Understandings of the Gospel and Culture

I have been thinking out loud for a few weeks about questions of Christ and culture. In this post, I highlight the tensions in evangelical thought today. In a second post, I wrote about Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture and D. A. Carson's Christ and Culture Revisited, advocating Carson's use of the overarching narrative of Scripture as a control for our thinking that allows for flexibility in interacting with culture depending on our particular context. In a third post, I indirectly critiqued the failure in some evangelical circles to engage sufficiently the city of man by critiquing Albert Mohler's book Culture Shift. And in a fourth post, I recommended Mark Driscoll's The Radical Reformission not because of its theological depth, and not because I recommend everything Driscoll does, but because he asks good questions that force us to get to know our communities better if we are to answer.

But in all of this musing and writing, I have not answered this question concretely: How is it that Christians of similar theological convictions can differ on whether the church should be involved in providing affordable housing, health care, or other social and economic aid? Note that I said "the church" and not "Christians." Most evangelicals agree that Christians should be involved in care for "the alien, the fatherless, and the widow" (Deut 27:19; Ps 146:9; Isa 1:17; Lk 4:18; Jas 1:27). Where we disagree is on the question of what the church as a whole should do.

Let's make the point of disagreement clearer. Almost everyone agrees that it is appropriate for members of a church to start a non-profit providing affordable housing. And most agree that it is appropriate for a church to give financial, prayer, support such an organization. But should a church start a community development corporation, such as New Song in Harlem, in which the church begins the CDC but it functions separately? And should a church itself engage in such work by putting volunteers, staff, and budget against such ministries? Is there a difference between running a food pantry, opening a health clinic, and building housing?

The more I read, the more I am convinced that the key issue is a disagreement over how broad or how narrow the gospel is. Does the gospel focus on individual redemption through faith in the Christ who died a substitutionary death for sinners? Or is the gospel broader, such that it includes the renewal of all things? How you answer this question goes a long way toward how you view some of the activities in the above paragraph. If a church gets involved in running a health clinic, is it that a distraction from or a fulfillment of the Great Commission?

In a recent post on the IX Marks blog, Greg Gilbert offered an observation that I found helpful. Folks who disagree over these matters tend to disagree over the right question to ask. In reflecting on what the gospel is, on what the Main Thing is for the church, one group is asking, "What is the message a person must believe to be saved?" The other group is asking, "What is the whole good news of Christianity?" He notes that the word "gospel" is used in Scripture to describe the answer to both questions and that neither question is wrong, and wonders if perhaps much tension would be cleared up among evangelicals if we realized we are asking different questions and using "gospel" in different but biblical ways.

Perhaps this observation seems elementary to some. But for me it was illuminating, so much so that it has led me to some principles that I tentatively offer for thinking through what a church should do in engaging culture. But this post is long enough -- I will talk about them in the next one.