I responded to his questions...
1. Do you believe you are in a cultural war?
I think war is a strong word. And, if your terminology of war is correct (which I think it is - compliments to the writer), I don’t think destroying culture is even possible, so why try.
2. How do you feel (and respond) to attempts from the left and right to recruit you into a cultural war?
“Change” is word thrown around like it means something. The only thing it means to whoever is recruiting is making more and more people think they are right, and the other person isn’t. That isn’t change; that’s accentuating the SAME.
3. If war involves killing, and if a metaphorical war involves metaphorical killing, what does killing look like in this cultural war?
Killing is removing people/ideas that would otherwise remove you/your ideas. So it’s selfish arrogance that there is superior living, and it is achieved by me, all others must submit.
4. If you were to move beyond a cultural war, a step that might involve compromise, do you feel like you would be “giving in” to an enemy in any way?
I think I agree that cultural war isn’t good terminology for what happens when two different belief systems collide on a culture. If you don’t agree with something in culture do you allow compromise? Compromise must, probably, be defined as acceptance that it happens, rather than trying really for it not to. So, if abortion is the issue, we must accept that abortion happens. Whether it happens safely in a clinic, or possibly life-threatening-ly on the streets, is the response of society. That isn’t what I would call a bad thing. Facilitating abortion to the point of convenience and making it a necessary topic of discussion doesn’t help culture in it’s struggle with it.
Culture isn’t something to ‘give in’ to, but respond to. The response is the action leading to people believing in acceptance, rejection, or a mixture of both. Compromise leads to resenting something that isn’t bad until it is responded to. The response mustn’t feel like it’s giving in. It should feel like something we do as part of bettering (not battering) people. Jesus liked to respond to things, or tell stories to help people respond to him. It wasn’t really attacking culture, but the people thinking culture was the great thing we own.
5. What does peace negotiation (an important part of any war) look like in the cultural war?
I don’t know.
As a Christian community, there is a general mis-communication that makes people believe that culture is wrong. I'm sure I've posted on this enough times, but the idea of removing ourselves from culture is as equally absurd as deciding that culture itself dictates what we should believe. In fact, there needs to be an application of what I would call the Gospel, to redeem corrupted parts of culture to what they're frustrated trying to be, and a praise and strengthening of the parts of culture that bring the improvement of people. It is all in the worldview, brought about by the resurrection of Jesus, and the future hope of New Creation started by Him.
The idea that we war against cutlure is more like a struggle for middle ground. Church leaders are the ones who incorporate Christian culture into churches, and this increases relevance in the culture they find themselves. It isn't seperate, rather complimentary. There are different things, but styles of worship, communion, baptism (in the sea? only if there's any sea), preaching, is all part of keeping the Gospel applied to culture. It isn't seperate from the society it finds itself, because it always relevant. People always need forgiveness, and part of finding relationship with God is found in every section. It may be considered a little or a lot. It may be manifested in great and monstrous miracles, or through families putting the past behind them. But it is always possible because of the life, death, and Resurrection, the Faithfulness, of Jesus.
The question to answer is how to engage.
1. How should a church engage with the society it finds itself?
2. How should the two communities co-exist?
3. Where is the separation, and interaction?
4. Where does compromise for the majority come in?
I think war is a strong word. And, if your terminology of war is correct (which I think it is - compliments to the writer), I don’t think destroying culture is even possible, so why try.
2. How do you feel (and respond) to attempts from the left and right to recruit you into a cultural war?
“Change” is word thrown around like it means something. The only thing it means to whoever is recruiting is making more and more people think they are right, and the other person isn’t. That isn’t change; that’s accentuating the SAME.
3. If war involves killing, and if a metaphorical war involves metaphorical killing, what does killing look like in this cultural war?
Killing is removing people/ideas that would otherwise remove you/your ideas. So it’s selfish arrogance that there is superior living, and it is achieved by me, all others must submit.
4. If you were to move beyond a cultural war, a step that might involve compromise, do you feel like you would be “giving in” to an enemy in any way?
I think I agree that cultural war isn’t good terminology for what happens when two different belief systems collide on a culture. If you don’t agree with something in culture do you allow compromise? Compromise must, probably, be defined as acceptance that it happens, rather than trying really for it not to. So, if abortion is the issue, we must accept that abortion happens. Whether it happens safely in a clinic, or possibly life-threatening-ly on the streets, is the response of society. That isn’t what I would call a bad thing. Facilitating abortion to the point of convenience and making it a necessary topic of discussion doesn’t help culture in it’s struggle with it.
Culture isn’t something to ‘give in’ to, but respond to. The response is the action leading to people believing in acceptance, rejection, or a mixture of both. Compromise leads to resenting something that isn’t bad until it is responded to. The response mustn’t feel like it’s giving in. It should feel like something we do as part of bettering (not battering) people. Jesus liked to respond to things, or tell stories to help people respond to him. It wasn’t really attacking culture, but the people thinking culture was the great thing we own.
5. What does peace negotiation (an important part of any war) look like in the cultural war?
I don’t know.
As a Christian community, there is a general mis-communication that makes people believe that culture is wrong. I'm sure I've posted on this enough times, but the idea of removing ourselves from culture is as equally absurd as deciding that culture itself dictates what we should believe. In fact, there needs to be an application of what I would call the Gospel, to redeem corrupted parts of culture to what they're frustrated trying to be, and a praise and strengthening of the parts of culture that bring the improvement of people. It is all in the worldview, brought about by the resurrection of Jesus, and the future hope of New Creation started by Him.
The idea that we war against cutlure is more like a struggle for middle ground. Church leaders are the ones who incorporate Christian culture into churches, and this increases relevance in the culture they find themselves. It isn't seperate, rather complimentary. There are different things, but styles of worship, communion, baptism (in the sea? only if there's any sea), preaching, is all part of keeping the Gospel applied to culture. It isn't seperate from the society it finds itself, because it always relevant. People always need forgiveness, and part of finding relationship with God is found in every section. It may be considered a little or a lot. It may be manifested in great and monstrous miracles, or through families putting the past behind them. But it is always possible because of the life, death, and Resurrection, the Faithfulness, of Jesus.
The question to answer is how to engage.
1. How should a church engage with the society it finds itself?
2. How should the two communities co-exist?
3. Where is the separation, and interaction?
4. Where does compromise for the majority come in?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment