For and Against:

• For: Cultural conservativism that takes seriously the notion that sometimes change is not always best. 
• Against: Cultural conservativism that unthinkingly thinks that all things were better "in the good old days" (as if they actually had existed).
• For: Economic populism that realizes that corporations do not often pursue the best interest of the common good.
• Against: Economic populism that believes that government will do any better.
• Against: Rhetoric that demonizes the government, as if it is the greatest evil facing society.
• Against: Rhetoric that demonizes business corporations, schools, trade associations, families, churches, or any other social structure needed for a healthy pluralistic society.
• For: An economic system where people are free to pursue an abundant life, unencumbered by unjust laws and corporate greed.
• For: An economic system where people share their resources for the common good, including a tax code that has those who have more pay more.
• Against: An over-reaching government that extends too far into social spheres that are better handled by others (because the government does not have the expertise or locality to solve most of the problems that face us).
• For: Universal flourishing of all, what the Bible calls Shalom.

-

Potential

The People of God or The Corporation of God?

I’ve been often troubled by the fallout from the 1886 Supreme Court decision, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, which applied the Fourteenth Amendment to corporations, granting them the right to be recognized as persons. As Skye Jethani writes in his excellent book The Divine Commodity: Discovering a Faith Beyond Consumer Christianity,

“Ironically, the same law that ensured human beings would no longer have legal status as property was used to grant property the legal status of human beings” (p. 90).

Jethani then connects the dots between that decision and how we now emotionally, psychologically, and theologically convey personhood to institutions. Because of branding, we don’t just buy oats, we buy from “a smiling Quaker man;” we don’t just drive a car, we shout, “I love what you do for me, Toyota!” “…as if the carmaker was a benevolent individual and not 300,000 anonymous employees organized into a profit-driven multinational institution. One hundred years of relating to personified corporations has caused a profound shift in the way we live” (p. 91).

Jethani connect the dots all the way to the institutional church, which we have personified like other corporations. We therefore believe we are supposed to have a relationship with the institution of the church rather than the people of the church.

“As such, with all sincerity, we can say, ‘“I love what you do for me, Faith Community!’ The personification of institutions in our culture means the institutional church, rather than the flesh-and-blood people of God, has become the vehicle of God’s mission in the world.”

Thus, we who lead the church as pastors start to believe that our job is to create a corporate brand, a church institution that people will be loyal to, that will have a positive reputation in the community, that our members will invite their friends to.

We develop vision statements, create programs, and we use slick marketing tools (including contemporary logos), all because we believe that the mission of God is to get people to “buy in” with our church, devote themselves to our programs, and in so doing, they will become deeper disciples of Jesus Christ.

But as soon as we start believing that the goal is to sell people warm feelings about the church, then we are way off the mark of God’s true mission for his church. The mission of God is the redemption of His creation. In other words, God is ushering in His Kingdom. The institutional church is not the Kingdom of God, but rather the witnesses to the Kingdom.

Instead of placing the emphasis on marketing the church, the church should be equipping its people to be the witnesses of the Kingdom. It is the “flesh-and-blood people of God” that the Spirit indwells in order to be the incarnational-missional instrument for the Kingdom.

Movie Review: 127 Hours

127 Hours: Being a Loner is Not All That It’s Cracked Up to Be
see my review at two different websites:
Jesus Creed (Scot McKnight’s Blog)
and
Internet Movie Data Base

Individual Identity and Consumerism

In his book God for a Secular Society: The Public Relevance of Theology, Jürgen Moltmann gives insight into the catastrophic implications of combining individualism with global marketing.

“Like all other life, human life is shared life, communicated and communicating life, communion in communication. Today the necessary communities which make up human life are threatened from two sides: on the one hand by the stepped-up individualism of modern men and women, and not the other by the global marketing of everything, including relationships.

The global marketing of everything and every service is much more than pure economics. It has become the all-embracing law of life. We have become customers and consumers, whatever else we may be. The market has become the philosophy of life, the world religion.

