This essay is adapted from a lecture given on February 19, 2009 at Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts.

“When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun.” This statement, often attributed to Nazi leaders, is actually a quote from the play Schlageter, an expression of Nazi ideology performed on Hitler’s birthday in 1933. In Hanns Johst’s play the original line is slightly different. It translates as “Whenever I hear of culture… I release the safety-catch of my Browning!”¹

The line is spoken by a character named Friedrich in the midst of condemning the empty ideals of the French and describing the futility of doing studies instead of combat.

He says, “the last thing I’ll stand for is for ideas to get the better of me! I know that rubbish from ‘18… fraternity, equality,…, freedom…, beauty and dignity! You gotta use the right bait to hook ‘em. And then, you’re right in the middle of a parley and they say: Hands up! You’re disarmed…, you republican voting swine! — No, let ‘em keep their good distance with their whole ideological kettle of fish…. I shoot with live ammunition! When I hear the word culture…, I release the safety on my Browning!”²

Distrust of intellectuals and creative people has always characterized fascist regimes. Friedrich did not want “ideas to get the better of me.” For that matter, any administration concerned to make people tow the line is worried about creativity. Examples abound. Consider the attempts to purge jazz from the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

The irony, of course, it that jazz was actually a workingman’s music (remember the communist adoration of the proletariat), which should have gained the approval of the Soviets. To remedy this possible contradiction, the Russian jazz critics specified that the American version of it was decadent, not the music itself. Indeed, a well-funded kind of kitsch Soviet jazz band was created to prove the point.

The government tried to promote distinctly Soviet popular music. What you sing is what you believe, Solzhenitsyn once declared. Likewise, Louis Armstrong never performed in the U.S.S.R, though producer George Avakian tried hard to arrange for him to tour there. Ekaterina Furtseva, the Soviet Union’s culture minister, refused to welcome him because she felt “he was going to be too popular.”³

Culture, then, is subversive. It can subvert for ill or good. At times Christians have feared its power. They have worried that it might drive them into worldliness, removing their focus from the spiritual goals of salvation. Some cultural expressions can do that. There is a lot to worry about in our time, and threats to spirituality abound. But is that the end of the story? Must we reach for our guns? Or take the “conservative” side in the culture wars? Is there a better way?

I believe cultural engagement is an important kind of warfare. Occasionally, when Christians are being properly creative, others may reach for their guns. We are told that the extension of the kingdom of God will come with opposition. But we are to continue to preach the gospel and its values, through our words, acts and lives, and let the consequences be what they may. My suggestions for how we can do this parallel Paul’s speech on Mars Hill as recorded in Acts 17.

This speech not only urges us toward cultural engagement, but is a model for how we should understand and do it. Paul connects with the Athenians where they are. He approves some of their insights but denounces their wrong assumptions. He then pleads for change, based on the resurrection and Christ’s coming judgment. In doing so, Paul lays out two insights that should guide our work.

Paul’s first lesson: how culture becomes perverted. Many parts of our culture give us much to worry about. If Paul is correct, peoples around the globe are seeking God. However, they are unable to find him because, despite their best insights, they arrive at false conclusions about what God should look like and what he should do. In Paul’s words, they “feel their way toward him,” but end up in the wrong place.

The people of Athens were very religious. It is my strong conviction that this is the case for much of our planet today. Even Europe, which is more secularized than most continents, is religious in at least two ways. The first is the rise of various non-Christian religions. From Islam to Hinduism, to New Age, to occultism, there is plenty of religiosity.

The second way is the “religious” nature of many of its cultural practices. Sociologist Danièle Hervieu-Léger has argued, for example, that French government, banking, artistic pursuits, education, and the like have a Roman Catholic cultural infrastructure without the label. Similarly, Scotland has a Presbyterian infrastructure, regardless of its low church attendance.⁴

Of equal importance is Paul’s identification of two sorts of idols in Athenian religion. The idols affirm two kinds of gods, which coexist in a strange sort of dualism. The first are smaller objects of worship kept in human temples and the second, an unknown god named on an altar.

Apologist Dick Keyes brilliantly suggests that idolatry usually comes in two forms: a nearby god and a faraway god.⁵ This is true for biblical times and for our own. He cites Jeremiah 10, in which the prophet scorns the creation of portable gods who can do neither harm nor good (10:5). The scarecrow-god may frighten the birds away, but can never give the kind of material prosperity sought by the people. These gods are tame and limited.

