Posts tagged culture

Culture and Relationships

1

I want to cover a topic I haven’t previously discussed on my blog, but have been thinking about recently and decided to organize some thoughts in a post. The basic gist of what I want to cover is “dating and relationships” and comes about due to thinking about what our culture is teaching people (especially kids and teens but also adults to an extent as well) about what is normal and acceptable in relationships with one another. I haven’t approached this topic before, mainly because of the amount of division surrounding this topic — and that I am a single person attempting to write about things I may not have first-hand experience in. Nonetheless I have a few things I wanted to share, for the purpose of sorting through my own thoughts and ideas and in hopes that maybe something will be relevant or helpful to anyone else asking similar questions.

PART ONE: THE CAUSES AND SYMPTOMS
I think most would agree that our culture has some serious problems in the area of romantic relationships. For example, how easy of a task would it be to find a few mainstream, commercial movies that demonstrate a healthy view of this topic — without perversions that are presented as something positive or normal? Chances are this would be a difficult task.

But if numerous people were asked what constitutes a demonstration of a healthy view of relationships, it would be a solid bet that all or most responses would be considerably different — even among Christians. Now I am a firm believer in Christian liberty, and therefore am not going to say that one interpretation or standard is superior to another. To attempt to present principles as law and pit one view against another would in all likelihood be firmly in the camp of legalism and would be wrong. I would then be guilty of the very thing I’ve spent a significant amount of space in past years arguing against. What I will do is simply ask the reader to evaluate for himself or herself what a healthy depiction of a relationship is, and as a matter of conscience determine what is acceptable and is not. If someone has made this evaluation for themselves, it is not for another to judge. But if one is accepting of anything the culture offers for entertainment, without questioning whether it is really right or wrong, that is often a warning sign.

Why am I making a point of this? Why does it matter? Because relationships are a popular topic in our popular culture, and thus it is impossible to participate in these forms of culture without quickly coming across popular depictions. Sometimes negative things are presented in a negative light, but usually what is immoral is depicted as something positive because of it being “fun”.

For example, just to pick on a few areas…
1. Listen to certain popular hip-hop songs and you’ll get the impression that normalcy involves getting your “b*tch” or “sh*wty” and going down to a nightclub, acting loose, and participating in “lovemaking”. Is that really a normal relationship?

One of the underlying causes seems to be a loss of respect. There’s a loss of respect for men, to be certain, in this cultural snapshot — but what has really suffered here is a respect for the female gender. This is evident in the thought that a woman is simply a “thing” a guy can use for his own pleasure and the corresponding demeaning language that robs another person of dignity. Thus a lack of respect, to the point of resorting to demeaning acts that are both physical and verbal in nature, is foundational to this becoming “normal” to our culture.

2. Watch TV shows and movies intended for teenagers and you’ll get the impression that normalcy involves giggling over glances made around school lockers, and that who invites whom to dances and proms is a make-or-break decision affecting all of life ahead. Gossip and “flavor of the day” relationships reign supreme. Is that really normal in the real world?

Sometime in the last couple of generations, the teenager began to emerge as a distinct social group. No longer a transitional period between childhood and adulthood, where immature things of childhood fade away as the individual becomes more mature and prepares for the real world; now the teen and pre-teen years instead have become the real world. Teens today have a culture that wants the respect of being part of adult society without first earning that right by reaching maturity and acquiring life experiences as part of that process. There’s no need to grow and mature if a “fun” caricature of reality can be had right away, with flashier packaging than the real thing. However, adulthood involves maturity and, like it or not, high schoolers aren’t yet prepared to handle all adult decisions. In the area of romance, for example, the average high schooler just isn’t ready yet for the many facets of investing in another person. Sure, the feelings might be there. The fun experiences can be there. But there’s still a good deal of immaturity involved too. Except in rare cases, this is not building a foundation for a healthy relationship at a later time.

3. Pay attention to entertainment targeted at an adult female audience (i.e. “chick flicks?” and novels) and you’ll get the idea that men simply exist for the purpose of completing a woman’s life and if a man is failing to do that, he can simply be ditched for something more exciting, traded in for an upgrade, etc. The culture says that it’s okay if you’re not that into him, or “he’s just not that into you” — move on to the next greatest thing. Try-before-you-buy and If-you-don’t-like-it-take-it-back are the catchphrases of the day. But is that really supposed to be the norm?

4. Read magazines intended for men and you’ll get the impression that it’s both normal and acceptable to look at someone who isn’t your wife if it makes you happy. Whatever brings happiness and satisfaction is seen as being the goal. Is that really what normal is supposed to be?

