Every now and again I pick up a book that I feel I should really enjoy. And yet, for one reason or another, it simply does not “click.” Unfashionable by Tullian Tchividjian is just such a book. It has been widely praised by Christians I respect and its six (!) pages of endorsements contain a veritable who’s who of prominent Evangelicals, each of whom tells of his esteem for the book and its author. And yet, after reading it through twice, I have significant concerns.
Unfashionable is about making a difference in the world by being different. The point Tchividjian tries to drive home throughout the book is this: Christians make a difference in this world by being different from the world; they don’t make a difference by being the same. And certainly we have seen the inevitable fallout from too many Christians who have done just the opposite, chasing every trend in a vain attempt to win the world by being nearly indistinguishable from the world. “In contrast, I’m asking you to embrace the delicious irony Christ demonstrated in bringing a message of God’s kingdom that subversively transforms both individuals and the world. Only by being properly unfashionable can we engage our broken world with an embodied gospel that witnesses to God’s gracious promise of restoration, significance, and life.” And so, through this book, Tchividjian seeks to give a clear picture of what it means to live “subversively and redemptively—for God and his expanding kingdom.”
He divides the book into four sections, making it well-structured and easy to follow. In The Call, he calls upon Christians to be different from the world, and to be, well, unfashionable by the world’s standards; in The Commission he calls upon Christians to be agents of renewal in the world; in The Community he shows what unfashionable Christians look like and how they live; in The Charge he gives that final charge, that final call, to make a difference by being different.
The section I most enjoyed was The Community. Here Tchividjian, showing his skill as a teacher of God’s Word, teaches from the book of Ephesians, showing six ways that God tells Christians to be different. He teaches on truth, righteous anger, generosity, edifying words, kindness and love. It is a good section that simply calls Christians to be different and shows from Scripture, carefully and consistently, how Christians are to do that.
Where I struggled most was in The Commission. Here Tchividjian teaches theology of God’s kingdom that I just was not able reconcile with Scripture. This is not to say that what he writes is unbiblical but rather that it strikes me as being nonbiblical. He writes about transformationalism, the view that God seeks to redeem and renew not just people but nations and cultures. I feel inadequate to really critique this kind of theology, so wish to tread very carefully here.
My concern is that such theology emphasizes the continuity between the world today and the world after the consummation of history and does so at the expense of the kind of radical discontinuity Scripture teaches. I know that when history is consummated in Christ, we will not go to some kind of ethereal cloud-land heaven. No, the Bible teaches that we will spend eternity on a renewed earth. We will live in bodies that, somehow, are still our bodies. At the same time, these bodies will rot and turn to dust and there is some reason to believe from Scripture that the earth itself will undergo that kind of a transformation. So there will be some genuine continuity between life now and life hereafter. As we read Scripture we wrestle with reconciling both continuity and discontinuity.
Yet as I read Unfashionable I saw much greater emphasis on continuity and all that this then entails. “God promises nothing short of total cosmic renewal. Our confident anticipation of that renewal—our living hope of it—triggers and sustains our excitement and motivation for making a difference by living unfashionable lives. It links us with something so grand and glorious that it easily exposes the flimsy lie behind mere fashionability.” And so Tchividjian tells us that we need to take part in God’s work of “revitalization” and says that we have been redeemed by God to “become agents of renewal.” Without offering clear Scriptural proof he puts forth statements such as “Churches are designed by God to be instruments of renewal in the world, renewing not only individual lives but also cultural forms and structures, helping to make straight all that is crooked in our world.” Now certainly Christians will be instruments of renewal, at least to some degree, but I do not find Scripture teaching that the church is to concern itself, at least primarily, with renewing cultural forms and structures.
He says also that “the New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus intends to bring about the restoration of all things—he’s working in the direction of total transformation.” At one point he says “By fulling engaging in every area of culture—education, art, politics, business, media, science—we’re following Paul’s example” at which point he quotes 1 Corinthians 9:22. And yet I do not see Paul’s concern with culture except as a means to reach souls. Without laying out my concerns with the potential cost of such theology to the church and to the Christian’s life, I will simply say that I do not see that the Bible teaches such an emphasis.
While such theology is found primarily in only one of the book’s four sections, it does provide a foundation for much of what follows. And in that way I found that it tainted what followed.
So I suppose I wouldn’t say that Unfashionable is a bad book and it is certainly not an unbiblical book. But I do feel that much of what Tchividjian teaches falls under the realm of nonbiblical. At the very least I would say that one section of this book majors on what Scripture at best regards as a minor. And hence it may just serve to distract people rather than focusing them on what the book does so well in calling people to make a difference by being different. I believe it would have been a stronger book without the emphasis (or over-emphasis) on transforming culture.
Comments (84) »
1. Tim H.
May 5, 2009
9:42 AM
I’ve heard Mark Dever raise concerns with similar issues, Tim. He holds (as I believe the bible does) that the only cosmic renewal is the new heaven and new earth yet to come.
Thanks for having the courage to raise concern here. I think you’re right on.
2. Mark J
May 5, 2009
9:52 AM
Tim,
Would this maybe fall under “Postmillennialism” as opposed to non biblical? A post millennial view is one biblical understanding of the current rule and reign of Christ over all things even now? Another question to ask, without having read the book yet, does God care about this world or just about souls? He did create this world. Just some thoughts.
3. Sam
May 5, 2009
10:02 AM
Tim…surely you are aware of Post-millennialism?
read Doug Wilson’s new book, “Heaven Misplaced”
sample here:
http://www.canonpress.org/forms/HeavenMisplaced_PP.pdf
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the lord of hosts will perform this. (Is. 9:6–7)
4. Glenn
May 5, 2009
10:12 AM
Sounds like Pastor Tchividjian is a good fit for Coral Ridge and the legacy developed by Dr. Kennedy who sought to transform both hearts and minds by which cultural transformation would follow. The struggle between continuity and discontinuity is not new and reminds me of something Dallas Willard once said. I don’t remember the exact quote but he basically stated that if we agree the Kingdom is “now and not yet”, why do we emphasize the not yet over the now?
5. Grego
May 5, 2009
10:13 AM
Thanks for your many book reviews and your honesty in this review.
Can you help me differentiate between “unbiblical” and “nonbiblical”?
6. Alfie
May 5, 2009
10:20 AM
Tchividjian might be a preterist to one degree or another.
7. Gary
May 5, 2009
10:22 AM
Something unbiblical would be something explicitly contrary to Scripture.
Something nonbiblical would be something not explicitly endorsed by Scripture.
8. Preston G. Scrape
May 5, 2009
10:25 AM
I don’t think “radical continuity” is a very uncommon belief. If I understand his position correctly, Randy Alcorn has been writing books advancing it for years.
I appreciate the distinction between unbiblical and nonbiblical. It isn’t that they’re arguing against Scripture per se, but rather that they have built up a theology around an issue that is given little attention in Scripture, using an interpretation that, by virtue of scant evidence, could very well be wrong.
Or, to use the evangelical cliche, they’re “majoring on minors”.
In some cases that’s nothing to worry about. In others, well, if a nonbiblical principle is exaggerated to be unbiblical, then what you have is called a cult.
