The Importance of Cultural Relevancy: Would I have become a Christian if…
So one of our four core values at The Joshua House is what we call “missional journey.” It means several things but specifically one of the things it means is how we want to be a church that has a more radical engagement with culture, specifically postmodern culture, for the sake of the gospel. Many of you know that I have a real bone to pick with this and will continue to sound like a broken record until I convince as many of you as possible for its need. Fortunately I don’t have to make the case on my own feeble insights alone but can let scripture speak for me instead. Two Sundays ago as part of our walk through Acts we looked at Acts 10 and had a great discussion on the whole issue of the clean vs. unclean things in our culture and even in our churches? I sent out a Mark Driscoll (http://www.marshillchurch.org) video related to the issue and thought that would be that, until I started reading Acts 11 for this Sunday and saw the whole issue being brought up all over again.
So as I reminisced about my own conversion experience(s) I found myself asking a question: Would I have become a Christian if the gospel hadn’t been communicated to me in a culturally relevant way? And that is the question I leave with you here. Note – As a Christian who believes in predestination and the sovereignty of God (because the scriptures seem to say so) I do believe I would have become a Christian regardless, but who knows when, maybe not until I was ninety years old (I hope I live that long), dying on my death bed. And that I believe, would have been a tragedy. So here’s my question and my rant:
Would I have become a Christian at Camp Qwanoes (a Christian camp on Vancouver Island) when I was thirteen if:
- They sang nothing but hymns on an old pipe organ instead of having a band with electric guitars and congo drums singing rock ballad worship songs by Michael W. Smith, Rich Mullins and Keith Green? (By the way, the point here is not so much the hymns as the pipe organ…many hymns are pretty cool if done well)
- They had counselors that thought most Hollywood movies were of the devil, guitars and drums were demon possessed and skateboarding was what lost heathens did, instead of counselors who liked movies that I liked such as Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws and Rambo, were musicians in rock bands and taught me how to do ollies on my Powell Peralta skateboard?
- They held the camp inside a big, square, pastel painted building with bare, white walls and fluorescent lighting instead of in the wild forests of B.C., situated along an oceanside beach, full of cool rustic cabins, eating dinner with the setting sun on a deck overlooking an inlet and then later sharing and singing songs around a huge bon fire outside under the majestic star-lit night sky?
- They played games like “guess which bible translation is evil,” “what’s your favorite Gaither song” or “pin the cross on the sinner” instead of games like capture the flag, surf the soapy slip and slide, how many people can we fit into a Mazda hatchback and midnight pillow fights in the field?
I know I take some liberties and make some major exaggerations but if that’s what cultural relevancy looked like for me as a teenager in the late 80’s at a Christian camp what should it look like today in 2007 in an increasingly postmodern world for adults/families in our churches?

Hi Alan,
Another interesting article which I enjoyed reading. I will give you a comment or two in a minute but first a point of business. if you would like to make it easier for your readers of TJH Weekly Newsletter to provide you with feedback, you may wish to consider putting a link to your Blog http://thejoshuahouse.blogsome.com somewhere in the body of the newsletter, e.g. with your signature at the bottom of the message…..just a thought.
And now to the subject at hand. I must admit that I have no idea whether you would have become a Christian at Camp Qwanoes or not should the cultural context have been less appealing to you than it was. However, if I had to bet, which fortunately I don’t, I would probably answer with a no. Exactly why I think this way I am not sure, as it is only a gut feeling. This is a point that you and I have enthusiastically discussed before and one which will be very familiar to other Christians interested in the important soteriological question of whether to side with a Calvinist (predestination) or an Armenian (free will) doctrine of election and salvation.