The marketing of everything destroys community at all levels, because people are weighed up only according to their market value. They are judged by what they can perform or by what they can afford.” (p. 153)

Free Market Capitalism is indeed the new American (and global) religion. So much so that many evangelical Christians cannot any longer differentiate between the teachings of the New Testament and the teachings of the American Political Right, today’s versions of Ayn Rand.

American Christians have been so anti-communist/anti-socialist for so long that we have swung the pendulum too far to the right. Certainly communism and socialism are failed systems because of they went too far in squashing individual freedoms in favor of communitarian ideals. But squashing communitarian needs in favor of individual freedom has its own cost.

As Moltmann writes,

“The society of solitary individuals who do not meddle with each other (is) a society of social frigidity. In this way freedom becomes general. But is it true freedom? No: for a person in not an individual. The distinction is simple, but seldom made.”

He explains that a human is only a human in the context of his or her relationships –

“In the network of relationships, the person becomes the human subject of taking and giving, listening and doing, experiencing and touching, hearing and responding. We approach humanism only when we pass from individualism to personalism.” (p. 156)

Americans’ “rugged individualism” is reaching its breaking point, because it has been coupled with marketing, which is the business of selling individuals the means for finding their personal identity. The way humans are meant to find their identity is in community – with family, neighbors, friends. Now, identity is manufactured and sold to individuals. Identity is defined by your ability to be a consumer.

Moltmann writes,

“In families, neighborhoods and free communities human relationships exist in mutual recognition and acceptance. If the market becomes the dominant power, then relationships if mutual recognition and acceptance come to an end. The self-respect experienced through the recognition gives way to the value assigned by the market…Because we are supposed to ‘fulfil ourselves’ through work and consumption, if we have no work and are poor we lose our won selves.” (p. 162)

Without Equity, We Have No Freedom

Jürgen Moltmann, in his book God for a Secular Society: The Public Relevance of Theology, writes,

“Without equality there is no free world.
It is in the spirit of early Christianity that we call the truth that all human beings are created free and equal ‘self-evident.’ 

Equality doesn’t mean collectivism. It means equal conditions for living, and equal chances for living for everyone.

As a social concept, equality means justice. As a humanitarian concept, equality means solidarity. As a Christian concept, equality means love.

Either we shall create a world of social justice, human solidarity, and Christian love, or this world will perish through oppression of people by people, through a-social egotism, and through the destruction of the future in the interests of short-term, present-day profits.” (p. 69)

In a polarized political climate, where any mention of “social justice” or “economic equality” or “human solidarity” are labeled socialist and anti-American, Christians need to stand firm and steer the conversation into a third way – beyond unbridled capitalism on the one hand, and Marixism on the other, toward one that reads the Hebrew Prophets afresh and realizes that God’s plan for humanity is captured by the Hebrew words “shalom” (peace / flourishing among people), “mishpat” (justice between humans and between God and humans), “tsedeq” (righteousness in relationships), and “yasar” (equity).

Review: Transatlantic, The Whirlwind

An Epic Tale of Apocalyptic Scale
This is a mirror review from Prog Archives: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=442708

After a prolonged time since their last collaboration when they made “Bridge Across Forever” in 2001 (one of the best albums of the decade), Prog Rock’s premier super group, Transatlantic, have given us the incredible gift of “The Whirlwind.” This is an epic story both musically and lyrically, a magnum opus with eschatological undertones but with hope in the midst of suffering.

Musically, the sound is distinctively Transatlantic – an intriguing stew that mixes Neal Morse’s (ex-Spock’s Beard and a critically acclaimed solo career) sophisticated themes, catchy melodies, and seamless transitions with the quirkiness of Roine Stolt’s (The Flower Kings) compositional genius. This is old-school Prog, in the vein of Kansas, Pink Floyd, Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, King Crimson, with plenty of influence from The Beatles of the late-60s.

