Cultural Christianity: Bringing Together What God Hath Put Asunder

Recent evangelical theology, as well as the emergent-emerging movement, has trumpeted the cause for a kind of marriage between church and culture. Of course, they've done so to different degrees and in different ways, with the the evangelical folks appealing to a sense of immediacy and immanence, and the emergent-emerging folks appealing (at least in theory) to a sense of the transcendent. Nevertheless, the end result is the same; and the best way to describe this wide-ranging phenomenon that crosses denominational and theological boundaries (and makes strange bed-fellows out of folks who would otherwise be at odds) is as multiple expressions of a kind of cultural Christianity.


This, of course, is nothing new. One could argue that Finney's new measures (e.g., the anxious bench) were the 19th century expression of this same trend, just without modern technology. Finney rejected not only the doctrines of grace, but the means of grace, in favor of what he determined would produce the greatest results in the culture of his day and age. Since Finney, however, we've seen a great many incarnations of this approach, but it is increasingly the case in today's variegated evangelicalism (using that term in its broadest possible sense) that the one thing held in common is the presupposition that the church needs to be in step with today's ways in order to reach today's people. If you don't believe me, look up George Barna's research, and you'll see what evangelical and emergent-emerging folk are both thinking. For evangelicalism and emergent-emerging folk alike culture has become the defining principle in the church's articulation and application of her mission.


Admittedly, this is painting with a broad brush; this thesis doesn't take into account the ways in which the principle might be mitigated in certain contexts or exacerbated in others. Nevertheless, that this is easily demonstrated across the theological and ecclesiastical spectrum, raises a whole host of questions, not the least of which is whether or not it is, in fact, necessary for the church to accommodate to or adapt to (or even become like) the surrounding culture in order to fulfill her divinely-ordained and divinely-revealed mission? Is this kind of cultural Christianity justifiable?


If you know me, you know my answer: no, on both counts. We cannot bring together what God has put asunder. Cultural Christianity is an oxymoron, to the extent that cult (i.e., Christ's kingdom, the church) is ever distinct from culture in this new covenant age. "My kingdom," Jesus said, "is not of this world" (John 8:36). The church is "other-worldly," since we have come to the heavenly Jerusalem and the mediator of a better covenant, Jesus Christ (cf. Heb 12:22-24). Thus, in a very particular (i.e., theological, ecclesiastical, and liturgical) way, we are not ultimately interested in the culture and its ways, but Christ and his ways. In fact, if the church isn't self-consciously counter-cultural, in terms of confessing her faith (both doctrinally and liturgically), then, as our Lord declared, we will have lost our savor, and will be worthy only to be cast out (cf. Matt 5:13). The church that panders to the culture, in our Lord's estimation, is worthless.

Often we hear our Lord's words in Matthew 5:13 applied in terms of evangelism: to be the salt of the earth we need to be vigilant in our efforts to extend the influence of Christ throughout the world. If we're talking about missionary efforts to proclaim the gospel, fine. If, however, we've begun to think that 'salting' the earth requires accommodation to it, then we've completely missed the point. Jesus is speaking of the church -- that one holy catholic and apostolic church -- as that which is decidedly distinct and separate from the world (as Machen put it). No, not in the sense that fundamentalism has come to understand it: not drinking, not smoking, not playing cards, etc. The world from which we are separate is "that way of life that fallen humanity substitutes for God's holy ways. It is the world as an idol, as a rival to God's Word" (see Hart and Muether, With Reverence and Awe, 29). The salt loses its savor, then, when we stop preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation for fallen man. The salt loses its savor when the world, instead of the Word, regulates our worship. The salt loses its savor -- the church ceases to be the church in any meaningful, biblical way -- when we lose the sense of our separateness and our distinctness as the assembly of God's holy people (again, in a very practical way in terms of our proclamation and our worship).

The church needs to recapture a proper sense of its heavenly (i.e., other-worldly) and holy character; and when we do so, we will be forced to heed a heavenly and holy agenda, one which is intrinsically at odds with worldliness. We cannot function as the salt of the earth by taking up the world's, or the culture's, agenda. No, we function as the salt of the earth as we (i.e., the church) fulfill the great commission (cf. Matt 28:18-20). And what does that look like? What will that entail? The Shorter Catechism puts it best in question and answer 88: "What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption? The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation." In other words, the fact that the church is counter-cultural, or contra mundum, is evidenced most clearly as we separate out from the world on the Lord's Day, gather together in Christ's name and at Christ's summons, to hear his word read and preached, to eat the bread and drink the cup of the Supper, and to offer up our petitions and our praises (both spoken and sung).

The world, the culture-at-large, will think this is utter nonsense. Should that dissuade us from maintaining a commitment to Word and sacrament and prayer? Should that prompt us to do something different, something more appealing, something more attractive, even something that appears more practical in reaching the lost? No, because that isn't God's way; indeed, none of the 'new measures' of today's evangelicalism or today's emergent-emerging-missional churches have not the promise of Christ attached to them: "lo, I am with you unto the end of the age" (Matt 28:20). None of them carry the promise of being made effectual unto salvation. None of them are the savor of death unto death in those that are perishing, but the savor of life unto life in those that believe.

Speaking in terms that are largely ignored today, Machen wrote, "The responsibility of the church in the new age is the same as its responsibility in every age. It is to testify that this world is lost in sin; that the span of human life—no, all the length of human history—is an infinitesimal island in the awful depths of eternity; that there is a mysterious, holy, living God, Creator of all. Upholder of all, infinitely beyond all; that he has revealed himself to us in his Word and offered us communion with himself through Jesus Christ the Lord; that there is no other salvation…save this, but that this salvation is full and free, and that whoever possesses it has for himself and for all others to whom he may be the instrument of bringing it a treasure compared with which all the kingdoms of the earth…are as the dust of the street. An unpopular message it is—an impractical message, we are told. But it is the message of the Christian church. Neglect it, and you will have destruction; heed it, and you will have life (see Machen, “The Responsibility of the Church in our New Age,” in J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writings, 376).

Now, this approach does not justify the church imbibing a kind of new imperialism, where we become culturally insensitive or rude in the name of the gospel. We are, however, arguing that where the church becomes like the world, she has lost her savor. Let us, then, deal with those unseen things of eternity, proclaiming that God's grace in Christ is full and free, even to the worst of sinners who will repent and believe; and let us not trifle with those temporal things that are seen, but instead worship in spirit and in truth, with reverence and with awe, the true and living God, the God of our redemption, with whom we enjoy communion of "infinite sweetness" (again, quoting Machen).

Let me put it simply: the church needs to be the church, as Christ ordains, as Christ reveals, and as Christ commands. That means we must not join together what he has put asunder. Betrothing ourselves to this world is the quickest way for the church to become irrelevant, at least in terms of that which really matters. Let us, then, eschew labels such as "user-friendly," "seeker-sensitive," and "culturally-adept," and instead be the faithful bride of the Lord Jesus Christ and thus serve and worship the Lord our God as those who already know, in principle, the blessings of heaven, of the age to come.

Let the church be the church of Jesus Christ.