Christians and Culture

One of the vexing questions Christians have to deal with is the extent to which we engage the culture around us. While I have reservations about some of his theology, Reinhold Niebuhr did a good job summarizing the various approaches Christians have taken:

1. Christ Against Culture. In this view, the Church is completely counter-cultural. Christ is going in one direction and the world in another. Out of loyalty to Christ, then, believers should separate from culture.
2. Christ of Culture. Here, Christ is the aspiration and fulfillment of culture. Christians can affirm both. Indeed, there is no conflict between the two. In fact, the task of the Christian is to put Christ and culture together.
3. Christ Above Culture. In this view, culture is not seen as inherently evil, because it is part of the created order, which God declared “very good.” While culture has suffered the effects of the Fall, yet Christ redeems it. Culture is subject to the authority of Christ and Christians should labor within culture for the glory of God.

Of the three views, the third seems the most biblical. The Church is commanded to be in the world, but not of it. Christ Against Culture encourages disengagement from the world. Such views led to monasticism in the Middle Ages. It is an easy thing for Christians today to be quasi-monastic too, disengaging from a world that is hostile to our faith and Lord. This view over-emphasizes personal holiness, leading to legalism.

Christ of Culture encourages too much engagement with the world. It so emphasizes horizontal involvement that it forgets our vertical obligation. This view under-emphasizes personal holiness, leading to antinomianism.

Christ Above Culture strikes a middle ground between the other two views. Rather than swinging to the extremes, it affirms that there are problems with culture, but that the effects of redemption extend to it. Part of the Christian’s work is to bring the Kingdom of God to bear upon culture. To paraphrase Aquinas, the Church should urge people on to salvation in heaven, while encouraging what is good in culture.

Moving from the philosophical to the practical, then, consider the question of going to the movies. John Frame wrote a very good article a number of years ago on whether or not Christians should go to them. (H/T Nick Batzig)

Christ Against Culture says, “Christians should not go to movies. The industry is wicked and even ‘good movies’ contain elements that are hostile to our faith and worldview.”

Christ Over Culture says, “Christians may and should go to any and all movies. Even porn. It doesn’t matter.”

Christ Above Culture says, “Christians may and should engage movies, but with discretion, bringing the gospel to bear upon them.”

Frame offers a helpful observation:

Some people, especially children, or those young in the faith, or those with special problems like alcohol addiction or unusual
susceptibility to sexual temptation, should limit their exposure to secular culture in appropriate ways. But at the same time they should be trained in Christian maturity, so that eventually they can enter more fully the secular arena, not fearing that they will be compromised by the culture, but expecting to influence the culture positively for Christ.

Frame says that objections to attending movies generally fall into four categories:

1. Watching simulated violence makes people more violent. Frame maintains that the statistical data on this are very mixed. While it is true, that children may sometimes imitate what they see, yet the vast majority of people who grew up on “cops and robbers” simply are not violent people.
2. Sexual scenes incite lust. Frame allows that this is a true statement, but not for everyone. Some have higher thresholds than others as to what will move them to sinfulness of the heart. While this is, perhaps, the weakest part of his paper, he does try to remain balanced.
3. Movies promote a non-Christian worldview. While Frame agrees with this statement, he calls for perspective. A non-Christian worldview has always dominated culture. To carry this point ad absurdum we would have to say that listening to Mozart is sinful, as he was a profligate man. Frame believes we tend to discount older proponents of a non-Christian worldview because of the “halo” of “long cultural acceptance.”
4. Christians should not give their money to an industry that encourages immorality and unbelief. Here Frame reminds us that while Christians are free to do with their money as they please, they are not necessarily responsible for what others do with that money. Christians may boycott industries, but Scripture does not explicitly require them to.

All in all, I think Frame’s approach is balanced. Whether or not a believer should go to movies and what to see, if they go is a matter of personal conscience. While viewing pornographic films or much of the modern horror genre (which thrive on themes of torture and gore) almost certainly crosses a moral line into sin, other films may or may not. We should probably be gracious in what God gives others the liberty to do.

“Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind…For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” (Romans 14:5, 10)

11/1/09 AM Sermon

The morning sermon on 11/1 was on Revelation 15 and was entitled, ”God’s Purposes in Judgment.” It will be available on the embedded player below as soon as it refreshes. You can also listen to it here. I hope it is a blessing to you.

10/25/09 PM Sermon

The PM service on 10/25 was on Ephesians 5.18-6.4 and was entitled, ”The Spirit-Filled Family.” It will be available on the embedded player below as soon as it refreshes. You can also listen to it here. I hope it is a blessing to you.

10/25/09 AM Sermon

The morning sermon on 10/25 was on Revelation 14.14-20 and was entitled, ”Harvest Day.” It will be available on the embedded player below as soon as it refreshes. You can also listen to it here. I hope it is a blessing to you.

Wine Not? An Plea for the Use of Wine in Communion

It is a curious thing to me how few churches use wine in Communion despite the fact that Jesus used it when he instituted the Supper. Part of the reason for this goes back to the peculiarly American-Christian aversion to alcohol that arose in the 19th century. Part of it is because of an unfamiliarity with Church history. What follows are quotes from significant Reformed and Baptist theologians. They show that the use of wine in Communion has long been the practice of the Church. (I am indebted to the work of RC Sproul and Keith A Mathison for many of these quotes.) John Calvin (1540) When we see wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must reflect upon the benefits which wine imparts to the human body. We thus come to realize that these same benefits are imparted to us in a spiritual manner by the blood of Christ. These benefits are to nourish, refresh, strengthen and gladden. (Treatise on the Lord’s Supper; as quoted in Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought, p. 185) Robert Bruce (1589) Every ceremony which Christ instituted in the Supper is as essential as the bread and wine are, and you cannot leave out one jot of them without perverting the whole institution; for whatever Christ commanded to be done, whatever He spoke or did in that whole action, is essential, and must be done. (The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper; p. 43) In Baptism, the thing that represents Christ is water; in the Supper, the things that represent Christ are bread and wine. Water is appointed to represent Christ in Baptism, because it is most appropriate to represent our washing with the Blood of Christ... In the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, He has appointed bread and wine, because there is nothing more appropriate to nourish the body than bread and wine. Thus the Lord has not chosen these signs without a reason. (Ibid., p. 76). Westminster Larger Catechism (1648) Question 168: What is the Lord’s Supper? (See also WSC 96.) Answer: The Lord’s supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus Christ, his death is shewed forth; and they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace; have their union and communion with him confirmed; testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with the other, as members of the same mystical body. Question 169: How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper? Answer: Christ hath appointed the ministers of his word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them. Question 177: Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ? Answer: The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves. The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine. (Chap. 30, sect. 3) Jonathan Edwards (1746) Christ, by the speeches and actions of the minister, makes a solemn profession of his part in the covenant of grace: he exhibits the sacrifice of his body broken and his blood shed; and in the minister’s offering the sacramental bread and wine to the communicants, Christ presents himself to the believing communicants, as their propitiation and bread of life; and by these outward signs confirms and seals his sincere engagements to be their Savior and food, and to impart to them all the benefits of his propitiation and salvation. The Works of Jonathan Edwards; Vol. I, p. 458) John Gill (1767-1770) The wine is another part of this ordinance, and of the matter of it, and one of the outward elements of it, a symbol of the blood of Christ...It is also a question, whether the wine used was mixed or pure; since it was usual with the Jews, whose wines were generous, to mix them, Prov. 9:2. But there is no need to dilute them in our climates; and as the quantity is so small drank at the ordinance, there is no danger of intoxication in those who are least used to it. (A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity; p. 918) John L. Dagg (1858) The Jewish ceremonies were typical of Christ to come; but the Lord’s Supper is a memorial of Christ already come. It is, therefore, not included in the meat and drink intended by the apostle... Paul says, ‘Let no man judge you in meat or in drink.’ The abrogated ceremonies are now without divine authority; and, therefore, he calls these meats and drinks the commandments of men. But the bread and wine of the Supper, are commandments of the Lord. (Manual of Church Order; p. 208) In this, we have ascertained, that Christ designed a literal use of bread and wine, and, this point being ascertained, our duty is determined; whatever doubt and obscurity may remain respecting any other subject. (Ibid., p. 209) Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles (1859) The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ to be administered with the elements of bread and wine, and to be observed by His churches till the end of the world. A.A. Hodge (1860) What is the meaning of the term oinos, wine, in the New Testament, and how does it appear that wine and no other liquid must be used in the Lord’s Supper? It is evident from the usage of this word in the New Testament that it was designed by the sacred writers to designate the fermented juice of the grape - Matt. 9:17; John 2:3-10; Rom. 14:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Tim. 3:8; 5:23; Titus 2:3. This is established by the unanimous testimony of all competent scholars and missionary residents in the East...That wine and no other liquid is to be used is clear from the record of the institution, Matt. 26:26-29, and from the usage of the apostles. (Outlines of Theology; p 633-634) Charles Hodge (1871-1873) By wine as prescribed to be used in this ordinance, is to be understood ‘the juice of the grape;’ and ‘the juice of the grape’ in that state which was, and is, in common use, and in the state in which it was known as wine. The wine of the Bible was a manufactured article. It was not the juice of the grape as it exists in the fruit, but that juice submitted to such a process of fermentation as secured its preservation and gave it the qualities ascribed to it in Scripture. That oinos in the Bible when unqualified by such terms as new, or sweet, means the fermented juice of the grape, is hardly an open question. It has never been questioned in the Church, if we except a few Christians of the present day.” (Systematic Theology; Vol. 3, p. 616) James Petigru Boyce (1887) Question: In what does this ordinance [The Lord’s Supper] consist? Answer: In eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Christ.” (A Brief Catechism of Bible Doctrine; In Abstract of Systematic Theology; p. xxiii) Baptist Faith and Message (1925) …the Lord’s Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ. John Murray (1937-1966) They [the sacraments] are ordinances in which material elements and visible signs are used, in baptism water and washing with water, in the Lord’s supper bread and wine and the oral participation of these.” (Collected Writings; Vol. 2, p. 366) VALIDITY What is necessary to their administration? 1. The elements. 2. The actions. 3. Intention - of doing what Christ commanded (Collected Writings; Vol. 2, p. 369) Herman Hoeksema (1966) It is true that in the institution of the Lord’s Supper Jesus did not use the symbol of water, but that of wine. For this we can find two reasons. In the first place, wine is the color of blood, and the wine at the communion table is the sign of the blood of Jesus Christ. And, secondly, wine is a symbol of communion, of prosperity and joy, according to Scripture [Gen. 14:18; 27:27, 28; 49:10-12; Deut. 7:13; 33:28; Psalm 104:14, 15]. Wine is the symbol of heavenly joy, and therefore it was very fitting at the wedding of Cana that the heavenly bridegroom should change the water into wine. And thus we can understand that at the Lord’s Supper it is not water but wine that is used as the proper sign of the blood of the Lamb, by which not only our sin is changed into righteousness, but also our earthly life is translated into the joy of God’s heavenly tabernacle. (Reformed Dogmatics; p. 706-707) The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America The table, on which the elements are placed, being decently covered, and furnished with bread and wine, and the communicants orderly and gravely sitting around it (or in their seats before it), the Elders in a convenient place together, the Minister should then set the elements apart by prayer and thanksgiving” (58-5). Conclusion It is remarkable how much agreement there exists in historic Protestantism over the use of wine in the Sacrament. It was only during the rather legalistic Prohibition drives of the 18th and 19the centuries that the use of wine was discontinued in the American Church. If we believe that the element of water is critical in baptism, should we not also take seriously the biblical elements of bread and WINE?