You’ll find layers of guitars, both electric and acoustic (Roine Stolt has won plenty of awards for his guitar prowess—having been compared with David Gilmour, Steve Hackett, Steve Howe, and Frank Zappa), lush keyboards (dominated by organ and synth and with flashes of piano by the virtuoso singer/keyboardist Neal Morse), bass guitar that gets perfectly fronted plenty of times (from Pete Trevawas of renowned Neo-Prog band Marillion), and drumming that moves from heavy to delicate and back again with ease from the legendary Mike Portnoy (ex-Dream Theater). There is simply no better rock drummer performing today than Portnoy.

There are plenty of instrumental flourishes on “The Whirlwind,” the highlight being “On the Prowl.” Vocals are shared by Morse, who excellently sings with both emotion (especially on “Rose Colored Glasses”) and intensity (he particularly nailed it on “The Wind Blew Them All Away”), and Stolt, whose vocals are an acquired taste (a taste that I have actually acquired!) and does a wonderful job as well, especially with a mad-scientist sound on “A Man Can Feel.”

This album is meant to be understood as one continuous, 12-part, 78-minute epic composition. In Neal Morse’s normal MO, the opening track includes an “Overture” giving the listener a foretaste of the musical themes that tie the album together. The main Whirlwind theme draws you in instantly, and with that opening track, your appetite is whetted, and you’re ready for the musical journey on which these four men are going to lead you.


Lyrically, the songs are dominated with the Christian worldview of Neal Morse. Morse converted in 2002 and left the band he founded (Spock’s Beard) as well as Transatlantic in order to pursue more strictly Christian themes in his music. Morse’s solo albums have been critically acclaimed for their musical genius, even by those who did not appreciate his Christian lyrics. When Transatlantic announced a reunion, I wondered how much leeway the other band members would give Morse lyrically. The answer is: A lot. The other three seem to respect Morse’s faith enough to allow him to express it in his songs, which speaks highly for Morse and his relationships with these men.

The story that “The Whirlwind” tells is apocalyptic, the story of judgment and turmoil, but also of hope and mercy. In “The Wind Blew Them All Away,” Morse sings,

And in the master's house
They're partyin' down
But there's no resting place
In this prodigal town
But there are some we know
Thought they'd go all the way
But the wind blew them all away

In “Set Us Free,” there is more explicit eschatological overtones and a cry for help:

Look at the people
Tossed in turmoil in the street
Satan like lightning falling down
The ungodly world
Is like a vicious troubled sea
Feels like our ship is sinking down
We have been blinded in our hearts
We want to say
And somewhere inside we know
It's not supposed to be
Come bring this ship
Out of the whirlwind and
Set us free, free, free, free...

The album is very accessible and intriguing through the first eleven songs—telling a story that all can relate to with music that is captivating and cutting-edge musically. It talks of finding meaning in hardship, of justice, and of finding hope for the next life in the midst of all of it. But then comes the final song, the sappy “Dancing with Eternal Glory.” I understand the need to tie up the story with a glimpse of heaven, but this song seems out of place, too cliché, too kitschy. Morse sings,

And you're dancing with eternal glory
Taking a step to another land
You are dancing with eternal glory
This is much more than time and chance
When the giver of life is asking you to dance

This is a bit too cheesy for such an amazing album, too trite. I have simply pretended that the first six minutes of this song does not exist, and skip immediately to the final six minutes where the reprise of the main theme occurs.

Transatlantic has placed themselves in the upper echelon of the great rock supergroups of all time. How good are they? Good enough for me to drive eight hours to Philadelphia to see them live in concert back in April. What a show! After they played this entire album through, they took a break for intermission and then played songs from their first two albums. Before leaving the stage for intermission, a sweaty Mike Portnoy stood next to his drumkit and said, “Well, that was our first song. How’s that for an epic? A 75-minute opening song!”

It is indeed epic, and worthy of many, many listenings.

Hoping for a Post-Pundit, Post-Polarized News Source

I discussed with college students the other day where they received their news. Some said they got their news from Saturday Night Live, others from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, others from discussions with their parents (who get their news from FOXNews or CNN). When a major news story breaks, they either go to the internet (cnn.com or news.yahoo.com) or tune in to FoxNews or CNN.

