In the 1800’s, Charles Finney was deeply invested in the spiritual life of the still fledgling United States. There were opposing views of the responsibility of individuals as they experienced the new life as a Christian, one converted ‘from’ a way of life ‘to’ another, that of Christ as the center. Was the primary concern of salvation that of the individual or was it broader – was it to also be effecting culture as a whole? Finney had the “belief that Christ’s kingdom comes in history as the gospel progressively transforms the culture.” (Saving Souls, Serving Society: Understanding the Faith Factor in Church-based Social Ministry, 163) The primary opposing views was that the culture would get progressively worse and worse, despite the efforts of the redeemed, until Christ came and made everything right again. And I find myself in a quandary.
Of course, much more goes with the two belief systems than the crude summary above. Pre- and Post- millennialism are complicated in their theology, with arguments abounding on both sides. The denomination that I choose to identify with embraces the former theology, that of an ever increasing distance from God as the days unfold. And herein lies the quandary. I actually think Finney and other 18th & 19th C. revivalists were on to something. A view that humanity, redeemed, has a tangible effect in ushering in the kingdom of Christ is quite rewarding. But to view the redeemed human condition as powerless to impact culture is a bit of a downer. The wrestling is in the nuance of how much individual conversion is core vs. the culture change that leads to Christ’s kingdom is borne out by such individuals, and is that even the point of conversion.
Conversion. A turning. Christ is at the center of Christian conversion, of course. The manner in which this happens is a beautiful interaction of the divine with humanity. The Father draws (John 6:44). The Spirit convicts (John 16:8). Jesus receives (Acts 4:12). From this point, as the Spirit empowers, the converted one begins a transformation from the inside out, the fruit of the Spirit grow and mature (Galatians 5:22-23). Then what? Well, we are in this for either conversion of others for conversion’s sake, or conversion is for something else.
The Father draws. The Spirit convicts. Jesus receives.
Is this ‘something else’ culture change? When leading the congregation I pastor, I am struck by the hunger many have to impact culture BECAUSE of their conversion. Prior to conversion, they were part of the system. Post-conversion, a new perspective drives the heart to a new love, a new responsibility for ‘the other’ that is outside of the faith. Isn’t this drive that is from heart of God culture transforming through individual conversion? As one speaks the gospel to another, the beautiful hope of Jesus is birthed anew. And a desire should grow to influence their own surroundings and cultural context with the good news they have received.
When Jesus ascended, among the last instructions given were to go, make disciples of all nations. I think that in the process of disciple-making, culture change happens. We have the distinct privilege to work alongside the Creator to bring about the Incarnation in our setting, in our families, in our cities, in our nation. It CANNOT stop with just being converted! We have hope of transformation beyond ourselves. The final word is reserved for an unknown future date…but until then we labor in our conversion to effect change of our culture, bringing more of Christ to bear upon our community.
What do you think? Where does our responsibility lie – with ourselves and conversion or with the ultimate goal of culture change? Would welcome comments!
richwooten 