Seven Tensions for Christians in a Secular Culture

How the Book of Daniel Models Cultural Wisdom

This past weekend, for the second time, I led a group of students through the first few chapters of the book of Daniel. The first time I’d done this was at the University of Missouri, as an RUF Campus Minister. At the time, my freshman responded very strongly to the study of Daniel, and have since noted its signficance for them as they engaged a secular university setting (in fact, one of my former students randomly texted me a picture of their notes from our time together years ago, as I was leading the study this weekend!)

If you have an allergy to the idea of studying Daniel for insights about cultural engagement, I get that. That’s largely a publicity problem. We know lots of the big, bold stories from the Book of Daniel: Daniel boldly prays, and is thrown into the lion’s den. Daniel’s friends boldly refuse to bow to the king’s statue, but survive the fiery furnace.

These more sensational moments, however, don’t reflect the nuance of the book. What we often miss in a cursory or contextual-less reading is, in fact, precisely the insight that is most helpful: Daniel and his friends make choices that would have been as scandalizing to most Israelites as they were to the Babylonians. This is because they are living out a theological vision rarely, if ever, embraced by the nation of Israel in the remainder of the Old Testament.

So what is this vision?

Vision

It’s easier to describe Daniel’s theological vision for cultural engagement by naming what it isn’t. First, a refresher: Daniel is a post-exilic book. And I mean freshly post-exilic. The narrative begins with a somewhat tame description of Daniel’s friends being hauled out of their homeland and into captivity:

Daniel 1:1

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god.

A somewhat tame description of cultural theft, infanticide and human torture, to be sure. But there it is. It’s extremely helpful to have this in mind as we move forward, because thus far, scripture has only been deeply critical of Israel’s response to this new, exilic situation. That’s because Israel has employed three unfaithful strategies to their new situation before this moment:

Strategy 1 - Blending

Remembering that “exile” was still the category the Israelites were working with in the days of Jesus (see N.T. Wright’s thorough research on second temple Judaism for this), we could think of some categories for this mode of engagement. The Sadducees essentially edit out of scripture anything that offends Greco-Roman sensibilities. The Tax Collectors literally join the Greco-Roman empire’s oppressive tactics against the Jewish people. The “blenders” would be anyone who essentially follows Babylon’s programming for them: to assimilate away from Jewish culture and religion, into Babylon’s culture and religion.

In a way, we don’t hear much Old Testament critique of this because it was so obviously the wrong choice. As for prophetic critiques, probably the most thorough critique of this strategy is found in a non-exilic period…the Book of Judges.

The Book ends with a description of the Israelites continuing in their worship practices. That’s key. But note the tone:

Judges 21:4-5. 

4 Early the next day the people built an altar and presented burnt offerings and fellowship offerings.5 Then the Israelites asked, “Who from all the tribes of Israel has failed to assemble before the Lord?” For they had taken a solemn oath that anyone who failed to assemble before the Lord at Mizpah was to be put to death.

Worship services? Great. But executing folks who don’t show up for church, while estimably zealous, is perhaps a tad aggressive.

The chapter ends with a description of the Israelites continuing to engage liturgically with the God of Israel, but engaging functionally in a way that mirrors their pagan neighbors. The book concludes with “woman stealing”, murder, and division. The author concludes:

21:25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

Strategy 2 - Separating

Again, to work with categories we’re more familiar with, in Jesus’ own day the “Separating” strategy was most clearly seen in the Essenes, or “cave dwellers”, the group responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls. Reading their works, one gets the impression of hostility, but with no workable way to express it. Essentially (ha!), the belief here is that faithfulness to Yahweh is not compatible with cultural engagement.

We hear this sentiment expressed by the Psalmist, immediately after his captivity:

Psalm 137

By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
    when we remembered Zion

There on the poplars
    we hung our harps,

for there our captors asked us for songs,
    our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
    they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

How can we sing the songs of the Lord
    while in a foreign land?

One can imagine how this Israelite lullaby shaped a nation. Without being critical of where the Psalmist is at emotionally, we can see how this skeptical question - left unanswered - could lead to the “separation” strategy: this is a strategy that creates a deeply Jewish subculture as an all-or-nothing alternative to Babylonian culture. If Jewish worship is impossible in the new situation, the only possibility of a faithful response involves separation into a subculture.