I asked if they ever read a newspaper or a newsmagazine. Not one of them did.
I asked adults in my church where they got their news, and most said either FOXNews or CNN. Did they read newspapers or newsmagazines? Few read newspapers on occasion, but hardly any read "Time" or "Newsweek" or another print news source.

When I was growing up, news was on every evening at 6:30, and only from CBS, ABC, and NBC. The three news anchors competed for the viewers’ trust by attempting to be the most accurate and credible. Commentary was in written form in serious news magazines like “Time,” “Newsweek,” and “US News and World Report.”

Now the news is read by big-chested beauty queens on the cable news channels. Commentary is offered on these same cable news channels by partisan pundits with axes to grind.

On FoxNews, ultra-conservative Glenn Beck vilified those that had a different political view from his. On MSNBC, ultra-liberal Keith Olbermann did the same. Thankfully, both shows have been canceled.

Too often I hear Christians taking on the persona of their favorite cable news channel pundit: arrogantly stating a position from presumed authority, refusing to hear the other side of the debate.

Christians should rather take the high road of civility, authentically articulating a view on political and social issues while at the same time being willing to listen to other views.

One of the greatest prophetic gifts the American church can give our culture in the 21st Century is a new way of engaging the issues. A humility that goes beyond the current television vitriol will, I believe, be a witness to the grace of Jesus Christ.

And perhaps, just perhaps, we can influence the culture in such a way that fresh news sources will spring up, a post-pundit, post-polarized way of interacting with one another.

James Davison Hunter, Please Recognize Your Allies

REVIEW: To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World by James Davison Hunter

In this book, James Davison Hunter, a respected sociologist, seeks to provide insight into the possibilities for Christians to change culture. As much as this book has been lauded as the most important book on the subject since Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture, with “wide-ranging examples” (as Nicolas Wolterstorff writes in the blurb on the back of the book), what Hunter offers is neither groundbreaking nor particularly insightful.

It’s not that his premise is wrong; in fact, it is fundamentally correct. The problem is that in his attempt to cite examples of Christians attempting to change culture with poor results because of faulty premises, he paints mere caricatures of many of them. And in so doing, Hunter does not recognize that there are Christians that are actually allies in his cause.

It’s as if Hunter thinks he is the only one who understands the Creation Mandate, the Christian call to faithfully be present in every sphere of influence in culture, the need to move beyond individual Christianity and embrace Christian community and cultural networks, the cancerous destruction of Hegelian idealism in modern Christianity, that we need new alternative ways to imagine Christian cultural influence outside of the political venue, and that we must be humble in our participation in what God is accomplishing in His Kingdom.

All of this has been said time and again by everyone from Abraham Kuyper to Albert Wolters to Stanley Hauerwas to Andy Crouch to Gabe Lyons. It’s odd, then, that Hauerwas, Crouch, and Lyons are set directly in Hunter’s sights when he starts naming names of people who do not get what he is saying. And it’s extremely odd that in a book that is supposed to be so all-encompassing that Abraham Kuyper is not mentioned once. Kuyper is arguably the most important Christian theologian on cultural change in the past hundred years, and Hunter doesn’t even attempt to interact with his theology.

Hunter writes,

“When the Word of all flourishing—defined by the love of Christ—becomes flesh in us, in our relations with others, within the tasks we are given, and within our sphere of influence—absence gives way to presence, and the word we speak to each other and to the world becomes authentic and trustworthy. This is the heart of a theology of faithful presence.” (p. 252).

This is absolutely biblical and correct.

In the footnote for this quote, Hunter writes,

“In one sense I am merely restating a classical view of vocation. Given the nature and conditions of the late modern world, the need for a rethinking and restatement of such a theology is of critical importance. Where I seek to build on this is in the institutional implications of this theological tradition” (fn. 22, p 334).

There lies the problem with this book.

Hunter is indeed contributing immensely with To Change the World by looking specifically at the institutional implications of a theology of vocation. He offers plenty of helpful insights into why and how Christians should humbly seek to have “faithful presence” in the culture. There is a lot on offer here in this book.