Friday Funnies!

For today's mirthy moment, I give you "The Drinking Song of Pelagius," by Hilaire Belloc. It is a riot, especially if one is a fan of church history.

Pelagius lived at Kardanoel
And taught a doctrine there
How, whether you went to heaven or to hell
It was your own affair.
It had nothing to do with the Church, my boy,
But was your own affair.

No, he didn't believe
In Adam and Eve
He put no faith therein!
His doubts began
With the Fall of Man
And he laughed at Original Sin.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
He laughed at original sin.

Then came the bishop of old Auxerre,
Germanus was his name,
He tore great handfuls out of his hair
And he called Pelagius shame.
And with his stout Episcopal staff
So thoroughly whacked and banged
The heretics all, both short and tall –
They rather had been hanged.

Oh he whacked them hard, and he banged them long
Upon each and all occasions
Till they bellowed in chorus, loud and strong,
Their orthodox persuasions.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Their orthodox persuasions.

Now the faith is old and the Devil bold,
Exceedingly bold indeed.
And the masses of doubt that are floating about
Would smother a mortal creed.
But we that sit in a sturdy youth
And still can drink strong ale,
Let us put it away to infallible truth
That always shall prevail.

And thank the Lord
For the temporal sword
And howling heretics too.
And all good things
Our Christendom brings
But especially barley brew!
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Especially barley brew!

Of Healthcare Reform and Hate Speech, Part 2

I have long been fearful that this terrible legislation would find the light of day and now it has.

President Obama signed the legislation into law on October 28. It was buried in a larger defense appropriations bill that was sure to pass, and now it is the law of the land.

The law “extends special protection to victims of crime who are targeted by perpetrators based on an actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.” The problem is that the word “crime” is poorly defined. In its current form, preaching that homosexuality as a sin would be a crime. Numerous attempts to “secure the right to speak against the homosexual lifestyle and its normalization failed. Among many rejected proposals for similar hate crimes legislation introduced in the House this year was one offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, which would have included a clause ensuring that ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a ‘hate crime’ simply because they preached the Christian perspective on homosexuality.”

So, alea iacta est, The die is cast. It will not be long before some minister in the course of preaching the gospel and beginning by pointing out sin, will run afoul of the Law and suddenly he will be guilty of Federal criminal and civil violations.

What is a minister to do? Preach the Word and, possibly, pay the price.

H/T: Aquila Report