"converting The Culture"

[Gabriela]

This idea has always made me uncomfortable, and I just read about the USCCB's (back then, the NCCB's) advocacy activities in the 1980s. I'm interested now in hearing good arguments for/against our duty to "convert the culture". I rather suspect that trads will be less keen on this idea, but I don't want to assume, and if I'm right/wrong, I'd like to know why.

 

***I am particularly interested to see references to biblical and other Church documents that support the idea that we do/do not have a duty to "convert the culture".

[Nihil Obstat]

This idea has always made me uncomfortable, and I just read about the USCCB's (back then, the NCCB's) advocacy activities in the 1980s. I'm interested now in hearing good arguments for/against our duty to "convert the culture". I rather suspect that trads will be less keen on this idea, but I don't want to assume, and if I'm right/wrong, I'd like to know why.

 

***I am particularly interested to see references to biblical and other Church documents that support the idea that we do/do not have a duty to "convert the culture".

I do not really understand what you mean by this, nor the context behind it.

[Gabriela]

I do not really understand what you mean by this, nor the context behind it.

 

It's the idea that we, as Catholics, ought to get out there "in the world" (i.e., in the public arena of American culture) and shape things like public policy and public discussions toward more Catholic/moral values.

 

See also "evangelizing the culture" (as opposed to individuals).

[Nihil Obstat]

It's the idea that we, as Catholics, ought to get out there "in the world" (i.e., in the public arena of American culture) and shape things like public policy and public discussions toward more Catholic/moral values.

 

See also "evangelizing the culture" (as opposed to individuals).

So what makes you think that traditionalists in particular do not want to be a part of this?

[Gabriela]

So what makes you think that traditionalists in particular do not want to be a part of this?

 

Well, it seems the pre-VII Church could care less what happened in the world. Her concern was with the faithful. Her focus was largely inward, and She expended her efforts tending to the needs of individuals. I can see how the turn to focusing on public advocacy was majorly influenced by the turn in American society in general toward increased power of and attention to special interest groups, corporations, and other organizations. The individual used to be king in America, but now... And I see a similar trend in the Church, though not as dramatic. There seems to have been something of an increase in the importance placed on converting en masse (i.e., "the culture"), rather than one soul at a time.

 

So, to put it simply, I thought trads might be uncomfortable with it for two reasons: because it suggests that the Church's focus has shifted from internal affairs to external affairs, and because it appears to pander to mass culture rather than to the (direct) evangelization of individuals.

 

Then there's also the matter that it would seem the Church picked up this tendency from trends in the larger secular culture...

 

If that makes no sense, let's just forget it, cuz I may be too engrossed in this stuff I'm reading to be intelligible to others!

[superblue]

This idea has always made me uncomfortable, and I just read about the USCCB's (back then, the NCCB's) advocacy activities in the 1980s. I'm interested now in hearing good arguments for/against our duty to "convert the culture". I rather suspect that trads will be less keen on this idea, but I don't want to assume, and if I'm right/wrong, I'd like to know why.

 

***I am particularly interested to see references to biblical and other Church documents that support the idea that we do/do not have a duty to "convert the culture".

 

 

First, why does it make you feel uncomfortable,  why would it not be a Christians' duty to try an convert anyone, why shouldn't it be our duty to try an change our society for the better to follow Christ and serve God.

 

I don't see the harm in at least trying, it is certainly better than just letting things go to hell in a hand basket and watching it happen.  Granted it may be a task in futility and there is a zero percent chance of converting everyone to Christianity , but perhaps it is our duty to try even so because it is our obligation.

[Gabriela]

First, why does it make you feel uncomfortable,  why would it not be a Christians' duty to try an convert anyone, why shouldn't it be our duty to try an change our society for the better to follow Christ and serve God.

 

I don't see the harm in at least trying, it is certainly better than just letting things go to hell in a hand basket and watching it happen.  Granted it may be a task in futility and there is a zero percent chance of converting everyone to Christianity , but perhaps it is our duty to try even so because it is our obligation.

