Destruction

title: “Destruction of Culture”

For the spiritual destiny of any individual there are only two possiblities: redemption or destruction. As we all know and believe, one’s relationship with Christ determines which occurs.

Destruction, for the individual, occurs when an unrepentant, unsaved individual dies and is condemned to hell. Redemption in its fullest forms occurs when the saved person dies and comes to Heaven. However, we can also say that the work of destruction or the work of redemption begins in our life here on Earth based on the choices we make.

Since destruction and redemption apply to the individual, wouldn’t they also apply to cultures and religious systems? These are simply large aggregates of individuals who share common location, expressions, language, and in some cases religion. For example, the Malay people are defined by their location (southeast Asia, mainly Malaysia), language (Malay), culture, and religion (“to be Malay is to be Muslim”).

THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURE

Generally speaking, we can say the destruction of a culture or religious system can occur in three ways. I do not advocate either, but simply enumerate them here in order that we may understand the processes.

1. Destruction through cessation of practice. People may, for one reason or another, cease to be part of the culture. For example, young people may migrate out searching for jobs or education, be assimilated into another culture, and cease to practice their original beliefs or even speak their original language. Or, for another example with more bearing on this essay, they may become Christians and come to believe incompatible elements within the culture require them to “come out of it.” If this occurs with 100% of the culture’s members, the culture itself would be destroyed.

2. Destruction through physical death. Scripture documents how God has destroyed unrepentant, degenerate and evil cultures, by destroying everything within it.
   • Sodom and Gomorrah, where people, buildings, animals, etc. were all completely destroyed by divine fire
   • The whole Earth, with the people physically destroyed by divine flood
   • The Tower of Babel, where the culture was destroyed by the divine scattering of the people
   • The Amalekites, where the culture was physically destroyed by divinely-ordered ethnic cleansing It is interesting to note that when God destroys a culture that He deems a threat to the Earth, He does so utterly. Nothing is left of it. Sodom and its neighboring cities were reduced to the Dead Sea. Saul was specifically told to destroy everything of the Amalekites: men, women, children, animals, cities, etc. Degenerate cultures were to be completely removed from the Earth, so that no other culture could revive their practices.
3. Destruction through evolution into something new. Cultures evolve and change, and people groups blend and form new people groups. For example, “American” culture is less than 200 years old, as is white Australian culture.

GOD’S DESIRE TO REDEEM

Is the destruction of a culture the desire of God? Obviously not. God’s creation was completed in the Genesis Creation period, corrupted by the sin of makind, and the balance of history is the story of God’s labors to redeem, restore and resurrect. (This doesn’t ignore the fact that sometimes God has been forced to destroy cultures lest their evil pervade the earth. It just means this isn’t His ultimate desire.)

God’s desire and labor to redeem is illustrated in several stories in the Old Testament:

• Abraham negotiated with God down to the “10 righteous men” (unfortunately for Sodom & Gomorrah, 10 were not to be found).
• Job was sent to preach to Nineveh, and when the city repented God spared them (much to Jonah’s dismay–I guess he was looking forward to the fireworks).
• And of course the ministry of Jesus, encapsulated in John 3:16-17: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”

CULTURAL REDEMPTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ASSIMILATION AND HOMOGENIZATION OF CULTURE

In Genesis 12, God tells Abraham his purpose: “I will bless you that through you all nations might be blessed.” God did not require all people to become Jews. He desired that all peoples might be blessed while retaining their own identity. This was not so much a worldly blessing as it was about the promise of restoration of fellowship with God. It is evident even as early as this that the promise of restoration does not involve the loss of individual cultural expression. When Jesus called his disciples, they remained Jewish in their worship and fellowship with others. Jesus compared the disciples to salt and light: they were to be in the world and redeem it. While II Corinthians 6 orders us to not be “unequally yoked” and calls us to be separate, it is not suggesting we should have nothing to do with the world. Believers should not become partnered with the world through marriage or the leadership structure of the church - you wouldn’t have an unbeliever as a pastor or a priest, for example! However, it shouldn’t be taken to mean that new Christians should abandon their cultural heritage.

THE LOOK OF A REDEEMED CULTURE

Should every Christianized culture look the same? Of course not. If all Chinese were Christians, they would still cook Chinese food. The picture in Revelation is of all the tribes and nations of the Earth gathered around the throne.

Should all churches look the same? Likewise, we understand intellectually that they should not, but I think we often expect them to. It’s as if we expect Chinese believers to cook Chinese food at home, but to organize and worship in the same way that Westerners do.

When people become followers of Christ, their cultural heritage must be the determining factor in the organization of their fellowships. Reclaimed individuals are “redeemed, reclaimed and restored”–what is spiritually corrupt is wiped away, and what is good is reclaimed and enhanced. Their uniqueness is added to the Body of Christ. If this happens to individuals, wouldn’t it be true of cultures as well?

It’s obvious that Chinese churches will speak a different language and be organized in a different way than Arabic churches, and Arabic churches will be different from Western churches. Can this be taken too far?