9. Mike Davenport
May 5, 2009
10:27 AM
I came from a Dispensational background. Several years ago I read some books with an Amillenial perspective of end times. Seeeing the “unbiblical” errors of Dispensationalism, I embraced the Amillenial perspective. Recently I have been reading what some from the Post-Millenial camp have written or been writing. I must say that there are some scriptures that must be addressed or explained away if one is to think or claim that the Post-Millenial position is “unbiblical.” I encourage you to read the following article. I found it convicting. Even if you do not agree, you must rightfully ask yourself how your eschatological view is shaping your daily living. Here is a link to the article… http://www.americanvision.org/article/begg-ing-the-question-on-christian-politics/
Thanks for your blog. I am not much on reading blogs, but I do find myself visiting yours often. May God bless you.
Mike D
10. Laura
May 5, 2009
10:29 AM
I agree. As seemingly nice as Postmillennialism would be —I don’t see how we necessarily have a Biblical mandate to change our culture. Yes, we are commissioned with the responsibility to share the gospel with peoples of all cultures, but the redemption of the gospel seems to be focused on the redemption of individual souls rather than an entire culture. Not to say that the gospel cannot change an entire culture, it surely can to God’s glory. But, I don’t think that God has called us to “change the world” or even to share the gospel with the explicit purpose of changing the world.
Thanks for the review!
11. Joy
May 5, 2009
10:29 AM
Mr. Challies,
Thank you for your diligent work to “inform the reforming”. I’ve found your posts, on the whole, to be thought-provoking and instructive.
This review, however, raised some questions in my mind. Regarding cultural transformation being “nonbiblical”: Would you say that when we pray, as Christ taught us, “Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven” we refer solely to an eschatological kingdom following Christ’s return? Would you say that the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations, teaching them all that Christ has commanded, has no implications for reforming the cultural fabric of those nations? Would you say that Calvin’s emphasis on (and consequent accomplishment of) cultural transformation in 16th-century Geneva was a “nonbiblical” priority rather than the logical outworking of his rigorously biblical theology?
As a 19-year-old student considering the future of this culture, I find it difficult to fathom that we’re working to proclaim the Gospel, yet not expecting that Gospel, as God effectively applies it to the hearts of His people, to transform culture. It seems to me that the Gospel inevitably transforms people, and transformed people mean transformed culture, as culture is determined by the hearts of the people, either godly or idolatrous. As Cornelius van Til expressed it, “Culture is religion externalized.”
12. Sam
May 5, 2009
10:33 AM
“It seems to me that the Gospel inevitably transforms people, and transformed people mean transformed culture, as culture is determined by the hearts of the people, either godly or idolatrous. As Cornelius van Til expressed it, “Culture is religion externalized.””
Joy nails it!
13. Darryl Dash
May 5, 2009
10:37 AM
It’s always hard - impossible, actually - to put the same weight as Scripture does on issues. But Unfashionable is helpful, I think, in reminding us of something that is often ignored. There is an already - not yet tension in Scripture. The kingdom is breaking in; God cares about the material world; yet our final hope for renewal will only come when the entire world is renewed.
This is why C.S. Lewis said that Christianity is a fighting religion. You see this theme developed by Kuyper, and explained in books like Mike Wittmer’s Heaven is a Place on Earth.
You are right that it’s possible to overemphasize this - but I am not sure Tullian does. I think he is reminding us of something that is important but often missed.
14. David Anderson
May 5, 2009
11:06 AM
Thanks for your thoughtfulness and clarity here. Very helpful.
15. Terry Rayburn
May 5, 2009
11:10 AM
1. True, Jesus modeled a prayer for “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”.
But He is the same Jesus that said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
2. Also true, that salvation changes the hearts of men, and changed hearts change culture.
But because the way is narrow and FEW there are that find it, the culture will always be dominated by the MANY who are lost.
Yet in the midst of sinful culture He has promised to build His church.
Be salt and light, engage the culture, but don’t be discouraged by Caesars and Obamas who bring havoc to Geneva.
3. Post-millennial optimism would be admirable if it wasn’t so silly. It comes from a pre-supposition which is quixotic (as in Don Quixote, valiant but dreaming the impossible). Then a quasi-biblical case is built on this false pre-supposition that Christ came to build a semi-heaven on earth.
Or to put it another way, if transforming culture to the point of a semi-heaven on earth was to be our goal, we have failed miserably.
I know, I can hear the PM’s wailing, “So far, my naive laddy, but we will conquer culture in the end!”
Please :)
16. Dan Odom
May 5, 2009
11:12 AM
It is so easy to jump on band wagons even when they are “good” ones in an effort to be “cutting edge” in the ministry. Tim, I appreciate your insight and what actually is a loving example of the book you wrote on discernment. A perfect example of how we need to think through every issue and “movement” from Scripture. Let Scripture direct us and then move accordingly. May we remain sensitive to our culture but stay focused on souls… that message has never changed.
17. Lerrina
May 5, 2009
11:16 AM
Tim,
As often happens, your thoughts provide good foder for making us think (and comment :-). A few thoughts came to my mind as I read which have been touched on above.
One - The reason Tullian appears to be a good fit for Coral Ridge is because reforming culture was one prong of D. James Kennedy’s ministry. An important part to him, I believe.
Two - Doug Wilson, from Moscow, Idaho, and the CREC would agree wholeheartedly with the section on Community which made you uncomfortable. Obviously. Wilson has written numerous books and articles which sound very similar to what you shared.
I would also like to state I agree with Joy - in this way. The Great Commission was to ‘go’ and ‘preach’ and ‘make disciples’. The natural outflow of this does change society. However there is very real danger in our getting the cart before the horse.
On the other hand, your view of eschatology - as stated in other comments - will effect how you take the statements Tullian made, and how ‘comfortable’ you are with them. Thus I will say at the outset I believe, wholeheartedly, Christ is reigning and ruling, right now, upon this earth.
He has won His kingdom. He is putting all His enemies under His feet. On the other hand, just like the disciples, we tend to have a mental picture of what this looks like and how it is to be done. However, like the disciples, I think we are in danger of making some false assumptions. Let me attempt to support this statement.
One - The general lack of evangelism which permeates our churches today. Most believers, in fact many churches, have absolutely no desire to evangelize the lost. They not only ‘feel’ uncomfortable doing so, they see it as secondary or at least not that important. Yet, unfortunately, we are gaining momentum as the ‘voice’ against… . (whatever). In other words, it is more fashionable to speak against the wrongs (and they are WRONG) in society than to speak to a man’s need for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, alone!
Two - The lack of truly biblical preaching. Our churches are sick. While some pastors still attempt to exegete a text (and a few do it VERY well), many are content to talk about a topic which interests them and use the Bible as one of their resources. As a result, some pastors, (Dr. Kennedy for one - please don’t misunderstand me - for many reasons I highly respected the man), spend much of their time showing us the direction our culture is headed instead of opening a text and showing us the way our own hearts are headed.
I walk with a bit of trepidation as I speak on the next two points. I do so speaking solely from my own experience. Thus, I realize I am open to GREAT error in my judgment. I also want to state it is not my desire to belittle the work being done by these ministries, only to point out some errors which seem to have flowed from what, I believe, is as Tim put it a ‘nonbiblical’ focus.
Three - The current direction of Coral Ridge Ministries. For many years I found D. James Kennedy a refreshing change from many TV preachers. Back before I had fast enough internet to download and listen to a sermon, he was one person I could enjoy listening to when I could not make it to church.
However, since his passing, the ministry of Coral Ridge seems to have changed direction. The focus, at least in what I have seen (TV, mail, and now by phone) is purely a social gospel. I am NOT saying this is what is coming from the pulpit. Nonetheless, the TV programs which they are now producing and the mailings which they are now sending out have this as their focus. Furthermore, the ministry is now phoning previous contributors asking for support. THIS is not what the church is all about. I also believe this is NOT what Pastor Kennedy would have wanted to be his legacy.