Divorce rates in the church are at a high, and the rate is considered to be as high among professing Christians as among those who do not profess to be Christians. With there being virtually no difference in this area, it seems it would be a fair assessment to say the church has on a fairly large magnitude simply adopted the culture’s values in this area. Rather than influencing the culture, Christians have been influenced by the culture. Respect for one another deteriorates so that abuses happen, commitment is lost, and marriage partners begin to be viewed as parasites on the body rather than truly one body, one flesh. Discontentment lies around every corner and thoughts of fleeing to a better option are entertained as legitimate possibilities. An “entertainment” view of love takes over in place of a devoted, sacrificial, caring love, so that when the honeymoon high wears off, the temptation creeps in to move on to another relationship so as to experience that honeymoon high again. Love becomes reduced to just that high feeling, so that when the high is gone then love is said to be gone too. If this is the lie we are believing, then is it any wonder that disrespect, pleasure-seeking, and lack of commitment have become the norms in our society?

A common thread in all four examples seems to be “fun”. Our culture seems to have accepted the belief that the pursuit of happiness is supreme, and as long as the goal is to have fun, then it doesn’t matter what happens along the way. We seem to have forgotten to live for anything more than the present and however the present feels. The past’s mistakes are not learned from, and the future is disregarded as irrelevant.

Thus actually wanting a relationship of mutual involvement in each others’ lives often takes a back seat to the fun, thrills, and feelings. Outgoing, charismatic, fun, thrill-seeking people — the kind you see in movies — become hot commodities. But when the fun wears off, gone too is the desire to continue, and a breakup or divorce becomes the next step.

What has happened to the aspect of commitment and active involvement in each other? A few theories exist as a response. One is that social pressures to date at an early age (especially in high school culture) require a fast decision for the sole purpose of landing someone so as to be able to change status on Facebook and go to the prom. The other person isn’t as important as having ones own status among peers emphasized. Being in a relationship is essentially required to avoid being an outcast. Another theory is related to the high school theory but affects adults — in some situations and social circles, a single person is seen as less legitimate than a married person. A single person may feel the need to make a quick decision and enter a relationship with the intent of marriage so as to be in a better position to make advancements on the social ladder. Their union is not based on each other as much as it’s based on getting ahead of everyone else in the world. When things get tough, there may not be enough there to hold them together. Yet another theory involves the entertainment factor: books, music, and movies paint an attractive picture of a particular ideal, and decisions are made based on those ideals — ideals which often are as shallow as looks and material goods. If shallow to begin with, when the material goods are gone and the looks change, there may be little else to keep the relationship alive. These are but some of the possible reasons why, as the value of each individual has been cheapened, breakups and divorce rates remain at a high rate.

PART TWO: FINDING WHAT’S RIGHT
I think if a survey were to be taken of what people want in a relationship or a marriage, a high number of responses would include some allusion to a “fairy tale”. Certainly we could expect a significant number of such responses among the female demographic, but I think a high amount of guys would admit to the same. What is it about the “fairy tale” that appeals to so many?
Perhaps it’s the “happily ever after” component. In an age where, on average, five out of ten marriages will be dissolved, the picture of a commitment that lasts for life is a very desirable alternative, even if it may seem unreal today. In a depraved and fallen world, this picture of what’s right still appeals to many of us.

Or perhaps it’s how everything seems to fall together just right… the worst predicaments end up being just what was needed to get two people to meet each other and fall in love. I’ll get back to this later, but this is also a truth — even if we can’t see it at the time — because this also reflects God’s sovereignty. We can rest assured that his plan will be worked out because he is in control.

Another aspect common to many romantic fairy tales is the great deal of respect each individual has for each other. You don’t hear people in fairy tales talking about “clubbing with their ‘b*tch’” or “losing a [dud] guy in ten days”. Instead we see classic chivalry, courteous behavior from a deference and respect for one another (sometimes almost to an extreme where the guys are overly strong and the gals are overly needy, but still in a healthy way). This, too, appeals to us because it fills a void that we know we rarely ever see around us. Even someone who has not been regenerated and made aware of the truth still often expresses this longing for something better as a result of common grace.

