Malcom Yarnell of SWBTS
Recently Malcolm Yarnell, Professor of Theology at Southwestern Baptist theological Seminary tweeted, “Did Jesus say, “Go ye into all the world and engage the culture”? No. So, why the peculiar fascination with an Enlightenment concept?” I would like to take up what Dr. Yarnell has said and disagree with him. I believe cultural engagement is a vital to the task of church. Often many Christians have fallen into the extreme of social transformation or social withdraw. I want to agrue that there is a better way.
Why should cultural engagement be a task of the believers?
The first reason I would like to suggest is that we are commanded to do it. If one reads Genesis 1-2, he will quickly read about what is called the cultural mandate. Nancy Pearcey says about the cultural mandate in her book Total Truth,
“In Genesis, God gives what we might call the first job description: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.” The first phrase, “be fruitful and multiply” means to develop the social world: build families, churches, schools, cities, governments, laws. The second phrase, “subdue the earth,” means to harness the natural world: plant crops, build bridges, design computers, compose music. This passage is sometimes called the Cultural Mandate because it tells us that our original purpose was to create cultures, build civilizations-nothing less.”
Some might say, “That was good for those in the Old Testament and now God has a different plan.” That is not how God works. One must never separate the Bible into unrelated sections. The new testament must be interpreted in light of its canonical context. His purpose for this world has never changed. Adam failed in his task to fill the earth and subdue it. However, Jesus will not. He is the one who will fill the earth and subdue it in the form of his people. However, this task is only show in an already/not yet way now. The church cares about all aspects of the world—art, education, politics, mathematics, because we are commanded to subdue all that is in this world. Those in the church model the new creation where everything is put under the feet of God’s vice-regents. In our attempts to subdue the earth in whatever area one finds themselves in, we perform in an anticipated form, like a movie trailer, the new creation that God has begun in Jesus Christ and will apply to the whole world.
The second reason that the church should engage culture is because we care about people. Everyone lives in a culture. Should one not want what is best for those living in that culture? Should one not want the world to be structured in a way that supports universal flourishing? One must never underestimate the impact of culture upon one’s own thinking, actions, and life or the life of others. If we want to reach people with the gospel, which seems to be Dr. Yarnell’s concern, then one must be willing to engage the culture in a way that allows us to preach the gospel in a culturally relevant way. The church must contextualize if its going to be faithful in its gospel mission going forward. (See Ed Stetzer’s Comments)
I know my comments are incomplete but do want to suggest it is vital to engage the culture we live in.
For further reading check out these books.
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
Loading ...
Hi, Brady. I saw the same remark by Dr. Yarnell and have been thinking about it as well, though to a markedly reduced degree.
I think of cultural engagement as a natural overflow of our Christian faith and practice. While a Christian artist’s work will not look like a nihilist’s work, the Christian doctor or mathematician’s mannerisms and flavor of conversation will be different than a pagan’s (though they both can have equal technical skill in their respective specialities). These are natural byproducts of minds transformed.
But if we have a mindset to only, for example, discuss matters of cultural/social morality apart from a decisively Christian theistic context without ever circling back to that threshold topic, then I think the critique is valid. But one plants, another waters. Even Dr. Yarnell, respectfully, is not baptizing in “all” nations as commanded of Matt 28:19 when narrowly defined. But what does this “going” mean? And what is its relation to engaging society (whatever that means). Surely he is not suggesting that we should never vote, for example, as a form of cultural engagement. Since his politics is clearly conservative, it may be that Dr. Yarnell is concerned with obvious proportions, and if we can be more gospel-centered because of his critique, that has value.
Lives transformed by the gospel have a curing effect to all industry and conversation, as you note, Brady. The great advancements in societies have been largely at the hands of Christians for hundreds of years. Do we recall their missionary ardor? For the most part, no. But do we see God’s hand in their work? Indeed, we do. I don’t think Dr. Yarnell is dismissing that truth. But this reflects the general problem with tweeting. There are simply not enough allowable characters to say what needs to be said.
See you tomorrow, brother.
Garvis
Hey Garvis,
After a back and forth “conversation” via twitter with Dr. Yarnell, it is clear that his comments are squarely attacking traditional reformed theology. He sees RT as confusing the covenants. He accuses RT of being too anthropocentric in understanding Christ.
