June 3, 2021 Joshua Rasdall, Senior Pastor | Grace Fellowship Church

This is the second article in a series entitled “Christ and Culture," a conversation that seeks to examine the intersection of Jesus Christ and culture.


“Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Da 1:3–4.





If you do not know the name, I hope someday you have a chance to read the letters of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and theologian who worked in pre-World War II Germany; although many of his peers quietly agreed with Nazi law and rule, or tacitly agreed through complicity, Bonhoeffer resisted with every fiber of his strength. His letters, sermons, and books tell the story of his labor against the Nazi machine, resulting in his arrest in April of 1943. His story is ultimately a sorrowful one; although engaged to be married, his fiancée would never see him again. He was transferred to Flossenbürg concentration camp, tried, and executed fourteen days before that camp was liberated in April of 1945.


Thus, it might seem strange to draw on Bonhoeffer as we think carefully and Biblically about the role of a Christ follower in a culture in the weeks that lie ahead. Didn't Bonhoeffer resist Nazi rule to death?


Actually, his intention was to do quite the opposite: "talk of going down heroically in the face of unavoidable defeat is basically quite nonheroic because it does not dare look into the future. The ultimately responsible question is not how I extricate myself heroically from a situation but how a coming generation is to go on living. Only from such a historically responsible question will fruitful solutions arise, however humiliating they may be for the moment.”


Bonhoeffer’s phrase, "dare look into the future" is compelling. In his mind, it was easier to be a martyr than it was to hold gospel hope for future generations that would live with the consequences of the actions of today.


Bonhoeffer is quite clear that he held his hope in the gospel for future culture, and he expressed a burden to stay in the game as long as the Lord allowed.




In that regard, we certainly have a fine Biblical precedent. In the book of Daniel, we see Daniel as archetypically Hebrew: well-spoken, well-read, intelligent, thoughtful, and devout. So, when the Babylonians came to enslave his people, one would have expected Daniel to lead in an all-out revolution. After all, it is his culture that is getting wiped out.


But let us pause there and be precise: by 'culture', we take cultural psychologist Richard Shweder's definition: "shared understandings made manifest by act and artifact". In other words, 'culture' consists of the things that we point to that identify us nationally or civically or politically that we act on. It is our heroes, our language, our books, our villains; what we see, hear, how we express, and what we all hold in common.


Perhaps that last bit is the most troubling as we look around today. I think if we can agree on anything at all, it is that we cannot seem to agree on much these days. Our country does not appear to hold much in common in terms of language, goals, heroes, or villains. Those 'artifacts' (Shweder's word) vary wildly depending on the person. As a result, neither do we share much in the way of acts.





To this, Daniel would heartily agree. The acts (also Shweder's word) of the Babylonians were offensive, dangerous, and terrifying. In Daniel 1:3-4, we see the Babylonian plan for assimilation: force the most virile youth of his nation to surrender to the chief eunuch (google that if you are unsure what it is! And yes, it bodes quite ill for poor Daniel!), and assimilate them to Chaldean culture by taking away their language, their stories, and even their names. (Daniel 1:7). Everything that made Daniel a Hebrew was in danger of being lost. But that is not where Daniel drew the line. Daniel did not draw the line of battle around the sacred artifacts of culture with the Babylonians, because culture was not sacred to Daniel, and he was not at war with the Babylonians. 


This is the important part: Hebrew culture is not what saved. Culture is not what made Daniel who he was. His identity--his salvation and his significance and his security-- was not derived from Hebrew culture; it came only from God.


But for today, could we note that even as Daniel's Hebrew-ness is stripped away by a culture quite hostile to him, he studies that culture and learns their ways well? Daniel studies the language and the literature of the Chaldeans. I am not saying he did not grieve the loss of Hebrew culture, or express dismay of anxiety over what was happening to him. But in the record of his own book, later in chapter 4 we read this: "the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men."(Da 4:17.)


It is God that sets up governments; it is He who deposes and installs kings. It is God that judges His people for their iniquity; God, in His mercy, restores them in His time. It was God that allowed Babylon to invade Judah; God that decreed Nebuchadnezzar would be eating grass like a donkey just a few short years later. Who can fathom the work of His hand? God is the only one responsible enough and powerful enough to shepherd the rising and falling of the tide of culture.


As a result, as with Daniel, our wrestling amid His sovereignty is not a human war with culture, but a spiritual war for culture. "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." (Eph 6:11–12). To entrust the rescuing work to any created being, either king or fool, would be idolatry in the first order.