 

Regarding your first paragraph: I don't see any indication in the New Testament that Jesus attempted to "convert his culture". He told people to pay their taxes (even if unjust), follow the commands but not the example of the Pharisees, etc.

 

Regarding your second paragraph: I am not referring to an attempt to convert individuals. To that we have an obvious duty, and Jesus did it all over the place. I am talking about attempting to influence mainstream American culture using mass tactics like lobbying, public advocacy campaigns, social media campaigns, protests, and the like.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, it seems the pre-VII Church could care less what happened in the world. Her concern was with the faithful. Her focus was largely inward, and She expended her efforts tending to the needs of individuals. I can see how the turn to focusing on public advocacy was majorly influenced by the turn in American society in general toward increased power of and attention to special interest groups, corporations, and other organizations. The individual used to be king in America, but now... And I see a similar trend in the Church, though not as dramatic. There seems to have been something of an increase in the importance placed on converting en masse (i.e., "the culture"), rather than one soul at a time.

 

So, to put it simply, I thought trads might be uncomfortable with it for two reasons: because it suggests that the Church's focus has shifted from internal affairs to external affairs, and because it appears to pander to mass culture rather than to the (direct) evangelization of individuals.

 

Then there's also the matter that it would seem the Church picked up this tendency from trends in the larger secular culture...

 

If that makes no sense, let's just forget it, cuz I may be too engrossed in this stuff I'm reading to be intelligible to others!

Hm. I have to say that I completely disagree. I think the Church has always been intimately concerned with a conversion of the entire world to Truth. Her missionary activities are clear proof of that. There was the very early evangelization efforts during the Apostolic and Patristic ages. There was the more modern evangelization of the Americas. There is everything in between. To be honest with you, I am not sure how you might have come to have this impression.

I would agree that in recent decades there has been a highly increased focus on cooperation with secularism and other religions for the sake of some other goal. And there is reasonable concern with that particular development, and in my personal opinion it very quickly turns into a nebulous exercise in compromise. But to re-contextualize that as a pre-VII Church which was inwardly focused contrasted with a post-VII Church which focuses outwards is, in my humble opinion, completely incorrect.

 

I think what you are really seeing here is some corners of the Church in America gradually accepting the American model with all its accompanying idiosyncrasies. And yes, if that is what we are talking about, many traditionalists are suspicious. Rightfully so, I think. However I cannot view this in as simply terms as a Church moving from an inward to an outward focus since the 1960s. That strikes me as a bit myopic.

[Gabriela]

Hm. I have to say that I completely disagree. I think the Church has always been intimately concerned with a conversion of the entire world to Truth. Her missionary activities are clear proof of that. There was the very early evangelization efforts during the Apostolic and Patristic ages. There was the more modern evangelization of the Americas. There is everything in between. To be honest with you, I am not sure how you might have come to have this impression.

I would agree that in recent decades there has been a highly increased focus on cooperation with secularism and other religions for the sake of some other goal. And there is reasonable concern with that particular development, and in my personal opinion it very quickly turns into a nebulous exercise in compromise. But to re-contextualize that as a pre-VII Church which was inwardly focused contrasted with a post-VII Church which focuses outwards is, in my humble opinion, completely incorrect.

 

I think what you are really seeing here is some corners of the Church in America gradually accepting the American model with all its accompanying idiosyncrasies. And yes, if that is what we are talking about, many traditionalists are suspicious. Rightfully so, I think. However I cannot view this in as simply terms as a Church moving from an inward to an outward focus since the 1960s. That strikes me as a bit myopic.

 

That's precisely what I was looking for. I value your opinion and you know a lot more about the pre-VII Church than, so I'll take your word for it on the inward/outward point.

 

What, though, of the shift from evangelizing individuals to evangelizing "cultures"? Missionaries focus(ed) on individual souls, no?

