Last week I received this email from a School on Management student working in Hong Kong this summer. He wrote:
“….the root of the spiritual conflict I feel here is that Hong Kong represents the apogee of modernity. Consumerism, materialism, secularism, the surrender of individual liberty to state power, it’s all been essentially perfected here. Luis Vitton and Prada stores displace sandwich shops in my neighborhood because rents are so high, personal worth is intimately tied to salary, parks once filled with people studying the Bible are empty, and substantially all rights to local sovereignty have been eroded by Beijing. And basically no one cares, because they’re rich. Or they hope to become rich.
I realize that this modernity is the enemy of souls, but what’s the alternative? Modish post-modernism has shown itself equally destructive. The vanguard of people who tried to blend post-modern ideology with evangelicalism [McLaren, Tony Jones] have basically ended up very uncreatively re-treading the road liberal Protestantism wore out 120 years ago. The reactionary response of my Catholic and Orthodox friends doesn’t seem viable either since modernity has meant longer lives, less suffering, and substantially more freedom for human beings. It doesn’t make much sense to go back to medieval guilds and the divine right of kings/czars.
So (as I think about coming back here to work after graduation) what really makes me sit and think is the question of ‘What good can I do here?!’”
How would you respond to this question by a committed Christian who wants to be an influence for Christ in the setting of global business?
This note highlights two out three alternatives often presented as to how Christians should interact with the prevailing culture:
- Accommodate by letting the culture set the agenda for us
- Resist by trying to ‘take back’ what has been lost
- Witness through creating a counter culture that embraces Christian values
I’ve thought a lot this week about this note and how I have responded to the challenges of our society’s values. Mainly, I have at least theoretically opted for the third alternative.
The first alternative gives up too much of our Christian particularity.
The second option looks to be too concerned with gaining power to enforce Christian values.
The third alternative is what I profess, but in actuality I confess it has led me and others I know to not so much bear witness by embodying an alternative vision, but rather to more or less withdrawing from the struggles of the day in favor of being involved in our Christian community. The fact that Jesus came into the world and dwelt among us tells me that this is not the way he wants us to live.
A different vision is set forth in a book another friend put me on to this week called “Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World” by Jonathan Stackhouse. It’s about Christians living in the midst of the difficult challenges and opportunities of the day. He even refers to the business environment of Hong Kong as an example as he questions how to counsel a Christian businessman required by the nature of such jobs in that city to work long hours six days a week regarding the Christian values of a healthy family and church life.
Stackhouse also rejects the options of accommodating to the culture, attempting to conquer the culture, or withdrawing from it, but, by reviewing the thought and life of C.S. Lewis, Reinhold Neibuhr and Deitrich Bonhoeffer, he advocates for what he calls a revived Christian realism. This is a call for us to do what we can to work for the shalom of God’s kingdom in light of the actual realities we face.
It’s a long, rich book but since its focus is on how we are to integrate our faith, life and work, it’s very relevant to our ministry with graduate and professional students. It’s also speaking to me so I’ll be sharing some quotes and reflections on it over the next couple of weeks!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor my internship here in Manhattan, I was transcribing an interview with Chicago's bishop, Cardinal George, and I really liked what he had to say about the church and culture. He was being asked why he doesn't like to describe the church as "counter-cultural" and he responded:
ReplyDelete"The church is in dialogue with the world, which is loved by God. So to set yourself a priori against the world as such is not consistent with the mission of the church. And it would mean that the church would become more sectarian than ecclesial. Moreover, being part of the church is always personal; Our culture is within us; we’re shaped by our culture. So to set yourself against yourself could be a form of self-hatred, which is not evangelically healthy. The term is really used, I think, to say we’re against certain trends and tendencies in our culture or society, and in that sense, that’s always true. The gospel is a criticism of any society, so there are dimensions of our culture that I talk about in the new book [God in Action], particularly our penchant for individualism and in our relationships, which are not consistent with the gospel. But to criticize doesn’t mean that you’re “counter.” It means that you criticize from within; it’s our culture, after all, and it’s a good culture - but with some demonic tendencies, like all cultures."