Witness,the church,and faithful cultural engagement

Introduction

There is a tension for the church between cultural engagement and maintaining faithful witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is important that the church both acknowledges and wrestles with this tension. As the church exists in the world, it must continue to discern what faithful participation within culture looks like. It also must consider the question of identity—that is, in what ways cultural engagement is core to who the church is called to be. To state it in a different way, if engagement with the world is central to the church’s participation in the mission of Christ, then it must discern how to do so in a way that is faithful to that mission.

M.M. Thomas and Lesslie Newbigin were two important twentieth-century voices in the development of mission theology and a missional understanding of the church. Both worked extensively in the Indian context and took various leadership roles within the World Council of Churches and Ecumenical Movement; Thomas, who was Indian, and Newbigin, a missionary from Britain who worked extensively in India. There is an important historical and cultural context, particularly within India, which informs the perspective of both authors as it relates to cultural witness. While the scope of this article does not allow for extensive background in this area, it is important to acknowledge its influence on the thought process of both authors.

In their dialogue entitled “Baptism, the Church, and Koinonia” ¹ Thomas and Newbigin look to shape a more constructive understanding of the church’s calling and identity as it seeks clarity in how to engage with culture and remain faithful to its gospel witness. The church has always found itself in the world, a world which God loves in Jesus Christ. Any congregation which seeks to be faithful to the gospel must consider what it means to be Jesus’ witness in the world. This article will consider the cultural witness and identity of the church in light of the Thomas–Newbigin discussion, while also drawing from the wider work of both authors.

M.M. Thomas: Faith, religion, and the nature of the church

In his letter to Lesslie Newbigin, M.M. Thomas begins with a discussion of the nature of religion, faith, and the church. Thomas’s, and to an extent Newbigin’s, theological understanding of religion, faith, and the new humanity finds some of its roots in the theology of Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The ideas are developed and contextualized, but are indeed influenced by these earlier thinkers. ² In this regard, Thomas (1977: 111) writes that “I have made a distinction between Faith and Religion … I do maintain that Faith is primary, but it always expresses itself in Religion, and therefore is necessary to it, but only as it relates to the Centre, and hence secondary in the hierarchy of truths.” Thomas is making the point that “religion” is derived from “faith.” Faith is therefore higher, and religion is a relative expression of this faith. While Thomas doesn’t here define “religion,” it is likely that he refers to the specific religious forms and practices in which churches engage. Thomas (1977: 111) understands the nature of faith as “the acknowledgment of the centrality of the Person of Jesus Christ [as] the essence of faith.” He later illustrates faith in this way: “My starting point is the new humanity in Christ, that is, the humanity which responds in faith and receives the liberation of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour” (1977: 112).

Thomas (1977: 112) then ties this to the nature of the church: “Religion always changes its form to express the central Faith. The Church has to be concerned with the centrality of Faith and with Religion as its relative expression.” In other words, Thomas argues for an ecclesiology which values a diversity of form because it all derives from one essential center, that is, the person and work of Jesus Christ. One must not confuse the expression of the faith, that is, the church, with the faith itself. This distinction, according to Thomas (1977: 112), is necessary “if Religion has to take new forms to express the Faith.” Thomas (1977: 112) seeks to make clear that he is not advocating for a non-church Christianity, or a purely “disembodied” or “spiritual” church. To critique the “form” of church is not to argue for a non-church understanding of the faith, but to push for a diversity in form. He writes (1977: 112), “I do not think we can go back to any non-Church understanding of Christianity, but we have to look at the question of how the Church as a congregation is different from the traditional idea of a religious community.” Thomas’s understanding of diversity of form and its implications for cultural witness will be considered later in this article.

Faith, law, and the nature of cultural engagement

If church is a derivative of faith, then Thomas (1977: 112) draws the conclusion that the “new humanity in Christ … transcends the Church.” He makes note that Newbigin (quoted in Thomas 1977: 112–13) agrees with him on this point, that “God’s saving purpose is not limited to the [visible] Church,” with the church being defined as “the visible and recognizable groups of people whose names are on the various membership rolls.” Put another way, God’s saving work is not tied to religion per se, but to faith.

