Here is a great article by Ed Stetzer entitled Calling for Contextualization: Part 1.  This is the first installment of a multi-part series, so I encourage you to subscribe to his blog to receive them all.  

In this article he addresses what is culture and why does it matter.

I found his insight on why culture matters particular helpful.  Consider the following:

Over time, it became clear to me that we need to not only understand that culture matters, but that the particular culture we are in must be properly understood so we can best preach the gospel, make disciples, and function as the church.

Not only is this particularly insightful, but I appreciate what he had to say on two ways that church planters plant in their heads and not in their communities: bible-only and model-inspired. 

He says of bible-only church planters:

The Bible-only folks are convinced they only need to know Scripture in order to reach the people in a given community. I think we all need more scriptural fidelity, but unless they can also exegete the culture they will be ill-equipped to identify idols and understand the ways in which sin has brought ruin to the community.

Of the model-inspired group Stetzer said,

Others see an effective model of church flourish in one context and believe they only need to replicate that in order to reach the people in their context. They too avoid the hard work of studying their culture, and instead seek to import the work and conclusions drawn from a different context. Both types are hard at work primarily planting and leading in their head instead of their communities. This is bad missiology that disregards the importance of knowing and engaging culture.

If you’re interested in this topic, you may also enjoy Creation, Fall, Redemption: Understanding the Relationship of Christianity with the World

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

I just finished watching Batman Begins last night for the umpteenth time.  I really like this movie and love the theme of justice woven throughout.  One of my favorite lines in this move is used by both Batman and Rachel Dawes, when they said at different times,

It’s not who you are underneath – it’s what you do that defines you.

To me this line best defines the theme for the movie.

What I would like to do today is to filter through the message of Christianity one conversation between Bruce Wayne and Rachel when she first made this remark.  Take the time to watch this short video clip before continuing below.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GurL-EflShY&feature=related[/youtube]

With this conversation in mind, I would like for us to pretend that Bruce and Rachel had a different conversation.  Let’s imagine that Rachel is on her way to share her faith in Jesus and that Bruce is a “backslidden” Christian that is leaving a bar with a couple of women.

Bruce:  How are things?

Rachel: Things are getting worse.

Bruce: You can’t save the world all by yourself

Rachel: What choice do I have?  Besides, you’re to busy drinking than to care about the things of Jesus anymore.

Bruce:  Rachel, all of this, it’s, it’s not me.  Inside you know that I am more.

Rachel:   Bruce, I’m not sure anymore if that man who used to be on fire for God, read the Bible, pray, and regularly share his faith still exists.

Bruce:  This partying, carousing, and chasing women is not who I really am.  I have a good heart and have made my peace with God when I was younger.

Rachel:  It’s not what you are underneath or have done in the past that defines your Christianity.  It’s what you do.

Before moving on, take a moment to answer this question:

“With this conversation, who do you think is right in best describing the essence of Christianity, Bruce or Rachel?”

Personally, I see that they are both half right and wrong.

The Essence of Christianity

What I mean by the essence of Christianity is what determines rather or not someone is a Christian.  Is it faith, works, or both?

Even though there have been varying conclusions by different people and groups throughout history, orthodox Christianity hasgenerally put fourth both faith and works.

On one hand, today it can be argued that Christianity has been influenced by a quasi-revivalism that emphasizes a person’scommitment to Christ.

On the other hand, it can also be argued that many Christians are more in love with their good works than they are with Jesus.  This group may be more annoying to be around, but they’re no more dangerous than the previous group.

Now lets briefly look at the pros and cons of emphasizing a personal commitment and good works.

Pros and Cons of Personal Commitments

This stress upon a personal commitment to Jesus is Biblical (Matt. 10.32; John 3.16; Rom. 10.9-13) and rightly encourages people to personally believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins.  However, such an approach also has its downfalls.

For instance, people may be lead to place their faith in their own efforts – signing a commitment card, praying at the altar, raising their hand, or praying the “sinner’s prayer” – rather than Christ Himself.  This is why R.C. Sproul once quipped; “Everyone who has faith is called to profess faith, but not everybody who professes faith has faith”

Pros and Cons of Works

Highlighting the evidence of good works in someone’s life is Biblical (Matt. 7.21-23; Phil 2.12-13; James 2.14-26) and promotes a life of learning and doing the teachings of Jesus (Matt. 28.18-20).  What is more, when we are born again (John 3.3) we are given a new heart and desires to seek and please God (2 Cor. 5.17).  However, just like an emphasis on a personal commitment to Jesus has its downfall, so too does an emphasis on works.