All too often, however, even this classic depiction becomes tainted by depravity and deception. What appeals to us ceases to be the pictures of truth — the way it should be in the created order — and instead becomes the surface things. Looks, appeal, and actions replace commitment, sovereign order, and sacrificial devotion. Before long, these become the main things we think about in fairy tale stories. Guys often forget the examples given of being a strong man to defend, protect, and sacrifice for the lady and instead just want to get her and be with her. Ladies often forget that the prince is a prince because he is the king’s son and is reflecting the character of his father and the mission he has been sent on (think about that!) and not the prince because he’s enjoyable to look at. The looks and charm become what’s remembered and focused on, (so that it can be easy to instead fall for an impostor who has the looks but isn’t the right one) rather than the prince’s character, commitment, and dedication to doing what he needs to do as a heir and representative of his father’s kingdom.

PART THREE: WHERE TO GO FROM HERE
Where things get harder is when it comes to putting ideas, illustrations, and proven truths into actual practice. Relationships and marriage aren’t things you can create 1-2-3 step programs for. You can’t scientifically measure it and then create formulas for getting the desired results. You can’t even follow certain principles and get people to respond in a certain way (listen up and get rid of the books that supposedly help). In fact, sometimes you just have to step out, take a risk, and be willing to accept what happens — always remaining true to your convictions, keeping a level head, and seeking God’s will. A potential pitfall is when something starts to seem to be not right and due to pressure — whether social, emotional, etc. — these concerns are suppressed.

But what if concerns are suppressed and someone still proceeds into a painful situation that seems to have been a wrong choice? Is it then too late? Has God’s plan been destroyed? First, if we really believe in God’s sovereignty, we have to also agree that God’s plan can not be ruined. What we do is still known by him and while we can cause unnecessary pain to ourselves and others, we can’t foil his intentions. If we could, then who would really be the sovereign one?! So it’s hard for me to really say with certainty that a wrong choice has really caused a major, life-altering problem. Certainly, God does not will for us to sin. If we make a sinful choice, we have definitely violated God’s decree. But when we get into a painful situation and seem to be sidetracked from where we should be, it may be that this situation was still really part of God’s design because it provided a necessary experience to help the individual grow. The hurt provided a learning experience that points to the direction to something better, or perhaps to give an insight that will be used to build up another person.

It would be a lot easier if we could just protect ourselves and those around us from anything that causes any hurt. In many homeschooling and family-centric organizations, parent-orchestrated courtship (basically betrothal, and pretty close to arranged marriages) are presented as the only way to go. In a “father knows best” sort of situation, anyone unmarried (whether 18 or 38 years old) must yield to the parents‘ desires and let them approve and in some cases even establish the relationship; where without approval it can’t happen at all. How do I know this? I used to believe it and live surrounded by it. One of the main reasons is to protect others from making the same mistakes and experiencing the same things they themselves have. We often think that if we’ve had something unpleasant happen, we have learned from it and then can prevent others from doing the same thing so that they don’t go through it at all. But as noble as it sounds — and while I detest the legalistic rules that comes from these viewpoints and the completely unnatural, contrived and regulated approach to relationships that these groups present — I can see where they’re coming from, and the intent really is for a good reason. The intent doesn’t justify the means or the end, but we can still see where it comes from. When it does really get out of hand and the intent as well isn’t all that noble is when it’s orchestrated simply as a means of control — not for protection — such as for executing a “vision-casted” two hundred year plan, or a means of trying to control what one’s children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. will accomplish in order to see one’s own goals come true. However, I’ll avoid going further into criticism of this as it would distract from the intent of this particular post.

Back on the main topic, it’s only by trusting in God’s will — that unpleasant things are part of a better plan and something greater that hasn’t yet been made clear — that we can still be content even in disappointment. His plan didn’t just get thwarted by some wrong choice or dumb decision. Our goal did, but if it wasn’t the right goal it needed to be terminated anyway.

Finally, what are some things we can do in order to remain focused on the truth in the face of the distortion, deception, and perversion our culture throws at us?

The first thing I would suggest to the reader is to ensure you know what you believe as far as right and wrong, make sure that it is a sound view in line with the Bible, and do not give in to letting your guard down. When something is wrong, don’t continue even if all the social pressure around you is screaming in your ear to give in. The saying is true that “what is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular.”

