Church as a Default Cultural Setting
There is a tendency among many Christian groups to emphasize cultural homogeneity and superficial unity to the diminution of the spiritual vitality that comes only through joining Christ and identifying with Him in His selfless death and triumphant resurrection. Some of the issues surrounding this will be undertaken in this writing, seeking to bring a semblance of clarity and cohesion where there seems to be a lack in the collective Anabaptist consciousness and conversation. This is not an attempt to provide easy solutions to complex and nuanced issues, but an effort to describe some things that may be improved and present a prudent mindset by which we may better perceive helpful steps forward.
In much of modern Western culture, it may well be that the world’s outstretched hand of invitation has been more effective at distracting Christians from their cause than has its clenched fist of aggression and oppression. In other times and places, the church has often been overtly targeted by malicious actions that sought to deter would-be constituents and dissuade those already converted from continuing therein. These tactics have often employed physical, economic, or social harm as means of applying pressure to conform to more typical cultural standards. Western Christianity as a whole, however, has in recent times become more accustomed to society’s smile than its frown. How should Christians respond when both the government and the broader culture seem more interested in developing friendly liaisons with the church than in imposing difficulty upon her? Should we simply make allowance for an easy form of Christianity when external entities seem to have ceased exerting active harm against the church?
In the US, Christianity is the most common system of belief to which people nominally adhere. According to the Pew Research Center, a declining 63% of Americans identify as Christian, along with over 80% of lawmakers in Congress. Almost all US Presidents have identified as Christian (the only exception being Abraham Lincoln). According to a 2015 study by New World Wealth, 55% of global wealth was owned by Christians. Although society at large does indeed seem to have been declining morally and becoming less congenial towards Christianity (especially in public settings and institutions), I believe it would be safe to assert that Christians in America and most of the West are not suffering mistreatment for their religious affiliation. Whether or not Christianity itself is under assault is another matter.
We live in a time when Western Christians face little opposition to thriving in their relative economic and social spheres. Open expressions of Christianity, whether sincere or superficial, are generally respected by the majority of the populace and the powers that be, and the fiscal and cultural success and security of Christians as a whole experiences little hindrance either from governmental authority or overt social pressures. How can the church retain surety of its spiritual integrity and vitality when no tests of endurance are imposed upon it? Or could it be that maintaining spiritual vitality in a spiritually tepid culture is in itself a test? A test, perhaps, made more severe by its lack of definition and the ease with which it may be overlooked?
In Revelation 3, Jesus had some strong words for the church at Laodicea. His rebuke to them was not directed so much at what they were doing, but rather focused on what they were lacking. It seems that they had a positive and favorable impression of themselves in their current state of prosperity as they enjoyed the material and social blessings of God. It was not because of a disorderly church life, immorality among church members, a neglect to meet the needs of the less fortunate in their midst, or doctrinal errors that Christ rebuked them. In verse 20, we see that while they are busy doing church, Christ is outside the door, waiting to be invited into their midst as the single focus of their life. While they were busy going through the motions of church, business, and community, they became distracted from the one Entity who actually merited their attention and priority. In their pursuit of being furnished with physical delights and economic security, they neglected to see that in the light of eternal reality, they were “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” In the satisfaction of their perceived need for comfort and status, they became blind to their infinitely more fundamental need of living a life fully and passionately surrendered to Christ.
In Mark 8:34-38, Jesus talks about the paramount position He ought to be given in the life of the believer. There is no place for any driving focus in life apart from Christ. It is not enough even to reorganize our life to make room for Christ amid the other things. We are asked instead to lay down our personal ambition, take unto ourselves the cross, an instrument of death, and follow after Him with intense singularity of purpose.
In His parable of the soils, Jesus draws our attention to what is essential to being a fruit-bearing participant in His Kingdom. He describes the effects of various postures of the heart in response to the gift of His teachings. A failure to receive and ingrain truth is detrimental. Impulsive, passionate belief is not sustaining. Priorities that channel energy into temporal pursuits are stifling. An open, receptive heart, prepared carefully and cultivated patiently for the express purpose of humbly yielding eternal fruit, is the spiritual soil in which the Gospel of the Kingdom can take root, grow, and fill the believer’s life abundantly.
