I've had questions about this issue for several years now. I remember driving to Philadelphia with my buddy Kevin and listening to a number of Tim Keller lectures about this particular topic--given at some Acts 29 function I think. I had never thought much about local churches having a responsibility to redeem culture. I had no opinion on the matter.
But what I found that day was if everything I knew about the Bible (what it says explicitly, implicitly, and the implications of both) could be compared to an airstrip, then Tim Keller's words (on this topic) had no place to land. What he said was winsome and clever, but, I don't think at least, scriptural.
Tim Keller certainly isn't the only purveyor of this idea (and far from the most radical!) and I'm not sure if he's the best conversation partner, so I'm really hoping that what I know 'broadly' of his thoughts on this issue can serve as a springboard for my brothers jumping in. I know that I won't be convinced until I have several questions addressed.
That being said, the next several posts will be questions and concerns (in no particular order) I have about the Bible's teaching on the local church's responsibility to redeem (not just citizens, but) city structures, (not just business men, but) businesses, (not just people, but) culture.
QUESTION 1.
It's true that Paul focussed on cities for his missionary work, but aren't cities in the NT only valued so far as they contain lots of people who apart from Christ are destined for hell and that they are strategic places for getting the truth circulated to other individual people who apart from Christ are destined for hell?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I confess that I'm not well versed in this conversation. I have listened to lots of Keller including his stuff on the city, but its been a while so forgive me if I'm cloudy.
Perhaps for clarification sake, let me ask a question about your question. What specific idea are you questioning in this question. Is this specifically from Keller? I don't think Keller would answer no to either one of your questions, he would say that those two truths you mentioned are facets of the God-created ethos of the city.
If I'm representing Keller properly, the city was created by God as the hub of society and culture and is meant to operate as a sign post of God's glory to the rest of culture (i.e, city on a hill). (you guys might disagree here)
After the fall the city still operates as the hub of society and culture, but the sign post of the city is now towards the glory of man instead of the glory of God. Cultural institutions are just as much affected by the fall as our relationships with others, b/c we (people with fallen hearts) are involved.
There might be some disagreement over how the fall affects the city. You may say the cultural institution in and of itself is fallen. I say that the testimony of Paul's missionary activity points to the fact that God created the city and intended it to be used as an aid to the proclamation of his name. Paul redeems the purpose of the city, instead of it being a hub for idolatry and consumerism, it becomes a hub for Christian missions. Because of the way the city was created, it can greater magnify aspects of the gospel. Take for example racial reconciliation. The gospel says that there is no greek, nor jew, no slave or free. In one of his lectures on the city Keller gives an example of a specific city in early church history. This city literally had walls that separated people of different origins and ethnicities. As the gospel spread throughout the city, the walls literally came down as a testimony to this truth of the gospel. This is something that cannot be testified to as easily in a town or rural area (which are generally not mult-ethnic).
In relation to God's redemptive work in the world: as goes the poeple, so goes the city; as goes the city, so goes the culture. The created purpose of the city can be used as a light on a hill to the rest of society, or it can be abused and be a city on a hill for the glory of man.
I know that was probably convoluted so I'll stop there for now.
definitely will enter the (soon to be) fray, but to get things going, i think 2 things are necessary: 1) an understanding of Keller's position (thanks Blitt for the helpful primer) and 2) a solid exegesis of Matt 5:13-15. on #1, see here http://www.e-n.org.uk/1869-A-biblical-theology-of-the-city.htm to read it from the horse's pen. can anyone help on #2?
Btw Blitt is the username I came up with when I created my high-school blogspot account.
- egal
egal?! i shoulda known.
Sony,
What's the issue with Matthew 5:13-15? Surely folks don't read Jesus here as speaking of a literal city? Right? That makes about as much sense as seeing the church as literal crystals of salt.
What am I missing?
Gal,
As far as Keller agreeing with my questions, I'm saying that cities in the NT were "only" valued for those purposes. Certainly he'd be uncomfortable with that right?
meow meow meow
well, SD, while i don't think TK would say the salt/light/city are literal, i could imagine him saying that they are allusions to the idealized Jerusalem. that's all. i have to think he reads them that way. otherwise, why talk about salt in terms of "cultural preservative" (his words)?
check these gems out:
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/cult-affects-culture-part-1/
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/cult-affects-culture-part-3/
would somebody please, PLEASE, just come out and say that transformationalists are post-mill's? i know you're all thinking it...
Sony,
I heard Dever says once that Keller considered himself an "optimistic amill" and not postmill. I understand your frustration though.
