Christian culture

 I recently listened to a seminar given by John Smith at greenbelt 07, in which he talked about making the gospel relevant to culture. One of the subjects he covered was how we need to take the form of culture - the means of expression, and adapt the gospel to it, to work within it. This got me thinking, though: if you can take the form of a culture, and express something new within it (like the Celtic Christians did with their culture), then what are the implications of this for a Church that seems to have its own culture?

 I love the culture I've experienced in the Church - the ways of talking, in-jokes, etc. However, there is a way in which this tendency gives me cause for concern. One way (which has been spoken about plenty before), is it can lead the church away from the world (it was called to be 'in the world', if you recall), and so 'Church culture' can end up making christians less relevant, and so be a stubling block to faith.

 The second is more worrying. If you can take a culture and express the gospel within it, with the culture still looking Celtic, or Nepali, or English, then who's to say you can't take the Christian culture, and hide something in that, with it still looking, outwardly, Christian? John Smith gives an example of this. One of the early heretics, who advocated monism rather than trinitarianism (seems abstract I know), had many people believe him because he wrote good praise music. That is to say, people didn't realise he was a heretic, because his message was encapsulated in something that looked Christian, on the outside.

 So, what does this mean to the Church today? For one, I think we need to think carefully, when we hear Christians preaching, or churches acting, about whether their message is in line with the Gospel. I don't presume to have the authority to do this for you, but here's a couple of examples.

 One of these is from Britian, at the time of the British empire - it feels to me that plenty of people (but not everyone) used Christian language, while justifying the most horrible acts: the conquest and oppression of other countries, and the slave trade, being among these. The film 'Joyeux Noel' captures this most powerfully for me, where a bishop is portrayed encouraging a group of soldiers to fight. Although he starts by reading scripture, uses Christian language, and all the form of a mass, what he says is completely off the page (you can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQir3WYIAAw)

 Another example is how some churches in the US, while using Christian language, don't seem to preach the whole of the gospel:

'Patriotic pastors insist that America is a Christian nation without questioning the places in distant and recent history where America has not looked like Christ. Rather than placing our hope in a transnational church that embodies God's kingdom, we assume America is God's hope for the world, even when it doesn't look like Christ. Dozens of soldiers who have contacted us confess a paralyzing identity crisis as they feel the collision of their allegiances. At the same time, many Christians are questioning whether God is blessing these wars and whether it's enough for our money to say "In God We Trust" while the daily reality of the global economy seems out of sync with God's concern for the poor'- Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw (Jesus for President)

 It's not always easy to distinguish between authentic Christianity, and false teaching, but I hope that I've been able to make things a little clearer. Often, 'false teaching' is propagated simply by people who don't know any better, and don't realise what they're doing. Anyway, may the spirit guide you to what is right and true, and the powers of this world have no hold upon your life,

Tim