CULTURAL LITERACY AS A REQUISITE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE_REVISED_Kasey Summerer

CULTURAL LITERACY AS A REQUISITE OF THE
CHRISTIAN LIFE: A FOURFOLD ARGUMENT
___________________
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Darrell L. Bock
Dallas Theological Seminary
___________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Course
RS102 Research & Summary of Christian Doctrine
___________________
by
Kasey Summerer
May 2016
File #815

1
CULTURAL LITERACY AS A REQUISITE OF THE
CHRISTIAN LIFE: A FOURFOLD ARGUMENT
On a bright sunny summer day in an average town in rural America, Johnny was so
excited that his friends had actually asked him to come out to play for an afternoon of fun. Filled
with anticipation and nerves, Johnny saw his friends in the distance as his mom dropped him off
at what seemed to be a large field, composed of both barren dirt and luscious grass. He had heard
of baseball before and even watched short segments of games on television. The problem was
that baseball was not something that particularly interested Johnny, and in fact, he struggled to
see why so many people cared about it. When it came time to break up into teams and begin the
game, Johnny looked around at his friends and in a hesitant voice said, “I think I’m going to sit
this one out.” It was not even that he did not want to play, but rather he was too ashamed to tell
his friends that he did not understand the rules of the game.
For nearly two millennia, since its very beginnings, Christians have struggled,
debated, and written over how we ought to interact or engage with the world around us.1
This
project, which more recently has been coined cultural engagement, has been sought after more
vigorously since the publication of Richard Niebuhr’s work Christ and Culture.2
Since this
1
While not every treatise of theologians of the Church catholic, and in fact only a few explicitly,
addresses straightforwardly the topic of “Culture,” it is fair to say, once one has a decent conception of what Culture
is, that every writing that the Church has produced is both cultural and addressing the culture in which the Church
found itself. In doing so these theologians were both engaging culture and showing a measure of cultural literacy.
2
As some have pointed out Niebuhr at times stretches his examples to fit his categories. Nonetheless,
his work began an important endeavor to examine the postures of the Church toward the world around it, through
the different times and places in which it found itself. D.A. Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited is a good work

2
attempt to systematize Christianity’s historic positions or postures toward cultural engagement,
theologians especially have tried to figure out what our stance toward culture should be.
Ironically, many in doing so have proverbially put the cart before the horse, advancing a position
before properly understanding “the rules of the game”3
of this thing called “Culture,”4
if I may be
so audacious in saying so. The problem then becomes a trickle down effect from theologians to
the pulpit to the average Christian Johnny on the street. My argument then is this: every
Christian, from scholar to new believer, must attain to a proficient level of cultural literacy5
in
order to faithfully live out the Christian life. Sadly enough, this allegory of Johnny, is often our
story as Western Christians; we do not care about Culture because we think it is irrelevant or
disconnected from our “Christian” lives, and thus in not understanding the “rules of the game,”
we elect to fight an unknown “enemy,” blindly assimilate the practices of the world around us, or
sit the game out, whether intentionally or because we don’t know how to play. This essay then is
that examines Niebuhr’s methods and helps to show that at least one of his categories, “the Christ of Culture,” is
hardly salvageable. D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited, paperback ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2012), 36.
3
This is exactly James Davison Hunter’s point of the first forty-seven pages of his book To Change
The World. As he forcefully points out, for far too long the dominant view of culture, especially within
Evangelicalism, is that “the essence of culture is found in the hearts and minds of individuals—in what are typically
called “values.”” This “worldview” understanding of culture Hunter agrees is incomplete and only in a few cases
will change the world. James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: the Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of
Christianity in the Late Modern World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 6, 18.
4
As Andy Crouch aptly suggests, “Culture” in the singular is only helpful in coming to grips with the
concept of Culture. In reality our world is made up of cultures, or cultural worlds, which are characterized by sphere
(the reach or breadth of populous a culture encompasses) and scale (the impact or depth of effect a culture has on a
populous). Andy Crouch, Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books,
2013), 48. Henceforth, I will use Culture in the singular when defining the object of our inquiry, the concept of
Culture.
5
Kevin Vanhoozer defines cultural literacy as the ability to “read and write culture,” which he
elucidates by showing how culture is very much like a text, that one can only understand by seeing it in its context
and by seeing beneath its surface (illocutionary meaning) to how it seeks to persuade its audience (perlocutionary
effect). Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Charles A. Anderson, and Michael J. Sleasman, eds., Everyday Theology: How to Read
Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 18, 44-47. I would simply add that
cultural literacy is in its basics the ability to evaluate and understand what a cultural text or world says about the way
life is or the way life should be lived.

3
not one of how we ought to attain cultural literacy (approach and or methodology), but an
argument that we must attain cultural literacy (philosophy). This view is built upon a fourfold
argument: (1) an ontological argument of defining Culture and our inevitable contact with it, (2)
a theological argument showing God’s intention for Culture and his mission for redeemed
humanity, (3) an expositional argument showing how cultural literacy was key for the early
Church in understanding its mission to the world it found itself, and (4) a homiletical argument
which necessitates cultural literacy to connect the gospel with individuals from every tribe,
tongue, and nation.
Ontological Argument
As I have already advocated above, the beginning of this endeavor of cultural
literacy, and my argument to show its essential nature to the Christian life, begins with Culture
itself, the object of our faith seeking understanding.6
In building a workable, yet not
comprehensive definition, I will show that no one can escape it and thus must inevitably engage
it.
Culture: Seeking A Definition
Without a doubt Terry Eagleton speaks truthfully when beginning his work The Idea
of Culture with the words, “‘Culture’ is said to be one of the two or three most complex words in
the English language…”7
Even James Davison Hunter, a sociologist who has a strong grasp of
6
While Anselm’s famous “faith seeking understanding” has long been the standard for theology and
understanding the nature of God through the scriptures, Vanhoozer is right in his extrapolation to our everyday
world. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Everyday Theology, 16. As “the Faith,” that was once for all delivered to the saints
(Jude 1:3), the core doctrines of Christianity, have been the lens through which we seek to understand the scripture,
so too it is the lens through which we should understand everyday life.
7
Terry Eagleton, The Idea of Culture (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000), 1.

