Andy Crouch on Culture Making

Culture Questions

Andy Crouch, in his latest book, Culture Making: Recovering our Creative Calling, notes 5 questions that aid in evaluating any cultural artifact. I thought they’d be helpful to post in order to hear your thoughts on the matter. Here are the questions:

1) What does this cultural artifact assume about the way the world is?

2) What does this cultural artifact assume about the way the world should be? 

3) What does this cultural artifact make possible?

4) What does this cultural artifact make impossible (or at least very difficult)?

5) What new forms of culture are created in response to this artifact?

I find these to be very helpful (and new) questions to be asking regarding culture. The talk of cultural ‘artifacts’ comes from the recognition that , according to Crouch, though we have grown quite accustomed to speaking of culture in terms of a whole, in reality culture is made up of all sorts of little creative acts (‘artifacts’). In the book, Crouch applies these questions to the simple artifact of the egg omelet. A trivial example, sure, but it help to see how comprehensive these questions are. They apply to everything.

Here’s the work:

The Gospel Bait and Switch

This applies to a lot more people than Preachers:

Preachers have a theoretical gospel and an operative gospel. Theological we get into a theological mode and produce, as far as possible, a biblically based notion focused on the person and work of Christ. But, in pastoral practice it is easy to be pragmatic. Our operative gospel will be the thing that preoccupies us as the focus of our preaching and teaching. It may be a practical hobbyhorse or a denominational distinctive. Baptism, a particular view of the second coming, social action, creationism, spiritual gifts, and the like are all easily raised to the status of gospel by becoming the main focus of our preaching. This is especially deplorable when these spurious gospels are made the basis  of our acceptance of other Christians.

—Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, Pg. 81

According to Pattern: What is Typology?

The According to Pattern series I’m developing here on Kingdomview is an entry level examination of what’s commonly called by theologians typology. In the first 2 part series I cover the linked between Joseph in Genesis and Christ (part 1, 2), and the second installment I’ve touched upon the shadow of Christ in the life of Noah (part 1, 2).

The name typology comes from the Greek word tupos. In Rom. 5 Adam is explicitly said to be a type of Christ. but what does this mean? Tupos has a number of similar, overlapping meanings. Sometimes it can refer to a mold, the type that idols were made from. But most commonly it is translated ‘pattern,’ or ‘example’ (others translations of the word tupos are “imprint” and “form”). Types are what you could call historical prefigurings of either a person, place or thing.

The simplest way to break this down is that the type is found in the Old Testament and it’s fulfillment in the New. The fulfillment of the type is known as the antitype.

Graeme Goldsworthy, in his book According to Plan, contrasts a typological reading of Scripture with both the literalistic and the allegorical method. The literalistic method finds history (and especially, given the context of this post, salvation history) as self-interpreting. So, symbols and the like in the Old Testament need not later be explained and clarified, because what they mean is evident at any point in the history of redemption. So, when the Temple is spoken of by the Prophets as being rebuilt ‘in that day’, it represents exactly what you would think it means upon first reading, the literal, stone and mortar Temple in Jerusalem.

On the other hand, the allegorical method, often confused with the typological method, is nearly the opposite of the literalistic approach. If the literalistic approach states that the interpretation of salvation history is self-evident, the allegorical method holds that history is essentially unimportant. The allegorist looks ‘beyond’ the historical meaning of a biblical passage in order to get to the truly ’spiritual’ meaning. Unfortunately, this method often boils down to making loose connections between people, places or institutions of the OT with those of the NT. So, the scarlet cord held out by Rahab from her window when Joshua and his men spied on the city of Jericho is really speaking to us today about the crimson blood of Christ (the connection here being the color). So you can wind up having as many allegorical interpretations as you have allegorical interpreters! (or maybe more, depending on their creativity)

The typological method steers clear of both errors. Unlike the literalistic approach, typology recognizing that God is the ultimate interpreter of history. Redemption is His plan, and He is free to historically unfold the deeper meaning of any person, place, or institution as He wishes. As an example, this is seen in Acts 2 when Peter explains the resurrection and ascension of Christ as the fulfillment of God’s promise to David that he (David) would always have a descendent to sit on the throne. Yet, the typological approach also parts ways from allegory. Typology insists that history is important and vital, and the meaning of God’s work is found in the actual space-time events recorded in the Bible. The antitype (fulfillment) really is related to the type. Going back to the example of Peter, we see that Peter wasn’t just making this stuff up. Jesus truly was the biological and legal descendant of David (the real historical king of Israel), and was truly given David’s throne.

The difference is that Christ’s reign, while organically related to David’s, 1) fulfills what David hoped for, and 2) supersedes and elevates the original covenantal promise. Typological recognizes the importance in interpreting the BIble of progressive (i.e. historical) revelation (i.e. God reveals truth that we could not otherwise find out).