There are many other passages that could be consulted to elaborate on the imperative doctrine of focusing singularly on God and His Kingdom as the central purpose in our lives. (Rom. 12:1-2, John 15:4, Matt. 7:24-27, Matt. 6:19-24, Col. 3:1-3, Phil. 2:5, Heb. 12:1-2) Nevertheless, constraints of space necessitate leaving it up to the reader to look into them.
Repeatedly, the point is made painfully clear that God is satisfied with nothing less than our unqualified, unreserved, and unmitigated surrender to His lordship in our lives. Paul informs us that presenting our bodies as a living sacrifice to God is indeed no more than a reasonable response to Christ that springs logically from a proper understanding of things as they truly are. This living sacrifice to God as our responsive service to Him has both economic and ontological reasons, and neither of them wants for sufficiency. We see a great many examples of economic reasons for worshiping God: God has done and given much for us, therefore we owe Him much in return. Ultimately, however, He deserves our unmitigated allegiance simply for being Who He is, and who we are in relation to Him.
Our understanding of this ontological reason for worship is starkly significant in affecting how we perceive our place in worship and in all of life. We, being the creation of an altogether infinite Entity, are immeasurably indebted to Him simply for being. Our entire existence (and indeed, the existence of everything) is contingent upon this one central Reality. To the extent we are able to comprehend this truth, our entire system for categorizing what is important will be oriented according to this Reality. Whenever we fail to make Him the superlative focus of our life, it is because of a misunderstanding (or, at least, a lapse of understanding) of the very nature of the cosmos under His sovereign lordship. Whenever we conduct ourselves according to anything other than God’s sovereignty over all reality, we facilitate a departure from personified Truth; i.e., we separate ourselves from God. This separation is rightly and more commonly known as sin.
We are surrounded by countless distractions that tend to pull our minds to untoward impressions of what is real and important. As fallen humans, no matter how sound our understanding of God is, we will at times succumb to perverse notions concerning the things that appear. But, although we will at times fall, the rule of sin over the life of one who is in Christ has been broken! The power of the resurrection is in all ways superior to the ensnaring power of sin. However, this power is not automatically imbued without choice or cultivation, but rather is found to pervade one’s life as it is intentionally built and cultivated through accepting and nurturing a relationship with Him Who bestows the power.
Since the Christian walk is indeed an active pursuit that requires diligence on the part of whoever would believe, can we not reasonably assert that the passive Christian life is indeed lacking that which defines a member of the Kingdom? This lack of an active pursuit of the Kingdom is what Jesus addresses so harshly in His rebuke to the Laodicean church.
Anabaptist groups in modern times have generally been easy to distinguish from societal normalcy simply by looking at them and perceiving the obvious, outward signs of distinct clothing or lifestyle. There is no shame whatsoever in having this outward, cultural distinction, but when a group becomes content with having this be the essentially defining characteristic that group, it has begun to find its spiritual identity in something other than Christ.
For practical reasons of cultural association, it can be helpful to be visibly different, as has been common knowledge for millennia, and it is not the purpose of this writ to in any way assault or undermine that which helps a group of believers function well as a vibrant representation of the body of Christ. There are many things that we can and should do, which, of themselves, are neither good nor bad, but which often have morally impactful ramifications for good or ill depending on the function thereof. Culturally identifiable lifestyles are not inherently good or bad, but are simply a reflection of the fact that humans tend to act cohesively in life. There is, however, a grave danger when the line between cultural distinction and religious application becomes blurred, especially when practical uniformity is given priority equal to or greater than that of deep, spiritual unity.
When church attendance becomes the default expectation of a church culture’s offspring, we do well to give serious consideration to the tendency of humans to simply follow a collective, cultural practice with which they are acquainted and comfortable. When church membership happens because it is an easy way to become and remain part of a supportive, tightly knit culture, has the church not failed in its mission? This is not to say that a culturally attractive church is bad, but rather, when a body of believers becomes enamored with its culture as a thing to laud (or abolish), its focus has shifted away from the vision of the church as described by Jesus: “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou has sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:23)
It is a tremendous privilege to be called of God to participate in His design of redeeming the cosmos through the infusion of His very own nature. This great mission will not be reduced to mere cultural appearance, nor is any worthwhile application of this mission enhanced by the emphasis of outward appearance over that of internal regeneration by the redeeming grace of God received in faith.