Four - The CREC is also heading in a dangerous direction. The churches within their circle have taken a different twist. They now hold tightly to a ‘covenental’ form of doctrine. A doctrine which teaches children are ‘in covenent’ with God by being born into Christian families. I won’t go any further into this except to say, this is very close to the false doctrine which Paul addresses in Galatians.
Thus, as Christians, I believe we need to be wary of anything which focuses on something other than the saving power of Jesus Christ’s work on the cross to transform the lives of individual believers. The social aspects will flow naturally and society will be changed to the degree He wants it changed as we focus on the essentials of salvation by faith and a life conformed to the truths of Scripture.
18. Nick Mitchell
May 5, 2009
11:20 AM
Tim,
I really appreciate your distinction between un-biblical and non-biblical. However, I am a little torn by your critique. Sometimes people can be faddish about emphasizing things like “save the earth” or “redeem arts and culture” or whatever. However, It is very biblical to say that Jesus is out, “…to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven.” Jesus is the maker of all things. He is now seated as Lord because of his resurrection from the dead. So Jesus is taking back all that is rightfully his. This doesn’t just apply to arts and culture but all things. This is a very biblical way of expressing what Christian living is all about. We have been reconciled to God by the blood of Christ and now we are to live our lives daily in a way that points to Christ’s lordship over all things.
19. Bryan C. McWhite
May 5, 2009
11:22 AM
Joy,
Amen and amen. Well said!
20. RC
May 5, 2009
12:20 PM
Thanks for the Van Til quote Joy. I believe it was actually Henry Van Til, Cornelius’ nephew, who made that statement. It is a gem.
21. Joy
May 5, 2009
12:41 PM
Yes, I miswrote; it was Henry, not Cornelius, van Til.
Thank you for the correction, RC. :)
22. Ann
May 5, 2009
1:02 PM
“Yes, we are commissioned with the responsibility to share the gospel with peoples of all cultures, but the redemption of the gospel seems to be focused on the redemption of individual souls rather than an entire culture.”
That is exactly the thinking that books like this are trying to change. And this thinking is biblical. You don’t have to read more than 3 chapters in Genesis to find it.
After God created the world and humans, He said that it was good. Not just us, but all of His creation. In the fall of Adam, it isn’t just humankind that fell from grace, but all of creation fell alongside of Adam. God curses the ground, not just Adam. So why would God’s plan of redemption be only a redemption of souls? Why would God’s redemption not encompass the whole of his good creation? Just as the fall had cosmic implications, so is God’s redemption cosmic in scope. To say that this is non-biblical is just not true.
23. Stephen Jones
May 5, 2009
1:07 PM
Thank you so much for addressing this Tim! My church has completely bought into this phraseology and it makes me uncomfortable as well. I have yet to see where it is supported in Scripture and often makes me cringe at its me/world-centered-ness. What ends up happening, and I see this at my own church, is that helping people becomes the gospel. According to them, Jesus came to feed people physically. It is not sin he came to conquer, but war and famine and disease. Obviously those are byproducts that will be conquered eventually but not now. If we want real change in the world we need to make disciples, that will bring change, but as a byproduct of replacing those who are dead in sin with those who are alive in Christ, loving virtue and loving holiness.
Spurgeon said we must live in the context of death. When someone stands before judgement and looks at there life, is that peace of bread that we gave them going to matter, or is it the gospel that we preached to them?
24. Mason
May 5, 2009
1:19 PM
Tim’s main concern seems to be summed up in this sentence:
“I will simply say that I do not see that the Bible teaches such an emphasis.”
The only thing needed to prove the above wrong is to show that the author’s emphasis is the same as that which is found in the New Testament. If such an emphasis exists those who agree with the author should be able to present substantial evidence from the New Testament. Keep in mind that a couple of proof-texts do not constitute an emphasis :-)
25. Jonny
May 5, 2009
1:43 PM
i have difficulty making my mind up on this one…it all really depends on whatis meant by “transforming culture”. does it mean, sharing the gospel, that the lives of those around us our transformed? and/or living out a christian life, i.e. living unfashionably with truth, righteous anger, generosity, edifying words, kindness and love, and so making a difference in the communities we’re in. or is the debate just over how successful we’ll be in changing those around us by our unfashionable lives? if so, does it make a difference?
on another note, having listened to some of his sermons, i’m pretty sure tchividjian wouldn’t ascribe to a postmillenial position, and it seems slightly unfair to slate him for it on the basis of a couple of quotes..
26. Darryl
May 5, 2009
1:45 PM
Mason:
The kingdom of God is that very theme. It is a major theme in the New Testament - indeed, in all of Scripture.
Rightly understood, the kingdom is both already and not yet. Lose the already and you lose the very things that Tullian writes about. Lose the not yet and you lose out on the hope of what will only come after Christ returns.
This is actually also one of the major themes in Reformed theology, which I realize is not the same as Scripture. It is far from a recent innovation or fad.
27. Mason
May 5, 2009
2:00 PM
Thank you for your reply.
“By fulling engaging in every area of culture—education, art, politics, business, media, science—we’re following Paul’s example”
Please prove that the emphasis of the “already” aspect of the Kingdom of God entails the above. Considering the sheer amount of information the New Testament contains (in a variety of literary formats) there should not be a problem of providing ample evidence if this is truly the emphasis of the early church.
28. MadTownGuy
May 5, 2009
2:02 PM
I want to preface this by saying that I am not making a direct connection between Tullian Tchividjian and Ralph Winter. I’m just saying that if you follow the “now/not yet” line of thinking as it appears to have been presented, it can very easily lead to “Kingdom Now” theology.
To see the endgame for the “now/not yet” line of thinking that really began with George Eldon Ladd, see Ralph Winter’s website:
http://www.ralphwinter.org
or, more on point,
http://www.ralphwinter.org/E/view.htm?id=149§ion=1&part=5
“Last Friday I taught Perspectives for one of the sessions of the Call students. Teri Busse was the one coordinating (and did a great job). But I was reminded of being at her wedding in the bay area when I first met Philip Johnson face to face, the famous Berkeley professor who has challenged the feasibility of what is called Darwinian evolution. Later at another meeting in the bay area I engaged him in the following conversation, as I recall it:
“Dr. Johnson, you and professor Michael Behe have certainly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the presence of intelligent design in nature. If your computer screen were suddenly to go blank and a dialogue box appeared announcing that your hard disk was wiped clean, in that case you would have no trouble assuming that an intelligent person, not some random, Darwinian process, had done the work—a virus, right?”
“Yes,” he said.
““This would be clear evidence to you of intelligent design, right, but more precisely would it not be the evidence of ‘intelligent evil design’? Aren’t computer viruses all like that? Intelligent evil?”
““Yes,” he said.
““Then, what about real viruses? Are they for the most part evidence of ‘intelligent evil design.’”
“Thoughtfully he cocked his head, “I’ll have to think about that.”
“I waited six months for him to think about that. I wrote him a letter. His response can be summarized: “Ralph I should have told you at the time we talked that I conceive of my role as one intending to undermine the theory of evolution and nothing more. In my writings I cannot even refer to God much less Satan.”
If you read Winter’s website you can reasonably conclude that he is proposing the following:
- Reinvention of the church
- Redeeming the culture, and
- Restoring the creation.