Second, if you are looking for a long-term committed relationship — a good goal, as an intention of something short-term has already resulted in commitment being thrown to the wind — think through ramifications and what things are requirements for the person you are considering a relationship with. A few years ago, singer-songwriter Derek Webb would often sing the song “Dance”, which he had written earlier during his time with Caedmon’s Call. The song was written about his grandmother, who at past 90 years old had been proposed to by a good friend of hers who was a resident in the same nursing home. However, she was quick to say she turned him down right away… because he couldn’t dance! Derek Webb would go on to explain at the concerts that “for all you young ladies out there”, this was a good reason to have a list of non-optionals and turn away any guy that didn’t meet the list! Now I’d add a couple things to this humorous illustration. First, it’s not just for women but applies to guys as well. Second, dancing probably isn’t really a good non-optional unless dancing is central to your calling so that having a partner who couldn’t dance would really be too much of a point of contention. But to be serious about this, it really is good advice. Some thoughts to consider…

1. Know your calling! If you are called to do something or be something, and another person simply does not share that same value (or is even opposed to it), there’s a good chance this relationship would be a bad idea. Though it’s certainly possible that God will bring the other person around so they share the same goal, it’s at least a cause for concern. The difference in goals can at minimum become a point of contention, and potentially become so great that you might be tempted to throw aside the goal for the sake of peace and unity. For example, if you are called to serve people, then someone who doesn’t particularly like people isn’t a good fit. If you’re passionate about missions, then someone who doesn’t appreciate any culture but his or her own isn’t a good fit.

2. Decide which things you simply cannot compromise without violating your conscience and beliefs. For Christians, theology can and should be a big one. If you aren’t on the same page in what you believe, what is going to happen when you must make a decision based on what you believe the Bible teaches? For example, when you have kids, what happens if you are in disagreement on whether to baptize your children into the covenant fellowship or have them remain as an outsider until they have their own profession of faith? Denominational differences — ways people interpret Scripture — really can be a bigger deal than most will readily admit.

3. See the whole person. Usually when people talk about non-optional goals for a relationship, it focuses on things like charisma, appeal, looks, common interests, etc. But what about character? Someone who you can have great discussions with, enjoy being around, etc. but has no sense of commitment so might leave (emotionally or actually) as soon as someone more exciting becomes available simply isn’t a good fit. You can certainly remain friends, but I would be extremely cautious about ever pursuing a deeper relationship with that person unless they undergo some serious changes. And unless that other person does undergo some serious changes, they may never want to even be around you again — even just to be friends — because of the entertainment-values-based thrill-seeking nature. (Little known fact: I know this from experience.) Or someone who is “good on the eyes” might meet everything on an “externals checklist” (something I really don’t recommend) but actually share few common interests, have different goals, and simply not be compatible. So to want a relationship with someone just based on their physical appearance really is to also invite disaster. To shun someone just because they don’t match up in the appearance department is also not right. This deception may be one of the biggest lies of our culture that we unknowingly believe and use as a filter. So much for the Hollywood ideal!

At the same time, realize that God isn’t done working on any of us — and in time, flaws that are roadblocks now may be things of the past later on.

Third, consider which influences may be detrimental due to unwholesome ideas being presented as the right thing. Forms of entertainment which cause unrealistic or unhealthy expectations, stir up feelings of discontent, make light of inappropriate behavior, etc. should be avoided. Some general advice that is “80% right 70% of the time for 60% of the population” (just kidding; I think it really is a good thing to keep in mind) is to engage culture when truth is present or when your involvement can be used to change the culture for good. Avoid involvement with the culture in areas where you can make no difference but it can change you. This will vary for each person, but if you being to be shaped by it rather than shaping it yourself, it may become a serious problem.

Fourth and finally, remember that no amount of scientific modeling, prescribing, or planning will guarantee a particular result. You can’t put God in a box, and neither can you try to make him direct in a certain way. His leading may be a huge surprise, but when he is ready to reveal it, he will do so. Then you can look back at the past and see how all the different twists and turns and roadblocks actually did serve a purpose and weren’t for no reason at all. Then give God the glory for what he has done.

Christians and the Arts

0

Much debate is centered around whether or not it is right for Christians to take part in the arts. Some choose an isolationist view, choosing to avoid all movies and pop music. Others restrict to only music and movies released before a certain year, hoping that the earlier releases will promote a better set of morals. Still others watch and listen to a wide range of new releases in order to be familiar with current trends. Whatever decision an individual makes, it seems pretty common for one to be sure their choice is the right one and all the others are wrong, whether too rigid or too loose.

But what is a healthy perspective in an area where there is a lot of good but also a lot of danger? Most of us would agree that we need to at least be enough aware of cultural trends to be able to engage the culture and be able to influence change within our spheres of influence. A few contend that we should instead retreat from culture as it is lost anyway, although this seems to be a minority opinion and is not one that I believe to be the best choice.

