Fri 31 Aug 2007
The Oxymoronic Culturally Savvy Christian
Posted by tom cottar under theology
I‘ve finished Dick Staub’s The Culturally Savvy Christian. I picked it up for a couple of reasons: the title and the introduction. Granted, even with the endorsements of N.T. Wright and slick cover, what reeled me in was the introduction that spoke of us living in an ‘intellectually and aesthetically impoverished age of Christianity Lite’, and how Christians used to be known for their intellectual, artistic, and spiritual contributions to society. Bach. Mendelsson, Dante, Dostoevsky, Newton, Pascal, Rembrant, CS Lewis, Tolkien… Unfortunately, today’s culturally creative impact is made by the likes of Michael Stipe and Chuck Palahnuik. And, yes, he quotes my all-time favorite scene from Fight Club, the iChing of our culture: the basement scene where Tyler gives his ‘middle children of history’ speech. And he’s right. As Walker Percy put it, "You live in a deranged age, more deranged than usual, because in spite of great scientific and technological advances, amn has not the faintest idea of who he is or what he’s doing."
His point is that the absence of a robust, rich Christian presence in today’s culture means that the very idea of a culturallly savvy Christian is oxymoronic, like saying ‘jumbo shrimp’ or ‘military intelligence’ or ‘a literal interpretation’. What a mess. Pop culture has become a diversonary entertainment, more ‘amusement’ (lit. ‘no thinking’) than just ‘entertainment’ (lit. ‘to hold one’s attention). But I didn’t need an entire book to convince me of that. As much as I love entertainment and amusement, much of it I love for the ‘mindless’ value it posesses. I watch Seinfeld when I want to unplug. Then King of the Hill. Then the world is at rest.
However, there are some great quotes and insights that you’ll see on Quotable Mondays in the near future. For instance, can you identify with Rich Mullins here?
"I really struggle with American Christianity. I’m not really sure that people wth our cultural disabilities, people who grow up in a culture that worships pleasure, leisure, and affluence, are capable of having souls, or being saved."
Ouch. Christians are called to be the Light of the World, not the Lite of the World. And if we are going to create a subculture, why create one so boring, immitative, and uninspiring?
Staub does a great job in talking about God’s transforming presence in our lives and in our culture. Jose Miguel Bonino once said, ‘Theology has to stop explaing the world and start transforming it.’ Amen, hermano. God so loved the world that he didn’t send a proposition, but a person. And if the God of the universe has truly taken up residence in us, the shouldn’t radical change in us be inescapable? Further, doesn’t it stand to reason that God’s presence in our lives will change us, not so we can change the world, but so we can experience God’s transformation in us and be restored to His image more completely?
The more I think about it the more I am beginning to belive that Jesus did not come into the world to change it. Jesus came to earth to do the will of the Father. It was Jesus’ daily obedience to God’s will that gave birth to this global movement we call Christianity. The ‘daily obedience’ has changed the world. When we, as people fully focused on God’s will, begin to live with an obsessive obedience to the Father, He will transform us into a loving, transforming presence like that of Jesus. Maybe God intends to transform us from ‘fallen humans’ to ‘fully human’ as Jesus was ‘fully human and fully divine’.
As culturally savvy Christians, you and I need to be serious about faith, savvy about the relationship between faith and culture, and skilled in relating the two. Although this book didn’t necessarily change my life in any (yet) dramatic way, it’s would be a great resource for small groups and ministry leaders in furthering the conversation on Missional Living. Definitely something to have on your shelf.
9 Responses to “ The Oxymoronic Culturally Savvy Christian ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:54 am
Tiom,
I love the thought: “The more I think about it the more I am beginning to belive that Jesus did not come into the world to change it. Jesus came to earth to do the will of the Father.” THAT is not American Christianity at all.
That is Biblical. Totally transforms the way we “ought” to live in relationship with our culture. As we pass through as strangers and aliens, we have forgotten that we are not of this world and therefore are not called to transform this world. We are called to live in communities of faith, challengeing each other to run the race of faith, faithfully.
We are not called to be political, we are called to be slaves of righteousness. This thought haunts me now, thank you.