4
the concept, readily admits, “Culture, it is fair to say at this point, is a knotty, difficult, complex,
perhaps impossible puzzle.”8
That being said, many have tried to define it with a vast breadth of
diversity in opinion to what Culture really is. Often these definitions are descriptive, trying to
identify everything that is encompassed under Culture’s umbrella. For example, Bruce Riley
Ashford defines Culture in his primer to cultural engagement, Every Square Inch:
“Culture” is anything that humans produce when they interact with each other and with
God’s creation. When we interact with each other and with God’s creation, we cultivate
the ground (grain, vegetables, livestock), produce artifacts (clothes, housing, cars), build
institutions (governments, businesses, schools), form worldviews (theism, pantheism,
atheism), and participate in religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam,
Atheism). We produce culture, and at the same time our cultural context shapes us,
affecting who we are, what we think and do, and how we feel.9
On the other hand, others go a step further in encompassing the driving force behind
Culture in their definitions. Clifford Geertz, considered by many the Godfather of cultural
anthropology, writes, “it (Culture) denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings
embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means
of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and their attitudes
toward life.” Elsewhere he synthesizes in saying that culture is essentially, “semiotic,” or about
meaning-making.10
It is in this thrust that Andy Crouch derives a simpler definition, which he
borrows from the cultural critic Ken Myers, and to which we now turn.
8
James Davison Hunter, To Change the World, 40.
9
Bruce Riley Ashford, Every Square Inch: An Introduction to Cultural Engagement for Christians
(Bellingham, USA.: Lexham Press, 2015), 13.
10
Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1977), 5,
89.

5
Crouch defines Culture as “what we make of the world,” both in the sense of what we
make (create) of the world and what we make of (make sense of or interpret) the world.11
It is this
endeavor of meaning-making, making sense of the world (ascribing meaning to) by making
something of the world (creating cultural texts)12
that leads to a key phenomenon: its cumulative
nature. Again Crouch adds, “Every human society is an enterprise of world-building. Culture is
not just what humans beings make of the world; it is not just the way human beings make sense
of the world; it is in fact part of the world that every new human being has to make something
of.”13
Since Culture is continually building and adding onto the existing world (of which
contains natural14
and cultural things),15
Culture is by nature the frontier or horizon of possibility,
making new things possible and conversely certain things impossible. This is an important point
that must not be missed! This horizon not only affects the way life is lived but also reflects
meaning that the cultural text’s creator ascribes to the world and about how the world ought to
11
In bringing clarity to the concept and how the two functions relate, Crouch states, “We make sense
of the world by making something of the world. The human quest for meaning is played out in human making: the
finger-painting, omelet-stirring, chair-crafting, snow-swishing activities of culture. Meaning and making go
together—culture, you could say, is the activity of making meaning.” Andy Crouch, Culture Making, 23-24.
12
This is Vanhoozer’s term for describing any cultural creation. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Everyday
Theology, 26. Others have called these by various names including cultural artifacts, cultural goods, etc. For the
purposes of this essay and consistency, I will refer to all subsequent cultural creations as texts.
13
Andy Crouch, Culture Making, 25.
14
My definition of natural here is synonymous with creation or that which happens outside the
development or control of humans.
15
Vanhoozer in his definition tries to differentiate Culture from both nature, the things one naturally or
instinctively does, and society, the institutional structures of our world. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Everyday Theology, 21-
23. In doing this, following the modern sciences, he first dichotomizes what ought not be separated. To imply that
what humans do by nature or instinct is not cultural, of which he only ascribes things done “freely,” is like saying
that Christ sometimes operated in his human nature and sometimes in his divine nature, a false dichotomy. For even
when our nature compels us, we have to volitionally decide to do something. Secondly, in separating society as
merely the hardware in which the software of culture operates, he does not give credit to a cultural text’s creator, for
surely he or she builds or creates a cultural text with both form and function in mind.

6
be.16
As such, Vanhoozer is correct that each one of these creations of Culture, from a space
heater to a space shuttle, is very much a text that not only has an author, who has ideas about the
way life ought to be lived and subtly communicates them through their creation, but also like a
written text must be interpreted and understood in the context it was formed and seeks to
address.17
The United States Apollo program must be understood in its historical context of the
Cold War, which help one see its creators’ beliefs about the way the world was and hopes about
the way the world should be. Likewise the Black Lives Matter movement must not be understood
in the context of modern conflict alone but in the bigger context of oppression experienced by
African Americans dating back to American slavery. It is not over-exaggerated in saying that
every cultural text has a story to tell; about its author and his or her beliefs about the way life is
and ought to be lived; about the world it was birthed into and the conditions that allowed or
motivated its creation; about the characters it speaks about and the audience it speaks to. Cultural
literacy is about learning how to take these factors into account when observing and interpreting
what they mean.18
16
Andy Crouch, Culture Making, 27-29, 32-34. An example Crouch gives in demonstrating this
horizon of possibility is the interstate system. Not only did the interstate system make traveling across the entire
nation in under three days, if driven straight through, possible, among countless other things, it reflected its creators’
view of the way the world was (the technology available; the vast resources of capital and building material; the
need to connect people across the nation; etc.) and their view of the way the world should be (ease of transportation;
fast commerce routes; accessibility to the entire nation for all Americans; etc.). In general, the explicit effects of the
way a cultural text affects or changes the way life is lived (a polio vaccine saves thousands from the debilitating
virus) mirrors the implicit voice of beliefs and hopes of its author (the belief that humans ought to be healthier and
that the world should not have to endure such a travesty).
17
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Everyday Theology, 24.
18
Crouch and Vanhoozer do this in different ways, but both are legitimate and helpful, each in their
own way. Crouch simply sets his evaluation within the framework of five questions to ask of any given cultural
creation: (1) What does this cultural artifact assume about the way the world is? (2) What does this cultural artifact
assume about the way the world should be? (3) What does this cultural artifact make possible? (4) What does this
cultural artifact make impossible (or at least very difficult? (5) What new forms of culture are created in response to
this artifact? Andy Crouch, Culture Making, 29-30. Vanhoozer on the other hand uses more of a hermeneutical

7
The Inevitability Of Cultural Interaction
Culture, as it has been presented, is made up of everything that we as humans make in
our attempt to make sense of the world;19
the stuff of life that is all around us, from the foods we
eat, to the products we produce, to the institutions we work in, to the worldviews we hold, to the
religions we partake in. As creations of a creator they reflect, at least subtly, their creator’s view
of life and what would make, what we might call, “the good life.” This being so, each cultural
text extends an invitation to partake in its vision. As such, three simple conclusions should be
made. First, the inherent character of a cultural text must be judged carefully. Some cultural texts
have been made for purely evil purposes (torture devices, concentration camps, the KKK, etc.),
but the majority have been created in view of a better brighter future.20
While some may see
McDonald’s as evil, creating a generation of obese children and abusing workers by paying them
an unlivable wage, was this really the vision of its creator? Ray Kroc, the man behind
McDonald’s, sought to provide “quality, service, cleanliness, and value” while helping
franchisees be in business for themselves but not by themselves.21
It seems then that we have a
mixed bag of meaning and so one’s evaluation must be careful in sorting out what, and or who,
framework, using the three strata of speech-act theory: locution (the act itself), illocution (its meaning), and
perlocution (its effect). Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Everyday Theology, 44-45.
19
Geertz puts it well in calling these worlds of meaning created by cultural texts, “webs of
significance.” Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, 5. While much more could be said to this
interconnectedness or accumulation of texts that build cultural worlds, for the purpose of this essay I will refrain.
20
The brighter future depends on its author, as does even the assumption that the previously mentioned
cultural texts are evil. For example, for an atheist who holds to naturalism, the rise of the abortion clinic was a good
thing, allowing women to have control of their own bodies and not be bound by parenthood as an economic trap,
especially in cases of rape. On the other hand, for a Christian, the creation of an adoption agency makes the world a
better place, helping mothers of unborn children who are unable to provide for those children, preserving the baby’s
life and providing it the chance for a bright future.
21
Taken from McDonald’s website page telling Ray Kroc’s story:
http://www.mcdonalds.com/content/us/en/our_story/our_history/the_ray_kroc_story.html

