Okay, I guess H. Richard Niebuhr was not a pietist, but I am struck by how much attention Protestants give to culture – whether to imbibe, whether to avoid, or how to engage properly. All of this compulsiveness feels like fundamentalists who are spooked by the world and their surroundings and can’t live comfortably in their skin.
Hesitation and self-awareness about culture is unnatural if culture is as basic to human existence as walking upright (if no physical impairments prevent it). We are cultural beings even when we withdraw from culture – hence the phenomenon of Christian rock bands, Christian novels, and Christian radio stations. We are also worldly beings because our bodies are part of the substance of the created order. To live as a human being, even a hermit, is to be in the world and part of a culture – even a culture of one.
What provoked this way too underdeveloped of an idea was an article (via Justin Taylor, via Martin Downes) from the British Evangelical Magazine by Ted Turnau.
Turnau’s main points, below, look less weighty if we insert the word, “language,†for every time he uses “popular culture.†In fact, this is a natural substitution because language is one of the building blocks of culture. For ethnic groups in America who want to preserve their culture, language retention is usually one of the most important battles between first and second generation immigrant communities. And the hierarchy of high, low, and middle-brow culture also lines up with people who know and use language: linguists are high-brow language users, people who know some grammar are middle-brow, and vulgar language might correspond to low or pop culture.
But every human being uses language (with rare exceptions). So why aren’t we so worked up about how to use words? Why no books about Christ and Language (Logos and Words)? Why can’t we simply use it, be careful with it (avoid vulgarity), and learn how it works and how to excel in using it (study more Shakespeare)? In other words, is language threatening? Is it any less “culture†than movies, education, or painting? Can’t we just use it without having to think so much about IT?
To that end, here are Turnau’s main points with my added wrinkle of the thought experiment proposed here. I think it works but I’m sure Rabbi Bret will detect some viral strain of infidelity.
Whatever else
popular culturelanguage is, it is not trivial, because it is an expression of faith and worship.Not all
popular culturelanguage is equally meaningful.Not every piece of
popular culturelanguage is appropriate for engagement.
Popular cultureLanguage works by creating imaginative landscapes for us to inhabit.When thinking about a piece of
popular culturelanguage, it pays to know the tricks of the trade.Every piece of
popular culturelanguage is a complicated mixture of grace and idolatry.Think carefully about how to undermine the idol, and how the gospel applies to the piece of
popular culturelanguage you’re sharing with friends.Look for occasions where you can experience
popular culturelanguage together with friends and family (both Christian and non-Christian).
By the way, I am uncomfortable with the formulation that every piece of pop culture is an expression of faith and worship. The reason is that I don’t think we would say the same for language. Language, like culture, is part and parcel of being created in the image of God. It’s not a function or effect of redemption.
Many many thanks for this… these days, every time I read and hear about how Christians should engage with culture, I just don’t know where to begin.
LikeLike
Vern Poythress actually has written a book on Christ (the Trinity to be more precise) and language. In the Beginning was the Word
LikeLike
If my memory serves me, the Quakers tried calling the days of the week, not by their pagan names, but by the neutral “1st Day, 2nd Day…” etc. And some evangelicals say “Resurrection Day” instead of “Easter”. But then I noticed that the Lord used the actual pagan name for the city Baal Zemphon in Exodus 14. So I guess the Lord is not troubled by pagan nomenclature.
LikeLike
I’ll see your point about language and raise an eyebrow about sign language: the deaf care rightly about how they communicate, and the Bible “speaks about†deafness, so why aren’t neo-Cals jumping into the controversies over American Sign and Standard Sign? If they care about wider cultural and educational controversies one confronts at the University of Michigan, what about those at Gallaudet?
LikeLike