1Frances:Sunday, January 14th, 2006 at 4:05 pm

Culture is defined by the Oxford American Dictionary as the attitudes and behavior characteristic of a particular social group. And Christ’s social group consisted of: the fallen man, -even His disciples. People don’t change (but by the grace of God). Thus, since Christ did not have the castle-mentality of shutting himself in and away from the world, nor did He have the all-embracing mentality of accepting and becoming like one’s surroundings in an attempt to appease, neither should we hold these models to be useful. Instead we ought to model ourselves in ministry as Christ modeled Himself. He was not afraid to speak to the world, though He had the authority of God when speaking, nor to reach out and to touch the world, nor to heal the world. He loved those in the world, but did not embrace or encourage their ways. It is difficult for me to draw lines and distinct boundaries around a phrase like ‘be in the world, but not of it’ because there is so much contained in those eight words… But to love and minister like Christ; now that is how we should desire to be in this world. -Just one humble opinion.

2Anthony:Monday, January 15th, 2006 at 11:48 am

Culture is difficult to define specifically. When many Christians speak of culture, it is often meant as an all-encompassing framework within which all people fall. Unfortunately, I don’t think that many people see culture in the microcosm--for example, I am an American. That may be my macro culture, but within that, I am of Italian heritiage, native to teh Northeast part of the U.S. which has its own distinctives separate from the South, etc. That said, I think culture can be surmised as a series of paradigms within which people can be identified, whether by belief, behavior, or biology (race, physical prowess). The interaction of these paradigms may or may not create a master culture, but I tend to think that Christians need to be comfortable with the notion that using the term “culture” as an all-emcompassing does justice to neither the term itself or the people we are trying to reach with the Gospel.

In trying to reach culture, I think we need to see the differing cultures as foreign. We would never go to Uganda to peach the Gospel without understanding the language or without a translator. Similarly, we need to recognize that people living in cities (in our own nation) may have a differing set of norms than do people in the suburbs or rural areas. We need to see that a set of people who like rap or country music likely have a differing set of beliefs that lead them to two totally opposite preferences in music. And to borrow a line from Keller, we need to recognize that the youth have differing concerns than do the elderly. For one generation, freedom is more important than is being “good.” So, articulation is paramount. Taking the Gospel, without losing its truth and power, into these differing paradigms is a great challenge today.

I curious to know what you think of Niebuhr’s “Christ in Culture,” where he sets out the four different relations of Christ to culture. Leslie Newbiggin’s books “The Gospel in a Pluralist Society,” And “Foolishness to the Greeks” are interesting reads in this area.

3Becky:Saturday, February 3rd, 2006 at 11:34 am

Connected but not Contaminated
Perhaps “culture” is an overarching term to refer to our audience - the people as well as all that influences their capacity to hear the “good news,” all those things around them and in them that compete with us as we speak Truth. Because understanding the audience is key to effective delivery of a message, it seems that wisely evaluating the audience, the “culture,” will help us know how and when to speak, what to ask, when to listen ...

We can’t be so separated from the “culture” that we have feeble understanding of them and no connecting points for communication. An article in Christianity Today is making my brain itch about being connected but not contaminated. With Daniel as a model of one who was prepared for “moments of courageâ€? by his “daily choices,â€? the author presents the premise that we are to be “like the Chaldeans, in all the unimportant ways.” This, he says, is how we can live as exiles in this culture, seeking the welfare of this present city, while maintaining our allegiance to our true King. That makes me itch even more as I ponder, “What ,then, are the unimportants?” What should I have in common with this culture that will allow me to be a change agent - without diluting my first loyalty?

I’m compelled to become a quality bucket. I know what a deep drink of the Water can do to bring change. I’ve been indulged with free access to the best water source and my thirst to understand Kingdom truth is being so well satisfied. To seek the welfare of this temporary homeland, I must effectively offer the sweet Water of Life to my corner of this culture. This is what drives me; it is the reason I’m studying now, and why I continue to be so thirsty to “get it.” So, I’m asking the Lord: Help me ask more questions and make fewer statements. Give me more understanding and fewer opinions. Because I really, really want to be a quality bucket in His hand.

4gideon sherwin:Tuesday, July 17th, 2006 at 3:31 pm

Outside of Christiandom,

Aristotle’s Nicomachean ETHICS

is the most important work I have read thus far.

This book is outstanding. I enjoyed Aristotle’s

work because like me he is concerned with the

primary habit and way which he percieves quantitatively

as mean (not too much and not too little) and the

noble (the beautiful--yes as is perceived in modern

vanacular). I learned how to temperately live in the

world with others--making 1 or 2 friends in life:

and how to relate to everyone else. This book is

an absolute must for all Master of Divinity students.

I will surely use it in practical ways for years to come if not

my whole life. Thank you Dr. Sam for your love for the noble and

beautiful--which is found in this book. And thank you Jesus

for fufilling Aristotle’s ethics and superceding them.

Glory to God!

5Gideon Sherwin:Wednesday, July 18th, 2006 at 7:19 am

The Greek tragedies are very explicit, vivid and real. And to think that the Greek imagination was as such. In the tragedies, the main character, has a certain perception of one Greek god or multiple Greek god’s, and how one perceives the Greek god/s, is usually how that Greek god is going to perceive them; and they will even punish or reward accordingly.

The point is, the Greeks did perceive their god’s. They did right about them and think about them.  Now, certainly Jesus is God.
And “Our God RULES.” But do I perceive him and think about him, realistically, vividly, and explicitly.

Do I live before his eyes?

I should. Lord, forgive me for taking you for granted. Lord, YOU RULE! You are beyond words my Lord, in greatness and majesty. Use my life to glorify you. Help me to propogate your gospel to the ends of the earth. In Jesus’ Name.