3/31/2014
Since you apparently enjoy people being blunt, I will be blunt, but I also do not want to come across as harsh. I just want to show a possible second viewpoint. The ending of this entire post is ridiculous. When you start every sentence with maybe, you are not creating a poignant quip. You are instead making up statements that sound awesome, but in fact have no substance based on any research that you have done. This kind of highlights the entire problem with this entire piece. This piece is only pandering to people that would automatically agree with this statement, and would thus see no problem with themselves. This would only cause them to look down on people they believe do not do this correctly.
Your definition of “engaging the culture” is extremely biased to cause it to seem extreme and unnecessary. “Engaging the culture” is meeting people where they’re at and truly caring about them as people and that includes their physical, emotional, mental, and especially their spiritual issues. This example is seen many times throughout the life and ministry of Jesus. He is shown interacting with people individually, and when He does, He shows them respect and He treats their physical needs as well as their spiritual needs. The woman who had a blood issue and came to Him, He healed her physical needs and then he also cared for her sins. You can go through almost any interaction between Jesus and someone else that he cared deeply about their physical needs and made sure to take care of them. There were times that people would come up and challenge Him and question Him. In these times He would be very direct and present how they were wrong. This is important to remember that there are times to be direct and times that you need to meet people where they are. When preaching Jesus is very direct. So when speaking to crowds of people and not just individually is where it is very evident of His direct style. Interacting with people on a personal basis does not always require the same technique.
You say that it is very arrogant of people to assume that by “engaging the culture” you can bring people to Christ because it is the work of the Holy Spirit. That is very true that it is the job of the Holy Spirit, but if you are going to take that hyper-Calvinistic position then what would be the point of evangelism. If the Holy Spirit is responsible for all of it, then what would be the point of us doing anything? This is obviously false biblically. The Holy Spirit works through us and He is ultimately responsible for someone getting saved, but He uses us as a conduit.
This post in the end is not going to do anything to convince anyone to come over to your side. My comment will probably not dissuade you to join my side, so what was the end goal of writing this? Was it to bolster morale from your point of view? Was it to make people, who fall inline with what you believe, feel better about themselves? Now they can all go home and feel that they’re doing good by sitting behind their computer screens and lambasting those that oppose them on facebook and through other blog posts.
Engaging the culture is important as is evangelism. You should not have one without the other. Being locked away from how the culture is currently interacting within itself is a belief that will only further the divide between us and the world. Living within the culture and participating in all of the filth that it produces is not the correct answer either. Realizing the importance of both to bring people to Christ is of the utmost importance.
You are obviously a very talented writer and someone who obviously has a burden to see people saved by the love of Christ and I applaud you for that. I’m glad that you very obviously want what will further the gospel, and for that I know people will forever be grateful for the impact they had in their lives.
Mr. Stotson,
You have stated that you believe that the ending of this post was “ridiculous.” You stated, “When you start every sentence with maybe, you are not creating a poignant quip.” I want to point out that the author was using a well known literary form known as meiosis. This is the presentation of a thing with underemphasis especially in order to achieve a greater effect. Saying that the conclusion was “ridiculous” seemed strange to me since the author was clearly using a common literary device to help make his point. Whether you agreed with that point or not you should at least agree that his ending was not outside the bounds of reason.
It also struck me as strange that you would say the author was a “hyper-calvanist.” Either you were reading a completely different post or you do not know what a hyper-calvanist really is. This post was clearly all about encouraging believers in evangelism (something a hyper-calvanist would not address). Could you please share what caused you to think the author was a hyper-calvanist?
Mr. Stotson,
First of all, thank you for taking the time to carefully read my post and compose a response. It is always encouraging when someone reads your work and thoughtfully interacts with it, even if they disagree with you. However, I fear I may not have been entirely clear about what I meant here by “engaging the culture,” and I think this is where your disagreement comes from.