These fall neatly in line with the teachings of Winter’s associate, C. Peter Wagner, a leading proponent of New Apostolic and Dominionist teachings. The goal, then, is not a heavenly kingdom but an earthly one…
29. Darryl
May 5, 2009
2:17 PM
Mason:
Great question! What does the kingdom have to do with education, art, politics, business, media, science?
1. There are individual passages that talk about this: there is clear teaching on government as ordained by God (Romans 13), all work as service to the Lord (Colossians 3:23-24). The second half of Ephesians is application of God’s work of uniting all things in Christ, to all areas of life.
2. Second, there are major theological themes that take more than a verse or two to develop, such as a Christian view of material creation, vocation, the creation mandate, and the implications of the Lordship of God to all of life.
One can overstate the case: the apostolic teaching was not primarily about changing societal structures. But you can understate the case as well by ignoring both these individual verses, and some pretty significant themes that sweep through Scripture.
30. Nick Mitchell
May 5, 2009
2:19 PM
Thanks Darryl! You are right. The Kingdom of God is where it’s at ;-). This is the emphases of the New Testament. Jesus calms storms, he casts out demons, he heals diseases, he feeds the poor, confronts injustice and then he dies for his people so that they might have their sins forgiven and be ransomed into his kingdom. This is the kind of King that Jesus is and Christians need to show and tell this to the world. It’s interesting to note the amount of times a miracle happens in Acts and then, when someone asks “Why?”, the answer is “Jesus, the Messiah, is Lord”. We enter the kingdom through the cross and resurrection and we were created in Christ Jesus for good works. The kind of good works that show what kind of King Jesus is.
31. Joy
May 5, 2009
2:20 PM
A few more thoughts on skimming the rest of the comments thread:
While “helping people” is not the central message of the gospel, I’d humbly submit that it is by no means optional. Jesus’ description of the final judgment in Matthew 25 describes the “blessed of His Father” as those who feed the hungry, welcome the strangers, visit the sick, etc. It’s very easy to be wary of such service because of the abuses of “social gospel” folks, for whom such works of mercy are everything (they lost any other use for Christianity when they abandoned its doctrine). But, as always, to swing the other direction and abandon culture-transforming good works would be to destroy the evidence of our faith and the light that shines before men (Matt. 5:16). One could cite the epistle of James (e.g. his description of true religion in 1:27) and many other passages throughout Scripture.
Romans 8 seems to make it quite clear that redemption encompasses far more than “individual souls.” Per verse 23, we “eagerly await the adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” As we live in the already-not yet tension, surely our labor on this earth should reflect the reality of this redemption in all of its fullness as both spiritual and physical.
Additionally, unless one holds that the first recorded command God gave mankind in Genesis 1 is somehow inapplicable, certainly it is our duty to “subdue” and “take dominion” over the earth. That’s pretty comprehensive. Just a few examples: Art is a reflection, however faint, of the beauty and harmony of God’s very nature; Christians should display His glory by involvement in the arts. Mathematics and the sciences wondrously display the comprehensive order of His creation; Christians should proclaim his infinite wisdom by involvement in science. Civil government is an institution of God to restrain evil; Christians should protect those made in His image by doing what is in our power to advance justice in that realm.
While categorically rejecting “world-centeredness”, surely we must also beware of the often-subtle dualistic/gnostic tendencies far too prevalent in much of the evangelical church.
32. Lucas Knisely
May 5, 2009
2:30 PM
I plan to read this book soon, since I got it for free at the Gospel Coalition. In light of my limited knowledge of what Tullian says at length, I can only comment on what Tim has posted. I think that this passage in Matthew will be helpful…
Matthew 5:13-16
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; 15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
I think it be permitted that a natural implication from this passage is that we will (not should) rejuvenate/renew the culture around us by being salt, light, and doing good works before men. The reason I say “not should” is because Christ commands them to be salt and light SO THAT men see their good works and then glorify the Father. Jesus isn’t creating an imperative to renew the culture, but He says that we will if we obey His command.
33. Mike D
May 5, 2009
2:43 PM
Some of the comments shared depict the philosophy of the evangelical church of our day. Sadly we have offered a take-it-or-leave-it gospel - a weak gospel void of the sinful failure of the people of this nation. It is true that the kingdom of Christ will not be fulfilled until His coming. It is true that men are waxing worse and worse and will continue to do so until His coming. But it is also true that our Lord’s law is binding upon all men and all cultures. It is also true that His law is binding upon the unconverted as well as the unconverted. The ultimate renewal that is needed will come through the gospel and ONLY through the gospel. And the gospel must be accompanied by the law of God, so that sin “becomes” sin. In preaching that law and that gospel, we are seeking to be agents of renewal. If you have unconverted children, I trust you are giving them the gospel. But I also hope you are seeking to be agents of renewal in seeking to transform their culture. NOT because that will make them right. But because God should be obeyed; His law should be honored whether it comes from a heart of faith or not. If my children never cone to faith in Christ, I hope the law of God will press upon their consciences in everything they find to do.
As Christians we should seek the same for the society around us. We should press the demands of God upon others - whether it be about the sanctity of life, the holiness of the Sabbath, or sexual orientation. But we don’t stop there. We give them the gospel - the true catalyst for renewal.
Praise God, William Wilberforce was moved to bring about a reformation in his culture. May the church equip her flock for the work of ministry, both within the walls of the church and without. And may the will of our Father be done here on earth, just as it is in heaven. Now and forevermore.
34. Mason
May 5, 2009
3:13 PM
Darryl,
Thanks for the verses. I’m not following your argument in regards to Romans 13. We certainly don’t want Calvin’s Geneva - a sacralistic society in which largely unconverted people observe religious rules to avoid being punished by the magistrate. Most are ignorant of the day-to-day life in Geneva along with the role the physical magistrate played with what is supposed to be a spiritual people. “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren” by Verduin is a good place to start.
Re: Ephesians/Colossians. I agree. All of life must come under the Lordship of Christ. But this is simply Christian living. We still haven’t seen the “transformationalism” emphasis. There should be clear examples of Christians “fully engaging in every area of culture”. Or do we find more of the emphasis Tim pointed out - Paul was only “concern(ed) with culture as a means to reach souls”? Which do you find and what are the proofs?
“One can overstate the case: the apostolic teaching was not primarily about changing societal structures. But you can understate the case as well by ignoring both these individual verses, and some pretty significant themes that sweep through Scripture.”
Agreed. And I think the point Tim is making is that Tullian overstated the case.
35. Nick Mitchell
May 5, 2009
3:28 PM
Mason: If Christ is not Lord of all then he is not Lord at all. Christ is working to reconcile all things whether on earth or in heaven.
36. Nick Mitchell
May 5, 2009
3:36 PM
Or do we find more of the emphasis Tim pointed out - Paul was only “concern(ed) with culture as a means to reach souls”? Which do you find and what are the proofs?
Christ’s Lordship is bigger than you and me. It is a cosmic Lordship. That’s why Paul often uses “all things” language. We are to confront the ‘principalities and powers’ with the real Lord, Jesus the Messiah. This sort of language is found throughout Paul’s letters. To be clear, it will do no good if we display God’s kingdom to a watching world without preaching the very gospel that brings people into that kingdom. But a message without the ‘felt’ effects of Christ’s lordship over all things is not what we find in the new testament, especially Acts.
37. Mason
May 5, 2009
3:36 PM
Nick,
Would you explain how your statement relates to my statements?
(Please allow me to say that internet forums are generally terrible places to discuss issues such as this because you hear tone and see facial expressions. And emoticons can only go so far… :-) I’m not on the defensive, and my blood-pressure is only slightly higher than normal - which has more to do with coffee than anything.