As stated before, the purpose of this writ is not to diminish a proper understanding of culture, but simply to cast it into perspective, illuminating especially some weaknesses and how to redirect some potential pitfalls of church culture into overtly positive mechanisms for advancing the kingdom of God.
As is the case with most substantial and worthwhile things in life, when we consider the role of culture in the life of a congregation, we do well to start with the end in mind. If our design is to develop a culture of people capable of maintaining a system of traditions that they have received from their progenitors, we will likely do so. If our design is to raise a generation of skeptics who will be constantly seeking to undermine the traditions they have been given, we will likely do so. If our design is to raise people so passionately enlivened by their cultural circumstances that they will seek to bring those circumstances to everyone else, we will likely do so. If our design is to rear a generation that views its culture as valid because of its outward homogeneity and consistent promotion of standardized practice, we will likely do so. If our design is to raise individuals who see their culture as valid inasmuch as it actively grows the Kingdom of God in the lives of its constituents, we will likely do so. (It can be easy to conflate design and intent, so let me clarify here, that in this case, I am making a distinction. Intent is used to refer specifically to the desired outcome, while design has to do with the actualized structure arising from that intent, but with which it does not necessarily align. The probable outcome of a system due to its design can at times be radically different from the outcome intended by the designers of the system, reflecting a constant need for careful introspection and wise flexibility.)
I daresay almost all of us would agree that a local church congregation should seek to be successful, but when we consider what makes a congregation successful, we can sometimes fall into a few pitfalls. A common one is the trap of thinking that expansion as a local group equals growth of God’s kingdom. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Historically and contemporarily, we see this demonstrated to an extreme degree by both quasi-Christian cults and state-controlled churches, where unity of religious affiliation and an appearance of equilateral religious practice were prioritized more highly than growing and filling individuals’ capacity for spiritual vigor and vitality. If having an extensive roster of members who adhere to the church’s teaching is a primary criterion for success, these groups very often attained it. We can see in retrospect, however, that their priorities were in the wrong place. In these unfortunate church situations, as in our own times and settings, I believe consigning this mis-prioritization to malicious intent would be generally erroneous. Fallen humans tend toward spiritual entropy, and from the enemy’s point of view, there is no need to aggressively attack the church, whether from without or from within, when the individuals constituting the church are already falling into spiritual decay simply by virtue of placing their personal or cultural interests before those of the Kingdom.
In order for a church to have the vibrant presence of God dwelling in its midst, it cannot afford to settle for high ideals; it must have high priorities. It is all very well to have high ideals, but unless a deep and abiding relationship with Christ and investment in His body is the focus of a church group’s personal and collective energy, entropy prevails, and the church languishes spiritually.
When we consider the role of culture in the life of the church, we do well to remember that humans, as a general rule, will seek out that which captivates their imagination. By this, I do not mean merely that humans gravitate towards a cultural artifice that seeks to elevate a delusional perception of reality, but rather that humans tend to follow a compelling vision of what can be. It is my belief that the most compelling vision of what may be starts with an accurate perspective of what is. An accurate picture of the nature of ultimate reality with regard to humanity recognizes that the physical realities we perceive are at the same time both shockingly transient and remarkably compelling. For a church’s cultural and spiritual outlook to be both accurate and compelling, it must acknowledge both of these truths as such. To focus exclusively on eternal realities is to forget that we are placed on the earth in a specific time and place to help facilitate God’s plan for the redemption of His creation. To focus exclusively on the perceivable realities around us and our response to those realities is to forget the very reason why we ought to care about the circumstances in which we live.
A. W. Tozer makes the assertion in the opening line of The Knowledge of the Holy, that “[w]hat comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” He goes on to elaborate on this point and makes a compelling case that every thing about how we conduct our lives comes out of our perception of the essential substance of fundamental Reality at its core. Another way to think of this is to consider that everything we think, do, and say happens in relation to another, broader context: a word in a sentence, a sentence in a paragraph, and so forth; eventually, our actions and thoughts relative to our broader understanding of the world around us. In the broadest sense of this, the sum of all our understanding is fundamentally and essentially rooted in our perception of the metaphysical underpinnings of existence itself: a philosophical framework for understanding the nature of the cosmos, physical and metaphysical substance, and being in the highest sense. The personification applied by many religions for this understanding of essential reality above and independent of all else is “God”.