By engaging the culture, I certainly did not mean showing the love of Christ by seeking to meet people’s physical, emotional, and spiritual needs, thereby demonstrating love for the whole person. You are entirely correct that this was the standard practice of Christ and should be how we interact with people today. Rather, I have always seen the phrase used in an intellectual sense, where people such as Lecrae, Dekker, and Lewis attempt to “prepare” people for Christianity by backing off on actually presenting the gospel. They attempt through their work to expose people to ideas that are from Scripture, such as depravity, redemption, or sacrifice. They work as “undercover” agents who make the case for Christianity without identifying themselves as Christians, believing they must make the gospel connect with people’s thinking before presenting it. This idea goes beyond just these three examples, though, because it is an idea I have seen growing among evangelical Christianity. The end result is less actual presentation of the gospel and more “engaging.”
This is where my concern with the Holy Spirit comes in. The entire point of this blog is that we need to be bolder in our evangelism, so I’m not quite sure how you came away thinking I was suggesting a Hyper-Calvinist position. When I said that it is God’s job to save people, I was not deemphasizing human responsibility, but rather making the case that when we so heavily emphasize making the gospel relatable we are trusting our own wisdom. This is the position that Paul warns about in 1 Corinthians 1-2. His point is that we need not worry about making the gospel seem reasonable to the world around us, rather God actually gets more glory when people come to Christ through the foolishness of the preaching of Christ crucified. When Christians back off giving the gospel because they think they must first get people ready intellectually, I fear that they are actually putting their confidence in their own wisdom, not the Spirit.
You asked me what my goal in writing this was. I meant it to be a challenge to believers that we should be bold in our witness. The ideas in this post have been something God has used to convict me. I have found myself often content with talking about what Christians believe or simply being nice to someone telling myself that I am building bridges, only to never give the gospel. I tell myself I am engaging the culture. In God’s eyes I am sinning. Human nature doesn’t change, and I fear that what Paul calls the wisdom of man has come to simply be retermed “engaging the culture.” I wrote this piece as a result of God’s working in my own heart, with the hope that he would do the same in others.
Caleb Phelps
Linda Phelps
Chad Phelps
Daniel Phelps
Grandpa Phelps
Sharon Phelps
Ben Hicks
July 2021
December 2019
November 2019
July 2018
May 2018
July 2017
May 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
RSS Feed
Why Christians Need to Stop Engaging the Culture and Start Evangelizing It (Guest Post)
Leave a Reply.
Authors
Archives
About Us:
What People have to Say:
- Caleb Phelps
- Daniel Phelps
- The story of “Fanning the Flame”
- Bus Accident Memorial
- Fanning the Flame Ministries
“Rather than preach to his listeners, Lecrae aims to form a common ground. He will not share the gospel in every song, but he’ll address issues which relate to everyone. This allows him to reach a broader audience with the gospel when he feels God give him the green light. Even when Lecrae is writing about non-religious cultural issues, he’s still doing so with a Christian worldview”
“[My books] are all about characters thrown into extraordinary circumstances, searching for significant meaning which comes with the discovery of truth. Does this make them ‘Christian?’ Lewis would probably say no. Yet all of my novels are infused with hope. Their worldview is saturated in redemptive history . . .Meanwhile, you tell me, should I write ‘one more little book about Christianity?’ Or should I do what I’ve always done as recommended by Lewis: Tell stories in ‘the language of our own age’ on other subjects with my ‘Christianity latent?’”
|
“Engaging the culture” has quickly become one of the biggest buzz phrases in American Christianity today. The idea of seeking new and better ways to connect with unbelievers so that we can more easily give the gospel is currently enjoying immense popularity. But what if as a result Christians in America have become more interested in engaging the culture than evangelizing it?
