Worldview Fragment: cultural accommodation through appeasement

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

The basic, introductory outline of Christianity is simple, and people often express it as a handful of steps or tenets. It's also highly adaptable. One of the factors of its longevity and ubiquity is the effective repackaging people have done to extend the Gospel to those who deeply need it yet don't or can't comprehend their own need because the unpackaged form of it seems irrelevant. The adjective "Christianized" arose for good reason. A top theme of Acts is the spreading of Christianity, which was founded by God in the guise of a Jew, from one people group to other, drastically-different people groups. This long and distinguished tradition could be referred to as cultural accommodation because it consists of taking the whole Gospel and integrating or transplanting it into a previously foreign culture.

Any honest Christian will tell you that this integration is never perfect nor easy. However, for Christians the essential mismatch between Christianity and culture does have a straightforward explanation: culture comes from people, while Christianity comes from God. The sinful components of a culture don't and shouldn't mix well with the holiness components of Christianity. Plainly, just as some parts of the presentation of Christianity are subject to cultural accommodation, some parts of the accommodated culture are subject to rejection by Christianity. To use the Bible's metaphors, the salt must keep being salty to be useful; Christianity must have an observable, statistical effect on Christians (regardless of culture) to be Christianity.

In contrast, some well-meaning people who have a commendable level of enthusiasm for the Lost fall into the error of "solving" the real conflict of ideas between Christianity and culture by taking cultural accommodation to such an extreme that Christianity ceases to be Christianity in any meaningful and/or significant sense. When a participant in a conflict concedes too much for the sake of peace, this is appeasement. Christian appeasers could operate in a variety of different ways; boiled down to the most fundamental form these are recanting or abandoning, if not in so many words, the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, or the reliability of the Bible.

Of course, the appeasement can be so subtle that it escapes notice. Christian appeasers sound a lot like other Christians. They may also agree on many points. A Christian appeaser might not have started out that way, and might yet stop jettisoning the central concepts of Christianity in response to culture. (He or she could have drifted into becoming an appeaser simply out of unreflective exposure to culture.) Here and now, some of the Christian concepts commonly sacrificed on an individual or group basis to appease culture are:

• Truth. As courage is a basic ingredient of other virtues, the claim to truth is a basic ingredient of authentic Christian beliefs. To put it bluntly (in a definition philosophers will mock you for), truth is "all statements which correspond to reality". True Christianity is more than a "metanarrative", a "religion", a "belief system", or a "doctrine". It is. God isn't an analogy, a label for some inborn archetype, or a manifestation of the Divine Oneness of Being. God is. If a culture or someone inhabiting that culture doesn't believe in this kind of truth, particularly applied to the supernatural realm, then Christianity is so much nonsense and wasted energy--although it would still be excellent inspirational fiction.
• Sin/guilt. Morality confronts each individual with two facts: 1) some actions should be done while some actions should not be done, 2) on a more or less daily basis he or she doesn't do what he or she should and/or he or she does what he or she shouldn't. Christianity comprehensively addresses those two facts, and in fact is centered on them: the causes, the effects, the temporary cure, the ultimate cure, etc. Thus, each Christian believer must start out by recognizing that he or she is a sinner--an EVIL person. Isn't this an awful marketing challenge? Appeasers relinquish sin and divine judgment in favor of a self-improvement program whose net result is blessings for now and forever. When Christians (verbally) "convert" with the understanding that sin is just "the reallllly bad stuff I do occasionally", not "the despicable condition of my soul, fully deserving eternal punishment apart from mercy", why should onlookers be surprised that this appeasing version of Christianity leads to ineffective and hypocritical "Christians"?
• Hell. Christian appeasement to culture is almost as old as Christianity. And Hell is likely among both the oldest and most consistent victims of appeasement. "I can't believe in a good God who could send people to Hell." Hell's overwhelming unattractiveness makes that statement overwhelmingly attractive. Yet it also happens to be an oddly childish statement refuted by elementary points. 1) How could Good be Good and tolerate Evil indefinitely? 2) How could Heaven be Heaven if Evil is there? 3) If God's forgiveness really is that cheap, why did Jesus come and die? 4) Do the damned want to be with God (obeying, worshiping) anyway? 5) Most obviously, God HAS provided a freely-offered and fully-functioning escape from Hell--how is He therefore contradicting His "goodness credentials"?
  
• Blood. The Bible has plenty of sex and violence, which is a point people relish using against Christians when they actively campaign to restrict the distribution of prurient and/or violent media. (What really makes specific media unacceptable is the glorification and incitement of sex and violence--by portraying the desirable aspects while not portraying the real-world devastating consequences.) Christians can take some solace in rationalizing that much of it, and certainly the more disagreeable portions like slaughters and affairs, is pre-Christ. However, the topic of blood cannot be similarly avoided (if you don't like the word "blood", don't read Hebrews!). Throughout the Bible, blood is the atonement for sin. Hence the Christian songs which rhapsodize about Christ's blood, for it's how sinners can be reunited to God. And the ritual of Holy Communion, which seems to have cannibalistic overtones to people who don't grasp the concept and symbolism. Blood is still another concept which underscores the seriousness of Christianity (but that seriousness is coupled to the joy and hope of forgiveness, new life of repentance, and the Spirit). To appease a culture by denying blood's importance in Christianity is to sever ties to one of the long-standing pillars of historical understanding.
  

Christianity's full message can take many forms for the sake of cultural accommodation, but a form that smooths over all culture conflict by excising truth, sin, Hell, or blood isn't Christianity. It may act as a pleasant cultural institution, but not a compelling, transforming influence.