The Church as Culture

[HondurasKeiser]

I heard him interviewed and he mentioned in a light-hearted way turning down hymnbook compilers who wanted to tweak lines like "...on that cross cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied..."

I like the "on the cross as Jesus died, the love of God was magnified." And that was explicitly rejected by them when a hymn publisher wanted to change it.

The other one some object to is the rather explicit perseverance of the saints lines.

I can accept substantial atonement theory and even penal atonement theory as long as they don't say anything more than the scriptures say AND they allow for other atonement theories that also have biblical support. What I have little respect for is choosing one and rejecting others even though they are based directly from scripture.

Curious if you’ve seen the most recent Anabaptist Perspectives with Dean Taylor on Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

[barnhart]

I like the "on the cross as Jesus died, the love of God was magnified." And that was explicitly rejected by them when a hymn publisher wanted to change it.

The other one some object to is the rather explicit perseverance of the saints lines.

I can accept substantial atonement theory and even penal atonement theory as long as they don't say anything more than the scriptures say AND they allow for other atonement theories that also have biblical support. What I have little respect for is choosing one and rejecting others even though they are based directly from scripture.

Curious if you’ve seen the most recent Anabaptist Perspectives with Dean Taylor on Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

Yes, and I already forgot about it... As I recall he was pushing back against some Anabaptists who want to reject PSA as heresy.

[HondurasKeiser]

I can accept substantial atonement theory and even penal atonement theory as long as they don't say anything more than the scriptures say AND they allow for other atonement theories that also have biblical support. What I have little respect for is choosing one and rejecting others even though they are based directly from scripture.

Curious if you’ve seen the most recent Anabaptist Perspectives with Dean Taylor on Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

Yes, and I already forgot about it... As I recall he was pushing back against some Anabaptists who want to reject PSA as heresy.

Yes that's right...I'm working my way through it now.

[Bootstrap]

Before we talk about "church and culture," maybe we should pause and ask what we mean by those words.

And for what it's worth, I don't think the article mentioned in the OP does this well. It shifts from one definition to another for both Church and Culture, which makes it a little fuzzy. Some of our discussion in this thread has done the same.

I suspect there's a lot less disagreement when we are clear what we are talking about. There's still disagreement, but when that disagreement is phrased clearly, it's easier to learn from it.

[JayP]

Hang in, people believe in penal substitutional atonement?
Would you say most anabaptists do?

I confess I never heard the term used in my years moving in plain circles.
If someone (not from the pulpit ever) used the phrase I just thought it another cause if fundamentalist inroad rot.

Would some of you be comfortable with it? How can Christs suffering, which atones, be held justifiable punishment ?
God cannot punish God.

[JohnH]

Hang in, people believe in penal substitutional atonement?
Would you say most anabaptists do?

I confess I never heard the term used in my years moving in plain circles.
If someone (not from the pulpit ever) used the phrase I just thought it another cause if fundamentalist inroad rot.

Would some of you be comfortable with it? How can Christs suffering, which atones, be held justifiable punishment ?
God cannot punish God.

PSA is the “standard” western Catholic belief. (EOs and Eastern Catholics lean more towards Christus Victor, with Eastern Catholics doing so as a matter of theologoumena.

Yet for some reason, Reformed / Calvinist people, including evangelicals and Baptists influenced by Reformed thinking, consider PSA of absolute utmost importance, making it much more central than the Catholics do who invented it in the first place.

A proper understanding is simply that Jesus was much like the sacrificial lamb during Passover. There is not a need for a complex doctrine of how God is angry and needs someone to vent his anger against by torturing them and making them suffer and even die. This is one of those Reformed things I find frankly disturbing, right next door to double predestination.

[JayP]

No John, Catholics absolutely do not use PSA.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Back to the OP, in light of the discussion along the way ...

Before we talk about "church and culture," maybe we should pause and ask what we mean by those words.

1) The Church
It could mean:

• The whole body of Christ across time and space.
• Local congregations in real places.
• Institutions like denominations, schools, and agencies.
• Or the Church as a culture of its own, formed by worship, teaching, and shared practices.

2) Culture
It could mean:

• Everyday ways of life — families, work, habits.
• High culture — art, media, universities.
• Institutions — government, law, business.
• The "air we breathe" without noticing: our language, emotions, and assumptions. We do not usually stop speaking English and start speaking Hebrew or Deitsch when we become Christians — but we do begin to learn a new accent, new desires, and new instincts inside whatever language and setting we live in.

A simple grid
When we live as the Church within any culture, we can only speak and act using that culture’s tools — its language, symbols, emotions, and institutions. The question is whether we simply mirror them, or let Christ reshape them so they carry something new.

