by Ben Spink
“You are the salt of the earth. . . . You are the light of the world. . . . Let your light so shine before men.”[1] My dad likes to smother his food with salt because the salt adds flavor. It adds excitement to an otherwise bland taste. My mom used to set up candles all over the house whenever the power went out because the light brings illumination. It pierces the darkness and provides clarity and understanding for the eye. In the same way we as followers of Christ are His candles, distributing His light to a dark world. We are His saltshakers, bringing flavor to a tasteless world. We are His ambassadors, bringing a message of reconciliation to a hostile world.[2] We are life-givers, bringing words of eternal life to a dead world.[3] Yet how many times do we feel utterly helpless to offer anything to our world?
If we are salt, sometimes it seems like the world wants pepper. Whatever we have to offer seems totally irrelevant to life as they know it, and Christians are left feeling totally out of touch with the culture they live in. How then can we become more effective saltshakers in our 21st century American culture? Or should we strive for effectiveness at all? Maybe we should leave the effectiveness up to Christ, Who promises to be “with [us] even to the end of the age.”[4]
The truths revealed in the Bible are eternal truths, and therefore apply to every generation and culture without exception.[5] Further, these truths are able to be understood and welcomed by every culture, regardless of the underlying presuppositions present. The Bible is not a creation of man that serves a religious purpose for some people groups at different times in history. It is God’s communication of His eternal truth, which by nature relates to every person who ever lived. This is not to say that the gospel can be adapted to fit within the religious framework of every culture, but rather that every culture is part of the Biblical metanarrative and fits somewhere on the Biblical story line of creation, fall, and redemption. The basic truths of this story will resonate with every culture to one degree or another, enough that they will either receive these truths or actively reject them.[6] So the relevance of the Bible is not really the issue. In fact, if the gospel, or “good news,” were not relevant, it would be self-contradictory, because news cannot be good if it is not pertinent to the situation or crisis at hand.[7]
The impact, however, of these eternal truths depends on various factors. At the deepest level it depends on a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in convincing people of their sin and of the truth and beauty of the gospel.[8] Impacting culture, and more specifically enticing people toward the gospel, is not something we can achieve. It is always initiated and carried out by God Himself.[9] This is certainly foundational to our theology. It is equally true, however, that God has ordained means by which He accomplishes these purposes, namely proclamation of His gospel through the mouths of His ambassadors.[10] So while we recognize that nothing is accomplished apart from God, we also recognize that the acceptance of the gospel is largely dependent on the ability of the messenger to clearly and persuasively articulate it. Further, to pursue effectiveness in evangelism in no way undermines the reality of our complete inability to spiritually affect anyone apart from God’s working. These two truths-the necessity of our highest effort in spite of our total dependence on God-are held side by side throughout Scripture.[11]
Examining our presuppositions
So if we grant that we should strive for effectiveness in impacting our culture, the question becomes: “How can we effectively impact our culture with the truths of Scripture, and more specifically, with the gospel?” Of course-even such a broad, open-ended question contains many presuppositions that are often overlooked, such as the definition of “culture,” the assumptions of inerrancy and infallibility, the nature of truth, the knowability of truth,[12] the assumption that our understanding of Biblical truth is fairly consistent and reliable, and a definition of “gospel,” to name a few. My goal is not to question all of these presuppositions but rather to examine what baggage we might be bringing to the table that influences the direction we go in answering the question.
Separation
There are those who would deny that this is even a valid question, claiming that cultural relevance is not a worthy pursuit but rather stands in opposition to Biblical truth. First Corinthians 1:18 and 2:4 and 5, for instance, could indicate that the gospel does appear as foolish and irrelevant by design, and that we should not try to “dress it up” to relate better to our culture. Instead, we should separate from cultural ideals and live holy lives unto God (1 Corinthians 6:17).
Cultural engagement
Those who swing the proverbial pendulum to the other side would actively pursue cultural engagement, citing Paul’s strategy in Acts 17. Here it seems that Paul met the Gentiles on their territory and sought to relate the gospel to their understanding and to their perceptions. Likewise, 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 may be teaching us to mirror culture to some extent so that the gospel might impact them more.
Presupposition of Biblical truth
While both groups maintain that the Bible is objective truth that must be presented to culture, the former group believes that its truth is in essence contradictory to culture-and offensive-and to present it within culturally accepted norms would be to distort the truth itself. The latter group, however, believes that the truth of the Bible is in essence desirable and liberating to culture and thus we need to present it as such-appealing to cultural needs and desires. It seems that both groups have a confidence in Biblical truth as absolute truth.
Emerging church
A third approach that has arisen in the last 20 years is modeled by the emerging church. This group has shifted the debate to the issue of truth itself. No longer are we concerned with how we present the truth of the Bible-which we already know. Now we are concerned with epistemology: how we come to know truth in the first place, specifically the truth of the Bible, if truth is even able to be known. For the emerging church, the discussion has shifted from the shape of evangelical methodology to the “shape of evangelical theology in the emerging postmodern context”[13] (emphasis mine). The reason for this discussion is that our American culture’s epistemology is shifting. Consequently, if we are going to reach the culture with the gospel, our epistemology must be relevant.
