For Further Reading: Holzmeister

Anthony A. Hoekema (The Four Major Cults), following the German author Kurt Hutten, dis­tinguishes five major characteristics of the cult: (1) an extrascriptural source of authority—"a Bi­ble in the left hand"; (2) the denial of justification by grace alone; (3) the devaluation of Christ; (4) the group as the exclusive community of the saved; and (5) the group's central role in escha­tology.

Hoekema's characteristics apply when the movement being described purports to share cer­tain Judeo-Christian presuppositions (for exam­ple, the authority of Scripture). The gain in strength of Eastern religions which do not share these presuppositions requires that the charac­teristics of the cult be redefined, since in popular usage these religions too are sometimes desig­nated as cults. The hallmark of the cult, whether or not it shares any Judeo-Christian presuppo­sitions, is absolutism. The absolutism of the cult demands extraordinary commitment from its members. In return it provides a strong sense of community (belonging) and an uncritical assur­ance of authority in matters of doctrine and con­duct.

Attempts to explain the emergence and strength of cults on sociological grounds have had mixed success. Nevertheless certain con­stants can be demonstrated. Cults seem to be the issue of periods of social instability. Their origins are more often urban than rural. And they often function in contention with secular values and authorities. Also, many evangelicals believe the mushrooming popularity of cults is a sign of the end times (cf., e.g., 1 Tim. 4:1-3).

The approach of the Christian to a member of a cult must be replete with understanding. The cult is attractive because of its absolutism. No major question of life and faith is allowed to re­main unanswered. To challenge any answer, however questionable it may be, is to challenge the absolute wisdom and authority of the cult and thus to challenge the entire world view and life-style of its members.

The consistent theological flaw of the cultic mentality from the perspective of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the tendency to promise knowledge about God in place of the knowledge of God. Thus the cult protects its position as the only and essential intermediary and dispensary of theological truth, without being able to bring its members into that saving, life-changing per­sonal relationship with the crucified and resur­rected Christ, which is the hallmark of authentic Christianity.

See HERESY, CREED (CREEDS), CHRIST, CHURCH, SAL­VATION.

For Further Reading: Hoekema, The Four Major Cults; Starkes, Confronting Popular Cults.

The evolution of the usage of culture has cre­ated a significant change. The simple amorality of culture used biologically was swallowed up in the sociological use of the term. Culture, in this latter usage, denotes a repository of values (in­cluding moral, religious, and political values).

Thus where two cultures differ, the differences are not infrequently substantial and significant. A biblical example is the conflict of Hebrew and Hellenistic values in the intertestamental and NT periods. Cultural conflict is inherent in a mis­sionary religion. Its manifestation is a challenge of authority. In particular, universal applicability is denied certain cherished absolutes of either culture. What had been perceived as absolute is made to appear in more tentative light.

Although the Christian experience of cultural conflict is very old, the attempt to deal with it has only recently received a systematic analysis. Cul­tural monism represents one attempt, cultural pluralism another, and cultural relativism still another.

Cultural monism cannot, perhaps because it will not, identify as culturally conditioned and, at best, fortuitous, certain elements in its expression of Christian faith. The immediate culture be­comes identical with Christian faith, and the



148

CULTURE, PERSONAL—CUP


spread of the gospel implies a corresponding spread of the culture.

Cultural pluralism attempts to distinguish es­sentially Christian elements from culturally con­ditioned elements in the expression of Christian faith. It tolerates differences so long as the essen­tial elements of Christian faith remain intact. Any challenges are directed not against whole cultures but against elements of the culture which are perceived to be clearly anti-Christian.

Cultural relativism is the most tolerant of cul­tural variation. Culture itself is conceived to be the absolute. The legitimacy of the Christian faith is determined by the ability of the faith to maintain and enhance the authentic values of a culture.

See 6HRCTAW-HFE-, LIFE-STYLE, ANTHROPOLOGY MISSIONS.

Christian culture is culture which is judged by Christ and conformed to Christ. Christ judges culture through the Scriptures as illuminated by the Spirit. Much in our respective societal cul­tures can be sanctified;-in fact, the Christian should conform. As John Wesley pointed out, there is no virtue in being different to the point of singularity, just for the sake of being different, when no ethical issue is involved. Yet much is pagan, completely incompatible with Christian holiness; therefore the Word commands, "Be not conformed to this world" (Rom. 12:2; cf. Phillips). Christians must be honest in seeking intelligently to discern what Christ can use. Moreover, even within the framework of the le­gitimate, it is the duty of the Christian to dis­tinguish between "good, better, best," and seek that which excels (Phil. 1:11).

To conform culture to Christ is to make sure that it is Christlike in its inner holiness, redemp­tive in its motivation, and loving in its relation­ships. Since culture includes one's total life-style, it is obvious that it should honor Christ, not dis­honor Him. Becoming cultured, therefore, is an expression of devotion and also a matter of stew­ardship. Poor culture is poor stewardship, as truly as mismanagement of money or time.

See CULTURE, GROWTH, CHARACTER, WITNESS, RE­SPECT.

The "cup" may also designate judgment. In the language of the Apocalypse, worshippers of "the beast" will drink the wine of God's wrath, "poured unmixed into the cup of his anger" (Rev. 14:10, rsv; cf. 16:19). In Gethsemane Jesus prayed, "My Father ... let this cup pass from me" (Matt. 26:39, rsv). Here the "cup" from which Jesus shrank has the connotation of judgment against sin.

