UNPUBLISHED BOOK: GOOD ORDER IN THE CHURCH

Leslie McFall

4.9 IS THERE A DISTINCTIVE CHRISTIAN CULTURE?

Should Christianity have its own distinctive culture and should there be universals that characterise it? The short answer is Yes. A Christian is one who is totally and absolutely a follower or imitator of Christ and his teaching, and an imitator of His Apostles and their teaching. His commands (whether conveyed through His own lips or those of His Apostles) should govern every minute of his/her life.

We live in an age of increasing nudity paraded under the guise of art and fashion. When there was only one married couple in the world, namely, Adam and Eve, the Creator Himself made clothes to cover them. If the Creator Himself covers them then this is a very significant cultural act and it should be imitated for all time and in all cultures where Christians are called upon to follow the teaching of the Bible. The modesty with which a Christian woman covers her body is a direct result of the teaching of Scripture. She will not follow the fashion of the world which is to draw attention to the flesh.

Jesus told Satan that man cannot live on bread alone but needs "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." The entire Old Testament is God's Word to His Church in the wilderness. This revelation created the OT Church's culture from top to bottom. No facet of life was not touched by it. It totally dominated the life of every person living within the borders of Israel. God created His own culture from scratch and caused it to be written down. It was within this historically conditioned, religious culture that God continued to speak to His people, constantly drawing their attention to His universals through His prophets. This theocratic culture could not be improved upon. God revealed to His people that their God-centred culture would be the envy of the world, if only they would follow it closely.

Waltke pointed out that the Old Testament revelation of God's will is normative for His Chosen People and cannot be ruled out of hand for three reasons: (1) God ordained Israel's culture; it is not man-made. (2) Gods's prophets critiqued Israel's culture but not patriarchy, which He instituted; and (3) The practice of Jesus confirms male headship. On the first point he notes:

First, God sovereignly ordained the culture in which he became incarnate. The roles played by godly women in ancient Israel are due to his design, not chance. The Sovereign God, not Lady Luck, is Israel's Lord. Since his sovereignty extends even to assigning the pagans their gods and their cultures (Deut 4:19), we may rightly suppose that the Sovereign did not hand over to Chance either his representation of himself as father, Son and Spirit or the role of women in the nation that he chose to bless the world by embodying and disseminating his teaching (cf. Gen 18:18-19).

On the second point he noted:

Second, Israel's prophets, God's mouth, were iconoclasts, not traditionalists, who called Israel into the dock for numerous injustices. . . . However, not one of these cultural revolutionaries regarded patriarchy as an unjust or oppressive form of government. Quite the contrary. They interpreted the rule by women as God's judgment against the sinful nation. Isaiah, for example, ridicules it: "Children are their oppressors, and women rule over them" (Isa 3:12). They inveighed, however, against the abuse of power that oppressed women: "The women of my people you cast out from their pleasant homes" (Micah 2:9).

He might have mentioned Malachi's complaint that the men "cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favour at your hand. You ask, 'Why does he not?' Because the Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant" (Mal 2:14). On the third point he observed:

Third, our Lord was a revolutionary in his own age with regard to the role of women in worship. He amazed his disciples by conversing with a woman because he violated the prejudice of both the Jews and the Romans against women (John 4:27). The Son of God bestowed dignity upon the Samaritan adulteress, "unclean" by Jewish standards, by revealing to her for the first time that worship would now be directed toward the Father in heaven, not toward "Mecca-like" Jerusalem on earth (John 4:21-25). Moreover, our Lord entrusted women to be the original witnesses to his resurrection, the cornerstone of the Christian faith, though their testimony would have been discounted in a Roman court . . . . He rewarded the devotion of Mary of Magdala . . . by allowing her to be the first person to meet him after his resurrection . . . . His disciples refused to believe Mary's report of the risen Lord. In fact, they dismissed it as an "idle tale" . . . . Later Jesus rebuked them for their unwillingness to believe her . . . . yet he implicitly confirmed the role of men as rulers by not appointing a woman as an apostle, though women followed him, ministered to him, and were his close friends.

Waltke might have pointed out that Jesus did not appoint His own mother to any position of authority even though she knew him for the whole of his 33 1/2 years, whereas the twelve apostles only knew Jesus for the last three and a half years of His life. She must have been in her early fifties, whereas all the Apostles were only as old as her son. It is a common objection to Jesus' choice of only male apostles that He was a prisoner of his patriarchal culture. In other words He was short-sighted. But the same objectors press for woman leaders by selectively pointing out that Jesus went against His culture in sending women to inform His Apostles that He had risen. Waltke continues:

Does it make sense to argue that Jesus, who in these matters pertaining to theology was so counter-cultural with respect to women, only appointed male apostles, upon whom he founded his Church, because he was culturally conditioned? Is it not more plausible to think that had he intended to empower women to have equality with men in government, he would have called a woman to be an apostle, either before or after his resurrection? The appointment of men or women to this important office is not a matter of theological indifference.

Waltke might also have pointed out that in the qualifications laid down in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 for the office of Elder no provision was made by the Holy Spirit for a woman holding this office.

But to return to the topic of this section, no Christian can read the Bible on a daily basis and not be influenced by this drip-feed exercise in his daily cultural expression. For example, the frugality of the Christian man in the way he spends his money on himself and his family in order to give more to help maintain and/or establish a vibrant Christian witness in his own locality and on the mission field is the outcome of taking the Great Commission seriously as part of his calling&emdash;a calling which every Christian man is obliged to fulfil in some direct manner.