For more on typology, see:

Oh Yeah, I’m in!

 This got a chuckle out of me:

Arm yourself.

Books on Covenant

One of my interests in Biblical studies is the theme of God’s covenant relationship with His people. In fact, viewing the entire Bible through the lens of ‘covenant’ is an extremely helpful way of thinking about the unity of the Old and New Testaments. Here are some of the most helpful books (or articles) on covenant that i’ve read.

New Biblical Theology Blog

From Jim Hamilton:

Today marks the launch of a new biblical theology blog. I’ll be collaborating with Desi Alexander, Mike Bird, and Steve Dempster. Here’s the blog’s purpose: “For the glory of God, in service to the church, this blog exists to promote the study and discussion of biblical theology’s history, methodology, aims, achievements, developments, direction, and points of contact with other approaches to the study of the Bible.”

Other contributors may be added later, but for now we’ll be posting together at Biblical Theology. In the initial post the contributors are introduced: “Posting from Ireland, Scotland (by an Australian), Canada, and the United States, we are excited about the international character of this blog, and we hope it will serve you well. We seek to know God in Christ by the power of the Spirit as revealed in the Bible.”

Many of the contributor named for this blog have written articles for this marvelous work:

What is Biblical Theology?

In this short article, leading redemptive-historical theologian, Graeme Goldsworthy explains the area of Christian study known as Biblical Theology. Personally, I have benefitted greatly from Goldsworthy’s approach to the Scripture. He finds the ‘center’ of Scripture to be the historical unfolding of the Kingdom of God, which he defines as God’s people, in God’s place, under God’s rule.

For more by Goldsworthy, see any of his works on Biblical theology, such as:

When Does Life Begin?

Justin Taylor provides some clear quotes on the subject from a number of doctors at leading medical institutions. Though it is common to hear that we don’t really know when life begins, the medical answer seems pretty clear.

Contrary to what many believe about the position of many (if not most) Christians on the abortion issue, the case for the pro-life position is largely a scientific case. The theological dimension is the ethic premise, ‘You should not take an innocent human life.” But whether the fetus is a human being, one whose life should be protected as any other innocent human life (by law), is determined by a scientific analysis of the nature of the fetus itself. Rhetoric, whether ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice,’ muddles the issue and generates more heat than light.

For more on this issue, on both the scientific issues involved as well as the moral/theological issues, see:

According to Pattern: Noah (part 2)

We’ve taken a quick look at some of the characteristics that defined Noah. Now we’ll sketch out how Christ’s brigs to completion those salvation-historical themes that Noah introduced.

Jesus is the final hope that the promised ’seed of the woman’ pointed to (Lk. 3:23-38). Noah’s birth pointed in his direction as well. Noah’s father thought that perhaps his son would be the final deliverer, but he wasn’t. The final champion send from God is Christ, who will ultimately reverse the curse (1 Cor. 15:50-57).

Likewise, will Noah’s name meant ‘rest, Christ Himself is the rest for the people of God (Heb. 3-4). In fact, jesus is the ultimate rest to which the sabbath pointed (Heb. 4:9-10).

Christ is not just ‘another’ Adam (like Noah), but is the final, second, and eschatological Adam (1 Cor. 15:45, 47). But he doesn’t repeat what Adam does, he corrects Adam’s failure. Adam’s sin brought death into the world, and ruined all those whom he represented (all humanity). Christ’s life and death of obedience to the Father brings life, blessing and unending grace to those whom He represents (the Church), see Rom. 5:12-21.

But while there is a difference between how Christ is another adam, and how Noah is another Adam (Jesus fixes the mess Adam plunged us all into), there are also parallels. Both Noah and Christ (as ‘Adams’) are commissioned to be fruitful and multiply. But, while Noah obeys in the short run, ultimately he fails, and we need to look to another to fulfill this creation mandate. At first it looks like the call of Abraham, and the creation of the nation of Israel (after the Exodus) will ‘fix’ this problem, but again, ultimately, they fail as well. But not so for Christ!! Listen to this text from Ephesians 1:

15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Everything that’s bolded demonstrates how the Apostle Paul understood the work of Christ in terms of fulfilling the original task given to Adam (and later given to Noah). Adam was called to multiply, and this is fulfilled by Christ in the creation of the Church of which Christ is head (meaning source and authority over). Next Adam is given dominion over the earth (a dominion that he neglected and in fact renounced by his obedience to the serpent). Christ on the other hand has “all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named,” and is the ‘head over all things.” Adam was to fill the earth, while Christ Himself is said to be (through His body the Church) the “ fullness of him who fills all in all.” Without a doubt Paul conceived of the work and ministry of Christ as the perfect fulfillment to what was originally the goal of humanity.

