The Kuyperian vision for culture: what is it, and how is it doing? Part III
Posted on August 18, 2009 by dsnoke |No CommentsA Balanced View?
I have been fairly hard on the Kuyperian vision. I also am not advocating the fundamentalist/Puritan model. So what is the alternative? Here are several principles for a different way:
1) Geographically near to the non-Christian, not isolated.
One of the key mistakes of the early “city on a hill” Christians was that they geographically isolated themselves. For various reasons, they left the cities and set up small communities in rural areas. Sometimes this was deliberate, a rejection of cities as evil, and sometimes it was purely pragmatic, a way of supporting themselves by farming. Over time, they became culturally distant from the centers of society. Even in cities and suburbs, Christians have sometimes ghettoized themselves by pulling back from interaction with non-Christians.
In recent decades there has been increased awareness among evangelicals that we need to live near and rub shoulders with non-Christians. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we become just like them. But we need to speak their language.
Even here, we can not be too simplistic. There is some value in distinctive, isolated communities. The monks of the middle ages and tightly knit Jewish communities are recognized to have produced great art and scholarship. Shakers and Amish have produced great craftsmanship. But in general, the church needs to be missional, and that means going where the people are, not waiting for them to come to you.
2) People and community oriented.
Success in worldly pursuits and being part of a strong community of believers are not mutually exclusive, but we need to keep in mind that sometimes they do conflict, and prioritize relationships and community over success. The Kuyperian says that an artist going good art is building the kingdom of God, but an artist who is a wreck emotionally and cut off from Christian fellowship is not a healthy part of the kingdom of God even if he produces good art. Can we agree that it would be better for the kingdom of God if he did less art and connected more with people? I’m not sure all Kuyperians would agree.
We should be about the business of creating communities of Christians, even as we live in the cities and are not geographically or culturally isolated. These communities need to have a strong sense of identity, even while not being ghettos.
Along with this is not losing sight of heaven. Many evangelicals have criticized fundamentalists for “fire escape” theology, of viewing life as nothing more than pulling people from the fire to get ready for heaven. That is true: building the church is more than just evangelism. But let us not forget the importance of evangelism. There really is a heaven, and really are people who may not go there. We will not take cultural artifacts to heaven, we will take people there.
Historically, the times of greatest revival and impact on culture by Christians came at times when people were greatly concerned about, and thought a lot about, heaven. I would argue that being heavenly-minded leads to greater impact on culture than worldly-mindedness. People who know they are going to heaven have no fear; they can do bold things, including speaking truth to power, without fear of losing their small holdings in this world. People who know they belong to a vast kingdom of people going to heaven have a sense of self confidence, instead of feeling like a mouse running around someone else’s house just trying to stay out of trouble.
The proper criticism of fire-escape theology is that it focuses too little on heaven, not too much. It gives you a get-out-of-hell card and then turns its attention elsewhere. True Christianity dwells on the hope of heaven every day, as a way of giving glory and thankfulness to God. That focus on the glories of God then leads us to a full-life experience of walking with God, which affects everything we do, and makes us want to share that joy with other people.
3) Kingdom strategy.
All Christians are not called to work in church ministry, but all of our work should be evaluated through the lens of how it impacts people in the kingdom of God. Perhaps we want to know the truth in science so that we can better explain to others what is true and what is not, to prevent them from being deceived. Perhaps we want to make truly great art, for the sake of sharing with others the deep feelings we have, inexpressible in mere logical propositions and statements.
People who built cathedrals in the middle ages were not just doing them for their own sake. They were building community centers that would last thousands of years. The Kuyperian hero, Bezalel, decorated the tent of worship for the community. By contrast, many artists today are engaged in a conversation only with other artists, hoping to make a name for themselves.
Christians should engage in all the activities of culture— science, art, politics, etc.— but need to see these in the context of a larger kingdom strategy. They are not ends in themselves. That means that I personally may need to step away from some such activity if it leads me to compromise or away from community, or if I have a great opportunity to minister to people in another way. Any good thing becomes an idol competing for God if I say that I must have it at all costs, and that includes a career.
Henry Martyn was a brilliant scholar (chief mathematics wrangler at Cambridge University) in the early 1800’s, who came under the influence of Charles Simeon. He ended up turning down a professorship at Cambridge and becoming a missionary. He died within the decade, but before then he translated the New Testament into both Hindi and Arabic. He reasoned that his influence for the kingdom of God would be greater in that part of the world than in England. I bless Henry Martyn, and wish we had more people like him. Maybe he would have been a great scientist or mathematician. But caring about people drove him away from it. Would a Kuyperian have recommended that?