38. Mason
May 5, 2009
3:42 PM
CORRECTION:
“…because you *can’t* hear tone…”
39. Nick Mitchell
May 5, 2009
3:42 PM
Mason, I am saying that I am skeptical about the statement, “Paul was only “concern(ed) with culture as a means to reach souls”. Christ is Lord over all things. Paul, at least in Ephesians, seems more concerned that Christians are saved in order that they might live out the reality of Christ’s Lordship wherever they are. Yes this is Christian living. But Christian living is about Christ’s lordship over all things not just his lordship over my individual life.
40. Mason
May 5, 2009
3:47 PM
Nick,
Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate your comments, and most certainly agree that Christ is Lord of all things.
Mason
41. Kenneth Padgett
May 5, 2009
3:53 PM
Save the people to change the culture?
Change the culture to save the people?
Save the people to glorify God…which will be expressed at some level in the culture.
Culture is the mouth, people are the heart.
Luke 6:45
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
let us use the culture to gauge the people.
let us gauge the people to find out who they are.
let us find out who they are so that we can speak to them.
let us speak to them the Gospel of the glory of Jesus Christ.
focusing on changing the culture (from the outside in) is to tamper with the gauge.
it is changing the band-aid.
Christ did not come to save a sinful culture but sinners. He is Lord of all. Let us do things His way.
42. Darryl
May 5, 2009
4:32 PM
Mason:
You ask great questions!
Re: Romans 13 - I am not arguing for theonomy; I am arguing that government - indeed, all society - falls under the Lordship of Christ, so that even unregenerate civil leaders are, in some sense, doing his bidding. There is not a part of creation that does not come under his Lordship.
This means that governing - and I am arguing, gardening, arts, business, etc. - come under his Lordship.
John Frame has written a useful article called “In Defense of Christian Activism” that argues for this view. He interacts with some of the objections as well. He concludes:
“In the general society as well as in the church, Christians should settle for nothing less than the comprehensive lordship of Jesus Christ. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. To say this is not to advocate violent revolution for Jesus’ name. He has forbidden us to take that course. But by his Word and Spirit, by his love, and by the wise use of the means available to us, we seek to exalt him, not only in the church, but in the whole world.”
43. julius mickel
May 5, 2009
4:35 PM
Very good post Tim, I second your concerns
I believe Tim is making the point that the kingdom we are fighting for is a spiritual kingdom. What exactly did the early church do to change the culture? Rome got WORSE not better, as Jesus said would happen, that He would bring a sword (not peace) that would divide!
Whether it’s reformation days (which does have some black spots,not a good reference) times of the puritans (including early America) or even the great awakenings the ‘cultural’ change was minimal or temporary (at best there was lip service but not ‘majority’ submission to the Lordship of Christ). It is something we’ve never seen and will never see.
The pasage in Mt 25 relates to not a social gospel, but to our relationship to other believers (as I John shows is a test of true conversion).
And doing our good works before men isn’t for the culture or a form of evangelism but for the Glory of God.
Jesus gave no such promises of a heaven on earth, this is what he spent His whole ministry proclaiming (my kingdom is not of this world). As regarding to Christ’s Lordship and God seeing His will accomplished, my sovereign Lord is presently doing as He pleases.
Lastly it’s just another unnecessary burden placed on churches that need to focus on preaching the gospel.
44. Mason
May 5, 2009
4:40 PM
Darryl,
Thanks for the response - That article looks like it would be worth reading. Thanks for the heads up on that.
Mason
45. Stephen Jones
May 5, 2009
7:11 PM
Thank you julius mickel! I concur.
The problem with all this “renew” the earth phraseology is that it is not backed up in scripture. The bible is pretty clear that it is just going to get worst. Jesus was clear that he came did not come to bring peace but division. When the church is faced with persecution for living out the gospel Peter does not write to them urging them to help “renew” the culture, but to endure the unjust suffering as Christ did. I believe it is clear throughout scripture that when one truly lives out the gospel they are persecuted by the culture, not rejoiced for their “good works” in helping to end poverty.
I am not saying we should not work to end poverty, I am saying that Jesus was clear that poverty was not the problem, but the symptom of a much larger problem, sin. You cannot stop poverty without changing hearts.
46. Richard
May 5, 2009
10:03 PM
This sounds like a dispute between those in the Reformed camp who advocate a “two kingdoms” approach to the world and the transformationalist approach, which Tullian appears to take, after his teacher, John Frame. I recommend you read anything by Mike Horton or Dr. Scott Clark, both of Westminster Seminary in California on the two kingdoms view; it makes more biblical sense, in my view.
47. JR
May 5, 2009
10:15 PM
Horton has some teaching audio online:
http://christurc.org/catechism_horton.html
Scroll down to Christianity and Culture. Six or seven lessons…good stuff there.
48. Tom Hardy
May 5, 2009
10:32 PM
Admittedly I have read this whole thread. However, I know quite a few Post-Mills and they are a diverse lot. Based on what Tim has revealed I think what the book is advocating is ‘Theonomy’.
Many Post-Mils I know, are actually closer to A-Mill than Theonomy.
49. Reg Schofield
May 6, 2009
7:28 AM
Good points Richard. This is exactly as I see it. I do not believe that if one exegesis the scripture honestly one can see this total re-shaping of the world. Yes as we work in our vocations and enjoy activities we will be salt and light . Plus we know a reformation and true revival can greatly influence a country but in general , the over all view of scripture is that while we are in this world we will face hatred,persecution and a constant battle with the world .
50. Tom Sturch
May 6, 2009
8:50 AM
I’m late to the party but just wanted to affirm Joy’s thoughts and add a couple.
I have a friend who says that “culture is anything twice made.” Makes sense. As God’s vice-regents over Creation God works through us to create a culture that images Him, beginning with people. It is helpful to remember that the cultural mandate (Gen 1:28) was decreed in the prelapsarian state, and so now depends upon the fullness of Christ’s work to make any progress. The Church is engaged as a partner in the same way the Woman was for Adam, to speak to Creation, separate truth from error, act on God’s Word and create a community that overcomes evil where it is found.
Mandate, yes! But don’t forget that Adam, who was arguably more capable than we, failed. We’ll get it wrong this time, too. Oy vey…
Tim’s gift for discernment is one we should all adopt as the Church pursues the World’s desperate social need. On this side of glory, error crouches at every door.
51. Ann
May 6, 2009
9:36 AM
“Lastly it’s just another unnecessary burden placed on churches that need to focus on preaching the gospel.”
To that I will say “Preach the gospel always, If necessary use words.” ~ St. Francis of Assisi
You miss the whole point. The gospel isn’t just preached for 30 minutes on Sunday and then you go back to your regular life for the week. We preach the gospel in ALL that we do. God is Lord over all. I preach the gospel when I love my daughter well, and I preach the gospel when I love my husband well, and I preach the gospel when I serve my clients well. There is no dichotomy of sacred/secular.
Abraham Kuyper said it best
“There is not a square inch
in the whole domain of our human existence
over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all,
does not cry: ‘Mine!’”
52. Kenneth Padgett
May 6, 2009
11:07 AM
Ann
I understand that Christ is Lord of all. I agree with Kuyper. St. Francis…not so much. I don’t hear Paul talking about “preaching” the gospel by washing the car or feeding your kids. I believe that you can do those to God’s glory, and therefore evidence that the gospel has power, but the good news about Christ’s substitutionary atonement, resurrection, and the gift of eternal life by faith will not be preached without words.