8
we commend and condemn. Second, which is a corollary to the first, is that history is stained by
countless stories of haphazard evaluation of cultural texts. Even within the last number of years,
issues such as border laws, healthcare reform, Christian-themed movies, and racial tensions, just
to name a few, have been handled poorly to say the least by Evangelicals because of a lack of
cultural literacy.22
Third, and cumulatively, if Culture cannot be avoided and the consequences of
ignorantly misinterpreting cultural texts are so damaging, we must conclude that attaining
cultural literacy is not optional for the Christian, if for the reason alone of not hurting their
neighbor.23
Theological Argument: From The Garden To The City
Having defined Culture and shown its complexity, we will now trace its roots back to
the very beginning and show how God’s plan and purpose for humanity is interwoven with his
intention for Culture. We will do this through the lens of the biblical metanarrative of redemptive
history or heilsgeschichte: creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. In doing so, we will first
make some observations about the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 and what it means to be
the imago dei. Next, we will show how the covenants and Jeremiah 29:7 shapes our conception
of Culture in a fallen world. Finally, we will view the picture through Christ’s work, what it
means for the present, and how it looks forward to the restoration of all things.
22
This is just a pinprick of the larger scar in Christian history. Wars, deaths, famines, and worse have
been caused by misreading both cultural texts and worlds. And while most will never be the cause of a war because
of misinterpreting Culture, the cumulative damage done by Christians to their neighbors through cultural illiteracy is
unfathomable.
23
As will be shown, the very mission and purpose of redeemed humanity is deeply affected by our
ability to properly evaluate and thus properly respond to the cultures we find ourselves in. Therefore, having this
tool belt of cultural literacy is invaluable to say that least, and has the possibility to be tragically destructive for those
who neglect it.

9
The Culture Mandate And The Imago Dei
In the beginning God created. A very simple yet extraordinarily profound concept
that has definitive implications into the very purpose and intention for God’s crowning
achievement, humankind. In the first chapter of Genesis, we find this repetition of God’s work
and his affirmation that follows: that it is good.24
This good creation finds its climax beginning in
vs. 26 as God declares, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness,”25
not for the
purpose of servitude or merely an afterthought, as other creation accounts claim,26
but to (1)
rule,27
(2) create,28
and (3) be in relationship.29
While it could be easy to merely skip over the
24
This affirmation of goodness occurs seven times in Genesis one: vv. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31. Much
could be said about the genre and views held about the literalness and or polemic nature of the creation account, but
for the present purposes, the focus will remain on the creative work of God and what it means to be made in the
image and likeness of God.
25
All subsequent quoted biblical texts will come from the NET Bible unless otherwise noted.
26
Not only is there this low view of human existence in these ANE accounts (in Babylonian Enuma
Elish humans were created to serve and feed the gods; in one of the Egyptian accounts humans were merely the tears
from Atum’s struggle with chaos), but humans seemed to have no free will either. John N. Oswalt, The Bible Among
the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 59-60, 69-70.
27
1:26, 28; 2:15. As image bearers, humanity serves in the place of God’s vice-regents of the world.
They were given all the authority to rule over the ground and all living creatures. This can be observed even in God
bringing all living creatures to be named by Adam (2:19). In so doing, Adam orders the animal kingdom and set
them in their place, continuing God’s work of bringing order to the world (1:3-2:3). Bill T. Arnold, Genesis
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 60. A dominionative nature should also be seen in this naming,
since not only in God’s creation but also in his naming, he stakes claims over the created order including humanity.
With the Fall comes hindrance to this rule. Power struggle are placed between humanity (3:16) and conflict between
humanity and nature (animal kingdom, 3:3:14-15; the earth, 3:17-19). It’s striking that the first action that Adam
does after the curse is to name his wife.
28
1:28; 2:15.
29
2:16-17. Relationship implies culpability before God, which is especially seen through chapter 3 as
he chastens Adam and Eve for their disobedience, but also his gracious love is manifested in providing them with
clothing as they are removed from Eden. This act of expulsion in itself is an act of grace, keeping them from eating
from the tree of life and living forever in a state of alienation. While others have suggested other implications of the
imago dei, such as cognition and intellect, Bill Arnold likewise sees these three aspects as primary. Bill T. Arnold,
Encountering the Book of Genesis (Encountering Biblical Studies) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 29.
For a history of interpretation of 1:26-27 see Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress Pub, 1984), 147-155.

10
imago dei, these three purposes for humanity play themselves out over the entire story of
scripture. All three are crucial,30
but the second will be the focus of our inquiry.
In 1:28, God gives humanity the aptly called culture mandate, “Be fruitful and
multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it!” Further in 2:15 we see, “The Lord God took the man and
placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it.” Within these two texts are
essentially two concepts: creation and cultivation. Beginning 1:28, humanity is commissioned to
reproduce to fill the earth. This is both a means of spreading God’s dominion over the earth and
building a family of humanity to enjoy relationship. Reproduction in itself is not special; all
living creatures are endowed with the reproductive capacity, but it is the reproduction of image-
bearers, who assert God’s dominion together that is important. How they do this is through what
follows, by subduing the earth. While often the use of vbk is glossed over as merely an iteration
of the verb hdr, to rule or have dominion over, a connotation of “harnessing its potential and
using its resources for benefit” seems to better encapsulate what the author intends in this text.31
As such, humanity takes what the Lord has created and makes something of it, creating Culture
in this world-building endeavor to bring meaning to it. Thus, the work of humanity was born,
beginning with Adam’s caring for and maintaining the garden in Eden.
30
In fact, aspects one and three are heavily the emphasis of most biblical theologies. The aspect of rule
is addressed through the study of the kingdom of God and a major aspect of the Davidic Covenant. The aspect of
relationship (to God, to fellow humanity, and to creation) is addressed in soteriology, anthropology, and
harmartiology and a major aspect of the New Covenant.
31
The NET Bible notes, “Elsewhere the Hebrew verb translated “subdue” means “to enslave” (2 Chr.
28:10; Neh. 5:5; Jer. 34:11, 16), “to conquer,” (Num. 32:22, 29; Josh. 18:1; 2 Sam. 8:11; 1 Chr. 22:18; Zech. 9:13;
and probably Mic. 7:19), and “to assault sexually” (Esth. 7:8). None of these nuances adequately meets the demands
of this context, for humankind is not viewed as having an adversarial relationship with the world. The general
meaning of the verb appears to be “to bring under one’s control for one’s advantage.”…In an ancient Israelite
context this would suggest cultivating its fields, mining its mineral riches, using its trees for construction, and
domesticating its animals.” See third note of Genesis 1:28 in NET Bible: New English Translation (Spokane, WA:
Biblical Studies Press, 2001), 25-26.