But what Hunter fails to see is that others (people that he brushes off casually as not getting it, like Gabe Lyons and Andy Crouch) are also building on the same classical theology of vocation.

What Radiohead and Porcupine Tree can Teach Us About Theology

I am a big fan of early Radiohead. “The Bends” (1995), while accessible to the pop music ear, offered enough innovation that made every song was an adventure. With “OK Computer” (1997), the band hit its zenith by progressing pop music into explorations of soundscapes and unexpected turns of mood.

But then came “Kid A” in 2000, on which Thom Yorke began his eleven-year journey away from pop music and into explorations of abstractness with more emphasis on minimalism, textures, and rhythms with less emphasis on guitar and standard musical structure. The recently released “The King Of Limbs” continues the experiment.

I truly appreciate what Radiohead is attempting to do. My inclinations lean heavily into the progressive rock genre, from which Radiohead obviously was heavily influenced in their early career. Progressive Rock is not “Progressive” unless it is “progressing.” And Radiohead should be applauded for attempting to progress. However, the results have been uneven and sometimes downright unlistenable. In spite of this, Radiohead continues to sell a lot of music – “Kid A” debuted at number one, and “The King of Limbs” is currently selling well.

But why? I think it has to do with the trappings of today’s pop music industry: Celebrity, marketing, and publicity. When “Kid A” was released, Radiohead was marketed as the cool band, the innovative band, the band that “you get, but the others out there are not sophisticated enough to get.”

While Radiohead got all the acclaim (Grammy Awards among many other commendations), there have been a number of other bands in the less-known Progressive Rock genre that have have been innovative while maintaining musical structure and storytelling.

For instance, Porcupine Tree took what Radiohead had started and progressed that by adding heavier guitar riffs, changes in time signatures, mood changes, as well as soundscapes and textures that were exceptionally produced.

Often times, the best of music provides emotional experiences because it is in a language that we understand, but then when it shifts and surprises us, we are taken off-guard and we learn new things, both experientially and cognitively. This is basic pedagogy: Start with something recognizable and accessible, but then introduce new things into the mix, expanding the horizons of learning and experience.

This provides clues for us as we engage the world theologically.

We need to initially connect with people in a language that is accessible, with experiences and ideas and emotions that are commonly experienced, understood, and affecting.

But then we don’t stop there: We progress into areas not expected, building on common emotions and thoughts, but expanding horizons. Progressive Rock is known for its storytelling (both musically and lyrically), for its depth of musicianship (intricately written and played), and its ability to touch the heart as well as the head.

Our theological interactions with people need to reflect this as well.

Faux Fame or Worthy Celebrity?

In a chapter on celebrity in the excellent book, A Matrix of Meanings: Finding God in Pop Culture by Craig Detweiler and Barry Taylor, the authors focused both on the human need for heroes and the contemporary problem of faux fame.

"Celebrities perform a valuable social and theological function. Celebrities sharpen our ideals, bear our disappointments, and promote our hopes of immortality. The problem does not reside in celebrity itself but in the shifting sands of our criteria for fame. Rather than labeling stars as idols to be resisted, I consider some stars secular saints that deserve to be celebrated, maybe even venerated." (p. 90)

The problem is that we’ve forgotten the original definition of “fame,” which comes from a Latin root roughly translated as “manifest deeds.” (p. 95) Fame was reserved for those who “deserved it.” But most celebrities today are the product of the mass media and publicists. Several years ago, David Boorstin poignantly wrote,

“Shakespeare divided great men into three classes: those born great, those who achieved greatness, those who had greatness thrust upon them. It never occurred to him to mention those who hired public relations experts and press secretaries to make themselves look great.” (The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, 1961, quoted on p. 95)

Craig Detweiler, a screenwriter and Hollywood insider, talks about his encounter with Paris Hilton.