Now just to be clear, I’m for Christian subcultures. We need Christian subcultures. The flaw in this strategy isn’t the subculture itself, but the subculture as an escape hatch from engaging, or blessing, the people and cultural spaces surrounding it.

Strategy 3 - Enforcing

This, in many ways, is the stance the prophets are most critical toward. This attitude is reflected in the political zealots (like Peter) in Jesus’ day, who are interested in re-enforcing Jewish religion through political power. They’re not accepting of the new situation.

In the prophetic writings, we see this in the false prophet Hananiah, who assures Israel that they will not, in fact, be in exile for 70 years. Rather:

Jeremiah 28

2 “This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon. 3 Within two years I will bring back to this place all the articles of the Lord’s house that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon removed from here and took to Babylon. 4 I will also bring back to this place Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah and all the other exiles from Judah who went to Babylon,’ declares the Lord, ‘for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.’”

Rather than accepting the Lord’s sovereignty in exile, Hananiah insists God will raise up a Strong Man - Jehoiachin - who will violently and powerfully “break the yoke” of the King of Babylon. He will protect Israel from its threats through enforcement.

However, the prophet Jeremiah has other ideas:

28:15 Then the prophet Jeremiah said to Hananiah the prophet, “Listen, Hananiah! The Lord has not sent you, yet you have persuaded this nation to trust in lies. 16 Therefore this is what the Lord says: ‘I am about to remove you from the face of the earth. This very year you are going to die, because you have preached rebellion against the Lord.’”

Rather than placing hope in a political leader who can make their nation great again, Jeremiah tells Israel to prepare to stick with their powerless situation…and change their strategy accordingly.

Faithfulness Today

You’ll not be shocked to hear there are some poignant parallels to each of these strategies today.

Blending is a strategy we see more from the “left” of protestantism, with those trying to thrive in more elite cultural settings cutting away whatever in scripture doesn’t cozy up to liberal sensibilities.

Separating is more of a “folksy” strategy, seen by the large swaths of evangelical subculture that intentionally touts itself as an alternative to engagement with secular culture. Let me say two quick things about this. First, many academics will quibble with a “strategy” like this, because, after all, no reputable theologian is actually endorsing this strategy. But believe it or not 1. Reputable theologians aren’t the only people in these conversations, and 2. It is precisely the crowd that doesn’t talk - or think - about their own missional strategy who are most likely to make this their default setting. And it’s ubiquitous.

Second, I’ll say again, separation is not always a wrong thing. But if this isn’t combined with intentionally blessing secular culture, it becomes an unfaithful strategy.

Enforcing…well, do I really have to say it? I won’t. But I’ll let John Caramica give you some practical reasons why a Theocratic vision for society is actually a failure to recognize God’s sovereignty to the situation we’re actually in.

In response to this, I’ll return to a well-worn commendation to faithfulness, but I’m going to add a little caveat. Jeremiah, in response to Hananiah’s recommendation of enforcement, says this to the Israelites in exile:

Jeremiah 29:4.

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. 7 But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.

I know what you’re thinking. “Ooooooh…that approach. Winsomness and all that. So he’s more of a Blender, actually.”

And I’ll just name that this is absolutely a danger of my position. There are plenty of folks happy to tattoo Jeremiah 29 to their forehead whose vision for Christian engagement amounts to strategy #1.

But first, let me give a name to this strategy of faithfulness.

This is what I like to call Embodiment. The vision is to embody God’s kingdom in our time and place, by refusing to blend, separate or enforce our faith.

And second, my caveat: in the book of Daniel, embodying God’s kingdom means each of these tactics - blending, separating and enforcing - are used at times in service of the bigger vision to embody God’s kingdom in a foreign land.

