Question:
Rich,
I'm starting a little study on Life on the Vine and I wanted your thoughts on this. When he says, "What is needed is an alternative set of practices, convictions, institutions and narratives that can both curb the dominant culture's power over our lives and nourish a way of life capable of producing the fruit of the Spirit" (pg. 29) he seems to be proposing a Christian "subculture". I say this because he defines culture as a "set of practices, convictions, etc. etc." earlier. What do you think?
J______
My Answer:
Dear J_______,
The author of the excellent book, Life on the Vine, is proposing a Christian alternative to the secular culture that surrounds us. However, I don't think he is arguing for a Christian subculture. Rather, he is arguing for a Christian counterculture. Allow me to explain the difference as I see it, because I completely agree with the author.
First, it must be noted that I am not Reformed in my perspective of culture. I agree more with the Anabaptist perspective of culture.
Culture is a shared set of practices, rituals, convictions, etc., just as the author has stated in the book. It is what we have in common with the people around us. That alone makes it very hard to define the term with precision. The Reformed perspective views the surrounding culture and its institutions as essentially redeemable and thus calls for Christians to transform it for Christ. The Anabaptist perspective, on the other hand, views the surrounding culture and its institutions as so mixed up with evil powers and motives, that it recognizes that the culture is, in and of itself, ultimately unredeemable. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). Evil runs through the very heart of all the institutions of human culture. Indeed, it even runs through the very heart of all people.
Can we escape this evil? Of course not. Ultimately, we can't. We are called to live as "children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation" (Phil. 2:15). We are to be in the world but not of it (John 17:15-18). Paul recognizes that in this world, we will be part of the sinful order of the age of the flesh. Indeed, he even commands that we engage this order by interacting with those caught up in its evil (1 Cor. 5:9-12).
What should we do about the evil that surrounds us? The Reformed answer is to transform it through Christ. The most extreme expression of this is found in the Theonomists who desire to bring all institutions under the law of God. The common Fundamentalist/Evangelical answer is to baptize modern culture by essentially imitating it and pasting a Christian label on the imitations. Thus we have our Christian rock, Christian clothes, Christian jewelry, Christian bookmarks, Christian figurines, Christian pictures, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Indeed, we even have a Christian breathmints, if you desire godly breath! This response is steeped in worldliness. The underlying motives and reasons for these items and practices are not considered. Rather, everything is deemed legitimate as long as it is "Christian". This is the Christian subculture -- the Christian ghetto.
The best response is a countercultural response. We must be suspicious of the powers that be and of the underlying convictions that make for much of the culture in which we participate. We must analyze motives, attitudes, ends, means, and purposes. We must refuse to do things in a godless way, but seek to go against the grain of much that seems normal and sophisticated. We thus become countercultural ambassadors who witness of another way, another King, a better life! In doing this we do not escape the culture for we realize that we ultimately can't escape it. Instead, we loosely, but lovingly, embrace it in order that we may engage with unbelievers on common ground.
This is a long answer but much more could be said. I hope at the very least it will inspire you to be a light in a dark world and follow the King whose kingdom is not of this world. You are a citizen of His kingdom first (Phil. 3:20-21)!
Your brother in Christ,
Rich
© Richard J. Vincent, January 5, 2000

Leave a comment