11
This making something more of the world than was previously there and bringing
meaning to it has a purpose; it is not merely an end-all but is a means for blessing.32
This looks
forward to the Abrahamic Covenant in which God blesses Abraham, being that through him, and
his seed, all the nations would be blessed.33
This concept of vocation and culture-making as a gift
to the world has been coined by many common grace,34
a concept vital to our view of culture and
humanity after the Fall.
Jeremiah 29:7: Common Grace And Covenant Blessing
After the Fall, and the subsequent downward spiral of wickedness that finally resulted
both in the flood and the rebellion at Babel, God decided to begin again in restoring his image-
bearers to their rightful place and mission. He begins this endeavor with one man, Abraham, and
a covenant relationship to him. While the Abrahamic covenant can be said to have many
promises,35
they can essentially be boiled down to the three aspects of imago dei: (1) Blessing36
32
John Bolt rightly notes that even if the work of a person does not contribute to society or is unable to
work because of disease or disability, they still possess inherent dignity apart from their work that is to be
celebrated. John Bolt, Economic Shalom: A Reformed Primer On Faith, Work, and Human Flourishing (Grand
Rapids: Christian's Library Press, 2013), 29.
33
Gen. 12:2-3; 17:1-18; 18:18; 22:18. When viewed through this lens, the Abrahamic Covenant is very
reminiscent, pointing back to humanity’s original calling, to cause the world to flourish through the stewardship of
its resources, drawing all to their creator God to enjoy him in intimate relationship.
34
This is the topic of Steve Garber’s entire book Visions of Vocation, in which he helps readers wrestle
with seeing the brokenness of the world and yet regaining a vision for why one should pursue his or her calling with
passion. See also, D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited, 48-49, 63-65, for a summary of the tension at work
between common grace and the fallen estate of the world. Also, while some would limit this vocational work to their
definition of common grace, others understand it as only part of God’s total common grace, which even includes
sunshine and rain.
35
The number of provisions or promises within the Abrahamic Covenant varies by author, from nearly
double digits (Bock gives eight; Blaising gives nine) to as few as three (Elliot Johnson). Craig A. Blaising and
Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, Pbk. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 130; Darrell
L. Bock, J. Lanier Burns, Elliott Johnson, and Stanley D Toussaint, Three Central Issues in Contemporary
Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications,
1999),125-126, 177.

12
(2) Mediation of blessing,37
and (3) Relationship.38
As time passes, this covenant expands from
one man, to one family, and finally to one nation, Israel. As we reach Sinai, God again covenants
with this people, forming them into a nation and establishes how they will live life. Through the
Mosaic Covenant, God seeks, among other things, to instruct the nation Israel in how they ought
to create a culture that will best put them in a position to know God and hence flourish, so that
they might have dominion in the land and bless the nations around them. As a form of the
Abrahamic Covenant,39
its emphasis is essentially cultural.40
Under this form of the covenant,
God himself was directly their king, and the Law, and thus the culture it created, was Israel’s
guardian guiding them until the time came when the law of the Spirit would be written on their
hearts.41
36
Or flourishing in creative endeavor, i.e. culture-making.
37
To mediate blessing implies some kind of positional authority and having power. Thus the
magnitude of blessings is proportional the magnitude of authority and power one holds. It will be seen that even
amidst captivity, God commands the people who are resident aliens in Babylon to mediate what little blessing they
can.
38
The blessing comes in the form of land, seed, a great name, and a great nation. These are the things
of Culture and with God’s blessing (through covenant relationship), the cultural world that Abraham and his seed
build will flourish. This is seen in stark contrast to Babel in which humanity tried to build a flourishing culture apart
from God: “they found a plain in Shinar and settled there”… “build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the
heavens”… “make a name for ourselves”… “Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth”
(11:2-4; emphasis mine). While the covenant is unilateral and unconditional, to experience its blessing requires
faithful obedience. The mediation of blessing comes out of the blessing Abraham and his seed possess, at times
great and at times small. The relationship is first with God (17:8), but also in blessing all nations is to be extended
horizontally to the rest of humanity.
39
Craig A. Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, 145.
40
Although each (Mosaic, Davidic, New) covenant bears the marks of all three aspects of the
Abrahamic Covenant (and essentially the imago dei), since each is a form of the Abrahamic Covenant, each
covenant emphasizes one of those aspects: Mosaic emphasizes blessing or culture-making; Davidic emphasizes
mediation of blessing or rule; New emphasizes relationship, both to God and to humanity.
41
See Gal. 3:23-29; Rom. 8:2; 2 Cor. 3:6.

13
To this point we have traced God’s plan of salvation history as it is intertwined with
his plan for the flourishing of Culture, that is as it finds its proximate intention when coming out
of covenantal blessing. But what has been the story of cultures produced out from under the
blessing of covenant relationship? As mentioned previously, this is the place of common grace.
As Abraham and Israel were growing under the wings of God’s blessing, God in his mercy
allowed and even blessed individuals and nations to flourish, creating magnificent societies by
human standards, as they exercised culture-making. In fact God even raised up nations for his
own purposes, including judging Israel for her unfaithfulness.42
Skipping ahead in the story over eight hundred years,43
we find Israel in a drastically
different state: having incurred a governmental facelift, being ruled by a human king,44
having
received the Davidic Covenant,45
and having torn the nation in two due to hubris on the part of
leadership. To make insult worse, in breaking fellowship with God through covenantal
unfaithfulness,46
the people of both the northern and southern kingdoms had been hauled off into
captivity. This is where we find the prophet Jeremiah writing to the exiles in Babylon.
42
Isa. 10:5-6; 13; Hab. 1:6
43
While it pains me to skip over so much, and especially the implications of Davidic Covenant, space
does not allow such an excursion.
44
Like most facelifts, the requests of the people for a king came prematurely and had pretty ugly
results at first as well as later down the road. 1 Sam. 8:4-6, 19-20. While a king sat over Israel, his throne was
considered God’s throne over Israel, a visible manifestation of its heavenly counterpart (1 Chron. 17:13-14). Craig
A. Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, 183-184.
45
The giving of the Davidic Covenant was truly the high point of Israel’s national existence. The
covenant is basically two-fold: To build an everlasting Davidic dynasty and create a special relationship between
God and this Davidic ruler. As Blaising points out, the implications cannot be missed. As the mediator between God
and the nation, the Davidic king sets the tone for worship in the nation, serving both in a kingly and priestly role,
after the model of Melchizedek. Ibid., 159-162. Significant as well is the promise of David’s seed who will “build a
house for my name,” which while fulfilled in Solomon’s building of the temple points forward to Christ and the
Church (2 Sam. 7:13; Eph. 2:19-22).
46
Under the Mosaic dispensation, God dealt with Israel as a collective nationally; when characterized
as faithful, Israel would receive blessing; when characterized as apostate, the blessing was suspended for Israel.