This, I think, is why our conversations about these issues are often confused. If we are faithfully embodying God’s kingdom, we require the kind of agility and sensitivity - or as the Book of Daniel puts it, “wisdom and tact” - that doesn’t rely on a single strategy, but uses each as a tool for different jobs in different circumstances. This is why read with much appreciation Brad East’s recent argument along the same lines. (But I think Brad tends to make these strategies sound more like a buffet, which doesn’t give us much in the way of practical help. Instead, I would tend to look at them as courses on a menu with “Embodiment” being the overarching meal every sub-strategy is set within. And, I would not look at them so much as strategies as tensions, which I’ll talk about below.)

This is also why I’ve often tried to teach my students to stop asking exactly “what” it is the scriptures call us to do in our situation until they’ve understood the “why”. Because each of these strategies can be employed, provided the mission remains the same: embodying God’s kingdom as a witness and a blessing to our neighbors.

Tensions

The upshot of all of this is: if we’re to faithfully embody God’s kingdom in our exile, we need to embrace not one single, cookie-cutter “strategy” but a series of tensions that we - with the help of the Holy Spirit and a faithful Christian community - must continually re-navigate in order to faithfully fulfill our call.

And, secondly, each of these particular strategies must subsume themselves to faithfulness toward the meta strategy of embodying God’s kingdom in our culture. If this is our north star, the way we navigate our particular portion of the sea begins to become clearer.

And this, I want to argue, is exactly the kind of vision we see in the Book of Daniel. We see Daniel faithfully embodying God’s kingdom, but doing so in continually surprising ways…both to the Babylonians, and to the Jewish readers who are, themselves, navigating these tensions. And the way Daniel embodies this vision isn’t singular. Rather, he navigates a series of tensions, which become mirrors for the tensions you and I will face in our current cultural climate…and which ultimately give us a set of questions that we can discuss in Spirit-led community as we navigate our own God-given exilic situations.

Tension #1: Hospitality vs. Purity

This is one of the most interesting tensions in the book, and probably where Jewish readers felt the most confused. Yes, Daniel and his friends draw the line when they’re asked to eat of the King’s meat, as this would have clearly violated their scriptural dietary commands. And yet…Daniel and his friends don’t show the same sort of resistance to things Israel would have surely considered scandalizing.

First, the taking on of pagan names. Daniel ("God is my judge") was assigned the name Belteshazzar, which meant "favored by Bel." Hananiah ("beloved of the Lord") became Shadrach ("illumined by Rak," the sun god). Mishael ("who is as God") was called Meshach ("who is like Shak," the Babylonian Venus), and Azariah ("the Lord is my help") became Abednego ("servant of Nego," the god of fire).

Second, Daniel doesn’t show any resistance to excelling in the study of the Babylonian “university” - which had none of the sacred/secular divides we assume in our eduction today. They are in a pagan educational assimilation program, yet are described as “ten times better” than their peers.

Third, when Nebuchadnezzar threatens to destroy Daniel, as well as the magicians and astrologers, Daniel not only advocates for his own head…he actually defends the lives of the magicians and astrologers around him, specifically advocating that the king not kill them off, just because he finds their religious claims a sham!

Daniel 2:24 Then Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to execute the wise men of Babylon, and said to him, “Do not execute the wise men of Babylon. Take me to the king, and I will interpret his dream for him.”

There is a tension here: a commitment to purity, by not following dietary laws, as well as a commitment to hospitality, by taking on loads of Babylonian pagan-infused culture…in ways that not only scandalized their fellow Israelites, but actually scandalized lots of our students this past weekend. My small group, at least, felt Daniel had compromised his faith in these matters!

Tension #2: Patience vs. Boldness

In Daniel chapter 2, Daniel makes a bold invitation to King Nebuchadnezzar to convert. And yet, this was done after three years of faithful service, in which we don’t hear anything like this from Daniel. Presumably, he’s been a faithful student, building trust and his reputation. Yet, we see in chapter 2 Daniel isn’t just trying to blend. He’s engaging with Babylonian culture, ultimately, to call it to convert.

Daniel 2

²⁷ Daniel replied, “No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about, ²⁸ but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries.

Tension #3: Defending vs. Suffering

There are times in the book of Daniel in which we see false accusations heaped on Daniel and his friends. Sometimes, they defend themselves and clear up the accusations. Other times, they see the only thing to do is recognize God’s sovereignty in their suffering:

Daniel 3:16 Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to him, “King Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter.”