While I fully realize that God is sovereign and may choose to do whatever he wants, I also think that He is not fond of illogical or whimsical actions. His perfection is surely beyond these worldly tendencies. Even though it could be presumptuous of me to try to interpret God’s mind, I believe that that He created me in His own image and that this, in some way, allows me to conjecture about the possibilities of His mind and the doctrines of election and salvation……..and by inference to what could have happened to you at Camp Qwanoes under a different set of circumstances. Whether my conjectures are reasonable or not I leave it up to your judgment. Basically, as Philip F. Congdon of the Adelaide College of Ministries first observed, I see four basic possibilities about God’s election:
1)God elected those individuals who would be saved based on His foreknowledge that they would believe;
2)God unconditionally elected individuals He would be save based on His sovereign choice alone;
3)God elected those individuals who would be saved, yet also gave them the free will to choose whether or not to believe (a seeming paradox);
4)God elected those who would be saved through the “Elect One,” Jesus Christ; all who by faith are “in Christ” are elect in that corporate Body.
It is clear that none of these possibilities are without difficult exegetical problems in Scripture. However, I find the theology of No 2 above, (the classic Calvinist thesis) both difficult to swallow and a bit inconsistent with my understanding of Scripture. The Calvinists seem to emphasize that God’s individual unconditional election is necessary to account for God’s divine attributes of sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and immutability. But, I ask, is this correct and does free will necessarily disregard God’s attributes? I, for one, don’t think so.
I must admit that it has an irresistible allure for me to think that God’s love for us is an essential ingredient and key to understanding the complexities of election and salvation. God’s divine love never ceases and correctly frames His nature (1 John 4:8). This nature begs the question of whether a God who ordained the existence of immortal beings He so greatly loves would create them without making provisions for them to escape eternal torment. What kind of God would call on mankind to “believe and be saved” when He knows they cannot? I’ll let the readers answer this question for themselves but I strongly lean to believing that God’s love would discourage Him, if not outright prevent Him, from behaving in such a callous way. If one thinks theologically, i.e. one looks at a system of doctrine not in isolation but in conjunction with other biblical truth, one ultimately sees how things fit in. I suggest that God’s love fits well with a free will ingredient somewhere in the recipe.
In conclusion, I would like to say that, putting aside for a moment the simple possibility that view No 4 is the right one if we only interpret the word “elect” in the proper Jesus context, i.e. that all believers “in Christ” are elect in that corporate Body, the correct answer probably lies in a hybrid between views N0 1 and 3. Something along the lines that:
“God elected those individuals who would be saved based on His foreknowledge that they would believe making use of their God given free will to love Him or not.”
God transcends His creation; He exists outside the boundaries of time and space while reserving the right to intrude in them when and how He pleases. Thus it is quite possible, I would dare say, even likely, for both predestination (in the sense that God foreknows what will result under the conditions exquisitely laid out by Him) and free will (the ability of created individuals to choose whether to believe in Jesus or not) to exist simultaneously.
Thus, in my view, the outcome of your decision at Camp Qwanoes was set from the outset by God, who foreknew what your decision was going to be under the circumstances He had so wisely and sovereignly predestined for you. Somewhat paradoxically but correctly, you in turn exercised you free will and chose to believe in Him. Perhaps God makes it easier for some to believe in order that others, whom he also loves, are helped later to believe in Him as well. If the cultural setting had been less inviting you could have easily said no to Jesus and perhaps might have been given another chance later. Then perhaps you might have not. The point is that God has created an equitable set of conditions in the world for everyone to have ample opportunity to believe in Him. We in turn must choose whether to believe or not……a wonderful blessing but a tremendous responsibility as well. Ultimately, God wants to have by His side only those who freely love Him. He will impose himself on no one.
Having said this, I fully realize that more than one reader will disagree with my conclusions. If so, please let me know your views as I am always interested in a new perspective.
Godspeed!
Alfonso Casasempere
Comment by Alfonso Casasempere — November 19, 2007 @ 10:54 am
A very thoughtfull post. If the first church where I experienced a great worship experience had an old pipe organ instead of a band I might not have stayed around long enough for it to have mattered!
Comment by Aaron — November 22, 2007 @ 8:52 pm