Maybe its a definition of “preach” that is the mix up. I believe the Biblical usage of “preach” is always done with words.
53. Terry
May 6, 2009
11:36 AM
Well our “renew the culture” church teaches that the world and the culture / people?? were put under the authority of Adam and so WE are to redeem what is ours (more or less).
I do find that unbiblical in that there is no scripture that tells us that was the purpose of Christs coming, His ministry /or the one passed on to the disciples.
Redemption belongs to the redeemer not those that need to be redeemed.
I fear this emphasis on the culture displaces the real gospel to go and tell..
Jesus said “my kingdom is not of this world” “render to Caesar ‘
When Paul wrote we are to OBEY the authorities GOD has placed over us, the pagan Romans were the rulers.
Anything that takes our focus off Christ and HIS sufficiency IN ALL THINGS is not biblical IMHO
54. Terry
May 6, 2009
2:05 PM
Amen Terry R!
The jews were looking for a political King to free them and affect the culture, so they missed Him when He came.
Evangelicals have been more active in the last 20 years than ever before, and look at the cultural mess we have.
We can not “change the culture” without God changing hearts.. That is His work and he already has them numbered.We can not expect goats to act like sheep even if the sheep are very sheepish in their lives :)
The goal of the church is to equip the saints, this distraction from the gospel does not serve God or men …Christ will come and we will have a new world and a new culture..
His Kingdom come,His will be done
His will is that the gospel be preached to all the world..send laborers out into the field. He said nothing about replanting the field, but to look for the ripe harvest .He will sort out the wheat from the tares we need just to be faithful !
55. christopher
May 6, 2009
2:06 PM
The nature of Tim’s eschatology is only tangentially relevant to this discussion, because the most important statement Tim made in his book review is “Without offering clear Scriptural proof [Tchividjian] puts forth statements…” If this is true, then it matters not that Tchividjian is post-mill and Challies is [whatever]. Tchividjian must support his “transformationalist” views with careful exegesis, not a theo/eschatological system.
56. ann
May 6, 2009
2:06 PM
“Redemption belongs to the redeemer not those that need to be redeemed.”
Then why do we bother preaching the gospel? When we preach the gospel, we are being being an agent of God’s redemption.
The argument isn’t that we aren’t suppose to be agents of redemption. It’s called the Great “Commission”. We are commissioned by God to be agents of renewal in the world. The argument relates to the scope of redemption. Is God only interested in redeeming souls or is his redemptive work cosmic in scope. I believe that He will stop at nothing short of bringing all things back to Him.
57. Tim Challies
May 6, 2009
4:20 PM
Though I haven’t commented, do know that I’m reading and enjoying the discussion here.
Interesting, Christianity Today has just posted about this. You can read it here.
58. Darryl Dash
May 6, 2009
6:56 PM
Just found this quote by Doug Moo today:
“While rarely rising to the level of an explicit emphasis, and never the chief concern in and of itself, the world of nature is an integral component of God’s new creation work.”
Hmmm. Not explicit, never the chief concern, and yet integral - no wonder we sense the tension!
59. Danny
May 6, 2009
6:57 PM
Thanks Tim for starting this discussion. A couple observations come up as I read your article and the above comments.
First, there seems to be a lot of unnecessary connections and dichotomies. Like cultural renewal is postmill, cultural renewal is social gospel, or cultural renewal is antithetical to evangelism. And dichotomies like you can’t seek cultural transformation and have evangelism as primary, or in statements like “that’s not cultural transformation, that’s Christian living.”
Second, I think it would be helpful to clarify exactly what we mean by “culture.” Culture is what humans do. There is no such thing as being human and not being apart of culture. Culture is just the product of humans living together. Mowing the lawn, writing a comment, designing a website, having a conversation, are all cultural activities. So I’m not exactly sure how Christian living is distinct from “transforming culture.” As I see it, “cultural renewal” is just another way of saying “Christian living.” “Living” translates “cultural” and “renewal” translates “Christian.”
Thirdly, it seems a lot of people are getting hung up on Tullian’s comment that “by fully engaging in every area of culture—education, art, politics, business, media, science—we’re following Paul’s example.” I just wonder what Tim and others think is the proper way of stating this. Should it be (and I’m not trying to be mean-spirited) “Christians should avoid engaging every area of culture—education, art, politics, business, media, science, are all of limits.” Or, “Christians should only participate in culture where absolutely necessary.” Or, “It just so happens that Christians, by the fact that we have to eat, have to engage in some culture.” How exactly does a Christian not fully engage in education, art, politics, business, etc.? It sounds like (and I’m not saying this is true; it just sounds like) we are trying to erect a sacred vs. secular wall. Ironically, many will probably be writing comments on blogs complaining about Obama’s pro-abortion stance tomorrow, but today they cringe at the idea that Christians should engage in politics. I’m just a little confused.
Fourthly, I think it is helpful here to state what we mean by “cultural renewal.” If by cultural renewal we mean that the hope of humanity is that Christians will be able to transform human culture into the Kingdom of God, then one is definitely correct in rejecting it. But if by cultural renewal we simply mean creating a culture within a culture, or being a transformative influence upon our culture, then I think we are right in line with our biblical mission. Of course, I should qualify that that culture within a culture is highly evangelistic. I haven’t read Tullian’s book, but I’m guessing that is what he means. After all, if Tullian is arguing for the total transformation of culture, he could hardly write about being “unfashionable.”
60. Darryl Dash
May 6, 2009
6:58 PM
P.S. Moo’s comment is about the environment directly, but in a larger sense about what we’re talking about in this post.
61. julius mickel
May 6, 2009
8:53 PM
Stephen, Kenneth, Terry,
AMEN
Oh “Danny’ boy!
I think we then must also define ‘engage’.
I do think however you made some good points but I don’t think you rightly interpreted Tim’s point.
to all,
If we keep the gospel and God’s glory central then we can’t go wrong on this. We will then honor God in every area that we are in, every calling in life (no sacred/secular). Yet we do so first and foremost for the Lord and His glory, and then with a greater realization that the problem is a spiritual one. We shouldn’t stumble as the Jews in NT times did over the kingdom, Jesus was about (they wanted heaven on earth).
Yes we do good as we are able, but we do it realizing that people need salvation not a better existence, and so we give greater attention to that greatest (that eternal) need. We vote, we exercise our rights but we don’t naively assume that because laws change people hearts change (abortion, homosexual agenda). It’s no victory to see people become more moral if they’re still going to hell!
grace and peace
62. Nick Mitchell
May 7, 2009
9:12 AM
Julius Mickel,
I agree that we need to be totally gospel centered. But by gospel centered we do not mean, “going to heaven when you die.” The gospel is never defined that way. When we talk about the gospel we are speaking of the good news that Jesus, the promised king and messiah has come, that he has died for our sins, that God raised him from the dead, and that he has been appointed as Lord over all (if you don’t believed me see how Paul defines the gospel in Romans 1). This is the gospel. So the way we live and try to influence for good is a way of saying, “look at this, this is the kind of king Jesus is and he is Lord over all things so come and join in”. The ‘problem’ with the Jews was not that they were concerned about God rescuing our world (this is what new creation is all about) but that they would somehow bring it about by violent revolution rather than the gracious intervention of Jesus.
63. Nick Mitchell
May 7, 2009
9:21 AM
I want to subscribe to the comments so I’m just writing this comment for that very purpose. Hooray!
64. MKB
May 7, 2009
9:39 AM
Both Nancy Pearcy (Total Truth) and Al Wolters (Creation Regained) provide lengthy discussion on the biblical foundation for a transformational viewpoint.