“I first encountered Paris and her younger sister at the 2000 Sundance Film Festival. At virtually every party I waited to enter, the Hiltons arrived with an entourage and immediately were whisked inside, past security, beyond the velvet rope… Was she an actress appearing in one of the films? A jury member handing our awards? No, just a hotel heiress with sufficient funds to retain an effective PR firm.” (p. 105)

But there are indeed celebrities that are worthy of the title.
The authors cite Oprah Winfrey and Bono.

“Bono turned his position as spokesman for U2 into a campaign highlighting third world debt relief… He has met with politicians as diverse as Vladimir Putin, Bill Clinton, Jesse Helms, and Kofi Annan… Yet on The Charlie Rose Show, Bono shunned the label ‘role model,’ believing that his indulgences in alcohol, cigarettes, and profanity disqualify him. But like King David, Bono’s failings are central to his music and his mission. Whether discussing his doubts (‘I Still Haven't Found What I’m Looking For’), shaking his fist at God (‘Wake Up Dead Man’), or taking on the self-important trappings of celebrity (‘God Part 2’), Bono’s imperfections make him much more lovable and human… During an era in which everyone wants to be famous, he’s proven that hard work, generosity, faith, and sincerity can still be celebrated, even in the midst of doubt.” (pp. 121-2)

I interact with young adults just about every day in my college ministry. It seems to me that these young people are more astute to giving fame to those that are worthy of respect. For them, movie stars and musicians are given more status based more on the quality of their art and the integrity of their lives than on how physically attractive they are. However, I’m sure that today’s publicists do a large amount of work to massage the public perception of today’s celebrities.

I think of James Franco, star of 127 Hours, who has been travelling the talk show circuit and has been featured on the cable news channels a lot lately. The main line has been to call him “a modern-day Renaissance Man,” since for the past few years, while pursuing a very successful acting career, he's been attending graduate school at Columbia University, New York University, Brooklyn College and Warren Wilson College and is currently takes classes at Yale University and the Rhode Island School of Design.

The handsome star with a one-sided smile seems to have a lot going for him: looks, a genuine talent for acting, and a eclectic list of outside interests. But is he worthy of all the media attention, or is it all public relations smoke?

Detweiler and Taylor end the chapter by saying,

“May we recover fame—rooted in deeds, tested over time—and imagine a future in which everyone is famous for all the right reasons.” (p. 123)

Amen.

Rush on the Colbert Report

My favorite question from Stephen Colbert to Rush:

“You’re known for some long songs. Have you ever written a song so epic that by the end of the song you were actually being influenced by yourself from the beginning of the song since it happened so much earlier in your career?”

At the end of the show, as Rush was performing, Colbert put on a sleeping cap, placed a pillow on his desk and said “Good Night!” to the audience. The credits roll as Rush continues to play.


But this clip doesn’t show the punch line:


As The Colbert Report started the next night, there was Rush still playing the same song, and Colbert awakening from his sleep still wearing the same sleeping cap. He rubs his eyes and says, “Hello, and welcome to the Report!”


Love it!

Finding God in Advertising

In a profound chapter in A Matrix of Meanings: Finding God in Pop Culture, Craig Detweiler and Barry Taylor look at how advertising has shaped contemporary society. The authors offer “Ten Commandments of Advertising,” all of which point to an overarching question that people in this (and every) culture ask: “What is it to be fully human?”

“This is the question that advertising seeks to answer, a question that was one the pursuit of philosophers and theologians. Advertising is an incredibly powerful form of pop culture that influences us on levels far deeper than getting us to choose certain products. Life choices are part of today’s world of advertising and consumption. ‘The glory of God,’ Irenaeus wrote, ‘is human being fully alive.’ In contemporary society, to be fully human is to shop. Advertising offers us ways to be alive, ways to be human.” (p. 84)

Certainly, there are ads that are manipulative and appeal to the baser aspects of human depravity in order to sell products. But advertising, at its best, appeals to our desire to know who we are, to celebrate life, to find meaning in being human.

Sadly, Christianity has for far too long been more interested in appealing to a base desire to be saved from being human, a desire to transcend our humanness and live forever in another place called “heaven” when we die. While that is always a latent desire in us (a need for transcendence, for eternity), what we really desire in a postmodern world is meaning for the life we live right here and now – we need to know what it means to be more human, to be “fully alive.”