14
“Work to see that the city where I sent you as exiles enjoys peace and prosperity.
Pray to the Lord for it. For as it prospers you will prosper.” Having already ebbed the hopes of
the exiles who were hearing false prophets wrongly predict a soon return to the land, Jeremiah
relays God’s word to the people, telling them to get comfortable because they are going to be
there all their lives.47
While the attitude of the exiles was probably bitterness and hatred toward
the Babylonians, God tells them to view things differently. There are three keys points to be
made in this short command. First is simply that the exiles are to seek MwølDv for Babylon.48
This
means that they must be moved to action and seek to prosper the city and its people in every
way, including adding to their culture and seeking their spiritual wellbeing. Second, they are to
pray to the Lord that Babylon would prosper, implying they must rid themselves of bitterness
and genuinely desire Babylon to experience MwølDv.49
Third, this is for a purpose: that “as it
(Babylon) prospers you will prosper.” The reason God says they should seek the prosperity of
the city is so that God’s people might flourish and have peace in their midst.
Ibid., 145-150. Additionally, under the Davidic Covenant, generally speaking, what characterized the king, so also
characterized the nation.
47
Previously in 29:5, Jeremiah tells the people, “Build houses and settle down. Plant gardens and eat
what they produce,” a command that gave rise to hostel reaction by the so-called prophet Shemaiah of Nehelam,
which we see in vv. 24-28.
48
MwølDv is an extremely wide concept, which cannot be adequately conveyed by any single English
word. It denotes a completeness or wholeness of life, “a supremely positive quality of being, which can be
instantiated in the most various ways in various contexts.” “…it can refer not only to the political and military realm
but also the realms of law, the cult, social order, and even fertility.” F. J. Stendebach, “MwølDv” in Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Joannes Botterweck, trans. David E. Green, vol. 15 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 18-20. It could almost be said to be achieved in the sense of a cultural
utopia, and thus fitting when scripture talks about entering rest, i.e. rest from all struggle and conflict in life.
49
Interestingly, this is the only place in the OT in which the Lord commends praying for one’s
unbelieving enemies. F.B. Huey, Jr., Jeremiah, Lamentations (The New American Commentary) (Nashville, TN:
Holman Reference, 1993), 253. This in itself makes the purpose statement that follows emphatic.

15
It appears then that in a fallen world God gives his common grace to all so that his
own people might be blessed in the end. While this may sound anthropocentric and hedonistic, it
is actually circular. As has been shown, when the redeemed people of God are blessed, they are
in a position to bless; to create orderliness in the world, create rich cultural worlds, and extend
relationship to all the nations of the earth. In is not surprising then in the next two chapters (30-
31), Jeremiah prophecies a return of Israel to blessing and a New Covenant, which God promises
to the people.
Jesus Christ: The True Imago Dei And Covenant Mediator
As we reach the dawn of Christ’s first advent, Israel is back in the land and has rebuilt
the temple, yet life is still a struggle and the people long for the day that Messiah will come to
usher in the eschatological age. Rome’s cultural and imperial influence looms over Israel, as
Jesus walks onto the scene. While much could be said about Jesus’ ministry and implications,
our focus will be on his role in covenant fulfillment and his restoration of the imago dei.
Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and imminent return have implications on all three
forms of the Abrahamic Covenant. First, Christ is the fulfillment and end of the Mosaic
Covenant, both in its vertical and forward-looking purposes. In living a sinless life in accordance
with all the ordinances, Jesus accomplished all that the law required.50
Also in dying, he both
fulfilled the requirements of the atonement for sin and annulled the covenant, freeing God’s
people for a new covenant relationship.51
Therefore through faith in Christ believers have
50
Rom. 10:1-10; Eph. 2:14-15. In fact, Jesus is the fulfillment of the entire Law and Prophets (OT)
through his recapitulation of Israel and God’s dealings with her in his own life and the fulfillment of everything
predicted. Craig A. Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism, 194-196.
51
Rom. 7:1-6; Heb. 9-10; 2 Cor. 5:21. His perfect sacrifice made atonement complete and therefore
there remains no more need of the old sacrificial system, which was inferior to Christ’s sacrifice. Also in his death

16
fulfilled the law, which leads to the second fulfillment. The Mosaic Covenant was both a steward
and a tutor, as it would be, holding Israel’s hand, pointing forward to the day of Messiah’s
coming.52
Since Christ had arrived, they were released from the cultural system that was intended
to nourish faith, so that they could cling to the one they were waiting for all along. With this
fulfillment and release from the Mosaic Covenant, believers are moved from one covenantal and
cultural system to another, that of the New Covenant.
Jesus in his death and resurrection has inaugurated the New Covenant. As both the
Melchizedekian high priest and the sacrifice in which the covenant was cut,53
Christ mediates the
covenant,54
including the giving of the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness or sins, the writing of God’s
law on the heart, and the resurrection from the dead.55
All this is possible because Jesus is the Davidic King, the Christ, through whom God
mediates all covenant fulfillments in their fullness. The end of the Mosaic Covenant and the
inauguration of the New Covenant are dependent upon Christ’s enthronement as Melchizedekian
king-priest.56
As such, it is in him that we receive Abrahamic blessing with Christ, the seed of
Abraham.57
We have been made righteous in Christ, the fulfillment of God’s law.58
And through
the sending of the indwelling Holy Spirit, Christ has written the God’s law on our hearts.
(and our joining in his death), one of the covenant partners died, therefore it released God’s people for another
relationship. Ibid., 195-196, 198.
52
Gal. 3-4. Ibid., 196-197.
53
Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 10:10-22.
54
Heb. 9:15; 12:24.
55
Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36-37; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-11; 2 Cor. 3:6; 5:17; Eph. 1:3-14; 2:18-22; Heb.
10:15-17.
56
For a defense of Jesus’ inauguration of the Davidic Covenant see Blaising, Progressive
Dispensationalism, 175-187.
57
Gal. 3:8-16.

