The Way through the Crowd

[mattrose]

Last semester I took 2 classes (Wesleyan Theology & Faith in Culture). Each teacher required a final paper. I already posted my paper on what I feel constitutes "Wesleyan Theology" (it is in the Church History section). But I thought I'd post this paper too. We were asked to discuss the relationship between the Christian faith and the secular culture using the course texts as main sources. Here's my paper

The Way through the Crowd

Jesus once said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). While it is true that we must go through Christ to reach the Father, that does not mean that we only go through Christ. The way is crowded. There are people coming at us, headed in the opposite direction. There are merchants who have set up shop hoping to gain the ear (and much more) of those along the path. And, of course, there are crowds on both sides of this way. Some mock. Some wonder. Some are oblivious as to where the way leads. Most thankfully, there are also fellow travelers. This whole scene is a collection of people, places, and things that make up the larger culture. This paper is about the relationship between the people of the Way and the crowd along the way. It is about how theology and faith relates to culture. First, I will examine the three basic ideas about how the Way relates to the crowd. Second, I will discuss some of the fundamental concepts brought up by the authors of the course texts. Third, I will analyze how these core concepts confront two particular cultural texts. Finally, I will summarize my own feelings as to how theology and faith should relate to culture.

Three Basic Approaches

Within the Way, there are three basic approaches to how we are to relate to the larger culture. First, we may imagine a group of believers that stress the positive ways in which the culture can influence the church. Second, we may picture a more conservative group that hopes to either avoid or defeat the culture. Between these two extremes, we find a third party that takes up the difficult task of mediating the disagreements between the other two camps. In this section, I will briefly describe these three camps.
The concept of sensus fidelium refers to the ability of the laity to instruct the church from the ground up. Catholic scholar Tom Beaudoin takes this idea one step further. He introduces the term sensus infidelium to indicate that the non-Christian culture, too, has much to teach us. Some have taken this to mean that the relationship between faith and culture should be one of friendship and exchange. This is not to say that this camp denies the downside of the culture, but it recognizes that the church has its problems too. Rather than pretend that the culture alone has dirty laundry, those in this group choose to focus on what is worthy of wear. But in their friendship with the world, do they remain loyal to the narrow path? In their intimacy with the culture, do they sacrifice their relationship to God? We’re all in the world, but is it possible to be of the world while remaining people of the Way? To get more specific, should we be optimistic about the role that pop-culturally-produced movies may play in developing faith? Should we accept consumerism as a reality and work with it rather than against it?
On the other extreme, some view culture as the enemy. This camp is usually marked by a distinct boundary. Inside the camp is sacred space. Outside the camp is secular space. The wall of separation is a wall worth defending. The culture is wicked. It is lost. It has little or nothing to teach us outside of helping us to see the extent of human depravity. This is not to say that this camp denies the deficiencies of the church, but it blames such things on compromises with the culture. Some in this group believe that the only hope for the world is found in the church being so radically different from the larger culture that, eventually, those in darkness will see the great light of the church and join them on the Way. Others, however, don’t sense much hope for the world at all. They are, instead, simply holding on until Jesus comes to bring an end to the wicked culture and exalt the few who have refused to compromise. But in their allegiance to the phrase be ye separate, have they missed the missional nature of their faith? Is their enmity with the world an enemy to the call to reach the world? To get particular, should we refuse to watch secular movies simply because they are secular in nature? Can we, with integrity, say that we are separated from the rest of consumer culture? Within this camp are those who wish to simply avoid culture and those who wish to confront and defeat the culture. But is either of these goals possible? And even if they are possible, are they correct approaches to the question of how faith is to relate to culture?
The mediating camp hopes to find a balance between these two extremes. They attempt to not only be in the world in the sense of being on the same planet, but to actually be part of the cultural conversation. They aim to do this, however, without compromise. They want to be salt, preserving any good that can be found in culture. They want to be light, exposing the darkness that exists all around them. Like the first camp, those in this group usually have a fairly active doctrine of prevenient grace, believing that God Himself is already at work within the culture. It is our job to continue this work and call the culture to reconciliation with the Creator. Like the second camp, those in this group readily identify the differences between the Way of Christ and the ways of the world. They attempt to recognize both the grace and the wickedness present in the culture. But is it really possible to walk this fine line? Is it possible to be truly in, but not of? Is it possible for salt not to lose its saltiness over time? Is it possible for light to cover a larger area without growing dimmer along the way?
Answers to the questions asked here will be examined in section two with the aid of course texts. The first camp will be discussed alongside a dialogue with Detweiler and Taylor’s A Matrix of Meanings and Einstein’s Brands of Faith. Miller’s Consuming Religion and Murray’s Church After Christendom will represent the split second camp. Finally, the mediating camp will be argued for with the aid of Vanhoozer’s Everyday Theology and Gorringe’s A Theology of the Built. This arrangement is not meant to imply that the respective authors are wholly to be found within that camp I’ve connected them with, but only to indicate that I find their works helpful in discussing that particular mindset. The goal is to analyze whether the relationship between faith and culture should be one of utter friendship, utter enmity, or something more complex and in between. And if the latter, how do we navigate this mediating position.