When we stop and consider this carefully, we are forced to recognize that we are fully capable of serving a figment of our imagination. Claiming to worship the God of the Bible does not render us immune to the human tendency of worshiping what is convenient to worship. We are no less capable of serving our own misconstrued interpretation of God than is a Muslim, Hindu, or Zoroastrian. How willing are we to carefully and critically analyze our own possibly erroneous perceptions of God? When we seek to convert someone of another religious persuasion, we ask them to examine carefully the possible errors in their belief system. Are we willing to hold ourselves to the same standard, seeking out and bringing to light our own mistaken ideas about God?
This may seem disconnected from a discussion on church culture, but I would posit that it is inextricably tied to it. If we desire to promote a compelling vision of the Kingdom, we must begin with a proper understanding of the King. If we want to be a flock that lives and thrives in peace and harmony, we must look to the Shepherd. God will not be reduced to a collection of religious maxims, nor will a church brotherhood experience spiritual vitality when reduced to a system of moral cliches and taboos. If a fellowship would thrive as a member of Christ’s body, constant investment of time and energy into loving and worshiping God by developing a more accurate perspective of God is not optional. (To be clear, we are unable to have a totally complete perspective of Who God is [at least on this side of eternity], but we can have an accurate, limited perspective of Who God is, as long as we intentionally develop that perspective in accordance with that which He has revealed and continues to reveal to us.)
In Mark 12:30, Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind, and all our strength. To my knowledge, there is nothing under the control of any particular individual that does not fall within this description. A complete, passionate adoption of the lordship of Christ over our lives and an unmitigated surrender to His dictates is what we are called to. (Even so, we will never be in danger of over-compensating God for the sacrifice He made on our behalf, when He left the glories of heaven to redeem us from the tyrannical reign of sin to participation in the sublimest ecstasies of ontological renewal.) As Christians, we have the privilege and responsibility of bringing the entirety of our being under the purging and redeeming grace and authority of God.
What happens to a fellowship that makes allowances for halfhearted submission to the lordship of Christ? What is the effect when a congregation prioritizes numerical status over spiritual sanctification, purity, and maturity? How does God view a brotherhood whose cultural aspirations exceed its emphasis on abiding in Christ? How do we view those in our midst who have left the faith in all but practice? How do we avoid equating outwardly correct living with righteousness? How can we be more intentional about bringing to light and purging spiritual negligence and apathy within a brotherhood? What are ways to foster deep, spiritual connection in a congregation, both to God and among congregants? These questions do not necessarily have easy answers, but I do believe that the wisdom which comes through a deeply rooted relationship with and understanding of God is sufficient to work through them to find profitable solutions.
Christ makes abundantly clear the imperative that He must be pursued above all else, and it is easy to find examples where this has not been the case. Nevertheless, when Jesus gives us a command, it seems reasonable to assume that there is a way by which the command can be followed according to His good pleasure. So what does it look like for a church body to be passionately pursuing Christ? How do we spur one another one to a more intentional walk with God?
Whenever the church becomes a place where people simply go for comfort, we do well to look carefully at the needs that the church is meeting in its members’ lives. When the church becomes a place where selfish tendencies are confirmed and group purity gives way to individual preference, we should perhaps consider how the spiritual needs are really being addressed. The Hebrews writer indicates in chapter 10 that a primary purpose of our meeting together is to build one another up to love and good works. This is a specific admonition for a church body to go beyond being a mere social support system and invest deeply and intentionally in the spiritual lives of its adherents. Building one another up spiritually is often neither easy nor fun. For a church that chooses to prioritize following the way of Christ, however, it does not seem to be an optional issue.
What are some practical ways to do this? It will vary from one group to the next. One thing that can be asserted quite strongly, however, is that unless there is openness of communication and a desire to be held accountable among members, sin will likely take up residence. There seems to be a tendency among Anabaptists to insist on good appearance and unequivocal rejection of certain sins to the point where a even a discussion of certain temptations being faced may be considered taboo, whether or not such is the intent. In an attempt to safeguard from sin, we can sometimes make the mistake of denouncing those who are facing temptation in a particular area. (This seems to be especially prevalent with sexual sin or sins considered to be more shameful than others.) Temptations are difficult to face, and when individuals are made to face temptations without the assistance and counsel of others, they will likely fall. In this context, the fall can often be gradual and almost imperceptible from without, but spiritually weakening and catastrophic for both the individual and the brotherhood. I would posit that to overcome these obstacles, there is no greater solution than deep, regular interaction with trusted friends who are strongly invested in building the Kingdom of God in the lives of their friends.