For example, people may be lead to believe – rather implicitly or explicitly – that their good works are the essence of their Christianity, not Jesus Christ.  Not only may our faith be placed in our works, we may also begin to point non-Christians more to “cleaning up their act” (i.e. Good works) instead of Jesus Christ.

Being a Christian is Like Moving to a New Country

Being a Christian is like moving to a new country.

For instance, if I were to move to a different country I would have to obtain status as a citizen.  Not only will I have to earn status as a citizen, I will continually have to learn new vocabulary, customs, and manners, which requires effort.

This is a good example of what it means to be a Christian.

Being a Christian entails a new birth by grace through faith in Jesus Christ that gives us a new life as a citizen in heaven (John 3.3, 7-8; 2 Corinthians 5.17; Phil. 3.20). Life as a citizen in heaven requires that we learn a new vocabulary and way of life modeled after our Lord, Jesus Christ (Matthew 28.18-20; Romans 12.1-2; Ephesians 4.20-24; Philippians 2.12-13; 1 Peter 1.14, 4.2).

In the End

Neither Bruce nor Rachel is right, or wrong.  They’re half right and wrong.  Christianity proposes a message of faith and works.  As in the words of the Apostle of Paul,

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love (Gal. 5.6)

Christianity is a life of faith and works.  It is not one or the other, but both working mutually together like two blades in a pair of scissors.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

Although I don’t personally use Twitter, I am well aware of its popularity and widespread usage.  Knowing that many people, churches, and parachurch ministries use Twitter as a means of communicating basic Biblical truths, I figured it would be appropriate to give this new medium a label.  With this in mind I randomly thought of Tweet-thology.

What is Tweet-thology?

Tweet-thology is a combination of two words: Twitterand Theology.

If you’re reading this I’m assuming you’re familiar with Twitter.  So, I’ll spare any definitions for sake of time and space.

Now, theology is the English translation of two different Greek words: Theologia (from Theos), and Logos

Theologia is a derivative of Theos (the-o’s) which is generally translated in English as God.

Logos (lo’- gos) is typically translated as word in English (see John 1.1).  Within theology, logos refer to speech and discourse.

So, Tweet-thology is the study and discussion of God using Twitter.  It’s that simple.

What Will Become of Tweet-th-ology?

I’m excited to see that Twitter is being used in such a way to study and discuss God – especially as revealed in the Bible and Nature – with countless people.  Even though I don’t personally use it, I can see how this medium could be so useful in discussing God.

Since Tweets are confined to 140 words, some may think that Twitter is limited in discussing God.  Perhaps this is the case, but then again, without personal interaction and real-time community, isn’t social media in general limited to what it can accomplish?  Only time will tell.

[Question: What do you think of Tweet-thology?  Is this a viable means to studying and discussing God?  Why or why not?]

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

The following is a snippet about the role of faith, especially Protestant Christianity, in the life of the Guinness family.  For those of you unfamiliar with the Guinness’s, they are the family responsible for brewing Guinness which is an Irish Stout that is “very dark or rich in color  and it often has a ‘toast’ or coffee-like taste”

Listen to the words of Stephen Mansfield in “The Search for God and Guinness” (pgs. 157-159) on the role of Protestant Christianity in the life of the Guinness family in brewing beer to the glory of God.

At the heart of the matter is whether work that is not specifically religious can be work done for the glory of God (see 1 Cor. 10.31).  Another equally important question is whether God calls men to trades and to vocations in this world as part of his unfolding plan or whether these common occupations are too mundane to be included in His will…

Reformation leaders like Luther and Calvin, writing in the 1500s, knew that this was not what Scripture taught.  They insisted, instead, that God called men not just o offices in the church but to every kind of labor and trade.  So in their thinking, the farmer was no less holy than the priest, the innkeeper no less ordained by God than the bishop.  As Luther wrote, “What seem to be secular works are actually the praise of God and represent an obedience which is well-pleasing him”…

The Reformers, then, pulled down the artificial distinction between the sacred and the secular and sent men into the world to serve God by using their skills and trades in his honor.  This Protestant ethos of work found its way into the lives of the Guinness’s through the deeply reformed faith of the first Arthur Guinness and certain of his descendants.  Many of them understood that brewing could be done as a holy offering, as a craft yielded in the service of God.  They did not see themselves as secular, but rather as called.  They did not see themselves as apart from Christian ministry, but rather as in the Christian ministry of industry and trade.