My point is to maintain that the Triune God is the God of all of life. His purposes have always been building a kingdom of priests that rule and reign over everything in this world. The great commission must be seen as a part of God’s sovereign rule of the world.
See you tomorrow.
Thanks for the additional info. And I robustly agree with your position. Assuming Dr. Yarnell’s motivation is true, I really find little to say about such absurdities. It seems that until the man is able to give clearer, serious thought to the potential flaws in his perception of RT, his own opinions on the topic will be relegated to the perennial fringe of semi-pelagian musings. Farewell, for now. I’m off to read a bit of Ryle and soothe my soul.
The focus on engaging culture within Reformed circles is typically associated with Tim Keller and others, as well as Francis Schaeffer a few decades ago. (Nancy Pearcey is a Schaeffer disciple.)
Regardless of how some may choose to frame the debate, the emphasis on engaging culture has quite a few critics and skeptics within the Reformed camp, whether broadly or narrowly defined. This includes some who are associated with T4G, a fact that has been evident in at least one of the messages at each of the last two T4G conferences.
Chris, thanks for your comment. I would want to locate the Reformed emphasis in Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd, and Herman Bavinck–a little further Schaeffer. Some do have a problem with engaging culture in the “reformed camp.” However, MacArthur and Thabiti Anyabwile aren’t exactly quarely in the larger reformed tradition which I wonder if their view of the covenants play a role in them being skeptical of engaging culture.
Brady, thanks for your response. What you note about MacArthur and Anyabwile is why I typed “Reformed camp, whether broadly or narrowly defined” since it’s a term that is rapidly becoming too indistinct. I don’t think using it to refer to anyone who simply affirms TULIP is particularly helpful. But that’s typically how it is used today, particularly in Baptist circles.
You’re correct in locating the more recent emphasis on cultural transformation as originating with Kuyper. Going back a few centuries earlier, the theocratic views of the magisterial Reformers and down through the Puritans (as reflected in the original version of the WCF) is a form of cultural engagement that few would endorse today. Ditto for the more recent theonomic postmillennialism/Christian Reconstructionism.
There are a good many confessional Reformed who differ greatly from the current emphasis on cultural engagement and contextualization, especially in its more recent manifestations. Usually the more strict a confessionalist one is, the more skeptical one is of the methods and emphases of a Keller or a Schaeffer. (I have to admit to being a lot more familiar with Schaeffer than Keller. My familiarity with Keller is largely limited to reading bits here and there written by his fans as well as his detractors.)
Two institutions within the conservative Reformed sphere that would be illustrative are Westminster Seminary California (WSCAL) and Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. I don’t know if the term originates with him, but Dr. R. Scott Clark of WSCAL consistently inveighs against “transformationalism” which for him includes everything from Keller to Rushdoony. D.G. Hart is frequently critical of Kuyperianism and related thought as well. Disagreement over this issue and related ones (e.g. law and gospel) was the reason why John Frame left his post on the WSCAL faculty roughly a decade ago and why sniping between him and that camp (particularly Dr. Horton) continues down to this day.
I think the issue of how we should engage culture to at least some extent tends to transcend the issue of one’s adherence to covenant theology and one’s view of continuity/discontinuity, etc. For example, it is not hard to find covenantal (whether paedo or credo) amils who are in sharp disagreement on this issue. It’s certainly not impossible to find dispensationalists and other premils who disagree on this basic issue as well. The Moral Majority was in large part inspired by Schaeffer, although it (and Schaeffer’s “Christian Manifesto,” although not some of his earlier works) was more of what I would call a negative or defensive form of cultural engagement rather than a positive one.
It really boils down to what you think the church’s role in this age is. Dr. Yarnell of course is a great admirer of the Anabaptists, so his stance on the issue is not surprising. But my point with all this was simply to note that there is a great deal of disagreement among those in the Reformed camp on the issue as well and that it certainly isn’t a Reformed vs. anti Reformed debate.