Lastly, in contrast from Noah, Christ is vindicated and glorified through judgment. Noah, and his family, were spared the wrath of God poured out on the Earth. Jesus, on the other hand, spares others (i.e. the Church) not by avoiding God’s judgment and wrath, but by absorbing it completely. Jesus, who never committed any sin, paid the penalty for sins of His people, so that through the redemption He provides we could be accepted as God’s children (Cf. 2 Cor. 5:21) Christ drank the cup of God’s wrath to the dregs, thus there is no one condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1)

According to Pattern: Noah (Part 1)

In the last According to Pattern post (on Joseph, part 1 and 2), we took a look at how Joseph served as a type, or historical pre-figuring, shadow, and pattern of Christ who was to come. Here now, we’ll took a quick look at Noah.

Noah is (at his place in salvation history) the ’seed of the woman.’ In fact, his father, Lamech, ponders whether he will be the one to deliver the creation from the curse (Gen. 5:28-29). (Note that even this early in Scripture we find the connection between the curse of the ground, found in Gen. 3:17-19, with a promised deliverer who will grant release from this ‘bondage.’ cf. Rom. 8:20-21)

The name ‘Noah’ is derived from the Hebrew word for ‘rest.’ 

Noah is a type of new Adam, this we can see in God’s recommisioning him with the original mandate given in the garden to ‘be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 9:1).

Noah is preserved in order to provide blessing through judgment (cf. the entire flood narrative).

For more on the typological significance of Noah, see Meredith Kline’s Kingdom Prologue

Westminster Bookstore

This is my one-stop online shopping center for all new theology releases. If it’s old, new, or you’re just checking, take a look here:

Oh, and you can’t beat the prices!! (normally something between 25-45% off)

Summer Reading Revisited

A number of weeks ago I posted what were my selections for summer reading. In the fall semester, I’ll be teaching a course on systematic theology, so naturally I’ve been doing a bit of prep reading for that. Sadly,I haven’t done ll the reading I wanted to. I still have a month before the class starts, but I think that’s hardly enough time to tackle the “leisure” reading I planned for myself.

So, here are the books I have read since my last ‘Summer Reading’ entry:

1) Understanding Dispensationalists- Poythress

2) The End Times Made Simple- Walton

3) A Case for Amillennialism- Riddlebarger

4) Selections from Systematic Theology- Grudem

5) Salvation Belongs to Our God- Wright

Also, here are some of my other books recommendations in 1) apologetics, 2) the unity of the Bible, 3) books on the New Atheists, and 4) Worldview

Why is The Dark Knight Making So Much Money?

C. Michael Patton gives his thoughts. And they’re pretty insightful, philosophically and theologically, if you ask me.

Letter to a Friend (Part 5, conclusion)

I believe in a Real Right and a Real Wrong. Now we turn to the issue of objective morality or ethics (I’m using them interchangeably here). Have you ever wondered whether our outrage at the evil in this world is an expression of personal distaste?  Whether the recent Virginia Tech shootings were objectively evil? I ask this because I’m of the view that without the God of the Christianity faith (i.e. the God revealed in the Old and New Testaments) the underpinnings of ethics are destroyed, and the moral motions that we feel every day of our lives are rendered non-sensical.

Now here’s an important note to take into consideration. I’m not saying that only Christians are moral people. On the flip side, neither am I saying that all non-Christians are horrible, evil people. What I’m talking about here is what are the fundamental foundations our assumption about reality that underlie our beliefs about morality, right and wrong. Richard Dawkins may very well be a nicer, kinder, and more law abidding citizen than I am. That’s not in question. The question is whether, on a worldview that rejects the existence of God, are those basic pillars that support our common everyday assumptions about ethics there? I don’t think that they are.

Without the infinite-personal God of the Bible, how do we define good and evil, right and wrong? I’m convinced that we can boil down the matter to only left two alternatives: either 1) an individual subjectivist response, and 2) a collective subjectivist response. For the sake of handling the various possible replies, I have distinguished the alternatives. However, as we will soon see, both alternatives reduce to subjectivism and skepticism.

Individual subjectivist responses. This is the view that a given acts our behavior is good or bad because I have chosen it. If I commit myself to a given path, it is good. If I am made to do something I chose not to do, it’s bad. If the non-Christian claims moral justification (that which makes a good acts good, and a bad act bad) is found in what one chooses to do, we are left with no standard whatsoever by which we can condemn the worst types of behavior. Pedophilia, rape, incest, bestiality, and murder, and all morally acceptable. Why? Because for those that commit such acts, they were the products of active volition. This view can be quickly be placed to one side.