At the same time the people have a faraway god who provides meaning and purpose, even though impersonal. For example, in Isaiah 65 the prophet faults the people for forsaking the Lord and “spreading a table for Fortune and willing bowls of mixed wine for Destiny” (65:11). They needed some sort of assurance that there is a purpose, a meaning, something in control. This was the case even though Fate and Destiny cannot express love; nor can they judge our lives in the end.

Keyes explains that these two types of idols are distortions of the fundamental purposes of mankind according to the Christian worldview. They are stand-ins for dominion and trust. Mankind was originally created to have dominion over the world. Not violent oppression, but gentle lordship. This rulership was to be under the overall lordship of God Almighty. Our rule is based on trust in his higher authority. Idolatry substitutes a nearby god for dominion and a faraway god for trust.

Our culture presents examples of both. Money, possessions, communication, these are among the nearby gods we desperately adore. The love of these has contributed to our present economic crisis. We are what we have, we might say: we think we all need PDA’s, cell phones, big screen TV’s, designer styles, and so forth. In a brilliant article on the economy, GCP Executive Director Chris Simmons traces the history of this nearby idol in America, though it applies to all of the West.⁶

Simmons explains that: “Before 1885, most white males owned property, did not work for a salary, did not have a regulated work schedule and did not go to a workplace away from home. Price tags did not develop until the mid-19th century because they were unnecessary. Customers bought things from people they knew so they could just ask how much things cost.”⁷

As a result of the industrial revolution, all of that changed. It was hoped that industrialization and lower prices would vastly improve the standard of living, and they did. However, supply exceeded demand. As a result it became necessary to stimulate demand; or let’s call it by its proper name, desire. Mainstream Protestant leaders affirmed a sort of Manifest Destiny of Americanism, the notion that more and new are always better. Media, particularly advertizing, got into the action, and helped create a “desire to desire.”⁸ General Motors is a good example of making up for bad planning with clever advertising. Think, Simmons suggests, of the way Howie Long, the former NFL player, promotes the Chevy Silverado by putting down nerds and weaklings.

Nothing is altogether simple. There are scores of reasons for our dreadful economic downturn. But what is undeniable is the way we cling to American consumerism even to the point that it may be the death of us. We do this partly because having these nearby gods gives us a sense of increased security, of control over our world.

Candidates for a faraway god abound as well.⁹ Sticking with the theme of money, we might say that a faraway god is the means of achieving security. Many of us nurture the semi-conscious hope that if only we can achieve some measure of financial stability, we can be happy. Perhaps we trust in a system like the free market. Or we believe hard work must produce results. The notion of progress has hit upon hard times, and yet people still nurture the idea that somehow, given time, things will get better. Or maybe it is just good luck, or Fate, or “the man upstairs.” All of these can and do replace Yahweh as our vague faraway god.

These are many perversions of the truth. They penetrate deep into our culture. But is it right simply to reach for our gun? Does the perversion of culture mean that the problem is culture itself? Although there are Christians who defend such a view, it is far off the mark.

Paul’s second lesson: how culture may be redeemed. It is never enough simply to decry the evils of the world, and then to offer salvation either as a way of warring against culture or as an escape from the world. In his Mars Hill speech, Paul reminds his listeners of the original purpose of history. God is the maker of the world and everything in it. He is to be worshiped as such.

He gave purpose to human existence. First, he gave us life and breath and his creation to enjoy. According to Bruce Waltke, being made in the image of God means we are “passionate vitality.” We are alive for the purpose of worshipping God.¹⁰ Second, he gave us a task: to multiply and live on the face of the earth. Our purpose is to seek God in the hope of finding him through our life in this world.

In light of that purpose, Paul tells the audience to correct their mistaken views both of the nearby gods and the faraway god. God is not to be worshiped through art and imagination divorced from faith in Christ. Nor is he unknown, nor is he to be worshiped in ignorance. He is known and has now made his presence even better known. God has announced a purpose to call everyone to account at the fixed day when history ends.

If all this is true, how should we live? In a word, says Paul, by repentance. Repentance means a turnaround, a paradigm shift. It is a radical reorientation. What might this look like in terms of culture?

We know that in the centuries after Christ’s resurrection, despite small beginnings, the church grew quickly, and eventually redefined many of the cultural and social realities of ancient Rome. What should this look like today?

However much many of us have been influenced by Abraham Kuyper and his ideal of cultural transformation, most of us have become more sober, more modest in our outlook. Ironically, though, that may lead to greater effect. Andy Crouch provides helpful guidance. In his recent book, Culture Making, he cautions us against triumphalist claims of changing the world through inventions, strategies, causes, and the like.¹¹ He urges us to look at the divine pattern of culture making, which asks the rich to become more humble and work instead for the empowerment of the poor and disenfranchised.