Those who are skeptical of the call to engage the culture wish to almost exclusively focus on evangelism and discipleship. Some in this camp (including Mark Dever, Lloyd-Jones and others) see merit in cultural engagement, but IMO are justifiably concerned that an emphasis on social justice (another indistinct word) will eventually lead to a social gospel sooner or later. And there is abundant evidence of that happening through the years. It’s much easier to draw a crowd with an emphasis on social justice (or moral improvement or whatever) than it is with the gospel.
I think many of these men would say that cultural transformation can be a result of an evangelistic harvest (as with the First Great Awakening) but that cultural engagement/transformation on its own should not be a priority of the church.
Chris,
I think that there is a distinct different between cultural transformation and engagement. Those who believe that cultural engagement seeks to model the new creation that is to come are quiet different than those believing that there will be social transformation. I don’t believe that ultimately society will ever be completely transformed or even a majority of it. However, that does not mean that we don’t strive ardently. For example, in one’s sanctification the already/not yet tension is also maintained. One will be made completely holy in the resurrection from the dead but is already set apart for holiness now. It wouldn’t be wise to say that because it is coming in the future and you can’t have complete transformation now that one shouldn’t pursue to order his life in a way that pleases God. In the same way, God will transform the world and put every area of life under the feet of the kingdom of priest. We participate in modeling that reality in “preview” form now, just as in our sanctification. it is imperfect and not complete, but still necessary. In response to your discussion on cultural transformation being a regard of a changed heart, I couldn’t agree more. Our goal isn’t transformation but modeling new creation and I think that is a key difference.
Here’s a great sermon by Keller called “Being the Church in Our Culture.”
As Chris notes, it does appear the root question is simply one of defining “engagement.” To one, such as Dr. Yarnell, for example, it would perhaps be defined in a traditionally evangelism/discipleship model. To another, such as Van Til, it may mean regularly meeting with someone to address their view of life, reality, and meaning and showing how Christian theism alone can explain the universe, condition of man, and future hope. I frankly cannot see a middle ground here. Van Til of course used scripture, though someone inclined to separatism may avoid altogether addressing worldviews and the like. I see both as valid methods of evangelism. It seems a bit odd to say one is more biblical than another. As I hinted in my initial post, there are valid concerns with endeavors surrounding a strictly moral/social impetus where any urgency of gospel imperative is lost. But when someone drives a hammer on the construction site, can he give God glory in that act? Of course he can and he should — if we are to be faithful to scripture. It is the full-orbed, deeply saturated, bibline life that recognizes the glorification of God in every morsel and sip (and the driving of every nail), and this perspective gives fullest meaning to an engagement of culture. Or at least that seems to be the case to me.
Hi
Actually, if David VanDrunen’s research is correct, those of us who are worried about some aspects of neo-Kuyperianism have some warrant for that concern in Kuyper himself (Kuyper v the Kuyperians).
There’s no question in my mind that Christians need to “engage” the culture. They may and perhaps should form private (i.e., not publicly sponsored and non-ecclesiastical) associations to address social ills. Reformed Christians believe in creation and in God’s sovereignty over all of life. Kuyper was correct when he said that there is not one square inch in all creation over which he has not said. “This is mine.” Amen. That God’s is sovereign, however, does not answer exactly how Christians should relate to the culture nor does it mean that the church, considered as a visible, divine institution for the official proclamation of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and discipline should be seeking to “transform” the culture. The visible church has all it can handle trying to fulfill that three-fold mandate from her Lord.
If culture means something like language and life in the world in which we live, then culture permeates everything and we are constantly in it, just as we are constantly in and breathing air. Christians should seek to be conscious of the way culture, to the degree one can be conscious of such things, affects our perceptions, assumptions, beliefs, and behaviors.
If “culture” means “those people outside the visible church” or “who do not make a profession of faith” then yes, the visible church must “engage” them with the law and the gospel. We must also challenge their assumptions about the nature of things, about God, about their own autonomy etc. Christians as private persons need to engage those same questions and speak to them from a Christian perspective in ways that the church should not.
If we take a broad definition of culture, it is inescapable and thus engagement is inevitable. The question is how do we engage and from within what institution? Here a distinction between the church as the divinely ordained visible manifestation of the Kingdom of God (to whom Christ gave the keys) and the non-ecclesiastical life of believers is helpful.