Читать книгу Offer Them Life - Dan W. Dunn - Страница 6

Premise

Life may be viewed as one of the primary themes of the Bible, and as such provides a helpful foundation for the theory and practice of evangelism in the U.S. American context.1

Joseph Dongell proposes that full life be viewed as the macro rubric of Scripture. God is fundamentally the living God (as distinct from other descriptions, such as holy, powerful, or loving). God is vitally alive, and in Christ, God wishes to share this vital experience of life with all of God’s creation, including human beings.2 Hans Klein shares a similar perspective. He contends that the biblical material should be ordered and understood in relation to life (Old Testament) and new life (New Testament).3

The nature of the life that Christ offers his followers has vital implications for evangelism. What is the good news that Christians share with non-Christians, and what kind of new life do they invite non-Christians to embrace?4 George Hunter tells of a young man who once admitted that he believed in Jesus but had never invited him to be the leader of his life. Hunter asked why this was so, and the young man answered that he had learned in his hometown that opening up to Jesus would result in his becoming some kind of fanatic. Hunter replied, “Look, it just isn’t so, and somebody back home once sold you a tragic bill of goods. If you could look into the future and see the man that Christ has in mind for you to be ten years from now, you would stand up and cheer and you would deeply want to be that man. The gospel is not bad news; it is good news. The gospel is congruent with our deepest aspirations for ourselves.”5

I propose that God created the earth, its animal and plant life, and human beings to experience full, vibrant, vital life in relationship with God and one another, and that this experience of life is what God both makes possible and invites us to embrace in following Jesus Christ. This full life that God offers in Christ is the cornerstone of the good news, and offers a valuable foundation for the theory and practice of evangelism.6

Two perspectives underlie the current practice of evangelism in the U.S. American context. The first is one’s understanding of eternal life. The second is basing evangelism on the concept of kingdom.

First Perspective: Understanding of Eternal Life

An important issue in this discussion is our understanding of eternal life. In common Christian usage, eternal refers to chronological time (forever), so that those who believe in Jesus will live with him throughout eternity after physical death. However, the biblical understanding of eternal life is more than chronological eternity; it also includes a fullness and vitality of life here on this earth. Commenting on John’s use of the Greek word for life (zōe), one author says that “in most cases it states expressly that the follower of Jesus possesses life even in this world.”7 Rudolf Bultmann agrees. Commenting on a Greek verb cognate of life (zaō) in relation to its use in John’s Gospel, he writes that “he who believes has already passed from death to life.”8 C. H. Dodd shares this perspective, claiming that John offered an addition to the usual Jewish eschatological understanding, so that our post-resurrection life begins not after our resurrection, but rather as a result of our believing in Jesus. Commenting on the Lazarus story, he writes that “the ‘resurrection’ of which Jesus has spoken is something which may take place before bodily death, and has for its result the possession of eternal life here and now.”9 We see, therefore, that the concept of eternal life includes a life-now dimension as well as a life-then dimension.

If life in Christ is understood primarily in terms of where (or if) we will live during chronological eternity, the focus of evangelism leans toward preparation for life after death. One example of this emphasis is found in the ministry of Evangelism Explosion. In the Evangelism Explosion training material, the two diagnostic questions recommended for Christians to use in witnessing focus on whether the non-Christian will go to heaven. The first question is: “Have you come to a place in your spiritual life where you know for certain that if you were to die today you would go to heaven, or is that something you would say you’re still working on?”10 The second question asks: “Suppose you were to die today and stand before God and He were to say to you, ‘Why should I let you into My heaven?’ What would you say?”11 This focus continues in the section describing the essential gospel to be shared, which is summarized as follows: Heaven is a free gift; it is not earned or deserved; people are sinners and cannot save themselves; God is both merciful and just, so God came down into human flesh, died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay the penalty for our sins and to purchase a place in heaven for us.12 Of particular note is the statement that “the whole Bible is about one great transaction . . . By His grace He freely offers to give to us this gift of heaven.”13

This strong emphasis on the everlasting nature of the life that Christ makes possible for us in heaven is an appropriate focus for the theory and practice of evangelism. Christians should be motivated by a strong interest in helping persons live forever with Christ, and ministries that are effective in sharing this dimension of the gospel are to be encouraged. This is especially true of ministries that have a strong follow-up process to help new believers move from the getting-to-heaven focus toward a focus on a thriving life of discipleship. In this regard, one may agree with George Sweazey, who notes that as long as a congregation is effective in helping Christians grow in their experience of the many dimensions of life in God’s grace, they “can safely make their first appeal through just one aspect of the gospel.”14 Some congregations, however, may find it difficult to make their discipleship and follow-up ministries broader than their evangelism ministries. The dimension(s) of the gospel on which they focus in their evangelism may tend(s) to be the dimension(s) that take(s) precedence in the rest of their ministries.15