Lest we should reduce brotherhood to regular interaction in a social context, let us consider once again the church at Laodicea. By all appearances, church life was happening as it ought, but they were missing the objective of serving Christ passionately as a body. This does not reflect a church that is encouraging one another constantly to have the mind of Christ. Consistent, safe accountability and deep, spiritual encouragement, even when these are inconvenient or painful, are non-negotiable for the church that would maintain a healthy relationship within its Head.
Are we willing to prioritize building a church that abides and thrives in Christ? Our priorities can be hard to identify, but Jesus gives us at least one metric by which we can quite insightfully deduce what our priorities really are. In Matthew 6, when talking about who or what we are really serving, Jesus tells us quite simply that “where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Where is our treasure? Where do we invest our resources? How much are we willing to sacrifice materially to spend the time that is necessary to build relationships in the church? How easily to we sacrifice fellowship with believers or our personal devotion to God when our work or hobbies present a conflict? Where do we actually put our treasure?
I would posit that the greatest possible investment of our time is in relationship. Jesus talks in Matthew 6 about laying up treasure in heaven or on earth. The treasure in heaven is worth infinitely more than that on earth simply by virtue of being eternal. But what is this treasure? Is it not people? Is it not the time we spend in building a relationship with our heavenly Father? Do we not lay up treasure in heaven by investing in relationship with God and with those who bear His image? This position is strongly supported by Jesus’ teaching in other places. In Matthew 22, He declares that the two greatest commandments, respectively, are to love God with all we are and to love our neighbor as ourselves. In John 15, in what is often referred to as the fruit-bearing passage, we are never commanded to bear fruit. The only two direct imperatives are to abide in Christ and to love one another as He has loved us.
These speak to the primary place relationships ought to have in the life of the believer and the church broadly. Good relationships are both a cause and an effect of a positive, godly church culture, but they do not happen automatically. It is only by substantial investment in the Word, deep commitment to the spiritual well-being of our brothers, and an abiding focus on fostering the growth of the kingdom of God in the individual and the collective that our ideals are realized as the priorities they ought to be.
In such an environment, strong Christian lives are developed, thereby continuing to foster a light-filled culture where the darkness of sin is illuminated, the lackadaisical soul is either stirred to action or provoked to outright rejection, and the decay of cultural defaults gives way to lively, Christo-centric belief that manifests itself beautifully in the life of the church. In such an environment, people are prepared to actively engage evil by the taking on of God’s equipping power, rather than building walls and embracing insularity as a protection against cultural and spiritual tides that are difficult to understand.
In our desire to be a body of believers that welcomes broken people, is it possible that we can sometimes contribute to the corruption of Christ’s church? In Matthew 18:14, Jesus tells us that “it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish,” indicating God’s desire for all to be a part of this body. In the next verses, however, Jesus makes it clear that this inclusion does not excuse a willfully sinful person who refuses to abide in the unity of the church. In this specific instance, the primary sin seems to be a prideful lack of submission to the church, but does this not apply just as much to a lack of submission to the dictates of scripture? It seems well in line with the spirit of this passage to conclude that the one who neglects to respond well to the truth of God has no place in the kingdom. Is it possible that we, in the name of brotherhood, can become permissive of things abhorrent to God? For all that Anabaptists have stood for the straightforward application of scripture, is it possible that the presence of culturally acceptable sin (gluttony, laying up treasure on earth, individualistic selfishness, etc.) and an attitude of spiritual attainment has pervaded our communities and rendered us spiritually blind, weak, and vulnerable, thereby requiring an artificial buttressing through culture of that which comes organically through genuine, spiritual enlivenment?
Guidelines for brotherhood conduct can be immensely helpful for clarifying expectations of common practice, but they can never replace the burning desire of a brotherhood to be actively invested in growing one another, both individually and collectively, in Christ. Common cultural practices in a church can be wonderful and helpful, but we must guard against the tendency to find our security in them. We must continue to strive for spiritual connection with and encouragement of one another and a deep abiding relationship with the God Who speaks to us and reveals Himself to us in His word.
