Currently Reading Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective By Charles H. Kraft see related

MELTING POT CHRISTIANITY

(Modesty and Christianity, part 3)

A comment came on my previous post-

"The United States of America: a melting pot of cultures. I'm not disagreeing with you but when you have a variety of culture in one place what is a human to do. Especially with pushie-people in their own convictions pushing convictions on everyone else because of personal convictions. do you see what I'm getting at?"

  An excellent point, and one I have been thinking about a long time.  Here is where I think the problems lie, and why I have been posting so much about it:

1) A lot of problems among Christians comes down to a failure to understand the role of culture when living out the gospel.  It has been that way since the beginning, actually.  The book of Acts tells us that there was trouble between the Grecian Jews and the Hebraic Jews (Acts 6:1).  The big blow-up came between people who thought that the Jewish cultural practice of circumcision was valid for all people and not just "cultural," versus the apostle Paul and others who would allow cultural variation without making anything "necessary for salvation" except believing in Jesus (Acts 15).  

  Because of the way Angela and I were almost missionaries, we had been exposed to these ideas about the role of culture, and I had been mulling over posting about it for a year, but never did.  Angela's post on modesty motivated me to start, but since I'm still working through it myself, I probably started in the middle instead of providing an orderly explanation.  I believe there is a way that God can show us in the Bible what is eternal and what was only for a season, but I am unhappy with the ideas I've seen from others, and am still asking God for more light on the subject.  (Which is why I post on it- because it's what I'm wrestling with.  The book I have shown as currently reading was supposed to be the big one on the subject, and it has been a great book on Christianity and culture- but so far has wimped out right at the point of showing how we can tell the difference.)

2)  Melting pot-  I think the reason why culture is such a problem today (think "worship wars," fights over traditional vs contemporary, etc.) is because we are routinely faced with cultural change quicker than at any previous time, due to globalization and increasing mobility.  Two hundred years ago, there would not have been much difference between the preferred musical styles of a kid and their grandparent.  Now, a kid listens to Metallica while the grandparent still likes Lawrence Welk.  You can't go to the nearest big city without being exposed to a bewildering array of people from different cultures.

I'm not saying that it didn't happen back then.  (The Bible shows that it did.)  But I think the pace has quickened, due to the internet, mass media, and such.

3)  I think there are biblical answers to the problem, though I haven't found them all yet.  A few would be-

A) Mutual Submission (Eph 5:21)- I can worship to a hymn sometimes and you can worship to a chorus sometimes, and we can both worship with a liturgy sometimes.  But that would mean that at times I would need to "submit," to put your wants ahead of mine.  Oh no, can't do that....   Submission aint just for the gals.

B) Agreeing to Disagree on Nonessentials ("disputable matters" Romans 14:1)-  I won't say that you're deceived by Satan because you speak in tongues, if you don't say that I'm not saved or filled with the Spirit because I don't speak in tongues.  (The old battle over tongues was not just a battle over the right way to interpret the Bible; it involved clashes over a great many cultural differences that usually remained under the surface.)   Also, I won't call you worldly if your church uses a guitar in worship, if you don't call me a Pharisee or spiritually dead for not having a guitar.  How can we "accept one another as Christ accepted us "(Romans 15:7) when each of us is convinced the other guy is possessed, due to doing things differently?

C) Bond to Each Other Through Christ and Not Human Things (Eph 4:3-6)-  I have seen churches, Bible studies, and home groups all have trouble getting along because people look to make friends and bond through the purely human concept of shared likes and dislikes.  Paul tells us that our unity is not over whether or not we all like a certain worship style, or we all like a pet doctrine, or we all root for the Buckeyes, or we all share the same politics.  Our unity is built up by the Holy Spirit because we all have the same Lord, same faith in Christ, same God, and are part of the same body (whether we are similar to the other members or not!). 

D) Focus On Christ and What He Is Doing  (John 5:19, 1 Cor 2:2)- What Vineyard calls focusing on "the main and the plain."  This goes along with the previous point, but you can't really unite with other Christians over what we all share in common if you spend all your time talking about your latest hobby- whether it be Republican politics or Democratic politics or end-time scenarios or straightening out everybody who doesn't dot their I or cross their T the same way you do theologically. 