One of the first things to evaluate is whether one can influence more than s/he can be influenced. This isn’t to say that all should be producers of content, as for many people simply being aware of culture and being able to use it as a springboard for dialogue with others is an effective way to engage the culture. But does one have the maturity and discernment to find the good (and it is there) or will s/he soak it all up without discernment and thus become a product of culture rather than an influencer of culture?

Those who have the discernment to seek the beauty in the arts while rejecting the filth are in for a rewarding experience, such as but certainly not limited to seeing truth reflected through common grace or in dialoguing with others about such tidbits. But there are others who may not have this discernment (yet?) and instead absorb the unhealthy, certainly unredeemed aspects. If one’s sense of right and wrong is being muddied as a result of absorbing the dirty side of culture, and he or she is unable to tell if it’s wrong or right, then it may in fact be wise to take a step back and focus on what is known to be good. This person is not ready to engage or influence culture as instead he or she is the one being engaged and influenced.

There’s a lot of filth that like an impostor pretends to be good. It should be no surprise — see Romans 1:18-32 — but it catches some people off guard. Can a steady diet of unfaithfulness, relationship hopping, adultery, and promiscuity (common to “chick flicks”) serve to give a woman a healthy view of life? Can a load of disrespect, immaturity, laziness, and disconnect from reality (common to kids’ and teens’ shows) help build up the next generation? Can a supply of soft-core porn or worse, and general degradation of the female gender (common to programming aimed at men) really strengthen a man?

At the same time, for those who can see the wrong but still cling to what’s right, there are a lot of hidden gems just waiting to be found. The typical consumer mindset says that it’s no fun to critique music and movies, or that to find the spiritual signifiance is “no fun” or “missing the point”. But isn’t this a healthy way to engage in the arts? Finding truth in a place so full of lies — evidence of common grace — can be an exciting thing (not to mention a great conversation piece with others who have seen the same movie or listened to the same album).

Just some thoughts this evening while reflecting on the subject — trying to look at it fairly, not venting too much at people I disagree with or pumping up my own handling of the subject. It’s tempting to just retreat and decide not to deal with it at all… it’s also tempting to accept everything because it’s fun. But I’m pretty convinced neither is right. If you disagree, feel free to let me know. Until next time,
jn

Fools and Foolishness

0

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Excesses On Both Sides

2

It’s been a while — again — since I’ve blogged. Not a lot of significant events to blog about; life goes on. Will be going on vacation with the family in a few days, from this Thursday to next Tuesday… hopefully I’ll have lots of pictures to upload over the weekend and after returning.

I’m trying to convince myself to loosen up and post more often, even if it means there’s nothing particularly profound to say. Not that I advocate mindless posting, and won’t be using this blog space for that, but at the same time there’s nothing wrong with a more conversational or “status update” sort of post every now and then. So with that in mind I hope to begin a more frequent cycle of posting.

Tonight, though, I’m going to still have to get into weighty matters that may end up only being read all the way to the end by one person (me, when proofreading). Nevertheless, I do have something on my mind that’s not really formulated into a precise, logically-organized post, but is still something I want to comment on. I’ve written numerous posts on the topic of freedom, especially in contrast to legalistic fundamentalism; this is a topic I still stand by and think is important to promote. At the same time, I’ve seen a lot of former fundamentalists who experience freedom and then “go too far”, leaving legalism to go smack-dab into licentiousness. This does not by any mean say that the fundamentalists are right and the rules are necessary, but also does not excuse living loose just because one is freed from bondage, as all that has really happened is one has traded bondage to rules for bondage to sin. One isn’t better than the other, and both are wrong.

Yet it seems our natural response to a wrong is to go too far the other way. American evangelical legalism and its rules largely stem from a response to the perceived demise of the culture due to so-called vices such as alcohol, gambling, sexual promiscuity, etc. in the latter part of the 19th century. So the “protective” move was to ban drinking (Prohibition in the early 20th century), discourage playing cards (even with no money on the line just due to the so-called “appearance”), oppose dancing, etc. Of course, history has shown that these new “rules” weren’t all that effective, and for many people adherence to these rules became the measuring stick of who’s living right and who’s living wrong. (Those and probably hundreds of other rules we made for each other so as to be able to rise above the rest by our painstaking law-keeping.)