Those guys at Confessional Outhouse are great (IMHO). They are pretty much articulating lots of what you and I have been thinking for a while now. Yeah?
optimistic a-mill (said in "f. f. bruce" voice). that's a post-mill on a comfortable couch.
yeah, to the outhouse guys. i like how the first link (part 1) cuts to the chase, asking whether the presence of Christians affects unbelievers in any way whatever--does our grace "leak out" as one of them puts it. my own test case for this is driving at or under the speed limit. i find that rather than influencing others to drive safer, my good deed draws out their evil. i had one dude tailgate so close to my bumper that a brake check would have certainly been an accident. but rather than speed up i just kept saying, "whether it's right in your eyes for me to obey God or man you decide, whether it's right your eyes..." i mean, if it doesn't work on this small scale, why should be expect it work on a global one? one of dudes said it this way:
"i can't even get my drive-through order to not return to me void. with influence like that, i wonder what would make me think my very presence shapes up the distant world."
we sort of got to this point at Cumberland the other night, asking whether a cleaner, safer, richer Shelby Park would, in any way, no matter how small, soften the hearts of its residents toward the gospel. i think there was a tacit, "no." in fact, i thought we got to the point of saying the gospel typically gets better traction when things are "jacked up." this is, of course, no argument for leaving the neighborhood alone, only one that (i hope) will remind us of the only approach with guaranteed and proven results.
How does that last paragraph line up with Matt 5:16?
Can the Lord not use our good works to soften their heart?
I'll take more time later to read through this with careful thoughtfulness, but will say quickly that i'm not sure I agree with your last paragraph Jason. Or I guess I'm not sure I agree with a table-full of peeps at Cumberland. And I have some real-life scenarios in support.
Like B says "He talk like this 'cause He can back it up."
13-16 seem to be connected with the immediately preceding verses which speak to maintaining a gospel witness in a pagan and hostile culture. the salt/light/city metaphors point to the fact that we are different ("you are") so we shouldn't try to fly under the radar, but maintain distinction through a potent gospel witness ("in the same way, let"). this is supported by the fact that others would glorify our father in heaven which is strictly impossible from good deeds alone (e.g. street clean-ups), without an accompanying gospel witness that leads to their conversion. this also fits with Jesus' "works" words to Ephesus and Sardis in Revelation, which relate to maintaining a gospel witness in a pagan culture (so Beale).
no, of course not good deeds alone. we know that. but you said this
"asking whether a cleaner, safer, richer Shelby Park would, in any way, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, SOFTEN THE HEARTS of its residents toward the gospel"
And my answer is yes, yes, yes. Absolutely without a doubt. I've seen it done. We know that serving our neighbors individually is a part of Gospel work. We know that it opens the doors to sharing the Gospel. We know that it shows our love. How is working collectively to serve a neighborhood on a larger scale any different?
In my book, the point these plates are all spinning on is simply "Why?" Why are you doing this? If it's simply to have a cleaner neighborhood and to employ poor people and to make the city a better place to live... well, then you're a great Louisville (and American) citizen and should have one of the top seats on the "name your non-profit" float in the Pegasus parade.
But if it's with the purpose of softening hearts, of showing people you care about them...not JUST their Salvation (even though it's most important)but their every day needs and struggles.
And if it's for the purpose of glorifying God with a beautiful city, clean streets, and places for children to come play, and jobs for people who have given up all hope and are turning to drugs (i could go on and on and on). That's what it's about.
And how in the world is that any different than what we do inside our doors and for the sake of our brothers and sisters and The Church universal?
One other thing for the moment...
I confess I have not examined this issue throughout Scripture as much as Jason and Scott (and perhaps Matt too) have. And I plan on doing just that immediately so that I can better discuss with you all. I do go off of experience a little more. How I've seen God work through me, through others, and even through those shifty parachurch organizations.
But what I can say about Scripture is... We are commanded over and over and over to take care of the Poor right? The Orphan and the Widow.
Ok so this is totally Sunday School but obviously how we do that now looks different than it did when Jesus was healing people; different than when the early church was working out their distributions of God-Given wealth... We now live in a culture with deep-set systemic oppression. Family breakdown, educational failure, very alive and kicking present racism. Cycles and cycles of poverty with no break (brake. hahaha) in sight.
How we seek to heal and care for and love on this population is going to look much different and it's going to involve some investment and work. Economic development, community service... these are required IN ADDITION to sitting with people, weeping and rejoicing with them and sharing Christ with them.
And I see that work to redeem, that investment in the culture, as our part of following the command to care for the poor.
We can't care for them and ignore that. It's not real care or real love and in fact, it's going to turn them away from the Gospel. It's maybe the worst thing we can do as a Church.
Now...obviously that's speaking strictly of poor neighborhoods and community development within...I speak of that 'cause it's what i have the most experience with. But what i am most interested in, and most desiring to discuss among my brothers and sisters, is how these things work in our middle-class, upper-class, 5-day work-week society. How this works as far as using our individual skills and vocation in our culture. We've been working that out through the 930. I can certainly volunteer my time there just like I volunteer my time to HOPE and SEED projects etc.
But the thing is...I do not live in a low-income neighborhood at this time and I work among striving professionals, using radio, tv, facebook, and twitter to help capitalist companies make more money.
What is my "job" here? What is my "job" with the skills I've attained and am called to use?
Some great discussion! I think the greatest part of all this is that Galyon's username is blitt. I believe we should carry this name to real live conversation too.