65. Ann
May 7, 2009
9:40 AM
I believe we need to be all out Christ centered. I heard an interesting comment last night…..during the Reformation we replaced a flesh and bones pope with a paper one.
66. Chris
May 7, 2009
10:08 AM
If the mandate of Christians is to renew this world as transformationalism argues, why then given the fact that the number of Christians has grown exponentially throughout history, has so little, if any, progress been made. The last century was the bloodiest in human history, this one isn’t looking too promising either and slavery in more rampant than it has ever been.
It just seems to me that if we are to look at Christianity using the transformationalist paradigm then we would have to say that up until this point it has been a huge failure.
But if we judge Christianity by its biblical mandate then it has been a complete success by being the bride of Christ and faithfully waiting for the bridegrooms return while at the same time ministering to every soul that our sovereign God chooses to regenerate.
67. Nick Mitchell
May 7, 2009
10:18 AM
Chris,
The idea that we are to build for God’s kingdom in the present is not the same thing as the theory of evolutionary progress. We know that only God builds his Kingdom and we have to wait for the day when all sin, evil and death will be ‘put to rights’. In response to your argument I would not say that a person like William Wilberforce was a great failure.
68. Nick Mitchell
May 7, 2009
10:24 AM
I think that Wright’s distinction between building for God’s Kingdom and building God’s Kingdom is an important one.
69. Jason
May 7, 2009
10:39 AM
I’m wondering if the focus should be on individual transformation through evangelism and discipleship and as people become changed and go to their jobs and their home and their families, they disciple others, which would lead to kind of a grass roots cultural renewal.
Jason
www.redeemingriches.wordpress.com
70. Nick
May 7, 2009
10:53 AM
Nick,
The way I have heard this stuff preached, evolutionary progress is precisely what the goal is. The goal is to set this planet right again. To “bring about the restoration of all things”. I’m just saying that if that is the true mandate of Christianity, and not just the latest evangelical faddish bandwagon, then all you have to do is look at the condition of the world today and ask yourself how successful has Christianity been up to this point? And I’m not interested in stories of good things that Christians have done. I realize that they have done good things, but that isn’t the point. The bar is set far higher than that by this teaching. We should expect to see “the restoration of all things” by our actions not just good works done in the midst of a perverse world. I think the world is just as perverse if not more so than it has ever been.
At this point no one can say with a straight face that this planet has been to any significant degree restored. And they also cant say that Jesus will not return to this earth tomorrow. Therefore no one can teach with authority that this world is going to be restored by our efforts. They would merely be guessing that, one-the world will not get even worse as it did over the last century and two - that Jesus will delay His returning long enough for this process of restoration to happen,
As far a Wilberforce goes; If you would say that in reference to my argument, then you don’t understand my argument.
71. Chris
May 7, 2009
10:56 AM
Above post is by Chris and not Nick.
72. Nick Mitchell
May 7, 2009
11:12 AM
Chris,
I understand that many people talk like they are somehow bringing in the Kingdom by their own efforts. That is classic liberalism. I want to make it clear that that is not what we are arguing for. If I were presenting the gospel to someone I would make it clear that the world is a ‘perverse’ place and that it is not getting any better. I would not say, “Now let’s fix this world once and for all.”
But there is the gospel truth that Jesus is Lord. This has huge implications for the way we live our lives in the present. If Jesus is reigning then we, by the Spirit, ought to show people what this looks like. What does life look like when Jesus reigns? Well it causes us to look at injustice and do all we can to put a stop to it whether that be buying a pair of shoes for our neighbor or trying to change laws so that blacks are treated the same as whites. This all points to a great reality, namely, the Kingdom of God. Now, we always have to remember that people are not brought into the Kingdom by having good things done to them; people are brought into the kingdom when they believe on Christ. However, we were created in Christ for good works. We were created in Christ to show the world what it looks like when Jesus sits on the right hand of God. And we can always be confident that, as Paul says in 1 Cor. 15, that what we do is not in vain.
73. Jason
May 7, 2009
11:39 AM
This discussion is probably winding down by now, but it seems that most people think that “Creation Renewal” (or however you want to name it) is limited to “post”-mil believers. I’m a-mil and I see the Scripture speaking of complete “Cosmic” recovery in Christ.
The eschatological thrust of the O.T. is the coming Kingdom of God as the restoration of all things in the Servant (Christ) through the overthrow of the curse, the putting an end to the estrangement that marks all of creation, and the entrance into God’s “Shalomic” Rest. The “New Heavens and New Earth” as the consummative end point so prevalent in the Scripture seems to suggest the total Redemption/Recovery in Christ of this present creation (albiet with “discontinuity” as well, as someone else has pointed out).
The N.T., as simply the interpretation of the fulfillment of the O.T. in Christ, continues this “Cosmic” eschatological thrust. Jesus, the Servant/Disciple/Messiah, Son of David, Seed of Abraham and Seed of the “Woman”, has come in fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant (or, as He and the N.T. writers put it, the fulfillment of the Scripture in full) and has established His Kingdom, the Kingdom of God…now…here…where He will one day return. The Kingdom is present and growing “now”, though we still await the “not yet” of the final consummation.
But as the O.T emphasizes (and as the N.T. agrees), the Kingdom of God is nothing less than the renewal of all things. The eschatological thrust of the Scripture is the restoration of God’s creation AS His Kingdom in the “summing up of all things in Christ”. Of course, the redemption of “man” (individual/personal redemption) is the primary focus of this renewal because he is “image-bearer” and from the beginning God’s relationship with His creation was directed primarily through Man as His “co-regent” (as we like to say). In the beginning we were called to manifest our humanity (as “image-bearers”) by continuing to cultivate “shalom” throughout the earth.
I must define how I’m using “shalom” here:
Influenced greatly by Cornelius Plantinga, Wolters, Wolterstorff and others in the “Kuyperian” mold, I’m defining Shalom (roughly) as: That state of harmony within the created order in which every created thing finds itself in perfect conformity to itself and its created function and therefore relates with integrity, in truth, to every other created thing (and to God Himself) thereby contributing to the mutual flourishing and “good” of God’s creation.
As those who’ve been “born again” (transformed) and have experienced the first-fruits of Christ’s “Cosmic” redemption, our cultural directive has not changed. We’re called to continue to manifest our (now restored) “image-bearing” nature by cultivating “shalom” throughout the earth. Primarily, of course, this is understood as spreading the Gospel so others will be transformed and enter into the “shalom” of God’s rest; but we don’t stop there. We live our lives wherever God has placed us as “agents of transformation/renewal” by the power of the Spirit as we simply live out our lives according to our calling—as “image-bearers”.
Our calling beyond the witness of the Gospel to individuals is to affect the renewal of our culture by simply being who we are as Christians in every area of our lives. We can, in a sense, “redeem” culture by living out our true humanity (recovered in the True Man, Jesus Christ) within culture. This is not to say that “things will get better” necessarily (as this thread seems to portray this line of thinking); but it is to say that we are to live in the world recognizing that it too will one day experience its own redemption in Christ, and that the “good” that we’ve made of culture as “image-bearers” (even the “good” that has come from *gasp* “non-believers”) will be redeemed and “perfected” at the consummation.
Anyway, that’s my “2-cents” worth—or, by the length of this, my “buck-fifty” worth :-)
As an amillenialist I’m very appreciative of the focus of the book in question. Too often I see Christians “living for heaven” rather than living here…where God has put us. To be engaging culture the way the author expresses does no damage to the importance of “making disciples of Christ”. In fact, I would say that it is the better way to do so because we will then be witnessing the full Gospel with a whole and integrated faith that sees all of creation as finding its destiny in Christ.