Evangelism in the U.S. American context, therefore, should not limit itself to the heavenly dimension of the good news of Jesus Christ. This is especially true when one considers that Christian evangelizing must attend to questions and issues that people are actually addressing, rather than those that Christians think they are (or should be) addressing.16 It is here that a stronger emphasis on the biblical theme of life can inform evangelistic efforts, for people today have far more interest in whether they can experience life now than in whether (or where) they will live for chronological eternity.17

Some of the questions we should attend to in evangelistic theory and practice are:

• In what ways are people seeking life today?

• How much does their battle against death take away from their experience of full life?

• If we assume that they are seeking life, do we make a corollary assumption that their daily experience is more akin to death?

• If so, who or what are the “thieves” that are trying to steal and kill and destroy their lives (based on the language of John 10:10)?

Christians, therefore, must continually discern ways of thinking about and practicing evangelism that honor the strong biblical theme that God wants God’s created humanity to experience life fully (abundantly, according to John 10:10), on this earth, prior to physical death.

When evangelism deals with sin, for example, mutual emphasis could be given to the life-forever benefits of being forgiven through Christ (e.g., access to heaven) and to the life-now benefits of Christ’s forgiveness (e.g., freedom from bondage).18 Likewise, evangelism could endeavor to discover appropriate means for expressing how deeply God is for humanity while at the same time honoring that God is against sin. Similarly, repentance could be accentuated as an important dimension of “getting right with God” in order to prepare oneself for life in the hereafter, but it could also be stressed as a contributing factor to reconciliation and full enjoyment of relationships with people here on earth. The same point could be illustrated in relation to other theological concepts, such as atonement, redemption, salvation, and justification. In evangelism, each of these concepts could be expressed in ways that would honor both the life-after-death and the life-before-death benefits of following Christ.

Current evangelism in the United States does not completely ignore the impact of Christ-following during this lifetime. However, some of the common ways that evangelism portrays the benefits of Christ-following during this lifetime fall short of the fully orbed life God intends God’s followers to experience. Two U.S. American portraits of Christian living in particular come to mind: the prosperity gospel and the “you’ll never have another problem” gospel.19

The prosperity gospel speaks to abundant living on this side of death; however, some of its proponents do so in biblically and theologically inappropriate ways. There is too much emphasis on financial well-being and too little emphasis on other dimensions of God-intended human fullness, such as servanthood, mutuality in helping other people thrive, and relational community. I will deal more fully with the prosperity gospel in a subsequent chapter.

The “you’ll never have another problem” gospel obviously communicates that following Christ brings blessings in this life, but it just as obviously promises something that cannot be delivered, something God neither promises nor intends.20 You need only consider the “hall of faith” in Hebrews 11 to discern that faithfulness in following God’s way does not guarantee problem-free living. An important issue that is addressed in this book, therefore, is that some evangelistic theory and practice do not sufficiently appreciate and incorporate the biblical theme of full life in Christ, particularly in relation to God’s intention for us to experience fullness of life here on earth, prior to physical death.

Second Perspective: Basing Evangelism on “Kingdom”

The foundational premise of this project is that evangelistic theory and practice should be grounded in the biblical theme of life. How, therefore, does the strong synoptic emphasis on the kingdom of God fit into this picture? One may consider, for example, the proposal from William Abraham that evangelism is best understood as “that set of intentional activities governed by the goal of initiating persons into the kingdom of God for the first time.”21 With his emphasis on initiation into the kingdom of God, Abraham seeks to honor the strong prevalence of kingdom language in the Bible, particularly in regard to the teachings of Jesus. Furthermore, he wants to distinguish between initiating persons into the kingdom and initiating them into the church. This helps us move from an anthropocentric focus on “what we do” or on “what is done to us” in the church’s initiation process to a theocentric focus “on the majestic and awesome activity of a Trinitarian God whose actions on our behalf stagger our imagination and dissolve into impenetrable mystery.”22