[superblue]

Regarding your first paragraph: I don't see any indication in the New Testament that Jesus attempted to "convert his culture". He told people to pay their taxes (even if unjust), follow the commands but not the example of the Pharisees, etc.

 

Regarding your second paragraph: I am not referring to an attempt to convert individuals. To that we have an obvious duty, and Jesus did it all over the place. I am talking about attempting to influence mainstream American culture using mass tactics like lobbying, public advocacy campaigns, social media campaigns, protests, and the like.

 

 

If Christ was not attempting to convert his culture as you put it, then what do you think He was trying to do ?

 

And if we do not attempt to change our American Culture as you are getting at, to not use the means that our society and culture is using to destroy our society, would be foolish, if the Church were to just sit idle it would be just a whisper .  If the Church is using the same means that our American culture uses to push messages, but does it with the message that Christ taught us, I kind of see it as being a more powerful tool against what is being spread now, but if it is just another smoke and mirror game using that message for another purpose, then I feel sorry for those when the time comes.

Edited September 6, 2014 by superblue

[Nihil Obstat]

That's precisely what I was looking for. I value your opinion and you know a lot more about the pre-VII Church than, so I'll take your word for it on the inward/outward point.

 

What, though, of the shift from evangelizing individuals to evangelizing "cultures"? Missionaries focus(ed) on individual souls, no?

I think it depends on circumstance. If you look at the modern kind of apologist-RCIA model, *that* form of evangelism seems to be highly individualistic. On the other hand, if you look at the evangelization of the Americas, or of East Asia, Africa, or even of Rome and Greece and Russia and all of Europe, while the individual missionary by nature worked with individual people, though often on a large scale, the concerted efforts, the actual direction of the missionary activities, was certainly a mass program.

For instance, look at the Holy Ghost Fathers. By and large, that order as a whole exists/existed to evangelize Africa. Other areas as well, especially in recent decades, but originally Africa. To reiterate, by nature each individual missionary priest would interact with individuals, but on an institutional level the order itself was dedicated to a mass evangelization program. And they were highly successful, too.

[Gabriela]

I think it depends on circumstance. If you look at the modern kind of apologist-RCIA model, *that* form of evangelism seems to be highly individualistic. On the other hand, if you look at the evangelization of the Americas, or of East Asia, Africa, or even of Rome and Greece and Russia and all of Europe, while the individual missionary by nature worked with individual people, though often on a large scale, the concerted efforts, the actual direction of the missionary activities, was certainly a mass program.

For instance, look at the Holy Ghost Fathers. By and large, that order as a whole exists/existed to evangelize Africa. Other areas as well, especially in recent decades, but originally Africa. To reiterate, by nature each individual missionary priest would interact with individuals, but on an institutional level the order itself was dedicated to a mass evangelization program. And they were highly successful, too.

 

Yes, I see the possibility of mass evangelization of individuals, but to evangelize a "culture" means to attempt to turn that culture toward Christian values, not by means of converting individuals to Christ (either one at a time or en masse), but by means of legislation, public policy, influence over public opinion, etc., so that the public sphere is generally more amenable to and in accordance with what Christian values dictate the public sphere ought to be like. I think the good intention behind that is that, if the public sphere looks/is more Christian, individuals will see the goodness inherent in Christianity and thus be more likely to be (indirectly) converted. But I think the means are questionable, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the Church or the faithful adopting such practices as I described above (PR tactics, lobbying, public protests, etc.).

 

Something in me says that Jesus would have responded, "Leave the powers that be as they are. Focus on converting individual souls in the cultural context you find yourself in."

 

Am I just wrong?

[Gabriela]

If Christ was not attempting to convert his culture as you put it, then what do you think He was trying to do ?

 

And if we do not attempt to change our American Culture as you are getting at, to not use the means that our society and culture is using to destroy our society, would be foolish, if the Church were to just sit idle it would be just a whisper .  If the Church is using the same means that our American culture uses to push messages, but does it with the message that Christ taught us, I kind of see it as being a more powerful tool against what is being spread now, but if it is just another smoke and mirror game using that message for another purpose, then I feel sorry for those when the time comes.

