There are two opposite stances that churches fall into in regard to culture. 

The first is sectarian withdrawal, most exemplified by the Amish or the Hutterian Brethren.  There is a sense in which the evangelical subculture is sectarian withdrawal even in the midst of the city, as a child can be raised going to evangelical schools, watching evangelical television shows and films, shopping at evangelical bookstores and get a degree at an evangelical liberal arts university.  Needless to say, there are sharp bibilical criticisms for such sectarian withdrawal. 

But the opposite stance is far worse.  The opposite stance is the form of cultural imperialism we have come to call christendom - the reign of the churches.  The medieval Catholic church and quite quickly the Protestant churches represented the height of christendom, though the evangelical church paradoxically pursues as aggressively as possible a reinstitution of Christian cultural influence, through the passing of Christian laws, banning work on Sundays, abortion or gay marriage. 

There are other positions, such as the total capitulation to culture that most of the mainline Protestant and state churches in Europe seem to be rushing toward, but those somehow strike me as subchristian. 

For some time now I have been trying to work out how exactly to strike a balance between sectarian withdrawal (as the church most assuredly is an alternative polis to the political forces vying for our support) and cultural influence (as God is certainly working in the world as well as in the church and Christians should get in on that).  The evangelical options seems to be to do both and take them both to extremes, which generally works out in political terms as rejecting government while embracing nation, which seems doubly unsatisfactory to me. 

Instead, following Tim Keller, I find the key to the Christian social posture in Jeremiah's advice to those taken into captivity in Babylon, in present-day Iraq.  He said to them,

To put it in a phrase, the church is to be a counterculture that serves the common good; the church is to live in exile.  This is exactly what Augustine was getting at in book 19 of City of God.

How does this work out?  Briefly put, the primary task of the church is to witness to the lordship of Christ.  We know what the world does not but needs to know, which is that Christ is lord over all the world, not only the church.  Task number one is to live like a people who know Christ is lord.  This will qualify all of our service to the common good.  Let's take a few concrete examples, off the top of my head. 

In my next post I want to explore how a handful of issues might be addressed from such an exile-politic position, specifically voting, military service, holding public office, and saying the pledge of allegiance. 

What do you think?  Does this seem like the key to understanding Christian social engagement?  If not, at what points would you differ?  How do you regard the social-political acts listed: voting, military service, Christians holding public office and saying the pledge of allegiance?

-NDSR

I don't do surveys a lot, but it's been emotionally tumultuous few days and no new posts are forthcoming today.  So here's a survey!  It's not terribly controversial, though.  I think I've blogged most of these issues at some point already.

1) Do you have the guts to answer these questions? We'll see.

2) Would you do meth if it was legalized? I don't think I'd have any interest in that. 

3) Abortion: for or against it? Abortion is not consonant with following Jesus, but all the ways of framing the discussion in contemporary American discourse are inadequate.  For Christians, it has nothing to do with when life begins or the rights inherent to personhood.  Accepting both gifts and responsibilities is an aspect of discipleship. 

4) Do you think the world would fail with a female president?  Would the world fail if America fell into anarchy today?  I doubt it.  More to the point, I think many women are capable of being good Presidents, but the position is tailored to a masculine sort of mindset.  That is a slight against politics, not against femininity. 

5) Do you believe in the death penalty?  I'm not really decided whether I think the state has a right to take life.  Perhaps it does.  But Christians should never push for the death penalty, and should be willing to suffer rather than seek it.  What's more, I don't believe the death penalty is pragmatically useful in any case. 

6) Do you wish marijuana would be legalized already? I don't see any major harm in legalizing and regulating it.

7) Are you for or against premarital sex?  Marriage as covenant is an aspect of Christian discipleship.  Christians do well to abstain from from sex outside of marriage.

8) Do you believe in God? I have my moments. 

9) Do you think same sex marriage should be legalized?  I think marriage should be made a-legal in general.  The state has no place performing religious covenants. 

10) Do you think it’s wrong that so many Hispanics are illegally moving to the USA?  There are all sorts of problems with the immigration situation and the terms in which the immigration debate are cast.  I would be willing to support a form of amnesty for illegal residents at this point, but we all know that will never fly politically.  In any event, Christians should minister to illegal aliens and naturalized citizens indiscriminately.