4) An “Anti” or “subversive” outloook.
This is probably my most controversial proposal. I think of past successes of groups that engaged the culture and transformed it, or who are presently engaging it successfully. These include the communists, the Nazis, and Islamicists. Earlier there were the Reformers, the modernists, and the abolitionists, and before them, the monks who set up universities and the monks who were the first missionaries to northern Europe. In each case, there was a) a strong sense of community, b) a strong sense of working together on strategy to advance their common cause, and c) a strong sense of wanting to change things, to create something new, not just succeed in the existing system. This last is what I call an “anti” or “subversive” outlook.
One might call this “infiltration.” Strategists work in the existing systems, but they keep a sense of separate identity. They have a long-term view that if they don’t succeed in changing things right away, it is okay. They work by persuading others one person at a time. They strive to be excellent, not as an end in itself, but as part of the larger cause.
Does being subversive or having an “agenda” lead to bad work? Not necessarily. Steinbeck was a communist, who wanted to advance the communist cause with all his books. But Grapes of Wrath is a tremendous book. Uncle Tom’s Cabin is also a great book. So are those by C.S. Lewis. A good message can’t save a bad work (good intentions can’t save bad science in the anti-evolution movement either) but a message does not automatically make a work bad.
Without a sense of being “anti” the prevailing culture to some degree, Christians end up losing their distinctiveness and their originality. They are continually in the role of being apologists to the church for the latest thing the culture is doing or thinking, rather than ones who push the edge of the culture themselves.
For subversives to succeed, they usually need to be better qualified than others. Sometimes they also need to keep some of their views to themselves for a while. But if they are good enough, they can get away with being open about their views, because they are persuasive and do good work. Those who cannot be that good probably should not be in the role of infiltrator. Those who are less qualified but go into the top circles of competition will just end up as followers of the crowd, or worse, confirming bad stereotypes. Not every Christian is called to go into high-profile jobs in academia, the media, etc.
The different subversive groups listed above did not and do not all have good goals; we would say many led to evils in the world, even if they did not or do not see it that way. But their evil goals do not make the concept of being subversive intrinsically evil. As Christians, we believe that the world is not what it should be, and that there is a higher standard to which it should and can conform. That is something we hold in common with all these subversive groups. But our goal is not just for societal change. We believe not just in redeeming “cultures” but in saving real people. Of all people, we should be thinking strategically about how to get others to see the need for something different, not just succeed at more of the same culture.
5) Awareness, with skepticism.
Finally, just a few words on what Christian endeavors in secular occupations might look like. Some people might take this essay as a call for a return to fundamentalism, which might look either like a) working just to make money to spend on evangelism and missions, or b) putting a Christian message into every part of our work. There is nothing wrong with either of those, necessarily. Work for money is completely honorable, even if our heart is not in it—only those who have grown up in the western world in the last fifty years have had the option, and feel the need, to find work that exactly suits their gifts. Also, putting explicit messages into our work might or not be good—who can criticize Handel’s Messiah, or Pilgrim’s Progress? But I am not advocating either of these options in general.
I have already mentioned some aspects of doing work in a secular area. First, pick a place to do it that puts you near non-Christians. Second, pick a place to do it where you can be part of a healthy Christian community. Third, do it in such a way that does not require you to compromise or hide your Christian belief. Be a Christian. Fourth, think strategically about how your work can help people, can advance the work of the church, and can subvert anti-Christian world views.
It also follows, in my perspective, to be well aware of what is going on in the world, whether in science or art or other fields, but to also be skeptical of every aspect, to not take anything for granted. Don’t try to be just like the world, at any level. Be well aware of what is out there, and use some, none, or all, as you see fit, if it is good and noble and true. Know that non-Christians do have many gifts, but also know that world view affects not just what we say about our work, but also can affect what we actually do, at every level. To question, to reject, something the world loves is not to be a fundamentalist. If we live in fear of being called a fundamentalist, or of being called a right-winger, we are still marching to the tune of someone else.
We should also be skeptical of what other Christians tell us. Just because art has a Christian label doesn’t mean it is good art, and just because science is done in the name of creationism (or theistic evolution) doesn’t mean it is good science.
One of the main things that people will say who have made it to the top of any field, is that there are no shortcuts. Good work requires years of training and dedication. Innovation may only come at the end of a long process of learning, if then. Christians should have the patience and dedication to be willing to not take shortcuts. But during that long process, we need to not just imbibe everything, but to ask at every stage what is true and good and noble, and what ought to be rejected. We cannot wait until the very end before we think critically, and we cannot think that just by getting to the top we will somehow automatically be building the kingdom of God.