When a Christian's eyes are fixed solely and resolutely on the things of Christ this will alter his world view, and permanently alter his outlook on all things. He will regard himself as steward of whatever material blessings he has. Everything is to be used for the glory of Christ and the Father. He will gladly submit all in the service of Christ. This attitude of mind and heart does not spring from the natural goodness of the human heart. It requires nothing less than a fundamental regeneration of his life which is the work of the Holy Spirit. Without it many can ape the Christian way of life but never know the deep joy of sacrificing what he knows he cannot keep for something which he knows he cannot lose. Eventually the fake Christian will give himself away, his unregenerate heart will not be able to keep up the facade and this come out in an unwillingness to give up something that s/he knows is required by Scripture. The real self will emerge as a disobedient spirit, as one who will suppress the truth rather than conform to it. It is at that point that the Christian worker should step back from discussing post-conversion issues with such an individual, and seek to convert the mind of such to a new baptism into Christ&emdash;a willingness to put His teaching above everything else.

Of Caleb it was said: "Because my servant Caleb has a different spirit and follows me whole-heartedly, I will bring him into the land he went to" (Num 14:24). Contrast Caleb with King Saul who was commanded to exterminate the Amalekites but disobeyed: he spared the best of the cattle and sheep because of democratic pressure, as he explained to Samuel, "the people took of the spoil of the flock and cattle . . . for sacrifice to Yahweh your God" (1 Sam 15:20). Saul, the appointed leader, allowed himself to be pressurised into a democratic compromise with God's specific command ("it was only when my troops demanded it that I let them keep the best of the sheep and oxen . . ."). He put the blame on the people and justified giving in to their high moral sounding demands because he thought their motive ("to sacrifice to Yahweh") was a good one. Good or bad he had a higher duty that should have been carried out to the letter. He was God's legitimate king and he should have rejected the will of the people.

Today ministers of the Gospel are giving in to pressure from the people to reject specific commands such as proper head-coverings, and over who should speak in the assembly. Saul took upon himself the authority to qualify or modify God's specific command to him. He did not have this authority, and neither does any minister, to change God's good laws. For his arrogance Saul was rejected as king of Israel and God raised up another leader, someone whom He could trust not to give in to the democratic voice, who would carry out all His laws. We are told today that if we conform to God's will in the matter of head-covering and speaking in Church then no-one will want to become a Christian, therefore God's laws have to be set aside in order to gain converts for Him. Samuel's reply to Saul still stands today: "Obedience is far better than sacrifice" (1 Sam 15:22); and Jesus' teaching is still applicable today: "If you love Me keep my commands" (Jn 14:15).

The issues discussed here can only take root in a regenerate heart and can only blossom in an atmosphere of trust and faith in the Lord, and a deep love for every word of the Master, and a burning desire to conform to His every wish; to seek out the principle as much as the letter, but also to be prepared to follow the letter even where an understanding of the principle has not been grasped.

The Christian Church today has lost its own distinctive culture and prefers to put a Christian veneer over the fleshly ways of the world to which it has given in to at almost every level. But every level is transformed when Christians receive the "mind of Christ." His values become their values. His desire become theirs&emdash;to please the Father in everything. Having the mind and the Spirit of Christ will alter the Christian's total outlook and the value he puts on time, possessions, pursuits, education, work, art, scientific advancement, etc. The Christian's values will be shaped and guided by the teaching of Scripture and not by standards of behaviour and language acceptable to producers of TV sit-coms and radio plays, or the morals of the lowest common denominator.

The writings of the Apostles gave careful consideration to spell out for the Christian community certain codes of behaviour which were compatible with the acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and others which were incompatible with it. The leaders of Christ's Church saw things more clearly then than any modern Christian will possibly ever see them. The modern Church tends to sit in judgment on these Apostolic codes of behaviour and compromise them.

If we examine the Christian culture outlined in the Apostolic codes it is clear that the Headships of God, Christ and Man are central to them. Yet when we examine the non-Christian cultures of Greece and Rome we discover that the headship of Man is already in force within those cultures and in every culture surrounding the Mediterranean basin and in the ancient Near East cultures. This was something that these cultures had in common with Judaism. But "headship" in these cultures is a witness to the fulfilment of the curse that God pronounced in Genesis 3:16. This kind of "force-headship" will never lead to peace as these cultures bear witness to.

Given that the curse of Genesis 3:16 was destined to pervade human culture, beginning in Adam's own family, we are not surprised to find that it pervades every human nation, tribe, clan, and family in the world. It is a universal "given" that will characterise every culture until the Lord returns. But Paul has showed the world "a better way," the way of "love-headship" which can only be restored when a man submits to the headship of Christ.

Jesus makes the point that all men from the creation of the world to the end of time will rise up on the same day and meet together at His Judgment throne. The men of Nineveh will point the finger of God's condemnation at the men of Jesus' generation as will the Queen of Sheba (separated by 1000 years of human history) (Lk 11:31-32).

Differences of cultures are irrelevant when it comes to obeying God's moral laws which are relevant for all ages and cultures. Every generation must saturate itself in "every word of God" and allow its values and outlook to dominate and shape its culture. Anything that replaces it is an idol. So crucial is the need for "every word of God" to live a life pleasing to Him that God commands His people to consider them all their waking hours and even during the hours that they lie down to sleep. Such attention to God's Word will produce its own distinctive culture among God's people universally.

END OF SECTION