The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Cultural Engagement

What is meant by that term? Is it a movement or just a description of a movement, e.g Emergent? Is it a term use by Driscoll in Seattle? Who are some proponenents? And, what are the pros and pitfalls?

John,

IMHO, the most experienced and qualified person to speak to that question is "CovenantinBlood". I'm sure he could elucidate indepth on the subject and I suspect he would be more than happy to do so. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

I will just briefly comment and say it is something to avoid and/or oppose should you encounter it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

John,

Well certainly the emerging church is doing the work of so-called "cultural engagement," but the term is broader than the emerging church and rather describes an ethos or attitude that is growing amongst many conservative evangelical churches. I don't know much about Driscoll although I wouldn't be surprised if he is a proponent.

The ideas seem to stem from certain aspects of Dutch neo-Calvinism, especially as it is embodied in the form it has taken at Calvin College and Seminary in the work of such folks as Cornelius Plantinga and Richard Mouw (now president of Fuller Theo. Sem.). The basic problem from what I can see is an unhealthful emphasis on God's common grace and the creation mandate, to such an extent that all aspects of human culture are treated as equally redeemable.

On the one hand, they wish to avoid a "dualistic" view that separates the practice of Christian religion from every other aspect of life, such as work, art, and government. On the other hand, they wish to avoid the results of this dualism in modern evangelicalism which has lead to the creation of "Christianized" copies of cultural items, e.g., "Christian" truck stops, "Christian" pop music, "Christian" television, etc. Instead, we ought to make "good" truck stops, "good" pop music, "good" television, etc. In this way we are to affirm the goodness of God's creative activity and the goodness of man's creative activity as a creature made in the image of God.

And it has to be said, they are right some extent here. It is wrong for Christians to become like the Amish, cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world and living in isolation. It is also true that Christians should be able do everything to the glory of God, without feeling the need to make everything some kind of "evangelistic tool" or devotional help. Furthermore, Christians should indeed be "engaging the culture" insofar as they ought to involved in the society around them and working to improve it through obedience to God.

But where the idea of cultural engagement seems to go awry is that there is no cultural form that is inherently opposed to Christian truth, which leads to preaching the created goodness of man and failing to address adequately his fallen sinfulness. Sin becomes, rather than a personal offense against the all-holy God, a disruption of the peace of God's creation. Thus, the effect of sin, which is to disrupt God's creation, is regarded as the very essence of sin. It is as if being born into a disrupted creation is what makes a man sinful, when in fact what makes a man sinful is that his heart hates God. Therefore, "cultural engagement" takes on a distinctly communitarian and political tone, because it is strongly motivated to transform ("redeem") society so as to bring men to salvation.

In the process, however, it seems to be transforming the church, by neglecting the necessity of individual regeneration, and by directing the church to affirm and utilize the cultural patterns of the world.

CovenantInBlood

Pilgrim was right when he said:
Keep up the good work <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Tom

Glad you found it helpful, Tom.

Good assessment Kyle.


Abraham Kuyper From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He developed so-called Neo-Calvinism, which differs from conventional Calvinism over issues such as divine grace and the role of the state. Furthermore, Kuyper was the first to formulate the principle of common grace in the context of a Reformed world-view.


According to our contemporary defender of common grace (Dr. Richard J. Mouw), following his mentor Abraham Kuyper, the common grace of God governs the entire life of the Christian in relation to the world. Common grace delivers the ungodly from total depravity. Common grace achieves one of the two great purposes of God with history: the production of good, God-pleasing culture. Common grace binds Christians and non-Christians together in their mutual calling to build a better, God-glorifying, Christianized world.
*parenthesis insert mine

From "He Shines in All That's Fair"
(and Curses All That's Foul) (Conclusion)
Editorial Twelve by Prof. David J. Engelsma
Available Online


William

.

Interesting concerning Kuyper. For some reason, I thought his thinking was smack dab in the middle in synch with Continental Reformed theology. Now, are you saying that he is not?

William,

I would not go so far as to say that the doctrine of common grace is the cause of these problems, rather, an improper emphasis and misconstrual of that doctrine. I will admit, however, that I much prefer to term this the doctrine of God's benevolence.

I agree, a non-salvific grace (common grace) in regards to the reprobate as some conservative Christians hold to – sun, rain, etc. is not the cause.


Why not the term providence after all those who are alive in the flesh only exist because the eternal purpose which the Father purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord has not been fulfilled in the gathering of His elect.

William

.

Because I think providence has a broader focus than does benevolence. Providence has to do with God's wise administration of the entirety of creation, whereas benevolence has to do with the kind disposition of God toward His creatures, His liberality toward them in giving them the necessities, and even some of the luxuries, of life—and if this results in greater condemnation for the reprobate, it is not because God was simply unkind to them, but because they were ungrateful.

O.K. I tried to find the meaning of benevolence in the Bible but 1 Corinthians 7:3 I don’t believe has to do with the a kind disposition but rather an intimacy in the marriage bed and that requires a little more than a kind disposition. (Love, Bride, Wife, Husbandman, Sex) then I went to my Noah Webster’s 1828 which said:


That God delights in the happiness of intelligent beings (all of mankind) or has some kind of none saving love for all mankind is difficult for me to believe and sounds a little Arminian but perhaps I'm over simplifying or Webster's meaning is not so good.