Grounded in this comprehensive kingdom-based understanding, Abraham extracts three principles that are vital for the ministry of evangelism. First, evangelism is inextricably linked with worship in the Christian community. Second, the good news of the kingdom must be proclaimed. Third, some form of the catechumenate should be reinstated in order to help kingdom initiates understand and embrace all the dimensions of kingdom initiation.23

Scott Jones offers a different portrayal of evangelism. He insists that evangelism should be theologically grounded in what has become known as Jesus’s Great Commandment, to love God and neighbor.24 Jones suggests that loving God and neighbor is central to God’s intentions for us and as such must be given the highest priority in evangelism. It is out of love for us and all of God’s creation that God came to earth as Jesus and announced the reign of God. Furthermore, the appropriate way to respond to God’s reign is to be a practicing disciple. Thus, it is through discipleship that we best learn and practice the love of God, neighbor, and self.25 Evangelism, therefore, “is that set of loving, intentional activities governed by the goal of initiating persons into Christian discipleship in response to the reign of God.”26

Jones refers to the initiation of persons into Christian discipleship in response to the reign of God, whereas Abraham refers to initiating them into the reign (kingdom) of God itself. They both include the kingdom theme in their theological vision for evangelism. Given the strong presence of the kingdom theme in the Synoptic Gospels, this is not surprising in the least, and to a certain extent this is helpful. Inclusion of the kingdom theme in evangelistic thought reminds us that the primary role of evangelism is to partner with the Holy Spirit in guiding, leading, and inviting people toward God’s intentions for them. For Abraham, God’s intentions for us revolve around God’s kingdom, whereas for Jones those intentions revolve around the love of God, self, and others that becomes possible through Christian discipleship.

It is not my purpose to engage in a point-by-point debate with Jones and Abraham concerning their evangelistic visions. Furthermore, there is much to value in each of their visions. There is no question that Jones is correct in insisting that evangelism must move persons toward discipleship, and that this discipleship must be grounded in the love of God, which is a foundational characteristic of God. Likewise, Abraham’s desire to honor the kingdom theme in the Bible and to avoid undue focus on introducing persons to the institutional church is an appropriate emphasis. There is, however, another theme that is prior to their themes of choice: life. God’s reign as both embodied and proclaimed by Jesus is vitally important to the biblical portrayal, and so too is a life of discipleship grounded in love; but each of these may be appropriately viewed in relation to the foundational theme of life. I do not suggest that the evangelistic visions of Jones and Abraham are incorrect or less valuable than a life-based one. A life-based evangelistic vision, however, is equally as valuable as theirs. Furthermore, a life-based evangelistic vision is biblically and theologically prior to those based in God’s reign or kingdom, for creation of life takes place in the biblical narrative far sooner than any mention of God’s kingdom or reign.27

Purpose

The purpose of this project is to discern the evangelistic implications that arise from a strong focus on the biblical theme of life in its God-intended fullness.

Four clusters of questions are of particular interest regarding the implications of a life-based evangelistic vision. The first cluster pertains to the gospel. What is the good news? What is good about the good news? In inviting others to Christ, what is it that we are inviting non-Christians toward? What are we asking them to embrace? To what extent does our full-life understanding influence our communication of the good news?28 If it is included in our gospel communication, is it also included in the invitation that is extended to non-Christians?

A second cluster of questions relates to the essential meaning of the biblical theme of life. What does life mean? What kind of life does God intend for men and women? What does God do to offer us full life? What do human beings need to do to appropriate or access full life? How might we lose this life? What perspectives do we gain from Old Testament scholars who value the life theme? What does the prevalence of the life theme in John’s Gospel mean?29

A third cluster of questions has to do with the relationship between the biblical themes of life, the kingdom of God (especially in the Synoptic Gospels), and eternal life (especially in John). Given the strong emphasis of Jesus on the kingdom of God in the Synoptic Gospels, would one say that the biblical theme of life is somehow subservient to the kingdom theme, vice versa, or is there another way to conceptualize that relationship? Since John’s Gospel virtually ignores kingdom language and strongly emphasizes the language of life, especially eternal life, might we conceive of the kingdom and eternal life as two ways to express the same truth(s), or are they separate yet related dimensions of the gospel; or something else?

A fourth cluster of questions deals with the relational dimensions of full life in Christ. What is the relationship between my experience of full life in Christ and your experience of it? Can a person experience this life outside of relationship? How predominantly does full life in Jesus flow along relational lines to reach those who do not yet follow him? How privatized can evangelism be? How communal should it be?