I'm not saying that we should ignore those things. (Shoot, I'd have nothing interesting to blog about!)  But I can go for weeks without getting into a discussion over where someone else is wrong... I mean, where someone else disagrees with me over what the Bible says.  Well, at least for days, if not weeks.

Currently Reading How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth By Gordon D. Fee, Douglas Stuart see related

MAKING WOMEN LOOK LIKE MEN (updated)

(Modesty and Christianity, part 2)

  When Angela first posted on Modesty (which is what inspired my  previous post), I made this comment on her site:

 I remember when I was dating Angela, and we would talk about modesty.  I told her that it was o.k. to dress in a way that I could tell that she was a female.  I think some Christians think that women should look like women from the neck up, and perhaps from the ankle down, but that they should look like a flat board in between. (In essence, to look like a man from neck to ankle.)  The problem is that God did not create women to look like a flat board.  Possessing a "bosom" is not a defect to be hidden, though it is not an asset to be shared with the world, as Angela said.

  For a women to dress in a way that one can tell that she is a women, but not in a consciously provocative way is MODESTY.

 For a women to dress in way that she looks like a man from her neck to her ankles is ANDROGENY.

  This may have sounded outrageous to some, but I want to offer this little bit of evidence:

This is from Iran, where there is a concerted effort to impose modesty standards which are backed up with police force.

"One shopkeeper selling evening dresses told us the moral police had ordered him to saw off the breasts of his mannequins because they were too revealing."

To employ "modesty" as a standard, but to define it without any eye as to the culture you are trying to impose it on will lead to this. 

  As I said in the previous post, Islam differs from Christianity in that the Koran definitely imposes a prescribed "Islamic culture" that is meant to replace whatever culture is present in the land that Islam takes over. The Christian Bible does not do so.  The Koran is the "word of Allah."  The Bible is the "word of God given in human words unto human culture in a particular historical setting."  (Whoa, Pope Benedict said roughly the same thing last year, and provoked riots with several Christians being martyred.)  The Christian keeps one eye on the Bible, and one eye on the culture, so that he or she may see what his God is saying NOW to the people in his particular culture.  The Muslim has no eye on culture because what Allah said to 6th century arabic culture is valid for all cultures.

  The problem is that many Christians today understand the Bible in the same way as the Muslim does.  When the "fundamentalist controversy" of the 1920's erupted, it was far easier (and more spiritual sounding) to stand up for the Bible as "the Word of God," without getting into details, than it was to teach Christians how to handle the Bible repsonsibly.  As Gordon Fee, the great Pentecostal scholar, demonstrates in his bestselling How To Read The Bible For All It's Worth, you have to see what the "Word of God" was to THEM (the people it was originally written to) before you can understand what the "Word of God" is to US (the people that God is speaking to now).  If you ignore the context of what God was saying to them, you will miss what God is saying to us now. 

  For example:

  CHRISTIAN WOMEN MUST WEAR HEAD COVERINGS (1 Corinthians 11)

  Was the Word of God to the Corinthians really that it is God's will that women wear head coverings in all times and in all places?  If so, then the majority of Christian women living in America are living in sin!  But if you look closer at the passage, you will see that the apostle Paul is not giving some divine decree straight from the throne of God for all women in all places at all times.At least twice he refers to something being a "disgrace" (1 Cor 11:6,14).  He is castigating the Corinthian women because they were doing something that made the culture unneccessarily look down on the Christians.  They used their newfound freedom in Christ as an excuse to remove the head coverings that women in their culture wore, and it became a stumbling block to the non-Christians around them. 

  While there are some things that the Bible is clear are always wrong, like homosexuality, even though it offends modern culture; I can think of others that were not meant for all time that Christians today cling to and allow to remain as a stumbling block, keeping the lost from facing up to the only real stumbling block- the cross.  (Hmm...such as no women pastors, male headship, no birth control, equating Republican politics with God's will, 6 day creationism, special robes for clergy, outdated music, etc.....) 