It’s been fun hopefully we can speak again tomorrow D.v.


May God Bless
William

.

William,

I'm puzzled by your referrence to I Cor. 7:3, you'll have to explain that one.

Otherwise, I do understand your concern; we are all familiar with what Arminians preach, which is a general, unsaving love of God which must be "completed" by us in returning love to Him. This is of course a pernicious doctrine, and there are those today who are stretching the doctrine of "common grace" way out of proportion and giving it something of the character of the Arminian school.

Yet I do think God's benevolence, or common grace, is described in Mt. 5:44-45, "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. For He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." If God's kindness toward even the unjust is not sincere, then how does it here serve as an example for our behavior toward our enemies?

Also, hear what the Apostle says in Rom. 2:4, "Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forebearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" Despite God's kindness, the reprobate spurn Him and prove to be ingrates. This does not mean that God was not being sincerely kind to them.

<font size="1">*CovenantInBlood's quote was edited by William I do not believe that I changed how his question to me was meant I only had time for a short response.</font>



I think we should ask the question is it really an act of God’s kindness that sends the sun, rain, food etc. OR Is it God’s providential upholding for the sake of His righteous judgment and the gathering of His elect?

Next- Is the food that is in the vending machine at the place where I work that the unrepentant eat “a sincere goodwill gesture” on the part of God or is it a curse to them?

I tend to think that if it’s not received with thanksgiving God is very displeased and even angry and that is not Grace. Also who can deny that Christians are to love their enemies.



William

.

William,

I understand that you may be influenced to even a great degree by the writings of such men as Hoeksema, and others who are generally labeled as "hyper-Calvinists", and I think in most cases justifiably. Remember, I am not coming to this subject from just one side since I studied under such men at the PRC cemetery seminary. So, IF you can, I would have to put that influence aside which is mainly erroneous "deductions" and approach the biblical text fairly and in context.

Matthew 5:43-45 (ASV) "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust."

There is both a contrast and an analogy found in this passage of Scripture. The contrast is between those who say to love your neighbor; those amiable to you, and hate your enemy and Christ/God Who says to show kindness and even love both your neighbor and your enemy. The analogy is between God's dealing with ALL men and how believers are to deal with ALL men, which is clearly what Christ was teaching in contrast to the former teaching; love your neighbor and hate your enemy.

Secondly, the emphasis of Jesus' teaching is not in regard to the content but in the motive and manner of one's treatment of others. This too is very clearly shown from the highlighted portion of the passage quoted above, "that you may be sons of your Father . . . for He maketh . . ." We are to emulate our heavenly Father in the manner He treats ALL mankind. Doubtless, we are not to be like God in making the sun shine or the rain to fall upon them. So, again, it is not the content that we are to mimic but the attitude/motive of which God is the supreme example.

There is no mention of anything salvific in Jesus' words, so there is no need nor warrant for anyone to protest that God cannot show any kindness toward the reprobate. And, in fact, there is not even a hint that the "reprobate" are singled out and/or excluded. There only two distinct groups mentioned, which comprise the entire human race, the "just" and the "unjust" or "neighbors" and "enemies". Now, we know that we are ALL born enemies of God and relationally, we share the same hatred for God as the reprobate, lack the necessary motivation and strength to repent, love Christ and believe on Him. We are ALL born dead in trespasses and sins and are by nature children of wrath. The point I'm trying to get across here is that the passage is dealing with relational matters and not God's eternal decree, as if that is the filter through which we must interpret everything in Scripture... BAD MISTAKE!! So, while it is absolutely true that God's salvific, electing love only extends to the elect and only hatred is the portion meted out to the reprobate, this is NOT the same thing as God showing kindness, beneficence to unbelievers, even the reprobate. In fact, some of the most "gifted" people, humanly speaking are among unbelievers/reprobates. This philanthropy (cf. Titus 3:4) is shown to all men also has a shared intent, that they ALL should repent and believe on Christ.

Romans 2:3-4 (ASV) "And reckonest thou this, O man, who judgest them that practise such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

So, Common Grace, albeit the term often leads to misunderstandings, has no reference to God's eternal decree. Nor does it have to do with the marked distinction between the elect and the reprobate. But rather, it has to do with the "common", i.e., universal acts of God toward ALL men as those who bear His image. There is no evil in God and thus it is very dangerous to suggest that these acts, which the Bible openly declares to be acts of kindness, goodness, long-suffering, etc., are in fact feigned and therefore are in actuality descriptive of God being totally insincere and "baiting" men, which is deception; something which the Devil is renown for and the master.

Lastly, the historic doctrine of "Common Grace" held by the Reformers and Puritans is a decidedly different thing than that which was authored by Abraham Kuyper and others of the Dutch Reformed groups. We both can agree that what they taught was not biblical. But their teaching(s) are NOT representative of those who preceded them and it is fallacious to even suggest that such is the case. It is one thing to oppose such error and one should right do so. But it is a totally different thing to oppose a sound biblical doctrine by lumping it together with erroneous teachings as if they were the same thing.

In His grace,

It is both.


They make it a curse to themselves.


Well of course God's wrath is not His grace, but His wrath is a response to their ungratefulness concerning the goodness He has shown them.


The question is why we are to love our enemies, and Jesus' answer is that God shows His kindness to the just and the unjust alike.