Thomas is tying God’s saving work outside of the church to the work of salvation through faith in Christ, which often expresses itself in a diversity of forms. It is principally christological in nature. Thomas’s use of the term “new humanity” is integrally related to the Incarnation of Christ and the kerygma, and the new creation which comes through faith in Christ. Thomas moves towards an expanded understanding of the church, one which is tied less to form, and more to the work of Christ in the hearts and minds of people living their lives in service to Christ in the world.

Thomas reminds the church that its work is principally christological and evangelistic in nature: that is, witnessing in the world about the primacy of faith in Christ. The New Testament, especially Paul’s letters, often points to a contrast between the law and faith (consider Galatians 3:1–14). In order for the church to be effective in its gospel witness, it must discern the nature of “the law” as it manifests itself in the world. Thomas and Newbigin dialogue extensively on this issue as it relates to the Indian context. Thomas uses the term “self-frustrating” to describe the nature of the law. He writes (1977: 113), “I agree with you [Newbigin] that the self-frustrating law is not ‘a substitute for the actual experience of liberation through the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ accepted as personal savior’.” To what does Thomas refer when he talks about a “self-frustrating law”? One might think of the Pharisees from Jesus’ day, who placed great burdens on the people or religious leaders today who might do the same. Their dialogue, however, pushes the issue further, suggesting that the burden of the law extends beyond that which is placed upon the individual to issues within the broader culture.

Responding to Thomas’s (1977: 125) wrestling with “the struggles of societies for a secular human fellowship,” Newbigin (1977: 128) writes, “The church cannot grow into the plentitude of its proper character unless it is completely open to such movements; on the other hand such movements will become trapped in legalism and self-justification if they are not being opened up to encounter with Jesus Christ himself as a living person.” While the church acknowledges the importance of these movements, it also must recognize that even movements within culture which seek to address real injustice and work for freedom can become legalistic—in other words, the foundation of one’s purpose and spirituality can become wrapped up in the success or failure of such movements. Newbigin recognizes that true freedom comes through an encounter with Christ, and that in its participation in such movements for freedom and justice, the church witnesses to the love, grace, justice, and redemption of Jesus Christ. One might even say that the movements themselves are redeemed through a living encounter with the risen Christ.

Thomas (1977: 114), again bringing awareness to the church’s evangelistic witness, suggests that the movements within India for a “secular human fellowship” will bring frustration with the law, at which people may be open to something beyond the self. He writes,

Many of those struggles [for a secular human fellowship] by themselves may be only within the structures of Law and Idealism, and therefore only self-defeating like the tower of Babel … there are some struggles in which the men involved have come to realise the frustration of the path of self-righteousness and principle, law and ideology, and are looking for a new path beyond it, and open themselves up to the reality of transcendent forgiveness in the secular experience of forgiveness which makes love and community real at the I–Thou plane.

In response, Newbigin questions what Thomas means by “transcendent forgiveness.” He writes (quoted in Thomas 1977: 119) that “the type of secular fellowship which you [Thomas] speak of, while it is made ‘open to the reality of transcendent forgiveness,’ is not itself a Christ-centered fellowship.” On this point, Newbigin seeks theological clarity from Thomas. While Newbigin understandably seeks clarity on Thomas’s application of theological language, it is a reasonable conclusion, given the importance he places on the reality of the new humanity in Christ and its explicit tie to faith, that Thomas understands “transcendent forgiveness” through a christological lens. Forgiveness is found in Jesus Christ. Thomas is, however, considering some explicit implications of this salvation for the wider culture.

