In my message this past weekend on Paul in Athens, I mentioned the idea that we need to hold purity and proximity in tension. This is really an outworking of the ideas found in Jesus’ final prayer before His crucifixion in John:
My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that You protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. (John 17:15-16)
In classic Christian thought this is summarized by the phrasing that we are to be in the world but not of the world.
I borrowed the two words ‘purity’ and ‘proximity’ from a quote of Mike Metzger in chapter six, “Sheltered,” of David Kinnamon and Gabe Lyons’ book Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity and Why It Matters. Here is the full quotation from Metzger in that book:
Being salt and light demands two things: we practice purity in the midst of a fallen world and yet we live in proximity to this fallen world. If you don’t hold up both truths in tension, you invariably become useless and separated from the world God loves. For example, if you only practice purity apart from proximity to the culture, you inevitably become pietistic, separatist, and conceited. If you live in close proximity to the culture without also living in a holy manner, you become indistinguishable from fallen culture and useless in God’s kingdom. (from UnChristian, page 133).
Discover more from Matthew Erickson
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Matthew Erickson 
I was just discussing this subject with a friend, how to balance these two ideas. We both know it’s a tough thing to do, and that our struggle with it changes over time.
We talked about how moving from a insular religious upbringing to a very passionate and community-focused college life can lead people to the “pietistic” end of the spectrum. They don’t realize how hard it can be to live as a Christian in proximity, and thus they get a rude awakening when meeting with “real life.” This leads to issues where they lean towards judging those around them under the guise of “I know what’s right and wrong and this person needs to hear the gospel and convert,” and they forget about Love.
And I guess that’s where I think the issue lands, “love God, love others, make disciples,” in that order. I know God can do anything but especially in times like these it’d be tough to make disciples without loving your neighbors. So if you truly love God, you should be loving others which often practically means being in proximity to them.
Thanks for the comments, Sam. I agree that we have to think about this and rethink it for each setting we find ourselves in.
I also agree that we need to love our neighbors authentically if we want to help them become leathers of Jesus. Friendship begets true communication. Otherwise we can end up using people for our spiritual goals.
At the same time, I see another tendency in folks’ engagement with the world and that is to, at times, never get to sharing the good news in Christ. I have been challenged in recent days to consider whether I am speaking the message as I seek to show the message with love.
If we fail to do that do we really love others? I’m grappling with that right now.
I agree, we often become too comfortable and forget to share the Gospel.
Lately I’ve been thinking about how to interact with people who are no longer Christians, but who still retain the knowledge of a faith-based upbringing. I find it tough to know how to approach those people. Their objections aren’t always well defined (though some are), and they are often hesitant or very resistant to either discuss those issues or hear responses to their objections. Situations are worse when they were wronged by people in the Church, but not necessarily the Church or God. Anyways, dealing with them feels like a tightrope walk between “pious” and “useless,” even if I love them.
I like your phrase “a tightrope walk betweeen ‘pious’ and ‘useless'” to describe conversations with those either turned off by church or simply uninterested in a familiar ‘religious’ discussion, Sam. I find that it’s easier to talk about God, Jesus, or spiritual things with people who are either unchurched entirely or from different cultures than the dechurched type of person (forgive the labels here – I cannot figure out a better way to have the discussion right now).
I was talking with an Ethiopian pastor recently about reaching out to the area surrounding his church which is full of young professionals and college students. Very interesting discussion. I think that a good part of the Milwaukee area is sort of roughly churched by nature of the strong Lutheran and Roman Catholic context, but not very thoughtful about these things at a deeper level.
What do you think it would look like to start a new sort of conversation with people in this area about faith and Christ in a manner that would actually connect with them instead of repulse them?
Matt, have you read James Hunter’s “To Change the World”? While it’s written in the context of how Christians can influence culture, he does a good job summarizing the main approaches taken in the evangelical church in relation to our culture:
1. Defensive against (i.e. James Dobson-eque Christian right, using politics to impose our agenda in a way that turns people off to the church)
2. Relevance to (i.e. emergent church Christian left, where we try to be so relevant we don’t look any different from the culture)
3. Purity from (i.e. Neo-Anabaptists, isolating ourselves into irrelevance)
His premise is that we need to live a fourth realm, that of “faithful presence,” in which our lives brings shalom into our spheres of influence. I think there’s a lot to be said for that approach.