11) A twelve year old girl has a baby, should she keep him?  She should be part of a community that will raise both mother and daughter together.  The same is true of forty-year-old women having babies.

12) Should the alcohol age be lowered to eighteen?  I'm not convinced either way, but I don't believe a high legal age is an inherently good thing. 

13) Should the war in Iraq be called off?  I didn't realize wars could be "called off."

14) Assisted suicide is illegal: do you agree?  I agree that it is illegal.  Poorly worded question.  I go with the standard evangelical option in saying that suicide in case of deprivation from life-saving technology is alright, while intervention with the intent to kill is not.  But I could be persuaded away from that position.

15) Do you believe in spanking your children?  I don't.  My children may be unruly, but they will at least be reasonable. 

16) Would you burn an American flag for a million dollars?  Which do I worship more: patriotism or materialism?  Let's compromise.  If you want to burn the flag, I'll let you keep the cash.

17) Who do you think would make a better president?  Bill Clinton.

18) Do you think Obama will be killed?  Maybe someday.  There are a lot of crazy people out there. 

19) Should child predators be forced to wear signs identifying themselves?  Along with adulterers.

20) Are you afraid others will judge you from reading some of your answers?  It's not on my top ten list of fears.  My top ten list of fears includes things like dentist visits and house fires. 

Did anything surprise you?  What was my most controversial answer?

-NDSR

Is it bad to be unlucky?  It would appear so, as we punish the unlucky worse than the lucky.  For instance, picture two men drinking and then driving home.  One makes it home without incident, while the other (unlucky) individual hits a man as he steps into the road from between two cars.  We can very well assume that the first driver, just as drunk as the second, would have hit the man as well, but he was lucky enough to avoid that, and hence his punishment for driving drunk would be far less than the first, even if he was unlucky enough to be pulled over.

Another common example is a mother becomes distracted while running the water for her young child's bath.  If she remembers quite suddenly and rushes in to turn the water off, as the child gleefully splashes in the water, she is simply overworked and ought to pay more attention.  But if as she rushes in she finds her son floating face down, she is a monster, guilty of negligence and perhaps involuntary manslaughter.

Since such is the case, Christians are fortunate that we have faith in a god who can judge all things rightly.  We ought not to place much faith in our own judgments or in the judgments of any legal system, though of course nations are right to do the best they can to maintain order. 

For similar reasons, Christians should never presume to say who is excluded from God's grace.

What do you think?  Is it bad to be unlucky?  Does this reveal a fundamental unfairness about life?

-NDSR

In a recent post featured on the revelife frontpage on the subject of Christians choosing to live celibate lives, many of the commenters observed that celibacy is only advisable (or only possible) when it comes as a gift from God.  If you are not called to live celibate, then trying to do so would only harm you, frustrate you, or lead you into sin. 

As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

But if this is true, how does it change our counsel to Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction? 

The standard evangelical counsel is that same-sex attraction is not itself sinful, but that acting on it is, so the only thing for a Christian to do is live a celibate life.  But if the capacity to live a single life that is healthy and sinless is only by being called to it, how can the church mandate that lifestyle apart from individual gifting? 

There are alternatives that also seem less than satisfactory.  Some argue that there is no problem, as homosexuality is purely a choice.  While we can debate the degree to which genetics is influential, it is certain that many do not experience a choice in whom they are erotically attracted to.  Others argue that homosexuality is a condition that can be "cured," which again falls outside the experience of many who ardently wish they could be "cured."  Still others argue that the scriptural prohibitions on homosexuality have been misread all these years, and that monogamous same-sex relationships should not be seen as problematic by the church.

I hope the holders of each of these views will not become too defensive when I observe that none of them is without its difficulties, particularly if we hold that celibacy is a calling that is received as gift, not a lifestyle that can chosen, or at least not without peril.  As such, I offer no definitive answers except the ongoing need to bear with one another in love, to bear one another's burdens, to withhold judgment against those who disagree and to keep the line of dialogue going, in prayer for the health of the community and hope that where scripture does not provide all the details, the Holy Spirit will reveal all things in time.  Most of all, I hope that we can continue to believe that love covers a multitude of sins.

What do you think?  Is celibacy a gift, or can it fairly be demanded of a person?  Does one of the positions described above match your own, or do you have another perspective? 

-NDSR