Collective subjectivist responses. The term “collective subjectivist” may strike some as paradoxical at best and oxymoronic at worst, yet such a title is fitting for “society says” moral relativism. According to this position, morality is, in a weak sense, objective in that the individual is not free to create moral norms from scratch. They are to live within the ethical structure of societal consensus. Such an ethical standard is collective. Yet, on the other hand, it nevertheless remains a subjectivist position on meta-ethics (i.e. on how we philosophically justify or provide warrant for the system we’re espousing). What makes the collective approach ultimately subjectivist and indeed relativist is that each society determines it’s own moral norms, and accordingly, one culture (or sub-culture) cannot condemn the actions of another.

The problems for this approach are equally evident. If indeed no supra-cultural definition of evil (or good) exists, how can two or more cultures or sub-cultures with different standards of ethics be compared? Consistently applied, the collectivist subjectivist model prohibits us form labeling the crimes committed at Auschwitz evil. In fact, it becomes even more problematic because not all German citizens would have approved of the war crimes and genocide of the Nazis. So, what we are left with is at least two moral sub-cultures in WWII Germany, those that would call the Nazi actions evil, and those who participated in those actions and condoned them. But any system that strips us of the ability to make moral distinctions is highly counter-intuitive. A paradigm that seeks to explain our “moral motions” must respect the moral outrage we feel at events such as the holocaust.

Moreover, we do instinctively know right and wrong in most cases. We can proclaim moral relativism from the rooftops all day, that is, until someone steals our belongings, or hurts our family members. Suddenly we feel that it’s not something that we simply dislike, but rather that it is something that’s truly wrong! Then we become moral absolutists. Lastly, if we reduce we moral claims to preference claims then we would have to radically change the way we commonly speak. Instead of saying “The Terrorists who flew 2 airplanes into the World trade center buildings were wrong, and it was an evil act!”, we would have to replace it with, “I personally do not think that the Terrorists attack on Sept.11th was expedient, and it did not accord with my subjective tastes, but I could be wrong. I don’t want to “impose” my morality on anyone!” I feel my point has been made.

Lastly, allow me to touch upon why I believe that the Christian God is the best bet for explaining the our ‘moral motions.’ When we find our selves taken with a belief that person X should not have committed Y act, what we’re saying is that person X is morally obligated to have done the right and good thing. In the case of murder, we’re saying that person X ought to have a respect for innocent human life, and ought it a word that implies obligation. But, we do not have obligations to mere material things. I have no obligations not to throw a stone across a beach. The stone demands no such loyalty. But both obligations and loyalty can be pledged to a person. Personal relationships imply certain obligations and can demand loyalty. But what about ultimate moral obligations? Moral obligations are, after all, hierarchical. My loyalty to my brother places certain obligations in my path, but my relationship to my mother demands an even higher level or loyalty. But my mother cannot simply ask me to rob a store. If she did, I would have to tell her that I couldn’t because it would break the law and would (in principal) cause civil unrest. But what if my government told me that I am obligated by my citizenship to randomly kill any person living in my immediate community that was not born in America? What should I do then? 

I would appeal to a higher standard of obligation. But what higher standard is there? Maybe one could say the ‘world community’, but that only pushes the question back one step. Ultimately, who’s my greatest loyalty to? If i’m correct to say that obligations and loyalty only make sense in the context of personal relationships, then ultimate loyalty is due to an Ultimate Personal, or, as I’ve said above, a Personal Absolute. But Christianity is the only religion in which the greatest thing in existence (the ultimate metaphysical reality) is a Personal Absolute. In other philosophies, religions, and myths, you have absolutes that are not personal (like Plato’s form of The Good, Hegel’s Geist, Brahma is Hinduism, etc.), or you’ll find personal gods or principles that aren’t absolute (the Greek Pantheon, the god of Mormonism, thetans in Scientenology, etc.) Only in the Bible do you find a God, the final reality, that is both person and absolute/ultimate.  This in my mind is strong evidence for the Christian conception of God as the best explanation for ultimate, objective, universally binding ethics.

Conclusion. Now this is my reason for rejecting an empiricism model of epistemology. It cannot account for the metaphysical assumptions that underlie the scientific method, and it cannot account for the existence of universal, immaterial absolutes, such as numbers, laws of logic, and universally binding principles of ethics. While on a Christian worldview all such things make perfect sense, and in fact can be explained (at least at the beginners level) to a child in Sunday School. One may not agree with the answers posited by Christianity, but they have to admit that Christians do have answers to these philosophical issues.  Thanks so much for listening to this (rather extended) letter. Also, please forgive me for the great length of time it has taken to complete it.

My prayer is that we can both understand the position of the other person fairly, and see where we’re coming from.

-JET

For more on absolute personalism, and a developed form of the argument for God based on morality, see: