be led to think that he is not "getting into the public square."
In addressing the question, "Is it the church’s responsibility to embrace or assume the civic responsibility of the state (e.g. education, the poor, social injustice, the arts, etc.)?", we need to consider the following. The church does not have any juridical authority in the city/state public square, but that does not mean that the Church ought to stay out in the periphery. The church does have the responsibility for acts of mercy and for engaging our community with acts of social justice (cf. Jas. 1.27). Paul states that "as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers" (Gal. 6:10). He is clearly referring to a deed ministry that should be shared with all people as they have need. James says that true religion is this: "to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (Jas. 1.27). In other words, it is the church’s responsibility to pursue both public compassion and personal piety. For example, although a failing school system is not the civic responsibility of the church, the church could get involved in "doing good" by perhaps coming along side of the local school in providing after-school tutoring.
Unfortunately, some activist or fundamentalist groups have thought that they should either assume the responsibility of the state (whether conservative or liberal) or impede the government’s involvement in the lives of individuals. However, the gospel calls individuals in the church to pursue the common good in our culture and to enter into the public square by encouraging and promoting gospel values and by engaging in an incarnational/grassroots strategy for cultural renewal and community development. This is not to suggest that social action, political involvement, or pursuing the common good is a replacement for evangelism.
What does this gospel response look like? There is to be an integration of faith and vocational calling in bringing cultural renewal. Thus, the church and its members should cultivate friendships with people in their neighborhoods, join clubs and associations, and partner with organizations that are also involved in acts of mercy and social justice. In other words, because the ministry of the gospel is both a ministry of word and deed, we can actually promote the public witness of the gospel by pursuing the common good and engaging in acts of social justice.
[Stephen Um is the senior minister of Citylife Presbyterian Church in Boston, Massachusetts. ]
___________________
go here for more quotes on 9Marks about this issue. ||here
Are the 17th century American Puritans a good example of carrying out this cultural transformation? If so, what went wrong?
Did you mean to ask "What went right?"
Because every century since the Puritans has been greatly impacted what those people did in their generation.
What would America be like had it not been for the Puritans?
What Atheist/Communist/Barbarian would be ruling a united Europe had it not been for Christianity's cultural (even political) influence?
Where would the world be economically?
What status of life and liberty would women enjoy?
What would have happened to the Liberation Movement had it not been for cultural-transforming power of the Gospel?
What if all countries would have been like China or India or Korea or the Soviet Union?
Where would education be today; where would the arts and sciences be today; where would be philosophy without the great Christian thinkers?
What if Europe would have never had the Westminster Assembly or if America would have never had Christianity reflected in its laws, politics, and policies?
So the question is "What went right?"
Followed by "What lasted?"
and "What can we do better?"