How do we build these kinds of deep, interpersonal relationships in our midst? One thing to remember in this is that relationships do not grow deep automatically, but only as they are prioritized and exercised on a regular basis. Just as a great oak tree does not spring up overnight, so relationships take time and resources to mature and grow into a fruitful intercourse of ideas, feelings, experience, and personality. The trust that is built in a relationship does not come merely from the exchange of deep spiritual ideas and frequent correction of less savory tendencies (though these are essential components of a church), but is also developed irreplaceably through informal, day-to-day interactions and casual conversations regarding common interests, humorous anecdotes, and sharing of everyday events and circumstances in one’s life. Building deep relationships involves regarding the complete person—body, soul, and spirit—of the other. Finding meaningful ways to minister to one another in each of these areas, as with most worthwhile things, requires time, energy, and intentionality. Brotherhood is often manifested through tangible acts of service to one another, through sharing of material goods with one another, and through showing support and care to one another in the midst of grief, joy, hardship, prosperity, and loss. Jesus’ instruction in John 15 and other places to love one another bears an intensely human and sacrificial element.
Love in the kingdom of God happens among individuals; it is not enough to have warm, fuzzy feelings and a high regard for an ambiguous body of spirituality that is disconnected from our experience. It happens when committed individuals choose to act with regard for the best interest of others. It happens when individuals choose to suffer wrong instead of standing up for their own “rights”. Love is both the cause and the effect of a group of individuals choosing daily to nourish the growth of the kingdom of God in their hearts and in the hearts of those around them. Love is the free giving to and receiving of another that is at the very heart of the kingdom of God. According to John’s first epistle, our love for God is realized in this intentional posture of the heart toward each other for the betterment of the other.
This love for one another is substantially concerned with the eternal well-being of others, both within and outside the body, but does not necessarily seek sudden, drastic change. It is not content to let a brother stumble in spiritual blindness, nor does it incessantly harp on errors. It does not condone a shallow spiritual life, nor does it force improved understanding. Love is patient, nurturing growth where growth is slow. Love is persistent, refusing to admit defeat. Love seeks to better the other, prioritizing self-sacrifice over self-promotion. Love seeks to make others aware of their spiritual needs in such a way that they are motivated to find suitable satisfaction for them. Love is not a mere feeling, but a conscious orientation of priorities that seeks the betterment of others over one’s own well-being. Loving well is hard.
A culture rooted deeply in a sincere love for and pursuit of God and others will not fail easily. It may morph according to the needs it seeks to address and may even undergo changes that render it scarcely recognizable on the surface, but when the underlying, unadulterated vision of loving God and others remains constant, and individuals devote themselves to understanding and living out the revealed truth of God, we need not fear. Kingdoms and cultures will rise and fall, but the church, finding its primary unity under the lordship of Christ, will continue to prevail and grow.
I would posit that the process of determining cultural practices and norms in a church ought not to be centered primarily around whether those practices and norms will of themselves be morally justifiable in the distant future; things that are helpful now may be unhelpful later, and vice versa. Rather, the goal ought to be centered on building and growing the kingdom in the lives of believers, with the cultural practices being determined and supported based on whether they promote a passionate pursuit of Christ within a body of individuals. This position is not easy, and it often puts a group in uncomfortable positions where difficult conversations need to happen. It requires humility both individually and collectively. It means that things which were once helpful and dearly held must be released. It means that individuals must take personal responsibility to seek out what is believed to be helpful and submit these things to the body with humility. Even the most durable of cultures will pass away, but the church, taking on the mind of Christ and abiding in Him, will endure.
Once again, I must emphasize that the purpose of this writing is not to undermine helpful practices and cultural tendencies or to cast implicit doubt on the integrity of our cultural motivations, but rather to look beyond these issues to our high calling under the lordship of Christ and better understand what the function of culture in the church should or should not be. We are presented with a dilemma where we are called to be a part of something much too large to be contained by a culture, yet we can scarcely adhere to this calling without adopting or developing a somewhat distinct, cultural mindset.
May God give grace and wisdom as His church seeks to abide more fully in Him and uncompromisingly pursue ever more the position of the pure, unspotted bride of Christ as its ultimate goal.