Stuart Briscoe once summarized our relation to the world and culture in a similar way: born in it, not of it, but sent to it. The reality is we’ve been placed here, and while we’re not to identify with it, we’re called to reach it. How can we reach it if we’re not among it, living faithfully within it? I also love Stuart’s saying that some Christians are so earthly-minded they’re of no heavenly use, and some are so heavenly-minded there of no earthly use!
It seems the bottom line is we are to influence change by being among the lost, balancing guarding ourselves from becoming identified with the world with being close enough for the world to see Christ living and shining through us.
Michael, your comments are fantastic and helpful. I have not read Hunter’s book yet (hope to!) but have found Andy Crouch’s ‘Culture Making’ to be a good resource as well.
I appreciated your summary from Hunter on the different positions. What I do not know without reading Hunter is how he sees ‘faithful presence’ to both influence or challenge culture. Do you have any comment on that?
Matt, a good section of Hunter’s book unpacks how ‘faithful presence’ looks but if I had to summarize it, his stance is that we are to “…pursue others, identify with others, and labor towards the fullness of others through sacrifcial love,” as Christ did. That has a myriad of implications in how we relate to each other, pursue our tasks (i.e. work), and operate within our spheres of influence. But one of our goals ought to be to create conditions in the structures of social life we inhabit that are conducive to the flourishing of all. That sounds rather obvious, but I think traditionally evangelical Christianity has had a pretty narrow focus on influencing culture only in those ways in which it achieves what we believe to be the spiritual ends. “The practice of faithful presence generates relationships and institutions that are fundamentally convenantal in character, the ends of which are the fostering of meaning, purpose, truth, beauty, belonging, and fairness – not just for Christians but for everyone.” He suggests our obligation as Christians is to enact the shalom of God in whatever circumstances we are placed, and to actively seek it on behalf of others, understanding we’re operating in “exile” spiritually speaking, in a pluralistic, post-Christian society. The question is not how we influence or engage the culture for the purpose of changing it, his stance has more to do with how we manifest Christ. Specific to the institution of the church: “The church will not flourish in itself nor serve well the common good if it isolates itself from the larger culture, fails to understand its nature and inner logic, and is incapable of working within it – critically affirming and strengthening its healthy qualities and humbly criticizing and subverting its most destructive tendencies.”
Michael, thank you for taking time to continue the conversation.
It sounds like Hunter’s approach would fit in with what we see in Daniel’s interaction and place within Babylonian culture. He was there as a leader and strove for the best influence on that culture, regardless of whether he ‘converted’ someone. He took a place within that culture which was influential and, thus, had a voice to the kings.
Joseph also seems to have fit into this sort of role in the culture of Egypt. However, the focus in Genesis on Joseph’s role seems to be more the sovereign protection of Israel through Joseph’s influence in Egypt. I’m not sure how to interpret that biblical thrust culturally, but it is interesting to consider.
Rodney Stark’s direction in “The Rise of Christianity” also seems to hint at what you are describing in Hunter’s book. The church, by its very faithfulness to Christ, became a cultural force for the good of the world.
One of my questions is whether our aim should be at influencing the broader culture through faithful presence or directed more toward simple faithfulness itself. This is a fine point, but I do think that the slight change of focus can send us off into the wrong pursuit or ‘target’.
Am I making sense?
Matt, you’re right on with the parallel to Daniel and Babylonian culture. In fact, Hunter devotes a few pages to drawing an analogy between today and the Jews in exile. Jer. 29:4-7: “…But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.”
God was calling His people to maintain their distinctiveness as a community but in ways that served the common good – even when the culture is indifferent, hostile, or ungrateful.
As for targeting broader culture vs. individual faithfulness, I think he’s say both/and – that faithful presence goes far beyond individual engagement with the world and beyond engagement on values/worldviews/etc. Enacting shalom extends into institutions of which all Christians are a part, and as able, into formation of new institutions within every sphere of life.
Some of his book is just over my head, and if I have one criticism it would be that he doesn’t devote much space to practical examples. But my biggest takeaway was that faithful presence indeed takes both a personal faithful presence – a living out loud within one’s realm of influence – but also a broader, intentional approach by the evangelical church (which frankly, requires leadership and unity that’s currently lacking) in order to affect change in our culture.
Wondering if this book being published today might speak on this topic as well!
This is a follow-up to “Unchristian” by Lyons and David Kinnamon. I’m looking forward to reading it soon, but have so many others on the pile!!