My friends, even as culture displays every earmark of rebelling against God, our war still is not with the Chaldeans. Daniel did not assimilate, nor did he jam his fingers in his ears and sing the national anthem. In fact, he did something quite counter-intuitive: he studied culture, and as we will see He studied and loved God. In other words, Daniel showed us how to be 'in, not of' first and best. Like him, we must dare to look into the future, and see God in saving power: we do not render the artifacts of culture sacred; we do not hate our enemies or the enemies of the cross. We certainly do not entrust the saving work to anyone apart from Him.


We trust that God is in control, the Gospel is His power to save, and even when matters are dangerous, offensive, or terrifying, we will follow and trust Him.


I look forward to our next opportunity, to sharing with you where Daniel does spark into resistance, because we will see there is a point upon which he is unwilling to bend.




May 16, 2021 Joshua Rasdall, Senior Pastor | Grace Fellowship Church

This is the first article in a series entitled “Christ and Culture," a conversation that seeks to examine the intersection of Jesus Christ and culture.

“I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Jn 17:14–17.

One challenge as a military chaplain was the addition of a circle to an already very narrow Venn Diagram. A struggle already existed: the tiny overlapping margin of being a citizen in a republic that supports the constitution and a citizen of Jesus' kingdom and follow His laws. Add to that a third circle of military culture and customs and it seemed like there was almost no overlap at all.

As western culture continues to de-synchronize in key areas with Christ's teachings, we as believers may begin to feel that same tension. Doesn't it seem that cultural law and Biblical law now have very little common ground? So, as a follower of Christ, how do I proceed in following Him? What does it mean to be 'in the world but not of the world'? And how do I keep my heart and attitude right with the many concerns for the nation around us?

Historically, the church's response has been polarizing, and at times, unhelpful. Typically, the response is one of two ways.
One, we have had people argue for separatism, a clear and concise break with a culture that is 'taking its own self to hell'.  An example of this happened in 1925 in the popularly-termed Scopes Monkey Trial. What seemed like a straightforward court case had turned into a media circus and a heavyweight fight over the foundation of American culture. On both sides loomed huge personalities fit for a reality-TV age: William Jennings Bryan, a three-time Presidential candidate, argued to prosecute John Scopes, a high school teacher that decided to teach the theory of evolution even though it was against the law. Scopes was defended by Clarence Darrow, a powerful litigator and rhetorician. While Bryan won the battle (and Scopes was fined $100!), he may have lost the war: papers argued at the time that he 'won Dayton and lost America'.
The church was ardent in her defense of Creationism, angry at the intrusion of anti-Biblical thought. Theologians and pastors in agreement with Bible fundamentals began to withdraw from the court of public opinion and separate. In fact, for years preceding this trial, many had been meeting to author a paper called The Fundamentals. Their argument was that culture would get far worse, and the church needed to withdraw. While their original intention was to counteract the damage that critical scholars were doing to Bible scholarship, the practical conclusion was in place: many denominations, pulpits, and public squares were abandoned.  One theologian calls this motion 'The Great Reversal', a tip of his hat to how retroactive and counterproductive this decision was in light of the two Great Awakenings we had witnessed at other times historically in America. Even at the time, there were those who decried the motion: D.L. Moody, J. Gresham Machen, and others sounded off readily that the work of evangelism was not done.
A second way the church looks at this tearing between culture and church, one that often comes not through a theological conviction or Biblical position, but instead from ignorance: synchronicity. The theory often goes as follows: 'if Spanish people can't understand English, I need to speak Spanish to share the gospel!' Which of course is completely true! Ergo, the church must synchronize with culture, in part so culture can be understood and in part because culture is attractive, and the truth is we kind of like it and like entertaining it. Slowly, churches appear eager to synchronize their church culture by appropriating aspects of local and surrounding culture. Rarely is this done by virtue of Biblical conviction, however. If it was, one would hear the Bible rationale presented clearly and in advance of the cultural shift as an intentional decision. In fact, it appears the opposite is most commonly true: Bible justification is often found after the fact, and the idea had its genesis not in Bible authority on a leadership team, but came as a default motion from outside the walls of the building.

And yet, we again are reminded: Jesus prayed we would not be removed from this world, but indeed scattered like salt and light among the nations. Again, He prayed that we would be sanctified in holiness, set apart from the world, because even though we are in the world, we are not of it.  So where does Grace Fellowship find her medium? What is the church's role in a culture that is increasingly antagonistic to the Gospel? Is there hope for culture? And what part do I play? 

In this series, we will shine Bible light on the intersection of Christ and Culture and discover a third way forward that lives between separatism and synchronicity. There is yet a singular hope for culture; hope for our neighborhoods, friends, and family members. A way forward. Indeed, it is a very thin thread on that Venn Diagram; that is just the place Jesus has called us, His followers.
As always, as we engage in this dialogue, my prayer remains that Christ's peace is with you.