Interestingly, Newbigin himself seems to discern the presence of the new humanity beyond the response of faith in Christ. ³ He (quoted in Thomas 1977: 118) writes, “Wherever [the Christian] sees the growth of mutual responsibility of man for man and of people for people; wherever he sees evidence of the character of Jesus Christ being reflected in the lives of men; there he will conclude that God is at work, and that he is summoned to be God’s fellow-worker even when the Name of Christ is not acknowledged.” Newbigin is rightly reminding the church that it is important to discern God’s work in positive, real-world movements for change. However, while Newbigin elsewhere emphasizes the importance of the faith response to Christ, this statement lacks some of that theological clarity. Principally, how does one discern the presence of Christ (“character of Jesus Christ”) where the faith response is absent (“the name of Christ is not acknowledged”)? This also risks a type of moralism—finding Jesus through the works of people (law), without an explicit acknowledgement of the centrality of faith in the person of Christ.

The church must be explicit in its gospel witness and would do well to consider that movements for justice and change may also bring frustrations with law and become trapped in a type of ideological legalism. True community and true forgiveness found in Jesus Christ transcend ideology, and grace transcends law. In its participation in movements for change, the church needs to remember first that as a community centered on faith in Jesus, it only exists by the grace of God in Christ and it is this message of grace which it carries into the world. It is imperative that the church approach its participation in movements for change on this basis, with the evangelistic hope that others will see this grace and come to embrace the new humanity which comes through faith in Christ.

While both authors bring a unique perspective and character to their conversation, they also bring together an important point of continuity, that is, the importance of the gospel witness of the church in the world. Thomas views the witness of the church in the world not as peripheral, but as central and necessary to its gospel identity. He writes (1977: 114) that “the fellowship within the Indian Christian Community often became sour and selfish and ceased to be Christ-centered precisely because it was indifferent to the task of creating fellowship in the wider community.” For the church to turn insular is to compromise its gospel witness.

Thomas and Newbigin agree on this point. At the same time, each offers unique paradigms through which the church can better discern its gospel and cultural witness. Drawing from this dialogue and the wider work of both authors, this article will consider four of these paradigms. From Newbigin, we will consider the nature of the church as local, and the church’s engagement in spiritual battle; from Thomas, the importance of flexibility of form and the nature of the church as incarnational witness.

Faithful witness: Newbigin’s understanding of the local congregation as hermeneutic of the gospel

In The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, Newbigin (1989: 227) makes an important claim about the centrality of the local congregation for effective Christian witness in the world: “The many activities by which we seek to challenge public life with the gospel … are all secondary, and they have the power to accomplish their purpose only as they are rooted in and lead back to a believing community.” He writes further (1989: 226) that “the primary reality of which we have to take account in seeking for a Christian impact on public life is the Christian congregation.” Why place such a strong emphasis on the local congregation?

For Newbigin, the answer lies in the central importance of the congregation in nurturing Christian witness. How, Newbigin (1989: 227) asks, can the gospel be credible, and can people believe “that the power which has the last word in human affairs is represented by a man hanging on a cross?” “The only answer,” writes Newbigin, “the only hermeneutic of the Gospel, is a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it.” In other words, it is the community of believers submitted to the Lordship of Christ that then lives out the truth of the gospel in its own cultural context. As Newbigin (1989: 227) reminds his readers, “Jesus … did not write a book but formed a community.” It is this community which becomes the location where men, women, and children “find that the gospel gives them the framework of understanding, the ‘lenses’ through which they are able to understand and cope with the world.” It is in and through the community of faith that faithful engagement in mission and witness to and through culture are nurtured.

Newbigin suggests six specific characteristics of this community, which speak to how cultural witness is nurtured within the community of faith. These characteristics are not only descriptive of the nature of the church but stand as a call to the church to greater faithfulness in its witness. The first characteristic of the local congregation is that it will be a community focused on praise, as a “place where people find their true freedom, their true dignity, and their true equality in reverence to One who is worthy of all the praise that we can offer” (Newbigin, 1989: 227).