• Receive — take what is truly good as a gift from God.
• Redeem — reshape the tools of the culture to serve Christ.
• Resist — refuse what leads away from love and life.

In our own communities, what should we receive, what can we redeem, and what must we resist? Which parts of our culture are the common language we use to reach out to others? Which definitions of Church and Culture are most useful for thinking clearly about this?

I don't know how, after this nice post bringing us back to the original topic, there was suddenly a discussion about PSA. But regardless, Boot, thank you for the rejoinder.

I suspect a lot of Anabaptists would appreciate "Receive," especially foreign missionaries, church planters, and Bible translators. The current Anabaptist culture would readily affirm "Resist" (maybe a bit too much). I think where you'd get pushback from conservative Anabaptists is the middle ground, "Redeem". It's hard to imagine something that fits into that category, especially within the cross section of Anabaptism and fundamentalism.

[Bootstrap]

I suspect a lot of Anabaptists would appreciate "Receive," especially foreign missionaries, church planters, and Bible translators. The current Anabaptist culture would readily affirm "Resist" (maybe a bit too much). I think where you'd get pushback from conservative Anabaptists is the middle ground, "Redeem". It's hard to imagine something that fits into that category, especially within the cross section of Anabaptism and fundamentalism.

I think we sometimes underestimate how much of our worship life already sits in the “redeem” category. Take Mennonite hymnody: most of our traditional hymns didn’t drop from heaven fully formed. The tunes often came from folk songs or baroque chorales, then were reshaped to carry prayer and praise. Singing in four-part harmony took a cultural form of choral music and reworked it into a discipline of community, where every voice blends and no instrument dominates. Even the language of the texts—whether German or English—was drawn from the poetic and musical patterns of the surrounding culture, but “bent” toward confession, lament, and worship. In other words, Mennonite hymnody is a classic case of redeeming culture: taking the tools at hand and reshaping them in Christ.

You see the same dynamic in other streams of Christian music. Shape-note hymns drew on the rough, democratic singing traditions of the American frontier, and turned them into vehicles of worship. Bach took the techniques of Western art music and offered them “Soli Deo Gloria.” None of these examples were “pure” imports or wholesale rejections. They were cultural forms, reworked in light of the gospel.

And if we’re honest, even this forum is part of the same question. The technology of online discussion isn’t neutral: it can foster pride, division, distraction, or hostility. But it can also be redeemed—used as a tool for encouragement, thoughtful conversation, and discernment in the body of Christ. Just by showing up here, we’re making a decision about whether and how to redeem this corner of digital culture for Christ’s purposes.

[Jazman]

I suspect a lot of Anabaptists would appreciate "Receive," especially foreign missionaries, church planters, and Bible translators. The current Anabaptist culture would readily affirm "Resist" (maybe a bit too much). I think where you'd get pushback from conservative Anabaptists is the middle ground, "Redeem". It's hard to imagine something that fits into that category, especially within the cross section of Anabaptism and fundamentalism.

I think we sometimes underestimate how much of our worship life already sits in the “redeem” category. Take Mennonite hymnody: most of our traditional hymns didn’t drop from heaven fully formed. The tunes often came from folk songs or baroque chorales, then were reshaped to carry prayer and praise. Singing in four-part harmony took a cultural form of choral music and reworked it into a discipline of community, where every voice blends and no instrument dominates. Even the language of the texts—whether German or English—was drawn from the poetic and musical patterns of the surrounding culture, but “bent” toward confession, lament, and worship. In other words, Mennonite hymnody is a classic case of redeeming culture: taking the tools at hand and reshaping them in Christ.

You see the same dynamic in other streams of Christian music. Shape-note hymns drew on the rough, democratic singing traditions of the American frontier, and turned them into vehicles of worship. Bach took the techniques of Western art music and offered them “Soli Deo Gloria.” None of these examples were “pure” imports or wholesale rejections. They were cultural forms, reworked in light of the gospel.

And if we’re honest, even this forum is part of the same question. The technology of online discussion isn’t neutral: it can foster pride, division, distraction, or hostility. But it can also be redeemed—used as a tool for encouragement, thoughtful conversation, and discernment in the body of Christ. Just by showing up here, we’re making a decision about whether and how to redeem this corner of digital culture for Christ’s purposes.

I just learned from this OT scholar/teacher that a lot of the first Tabernacle copied some of the forms/art of the Egyptians, but with some significant differences of course that set it apart to specifically point to the one true God... but it still used things that the Hebrews just leaving Egypt would have been familiar with... I always assumed all the trappings/adornments of the tabernacle were brand new forms/creations from God alone... turns out He gently leads us using some things we're familiar with... His grace is amazing!