He then cites examples such as the end of Apartheid in South Africa and the revolutions in former Soviet republics. He also cites small-scale changes, which do not appear in the headlines, but are just as significant as the larger ones. These include showing love within families or the gracious treatment of employees. This is absolutely not to lower our expectations or abandon the grand calling to make disciples of the nations. There are two ways we can work out the implications of these ideas in terms of cultural engagement.

The first is to redefine or redirect cultural patterns affected by the fall. Of course, the gospel is a new creation, not simply a restoration. As a result our redirecting should be very ambitious. As we seek to enact change, we are living out our heavenly citizenship. Each one of us has a calling. Here are a few ideas as to what this might mean in terms of individual callings.

All of our callings should be fulfilled honorably, truthfully and skillfully.

Artists should feel their way through the confusing varieties of modern art and see if they can redirect some of that talent in order to skillfully tell the true story. Maybe they will participate in initiatives such as Prospect.1 New Orleans, which ran from November to January. It was the largest biennial of international contemporary art ever organized in the U.S. It served multiple purposes: to help the local economy after Katrina, to restore a sense of aesthetics to that historic city, to educate people about the arts, and to “redefine the city as a cultural destination.”¹² Or maybe they will teach art at a Christian college as does Bruce Herman, and translate biblical and first century models for our times.

Scientists should see if they can redirect ongoing research for the greater benefit of the human race. Maybe they will get into redefining the use of the environment. One constant model is the Au Sable community in Michigan, which educates people in recognizing the earth as the Lord’s and teaches sustainable community in an age in which most environmental studies have been done outside the church.

Those in business should look for ways to go beyond profit making and provide for the betterment of their community and of global society. They should provide fair and encouraging working conditions for their employees. When a downturn comes, be the first to provide generously for those in trouble. Work quietly with your hands in order to provide for those in need.

Mothers and fathers should look at the broken families all around us and redirect these relationships with love and healing.

In all these cases culture should not be seen as a threat, if it is tied to the glory of the original creation and reconfigured in Jesus Christ. It may be perceived that way by our detractors. If we are quietly generous, whether we encounter  opposition or not, we have a clear conscience before the Lord.

One more thing. I have come to believe that we Christians should be subversive. Is there not a place to undermine the dominant powers and exercise divine power to dismantle strongholds? (2 Corinthians 10:4) When Jesus became incarnate his mother Mary sang her Magnificat, praising God for bringing down the mighty and exalting the humble. (Luke 1:52) Our Lord Jesus undermined the power of both religious teachers and Roman rulers.

He did not do this violently but subversively, and with great imagination. Think of the parables. Think of his interactions with the Scribes, catching them off guard with his deepening of the law, his praise of the simple and anonymous, his defense of the vulnerable and his cleansing of the Temple.

After his magnificent speech, Paul received three reactions. I suggest they are the ones we will receive not only when we speak, but when we work at challenging and transforming culture. Some believed. Some repented and enlisted in the task force. Some mocked and rejected the whole idea as preposterous. Perhaps they reached for their guns! Still others wanted to know more.

Our times present extraordinary opportunities for this kind of engagement. Let us give our neighbors reason for the hope we have. (1 Peter 3:15)

_________
¹Hanns Johst, Schlageter. Translated with an introduction by Ford B. Parkes-Perret. Akdemischer Verlag Hans-Dieter Heinz, Stuttgart: 1984, (Act 1, Scene 1).
²Ibid.
³S. Frederick Starr, Red Hot: The Fate of Jazz in the Soviet Union, (Pompton Plains, New Jersey: Limelight Editions, 2004).
⁴Danièle Hervieu-Léger, Religion as a Chain of Memory, (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2000).
⁵Os Guinness and John Seel, eds., No God but God: Breaking With the Idols of Our Age (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 29–61.
⁶Chris Simmons, “Our Culture, Ourselves,” gospelandculture.org, http://www.gospelandculture.org/2009/01/our-economy-ourselves/ <3.5.2009>.
⁷William Leach, Land of Desire: Merchants, Power and the Rise of a New American Culture (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), 3–38. Cited in Simmons, “Our Culture, Ourselves.”
⁸Simmons, “Our Culture, Ourselves.”
⁹Dick Keyes, “The Idol Factory,” in No God but God, 41.
¹⁰Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), 70–71.
¹¹Andy Crouch, Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2008).
¹²http://www.prospectneworleans.org/. <3.9.2009>

William Edgar is Director of The Gospel & Culture Project as well as Professor and Chair of Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.