17
As the fulfillment of all the covenants Jesus Christ has begun the process of
restoration59
of all those who are connected to him through faith, being in Christ, the image par
excellence of the living God.60
As such, he is in the process of restoring the imago dei,
conforming us to his image.61
Also, in grafting us into the New Covenant through the Spirit, he
has established a new culture, having ended the dispensation of the Mosaic Covenant, and is
building up the household of God, which is characterized by the great commandment and the
great commission. As a renewed people, image-bearers in Christ, we are to practice what we
were designed to do, to create Culture; in doing so, we communicate the gospel, love the Lord
God and love our neighbors. We do this not in hopeful expectation of another garden, but of our
future earthly home, the glorious new Jerusalem.
Expositional Argument
Building upon the biblical theology that holds the whole picture together, we will
examine this theology played out in the early Church and show cultural literacy at work. Our text
will show that Peter is looking through a culturally sensitive paradigm as he addresses his
audience in his first epistle, giving its most quoted verse a unique thrust and showing that the
Church is to live like sojourners and exiles, seeking the welfare of their own cities.
58
Matt. 5:17-18; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 3:18. As Paul points out in Romans 7, God law did not come into
existence through the Mosaic Law, but was there all along and merely showed sin to be sin.
59
While these blessings are a present reality, we wait for the day in which all the covenants will be
brought to their fullness.
60
2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3.
61
Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11-13.

18
1 Peter 3:15: Proclamation Through Practice
1 Peter 3:15 has long been heralded the proof text of the apologetics movement,
calling all Christians to equip themselves with answers to life’s tough questions so that we might
defend the faith. While I will preface that I am all for being well equipped to defend the faith and
win individuals to Christ, in fact my own position on cultural literacy demands it, I believe that
this passage when framed in Peter’s larger message produces a different emphasis.
While Peter’s entire first epistle is framed in the larger theme of persevering through
suffering,62
when one follows the flow of thought throughout the letter, certain other themes act
as pillars holding up the entire message. The beginning of chapter one, which is not hard to see,
is Peter’s exposition of the hope these believers have in Christ, which he points out, they are
privileged to have; a salvation enviable to even the prophets and angels.63
At 1:13 he then
transitions to the corollary of this hope; in light of their64
salvation in Christ, their response must
be a mindset of hope embodied in a lifestyle of faithful obedience to Christ. They are to live not
as they formerly did but ridding themselves of all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, etc. and pursuing unity
and godliness.65
This call to be holy as God is holy is not only for the purpose of being set apart
62
Elliot concludes that Peter’s statement in 5:12 best summarizes the message and aim of the epistle: “I
have written to you briefly, in order to encourage you and testify that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it”
(NET). John H. Elliott, 1 Peter (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries) (New York: Yale University Press, 2001),
103-105. Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 45.
63
1 Peter 1:10-12 says that, “concerning this salvation, the prophets who predicted the grace that
would come to you searched and investigated carefully. They probed into what person or time the Spirit of Christ
within them was indicating when he testified beforehand about the sufferings appointed for Christ and his
subsequent glory…things angels long to catch a glimpse of.” This hope that Peter begins the epistle with is
important because it is the very defense in 3:15 that his audience of Christians should be ready to give.
64
Peter like Paul, most often sees all of these realities and thence response as a collective. While there
certainly is an individualistic aspect to the Christian life, especially in comparison to its Jewish roots, the community
aspect was a strong emphasis of the Apostles and the early Church.
65
1 Peter 2:1-5. This is but the beginning of list of things to be done away with. See 4:3-4. Being a
peaceable unified community of believers is a pillar in Peter’s theology, setting the Church apart from the world

19
from their surroundings, the very reason they are being persecuted, but to be a testimony as
living stones, shining the Gospel through their lifestyle into the community.66
Peter’s use of the living stones temple imagery from 2:4-10 is a very important text in
Peter’s overall message. As living stones,67
they are being built up together into a spiritual
house,68
of which Christ is the cornerstone, to be a holy priesthood, sharing in Christ’s own
ministry of acceptance by some and rejection by others. As Christ’s body they are the stumbling
stone, which at times is rejected, leading to earthly dishonor, but will be honored by God in the
end.69
Not only does this sharing in Christ’s experience, show the proven character of their faith
(1:7) and assurance of association with Christ, but as a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, a people of his own,” they are to “proclaim the virtues of the one who called them (you)
out of darkness into his marvelous light” (2:9).
around it. See 1:22; 2:5, 17; 3:7-12; 4:8-11; 5:1-5. In doing so they are becoming holy as God is holy (1:16),
showing the proven character of their faith (1:7) and the hope of their salvation, which awaits them (1:4-5).
66
1 Peter 2:5-9; 12-15; 3:1, 15-17. The local church itself as a cultural creation and institutional entity
stands to communicate the values and beliefs of its human and divine creators; beliefs about the way the world is
and should be as well as extending the horizon of possibility when a church impacts the world around it.
67
While the identification of Christians with Christ as the living stone and temple imagery seems to be
the primary thrust of this “living stone(s)” metaphor (Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter, 149), in continuity with what follows,
the imagery of the memorial stone seems to be invoked as well. Memorial stones were meant to be a marker, giving
testimony of the work of God. Thus when one came to a memorial stone it was both to excite memory and used to
teach (Josh. 4).
68
This temple imagery is very similar to Paul’s own in Ephesians 2:20-22. As a priesthood and a
temple, two important aspects are in play. (1) They are a special place of God’s presence, a meeting place between
God and man, (2) Having that access to God, as priests they have an important function, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices. These sacrifices obviously are not sin offerings, since Christ has died one for all (Heb. 9:25-26), but of
thanksgiving and praise. I. Howard Marshall, 1 Peter (Ivp New Testament Commentary) (Leicaster: IVP Academic,
1991), 68-69. These offerings of thanks and praise are done through their lifestyle and good works, which as we will
see are part of their proclamation ministry.
69
This honor-shame dynamic is important in the Greco-Roman world, in which the Westerner
sometimes struggles to relate. These Christians were caught in a conundrum of conforming to the pressures of their
neighbors and having there honor reinstated, or standing strong in their faith facing shame, abuse, and loss of
societal standing. While these Christians face shame in the earthly sense, Peter reassures them that they will receive
heavenly honor before God (2:20; 3:14; 4:14), which is worth the pain. John H. Elliott, 1 Peter, 117. As will be
shown, their perseverance, abuse, and earthly shame was not just for the sake of being honored by God, but worked
as a means through which the gospel is preached toward the salvation of some (1 Peter 4:6).

