My friend Kevin wrote a long response to my post [Christian Hellenism?](http://www.rocketblog.net/archives/2005/04/15/christian-hellenism/). I really like what he had to say, so I’m posting it here in its entirety. I’ll blog my responses to it in a separate post. Everything to follow in this post is his letter…

>Okay, some thoughts, both in concession, and in contrast.

>You mentioned in your blog, “The real tension is between a dominant secular, Hellenistic, ethos and a true Judeo-Christian ethos.”

>Perhaps the problem with the “true Judeo-Christian ethos” is the problem of syncretism.  While I don’t mean to be too semantical, our definition of a true Christian ethic, is in itself becoming combined and fused with secular/Hellenistic belief systems and mores.  I think what I would argue in addition is the challenge to the church for a rediscovery and redefinition of what that Judeo-Christian ethic is.  You do that well when discussing Jesus’ memorization of the Text; I would just throw in the term “syncretism” to help define, perhaps, what is happening in our minds and hearts, and our Christian intellectual culture.  That idea may help to inform why church attendance is low, and the “clamoring in the last 25 years” has proven somewhat fruitless.

>I also can’t help but think that the above is why the so-entitled “Christian nation” of America has become so reminiscent of first-century (AD & BC) Hellenism.  God has become personal, private, individual.  The class I’m currently in is studying “Spiritual Disciplines,” and while I don’t have the book in front of me, the majority of the disciplines mentioned deal with the self, and personal reflection (journaling, prayer, etc.)  (In my gut reactive opinion, with not much thought, the sacrifice of self for a greater self-awareness of God or relationship with Him is a bit oxymoronic)  You mentioned in your blog, “I propose that we can’t make a difference in this world if we simple play by the same rules, living lives functionally indistinguishable from a ‘typical’ member of our society.”  It appears to me that contemporary Christianity doesn’t have any other rules to live by.  Your referencing the “mega-church” movement is quite apropos.  This tainted Christian theology has informed and influenced our ministerial methodology, and vice versa.

>The real issue, is as you mentioned, life.  How Christians live.  Ron Sider’s “Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience” comes to mind, as well as Colson’s “How Now Shall We Live.”

>In Contrast.

>The closing line pre-PS in your blog “We need to be radically different from what our culture expects, so people look at us and say, ”That’s amazing. That’s real. That’s what I want.“ ” is the one I struggle with the most, and that is part of the essential of the problem we as Christians, and we as ministers face.  The very fact that you end with the internal probing of “what I want” is so informative to the very issue being argued.  In my thoughts about this (for quite some time now) the sentence should really just state, “We need to be radically different from what our culture expects.  period.”  Maybe I would even strike the words “radically different.”  The essence of true Jesus-like lifestyle is not in ‘contrast’ or ‘comparison’ with the culture surrounding us.  The essence of true Jesus-like life, as I am beginning to understand it, is simply a life lived for God.  And part of the problem with ministry in an area so difficult as the Bay Area, is the lack of “that’s what I want” in secular/unchurched people.  Ministers, then, are left with the dilemma, the problem that faces all pastors; how much do I compromise?  Sure, no pastor would ever say that, but really, that’s what we all deal with.  (Much more could be said and elaborated on, and perhaps I’ll save that for a seminary paper for later!

>Also, church attendance and other statistics, I think are poor gauges for the movements of God.  The reliance upon that information is, again, in my opinion, more evidence that we’re influenced by our secular culture more than we realize or admit.  While numbers are mentioned in the Bible, to deduce a formula for ministerial or ecclesiastical practice is a very poor hermeneutic.  (In other words, reading the Bible to get principles for “how to do church” is the wrong way to read the Bible).  So while statistics are informative, I’m not so sure we’re looking at the right information, if you get my drift.

>Lastly, (and I better get to work), I’m starting to think that Hellenism is the avenue, not the enemy.  This sounds in direct contradiction (or contradistinction) to the paragraph above, but this is how my brain functions!  Kushner, in his book, “Eyes Remade For Wonder” has a chapter entitled “The Divine Setup” where he describes the Garden of Eden, not as Paradise, or even as a test, but rather a “setup.”  God knew that they were going to eat the fruit, and God knew they would feel shame, distance from God, disharmony with their Creator.  And that’s exactly what He wanted.  He wanted that so they would feel a desire for Him, which they would not have felt before.  Which is why the tree is called the tree of the “knowledge of good and evil.”  While I don’t want to mess with anyone’s theology, I believe there is something mystical about that perspective.  Could Hellenism be an avenue that God uses? (NOT one that God instigates…let me make that clear)

>I asked RVL on the trail, “Are you ever afraid you’re going to lose your battle with Hellenism within yourself?”  His reply, “I’m not afraid I’m going to lose the battle…I’m afraid I will lose my will to fight.”  I close with that thought, and believe that the very fact that there are blogs and discussions, and passionate pursuits of these and other issues, is the engagement of bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to earth.  Why would it need to be brought, if it wasn’t going to replace that which is?