Tension #4: Prophetic vs. Submissive

We continue to see Daniel as a prophetic voice to Nebuchadnezzar, both inviting him to conversion as well as calling out his pride and oppression. But one of the most interesting places where we see this tension is in the way Daniel navigates decrees that violate his faith.

For instance, when Daniel resists eating the king’s food, he never once makes a reference to his religion or to the scriptures. Rather, he negotiates for his position, by acknowledging the King’s goals for him (health and vitality), and coming up with a compromise that allows him to remain faithful to Yahweh as well as express submission to the Babylonian agenda:

Daniel 1

¹² “Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. ¹³ Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.”

Tension #5: Retreating vs. Engaging

Sure, Daniel 6 is about a political scheme to entrap Daniel for his well-known practice of prayer. But let’s think about the situation before Daniel 6. How did this come about? It came about because of Daniel’s well-known liturgical pattern of retreat and engagement. Imagine negotiating for three prayer times per workday with your supervisor!

Daniel 6

¹⁰ Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. ¹¹ Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for help.

This pattern is reference throughout the book. Daniel can only continue to engage faithfully in his context by continually removing himself from it with faithful liturgical practice.

Tension #6: Weakness and Power

Daniel, on the one hand, accepts far more political and social power than some evangelicals, in years past anyway, would have found acceptable. After all, Daniel is being groomed to a political position of power in a kingdom far more corrupt than anything we’ve witnessed in the west. The Babylonian kingdom was a kingdom of conquest.

Daniel 1:5

They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service.

Daniel shows no resistance to taking on this messy political role, in which he surely would have been asked to participate in corrupt practices. And yet, he continues to express weakness in his power. When tricky situations arise, Daniel’s first instinct is to pray. When he achieves something sensational, his first instinct is to thank God:

Daniel 2

¹⁷ Then Daniel returned to his house and explained the matter to his friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. ¹⁸ He urged them to plead for mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that he and his friends might not be executed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. ¹⁹ During the night the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision. Then Daniel praised the God of heaven

And, tellingly, Daniel does not use his power to serve or protect himself. He is perfectly willing to lose his position - and his life - over his commitment to faithfulness. Thus, Daniel embraces power, but holds it loosely, only willing to be in the position so long as he can remain faithful to his ultimate Lord.

Tension #7: Already and Not Yet

The final tension of the book is that of the already and not yet. On the one hand, Daniel is still part of God’s kingdom. But so much of the book is about the coming of Jesus’ kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams and visions are about a day when the kingdom of “one like the son of man” will make all other kingdoms crumble. But, as my students pointed out, the language of God’s sovereignty pervades the book, right from the beginning.

Daniel 1:2

 And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God.

When I asked my students about this, one of them noted that maybe by taking this role, Daniel couldn’t stop the evil of the Babylonians, but he could somewhat lessen the evil done. This, I think, is demonstrated in the way Daniel advocates for saving the lives of the magicians/astrologers surrounding him. We see this also in the life of Nebuchadnezzar, who seems to come to the God of Israel in fits and starts. Daniel’s prophetic word lessen the evil done, but they don’t eliminate it. They curb evil, while not totally curing it. This isn’t because Daniel is okay with the evil surrounding him, but rather because he recognizes where he is in time: God is already sovereign, but the kingdom of God has not yet arisen.

Conclusion

You’ll notice none of these tensions are a set “answer” to the ways in which we engage culture. Rather, they are each a set of questions, framed by faithfulness to a vision of embodiment, that can spark important, Spirit-filled conversations among faithful Christians in their given context.

This is one reason, by the way, that I’d encourage any and every church to begin something like a Faith and Work Cohort, or a Faith in the Neighborhood group, or some sort of space for regular conversations about the above tensions. That, or make these tensions somehow a normalized piece of how small groups and Bible studies engage. Because while it may sound attractive to simply write out an essay with a one-size-fits-all answer to our cultural tensions, I can scarcely believe such prescriptions would be faithful to the kind of creativity needed to faithfully embody God’s kingdom in members’ day to day lives, as we seek to embody our witness to it together.