THE DEBATE IN THE EARLY CHURCH

After Christ’s ascension, his followers did not become “Christians”. They remained Jews who believed in Christ. Organized Christianity was not the intentional creation of Christ or of the apostles–it began as a label applied by persecutors and was “officialized” with the establishment of the church as the official state religion (a point, some would argue, where much of the decline of the church began).

Instead, the early church did three things: they preached the Gospel of salvation through faith in Christ, devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles and fellowship, and shared with each other to meet each other’s needs. They continued to go to the Temple for worship and prayer, and continued to meet the requirements of Judaism. (Acts 2, 3).

The first brush with other cultures came when the Apostles fanned out to avoid persecution, preaching the Gospel as they went. They preached to Samaritans and Ethiopians. In both instances, there is no record that the people were required to abandon their cultural forms of worship (such as the locations where they worshiped). They were undoubtedly brought to faith in Christ, but they were not, for example, required to join the Jewish religion. This is pertinent because until this point the Apostles were simply Jews who followed Christ; if there was one “form” they had it was the Jewish faith. Yet there is no record that they at this point required others to take on this form.

The Holy Spirit emphasized this in Acts 10, giving Peter a vision and telling him to go preach to Cornelius. As Peter witnessed to Cornelius and his household, it is interesting that the Holy Spirit came upon them before they were baptized - these unclean Gentiles could be filled with the Spirit! This was the “confirmation” that the Gentiles really could be saved. Why deny them baptism? asked Peter.

This carried with it enormous potential repercussions which were debated in the early church. The believers were Jewish and followed Jewish laws and customs. When they evangelized Gentiles and those Gentiles professed Christ, did they become Jews? something else? what happened?

If we follow the argument that God’s labor is to make things new through resurrection, it follows that existing norms of culture and worship need not be destroyed, but rather redeemeed. When the debate in the early church came to a head in Acts 15, some argued that “Unless you are circumcised and follow the law of Moses”–in effect, unless you become a Jew! – “you cannot be saved.” Paul rebutted this saying, basically, they didn’t have to be circumcised or follow the law of Moses:

“Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:10-11)

James spoke up and reiterated the restoration argument in vs. 16-18:

“The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things that have been known for ages.’”

Their final conclusion was that the Gentiles could be saved without becoming Jews. Anyone, of any race, tribe, language, or location could follow Christ. Acts 15:28-29 simply says, “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (One would assume that those who were believers in Christ would also have to obey the two Great Commandments Christ handed down - to love God and to love each other. Such would preclude things like murder, theft, etc.)

In one fell swoop followers of Christ saw their global potential. The Way could be followed by anyone. There were qualifiers, of course, but those qualifiers were not cultural in nature. Any language could be used to worship God. Some would meet in the Jewish temple, and some would meet in secular meeting places. The Gentiles were not required to abandon their cultural norms, and neither were the Jews - who would continue to worship in the Temple and obey the “law of Moses” (the ceremonial law as well, apparently).

MODERN APPLICATIONS

It seems clear from the record of the early church that one can live within a civic system, choosing to either civilly disobey or not take advantage of laws that are contrary to our discipleship. Paul was a citizen of the Roman Empire, for example.

This leaves the question, can you remain within a cultural system that is completely intertwined with a religion? It depends on how much freedom that civic system grants you.

The New Testament directive clearly says believers must abandon any idolatrous practices. They may not participate in idolatrous worship. It doesn’t matter where you worship (see Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman), but it does matter who you worship (“you shall love the Lord your God”).

It was just this point that led the early church into persecution. When the Roman Empire demanded its citizens worship Caesar, the Christians refused and were persecuted severely. If a society comes to a point where citizenship requires a renunciation of Christ as Lord, then citizenship itself must be abandoned.

A culture can be considered “redeemed” when its members have been reclaimed into the Kingdom of God. When an individual is saved, his life should become an example of what the culture could be if everyone within it were redeemed. If the culture grants him the freedom to do this, the new believer can remain within the culture as “salt and light”. A believer in this situation will have to examine his everyday actions within the light of his discipleship. Some of them can be continued, and others must be abandoned.

For example, family relationships will have to be rethought. Do cultural habits lead to respect for elders, for the right treatment of the spouse, to the training of children to worship the Lord, and so on?

Business relationships also need to be reconsidered. Are they full of integrity? Do they reflect the “Golden Rule” of love and charity for others?

Finally, we come to the thorniest question: worship. Can you worship God in a temple made for idols, in a ethnic religion or a spiritistic religion? On the one hand, we could say “yes”. For example, I have friends who go on prayerwalks around such temples. They are clearly worshipping God (with an eye toward spiritual intercession against the powers dominating the area). Worship is therefore possible WITHIN the location.

On the other hand, II Corinthians 6 clearly indicates we are not to be yoked with unbelievers. We are not to participate in idolatry. Therefore, the believer cannot participate in non-Christian worship within the temple. Based on this Scripture, I don’t think it’s possible for someone to join in non-Christian worship publicly while privately worshipping God in one’s heart.

