In Water from a Deep Well, Gerald Sittser makes the following suggestion:
Never before has the church had such opportunities for influence. The biggest problem it faces is its own complacency and worldliness. Here church leaders must take charge, not by doing more but by doing less. They must surrender all desire for political, economic, social and cultural influence in larger society to devote their energies to enabling the church to become a community of belonging. Church leaders are called to serve the church; the church in turn is called to serve the world. (emphasis mine)
I agree with the main drift of Sittser’s thought here. Leaders in today’s churches will usually be better served by slowing down to speed up, cutting programs and expenditures in order to do a few things well. In the sentence I italicized, I don’t think many people would question Sittzer’s first two entries–political and economic influence. In fact, decrying Christian Republicanism (equating Christianity with Conservative values) and Corporate Christianity (running the church for profit, like a business, with the lead pastor as CEO) is commonplace these days, and rightly so.
However, there’s currently a groundswell of interest in the church exerting cultural and social influence. Consider the social/cultural agendas of guys like Donald Miller and Shane Claiborne, the popularity of Relevant Magazine (and various similar publications), and books like Andy Crouch’s Culture Making. Renewing culture and transforming society are rallying cries in many circles right now–and I’m usually one of the guys yelling.
I think the church does have a mandate to live in such a way that there’s an outward ripple effect. But Sittser’s comment, which I hope he elaborates on, does make me pause. Twenty years from now, will people be shaking their heads at the way the Western church became obsessed with becoming new monastics and finger painters for Jesus? Kind of like the way we shake our heads now at the way an earlier generation became obsessed with politics and successful business models?
We need to remember that whatever effects an honest Christian life has on the surrounding people and culture, our primary job is spiritual transformation. Love and service are the hallmarks of Christian community. To the extent that that job description is embraced, new artistry and social justice will emerge. Jesus changes lives and heals sinners before he transforms society and stirs creative juices.
An anemic artistic subculture and the lack of involvement in social causes are signs of a deficient church. But the New Testament doesn’t equate vibrant Christianity with a Web 2.0 Renaissance or New Urbanism. We have to be careful not to make secondary effects like Art and Activism the primary goal.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
I have an ubber amount of thoughts on this but will try to keep them to a minimum.
1. There is a camp of believers that are steadfest on keeping the Gospel as atonement and justification. Much of this Gospel is based on what Paul wrote in his letters.
2. There is a camp of believers that are holding up the Gospel as the Kingdom of God for today and tomorrow. This is your social justice and activism crowd. Much of this Gospel is based on Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
3. There is a third camp that is focused on eternal life. They are a little harder to identify but they find their substance in the Gospel of John and that God came near.
Obviously there are overlaps and a lot more can be said of this but more and more I’m hearing discontent from the people in number 1 towards people in number 2 and 2 towards 1.
Final thought – I believe (and most of the above I heard from a Tim Keller message) all three are the Gospel and that we are called to be witnesses of the Gospel. Different contexts and cultures present us with different opportunities in sharing the Gospel. It isn’t a different Gospel but rather displaying and sharing the Gospel in the best possible way.
I am very much hoping that others have thoughts on this topic.