Don Carson says, “By and large the focus of the emergent[14] movement is on perceived shifts in epistemology, including the many implications of these shifts in social dynamics.”[15] This cultural shift in epistemology is part of a philosophy/worldview called “postmodernism.” And the result of the postmodern mind-set in our culture is the end of a single, universal worldview.[16] Instead, postmodernism advocates that our knowledge is always incomplete, that truth is community-based, and more radically that there is no absolute truth.[17] The emerging church has recognized and, to some extent, adopted this shift in epistemology so that they might better reach our culture. Carson further comments on the emerging church’s understanding of postmodernism:
[begin block quotation]In many respects I agree with that understanding. Even though the roots of the movement go back a long way, the last few decades have witnessed a substantial shift in Western culture’s approach to truth and our perceived ability to know truth. This has been accompanied by a decline in absolutism, an increase in perspectivalism (the view that all claims to truth are finally no more than different perspectives), a decreased confidence in reason and the possibility of knowing any objective reality, and an increased emphasis on other virtues such as relationships, affective responses, and the importance of community and therefore of tradition.[18] [end block quotation]Changing epistemology
Although the emerging church movement is certainly subject to criticism, one thing it has gotten right is its observation of the changing epistemology of our culture.[19] This is absolutely crucial because if we don’t understand how the culture perceives truth, we will be ineffective in persuading people of any one particular truth. In other words, if someone rejects the idea that absolute truth exists, it would be fruitless to argue for the exclusivity or superiority of Christ. That approach presupposes the existence of absolute truth and its ability to be debated and thus alienates our audience. It’s just like the cut-down you heard in middle school: “Why is your momma so ugly?” This question presupposes the ugliness of your momma and leaves the defender with no ability to answer adequately. He or she is trapped and cannot begin to engage in conversation because the questioner has (intentionally) built on a presupposition that has no basis.
Humility
With this understanding of the way our culture thinks, how can we effectively reveal Biblical truth to people? First, we need to strive for more humility. We need humility in interpreting Scripture; we need humility in evaluating our own lives; we need humility in reaching the unsaved. Postmodernism lends itself toward uncertainty and ambiguity concerning truth. So it’s easy to see why a more black-and-white, matter-of-fact approach might come across as arrogant.
Further, there is something to learn from postmodernism’s approach to truth. Truth is not always black and white. Truth is inherently complex-especially theological truth. A cursory glance at church history reveals the ongoing pursuit of theological truth and the many controversies that ensued. Scripture certainly is sufficient and able to be understood, but truth revealed about an infinite Being Who is infinitely complex beyond our imagination will necessarily be difficult to ascertain and will never be exhausted. I think one of the most significant flaws in preaching and teaching today is the assumption of simplicity. We can know the truth of Scripture and we can know it truly, but we will never know it exhaustively. We must reflect our finiteness in our studies and teaching. And as we recognize the wide gap between our understanding of God and the reality of God Himself, our humility will become quite visible to the postmodern culture.[20]
Listening
Second, we need to work harder to meet our culture where it is. Anyone can preach Christ. But without a context, the gospel does not have much meaning. When Paul preached to Jews, he built on their Old Testament foundation and presented Christ as the Messiah.[21] When he preached to Gentiles, he began with creation and laid an entire worldview before them that pointed to Christ.[22] Perhaps we need to engage our culture on the issues of truth and meaning before we introduce them to The Truth. Ultimately, The Truth will never be divorced from epistemology, yet we need to listen to what people are saying and try to answer their questions rather than speak in terminology and categories they do not recognize.
Does this mean we abandon our epistemology or our understanding of truth? Absolutely not. And neither do we buy wholeheartedly into postmodernism, as it seems the emerging church has done. But we must not be tied to modern epistemology either.
“Postmodernism is surely open to serious critique and has been challenged on a number of fronts by a variety of scholars. Christians must not fail in the end to engage postmodernism critically where that is required. At the same time, they must be open to what postmodernism can teach us positively as a needed corrective to modernity. And in either case, we must first of all thoroughly and fairly understand the emerging intellectual ethos if we are to embody and proclaim the gospel convincingly in the postmodern situation“[23] (emphasis mine).
As we seek to engage our culture with Biblical truth, we need to learn from postmodernism’s recognition of the complexity of truth. Biblical truth is certainly culturally relevant. But if cultural relevance recognizes the complexity of truth, then we might also see some cultural relevance in Biblical truth. Let us humble ourselves and say with the apostle Paul: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord?”[24]
[1] Matthew 5:13, 14, 16.
[2] 2 Corinthians 5:18-20.
[3] Ephesians 2:1-3.
[4] Matthew 28:20.
[5] 1 Peter 1:3-5.
[6] Romans 1:18-32; Acts 17:16-34.
[7] Os Guinness, Prophetic Untimeliness (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 13.
[8] 1 Corinthians 2:11-16.
[9] John 6:44; Philippians 1:6.
[10] 2 Corinthians 5:20; Romans 10:17.
[11] Philippians 2:12, 13.
[12] In other words, if truth is objective, can we really know it?
[13] Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), ix.
[14] Although Carson uses the word “emerging” rather than “emergent,” there has arisen a distinction between the two terms since his book was published. “Emergent” is the term ascribed to the more radical group of churches/theologians who have changed theologically as well as methodologically. This is the group Carson is predominately alluding to in his book, so I have substituted the term “emergent” where he uses “emerging.”
[15] D. A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 58.
[16] Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, 11, 12.
[17] Ibid., 8.
[18] Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 75.
[19] I recognize that the movement has both strengths and weaknesses. D. A. Carson provides a well-balanced critique of the movement in Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church.
[20] See pages 116-124 in Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church for an excellent discussion regarding epistemology.
[21] Acts 13:14-43.
[22] Acts 17:16-34.
[23] Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, xi.
[24] Romans 11:33, 34, ESV.