More recently, as teaching on free grace continues to make a welcome resurgence in churches, people have realized the futility of painstaking law-keeping as a means of earning favor and have also come to appreciate things that are not wrong in themselves if used rightly. They realize that they have been set free from earning favor by keeping laws we’ve made for each other, and are free to live in a manner pleasing to God — but freely because sins are forgiven and God isn’t angry with them!

But there are some who hear that their sins are forgiven and then wrongly assume that it means that they can go do whatever they want and it’s okay because the sins they’re committing are already covered. This is blatantly wrong, but again, returning to painstaking rule-keeping is not the solution but rather wrong as well. It could be said, though, that the one who abuses grace in this way does not truly understand what it means to be set free and thus is still in bondage to sin.

The key is balance. That’s something foreign to us… we dislike rulekeeping, so we then approve sin. We get convicted of sin, and then we go back to rules to try to get right with God (and point out everyone else’s sins too). We show disgust at excessive greed in business, and then assume that socialism (i.e. greed in the form of centralized power grabs) will somehow be the right alternative. (Then eventually we’ll get sick of socialism and decide anarchy is a better option.) We realize that there are good elements of the culture which we can appreciate and redeem — so we don’t have to oppose all music and movies made after a certain year… and then go far beyond appreciating the good in culture to appreciating and loving its dirty underbelly as well, and not trying to influence it because we like it just the way it is. We come to the understanding that beer and wine are not prohibited by Scripture and rather are to be appreciated as good things in moderation… and then end up throwing off restraint and abusing a good thing to the point of getting sick. We rightly oppose false doctrine… and then get so cynical and postmodern we wrongly throw off all doctrine whatsoever. When both extremes are wrong, we need to look for what’s right when surrounded by two wrongs… in other words, balance.

But while a “middle of the road” position is healthy when it’s a right choice in the middle of two wrong extremes, we also have to be aware of cases where the “middle of the road” position is not necessarily right. If there’s something that’s clearly right and something that’s clearly wrong, the middle position ends up being not entirely wrong, but still wrong in that it’s not right. There are some issues where we say we’re playing it safe by taking a “middle of the road” position but in reality are simply compromising on a matter of right and wrong. Reasons for this vary, whether it’s uncertainty, a desire to not offend anyone, bad memories of black-and-white legalistic fundamentalism… but nonetheless, a compromise between right and wrong still remains wrong. Furthermore, it seems that often someone who stands in the “middle of the road” when a moral issue is at stake really ends up either standing for nothing at all, or else lending silent approval to the wrong.

So there’s a time when “middle of the road” moderation is the right choice (when it’s in between two extremes), but there’s also a time when it’s wrong (when it’s a compromise away from a clear right, but unpopular, choice). The solution to knowing isn’t any ten-step no-fail recipe (notice how there’s really no seven-step programs to anything in true Christianity?) but rather something that we must find, guided by Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

That’s all for tonight. I realize that’s probably longer than anyone wanted to read, but rest assured not every post will be this long. This just seemed like something that needed to get said.
Until next time… jn

Is America A Christian Nation?

0

Is America an inherently Christian nation? Pay attention to commentary by a broad swath of evangelical writers and talk show hosts and one might be led to believe so. Much time and many words are spent attempting to demonstrate that America is more than just a nation founded on principles of religious freedom and Christian values; that it is actually inherently Christian in a corporate or collective sense. But which statements are based on fact, and which statements are based on wrongly grounded sentiment?

I. Influence vs. Inherency
First, contrary to what secular revisionist historians promote in the name of tolerance and political correctness, it is true that the European colonies on the east coast of North America in the 1500s and 1600s were founded for the purpose of religious freedom, or the freedom to worship without government dictation and oversight. Those who laid out the framework of the American government in the next century were also influenced by Biblical values, both as a result of actual faith (in the case of some) as well as common grace knowledge (in the case of others). Thus the case can be made that Christianity was a strong factor in the history of the United States. But today that’s not quite the story we hear from either side. On the conservative side, it seems that many are not content to simply acknowledge the influence God’s people have had on America but rather must proclaim an inherent Christian-ness of the nation. As believers in the sovereignty of God we must certainly acknowledge his direct involvement, as an active being and not some passive deistic force — but we also must remember to not neglect to distinguish between special grace and common grace, wherein special grace refers to God’s specific, active involvement with the elect and common grace refers to the blessings that are extended even to the unregenerate.

There is a significant difference between influence and inherency.  To say that the United States, at its beginnings, was influenced by Christianity would be a correct statement.  To say that the United States, from its beginnings, was inherently Christian would be a falsehood.