Philip Potter believes that the experience of full life cannot be privatized, but must include participation in extending that full life to others. According to his biographer, Potter believes that “the way of Christ (an open door) is always to welcome and enable others to share in a full life.”30 Rodney Stark underscores this issue as well, claiming that “the basis for successful conversionist movements is growth through social networks, through a structure of direct and intimate interpersonal attachments.”31 An important claim in this book, therefore, is that full life in Christ cannot be experienced, expressed, or shared outside the scope of relationships, nor at the expense of other persons.

The U.S. American Context of the Study

The scope of this project is limited to the U.S. American context. Given the complexity of U.S. American demographics and the presence of multiple ways of seeing the world, it is difficult (if not impossible) to describe the U.S. American context. There are a great many ethnic and linguistic expressions represented in the United States. Additionally, there are varying worldviews that shape how persons see and respond to the world. There is a vast array of literature, for example, concerning modern, postmodern, and post-postmodern worldview dynamics.32 Moreover, some scholars believe that generational differences can enlighten us concerning cultural and/or worldview variations, so that in recent years words such as Boomers, Millennials, and Xers have crept into our vocabulary.33 Additionally, we could point to the divergent political views that are represented in the United States, as well as the broad array of religious (or irreligious) perspectives. Any perceptive observer of the U.S. American context will understand that it includes a diverse representation of many viewpoints.

In spite of this divergent scene, however, there is a consistent coherence among certain key elements of how Americans in general think and act in their daily lives. Robert Bellah, for example, suggests that through the “institutions” of the state and the free enterprise market, by way of their “agencies” of television and education, “there is an enormously powerful common culture in America.”34 Gary Althen and Janet Bennett note that even though there is wide-ranging diversity in the U.S. American context, when one compares U.S. Americans with people from other nations (such as the Japanese, for example), “it becomes clear that certain attitudes and behaviors are much more characteristic of the Americans and others are far more typical of the Japanese.”35 Claude Fischer writes that in spite of the “changes, spikes, sideways moves, and reversals” that may be discerned in U.S. history, “continuity is a striking feature of American culture,” so that “what seemed socially distinctive about America in the eighteenth century still seems distinctive in the twenty-first.”36

This does not mean that all Americans think and act precisely the same. There is variation, uniqueness, and divergence. And yet there are also some deep-seated convictions and behavioral tendencies that permeate much of the U.S. American context.37 The available literature about U.S. American cultural tendencies illustrates a large number of things that one might say are important for understanding the U.S. American context.38 To be as concise as possible, however, I will limit my comments to the two cultural dimensions that are most pertinent to this project. At later points in the book, I will introduce additional U.S. American tendencies that are germane to specific topics being discussed at those times.

By far, the most pervasive and impactful dimension of the U.S. American context is the passionate stress on individualism. Robert Bellah talks about the strong emphasis in the United States on the “sacredness of the individual conscience, the individual person.” He traces this emphasis back to the sectarian religious groups that landed on American shores in the seventeenth century. They brought an intense commitment to “the absolute centrality of religious freedom, of the sacredness of individual conscience in matters of religious belief.”39 Since that time, the emphasis on individualism has expanded to include not only a focus on individual conscience, but also on an understanding of the individual self as distinct and unique. In this regard, Steward and Bennett write, “Americans naturally assume that each person is not only a separate biological entity, but also a unique psychological being and a singular member of the social order,” so that “me and my” is “one of the sharpest dichotomies of American culture.”40 Asitimbay asserts that one of the reasons this individual stress is so robust in the United States is that Americans are immersed in this reality from a very early age. She notes that “the notion of individual needs coming before the needs of others is taught before you can even talk.” Moreover, children are taught that they have freedom to make choices. “You choose. This is what you hear, like an echo, from every corner of the United States.”41 Individualism is a driving force (most likely the driving force) of U.S. American culture. You will encounter multiple references to the impact of individualism in this book.42

The second dimension of the U.S. American context that is germane to this project is privacy, and it grows out of the emphasis on individualism. Because we conceive of the individual self as a distinct and unique entity, we also therefore view ourselves as separate from all others, and hence we attach a strong value to privacy. Since we are different from everyone else and have our own unique identity, we “tend to assume that most people ‘need some time to themselves’ . . . to think about things or recover their spent psychological energy.”43 We have already noted that individualism makes it difficult for people to respond fully to God’s intentions for them to live as relational beings. In a similar fashion, privacy makes it challenging for people to embrace God’s intentions for their Christ-following journey to impact the exterior, public spaces of their lives. The public impact of the full life that God intends for us in Jesus will be addressed more fully later in this book.