 

I think the Inquisition argued the same thing: "Hey, if mainstream culture is ok with getting a message across via torture, then what's wrong with us using it to get across Christ's message?"

 

:|

 

I'm questioning the very means that mainstream culture provides to us to influence the public sphere. I'm saying we should not simply assume that they're ok for Christians to use. We should reflect on it, using Scripture and Church teaching to come to a reasoned answered.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, I see the possibility of mass evangelization of individuals, but to evangelize a "culture" means to attempt to turn that culture toward Christian values, not by means of converting individuals to Christ (either one at a time or en masse), but by means of legislation, public policy, influence over public opinion, etc., so that the public sphere is generally more amenable to and in accordance with what Christian values dictate the public sphere ought to be like. I think the good intention behind that is that, if the public sphere looks/is more Christian, individuals will see the goodness inherent in Christianity and thus be more likely to be (indirectly) converted. But I think the means are questionable, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the Church or the faithful adopting such practices as I described above (PR tactics, lobbying, public protests, etc.).
 
Something in me says that Jesus would have responded, "Leave the powers that be as they are. Focus on converting individual souls in the cultural context you find yourself in."
 
Am I just wrong?

I am not sure it is wise to separate the two concepts. Conversion of individuals should mean conversion of culture, because if we convert individuals but do not change the culture, then our evangelization has apparently not been thorough enough. Culture, after all, is simply the macrocosm of individuals.

The root of the problem you are seeing, I think, is in the distinctly modern idea that a man's religious convictions should be kept out of the public sphere. That idea is foreign and antithetical to Catholicism. If we are converting people but not culture, then I think the reason is either that we have not converted enough people, or that the people we convert are not thoroughly catechized and cling to that separation.

 

I think Christ's words in Matthew:10 are apropos.


[31] Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows. [32] Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. [33] But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. [34] Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. [35] For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.


[36] And a man' s enemies shall be they of his own household. [37] He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. [38] And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. [39] He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. [40] He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.

[41] He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man. [42] And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.
 

[Gabriela]

I am not sure it is wise to separate the two concepts. Conversion of individuals should mean conversion of culture, because if we convert individuals but do not change the culture, then our evangelization has apparently not been thorough enough. Culture, after all, is simply the macrocosm of individuals.

The root of the problem you are seeing, I think, is in the distinctly modern idea that a man's religious convictions should be kept out of the public sphere. That idea is foreign and antithetical to Catholicism. If we are converting people but not culture, then I think the reason is either that we have not converted enough people, or that the people we convert are not thoroughly catechized and cling to that separation.

 

I think Christ's words in Matthew:10 are apropos.


[31] Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows. [32] Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. [33] But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. [34] Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. [35] For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.


[36] And a man' s enemies shall be they of his own household. [37] He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. [38] And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. [39] He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. [40] He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.

[41] He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet: and he that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man, shall receive the reward of a just man. [42] And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.
 

 

Ah! But you are talking about converting the culture by converting individuals (of a sufficient number, and thoroughly, i.e., genuinely). With that I am in full agreement. I think it is the right way. In such cases, converting individuals is primary, and converting the culture is secondary (or at least, merely a consequence of individual conversions).

 

What I'm uncomfortable with are attempts to convert the culture either without attention to individuals, or as a higher priority than individuals. In such cases, it would seem that priority is given to "converting" the soulless mass culture, rendering the conversion of individuals secondary or even a total non-issue. This poo really ticks me off. I see it everywhere in Protestant evangelical political lobbying, in all its varied forms. When I read of the USCCB doing essentially the same thing (albeit for good causes)...

 

I can totally see how it would seem that I'm segregating public and private and situating religious convictions strictly in the latter. But that's not what I mean. Is it now clear how?

 

(Thanks for the quotes! :) )