The old Petra Album covers with the guitars reminds me, we are Not of This World.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Tiom? That sounds like some sort of hybrid of my first name and Tom’s.
I’m not sure I grasp the intent of your thought. On one level, at least, Jesus came into this world so that all things might be made new. That seems to be the anticipated and in some strange sense already present reality within which we are called to stand. So I think I’m missing the nuance you’re highlighting.
I did like something I heard Wright say once. It is incumbent on every Christian, in every endeavour, to ask a question like, “What would it look like if God were running this show?” Because, of course, if we proclaim and claim the kingdom or the rule of God, then that must be at least part of what we mean.
There’s a great post over on Jesus Creed today about spiritual direction, an area in which our tradition is woefully lacking…
August 31st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Scott,
The Wright question reminds me of something I heard Tim Keller say–something to the effect of ‘it’s not What Would Jesus Do?’…but rather ‘What Would Jesus Do if He were me?’
The way I read Jimmie’s thought is this: As a Christian, if I am convinced I should change the world, then my ‘christianity’ becomes about me, not Christ…and pretty USAmerican Christianity. But the idea that Jesus came to primarily do the will of the Father is completely different. Changing the world is a direct result of an obsessive obedience to God–in Jesus’ case, teaching, healing, raising from the dead, and defeating death were all woven into that will/obedience.
Of course, I can’t get over the fact that Jesus obedience and resulting establishment of the Kingdom’s rule was, at it’s core, a restoration of the Shalom lost after Genesis 1 and 2 (and what we see ultimately/completely restored in Revelation 21 and 22.)
God’s will is to reconcile. To restore Shalom to His creation–in EVERY aspect. Feeding the poor. Clothing the naked. Healing the sick. Giving power to the powerless. Proclaiming the Good News…….uh, sorry. I’m ranting now, aren’t I?
[hijack over]
August 31st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Jimmie,
“we are not to be political…but biblical”
Here is the hard part, IMHO. At some level, we seek justice through politics (socially, especially–saving the whales, the rainforest, the babies, etc…) And I’m good with that. The problem is how do I split up my vote? Do I draw up some pro-and-con list of blue and red parties and vote for the heaviest ‘pros’ on the list? Do I vote for the Pro-Life party or the party that helps the poor? do I support the environment or our military? What if I’m convicted to support them both?
I have Democrat friends who do not believe any serious Christian would be a Republican.
I have Republican friends who can’t imagine anyone who loves God voting for Hilary.
I have dear friends who are registered Independents who vote Green…or do not vote at all.
If politics is about morality (which, IMO, it always is…), then that makes it also about spirituality. Which means God calls the shots.
And that means I’m very conflicted.
Help!
August 31st, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Tom,
I am not good with justice, I am vengeful. I am not good with politics, I do not compromise. I am not good with many aspects of the NT when they relate to the OT.
My complete problem with American Christianity is that it is backwards. “Me,” “my,” “individualism,” and the list goes on and on. My person opinion is that American Christianity is too self absorbed to even be called Christian. I would call it consumer driven a-moralism at best and crass charlatanism at worse.
There are many people who are psychologically seeking something beyond themselves upon which to hold, they are weak-minded fools. These people are easy to spot, they have never had their lives changed by God, they are seeking to change their own lives. I find it too tough to call these wanna-bees anything but delusional. They do not display any somnolence of a changed life or any of the fruits of the Spirit. These poor dolts do the feel good thing every time the door is open just to appease their guilty consciences. Too bad it is to no avail.
Then there are those who have figured out the psychological manipulation game. These necromaniacs troll for the spiritually dead in hopes of making a quick buck or two or $10,000,000. There is a great example of this showmanship in Houston, Texas is you ever want to go see it. Some large former basketball arena I think.
Then there are the sheep. Poor, lowly sheep, content with following a shepherd and allowing the shepherd to supply their every need. These sheep display a complete loyalty to the shepherd and follow only him. They do not trust in anything but in him alone to satisfy their every need.
They are not worried about anything in their world because the shepherd supplies their needs. He supplies their justice. He supplies their shelter, clothes and food. He sends them to the field to each and multiply and they do so.
