Let Your Light Shine

"This little light of mine / I'm gonna let it shine / This little light of mine / I'm gonna let it shine, let it shine, let it shine, let it shine..."

As Christians, we ought constantly to be asking questions about what it means to engage our culture with the Gospel - to facilitate introductions between the culture and Jesus. Here's a few for consideration:

• Should evangelism be deliberate and confrontational or incidental and relational?
• Are we using real words that have real meaning for real people?
• What parts of an authentically Christian witness ought to remain anchored and static and what parts ought to be fluid and dynamic?
• How do we present our message in a way that is at once sincere, humble, honest, creative, and winsome?
• To what degree are our methods and strategies based on pragmatism?

Each of these questions are capable of sparking an entire discussion in themselves, and maybe I can return to some of them later. For now, I want to focus on a simple distinction that affects how we think about our witness at a very basic level.

I call it "Let vs. Make."

Matthew 5:16 says "let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." The word I want us to notice here is the little word "let." We are to allow our light to shine - to leave it unrestricted, and not to force it. "Our light" is something God places within us that emanates naturally when we step out of the way and allow it to.

I think the way the Gospel is often shared today could be likened to shining a flashlight in someone's face. When you do this, they not only can't see anything around them, they can't even see the light, because it's being pointed at them and used incorrectly. Naturally, they close their eyes, and naturally, they're somewhat annoyed.

The whole purpose of letting our light shine is "that they may see." If they can't see, we have not fulfilled the scripture. We complain of people's hardness of heart, and wash our hands of their souls, declaring that we have done our duty as a watchman and "warned" them. We may have warned them, but have we illuminated the spiritual landscape for them so that they can understand and receive the warning?

The purpose of the light we shine is not to impress or inundate, but to illuminate - to push back against the darkness that has settled around the human heart and allow people to see - perhaps for the first time - the true condition of the world, the vastness of their need, and the staggering immensity of God's love.

Instead of a flashlight, we ought to hold a candle. Our light ought to glow, not glare. Like a warm fireside on a cold winter night, it should invite people to "come and see."

To this end, we need to rediscover a subtlety of expression and an appreciation for language and imagery that is deeper than mere moralism. At least as far as the arts are concerned, it's not necessary even that people can immediately tell it is Christian. Most of the time, they should simply be conscious of a strong, steady glow, full of life and health.

The better the artist, one almost may say, the more subtle the preacher. Inventive persuasion, not blunt exhortation, commonly is the method of the literary champion of norms.¹

Our faith informs our art and witness from within. The yeast is supposed to go inside the bread. In fact, when yeast is used properly, you shouldn't even know it's there. Our witness ought to be like yeast, or candlelight, or wind. "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

What this means is that Christians ought to be making real art and expressing themselves as real people, letting their light shine, continually working towards a deeper knowledge of God, a deeper understanding of people, and a more creative and holistic way of thinking Christianly about art and witness.

We don't need more people writing Christian books. What we need is more Christians writing good books. I don't think we need more people making Christian movies. What we need is more Christians making good movies.²

Christians do not get some kind of special pass. We are not entitled to be heard simply because of who we are. Zeal is not a substitute for quality, and volume is not a substitute for perceptiveness. Just like anyone, we need good manners, good grammar, and artistic sensibility if we want to have a meaningful cultural voice. It is true that "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow," but to be effective it must be rightly handled and wielded with skill.

There is altogether too much explanation and explicitness in Evangelicalism, and not enough understanding and evocative subtlety. God rarely explains. God merely speaks, or perhaps shows, and then leaves time for questions and room for active faith. Sometimes the Still Small Voice is louder than the megaphone.

(1) Richard Terrell, Christian Fiction: Piety Is Not Enough, as quoted in Leland Ryken, Ed., The Christian Imagination, (Colorado Springs, Waterbrook Press: 2002), 252
(2) Douglas Gresham, in an interview with Steve Brown

Image courtesy of doxxlog.com

Should We Dump "Religion"?

Over the past few months, I have been reevaluating the whole idea of religion, mainly as it relates to what Christianity has become in 21st century America. Did Jesus come to start a religion? Are we making a mistake by presenting and defending Christianity as just another "world religion"? Does religion even glorify God?

On the other side, what about tradition and history? Aren't structure and sacrosanctity both integral parts of a well-rounded spirituality? Is the paradigm shift away from "religion" an unwarranted reactionary response? Is the statement, "I'm not religious - I'm just a Christian" just a trendy thing to say?

In framing the discussion, it may be helpful to think about some definitions. Religion is particularly slippery in this regard, because knowing what a word means in the information age is much more complex than simply looking up. You also have to look at how the word is used at all levels of discourse - spiritual, scholarly, and popular.

So, semantically speaking, we can see that religion is elusive. But that shouldn't stop us from trying to understand it. When you pare it down and throw away the trappings and tassels, I'd suggest you're left with "An ideological structure for spiritual belief." At this level, there isn't much to object to; we have to look a little deeper.

It seems it may be less about what religion is and more about what it has become. It is criticized (I think justly) as serving as "A system that we construct to make us feel good about ourselves and our spirituality", or, even worse, "A way to manipulate God and/or others."

It might also be possible that the place of religion within Christianity has been misunderstood or distorted. Most of us would grant that Christianity includes "an ideological structure for spiritual belief," but does that adequately describe what Christianity essentially is? I don't think so. Jesus came that we might have life, and life abundantly.

Jacques Ellul, in his book The Subversion of Christianity, states that true Christianity is anti-religion and argues for desacralization on every level. Donald Miller's book Blue Like Jazz bears the subtitle "Nonreligious thoughts on Christian Spirituality." Brad and Wayne, cohosts of The God Journey, are convinced that religion has distracted people from the gospel. And Steve Brown (the old white guy) is just sick of it.

C. S. Lewis, however, sees some things worth keeping. Take this excerpt from Letters to Malcolm:

It is well to have have specifically holy places, and things, and days, for, without these focal points or reminders, the belief that all is holy and "big with God" will soon dwindle into a mere sentiment. But if these holy places, things, and days cease to remind us, if they obliterate our awareness that all ground is holy and every bush (could we but perceive it) a Burning Bush, then the hallows begin to do harm. Hence both the necessity, and the perennial danger, of "religion."*

Based on what Ellul has written, it appears he would differ from Lewis on this. Ellul doesn't believe in holy stuff - he believes in a holy God. Granted, the two may not be mutually exclusive, in which case his argument would be based on a straw man. (Do you see the problem? This discussion picks up burrs faster than an Australian Shepherd in a vacant lot.)

If you will notice, the title of this post is a question. So is the rest of it.

*C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, (Harcourt, 1992), 75