Take Lecrae for example. Christianity’s most famous rapper has recently made waves with his new stand on producing music. Ignoring for our purposes the debate over Christian rap, I think it his new philosophy models much of what is common thinking among Christians today. Lecrae has changed his lyrics from being explicit gospel presentations to a more subtle message of Christianity in his music. As one blog put it: Basically, he’s taking the back door approach. Try and address life with a Christian worldview, expose them to how Christians think, and they will be impressed and start looking for more. Whamo! The gospel! And while he may be the most popular example, he’s not the only one to think like this. Ted Dekker, borrowing form the thinking of C.S. Lewis, is another example of this mindset.
In a blog post entitled “Latent Christianity” Dekker quotes Lewis as saying, “what we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects—with their Christianity latent.” Dekker goes on to state, While some of this may be fine, it feels as if more and more this is the Christian philosophy of evangelism. In other words, if we are really going to spread the gospel, we have to make sure we connect with people first. So we should drink and get tattoos because that helps us connect. We should be excited about a Hollywood movie very loosely based on a Bible story that totally distorts God and salvation, because it gives us an opportunity to talk about the Bible. We need to make sure that we have spent much time getting to know someone before we feel free to share our faith with them. Because if we don’t first build common ground with people, they will not want to accept our message.
As I’ve said, while I do think there is room for some of this, the unhealthy emphasis on engaging the culture has very little Scriptural precedent. Christ went up to complete strangers and told them to follow Him. Peter stood in front of the very people who had cried for Christ’s death and preached the gospel, and so did Stephen. Paul went into cities and started by preaching in the synagogues until he got kicked out! The idea that there must be a lot of preparatory work getting to know someone before we ever give them gospel finds no room in the New Testament. But shouldn’t we be doing both? Shouldn’t we engage and evangelize our culture? Why set up one against the other? After all, didn’t Paul find points of commonality with the paganism around him in Acts 17? Yes, he did. He begins the sermon by pointing out that they were worshipping an unknown God, and went on to introduce them to that God. He later quotes the philosophies of pagan poets as evidence in his case for the gospel, which means he admits they got some things right. But then he proceeded to teach the resurrection of the body, an idea that was absolutely ridiculous to Greek thought that believed matter was evil and spirit was good. Paul did find points of commonalty between Christianity and the world around them, and then proceeded to use that common ground to give the gospel in such a blunt and offensive way that most people laughed him off. Paul engaged the culture right before he offended it by evangelizing. Kept in balance, engaging and evangelizing are both important, but based on the example of the New Testament the balance should be a whole lot of evangelism with a little bit of engagement, not the other way around. The only example we have of anyone in Scripture “engaging the culture” is Acts 17. It should make us nervous when Christians make a big deal about something the Scripture gives so little attention to. Both should be happening. But my concern is that Christians are spending a lot more time engaging the culture than evangelizing it, because engaging is easy. Befriending unbelievers, showing them how “normal” Christians are, and having nice civil talks where we each discuss our worldview is enjoyable. Explaining to them that they will go to hell if they don’t accept Christ is not. While few would actually admit it, engaging the culture has become an end in and of itself. To use an old illustration, we spend all our time building bridges, but we never cross them. Some of the attempt to engage the culture seems to be born out of a sincere desire to better proclaim Christ. The thinking goes that if we just tell them that they are sinners they will tune us out. So if we “prepare” them for the gospel by making it more understandable or drawing connections with their experience, that will increase our chances of a conversion. Basically we don’t want to offend people too soon. So we have to prepare them for the ugly truth that they are miserably wicked people who are under the condemnation of a holy God. To be honest, some of it seems to be born out of a desire to not appear like the crazy religious nutjobs who just preach hellfire and brimstone. In this