This third group, the sheep are those who are American Christians, they are Christians.
August 31st, 2007 at 6:15 pm
* last sentence should read: This third group, the sheep are those who are not American Christians, they are Christians.
September 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Apparently the thought is not uncommon. I’ve heard Dallas Willard say our central question should not be, “What would Jesus do?” Jesus did what he did, lived his life, and did it all very well. We are not called to live Jesus’ life. Besides, Jesus’ life was a one-off accomplishment. We not only shouldn’t, but we can’t repeat it. Rather, we are called to implement what he accomplished. Thus, our question should be this, “How do I live my life as Jesus would live my life if he were I?” The Keller quote reminded me of that.
I think I’m grasping the distinction being made, but I do wonder how you tell the difference? Further, I don’t see anything much in “American Christianity” that’s out to change the world, that is, unless you mean the strand of “American Christianity” that wants to extend the present American empire largely through economic means, but by the direct application of violence when necessary? Everything else I see in “American Christianity” is largely content with the world as it is despite the noise from its mouthpieces. Wave away that noise and you see nothing behind it. The particular strand of “American Christianity” present in the evangelical subculture doesn’t want to upset the apple cart in any way. They may want to rearrange the display to be a little more to their personal tastes, but they are mired in comfort and ease.
Hmmm. That sounds more judgmental than it should, since I share a variation of that same American culture. I was shaped by a culture that would arrange the apples differently than the evangelical subculture, but when you scratch below the surface, most present-day American subcultures are similar in the essentials — consumerism and individualism. We are the citizens of the present world empire and we mostly like what that means for us.
And so I hesitate to judge the like of the Osteen’s quite as strenuously as Jimmie. And that’s for two reasons. On one level, they may simply be more honest than the rest of us. That same ideal has a tendency to seep into all we do. We try to give people what they desire, even in worship. We all know our target audiences. On another, I’ve known people who are members of Osteen’s church. Not a ton, but some. And in every instance, I had the impression of a person who truly does desire to follow Jesus. And I’m reminded of Jesus admonition at one point, “For he who is not against us is for us.” Of course, in a different context, about different people, he said basically the opposite. Nevertheless, the Osteens of the world do proclaim Jesus, even if it is an Americanized Jesus-Lite. And I’m hesitant to say that has no value whatsoever.
As you know, I like to mentally translate the “peace of Christ” in the New Testament as the “shalom of Messiah” because that evokes for me the beautiful imagery we find in places like Isaiah 11. And that phrase is woven deeply not only in the NT, but throughout the formation and history of the Church, especially in the liturgy and the patristics.
I do believe that our acts need to flow from a life lived according to the rule of the Kingdom which we proclaim even as we live and journey amid systems in which those rules do not appear to make sense. For instance, in a discussion about our command to give to those who ask (something I’m beginning to realize I’m lousy at while my wife is amazingly good), I most often hear rationalizations about how and why we shouldn’t. And some of them are statements that if you gave to everyone who asked, you might not have enough to meet your other commitments and needs. And there is some truth to that. However, I think people like to forget that, as followers of Jesus of Nazareth, the option that we might be called to give away all that we have is always on the table. This “Christian” thing is full of scary stuff if you don’t choose to selectively read our sacred text and history.
With that said, we are clearly called to be agents of new creation. It’s not just an accidental overflow. If you live according to God’s rule, you will act differently and in so acting you will inevitably challenge the systems and powers of this world — the ones who believe they are running the show. I do agree that it’s not a belligerent or self-aggrandizing approach. Nevertheless, it is conscious. It will never just happen.
On another note, since we don’t actually register with a party in Texas, those lines aren’t clear. However, I’ve only ever voted in a party primary once in my adult life, though I vote in every general election. Mentally, I’ve always been an independent and I find it odd that Christians would feel inclined to align with any political party. My wife is also not fond of party politics. Generally, though, she tends to vote for Republicans more often than not and I tend to vote for Democrats or fringe parties more often than not. We joke about our votes canceling each other out. I think if people actually spent more time doing life with people who were not always in lockstep with them, they would be less likely to question whether another person followed Jesus based solely on their political persuasion. Life is rarely that simple.