UPDATE- As I said in the comment on Angela's post, modesty can be taken to an extreme where it becomes wrong for a woman to even dress in a way that shows that she has the form of a woman and not a man.  In this article on the Iranian modesty crackdown, I found this:

Nazanain, 28, a reporter who thought she had dressed more modestly than usual, said she had been stopped in Vanak Square in Tehran and told her coat was tight and showed her body shape.

  When modesty is pushed without a view to what the culture considers modest, then there is NOTHING to stop it from being pushed all the way.  There is nothing to balance it with.

  If the Bible is the paint used to make a painting that God is making, then the various cultures of the world are the canvasses He chooses.  Culture is the context that the Bible speaks into.  God's word was not delivered into a void.

Currently Reading Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume 2) By N. T. Wright see related

MODESTY, SWIMSUITS, AND GAY MARRIAGE

(Modesty and Christianity, part 1)

Modesty is not defined by the Bible, but by culture.

Sounds unspiritual, but it aint.

  A mistake that many Christians make is thinking that the Bible describes something that can be called “Christian culture,” which can be then differentiated from other cultures, like “American culture” or “Islamic culture.” But there is nothing in the Bible showing what cultural forms are “valid for all time.“ Instead, the Bible gives principles for how to live as a Christian IN the culture that you live in. This is why Christianity can enter any culture and spread. In contrast, Islam definitely prescribes a specific culture, and demands that other cultures be completely replaced by it. 

  First, a very important definition.

  “Cultural Forms” is a technical term anthropologists use to denote the actual physical form a culture uses to express its cultural idea. A nike shoe is a cultural form. It aids the foot when walking long distances. The sandals that Jesus wore are also a cultural form of the same thing- an object that aids walking. If I say that “Jesus is the Son of God,” I am expressing what I believe the Bible says is a universal idea or principle, one that is true for all cultures in all times. But I am expressing it in a specific cultural form- English words. My English words are not culturally valid for all, and would be expressed in a different language in another culture, though the idea would remain the same. The Bible is full of universal principles that were expressed in a specific cultural form two thousand years ago. The forms may be left behind as Christianity enters other cultures. What God was saying through those forms may not be left behind, and must be “translated” into the other cultures.

  We have adopted different practices than what the Bible discusses in many areas because we realize that the application of what God desired changes with the circumstances. Many Christians understand this when it comes to head coverings, slavery, make-up, having the church financially support widows (instead of the state through Social Security), and other things like owning a cloak. (I mean, Jesus said that you should give away your cloak. Doesn’t that mean that all Christians should buy one so that they could give it away?). But I frequently hear people refer to “Biblical modesy,” as if it is something definitely defined, or even just “modesty,” as if it should be obvious to everyone what is being meant. But where does the real definition of what is modest come from?

  The worldview of a culture describes what is modest, immodest, or weird. Our particular culture defines "immodesty" in terms of nakedness, "modesty" in terms of clothedness, and "weird" in terms that range from over-clothedness to outlandish. For example:

Immodest-  going to a summer birthday party in nothing but your underwear

Modest- going to a summer birthday party in normal clothing

Weird- going to a summer birthday party wearing a winter coat and earmuffs.

   The problem that Christians have is that our culture also defines "pushing the envelope" as cool, especially if you are young. That is why immodesty can be seen as "not weird" or even as desirable for a young man or woman, even though the wider culture still DOES think of it as immodest. (A culture that did not value “pushing the envelope” would see BOTH extremes as weird, and we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.) But there is still a definite middle ground that is neither immodest or weird, though of course the exact cultural form depends on the situation.

  If the occasion is an elementary school open house, our cultural worldview tells us that it would be good to dress casual, immodest to wear a swimsuit, and weird to wear a tuxedo for men or a fancy dress for a women. If the occasion is a funeral, our worldview tells us that it would be good to dress nice (suit and tie or dress), weird or rude to dress casual, and immodest, weird and rude to dress in a swimsuit. If the occasion is a day at the beach, our worldview says that it is good to wear a swimsuit, immodest to be completely naked, and weird to wear a suit and tie or a dress. All of these cultural prescriptions arise before we have even begun to ask what the Bible says. To buck these cultural guidelines is not modesty, but weirdness (or even rudeness).