Expanding further on this thought, it’s evident that many of the blessings that we have had in this country have been a result of the good that the church has done in the society, as well as the sharing in those blessings by the unregenerate due to common grace. The statement can also be made that a great deal of the decline in values today has been due to the church retreating from culture and instead choosing to create and live in a sheltered, sub-cultural bubble that has no positive impact on society.

We can not, however, legitimately go to the extreme to say that the United States is or has been inherently Christian, or the more common (but synonymous) statement that America is a Christian nation. I believe that the evidence is sufficient to prove that statement false. While it would be a logical conclusion if we could say that America is a modern-day chosen nation, as some directly or indirectly contend, that is not a true statement. This designation may only be held by the church — the true spiritual Israel, the people of God.  The modern day nation of Israel, as well as the United States of America, do not hold any special status. It is the church, not any political state, which holds the designation of being God’s covenant people.
Although this view may sound preposterous to some, it nonetheless has taken a strong foothold in the western church in recent times. From dispensationalists who teach that the nation of Israel is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, to Christian Reconstructionists who teach that the United States was once inherently Christian, has fallen away, and must be restored, this “special nation” idea is alive and active across the spectrum of evangelicalism.

The tendency among those who hold to the inherency argument, which I will categorize within the realm of dominion theology, is to look at Scripture passages speaking of the Old Testament nation of Israel, as well as Old Testament uses of the word “nation”, and automatically and unequivocally apply them to America. The parallel that some draw is to say that America is a covenant people and a chosen nation that has more recently become reprobate, much like Israel during the time of the prophets, and must return to God to once again be blessed.

The necessary balance to this extreme is to again recognize the good that the church has done in culture and seek to again influence culture rather than hide from culture — and remember that this has been a factor over the history of America, and not any inherent Christian-ness of the nation itself.

II. Cultural Involvement

In the first chapter of Genesis we have record of God’s command to “fill the earth and subdue it…” In the New Testament we also have record of Jesus’ command to “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.” These two commands form the basis of what many refer to as the cultural mandate. However, there are some disagreements over how to carry this out. The most common interpretation involves the obvious answer — global missions and evangelism — as well as a goal of bringing all things in life under the influence of the Kingdom of God. This means that whatever we do, we do for the Kingdom. Thus some callings are not “higher” or “lower” than others, but instead that each of us has a part in God’s work simply by effecting change in our respective spheres of influence.

Proponents of dominion theology, however, take it quite farther by interpreting this as a command to make the whole world — or at least one nation, presumably the United States — a Christian society with Christian laws, Christian rulers, and Christian behavior. Belief that America is inherently Christian is obviously a convenient first step.

A former director of Coral Ridge Ministries, a Reformed organization which — though opinions vary on this — seems to lean in the direction of dominionism, said the following:
“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

This is one of the clearest examples of the intent, belief, and goals of dominion theology. One element, at least, is mostly in line with the Scriptural command — winning the world with the power of the Gospel is certainly part of what we are commanded to do, though it should be noted that in reality it is not us who are actually doing the winning but rather being instruments used in that winning.

So in contrast to this view, should we just stand back and let the nation continue to go deeper into moral decline? No, absolutely not — but involvement must only be with the proper perspective. Returning to some idealized Victorian lifestyle (such as the ideals of Vision Forum and other similar organizations) will not fix the cultural problems. Pretending that the nation was once corporately Christian will do nothing to bring about real change. Seizing control of a power-hungry political party, donkey or elephant, and using it while being used will only result in a deeper quagmire. The only thing that can bring about real change is transformed hearts. Not transformation through grassroots politics, not transformation through making sure every family practices homeschooling, not transformation by making sure fathers rule their families as prophets, priests, and kings — assuming the role of mediator between God and family, not transformation by denying women education or voting rights, not transformation by controlling the media, but transformation by God’s people working within the spheres of influence they have to glorify God and point others to him. We must never back down from promoting truth in areas where Scripture is clear. Though some advocate a message of tolerance in all areas, we are not wrong to recognize the truth of Scripture and hold to areas where right and wrong are clearly spelled out. Still, we must give grace to one another in areas where Scripture is unclear or not specific and two may reasonably disagree and both be in right conscience. Failure to do so would be nothing less than counterproductive, silencing the very message of grace that we as Christians ought to be taking to the world.