20
It is important to see throughout the rest of the epistle, this proclamation ministry is
primarily to be manifested through their actions in seeking the well-being of their culture so that
non-Christians in seeing their good deeds would be provoked to ask about their hope, which
showcases itself in a set-apart lifestyle. 1 Peter 2:11-12, thus sets the tone for the audience and
begins Peter’s cultural evaluation of his audiences present situation, giving them what seems to
be a mixed bag of conformity and resistance,70
all for the purpose of bearing witness to the gospel
of Jesus Christ.
Nearly half the epistle, from 2:13-4:19, we find Peter speaking into the situation at
hand, teaching his audience how to live a lifestyle of faithful presence71
in the situation that they
find themselves. He addresses slaves, wives, husbands, and his general audience who are under
governing authorities, and the surprising thing to some, is that he does not call them to force
Christianity on them, or the converse, to withdraw from the situation. Rather, Peter calls them to
live in obedience to Christ, upholding righteousness and putting away sinfulness, yet being
obedient under the societal authorities in which they find themselves. The point is this: the stone
in which the non-Christians should stubble over is not the freedom of these believers, but if they
70
Several articles and debates have centered on this mixed nature of conformity and resistance. David
Horrell has a nice essay comparing the Balch-Elliott debate about what Peter is intending to do in his commands in
light of the socio-cultural situation surrounding his audience. In doing so, he strikes a balance between the two,
attributing to 1 Peter’s author what he calls “polite resistance.” David G. Horrell, “Between Conformity and
Resistance: Beyond the Balch-Elliott Debate Toward A Postcolonial Reading Of First Peter,” in Reading First Peter
with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter, ed. Robert L. Webb and Betsy Bauman-
Martin, The Library of New Testament Studies, ed. Mark Goodacre et al., vol. 364 (London, UK.: Bloomsbury T&T
Clark, 2007), 143.
71
This stance of faithful presence is key in the mind of James Davison Hunter. In his first mention of
it, Hunter comments that one element of faithful presence as a body is simply exercising excellence in “all realms of
life.” Later he identifies three of these areas, (1) being fully present to each other, both those inside and outside the
community of faith, (2) being fully present and committed to our tasks, and (3) being fully present and committed in
our spheres of social influence. James Davison Hunter, To Change the World, 95, 244-248. There is an essential
element to this truth in Peter’s own teaching, that whether you are a slave, a wife, a husband, a citizen, etc.; do it
well and do not let the accusations or slander of others be because of the things you can control but because they
take offense to Christ and the lifestyle he calls you to. This very much mirrors the theology of Jeremiah 29:7.

21
are to stumble it must be over the true “stumbling-stone,” Christ, of which Peter’s audience is to
emulate in action.
This is where we come to 3:15. In exercising this faithful presence, not causing
offense through their freedom in Christ, but exemplifying the gospel in action, they will provoke
a curiosity in their neighbors, raising the question of what compels them to remain obedient to
authority yet live differently than the mainstream, which even invites persecution. In Peter’s own
words, the goal is that “they may see their (your) good deeds and glorify God when he appears”
(2:12) and again, “now it was for this very purpose that the gospel was preached to those who are
now dead, so that though they were judged in the flesh by human standards they may live
spiritually by God’s standards” (4:6). Unfortunately, many will respond differently, rather
heaping abuse upon the faithful. For those that this is true, his audience is to answer, “with
courtesy and respect, keeping a good conscience, so that those who slander their (your) good
conduct in Christ may be put to shame when they accuse them (you)” (3:16), for they will “face
a reckoning before Jesus Christ who stands ready to judge the living and the dead” (4:5).
In concluding, Peter’s message is to live a life of faithful presence by proclamation
through practice, bringing about a response of acceptance or rejection. More importantly for our
purposes, it is a message that comes out of the ability to read the culture that his audience was a
part of. Understanding the values, practices, and worldview of this culture allowed Peter to speak
into it and instruct his audience about how to live faithfully, set-apart unto God, while not
hindering the progress and integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As Peter exhorts his audience
to emulate Christ in his suffering, we too as Christians must emulate Peter’s cultural literacy if
we are to speak into our own cultures, standing firm in conviction while always continuing to

22
graciously extend the gospel to the world. In so doing we are like the exiles in Babylon, seeking
MwølDv in our own cities and cultures.
Homiletical Argument
“Sermons catch fire when flint strikes steel. When the flint of a person’s problem
strikes the steel of the Word of God, a spark ignites that burns in the mind.”72
What a picturesque
illustration of the problem that so many Christians, and indeed pastors, face on an everyday basis
in seeking to connect the gospel with their neighbors. As Christians we are called to two
fundamental commands, the great commandment and the great commission, and while few are
called to “professional ministry,” we are all called to be ministers of the gospel. In
communicating the gospel in both word and action, we must understand the felt needs and
sensitivities of our audience, which is based in the culture they are enmeshed in, or our efforts
will likely fall on deaf ears.73
There are few that have understood and exemplified this truth better
than the Apostle Paul himself.
I Have Become All Things To All People
In coming to the ninth chapter of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, in the midst of
addressing food sacrificed to idols, he puts forth a fundamental principle, that love limits
liberty.74
In giving practical advice to the Corinthians, whose very social and cultural reality was
72
Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: the Development and Delivery of Expository Messages,
3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 123.
73
In no way does this take away from the work of the Holy Spirit, who uses things the world thinks
foolish to shame the wise and things the world thinks weak to shame the strong (1 Cor. 1:27). Paul himself says that
he did not come with superior eloquence, wisdom, or persuasive words, but by the power of the Spirit (2:1,4).
74
This is worded well in 10:23-24: ““Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial.
“Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds others up. Do not seek your own good, but the good of the other
person.”