…or something like that! :-)
74. Chris
May 7, 2009
11:52 AM
Nick,
I understand and agree with what you said in your last post. You are attributing arguments to me that I am not making. I am critiquing something very specific.
I think it is precisely theological liberalism that it rearing its head again. Different flavor this time but in essence it is the same old error making its rounds again. That is why I agree that what we are seeing in our culture today isn’t post-modernism it is MOST-modernism. That is why Machen’s book “Christianity and Liberalism” could have just as easily been written today. But that is a rabbit trail we don’t need to go down.
In order for me to think that our good works are in vain I would first have to accept the premise that the purpose of our good works is to bring about ” the restoration of all things”, which I don’t.
In my view our actions have eternal significance (because they glorify God) and therefore are never in vain regardless of how effective they are in transforming the culture as a whole.
It is the other view that says the purpose of our actions is to bring about the restoration of all things that would have to view good works as being in vain if they failed to cause the cultural transformation they were trying to bring about.
75. Nick Mitchell
May 7, 2009
12:02 PM
Chris,
Remember we are talking about Tullian’s book, “Unfashionable”. Tullian, I don’t think, is saying that we are bringing the restoration of all things. I also don’t think that he is saying that our good works are in vain unless they transform culture. All that we do should be lived in light of the Lordship of Christ.
76. Ann
May 7, 2009
12:13 PM
Jason nailed it.
77. Nick
May 7, 2009
1:00 PM
CLARIFICATION: I meant to say that I don’t think that Tullian endorses the idea that we are bringing the restoration of all things.
78. Terry
May 7, 2009
1:31 PM
Thanks for the thoughts and opinions.
I have given much thought to this topic sense my church decided to go the “cultural renewal” path.
I do believe this is just another path that leads down the road to liberalism . moving toward a works based, gospel poor church.
The church has tried political action to no avail. Today we are inundated with porn, abortion, homosexuality ,etc.
It was during OUR watch that the culture was de-christianized, and secular and eastern thought became the norm. It was during OUR watch that a generation that does not know Christian fundamentals or that does not hold a christian world view was raised, and often they “grew up in the church”.
IMHO this all happened because we took our eyes off Christ, off the gospel and off equipping the saints.
This whole “renewing the culture” thing is just like putting a new dress on a pig.. it too will soon be covered in the mud of failure.
79. Matt
May 7, 2009
3:03 PM
If you vote pro-life, try to convince someone of the need for low taxes because of your love for the poor and you have ever spoken up about the problems of public schooling then you have foregone the luxury of criticizing those who wish to redeem/transform/impact/engage culture. You may not be using the language but you are in effect seeking the same thing.
80. Jason
May 7, 2009
3:10 PM
Oops…I forgot to sign up for the comments feed.
81. blendahtom
May 9, 2009
3:06 PM
Jason - great post you were right on the money.. I have a huge hangup w/ “I’m saved” crowd that has no direct resemblance of a transformed heart and usually fall into legalism as their form of Christianity.
I try to keep it simple.. Eternity starts now..
82. Danny
May 12, 2009
5:44 PM
One of the irksome aspects of the blogosphere is that it discourages research and reflection, and so I realize that these comments are more than a day late (anything later than a day is a day late) and a dollar short. So after reading Tim’s post I wanted to look into things for myself. I had the book and began reading. I write these thoughts mainly for Tim as perhaps he is the only one who will read them. I’d love to interact further, but I’m sure he is a very busy guy. I have to say that I’m pretty disappointed with the review. I disagree with Tim’s position, but that’s not what I find disappointing. It seems to me that this review gives Tullian less than a fair shake. Overall, I think he often misreads and misrepresents Tullian’s thoughts. Tim, for example states, “Without offering clear Scriptural proof he puts forth statements such as “Churches are designed by God to be instruments of renewal in the world, renewing not only individual lives but also cultural forms and structures, helping to make straight all that is crooked in our world.” No clear scriptural proof? To set the record straight, Tullian offers several chapters attempting to build a biblical foundation for his position. These chapters are littered with biblical texts. Like a good biblical theologian, Tullian even places his argument within the context of the whole biblical story line. Perhaps, Tim means he disagreed with Tullian’s interpretations, but he makes it sound like Tullian offers very little in the way of Scripture. This is quite a distortion.
Tim also argues against Tullian’s use of 1 Corinthians 9:22. He states, “At one point he says “By fulling engaging in every area of culture—education, art, politics, business, media, science—we’re following Paul’s example” at which point he quotes 1 Corinthians 9:22. And yet I do not see Paul’s concern with culture except as a means to reach souls.” Tim takes this comment of out context. Tullian is arguing for cultural engagement for the purpose of evangelism. His point is that we have to translate the gospel to people, and that includes both putting it in language they can understand and putting the message into action. I’m just not sure what Tim’s critique is. Paul clearly engaged in culture to win the lost, and Tullian is suggesting that we do the same.
So what I read in this review is this. To Tullian’s very careful and thoughtful biblical and theological argumentation, Tim offers the response that he doesn’t find it in the Bible. He doesn’t say why. He just says he doesn’t. I guess I would at least like to see Tim offer some interaction, some rebuttal. Instead this review has lead many, as I notice from the comments, with a very distorted view of this book. After all the biblical argumentation offered in this book, it seems unfair to dismiss it as “nonbiblical.” Perhaps, the reason so many respected Christian leaders recommend this book is because the argument is quite biblical. I have no problem with Tim. I appreciate his work, and I believe God has placed him in an unique position. I praise God for him. But this review is less than an ideal presentation of biblical discernment.
83. Christen Vafinis
May 13, 2009
4:48 PM
I believe that Tullian is correct that we need to engage the culture and transform it. Many times, Christians get into our holy huddles and talk only amongst and befriend only and engage only those within our church walls or Christian circles. The church lacks in ministry for many things that the world takes part in. We have to reach out to them instead of expecting them to come to us while we stay in our own area. We can be IN the world while not being OF the world. This is how Christ operated when He went to places where sinners dwelt to draw them unto Him. It almost seems that we have given up on the culture and think that if we can focus on the individual alone, their worldview and the culture around them will suddenly be altered. Tullian, in one of his sermons, spoke about the danger of creating a parallel Christian version of everything (toys, coffeehouses, etc). When we do this, he says, we separate ourselves so far from the people that we are here to minister to, that we become unusable by God. MacArthur says, “don’t be so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good.” As we are engrossed in the Word and our cup is full, we need to pour that out to the world by being engaged in the things that the world is engaged.
84. nichole
May 19, 2009
9:20 PM
Thank you so much for this post. Upon reading many comments I realize that most are not understanding the argument. Tullian isn’t just saying we as Christians should be engaged in culture and effect change, he is suggesting that our actions are actually redeeming the world and hastening Heaven on earth. The implications of this when lived out undermine the Gospel completely. Transformationalism says that we should live godly lives because we are redeeming the earth, yet Peter tells us to live Godly lives because the earth will be destroyed, 2 Peter 3:10-13 says, “The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. ” The Gospel has never been about the accomplishment of man, it has always been about what God has done through His Son Jesus Christ. The focus of the Gospel is on the souls of men, not on that which will perish at Christ’s coming, so says the Holy Spirit through Peter. Both are suggesting opposite motivations for godly behavior in the world, if I have to choose, I’m sticking with Peter.