Decoding Culture: Evotional.com
// April 17th, 2007 // Church Life
I’m always eager to share good web content when I find it. Mark Batterson, pastor of National Community Church in Washington, DC, runs a blog called Evotional.com. It’s quite good. Thanks to Nathan Rice for pointing the way to this one.
He recently wrote a piece called “Decoding Culture” that really rings true to me. I’ve written on this topic here before, and it’s something that I am thinking about a lot these days. Here’s a sample:
As I see it, the church has four options when it comes to engaging culture: 1) ignore it, 2) imitate it, 3) condemn it, or 4) create it. And each option leads in polar opposite directions.
We can ignore culture, but the byproduct of ignorance is irrelevance. The more we ignore culture the more irrelevant we’ll become. And if the church ignores the culture, the culture will ignore the church.
We can imitate culture, but imitation is a form of suicide. Originality is sacrificed on the altar of cultural conformity. If we don’t shape the culture, the culture will shape us.
We can condemn culture, but condemnation is a cop out. Let me just call it what it is: condemnation is spiritual laziness. We’ve got to stop pointing the finger and start offering better alternatives. If the church condemns the culture, the culture will condemn the church.
Those three options will lead the church down a dead-end road to irrelevance, but there is another option–the only option if we’re serious about fulfilling the Great Commission and incarnating the gospel. We can compete for culture by creating culture.
I’m sorry, but that just gets me fired up! Go read the entire article. What do you think?
Ben I’ve been battling with this concept of cultural relevance for a while now, especially being a street preacher (though I do one-on-one as well).
It’s such a dilemma because you don’t want to imitate what “they” do because we’re supposed to offer them something new, which is the Kingdom, which is completely different than the world. But at the same time we want to have that bridge of “relevance” so others can come to the Kingdom as easily as possilbe.
Here’s my problem…the world will always be opposed to the gospel. So at some point we have to deal with the world’s reaction to our gospel message. It’s offensive, and although we can do our best to deliver it in a way that will be easily received, we can’t forsake the true gospel message.
I always tell other believers that if you see someone standing in the middle of the street and a truck is coming down the road straight towards the person, you would run and even push and tackle that person to get them out of the way from the truck. The person will be mad for a split second because they wouldn’t know what was happening, they might even get scrapes and bruises from you tackling them, but once they realize what you saved them from they will be thankful.
So, at what point do we use the “push and tackle” approach (which could be anything in terms of evangelism, I don’t have a particular method in mind)? And at what point do we stand from the corner and whisper to the person in the street “Psst… a truck is coming”?
I think it’s different in every case, and I don’t think we can just use one method for every situation. It takes time with the Lord to hear His voice and see what He is showing us so that we can obey what He wants us to do at that particular moment in time.
Thanks Ben
Paul
I agree, it is a dilemma. I think part of the resolution to the dilemma is that the gospel should be the offense, not us. It’s tempting to say to that, “Well, that’s a fine line to walk.” But, I don’t think it is.
Effectiveness, I think, is the goal. We want to present the gospel in the most effective way we can. I think that really requires two things: 1) wisdom and 2) a sensitive ear to the leading of the Holy Spirit concerning the individual/culture/community.
I’m reminded of Nathan the prophet when God told him about King David’s sin, and then told him to go confront David. Nathan knew that David was not only the King, but also had no problem pulling a sword and lopping off heads! But God gave a WAY to confront David that would bring David to repentance. Nathan then told the story we read in 2 Samuel 12:1-10.
All too often we choose the method most comfortable to us (whether it be stand by and whisper, or push and tackle) without stopping to ask God like Nathan did. It’s just like when I’m preaching. Sometimes I preach “mean” (I’m not really mean, but you know what I’m saying). Other times I’m gentle. I work hard at learning to hear from God about how to deliver the message He has given me in the most effective way. Once I’ve done my job to deliver the message in the way God asked me to, my hands are clean. The burden is no longer on me because it now rests squarely on the hearer’s shoulders.
I think that’s what Mark Batterson is getting at here. We all need to be willing to re-examine how we do this whole “church” thing and make sure that we aren’t “copping out” and ignoring the world around us while we get fat and happy in our crystal cathedrals.
Thanks, Paul.
Ben, working for a building firm and teaching at a university have me engaging the culture daily. The attitude of church vs. culture that seems so prevelant in evangelicalism is deeply disturbing. I understand the concern to “not be polluted by the world” as is often stated, but I have to ask some tough questions of it: Is “culture” the enemy? What is the definition of culture you are using? If by “culture” you mean the “world”, you run into bigger questions. How do you reconcile your position with John 3:16-17. (why do evangelicals always stop at 16?) God so loved the world and did not condemn it, but sought to reconcile it to himself. If you hate the world, which he loves why would anyone think you know him? It also seems that the whole dichotomy is based on a fear of being corrupted. Jesus took on flesh and blood, while many christians seem terrified to love someone who is opposed to their faith for fear of “falling away”. I often hear the platitude of “love the sinner hate the sin”. My experience is that this is merely an excuse to remain disengaged and self-righteously removed. The reason the church is not relative is because it is not engaged. Where are the christians who are shaping the course of our culture? Those whose faith compels them to love their neighbor in real ways that make a difference and thereby live their love for God. Why are chrisitans not at the forefront of the entertainment and business/market arenas? This mindset keeps them from being there! Keeps them from being the change they so desperately want to see in the world. Thank God that Bono did not get into “Contemporary Christian Music” and took his talent to the culture’s marketplace and let God have his way with it there. He saw culture as something to be embraced and loved as God loved it. Now he is making the change he wants to see in the world and getting hundreds of thousands of people to help make it happen. A radical concept to live – Love God, love your neighbor not just in words but with deeds that show them the love in a way they can understand and receive. Careful, you might just change the world… it has happened before.
I totally agree! Jesus said that we are to be “in the world, not of it.” I liken that statement to a seafaring ship. It’s ok for the ship to be in the water, but not for the water to be in the ship. Further, a ship that never gets in the water is a useless ship. It’s not doing what it was designed to do!
However, I do see a promising trend in the Church as of late to begin “engaging” our culture again. I think the Church is beginning to recognize that it has long since become irrelevant to those who need it most. That’s crazy, because the Gospel has never been more relevant! If we would just pull our heads from the sand for a moment we would see that the harvest is ripe for the taking if we are willing to go to them instead of expecting them to come to us.