Cultural apologists usually advocate one of three approaches to the issue that is currently redefine the culture we live in. We can be isolated from our culture, immersed in our culture, or isolated in the midst of our culture. Each of these approaches can be explained by the relationship between divers and water. Divers jumping without gears represent immersion. Divers with wetsuits and scuba gear represent underwater insulation, but are protected and unaffected from them. Coast men who refuse to jump into the water represent isolation.
Immerse yourself
Cultural immersion is the easiest approach to culture, as it is the most natural. We were born into this culture. Here we learned how to think, act and react. It was here that we developed our worldview. It was here that we were educated. In fact, we even know that there are alternatives until we gain faith in Christ. Many Christians grew up in church environments where they were completely immersed in culture, and were unable to convey the difference between the two worldviews if their lives depended on it.
Cultural immersion is a de facto approach for most Christians. By doing nothing (and being ignorant of the philosophical changes around them), most Christians simply adopted philosophical assumptions promulgated by their enemies. They became “everything to all.” They parrot popular phrases without comparing their meanings. Church members never share her faith with their Muslim colleagues in order to “all worship the same God.” A university student who thinks there is no problem with the philosophy professor’s claim that “there is nothing absolute.” Bishop Bishop elects the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire. These people accept unknowingly an immersive approach as the Bible is being taken away by our culture.
The greatest advantage this approach offers is acceptance within the culture. When Christians share the same philosophical assumptions, values, roles, norms and customs of culture, they satisfy little resistance in our culture. These Christians are not called intolerant, narrow, paranoid bias. They don’t turn off the lost people.
The “explorer-led” emphasis in the contemporary church growth movement is another example. The main goal of these churches is to create an environment with the “seekers” in mind. Their pulpit is removed because it represents authority. None of the staff wears shirts and ties. Because doing so represents the “old-fashioned” way of churching. The preacher becomes a “speaker” or “communicator.” The sermon becomes a “talk.” The Bible Expo gives way to 17-minute topics with full multimedia support, self-help sounds, and felt-needs-based pop psychology. Songs of Zion will be replaced by a Top Forty cover song. The call to repentance and faith is replaced by an invitation to “stay at home.” Ultimately, the biblical community is abandoned in favour of all country clubs named for reaching a group of people who say the Bible does not exist (see Romans 3:11).
The obvious drawback to cultural immersion is that it does not provide an alternative. This position allows the sinner to feel comfortable with his sin. It compromises the gospel message. This approach means you’ll lose the game before you start the game because you bought it to philosophical assumptions where the gospel message doesn’t match perfectly.
Separation
Meanwhile, separation represents a complete withdrawal from culture. “Go out of their middle and become separate” is the cries of isolationist warfare (2 Corinthians 6:17). This position is based on the idea that interaction with culture corrupts those who walk with Christ. Isolationism has several strengths.
First, segregation provides a clear distinction between Christianity and culture, and therefore a clear alternative. Choosing between a Chevrolet Pickup or a GMC can be difficult, but putting a Ford or Dodge in the mix will change things. Suddenly, the difference becomes more clear and the choice becomes more obvious. Separation creates a distance between “we” and “them.”
Second, isolation appears to protect Christians from corruption, or at least do so. Without interacting with culture, culture cannot corrupt us. Or the discussion continues. This maintains the integrity of the message. Cultural philosophy cannot influence our thinking if we avoid culture entirely.
The behind the scenes of this, of course, is the fact that segregation not only eliminates cultural influences on the church, but also denies respectful cultural transformation. This requires interaction. Unfortunately, for some isolationists, interaction represents a compromise.
The extreme corporate expression of isolation is traditional churches. Every church has a tradition, but traditional churches are so deeply ingrained in that tradition that they will die rather than adapt. Observers can script these services in a few weeks. As you know, three hymns and special followed by three points, a poem, an altar call, and a handshake at the backdoor. This church was once a pillar of the community, but is rapidly becoming an albatross. The church is proud that time has passed, but it is hard to understand why young families aren’t coming. This is a church that only hires a young pastor if he acts like an old man and if he wants to forget his place and change something, he drives him off the nearest cliff.
insulation
Insulation is a process of “not the world, not the world.” This is often considered a middle ground. Here we interact with culture but also provide protection for wetsuits or submarines. In other words, we are closer to the world, but we never actually get in touch.
But I’m not asking you to choose between insulation, separation, or immersion. None of these solutions are completely sufficient. We believe that we should infiltrate and invade culture. Infiltrating means entering enemy territory undetected. To invade the means by entering with force to conquer. I think you need both for the tasks you have at hand. Furthermore, we believe that if we truly infiltrate and invade our culture, we must adopt each of the three previous techniques. We must get our hands dirty in our lives, like immersive people. Keep the lines clearly drawn like isolationists. Meanwhile, we exemplify the balance of the insulation approach.
In my opinion, I am looking at a photo of an alliance camp being set up in the middle of enemy territory. So, we are completely different from our surroundings, but we can blend in as needed. Occasionally we go out to enemy territory for reconnaissance, but we are not completely comfortable. We always go home.
Next Generation
Our culture is hostile to Christian faith. We no longer live in times and places where what we believe constitutes norms, or even the accepted perspective. We believe that what we believe is to fly in the face of important principles of religious relativism, tolerance and philosophical pluralism. We are considered “untrained and uneducated” men and women who need to protect our culture. We are the modern edition of Peter and John standing in front of an armed Sanhedrin with television and radio stations, universities, universities, newspapers and books. The struggle is inevitable. The conflict is at hand. Do we bow before the God of Culture? Or do we plant our feet, square our shoulders, raise our heads, and explain to everyone who asks, not just what we believe, but why?
Adaptation from the Truth of Love: Can Faith thrive in a Post-Christian Culture? Voddie Baucham, Jr. Broadman & Holman Publisher, Nashville, Ten. Copyright©2004 by Voddie Baucham, Jr.