1. I describe some of the pertinent characteristics of the U.S. American context later in this chapter.

2. Dongell, Joseph. “Biblical Theology as a Whole.” Lecture. Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, KY, May 7, 2009.

3. Klein, “Leben–neues Leben,” 91–107.

4. Non-Christian or non-believer will be used throughout this book to refer to those persons who are not actively and intentionally following Christ. Some scholars prefer the term pre-Christian because it honors the fact that most people in the West are outside the influence of Christianity and the church (see Hunter, How to Reach Secular People, 13–39). However, in this project I envision the “realm” of evangelism to include not only persons who have little or no knowledge of Christianity (or Christians), but also those who do have knowledge of Christianity (or Christians), and have not yet chosen to become Christ-followers. In this context, non-Christian includes but is not limited to those persons whom other scholars would designate as pre-Christian. Non-believers will also be used on occasion to honor the Johannine emphasis on believing in Jesus so that we may have life.

5. Hunter, Church for the Unchurched, 53.

6. I prefer Dongell’s use of full life to Klein’s use of new life. Full life includes new life, but I conceive of it as moving beyond the newness of our life in Christ at the beginning of our relationship with him, which includes relationship with God, other persons, and creation (more will be said on the relational nature of full life in Christ throughout this book), so that it includes a growing awareness and embrace of all that God intends for us in him, throughout our lifetime and into chronological eternity.

7. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon, 430.

8. Bultmann, “ζαω,” 870.

9. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 148.

10. Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion, 32.

11. Ibid., 33.

12. Ibid., 33–36.

13. Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion, 34–35.

14. Sweazey, Effective Evangelism, 60.

15. As one example, Evangelism Explosion engages in a follow-up process in which a life of discipleship is encouraged, but this new life of discipleship is predicated on the evangelistic emphasis on heaven. Thus, discipleship is fueled by our gratitude for the gift of heaven (“The reason for living a godly life is gratitude . . . I’m saying ‘thank you’ for the gift of eternal life Christ has given me.” Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion, 49). This is an appropriate focus, but it is also a limiting focus that makes it difficult for persons to capture and experience the full-life dimensions of Christian living.

16. Leslie Newbigin argues against this perspective in The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society. He suggests that to address ourselves to questions the world is asking does not serve well because “the world’s questions are not the questions which lead to life” (119). I agree with Newbigin’s sentiment here. However, I also concur with other writers who claim that some of the best starting points for relationships with non-Christians are related to questions that those non-Christians are asking. I do not suggest that we should be bound by their questions, but that we should at least be aware of them and know that they can sometimes provide points of identification and entry into conversation and/or relationship. Given the strong individualistic focus in U.S. American culture, it is likely that most non-believers will first be motivated to consider the Christ-following journey based on appeal to their own self-interest. As Steward and Bennett contend in American Cultural Patterns, one result of the U.S. American focus on individualism is “an intense self-centeredness” (63). In this context, to expect non-Christians to be initially motivated by questions that they do not see as being relevant to them in some way is simply unrealistic.

17. Donald Soper has observed in Advocacy of the Gospel that as a result of the process of secularity, five shifts took place in the Western world. One of these shifts was from a death orientation to a life orientation. People no longer think about death on such a large scale as they once did. There is a far greater emphasis on life. Soper maintains that we must bear this in mind as we advocate the good news of Jesus Christ. “If we talk about eternal life, as under God we are compelled to do when we preach, we must talk about the present possibility which our blessed Lord advocated and himself spoke of” (17–18). Soper’s insights are almost fifty years old, but they remain true even today, as confirmed in Charles Taylor’s much more recent work. In A Secular Age, Taylor notes that “modern humanism tends to develop a notion of human flourishing which has no place for death” and that death “must be combated, and held off till the very last moment” (320).

18. John Wesley addresses this in an indirect way with the distinction he makes between justification and the new birth. He writes that “God in justifying us does something for us; in begetting us again, he does the work in us. The former changes our outward relation to God, so that of enemies we become children; by the latter our inmost souls are changed, so that of sinners we become saints. The one restores us to the favour, the other to the image, of God. The one is the taking away the guilt, the other the taking away the power, of sin . . . ” Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, 224.