day and age, to tell someone they are a sinner headed to hell if they don’t repent is offensive. But if we are afraid of offending people and having them reject us and our message, we don’t really understand the gospel. Paul wasn’t afraid to look stupid. Paul wasn’t afraid that he might offend someone and he didn’t think that he needed to develop close relationships with people before giving them the gospel. He preached Christ. He preached the foolishness of the cross. He was ready to look ridiculous. He was ready to be rejected. Are we? Are we really ready to have people laugh at us, get angry at us, or be cold to us? The other thing we forget when we overemphasize engaging the culture is that the Bible teaches only the Holy Spirit brings the conviction and illumination necessary for salvation. Or, as we were taught in Sunday school, only God can save people. And while we haven’t changed our creeds, our actions just might betray that we don’t really believe that anymore. We think it is up to us and our ingenuity, our understanding of culture and worldview, and ultimately our cleverness to get people saved. The idea that simply telling someone they have sinned and need to be saved by going through the Romans road is almost passé. We have done the very thing that Paul warned us not to do in I Corinthians 1-2 – we have put our confidence in the wisdom of man rather than the foolishness preaching of Christ crucified. When I say we need to stop engaging the culture, I don’t mean altogether. I mean we need to stop at some point and just give them the gospel. I’m all for engaging the culture. My problem is that engaging the culture has become the end goal of much of evangelical Christianity to the point where we have backed off the gospel because we’re afraid people will get offended and won’t give us a listen. But according to Paul and Christ, if people aren’t being offended, we aren’t preaching the gospel! Instead of simply giving the exclusive and offensive truth of the gospel to a pluralistic and proper world, we have tried to sneak in the back door by “exposing them to Christian themes,” “seeking to challenge their worldview,” and “developing redemptive relationships.” While none of these things are wrong, if they aren’t accompanied by a verbal, Scriptural proclamation of the gospel, they are woefully incomplete. The ironic result of all this is that the more we seek to engage the culture the more pagan it becomes (and the more pagan we become). Maybe by trying so hard to meet the world halfway we’ve given up something important. Maybe Satan has found a way to get us to shut up while we pat ourselves on the back because we think we’re just being smart about how better to share our faith. Maybe by trying to make the offensive gospel palatable we’ve become savorless salt. Maybe we should be a lot more concerned about evangelizing this increasingly pagan culture than by trying to connect with it. Posted by Caleb Works Cited:
Daniels, David. “Lecrae Tells All: Why the Face of Christian Hip Hop Changed His Style.” 1 April 2013. The Wade-O Radio Show. 31 March 2014 <http://wadeoradio.com/lecrae-tells-all-why-the-face-of-christian-hip-hop-switched-his-style-up/>. Dekker, Ted. “Latent Christianity.” 8 December 2008. TeddDekker.com. 31 March 2014 <http://teddekker.com/2008/12/08/latent-christianity/>.
John Stotson
4/3/2014 12:25:43 pm
Richard Milton
4/5/2014 12:30:05 pm
Benjamin Hicks
4/4/2014 02:05:55 pm
|
|
|
About the Author:
Ben Hicks is currently working on his Master of Arts in Biblical Theology at Bob Jones Seminary. It is clear that he has been gifted as a tremendous scholar. Ben is very skilled in Greek and enjoys applying it to his study of the Bible. Ben is also a gifted communicator having earned an award from Bob Jones University his senior year for his giftedness in communicating the Word of God. Ben has served as a ministerial intern in Phoenix, AZ, a camp counselor, a resident assistant, and as student body chaplain of Bob Jones University. Currently, Ben serves as a counselor in the Dean of Men’s staff at BJU and works as a part time youth leader at a local area church. Ben is close friends with Caleb Phelps and partnered with Chad Phelps in ministry for a short time during his college years. |
|
“We pledge on this day (Wednesday, July 31, 2013) to fan the flame of their (Chad and Courtney Phelps) lives and work . . . To be here tonight and listen to the testimony of this dear family is profoundly inspiring.”
– Mike Pence, Vice President of the United States |
“God takes an event like this and works in infinite numbers of ways and in countless numbers of lives.”
– Steve Pettit, President of Bob Jones University |
“This is a trage-tunity. It’s a tragedy but also an opportunity to declare the glorious gospel of Christ.”
– Joe Fant, Program Director at The WILDS Christian Camp |
3 Comments