This usage has its roots in OT imagery. "In the hand of the Lord there is a cup, with foaming wine, well mixed; and he will pour a draught from it, and all the wicked of the earth shall drain it down to the dregs" (Ps. 75:8, rsv). The same metaphor is repeatedly used by the proph­ets to symbolize God's wrath. The Lord is pic­tured as compelling the nations to get drunk, vomit, and stagger in disgrace (Isa. 51:17, 22; Jer. 25:15-28; 49:12; 51:7; Ezek. 23:31-33; Hab. 2:15-16; Zech. 12:2). Judgment is likened to a drunken stupor.

See HOLY COMMUNION, SUFFER (SUFFERING). JUDG­MENT, GETHSEMANE.

Furthermore, the curse—like most NT topics—has a definite Christological significance under the new covenant. Inasmuch as the curse of the law affects all who do not abide in the commandments of the law (Gal. 3:10), there is none righteous (Rom. 3:9-10, 19-20). Conse­quently, the whole of sinful humanity is sub­jected to the law's curse—i.e., God's wrath and judgment. Christ, in His substitutionary death on the Cross, bore the curse for us and thereby re­deems us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13). Now instead of the curse, there is the blessing of Abraham, sonship, and eternal life through faith in Christ. For the one who rejects Christ, how­ever, there remains the curse, judgment, and eternal damnation.

See JUDGE, JUDGMENT, PUNISHMENT, ANGER, RE­VENGE.

For Further Reading: Buchsel, Kittel, 1:448-51;
Gevirtz, IDS, 1:749-50; Mundle, NIDNTT, 1:413-18;
Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament, 201-3,
218-21. J. Wesley Adams

CUSTOM, CUSTOMS. The word custom refers to behavior patterns handed down by tradition and accepted by a whole society or by a particular class. Custom accepted and practiced over a long period of time may come to have the force of law as in English common law. Further, some cus­toms may have the psychological force of moral law in a particular society, while others may be accepted as contributing to social cohesion but be considered morally indifferent. The apostle Paul was willing to conform to some customs for the sake of social harmony (Acts 21:21-26; Rom. 14:13-21; 1 Cor. 9:19-23), while rejecting others as incompatible with his new life in Christ (Rom. 12:2). William M. Greathouse points out that the consecrated, sanctified believer rejects the cus­toms and behavior patterns of the age and by a divine transformation is guided by a "fresh and independent insight into moral realities" (BBC, 8:239-40).

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in the third cen­tury exhorted Christians not to be guided by cus­tom but by truth contained in evangelical and apostolical tradition written in the Gospels and Epistles (esp. 74).

Luther rejected much of ecclesiastical custom as not conforming to the one true gospel faith and doctrine found in Holy Scripture (A Compend of Luther's Theology, 133). This leaves open the question whether it is enough for custom not to be against Scripture or whether it must be posi­tively deduced from Scripture.

See NONCONFORMITY, CULTURE, SEPARATION, WORLDLINESS.

M. Estes Haney

This OT theme receives a further development in the NT, particularly in the Johannine literature. Darkness is clearly equated with evil and there­fore described as a natural condition of the world. Moreover, the world itself is darkness, and Jesus came into the world to give light to those who walk in darkness (John 8:12; cf. Isa. 9:2). Darkness is also the natural condition of the human heart (John 3:19; see also Matt. 6:23; Eph. 5:8-14).

The apostle Paul expounds this theme and ar­gues that a conversion experience brings a per­son from darkness to light, an event analogous to God's creation of light out of darkness (2 Cor. 4:3-6; Acts 26:23). God's creative work in the life of a believer also includes deliverance from the dominion of darkness (Col. 1:13). Therefore it is possible to address the believers as "the saints in light" (v. 12), "sons of light" (1 Thess. 5:5), and "the light of the world" (Matt. 5:14). Yet there re­mains the possibility for a believer to return to darkness by his own sinful actions (2 Cor. 6:14; 1 John 1:6).

In the NT the term "darkness" also receives eschatological application. Those who continue to dwell under the dominion of darkness are des­tined for the underworld of gloom and eternal darkness (Matt. 8:12; 2 Pet. 2:17; Jude 6).

See light, evil, hell.

For Further Reading: Kittel, 7:423-45; Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, 14-17.

Alexander Varughese

DARWINISM. This refers to the naturalistic evo­lution theory taught by Charles Darwin in his 1859 publication, The Origin of Species. It the­orizes that all biological organisms have origi­nated from some form of unicellular life which happened to begin to exist; and that a process of natural selection, in which the fittest members of each species tend to survive and to reproduce their kind, has resulted in all the species that did exist and all the present ones.

Darwin taught that animal life tends to re­produce itself according to the geometric ratio (2, 4, 16), whereas plant life, that which animal life so much needs for its survival, tends to repro­duce itself only according to the arithmetic ratio (2, 4, 6, 8). Consequently, organisms tend to come into conflict with each other in order to ob­tain food supply. In this conflict, the weaker ones die and the fittest ones tend to survive and re­produce themselves.

The theory still enjoys at least a general kind of acceptance in the field of science; but evangelical Christianity has not accepted the view, teaching, instead, that God created each species—or, at least, each of the "kinds," of Genesis 1—2, which a few evangelicals think might mean families in­stead of species.

See evolution, theistic evolution, naturalism, creation, creationism.

It was a day of fasting and repentance, 24 hours in which no work was to be done (v. 29). At an assembly in the Tabernacle (later the Tem­ple) special sacrifices were offered to make atonement for the priesthood (vv. 6, 11), the