They did not think of their brewing work as a menial way to pay the bills, hoping that they might compensate for such worldliness by giving occasional service to the church.  No, they had absorbed the great Reformation ideal that everything a man did was to be done for God and that his calling and his vocation were usually the same thing.  They understood that this transformed workbenches into altars and the labor of a man’s hands into liturgies pleasing to God.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

[Question: What are your thoughts on Christians and brewing beer?  How does this resonate with you?  Do you believe that Christians can brew beer to the glory of God?  Why or why not?]

While attending Thomas Road Baptist Church - Founded by the late Jerry Falwell – for two years, Atheist Author Gina Welch has since written a book about her experience, In the Land of Believers: An Outsider’s Extraordinary Journey into the Heart of the Evangelical Church.  Here is a link to a Time Magazine Q and A and here is a Q and A conducted by Christian Pastor, Author, and Blogger, Trevin Wax.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

From Albert Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, 63-65.

………….

World is used in a number of different ways in the Bible.  Sometimes it means simply “creation,” as in the expression “from the foundation of the world.”  Sometimes it means “the inhabited earth,” as when Paul writes “Your faith is being reported all over the world” (Rom. 1.8).  Other times; however, when representing something that pollutes and that Christians must avoid, world has a distinctly negative connotation.  Consider the following phrases from Scripture [Drag your mouse cursor over the Scripture references to see them]

John 18.36

Romans 12.2

Colossians 2.8

James 1.27

2 Peter 2.20

What precisely is meant by world (usually kosmos in Greek, sometimes aion) in the very negative sense?  According to Herman Rdderbos, in Paul’s usage it refers to the “the totality of unredeemed life dominated by sin outside of Christ.”  In other words, world designates the totality of sin-infected creation.

Wherever human sinfulness bends or twists or distorts God’s good creation, there we find the “world.”  World here is the rottenness of the earth, the antithesis of creational goodness.  In a similar vein, James states bluntly, “Don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God?” (James 4.4).

[How Misunderstanding “World” Can Lead to Error]

All of this may seem straightforward enough.  We should note, however, that Christians of virtually every persuasion have tended to understand “world” to refer to a delimited area of the created order, an area that is usually called “worldly” or “secular” (from saeculum, the Latin rendering of aion), which includes such fields as art, politics, scholarship (excluding theology), journalism, sports, business, and so on.
In fact, to this way of thinking, the “world’ includes everything outside the realm of the “sacred,” which consists basically of the church, personal piety, and “sacred theology.”  Creation is there divided up neatly (although the dividing line may be defined differently by different Christians) into two realms: the secular and the sacred.

This compartmentalization is a very great error.  It implies that there is no “worldliness” in the church, for example, and that no holiness is possible in politics, say, or journalism.  It defines what is secular not by its religious orientation or direction (obedience or disobedience to God’s ordinances) but by the creational neighborhood it occupies.  Once again, it falls prey to that deep-rooted Gnostic tendency to depreciate one realm of creation (virtually all of society and culture) with respect to another, to dismiss the former as inherently inferior to the latter.

This tendency is a serious matter and has far-reaching consequences.  Consider how it affects our reading of Scripture.

[How Misunderstanding “World” Affects the Way we Read the Bible]

When we read Christ’s words “my kingdom is not of this world,” many of us are inclined to understand it as an argument against Christian involvement in politics, for example.  Instead, Jesus was saying that his kingship does not arise out of (Greek: ek) the perverted earth but derives from heaven.

When James says that pure religion is to keep oneself unspotted from the world, we too easily read this as warning against dancing or card playing or involvement in the dramatic arts on the grounds that these are simply “worldly amusements.”  But James is warning against worldliness wherever it is found, certainly in the church, and he is emphasizing here precisely the importance of Christian involvement in social issues.  Regrettably, we tend to read the Scriptures as though their rejection of a “worldly” life-style entails a recommendation of an “otherworldly” one.

[Consequences of Misunderstanding “World”]

This approach has led many Christians to abandon the “secular” realm to the trends and forces of secularism.  Instead, because of their two-realm theory, to a large degree, Christians have themselves to blame for the rapid secularization of the West.  If political, industrial, artistic, and journalistic life, to mention only these areas, are branded as essentially “worldly,” “secular,” “profane,” and part of the “natural domain of creaturely life,” then is it surprising that Christians have not more effectively stemmed the tide of humanism in our culture?

[Question: What have you understood “world” to mean?  Does Albert Wolters observations better help you understand the relationship of Christianity with the “world?”]

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

In commemorating the 250 year anniversary of Guinness, David Dunahm of Christ and Pop Culture penned a brief bio of the breweries founder, Arthur Guinness.