Core Concepts

Each of the three camps carries with it a core concept. The first camp is very optimistic about the presence and role of prevenient grace in the culture. They believe prevenient grace is so pervasive that we should expect to find all sorts of good and godly features in the cultural texts of the world. In fact, prevenient grace is such a core concept that it has been replicated by the consumer culture. The second camp is very pessimistic about the presence and role of the most powerful components of culture as they infiltrate the church. Presently, they believe consumerism is so pervasive that our focus should be defensive, in nature, rather than offensive. Consumerism has invaded the church and we will need every ounce of God’s power just to survive its attack. The third camp considers both of the above points of view. It recognizes prevenient grace, but doesn’t view it as irresistible. It recognizes consumerism and post-Christendom, but doesn’t view them as all-powerful. Whereas the first camp works from the secular side of things, and the second camp works from the sacred side of things, the third camp aims to show that a secular/sacred dichotomy is not a helpful worldview. Instead, Christians should recognize that everything has the potential to be sacred. It was once created good and may still be reconciled and redeemed by God.
As mentioned, camp one is very optimistic about the role of prevenient (or ‘common’) grace. This optimism leads them to treat culture as a friend to the church. This type of understanding is observed in A Matrix of Meanings. Detweiler and Taylor announce from the start that their intention is to offer a “sympathy for pop culture” (8). They believe it “offers a refreshing, alternative route to a Jesus who for many has been domesticated, declawed, and kept under wraps” (9). In their writing, they lift pop-culture to holy heights. Its content is comparable to the Psalms and Wisdom literature of the Old Testament. Pop-culture can serve as “common grace” and even become our new best friend (17). I suggest, however, that pop-culture is more like a distant relative than a friend to faith. Time and separation have caused the relationship to deteriorate. I take no issue with the idea that pop-culture might, indeed, be utilized as a form of prevenient grace. But one should not overstate its potential. Prevenient grace was never meant to be valued as an individual entity, but as a catalyst to bring us to conviction and repentance. At its very best, pop-culture is a couple of steps removed from bringing us into a friendly relationship with faith. We must avoid being so optimistic about the culture that we begin to find more good than is truly present. For the most part, faith and culture should be considered friends in only a limited sense.
That being said, there is a sense, albeit a dangerous one, in which faith and culture are good friends. Mara Einstein brings this out in Brands of Faith. In the area of consumerism, faith and culture have attained a “mutually beneficial relationship” (74). Einstein shows how consumerism hijacked God’s process of conversion for its own ends. Rather than advancing through prevenient, convicting, justifying, sanctifying, and empowering grace, consumerism takes its prey through product awareness, the hard sell, the purchase, brand loyalty, and eventually turns the consumer into an employee (minus the salary) through word of mouth advertising (85). People of faith, ignorant of the fact that this process belongs to God and not consumerism, pattern their methods after the marketers instead of partnering with the real deal. They become merchants of religious products rather than evangelists of God’s grace. Thus, at the very point where faith and culture do exist in intimate friendship, it is to the severe detriment of faith.

Camp two is very pessimistic about the negative influence culture exerts over the church. Many contemporary authors identify the culture of consumerism as an enemy of faith. Vincent Miller expresses this view in his book Consuming Religion. He argues that consumer culture teaches people to “view all things as equally disposable commodities” (6). Miller sees the culture as harmfully intruding on the collective mindset of the church. He points out that the line between the world and the church is now “enormously difficult to draw” (24). Christianity is meant to be a radical sub-culture with the potential to subvert the wickedness in the larger culture. Miller advances the idea that we are doing religion, at great cost, by the patterns of the world. If religion is to survive in its most meaningful way, the minds of Christians who have been transformed by consumer culture must experience a renewed way of thinking (Romans 12:1-2). If we try to compete with consumer culture (via church marketing) we are sure to not only lose the fight (economically), but we’ll be communicating that our message is just another among a host of messages. The culture of consumerism is, here, a blatant enemy to faith. We must be on the defensive or risk becoming the enemy.
Some in camp two, however, take a more offensive posture against the culture. Stuart Murray, in his book Church After Christendom, acknowledges that “the end of Christendom and transition into post-Christendom” is here (7), but believes the church can thrive by being a radical Christian counter-culture. “As in pre-Christendom, church after Christendom will operate on the margins” (147). Murray, with his Anabaptist roots, believes operating in the margins is a more effective strategy for the church than cultural dominance. A missional, communal, worshipful, and simple church may triumph in post-Christendom. He ends his book by stating that “marginal churches might just be able to recover and commend [the story of Christianity] with sensitivity and integrity” (232). Both Miller and Murray believe the church needs to be subversive in the midst of culture. But whereas Miller sees present conditions as rendering that task nearly impossible, Murray believes the cultural conditions are ideal for genuine Christianity to perform its subversive role.