  The problem comes at the point of application. The Bible enjoins modesty but not weirdness, unless a Christian has been given a specific call in a specific situation. The culture enjoins wearing a swimsuit at the beach. How do I stay true to the first while not deviating too far from the other?

  The answer is not to look in the Bible for what specific cultural form was used two thousand years ago. As they say, “the styles have changed.” The Bible was not meant to give us cultural forms valid for all time. Besides, we already went to the Bible when we found that we should aim for modesty.

  The answer is not to look at a past culture that we idolize and try to hold onto that, as the Amish do. Many conservative Christians do the same by pointing to some idealized 1950’s style of life they think we should all seek to bring back. (It IS an idealized picture- The 1950’s weren’t any more Christian than today. The sixties counter-cultural push didn’t come about because all the parents of the 50’s were really strong Christians. Most weren’t, but they held to the outer forms, and their kids could see it was a sham and decided to scrap what they felt wasn’t real anyway.) This is the path to weirdness and irrelevancy. Many stupid things may be done in the name of being “relevant,” but that doesn’t change the fact that Christians are called to be witnesses from WITHIN their culture, not from outside of it.

  The answer is to find a way to creatively engage culture on its own terms. Stay within the cultural guidelines, but creatively find ways to not only “stay true to the Bible,” but to actively push Biblical principles in a way that speaks the message of Christ in a new way. This is what the apostle Paul was doing in 1 Corinthians 11, in the passage regarding head coverings. The Corinthian women had let their relationship with Christ cause them to do things that the culture found weird. They thought they were demonstrating to all their newfound freedom in Christ. Paul points to the accepted cultural use of head coverings and tells the Corinthian women that they are instead just being needlessly weird. His frequent reference to “shame” refers to the revulsion the wider culture would feel at seeing their weirdness. Nobody would accept the gospel from such weirdos.  Instead, his letter if full of other ideas for them to demonstrate the gospel to the unbelievers in Corinth; ones that would still serve as a stark challenge to the worldy values of the city, but that wouldn't have them just wrote off as weird.

  I attempted something like this over a year ago on Xanga regarding gay marriage (here) , though I wasn't completely happy with where I ended up at when I was done.  I was starting from the idea that Christians are to be the ones who inconvenience themselves for others.  God may have an ideal of a union of a man and a women that is a picture of Christ and the church, but the Bible doesn’t give us all that much more about it. I suggested that perhaps Christians should drop the fight over legalizing gay marriage, and instead come up with another ceremony that achieves the same spiritual outcomes (man/women union as picture of Christ), and call it something else.  We'll inconvenience ourselves by just dropping our interest in the whole issue of "marriage," because we would be pouring all our energy into this new thing (yet to be named) which would have all the features of Biblical marriage, but without the name.  Much of what we hold dear regarding marriage is merely our cultural forms. The idea of an an engagement, a ring, a public ceremony solemnized by clergy after a government licence has been obtained, as well as the English word “marriage” are all cultural forms that are merely relative. We could change the name to Buta-Buta tomorrow, and it would still fulfill God’s desire for a union between a man and a women. My suggestion came about because I was concerned over how closed many are to the gospel, because they see the Christian position as hateful, and I saw that in the Bible many times the apostle Paul enjoined us to not needlessly enrage culture in a way that kept the gospel from getting a hearing.

  I’m not saying that I believe my suggestion was the right thing to do, but I think we need to go in these directions on a lot of issues. Anything else is to make an idol out of our cultural forms, and tell Jesus that we’re sorry that we were not effective witnesses of His grace, but that we really couldn’t let the “sinners” corupt our devotion to our comfy cultural forms, which were more important to us than Him. 

Currently Reading The Acts of the Apostles : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary By Ben Witherington III see related

WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON?

Currently Reading Christianity In Culture: A Study In Dynamic Biblical Theologizing In Cross-cultural Perspective By Charles H. Kraft, Marguerite G. Kraft see related

SUGAR FREE SSSNNACKKKS