If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I’m constantly fascinated with the “fine line.”
On a grand scale, cosmologists hypothesize that had certain physical constants varied - by seemingly infinitesimal amounts - no mind would be here to ask, “Why is there not nothing?”
On the moral front, Alexander Solzhenitsyn spoke compellingly of the fine line separating good and evil that “passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart.”
It seems that God has woven this fine line into the very heart of being - even down to already-but-not-yet determinations of “particleness” and “waveness” in quantum mechanics.
“The fine line” appears to be an integral part of the world…
… So much so, that it can allow the most devout believer and the most convinced non-believer to look at the same reality and affirm with equally thoroughgoing certainty, “Thus it must be and cannot be otherwise!”
Now self-described “recovering pharisee” Kary Oberbrunner’s newest book, The Fine Line: Re-envisioning the Gap between Christ and Culture, attempts to limn anew what it means to “live in the world, but not of the world.”
While I haven’t had a chance to read the entire book, Oberbrunner has offered a limited number of free audio editions in exchange for posting an Amazon review of the excerpt on his Zondervan press page.
(So my response to anyone who questions the fairness of “reviewing” a complex argument such as Oberbrunner’s without having read the entire book is, “I’ve been given permission by both author and publisher.”)
With that in mind, here are a few thoughts on the material available at the Zondervan site, as well what I’ve gleaned from other online sources about Oberbrunner’s book and work…
Oberbrunner takes as one starting point the work of Yale Christian theological-ethicist H. Richard Niebuhr (brother of theologian Reinhold).
But where Niebuhr speaks of “conversionists” - those who are more concerned with God’s divine activity of “present renewal than with conservation of what has been given in creation or preparing for what will be given in a final redemption” - Oberbrunner’s chief category is that of “Transformist”.
Transformists are those who inhabit the fine line of “Relevance” between Separatist rejection and Conformist embrace of culture.
All well and good - and as mentioned above, I’ve not yet read the book in it’s entirety, so in large part I’m shooting from the hip here - but I always have a concern when “Relevance” wants to be elevated to the status Oberbrunner seems to give it.
This is the “fine line within the fine line” we disciples of Jesus must walk.
Because when relevance is invested with inherent value, it runs a high risk of tipping the balance toward cultural conformism.
It creates in the disciple a bias toward “marketing to” what the culture wants, instead of ministering to what it needs.
Yes, there are times we are called toward relevance.
This indeed seems to be one of those times.
But there are also times when as children of God we may be called to be disdainful of relevance as well. (Luke 4:24-27)
It may be that an ill-advised hunger for relevance is what led to the excesses of the Christian Right over the past few decades. It may be that at bottom, the need to be relevant always positions us more “of the world” than just “in the world.”
This isn’t to say we should avoid relevance, no more than we should seek irrelevance.
Indeed, Paul seems to endorse some form of relevance when he writes:
To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 NIV)
But as Paul concludes his argument, we see that it wasn’t his intention to be relevant for the sake of relevance, or even for the sake of transforming culture as his final goal; it was instead to “share in the blessings of the Gospel.”
Those blessings do not find their ultimate home at the level of culture, but in the individual life that is transformed - here, now and for eternity - as one is brought into conformity with Christ - whether or not culture is transformed.
No doubt there will be huge, beneficial changes in any culture when a critical mass of individuals undergoes such inner transformation. And the spillover from those blessings to the culture at large will be profound. But it is not for the sake of cultural change that we are called to discipleship, as appealing as that change may be.
And I also agree with Oberbrunner that it’s generally along the “fine line” that God would have us walk.
The same fine line that’s illuminated by terms such as “missional churches” and “new monasticism”. At their best, both these movements seem to walk side-by-side as they address culture on the razor thin division of the fine line Oberbrunner seeks to describe.
I look forward to hearing more from Pastor Kary on these issues - including reading his newest effort in it’s entirety. I hope you’ll do the same!