19. In discussing the prosperity gospel, I prefer Gordon Fee’s description in The Disease of the Health & Wealth Gospels (2–3) that the primary affirmation of the prosperity gospel is that “God wills the (financial) prosperity of every one of his children, and therefore for a Christian to be in poverty is to be outside God’s intended will.” A related secondary affirmation that is often implied or stated outright is that “the King’s kids . . . should always go first-class.”

20. It is difficult to locate examples in print for citation purposes of no-more-problems evangelism. George Hunter observes that this kind of message usually gets communicated when preachers get carried away in their evangelistic communication, but they seldom include it in written works (email message to author, February 19, 2010).

21. Abraham, Logic of Evangelism, 95.

22. Ibid., 98.

23. Ibid., 167–80.

24. Varying versions of the Great Commandment are found in Matt 22:37–39, Mark 12:28–34, and Luke 10:27–28.

25. Jones, Evangelistic Love of God and Neighbor, 13–18, 50–65, 99.

26. Ibid., 18.

27. As a person steeped in the Wesleyan tradition, I find it encouraging that Steve Harper links much of Wesleyan theology with a focus on life. When presenting foundational Wesleyan concepts in seminars or workshops, he divides them into three main categories: (a) the message of life (grace); (b) the means to life (the means of grace); and (c) the mission for life. A further delineation is made within each of these three categories. The message of life involves (a) prevenient grace (the invitation to life); (b) converting grace, (the entrance into life); (c) sanctifying grace (the consecration of life); and (d) glorifying grace (the transition to everlasting life). The means of life include (a) instituted means and (b) prudential means. The mission for life comprises (a) redeem the lost, (b) renew the church, and (c) reform the nation (Steve Harper, personal conversation, April 27, 2011).

28. For example, a person may claim to believe in full life in Christ. Their use of the “Bridge Method” in their gospel presentations, a method that focuses on the chasm between unredeemed humanity and God, may, however, represent a lack of connection between theological belief and gospel presentation.

29. I focus on John’s Gospel in this book because of his pervasive and consistent references to life.

30. Jagessar, Full Life for All, 123.

31. Stark, The Rise of Christianity, 20.

32. Paul Hiebert, for example, in Transforming Worldviews (105–264) writes about the different dynamics involved in the worldview of small-scale oral societies, the peasant worldview, the modern worldview, the postmodern worldview, and the post-postmodern worldview.

33. A few examples of literature relating to different generations in America include the following: Howe and Strauss, Millennials Rising; Smith and Clurman, Generation Ageless; Hanson, Baby Boomers and Beyond; Erickson, What’s Next, Gen X?; and Dyck, Generation Ex-Christian. This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but is sufficient to confirm that generational differences are an important dynamic in the U.S. American context.

34. Bellah, “Is There a Common American Culture?” 614–6.

35. Althen and Bennett, American Ways, xxii.

36. Fischer, Made in America, 241.

37. Though I have been exposed to a great deal of anthropological and sociological research, these are not my fields of expertise. I will not, therefore, attempt any strict definitions of culture, worldview, and the like. For the purpose of this book, I am focusing primarily on the simple yet important dimensions of how U.S. Americans think and act.

38. Following are a few examples of themes that are highlighted in the literature. Althen and Bennett (American Ways, 4) highlight eight primary categories: (1) individualism, freedom, competitiveness, and privacy; (2) equality; (3) informality; (4) the future, change, and progress; (5) goodness of humanity; (6) time (lineal); (7) achievement, action, work, and materialism; and (8) directness and assertiveness. Claude Fischer (Made in America, ix, 8–9) lifts up voluntarism (a combination of individualism and commitment to voluntary groups [more on this later]) as the most distinctive element of U.S. American culture, but also stresses the role of security, material goods, and self-perfecting. Steward and Bennett (American Cultural Patterns, 33–74) mention several of the themes that are highlighted by Althen and Bennett, plus they refer to pragmatism, null logic, causation, achievement, and time thrift.

39. Bellah, “Is There a Common American Culture?” 617.

40. Steward and Bennett, American Cultural Patterns, 129.

41. Asitimbay, What’s Up America? 9.

42. To cite just one example, individualism influences how willing (or able) U.S. Americans are to respond to the idea that God created us to be relational and social beings, and this impacts our understanding of the vital role of participation in communities of faith as integral to our Christ-following journey.

43. Althen and Bennett, American Ways, 11.