God’s Distinctive Alternative – Part 4

1. When we are converted we become estranged from our culture because that culture in large measure is estranged from God. When we are converted we are no longer, nor will we ever be again, completely at home in culture. From there on we carry around in us a sense of homelessness. Without this “disruption there can be no Christian faith” (emphasis, Volf’s). However, and this is important. Volf tells us that this disruption must remain “internal” to the culture. In other words, it must remain inside of culture. It is from in culture that gospel-in-culturation occurs. This work is however not the   work of (professional) Theologian’s but is instead the work of the faithful people of God themselves. “Theologians do have a role to play in the process of inculturation, but it is a critical one rather than a creative one” (p.235) [note - this is actually point # 4, and follows on from the previous post - 3B]

 

“Inculturation takes place when people in their own contexts receive the one gospel of the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ and run with it, living out and expressing the Christian difference in their own terms and symbols, and through their own practices” (Volf, p.235).

 

Volf reminds us that the real question is not how we are to inculturate the gospel, but rather, and this is critical, the key issue is how to nourish and sustain, over the course of one’s life, a Jesus-shaped identity and difference which is always in culture, but which makes a difference, like leaven, in culture for the sake of that culture (Jn. 3:16)

 

And so Graham Ward can ask, “what makes belief believable?” His response? “The believability of beliefs lies in what those beliefs facilitate more widely”; in what they make possible. It’s what “appeasements, consolations, coherences (all of them different pleasure affects) they offer to the needs [and longings] of society in which they appear” (Transformation, p.157). These beliefs in other words produce human becoming, thriving and life in all its richness and fullness. They engender hopeful ways of living and being in the world. They have something potentially transformative and life-giving to offer. They are thus believable and make a life-giving difference. These kinds of beliefs are for life and against death in its myriad of forms. To quote Scripture, “by their fruit you shall know them.” Beliefs need to be embodied; they need to be experienced. Again 1 John 3:16-19 (indeed in all of 1 John) reinforces this point:

 

¹⁶This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. ¹⁷If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? ¹⁸Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. ¹⁹This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence

 

Let’s give the final word to Volf. Indeed it’s his final word highlights the critical missional / transformative challenge we need to wisely discern:

 

“The trick is to know what the Christian difference is and where precisely [and when] it needs to surface and where not; the trick is to how to keep ourselves open to God and God’s reign and at the same time remain internal to [and imaginatively engaged with] a given culture...”

 

Now, at this point in this series, we also need to be clear that the Christian narrative is not the only narrative that offers “difference” (relative to culture and culture transformation), nor is it the only narrative that has within its resources and tradition the ability to enrich life and, at its best, encourage human thriving. But, for many of us, it is a significant and important contributor, a contributor that still needs to find a meaningful voice relative to other culture-shapers.  

 

To be continued...

Comments

[Peter Forrester]

Great series. I particularly appreciated your first post, especially your referencing that, empirically at least, Christians aren't very different from everyone else.

I've recently been struggling with the view of the church as a counter-culture. It's a very attractive idea, but doesn't ring true with my experience of real churches. In fact, the more "counter-cultural" churches try to be, the more they seem to resemble the prevailing culture they claim to be shunning.

There also seems to be a "theology of glory" at work in some of these views of the church, as if the church is -- or ought to be -- a visible group of saints.

I've been finding an alternative to this in Barth and Luther. Both are very realistic about churches as concrete structures full of concrete sinners (albeit saved by God's grace). Both are skeptical of self-proclaimed radicals claiming to practice God's politics or God's anything.

They both seem to be saying that the Christian "difference" may only be visible with eyes of faith. I've found this line of thought closer to my experience. It also lessens the (my?) temptation to fuss much about "acting like" a Christian.

Maybe one's (or anyone's) being saved is incognito, just like Christ's divinity. Both are visible only with the gift of faith.

In the end, it's God's Word (Christ) that changes lives, not our good examples.