The theology of camp three is on display in T.J. Gorringe’s A Theology of the Built Environment. He critiques the Augustinian divide between sacred and secular space in favor of a Barthian “everything is sacred” mentality. Gorringe isn’t insisting that all spaces are equally sacred. He would say, rather, “that all space is potentially sacred, waiting for a moment of encounter in which it mediates God” (40). This view comes out of a Trinitarian ethic of creation, reconciliation, and redemption. God the Creator made all things and, therefore, all things the potential, at least, to be good. God the Reconciler is able to bring that which is fallen back into connection with Him. God the Redeemer is able to work toward restored ideals in anticipation of the new Jerusalem (5). He insists that “a Trinitarian theology cannot allow a secular and sacred divide, in which ‘secular’ occupations are left to the non theologians, and theology confined to the specialists” (7).
Interestingly, an almost completely different side of Augustine is brought out in Vanhoozer’s Everyday Theology. He states that “for Augustine everything in creation is ultimately a sign pointing to the goodness of its Creator” (25). Vanhoozer emphasizes the innate goodness of all creation, but sees it more in terms of non-actualized potential than did Detweiler and Taylor. Whereas A Matrix of Meanings seems to find good just about anywhere in culture, Everyday Theology seems more discerning in its reading of cultural texts. Prevenient grace is present in culture, but it is often resisted. Many cultural texts, then, are fallen and in need of new creation, reconciliation, and redemption. It is imperative, then, that the church interprets and confronts this culture with the Gospel, but it must do so while recognizing that the culture impacts the church as well. “Christians cannot afford to continue sleepwalking their way through contemporary culture, letting their lives, and especially their imaginations, become conformed to culturally devised myths” (35). Vanhoozer believes faith does and must relate to culture, but it should do so with a hermeneutic of suspicion.

The concepts of prevenient grace, consumerism, post-Christendom, and the sacred/secular divide are key elements to any discussion of how faith should relate to culture. The above authors approach these concepts with sometimes slight, sometimes drastic variations. The first camp leans toward defining the relationship as one of friendship. The second camp sees it more as a relationship of enmity. The third camp attempts to define attempts to hold both positions in tension by defining how culture can be a friend and how it can be an enemy. Of course, all of the authors mentioned are, in reality, closer to the middle than to the left or right extremes, but it has been necessary to highlight their leanings to one side or the other in hopes of better defining a position of balance. It should be noted that all the authors seem to have an appreciation for the fact that culture impacts the church whether we admit it or not. We can talk about the church being a radically different and subversive counter-culture, but it must be recognized that the church is by no means immune to cultural influence. In this sense, the church’s relationship to the culture can be described as one of convergence. Henry Jenkins, in his book Convergence Culture, argues, in regards to the convergence of old and new media, that “convergence encourages participation and collective intelligence” (245). The same can be said for the convergence of faith and culture. He states that “many fear this power; others embrace it” (245). Our concern, here, is to learn to discern when to fear and when to embrace cultural texts. Below, I will attempt to do just that in regards to two specific cultural texts.