I don’t segment my life into parts that are about “spirituality” (even when that was flavors of spirituality other than Christian) and parts that aren’t. If “spirituality” is about anything, it is about what guides and shapes us as whole human beings. There is nothing excluded from that mix. I also don’t automatically equate a conclusion that someone is mistaken with a belief that they are somehow spiritually bankrupt. I often discover my mistakes after the fact, and sometimes I don’t even learn from them at all. As a result, for example, I may be perplexed by the mindset that allows some to consider aggressive war, with all that it entails, somehow “just” and even God-ordained even as they read the New Testament, but I don’t then question their status as a follower of Jesus. I’ve read many that do exactly that — on all sorts of issues — and on every side of an issue.
The gods of the American culture are not new ones — even if our expression of our worship of them has carved some new paths. They are essentially sex (or more broadly pleasure), money, and power. But our failure to name those gods and stand against their infiltration of what we call Christian life is sad. Moralism will never accomplish that since it presumes that people are operating from the same moral compass. And the one the church most commonly uses hardly captures anyone today. These are gods. Not principles. Not morals. Not abstract ideas. And if we refuse to treat them as gods — with all that implies — we simply have nothing much to say. Christianity does speak powerfully about what it means to follow other gods. But you never get to that point unless you first name them for the gods they are and explicitly show how their worship manifests in our American culture.
This is where the almost utter lack of anything like the spiritual father or mother relationship in modern evangelical Christianity is most telling. We almost totally lack the sort of spiritual direction which would help us discern our state and find the practices to guide us out of it.
September 13th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I think the fundamental thing lacking in modern USAmerican Christendom is that somewhere along the lines partially due to early 20th century fundamentalism and modernism but even going back further than that the US Church began to believe that the American Dream was biblical, or somehow supported by scripture. When in reality living in the Kingdom of God is very different from building ‘our’ kingdom as the American Dream would have us do.
Somewhere along the way Christians began to see these ideas as parallel rather than antithetical to one another. We have forgotten, or lost, or never realized in the first place that Jesus came to institute a new Kingdom. One that transcends politics, one that transforms culture, one that should usurp our will for His will.
We have become comfortable believing that our cultural aspirations are biblically sound; therefore there is no need to interpret, examine, or transform our culture. Yet at the same time I see that the church does have problems with certain aspects of our American culture, i.e. Hollywood, one political party or the other. But the answer there is still avoidance/ignorance/abhorrence of that culture and that has led some to create this inane, inept, and insipid christian subculture.
Doing the Fathers will requires us to exegete cutlure right along with our exegesis of scripture. Doing the will of the Father demands that we shine the light of the Kingdom of God and pull back the veil (sometimes using cultural analogies) in away that people grasp what is already right in front of them. The reality of the fact that Jesus words are still true “The Kingdom of God is at hand.”
“When I became a Christ follower, the sad truth is that I transferred Christ into my kingdom, into the context of my life.” Rick McKinley in This Beautiful Mess. I think that says it all.
We are failing at living in the reality that the Kingdom of God is at hand, that we are as Christ followers to claim allegiance first and foremost to that Kingdom. Instead we build our own, as individuals and as churches. Or we chase after the kingdom we think we are supposed to have as ‘Amuricuns.’
It is hard to live in the reality and point others to the reality of the presence of the Kingdom of God because its hard. Its hard on a practical level, its hard to grasp on a theological level (the whole ‘now and not yet’ aspect). Heck even when Jesus talked about the Kingdom, the disciples where confused. Analogies about mustard seeds, wheats and tares, seed sowers and soil. Most often the disciples had their heads cocked sideways the same way your dog looks at you. Now we are in the same boat.
[I know I came to the discussion late but I have been away from blogs and blogging for the summer and this struck a nerve as I re-enter the world of online discussion]
September 13th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
“When I became a Christ follower, the sad truth is that I transferred Christ into my kingdom,…”
True that…Someone once said that God made man in his image–and man returned the favor. Ugh. We are so jacked up, you know?
McMinn–you should come to Austin, bro. That’s all I’m sayin. ..