The community of praise is full of thanksgiving, beginning with an acknowledgment of God’s grace and kindness (Newbigin, 1989: 228). Newbigin (1989: 228) cautions that the local congregation committed to thanksgiving must be cautious in how it approaches theologically its engagement with movements for human rights and justice. He notes (1989: 228) that the language of “rights” does not fit in Christian worship ”except when it serves to remind us of the rights of others” because “we confess that we cannot speak of rights, for we have been given everything and forgiven everything and promised everything so that we lack nothing except the faith to believe it.” It is further acknowledged (1989: 228) that “if we had received justice instead of charity we would be on our way to perdition.” Love and care for neighbor are an expression of gratitude in response to grace, and not primarily “the expression of commitment to a moral crusade” (1989: 228). It is an important reminder that it is the grace and mercy of Christ which are brought to bear in and through engagement with culture, and that in order to avoid moralism, movements for change must draw from the fountain of their deep gospel foundations.

A second characteristic of the congregation which engages faithfully with the world is that it is a “community of truth” (Newbigin, 1989: 228). Newbigin (1989: 228) uses the term “plausibility structures” to describe the structure in which “all human thinking takes place … and which determines what beliefs are reasonable and what are not.” The local congregation, as a people called to be Jesus’ disciples, live within a plausibility structure that is formed by and continually rehearses the “Christian understanding of human nature and destiny” (1989: 228–29). According to Newbigin (1989: 87), the starting point of this community and its “permanent criterion of truth is the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” As a result, the congregation approaches its work within secular culture with a “healthy skepticism,” which allows one to engage with secular culture “without being bemused and deluded by its own beliefs about itself” (1989: 229). Further, this engagement with society should reflect “the modesty, sobriety, and realism which are proper to a disciple of Jesus” (1989: 229).

While the congregation must indeed exercise discernment in its approach to culture, it must be reminded that, as Newbigin’s (1989: 229) third characteristic terms it “does not live for itself, but is deeply involved in the concerns of its neighborhood.” The local congregation must be both the Church of Christ and “the church for the specific place where it lives” (1989: 229). It is “the church for those who wish to be members of it” only “insofar as they are willing to be for the wider community” (1989: 229). Put succinctly, the church is “God embassy in a specific place” (1989: 229). The church must affirm both its Christ-centeredness and its community focus. This way, it does not become so focused on its ministry within culture that it becomes indistinguishable from it, nor does it become “so concerned about the relation of its members to God that it turns its back on the neighborhood” (1989: 229). What Newbigin points to here is the twofold nature of the church as “called out” of the world, and “sent into” the world. The church must love the world as Christ loves the world, but not become so polluted by it that the light of its witness becomes dim.

Newbigin (1989: 229) also notes that the growth of denominational agencies and parachurch organizations focused on evangelism or social action can make it seem as if the local congregation is no longer directly responsible for engagement in these areas. While these organizations do important work, their programs for evangelistic, social, and political action can “lose their integral relation to the good news” if they become disconnected from the local congregation, which should be the “place from which good news overflows in good action” (1989: 229). While all of these organizations play an integral part in God’s mission to the world, it is in the local congregation and its engagement with the community where the grace and mercy of Christ are most clearly expressed in a specific place.

Newbigin (1989: 229) continues his discussion of the characteristics of a local congregation engaged in faithful witness within secular culture. In his fourth characteristic, he recognizes the local congregation as the place where “men and women are prepared for and sustained in the exercise of the priesthood in the world.” The church is called first to affirm that “Jesus is himself the [High Priest] who can … stand before God on behalf of people and stand before people on behalf of God” (1989: 229). As ambassadors of Jesus, his disciples are sent into the world to “continue that which he came to do, in the power of the same Spirit, reconciling people to God” (1989: 230). This priesthood, this participation with Christ in his mission to reconcile the world through “sacrifices of love and obedience,” must be exercised “not within the walls of the church, but in the ordinary secular business of the world” (1989: 230).

It is in the daily vocation and witness of believers within their secular vocations that the habits and assumptions of secular culture are “challenged by the Gospel and brought under the searching light of the truth as it has been revealed in Jesus” (1989: 230). While the church can and sometimes needs to make official statements and pronouncements about issues facing culture, a nation, or the world, these statements are only meaningful “when they are validated by the way in which Christians are actually behaving and using their influence in public life” (1989: 230). And it is not official statements, but the embodied witness of Christians who live as witnesses to the love and grace of Jesus Christ in everyday life, which brings the truth of the gospel to bear in public life.

