Christianity Today and Cultural Captivity

I would've mentioned that the use of terms like "God's power" and "us receiving it as a gift and promise" are excuses for "imperialist and triumphalist behavior" and "laziness", respectively.

Dr. Rah,

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in a "Few Good Men",, some people "just can't handle the truth." Bless you for your challenging thought and insights.

Molehill.

I have not read the article nor Soong-Chan Rah's book--so my perspective is very narrowly informed by the quotes/comments above. I think the comments about Mark Galli's words are quite measured. The cultural captivity of the western church is not simply one of ethnocentrism--but of a number of ism's elevated to the status of idolatry.

Hence, this is not simply a horizontal or vertical issue as Galli implies. The needed diversity is not simply to see beyond our cultural blinders--but to open our eyes to the idolatry. The diversity is a call to humility. It is a call to servanthood. It is a call to repentance.

Yes, the Auca Indians were as culturally captive as is American Evangelicalism. And they were quite brutal. And they repented. While many white evangelical leaders still get very hot under the collar: "WHY SHOULD I APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT MY ANCESTORS DID???"

I find Mr. Galli's assetion, "As if the flourishing of church depends on our ability to make it diverse," as utterly un-biblical and un-evangelical statement. Jesus gave us a diversity initative (some call it the "Great Commission"):

"Go therefore and make disciples of every nation, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19).

Our ability to communicate the Gospel and, thereby, grow the church is utterly dependent on our ability to successfully interact cross-culturally. Should we remain captive to own cultural narratives, instincts, values and practices we will fail to fufill the Great Commission.

Furthermore, the apostle Paul understood that although the essential meaning of the Gospel remains unchanged, the way of framing it to resonate with a particular culture varies.

Paul says it like this, "For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

Paul's statement to the Corinthians is even more startling than the basic claim of Dr. Rah's excellent book, that is, we are called to free ourselves from the captivity of the White Western Church. Paul insists that we are to go further and become "slaves" (!) to the other cultures and people groups we wish to serve with the Gospel. Paul even understood, Mr. Galli, that these other cultures had their own "entrenched cultural ideologies" as his parenthetical statements in this passage reveal.

If Mr. Galli's argument is merely the assertion that we don't need "multiethic" churches to numerically grow the worldwide Church, I would say that the quickly changing demographics of the worldwide church that will shift the center of Christainity to the global South within the next 20 to 30 years will rapidly prove him wrong.

Moroever, from a moral/biblical perspective the only time I find the mono-ethnic church remotely justifiable is when it shields its members (e.g. the black church) from present day racism, which the White dominant church has done little or nothing to erase, and in fact created the system of church segregation.

Otherwise, the Bible is clear that the multiethic church, from Pentecost to the great multitude in Revelation, was always God intended design. We should reject segregation wherever possible. There should be no "seperate but equal" anywhere, especially in the church of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.

What could he mean when he asserted that "Christ gave us a diversity initiative,"other than that we are to pursue of diversity? What I say is in response to this-- that s/he has honed in on one aspect of the Great Commission at the cost of the larger message.

You misunderstood me if you thought I was saying that work for reconciliation is not important in light of the United States' history and the reality of the present. We do need to intentionally work to bridge those gaps, but we MUST be careful that diversity does not become an idol.

I have not read the article nor Soong-Chan Rah's book--so my perspective is very narrowly informed by the quotes/comments above. I think the comments about Mark Galli's words are quite measured. The cultural captivity of the western church is not simply one of ethnocentrism--but of a number of ism's elevated to the status of idolatry.

Hence, this is not simply a horizontal or vertical issue as Galli implies. The needed diversity is not simply to see beyond our cultural blinders--but to open our eyes to the idolatry. The diversity is a call to humility. It is a call to servanthood. It is a call to repentance.

Yes, the Auca Indians were as culturally captive as is American Evangelicalism. And they were quite brutal. And they repented. While many white evangelical leaders still get very hot under the collar: "WHY SHOULD I APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT MY ANCESTORS DID???"

Yes, each ethnic and cultural group is captive to their entrenched ideologies. The difference is that that we as white Western evangelicals in America have used those ideologies to oppress others. I have not read Dr. Rah's book but have heard him speak on the subject several times. Each time the emphasis has been on the power of the Gospel to bring us together. That is the uniqueness of our call as Christians- that we would not only be reconciled to God through Christ but then receive the ministry of reconciliation so that Christ's power in and through us would build a Body that is bound together by Him. I don't think that God's power is missing from Dr. Rah's work but that the vision of Church that he describes is only possible through God's power. And thus worth pursuing.