23
engrossed in idol worship,75
he tells them limit what they ate not only for their own conscience
sake but also for the purpose of not becoming a stumbling block to their neighbors.
Having this in mind when one comes to 9:19-27, it casts Paul’s words in a limiting
rather than exhibiting manner.76
For Paul says:
To the Jews I became like a Jew to gain the Jews. To those under the law I became like
one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) to gain those under the law. To
those free from the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from
God’s law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law. To the weak I
became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by
all means I may save some. (9:20-22)
While some have taken this to mean that we must adopt the ways of culture wholesale, its
apparent that Paul has something else in mind. He makes a distinction between entering into the
world of his audience and participating in that which is contrary to the gospel.77
He instructs his
audience to eat of the food in marketplace and join their unbelieving neighbors when invited to
dinner, but when you are made known that the food has been sacrificed to idols, then refrain
from partaking, so that their unbelieving neighbor is not led to believe that they approve of such
practices (10:25-29). Paul universalizes this principle in 9:20-22, meaning that every situation
75
The world of ancient Corinth was a stronghold of the imperial cult. Unlike today’s Western world,
which tries hard to separate religion from state affairs, the ancient Hellenistic society strongly integrated the two,
from festivals, to professional guilds, to most social functions. To be removed or not participate in these functions
would come at a high cost to Paul’s Corinthian audience. David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 348.
76
One limits oneself by building touch-points to his or her audiences’ hopes, concerns, and culture,
while not compromising one’s integrity as a Christ follower. Keller calls these “elements of contact” and “elements
of contradiction.” It is only when we can discern the difference between the two that we can properly contextualize
our message and means of cultural engagement. Timothy Keller, Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of
Skepticism (New York, USA.: Viking, 2015), 99-103. On the other hand exhibiting would be undiscerningly
adapting the culture wholesale in an effort to relate the gospel to the audience. This approach, which has often been
called the accommodation or relevance approach, has the unintended consequence of making the gospel not that
good of news since it appears to be little different than what one’s audience is already experiencing.
77
Paul’s theology is very consistent with Peter’s in this posture of faithful presence, being in and for
culture where it can be affirmed, and in some cases tolerated, yet standing in contrast to culture where it runs
counter to the message of the gospel.

24
calls for discretion and one approach cannot account for every audience. Therefore cultural
literacy is required in evaluating one’s audience and the culture they are a part of. Paul applies
this not only outside the Church but also to ministering to those inside the Church later in the
epistle when addressing spiritual gifts.
Probably Paul’s best example of this ability to read his audience and the culture is
seen in Acts 17 during his time in Athens. While we are only privileged to have the account of
Paul’s interaction with the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers on the Areopagus, we are told that
every day he addressed the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles, both in the synagogue and the
marketplace; drastically different audiences with differing cultural sensitivities. Importantly, we
see Paul, while making his Areopagus speech, practicing this limiting posture while reading his
audience’s felt needs. In his time of wandering Athens, he had noticed all the idols that filled the
city and even came upon an alter with the inscription, “To an unknown god.” Understanding the
illocutionary meaning behind such a cultural text, that they have a longing to reach for God, Paul
used this element of contact, along with their own poets,78
to connect and hold his audiences
attention. In doing so he also brought in elements of contradiction to confront their misplaced
belief and pointed them to Jesus.
While knowing all the cares, worries, and hopes of our audience is an unattainable
and even futile endeavor, Paul’s example raises the question: how much do we need to know and
understand our audience? While an unsatisfying answer for most, I believe what one my former
professors characteristically says rings true here, “just enough.” That is, we need to know just
78
The first allusion, “For in him we live and move about and exist” possibly goes back to Epimenides
of Crete but is more likely an ancient widespread belief. The second allusion, “For we too are his offspring” comes
from the poet Aratus, Phaenomena 5. Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 568.

25
enough to be able to move our audience in the direction God wants them to move. Being that we
do not always know what that is going to take, it behooves us to continue to grow in
understanding and hone our skills of cultural literacy. For Paul’s metaphor rings true,
Do you not know that all the runners in a stadium compete, but only one receives the
prize? So run to win. Each competitor must exercise self-control in everything. They do it
to receive a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. So I do not run uncertainly or
box like one who hits only air. Instead I subdue my body and make it my slave, so that
after preaching to others I myself will not be disqualified. (1 Cor. 9:24-27)
Conclusion
The world is full of hurting people, who not only do not know God but do not
understand their creative calling. They toil day in and day out, searching for the meaning of life
and meaningful things. As Christians with a living hope in a living Savior, who is in the process
of restoring us to the way we were meant to live, we have an expedient mission on our hands.
Through Culture’s very nature, because of its connectedness to our purpose as the imago dei, by
its use in the early Church, and because of its part in the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, I have argued that cultural literacy is not optional for a believer; it is a requisite of the
Christian life. As such, it is through cultural literacy that we are able to engage the world,
creating cultures that glorify God, loving our neighbors, and thus loving the Lord, and making
disciples of all nations.

26
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnold, Bill T. Encountering the Book of Genesis (Encountering Biblical Studies). Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
Arnold, Bill T. Genesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Ashford, Bruce Riley. Every Square Inch: An Introduction to Cultural Engagement for
Christians. Bellingham, USA.: Lexham Press, 2015.
Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. Pbk. ed. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 2000.
Bock, Darrell L. Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2007.
Bock, Darrell L., J. Lanier Burns, Elliott Johnson, and Stanley D Toussaint. Three Central Issues
in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive
Views. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999.
Bolt, John. Economic Shalom: A Reformed Primer On Faith, Work, and Human Flourishing.
Grand Rapids: Christian's Library Press, 2013.
Carson, D A. Christ and Culture Revisited. paperback ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2012.
Crouch, Andy. Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Books, 2013.
Eagleton, Terry. The Idea of Culture. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000.
Elliott, John H. 1 Peter (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries). New York: Yale University
Press, 2001.
Garber, Steven. Visions of Vocation: Common Grace for the Common Good. Downers Grove,
IL: IVP Books, 2014.
Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 1977.

27
Horrell, David G. “Between Conformity and Resistance: Beyond the Balch-Elliott Debate
Toward A Postcolonial Reading Of First Peter.” In Reading First Peter with New Eyes:
Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter, edited by Robert L. Webb and
Betsy Bauman-Martin. The Library of New Testament Studies, edited by Mark Goodacre
et al., vol. 364, 111-143. London, UK.: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2007.
Huey, F.B., Jr. Jeremiah, Lamentations. (The New American Commentary). Nashville, TN:
Holman Reference, 1993.
Hunter, James Davison. To Change the World: the Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of
Christianity in the Late Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Jobes, Karen H. 1 Peter. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.
Keller, Timothy. Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism. New York, USA.:
Viking, 2015.
Marshall, I. Howard. 1 Peter (Ivp New Testament Commentary). Leicaster: IVP Academic, 1991.
Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.
NET Bible: New English Translation. Spokane, WA: Biblical Studies Press, 2001.
Oswalt, John N. The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.
Robinson, Haddon W. Biblical Preaching: the Development and Delivery of Expository
Messages. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014.
Stendebach, F. J. “MwølDv” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. Joannes
Botterweck, translated by David E. Green, vol. 15, 13-49. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Charles A. Anderson, and Michael J. Sleasman, eds. Everyday Theology:
How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
2007.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Pub, 1984.

CULTURAL LITERACY AS A REQUISITE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE_REVISED_Kasey Summerer

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to CULTURAL LITERACY AS A REQUISITE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE_REVISED_Kasey Summerer

Similar to CULTURAL LITERACY AS A REQUISITE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE_REVISED_Kasey Summerer (11)

CULTURAL LITERACY AS A REQUISITE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE_REVISED_Kasey Summerer