What, then, does Newbigin see as the role of the local congregation in training for and nurturing the life of witness in culture? First, Newbigin (1989: 230) contends that the local congregation must equip and support its members in exercising their priestly vocation in the world, such that “members [can] think out the problems that face them in their secular work in light of their Christian faith.” Newbigin (1989: 230) recognizes the challenges of making this happen in reality, as pastors trained in traditional theology may not be equipped to fulfill this role. While theological education may focus on pastoral care and meeting the spiritual needs of members, Newbigin suggests a reorientation may be necessary, towards the “missionary calling to claim the whole of public life for Christ and his kingdom” (1989: 231). While this kind of missional and vocational training is key, especially for the witness of the people of God in the twenty-first century, this is an area which will require significant further research, encompassing the important role of Christian education, business, and a foundational theology of vocation.

As the church seeks engagement with secular culture, and particularly within movements for justice and peace, Newbigin (1989: 231) reminds us in his fifth characteristic of the local congregation that the community of faith itself ought to be a community focused on responsibility one to another, a “different social order” in which full humanity can be realized. While the congregation can and should engage in programs seeking social change, it is its own community of mutual care, centered on the gospel, which stands as its primary witness. As Newbigin (1989: 231) writes, “Its members will be advocates for human liberation by being themselves liberated. Its actions for justice and peace will be, and will be seen to be, the overflow of a life in Christ, where God’s justice and God’s peace are already an experienced treasure.”

Finally, in his sixth characteristic, Newbigin (1989: 232) writes that the local congregation stands as a community of hope. It is the gospel which makes hope possible, a hope which is “both eager and patient even in the most hopeless situations” (1989: 232). It is the community of faith which “indwells” this story such that it can “live confidently in this attitude of eager hope” (1989: 232). However, the “plausibility structure” of culture often stands on a pessimism about the future and opposition to Christian hope, suggesting the absurdity of the belief that “the true authority over all things is represented in a crucified man” (1989: 232). This belief can only be truly challenged through a congregation that believes and lives by the hope that is in Jesus Christ, in which “the reality of the new creation is present, known, and experienced, and from which men and women will go into every sector of public life to claim it for Christ, to unmask the illusions which have remained hidden and to expose all areas of public life to the illumination of the Gospel” (1989: 232).

What Newbigin reminds us is that when Christian engagement in the world becomes separated from its grounding in the local congregation committed to Christ and Christ’s mission, it risks losing its biblical, theological, and christological foundations, thus becoming no longer Christ-centered. It also risks missing the valuable process of community prayer and discernment of its mission in its local cultural context. While Newbigin is not arguing here for a specific type or form of congregational order and life as being necessary or central, he is stating emphatically that the gathering of the Christian community for growth and discipleship is essential for effective Christian witness in secular culture.

Spiritual battle: Newbigin on the nature of cultural engagement with the world

As Newbigin places the locus of cultural engagement in the local congregation, he also recognizes the spiritual nature of the church’s engagement with culture, using the paradigm (as Paul does in Ephesians 6) of spiritual warfare. Newbigin (1989: 199) makes the claim that the notion that the gospel is only for the individual and not directed also to a nation and culture is “an illusion of our individualistic post-Enlightenment Western culture.” How does Newbigin propose that the gospel speaks directly to culture? One way is through the disarming of the principalities and powers through the cross and resurrection of Christ (1989: 201). Referencing John 12:31 (“now is the judgment of this world; now shall the ruler of this world be cast out”; ESV), Newbigin (1989: 201–202) reasons that Jesus was not referring just to Herod or Pilate or to certain human beings who hold offices of power for a short time; rather, he was referring to that which is behind these individuals—“the power and authority which is real, which is embodied in and exercised by individual human beings, but is not identical with them.” And it is these “powers, authorities, rulers [and] dominions which have been confronted in Christ’s death with the supreme power and authority of God” (1989: 201). It is therefore, Newbigin (1989: 201) reasons, the “business of the Church to make manifest to them the wisdom of God [because] what was done in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus confronts the powers before it is preached among the nations.”