Two Cultural Texts

In America, Christmas is a juggernaut. As soon as Thanksgiving ends, Christmas time begins. Calendars fill up quickly with family gatherings, special religious services, and, of course, shopping. Lines form outside of stores in the wee hours of the morning. This year, a Wal-Mart employee was actually killed by a frenzied crowd of shoppers stampeding into the store at opening. It is estimated that Americans spend $450,000,000,000 on Christmas each year. Clearly, Christmas is a huge cultural text.
The history of Christmas is quite interesting. The Bible contains no commands that Christians celebrate Christmas. Historian Paul L. Maier points out in his book The Fullness of Time that the celebration of Christmas is probably a “matter of substitution” (29). In the Roman Empire, the winter solstice was celebrated via the pagan feast of Sol Invictus (Unconquerable Sun) on December 25th. “Christianity sought to replace these pagan festivals with a Christian celebration honoring the ‘sun of righteousness’” (29). From the very start, then, Christmas was an attempt to redeem a pagan cultural text. “Yet Christmas, even with its Christian name, has never been able to shake off the secular root of this end-of-the-year festival” (29). Especially toward the end of, but certain within post-Christendom, Christmas has become more obviously identified with consumerism than Christianity. What Christians hijacked from the culture in the 4th century was taken back by a culture of consumerism in the 20th century.
What should Christians do with the contemporary cultural text of Christmas? Camp one would be more likely to view it positively. Attending church once a year is better than not attending at all! And most of the buying is done in the spirit of giving! Of all cultural texts, it could be argued that Christmas is that which makes the most people aware of Jesus. It is prevenient grace! Camp two would be much more skeptical about the contemporary practice of Christmas. The secular realm (consumerism) has stolen the sacred meaning of Christmas, wrapped it up, and sold it back to us. We can’t even say “Merry Christmas!” anymore, we have to say “Happy Holidays!” Camp three aims to recognize the potential role Christmas can play as a form of prevenient grace while also recognizing that it has largely become a celebration of stuff, even among Christians. Christmas offers Christians in camp three plenty to work with in terms of making people aware of the Gospel. The common usage of “X-mas” can be used as a conversation starter about Christ. Those who insist on “Happy Holidays” can be reminded that “Holiday” simply means “Holy Day.” The humble nature of the nativity can be used to speak against rampant consumerism. The fact that the entire world could have clean water for a year if we spent $10,000,000,000 less on Christmas could be heralded. Christmas could change.



The 1995 film Se7en* was the MTV award winner for movie of the year. The R-rated film tells the provocative story of a serial killer determined to illustrate the depravity of his victims, each one highlighting one of the seven deadly sins. At the climax of the film, the killer is able to manipulate one of the lead detectives into shooting him and, therefore, becoming wrath and completely the illustration. The final lines of the movie convey a message that the world is an ugly place, but still worth fighting for. Worldwide, it has grossed over $325,000,000, ranking it fourth all-time in the thriller category. It’s certainly a popular cultural text, but how should Christians respond to it, if at all?
Se7en is an illustration of the mixture between the supposed sacred and secular realms. On the one hand it is a violent and gruesome film filled with curse words and sexual depravity. One the other hand it conveys a truthful message about the sinful nature of the world while maintaining the importance of continuing the fight against evil. Camp one would likely embrace the film as a measure of prevenient, and in this case perhaps even convicting, grace. Camp two would tend to avoid the film like the plague, insisting that holy Christians should refuse to support the industry and should steer clear of the filth.
Personally, I aim to find the balance within camp three. I believe a mature Christian can benefit from watching Se7en and use it as a conversational tool in evangelism. Whereas many people, in post-Christendom, do not hear about sin in church (either because they do not attend or because the church doesn’t preach about it!), this film brings the intense issue of sin to the forefront. Se7en does not celebrate sin, it illustrates it in all its ugliness. Many films, enjoyed by Christians, contain, perhaps, less sin, but whatever sin is present is often celebrated (i.e. sex outside of marriage). Christians must learn to discern the difference between viewing a sin-full movie as entertainment and viewing it as the container of a truthful message. When I watch Se7en, I am reminded of the ugly nature and far reaching power of sin. In a culture that prefers terms like ‘mistake’ to ‘sin,’ this film can be a tool for the truth.
Conclusion
Faith should not relate to culture as a best friend, nor should it treat culture as an utter enemy. Instead, faith should confront culture with caution and with the Gospel. The faith community needs to recognize that everything has the potential to be sacred, but that many cultural texts are far from reaching that potential. The faith community needs to recognize that we exist in a post-Christendom culture in which people are often more than a few conversations away from understanding the Gospel. The faith community needs to be salt and light within the larger culture. It can be salt by preserving and conversing about those cultural texts that contain a measure of prevenient grace. It can be light by exposing the errors of cultural texts that distort the truth and deceive people. The faith community must continually navigate along both boundaries of the third camp, always reminding itself that the culture is not quite a friend and not quite an enemy.

Works Cited
Einstein, Mara. Brands of Faith: Marketing Religion in a Commercial Age. Routledge, 2008.
Detweiler, Craig and Taylor, Barry. A Matrix of Meanings: Finding God in Popular Culture. Baker, 2003.
Gorringe, T.J. A Theology of the Built Environment: Justice, Empowerment, Redemption. Cambridge UP, 2002.
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. NYU Press, 2006.
Maier, Paul L. In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church. Kregel Publications, 1997.
Miller, Vincent J. Consuming Religion: Christian Faith and Practice in a Consumer Culture. Baker Academic, 2003.
Murray, Stuart. Church after Christendom. Cambridge, 2002.
Vanhoozer, Kevin, ed. Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends (Cultural Exegesis). Baker, 2007.

* Background information for the movie Se7en found at the following websites:
http://www.imdb.com
http://www.boxofficemojo.com