(And, once the entire culture has been “reclaimed for Christ,” it is likely that the temple would be destroyed, so that it would not give anyone occasion to sin by idol-worship.)

Could you worship God using mechanisms that the culture has embraced, in a Christian context? For example, could one create a Christian church that looks like an Islamic mosque - the “Jesus mosque”?

I think this is “cultural redemption” at its ragged edge. The forms of worship could remain the same but we must be clear: the core would have to be radically different from Islam. We could call this “Redeemed Islam” perhaps, or “authentic Arabic Christianity.” The name doesn’t matter so much as how it works. What such a form of worship would look like is the subject of an article archived in the NSM Knowledge Base:

C5 Missionaries to Muslims, by Jason Fugate

http://www.strategicnetwork.org/index.asp?loc=kb&id;=3259

A different kind of mosque

Reprinted in Mission Frontiers from CoMission

http://www.strategicnetwork.org/index.asp?loc=kb&id;=5298

I have some additional thoughts. If someone were to write “5 pillars of followers of Jesus” (as a redemptive answer to the 5 pillars of Islam), they might look like this:

1. Faith - “There is no god worthy of worship except God (Allah), and Muhammad is his prophet.” What if one were to say instead: “There is no God worthy of worship except God (Jehovah? Yahweh? I don’t know about the names–that would be quite controversial in itself), and Jesus is His Son” or something similar? This would change it from orthodox Islam, but the labor of God is one of redemption. The final product would be different at its core even if the outward expression remained much the same.

2. Prayer. The 5 prayers daily. In Islam, the 5 prayers contain verses from the Koran, are said in Arabic, but personal supplication can also be offered in one’s own language. The follower of Christ could still pray 5 times daily, using Scriptures from the Bible, and offering his own personal prayers as well. (This doesn’t mean he can ONLY pray 5 times daily.)

3. Zakat. Offerings and tithe. No real problem there.

4. Fast. Every year in the month of Ramadan, all Muslims fast from first light until sundown, abstaining from food, drink and sex. I think a fast would not hurt Christians any: they could obviously could participate in this.

5. Pilgrimage. The Hajj to Meccah. Perhaps one of the most problematic aside from the Faith statement. However, could this be viewed as a pilgrimage to prayerwalk? Or, could it be transformed into a short term mission trip to an unreached people group?

CAN THIS BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL?

So let’s be clear about what we’re describing. We’re talking about someone who says, “I am a (Messianic Jew/Messianic Muslim/etc)” (fill in the blanks). They say, in effect, “You may not call me a (Muslim/Jew/etc.), but if a (Muslim/Jew/etc.) is truly a worshipper of God, then I, in following Christ, am most truly one.”

They continue to worship God in the same ways that others of the faith do, except that where those ways conflict with Scripture and the teachings of Christ, they follow Christ rather than the culture. It is at this point that the religious system becomes redeemed. We keep the expression (which is cultural) and trash the idolatry. If the person goes the other way, surrendering to culture/religion and adopting it over discipleship, they have taken the path of syncretism.

This is certainly possible. It may not be welcome in every quarter, and there may be those followers of Christ who would consider a “Muslim follower of Christ” to be a contradiction in terms. Further, it requires a strong commitment to Christ and fellowship with each other for mutual accountability. As with the early church, there would likely be death threats, imprisonments, beatings, etc. Nevertheless the Scriptural precedent is there: in the life of Daniel and his friends, and in the pattern of the early church.

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT

Is all of this a rabbit trail? Why does God care so much for the diversity of people groups, cultures, and even corrupt religious systems?

First, I think it’s important because many people in the 10/40 Window resist coming into the church because they see it as the death of their culture. In their view, the process of evangelization is not the process of redemption, but the process of destruction. We ought to be offering life, not death.

Second, I think that every ethnic group has something to offer the church, which we ignore at our peril. For example, even now we think of Western Christianity as spiritually bankrupt. Where are the people who are living the New Testament pattern? Where are the people who pray, who intercede, who plead with God, who fast and tithe?

If Muslims were to be redeemed into the church, would their spirituality and religious systems be destroyed? Obviously, they could no longer place Muhammad over Jesus. If we view Islam as a corrupt system, what parts are corrupt?

By failing to offer Muslims the life found in following Christ, have we denied the church the revitalization of our spiritual quality, not to mention thousands of teachers, preachers, prophets and prayer warriors? But my point is, if a Muslim is redeemed, would he or she pray 5 times a day–or only once a week? Would they fast a month out of the year–or maybe a day? Would they make pilgrimages to the unreached of the world? Would they intercede for Western souls?

My own look at this is probably fraught with errors or problems. Not being an expert on Islam, I’ve tried to approach this more from a logical viewpoint than anything else. I’m not the only one looking at this issue, and I hope more people do.

I think we need to take a longer and deeper look into the issues of contextualization and the redemption of cultures. If we fail to do so, and if we insist on making the whole of Christianity into a clone of the Christianity we see, then we are at peril of bankrupting ourselves spiritually.