The Christian's Relationship with the World

I'm thinking out loud here, which is always pretty dangerous. But in thinking about this topic, it has occurred to me that there are a lot of rabbit trails and peripheral things that can distract us from approaching the topic wisely. Keeping in mind that I'm talking off the cuff, I'd like to briefly explore some broad parameters through which we might begin asking better questions about how cozy Christians should be with the world around them.

The general Reformed understanding of this issue has been that Christ (through his church) is the transformer of culture. This stands in contrast to the concept of Christ as culture, which often predominated during the medieval period up to the Renaissance. It also stands in contrast to the concept of Christ opposed to culture, which one can find today in the attitudes of a number of true fundamentalists as well as the Amish (although the Amish in particular are inconsistent on this, since all they've really done is swear off today's worldly culture in exchange for the worldly culture of 200 years ago - it's still worldly). Speaking in generalities, the Reformed view stakes out a middle ground between the other two approaches, where both worldly engagement and disengagement have a place and are necessary. The Reformed view believes that this dichotomy is based on Scriptural teaching that favors both involvement and separation with/from the world. While this can be seen as contradictory or even incoherent, it actually makes a lot of sense if one sees this issue in the context of the already/not yet eschatology that we find ourselves in and is given to us in the NT.

I would argue that the Incarnation and earthly ministry of Christ simply do not allow complete disengagement from the world as Christians. Christ himself voluntarily left his glorious abode to enter into a dark and hostile world, identify himself with sinful humans, enter into the muddy mess of our lives, and save us right there. This is the overriding practical theology of the Savior's coming to earth. I simply can't see how such a theology is compatible with theology of total separation from the world and a complete lack of concern with the world. It is truly amazing to contemplate how it can be that the perfect fulfillment of Christ's functions (offices) as the sinless Savior involved embracing sinners and identifying himself with them through his humanity. It is really worth considering what this says about our theology of sin, and about our theology of sanctification and glorification. When our level of engagement with the world is seen through the prism of christology, total separation is not an option.

So given this, does this mean that we should associate with the world in its totality with no reservations or boundaries? No. Christ, after all, was God incarnate, without sin, possessing a divine will toward true and perfect holiness. None of this is true of us in our present condition. Unlike Christ, we routinely fail to be loyal to God in the face of sin's temptations. Unlike Christ, our will is stained by sin and it impacts everything we do. Unlike Christ, we are not God. What this means is that unlike Christ, our vulnerability to give in to sin and to drift from the will of God is so great that it is foolish to think it won't happen if we are spiritually lethargic about toying with temptation. When our level of engagement with the world is seen through the prism of anthropology, unfettered assocation is not an option.

Considering that the church at large has had 2,000 years to reach consensus and strike the right balance on this question and has yet to succeed, we should not kid ourselves about our own chances for complete success. But neither should we shrug our shoulders and punt the question just because the paradox is difficult. Instead, it might be helpful to think about the issue within the kind of general principles discussed here, in order to have enough general guidance to engage the day to day questions of engagement from a more sturdy foundation. Put simply, I favor approaching this critical question from the top and working down, rather than starting at the details and working up to general principles in this case. Too often, I think we approach this question utilizing the latter approach, and I'm not at all sure that's the best way to go about it. While Scripture provides many specifics, it much more often equips us with higher level principles upon which to evaluate specific situations. Our challenge is to do just that - understand the principles Scripture gives us, and properly and responsibly applying them to daily living today. Hopefully this post is a rudimentary start in that direction.