Newbigin (1989: 202) makes the case that these principalities and powers find their manifestation through long-lasting institutions, which “have something, an inwardness which can be recognized in those who form the institution at any one time, but outlasts and transcends them.” While this “something” can be good or evil, and we recognize that human institutions are necessary for humanity to function, it is the point that the principalities and powers which Christ confronted on the cross are manifest within these very institutions. So when Christians engage for true change within culture, when Christians suffer with humanity in the quest to bring about a more just society, when Christians speak out for moral change, they are not fighting against politicians or against any individual person who is standing against them, they are fighting against “the spiritual power that is behind, within, and above human beings” (1989: 203). It is the gospel witness of the church which exposes the spiritual power behind individuals and institutions which oppose the Lordship of Christ.

When the church challenges the prevailing plausibility structures, when the church proclaims the gospel to the world and engages in movements for human rights and peace, Newbigin (1989: 203) reminds us that “the happenings on earth are only understood in terms of the spiritual battle between the victorious Christ who is seated on the throne in the heavenly places, and the spiritual powers which challenge his rule.” These human institutions, with the powers behind them, may claim an absoluteness over human life. However, when viewed through the cross, “nothing now is absolute,” as Newbigin (1989: 208) writes, “except God as he is known in Jesus Christ; everything else is relativized.”

Newbigin (1989: 208) further reminds us that it is through the church that “the agency through which his victory over them is made manifest and is affected as the Church puts on the whole armor of God to meet and master them.” While the church will engage in a great spiritual battle here on earth, it rests in the sure hope of the new creation. Newbigin (1989: 209) writes that “we are patient revolutionaries who know that the whole creation, with all its given structures, is groaning in the travail of a new birth, and that we share this groaning and travail, this struggling and wrestling, but do so in hope because we have already received, in the Spirit, the firstfruits of the new world.”

Thomas: flexibility in form and gospel witness

While Newbigin discusses the centrality of the local church for effective gospel witness, Thomas takes a step back to consider the very form of the church, often encompassed in local congregations. Thomas contends that diversity in form is not only a reality of Christ’s church which needs to be affirmed but is also central to the effectiveness of its cultural witness.

Thomas notes that for Newbigin, the local congregation must encompass certain given elements, including (1977: 115) “Scripture, Creeds, Sacraments, and Ministry, which belong to the proper character of the Church in its plentitude.” This Thomas (1977: 115) agrees with in principle. At the same time, Thomas (1977: 116) raises a critical question: “Which Church in history has had this plentitude and all these given elements?” In other words, says Thomas (1977: 116), “plentitude cannot be present in the Church, in all times and in all places, though it is proper to it.”

For Thomas, the ecclesiological baseline is less institutional in nature. Would one expect a newly formed faith community, for example, to adopt historical creeds before it has even discerned the meaning of Scripture and theology within the context of its own community? Thomas’s ecclesiology is rooted in his christology; that is, the community formed around the recognition of and faith in the person of Christ, and commitment to Christ’s mission. He asks (1977: 116), “was it not better to recognise a fellowship with the basic minimum of the given elements as belonging to the historical continuity of the church? [And] what is that minimum except faith acknowledgement of the centrality of the Person of Jesus Christ for the individual and social life of mankind?” ⁴

The way Thomas’s christology informs his ecclesiology gives him the space to recognize and affirm faith communities which others may not include as part of the church. For example, Thomas (1977: 114) describes what might be considered an early description of the insider movement; that is, people who see Christ as more than an ideal and have undergone a faith response to the person of Christ yet believe that this conversion does not necessitate a conversion to a Christian community in isolation from their own communities. From Thomas’s perspective (1977:114–15), this community continuity is necessary for effective gospel witness, envisioning a “Christ-centered fellowship of faith within the society, culture and religion in which [people] live, transforming their structures and values from within.”