How we wee the other is a measure of our faith. The call of Jesus to love not only ourselves but even our enemies makes look at our own sin. Jesus provides the bridge to the other and as such peace. The quote:
"Missing here and in many such worthy efforts is an emphasis on God's power, not human example, to free us from the principalities and powers, and on the good news that it is not we who must build the shalom community but the ones who receive it as gift and promise."
I agree, and that is more a call to join Dr. Rah to transcend our cultural ties by acknowledging them and not less. The truth is that we do not like when another call us on our sin, but saying yes but you also sin, is not a defense for our own sin. We have to be willing to confess our sins of "...individualism, consumerism, materialism, racism, and cultural imperialism" or in short our idolatry. What is missing from Mark Galli's response is the possibility of God using the new voices like Dr. Rah as prophetic voices. We have ti be honest with ourselves and admit "...individualism, consumerism, materialism, racism, and cultural imperialism" which defines our culture is Unchristian.

---
visit www.life-and-faith.org

We were just talking about this very topic last night in a Justice Bible Study I am attending. We talked about how churches that have been through more suffering tend to be more passionate about their faith. A generalization, but for the most part, true nonetheless. If churches that suffer more tend to be from less affluent areas, so be it. Although, it's just a different kind of suffering than the materially rich. Rich people got suffering too. But I get your point. Materially poor people cannot buy as many distractions as the wealthy, so they run to Jesus quicker.

We were just talking about this very topic last night in a Justice Bible Study I am attending. We talked about how churches that have been through more suffering tend to be more passionate about their faith. A generalization, but for the most part, true nonetheless. If churches that suffer more tend to be from less affluent areas, so be it. Although, it's just a different kind of suffering than the materially rich. Rich people got suffering too. But I get your point. Materially poor people cannot buy as many distractions as the wealthy, so they run to Jesus quicker.

First of all, Mark Galli is no C.S. Lewis. His omission of the book's title and author may not have been intentionally disrespectful, but that's how it came across; apparently even to a few scattered white readers!

Second, I've never personally met Dr. Rah so if I were to defend his ideas in the blogosphere, it would be on the merit of those ideas, not because I'm one of the "friends of Professor Rah" who is "upset."

Third, Mr. Galli's original article seems to create several false dichotomies including:

- the flourishing of church vs. the diversity of its members
- relying on God's power vs. learning lessons from human experience
-shalom as God's gift vs. shalom as an aim requiring purposeful human effort

As for whether CT will publish Dr. Rah's response, only time will tell...

Hi, my name is Sunshine (my Daddy told me to use a pretend name). I am nine-years-old. I go to an Academy in Montgomery, Alabama.

I like to draw and write about things.

(Daddy is letting me see how comments post online.)

From the comment above:
'I find Mr. Galli's [assertion], "As if the flourishing of church depends on our ability to make it diverse," as utterly un-biblical and un-evangelical statement. Jesus gave us a diversity initative (some call it the "Great Commission"):'

I take issue with this paragraph in two regards. First, you misunderstand the section which you quoted from the article. Mr. Galli's assertion is not diminishing the significance of diversity as you seem to suggest, but aims to emphasize the "our ability" aspect of things, as is evident from further explanation by Professor Rah.

Second, I think that your interpretation about the Great Commission as a call to diversity is shortsighted. The Great Commission is a call to spread the Gospel to all nations-- it is evangelism to all that is the central focus, not the pursuit of diversity. Ideally, all of our churches are diverse, and that might be good evidence that we are doing a good job of ministering effectively to all nations. However, we must recognize that to pursue diversity in its own right is absolutely counter to the Gospel message of Christ. We ARE to proclaim the Gospel without reference to any of the many things which divide us, but if our primary aim is to create diverse congregations, then we have fallen far short. We have replaced the Good News of Christ, which is by nature reconciling, with our own effort to create diversity. This is the very thing against which Mr. Galli seems to be arguing.

I hope that we can continue this conversation in love, as we seek to address the very real problem of racial division that is counter to the Gospel without shortchanging the Gospel in pursuit of the worldy reality of diversity.

Now you'll understand why I cancelled that thing ten years ago after telling them to at least have the decency to change the name to American Christianity Today.

"However, we must recognize that to pursue diversity in its own right is absolutely counter to the Gospel message of Christ."

Sondras was not saying that we should "seek diversity for diversity's sake." It isn't a mistake that the church in America has been historically segregated. And we can't just throw our hands up and say "it is what it is." We are still experiencing the consequences of slavery and Jim Crowe in our churches today. For that the white church needs to proactively seek to reconcile with our brothers and sisters of other ethnicities and actively make our churches welcoming to people of multiple cultures. This is exactly Soong-Chan's point.

It's not promoting diversity for the sake of diversity, but rather reconciling Christians across ethnicities.