So should Christians become involved in the political arena? By all means, just as they are involved in any other occupation or area of interest. We must remember that all callings are equal, however, and a Christian politician is not better than a Christian teacher, a Christian electrician, a Christian programmer, etc. We must just do the best we can, to God’s glory, in the different spheres of influence we have.  For the one whose sphere of influence happens to be politics, there is nothing wrong with making our present home look a little more like our future home — as long as this is what we have in mind and not simply a little temporal satisfaction that our favorite party, whatever that is, rules this part of the world. If all of us were to go seize the political sphere and make it our own, would we not in some ways be guilty of the error of the Zealots and to the extreme, even be making Jesus out to be a liar when he said his kingdom is not of this world?  But instead we should all remember our role as ambassadors of a better kingdom, communicating the message of our King to those in the foreign land we’re in. If we start to think of the United States as “home” — by believing that it is actually a corporate people of God, even a reprobate corporate people, we’ll lose sight of our actual identity as citizens of an eternal kingdom by having replaced it with the short-lived glory of temporal, earthly nation.

III. Cautions and Closing Comments

In summary, we need to remember that while there can certainly be blessings for Christians (and non-Christians too by common grace) if we do influence culture in a way that better points to the truth of God’s word, we can all too easily see that as the end in itself and assume that God has to think more highly of us for doing so. If we adopt this attitude then we’re in effect saying that our work has earned our standing with God, rather than that our standing with God is due to his declaration of us as righteous in Christ.

Finally, it is important to point out that this distinctly America-centric form of Christianity is in effect saying to the rest of the world that our nation has a special claim to Christ’s kingdom that all others do not have. Christians in other nations can be made to feel as if they are second-class compared to their American counterparts, or that they need to “westernize” in order to really please God, or that they are being ignored while Americans focus near-sightedly on their own interests.

So in conclusion, dominion theology takes what God commanded and takes it to an extreme, going beyond the commandment and into an area that is unsafe and potentially dangerous. We must certainly engage the culture and effect change to God’s glory in the areas in which we have influence. We also must certainly take the Gospel to all the world and to all people. But we also must always remember our citizenship is in heaven first and foremost, and not on this earth. Our identity is shared with Christians across the world, and not just under the flag of the United States of America.

IV. Notes and Quotes
Treaty of Tripoli, 1796: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

George Grant, Coral Ridge Ministries (Pro-dominionism): “Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

Meredith Kline (Anti-dominionism): “One radical fault that undermines the whole Chalcedon position is the failure to recognize that the socio-geo-political sector of the Israelite kingdom of God was a part of the total system of kingdom typology established through the covenantal constitution given to Israel in the law of Moses – just as much so as was the cultic sector.”

http://www.covopc.org/Kline/Kline_on_Theonomy.html

Robert Bowman Jr. (Anti-dominionism): “[A]re Christians supposed to be taking dominion at all? Granted that there is some confusion among American Christians as to what taking dominion would mean, is there a sense in which this really is the mission of the church? A careful reading of the Bible indicates otherwise. Simply put, the Bible never commands Christians to take dominion. A search for such a mandate proves fruitless. The Bible never even hints that this is to be a responsibility of the church between Christ’s first and second comings.”

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0024a.html

Gary DeMar (Pro-dominionism): “All government requires a reference point. If God is to be pleased by men, the Bible must become the foundation of all their governments, including civil government. This means that Biblical law must be made the foundation of all righteous judgment in every government: personal (self government), ecclesiastical, familial, and civil.”

About page from The American Vision (Pro-dominionism – Christian Reconstructionist – Theonomist): “American Vision’s (AV’s) mission has been to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation since 1978.”

As if it wasn’t already crazy enough…

0

I thought my previous post already demonstrated the craziness of the animal rights movement, or even the “animal rights lite” seen among some varieties of pet-lovers… but this is even beyond crazy.

Apparently a few years ago in Canada someone proposed a bill that would “[move] animals in law from property toward having “personhood,” and, ultimately, with rights approximating human rights.”

Animals would be defined as “sentient beings, a departure from viewing them as property and would increase the maximum prison sentence for cruelty from six months to five years.”

In 2008, Spain actually moved to grant apes a status almost equal to personhood, with distinct rights such as life and liberty. This is in itself no great surprise, considering that if one accepts an atheistic belief of origins, namely evolution, it would naturally follow that human-esque rights would then be extended to so-called “ancestors.” (Incidentally, this underscores the stark contrast between this and the Christian worldview.)

Returning to the Canadian example, perhaps this is most telling: “in The National Post (October 28, 2002), Senator Anne Cools of Toronto questioned whether the Bill makes killing an animal a more serious crime than infanticide.”

source

Go to Top