What makes this an interesting event is not simply that it marks 250 years of brewing for Ireland’s national beer, but rather that the man behind the beer is so remarkable.

Many Christians will find it surprising to know that Arthur Guinness was actually a devout Protestant and lover of Jesus. As a Christian Guinness had a deep social conscience. He was concerned for others and as he knew of Jesus’ love for the least, so he saw his role as a follower of Jesus to care for others too. Of primary concern for Arthur was the widespread drunkenness among his fellow Irishmen. At that time the primary alcoholic beverages of choice were whiskey and gin, both of which were cheap and high in alcoholic content. This meant getting drunk was extremely easy. Arthur’s heart was grieved by the social ills that drunkenness had created and so he prayed that God would provide a solution. What makes Guinness unique is that in praying this prayer he was also willing to be part of the answer to that prayer if God would so choose to use him.

For the rest of the article, click here.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested In Search for God and Guinness, Did Christians Invent Beer? and A Biblically Positive View of Alcohol.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

The following is another excerpt from a book edited by Kevin Vanhoozer, Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends (pgs. 31-32).

Dr. Vanhoozer believes that culture does four distinct things.  In his opinion, one aspect of culture is that it “cultivates” the lives of the people that swim within its water (For a definition of culture, see my post on What is Culture?).  In other words, the things that we read, the music that we listen to, to the shows and movies that we watch, all have ideas, beliefs, and values communicated through them that in term “cultivate” our own.  Basically, we become what consume.

Culture Cultivates

Bacteria, we may recall, can be grown or “cultivated” in a petri dish.  What exactly does culture cultivate?  The short answer is the human spirit…Given culture’s ability to orient us and reproduce itself, we must acknowledge culture itself as a means of spiritual formation, a process that shapes our spirits, or “hearts.”

My point in describing culture as a process of spiritual formation is not to say that we are helpless and hapless victims but rather to call our attention to the fact that spiritual formation is happening to us and to our children all the time.  Culture trains us in what philosophers call the transcendentals, honing our sense of what is true, good, and beautiful…

Take, for example, the spirit-forming cultural implement of television: “All television is educational television. The question is merely, ‘What is it teaching?’…Its teaching comes not in the form of explicit statements but rather through what it does, namely, through what philosophers of language call the illocutionary act (what is done with words)…

We need carefully and honestly to ask ourselves in what world of meaning do we dwell, at Christmastime or in ordinary time?  Where do we spend most of our time, in our bodies and, just as importantly, in our imaginations?  We need to guard what enters and inhabits our hearts.  We should be dwelling in the real world displayed in Scripture, not the counterfeit worlds projected by other, non-canonical texts.  Sleepwalkers of the world, awake!

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

The following is from Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends, ed. by Kevin J. Vanhoozer (pgs. 59-60).  Following these 10 steps will help us from being to quick in writing off new cultural trends, popular T.V. Shows, Movies, Music, etc… by forcing us to delve deeper into their meaning and what people are seeing in them.  For a brief example of how this works, you can see my piece on Finding Community in “The Office”.   You may also be interested in my 3-Part Series in understanding the relatioship of Christianity with the world in Creation, Fall, and Redemption.

1. Try to comprehend a cultural text on its own terms (grasp its communicative intent) before you “interpret” it (explore its broader social, political, sexual, or religious significance).

2. Attend to what a cultural text is doing as well as saying by clarifying its illocutionary act (e.g., stating a belief, displaying a world).

3. Consider the world behind (e.g., medieval, modern), of (i.e., the world displayed by the cultural text), and in front of (i.e., its proposal for your world) the cultural text.

4. Determine what “powers” are served by particular cultural texts or trends by discovering whose material interests are served (e.g., follow the money)

5. Seek teh “world hypothesis” and/or “root metaphor” implied by a cultural text

6.Be comprehensive in your interpretation of a cultural text; find corroborative evidence that makes best sense of the whole as well as the parts.

7. Give “thick” descriptions of the cultural text that are nonreductive and sensitive to the various levels of communicative action.

8. Articulate the way of being human to which a cultural text directly or indirectly bears witness and gives commendation.

9. Discern what faith a cultural text directly or indirectly expresses.  To what convictions about God,. the world, and ourselves does a cultural text and/or trend commit us?

10.Locate the cultural text in the biblical creation-fall-redemption schema and make sure that biblical rather than cultural texts have teh lead role in shaping your imagination an dhence your interpretative framework for your experience (If you are unaware of this framework, you may want to take the time and read Creation, Fall, and Redemption: Understanding the Relationship of Christianity with the World).