So, while pastors preach from pulpits the need to know where you’ll end up when you die and attempting to create meaning in life in trying to get people into heaven in their future, advertising is dealing with knowing where you are in the world around you and what it means to be human right now.

A new Budweiser advertisement shows a split screen storyline of a young man coming home from his military enrollment. The left side shows him packing up, traveling across the world on a plane and then across the country on a bus, and arriving in his hometown. The right side shows the joy of his family and friends preparing a surprise party for his arrival in the barn of his family farm. When the two finally come together, the emotional payoff is tremendous. This is a celebration of life at its finest. Budweiser beer is there to be a part of the celebration. Christianity needs to “re-message” itself as a religion that embraces the joy of God restoring humanity and encourages celebration.

“They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion; they will rejoice in the bounty of the LORD—the grain, the new wine and the oil, the young of the flocks and herds. They will be like a well-watered garden, and they will sorrow no more.” (Jeremiah 31:12)

Review: CULTURE MAKING by Andy Crouch

Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling by Andy Crouch  InterVarsity Press, 2008, 288 pages


Andy Crouch, in his landmark book, Culture Making: Recovering our Creative Calling, makes the case that the essence of humanity is that we are “creative cultivators.” This is rooted in his correct interpretation of the opening chapters of the Bible, where humans are created in the image of God, placed in the garden and given the task to “cultivate” (עָבַד) it (see Genesis 1:26-18 and 2:15)

But Crouch states that culture is not merely “a set of ideas” but rather “primarily a set of tangible goods” (p. 10). “Culture is what we make of the world” (p. 23). Therefore, “the only way to change the culture is to create more of it” (p. 67).

In a book about making culture, Crouch surprises the reader by actually providing a needed corrective to the human quest to change the culture (especially recent Christian articulations to “change the world”) by insisting that while we are indeed “culture makers,” “when we thoughtlessly grasp for the heedless rhetoric of ‘changing the world,’ we expose ourselves to temptation. We find ourselves in a situation similar to Adam and Eve’s in the Garden. ‘You will be like God, knowing good and evil…’ Is there a way to change the world without falling into one of the many traps laid for would-be world changers? If so, it will require us to learn the one thing the language of ‘changing the world’ usually lacks: humility” (p. 201).

“Culture Making,” according to Crouch, must not be about grand strategies to transform the world, for that is too large of a scale for finite and depraved humans to attempt. “The record of human efforts to change the world is mixed, to say the least…And the larger the scale of change we seek, the more mixed the record becomes” (p. 198). Therefore, Crouch advocates that we attempt to create cultural goods that offer positive contributions in smaller scales of time and place. The success of such culture making should be measured not by how influential they are in the larger cultural milieu, but in how they exhibit “integrity”: “We can speak of progress when a certain arena of culture is more whole, more faithful to the world of which it is making something” (p. 54).

Culture makers, therefore, should concentrate on smaller scales of influence, what Crouch calls the “3:12:120” – a close and dedicated small circle of three, a group of people (12) to make the cultural good come into existence, and a network of people (120) that will bring the cultural artifact into use. He states that every cultural innovation “is based on personal relationships and personal commitment. Culture making is hard. It simply doesn’t happen without deep investment of absolutely and relatively small groups of people. In culture making, size matters—in reverse… The almost uncanny thing about culture making is that a small group is enough” (p. 243, italics in original).

Crouch states that culture can be primarily understood as cultural goods or artifacts created by humans made in God’s image. If this is correct, then the question for culture makers is not the haughty one of “Can I change the world?” Rather, the question should be much more humble: “Does this thing that we have created meet the criteria of God’s intentions for his Creation and New Creation?” And, “Can I imagine this cultural artifact making it into the New Jerusalem?”

If God, in his sovereignty, decides to allow our cultural contribution to have an influence across the larger culture, then we thank him for that and pray for his will to be done with it.