Anyway, as I mulled over some of this, I think my own view was immediately challenged, which is great! So thanks, Scott, for the post.
However loosely, I think 1 Cor. 10:31 is going to apply to the issue. If we are to work in a city, we are to do it to the glory of God. If we are a business owner or partner, we are to conduct our business to the glory of God. I don't think that conducting good business or doing our work well is any kind of substitute for speaking the gospel. What I do think, though, is that redeeming business, city, and culture is a natural outworking of living in the Spirit. I think everyone would agree that we don't divide the secular and the sacred in our lives, making our faith privatized. If we are to live holistically to the glory of God, would not the redemption of business and culture be the natural result?
I think erin brings up a good thought! This conversation has direct practical implications on how we go about being a city on a hill.
As nathan iveyblogged yesterday:
"Therefore the reconciliation of relationships is the guiding compass for our mercy efforts, profoundly shaping both the goals that we pursue and the methods we use. We must engage the marginalized, the poor, and our neighbors with loving redemptive relationships that point them to Christ, who reconciles us to God."
Read that blog entry...it's baller.
I think Jason is trying to say that you can't merely 'redeem' culture and all it's systems and artifacts, but you need redeemed people.
And I think this is where we need to be careful with what keller believes. Assuredly he believes what Galyon->Egal->Precal claims: "As goes the people, so goes the city; as goes the city, so goes the culture. The created purpose of the city can be used as a light on a hill to the rest of society, or it can be abused and be a city on a hill for the glory of man."
Redeemed culture without redeemed people is a white washed culture, that arguably no one desires.
Dang,I'm playing ball with the big boys. Ha!
I think we need to get some keller articles to reference so we know exacly what we are critiquing.
As for Matthew 5, there is no mention of Gospel witness, the sermon on the mount is kingdom ethics. The salt, light, and city on a hill are all in reference to our distinct gospel living as evident in our good works. I.e. we don't retaliate with violence, we go the extra mile, etc.
No one is saying that people come to know the Lord by observing our good works.
We are saying that, as Matthew 5-7 points out, the Lord uses our distinct Christian living to open peoples hearts up to the gospel, got to go back to work now more later.
darren speaks truth.
the reason i asked for an exegesis of matt 5:13-16 (meant to include v16), was because TK reads it to say that we are "cultural preservative" (salt) and should occupy "visible" (light) and "prominent" (city on a hill) positions within culture. this is an incorrect reading of the text; it sees place as ultimate and people as penultimate--that the gospel is the MEANS of building a "great" city. no, it's not.
erin, do you see now why i say that a cleaner, safer, richer Shelby Park is no better off (arguably worst off) than it is right now? if cleaner, safer, richer (harder, better, faster, stronger) are the fall out (boy) of changed lives, great, but they're not the goal. we do do good works but the purpose is to glorify our Father in heaven (matt 6:1) and to see sinners come to repentance and faith and do the same (matt 5:16), not to have nicer neighborhoods to live in. faith without works is dead. so are works without witness.
egal, i am saying that the "works" implied are gospel witness. salt, light, and city on a hill all stand out, and so should we. we should not, because of persecution (v. 10-11), shrink back and try to go unnoticed. again, this reads so close to the letter to Ephesus and Sardis in Revelation(s). i really think that's the way to read these verses.
I do understand Jason. And I agree. But I guess I just assumed that was a given. Although it can be very very easily mixed up and it slips in their like an agile snake (eek! i hate snakes) so I do think we are right in pulling it out and making things clear. I count on my church fam to do that for me.
Check yo' self before you wreck yo' self
i love how erin's posts are always:
great content
trite rap lyric
I'm at work so I can't reply to everything but as for the exegesis of Matt 5, you have to give me an example from this chapter or the rest of the book of Matthew. I don't see any warrant from Matthew to take any of these illustrations or the phrase "good works" as a gospel witness (in the spoken/proclamation sense). You can't reference John, different author, different time, different letter with its own theological agenda.
exegesis defense is gonna have to be later. gotta get some shiz done. luv ya.
ok, GAL (said dismissively, jk, actually missively), i mean deeds AND words, not just deeds. that a spoken proclamation is also in view is clear from the fact that THEY will glorify your father who is in heaven, which of course is impossible without the gospel being proclaimed and believed. that this is the right reading is attested by Peter, in 2:12, who almost certainly is referring to this saying by Jesus (in Matt 5:16) when he says, "Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation." that the images of salt, light, and city refer to witness in deed AND word is also clear from Matt 5:10-12, the immediate context of these verses, which note the persecution experienced is "on my (Jesus') account"--something that would not be obvious from deed only.
After considering scotts latest post, I REconsider the wording of mine and appreciate those more studied in Scripture and context to challenge. However my point is still the same which is that in order to love our neighbor-and with prayer seek their reception of the gospel- we must participate on some level in redeeming certain aspects of the culture. As a means and not as the end.
Not to mention simply good stewardship of and care for the land and work we've been given. Wendell berry-ness in the city. Ok I'm done now. little miss wordiness signing off.
Post a Comment