Thomas leads us towards an almost pragmatic ecclesiology, not in the sense of a move towards relativism, but an ecclesiology which works with mission—that is, the movement of the people of God into society in such a way that is transforms it evangelistically and socially. If one’s ecclesiology leads the church away from this core mission or renders it unnecessary (what Thomas (1977: 115) described in his context as “closed religious communities, over against other religious communities”), then the church has failed to live out its identity as Christ’s church. If, on the other hand, the church fulfills its mission, then whatever form this takes, it can properly be called the church.

Thomas: incarnational witness

As the church lives out its missional identity in the world, Thomas offers some important theological and christological insights into the nature of this witness in his book The Church’s Mission and Post-modern Humanism (1996). In a chapter entitled “Primal Vision and Modernization,” Thomas (1996: 51) engages in a discussion of modernism’s understanding of history as “world-as-history” in contrast to the “primal vision of world-as-nature.” He writes that “modernity has emphasized that human personhood involves freedom understood as creating new forms of nature and life in the light of future fulfillment of the meaning of life” (1996: 51). This emphasis on creating a new future as a “mission in world history” creates an inflated sense of self and chosenness, leading to the taking of sides, “absolutization of State power, world wars and threat of nuclear holocaust,” all in an effort to determine the future (1996: 51).

Thomas (1996: 51–52) implicitly raises the concern that secularism and Christianity could be lumped into the same category of idolatry, as a “self-righteous belief in one god or ideology for the world.” The alternative, however, a return to the “spirit of paganism” and toleration of many gods, would entail “giving up the search for meaning, not only of one’s own life but also of the whole humanity and even the cosmos” (1996: 52). The answer, according to Thomas (1996: 52), is not to give up a notion of history, but to recognize the “fulfillment of the meaning of history in suffering service, solidarity with the poor and forgiving love.” It is here that, in Thomas’s (1996: 52) words, the “theological understanding of Christ as Suffering Servant” can be brought to bear. While secularism prides itself in its movement in history towards human rights, by interpreting the human person through a worldview of materialism, one is left without a “transcendent spiritual dimension” to the human person, thus undercutting secularism’s very focus on human rights (1996: 53).

In contrast, the uniqueness of the incarnation is that God became Man in the person of Jesus Christ, the transcendent God and the human, together in one body. As their creator, Christ affirms the image of God in each person, and as the suffering servant, Christ shares in the humanity and suffering of the human race, and in fact bears suffering and sin in his own body on the cross. Therefore, humanity, the sacredness of each person, and the true identification with human suffering are affirmed in the person of Christ, the truth of which is brought to bear in the Christian’s engagement with secular culture. Seeking to emulate its Lord, the church engages with culture humbly, affirming the dignity of each person and willing to suffer on behalf of others. In the words of Thomas (1996: 53), “the sacredness of the human person and the sacramental and sacrificial view of all activities and functions of the human person go together” (53). Further, it is principally through Christ’s suffering on the cross that human community is possible. Thomas (1996: 100) writes,

The basis of the Christian contribution is the faith that the crucified Jesus Christ by mediating divine forgiveness to all humans in the solidarity of their sinfulness, has made possible mutual forgiveness between persons and peoples and has brought into being in history of a new human communion (Koinonia), transcending all religious, cultural and natural diversities and divisions.

The cross of Jesus Christ is brought to bear in the church’s engagement with culture. The cross is proclaimed by the church in word, but also in the way that it transcends human barriers and divisions through its solidarity with all of suffering humanity. And in the resurrection, we find the hope of the new creation, a hope which brings new life to the world.

Conclusion

To one extent or another, engagement with culture is an inevitable reality of the church which exists in the world. Whether it is the explicit involvement of the congregation in local or national issues, specific charitable or evangelistic endeavors, or the witness of its individual members within their vocations, the world is watching what the church does. How the church responds to this reality is essential to the effectiveness of its witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Newbigin and Thomas offer important and distinct insights regarding the nature of this witness in the world, challenging the church to reach beyond itself into the world which God loves in Jesus Christ, and to consider its own self-identity and how what happens within its walls truly embraces Christ’s mission outside them.