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

By Rev. Joel Pelsue of Arts and Entertainment Ministries:

Tell me something I don’t know, right?   Well, though we live here in Los Angeles, and we see our share of fantastically ridiculous behavior, I was recently surprised and grieved to learn more about the narcissism in this city and how it is effecting our culture at large.

Now, I must confess I love the current reality TV show Celebrity Rehab which is hosted by Dr. Drew Pinsky.  It’s a less than glamorous show where cameras capture celebrities in the context of struggling to recover from their addictions and destructive lifestyles.  Now, I don’t watch it because of some desire to see people at their worst, but rather because of the honesty.  Recovering addicts are forced be honest about their addictive and pathological struggles the way that God commands us to be honest about our struggles with sin.

In May, my wife and I sat in a lecture here in Los Angeles listening to Dr. Drew Pinsky and Dr. Mark Young talk about their new book for which they are co-authors, The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism is Seducing America. We went to this lecture to better understand some of the people we minister to here in L.A., as well as to better understand how to protect our children.  The title was intriguing, of course.  The lecture was entertaining.  The content was both surprising and heart-breaking.  At several points during the lecture, my heart was overwhelmed with grief over the dangerous situation our culture is in, and the tremendous brokenness of celebrities and their fans.

The core shift in thinking about Hollywood and narcissism was precipitated by these two men a couple of years ago.  After researching celebrities they published something quite contrary to prevalent assumptions:

“Narcissism is not a byproduct of celebrity, but a primary motivating force that drives people to become celebrities.” – Journal of Research in Personality in October 2006.

They explained that it is actually a particular type of brokenness rooted in self-loathing and self-hatred which drives them to pursue public acclaim.  Dr. Drew spoke of how all of the people admitted into his care have experienced serious childhood trauma, without exception. He recalled how he has challenged his medical students to find an exception, but the exception has not been found. He noted also that childhood trauma has increased algorithmically since the 60’s, and this alone is a major contributing factor to where our society and it’s celebrities are today.   Pinsky and Young write, “Celebrity narcissists aren’t egomaniacs with high self-esteem.  Rather, they are traumatized individuals who are unable to connect in any real way with other people.  They are driven to attain fame, with its constant stream of attention, flattery, and empowerment, because they need the steady trickle of adoring recognition to take the place of any kind of real self-love or self-respect.”

Where is narcissism at it’s height?

Reality TV seems to draw narcissists like nothing else. When fame is the goal, and talent is irrelevant – all that is required is outlandish behavior in order to become famous. The tragic part here is that they worship the idol of fame so intensely that they will sacrifice almost anything else to satiate this idol. Producers have even been shocked at the lack of embarrassment these people have after seeing their behavior when the show is aired.

How does this really effect us, as the audience? Well, There are two main responses:

On the one hand viewers may take the celebrity’s bad behavior as inspiration for acting out and feeling like the rules shouldn’t apply to them either. On the other hand viewers find this as an occasion to sit in self-righteous judgment. Both responses are spiritually dangerous because we fail to see our own sinful nature, and then fail to see these people as wounded, broken souls in need of grace.

Pinsky also points out that so much of the audience is not simply jealous of these stars, but the American public is becoming increasingly envious. Envy, unlike jealousy, involves a desire to be on the same level with those we envy. We either want to be given the same benefits as those we envy, or we want them to lose their benefits so we are all on the same level. As you can see, this becomes an incubator for aggression, and hatred as the focus becomes what we don’t have, what we deserve, and what we think others do not deserve. The scary part of this is much of our nation seems to be infected with this envy, and is living vicariously through these celebrities either in order to get a taste of “the exciting life”, or to dash the celebrities when they crash and make ourselves feel better by sitting in judgment. Just think of the response to Anna Nicole’s death, where everyone wants the details about how many mistakes she made, but no one really mourns.

Leaving the lecture, my wife and I took the elevator to the parking garage – lamenting all that is broken in this “City of Angels”.  And to be honest, I know why the lecture was so moving – I am broken too.  Christians have been quick in the past to boycott and attack these deeply hurting people- sometimes forgetting that they are people.  It hasn’t helped Hollywood’s perception of Christians, and has made it harder to share the gospel with them.  Yet, that gospel is what their brokenness yearns for.  Actually.  Truth be told.  It’s the same gospel my brokenness yearns for every day.  To be fully known, and yet to be forgiven, and loved- not just by faceless fans, or the public press, but by the God who died to make me whole again.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post: