The conflict between Christ and culture is not new and neither is it rare. It is a daily occurrence as boundaries are blurred and culture develops. Christians have been viewed more often than not as subversive because of a belief that they are destined for more than just a human destiny. Many times they have paid a high price for it and continue to do so, from early Christian martyrs of Rome to those who refuse to bend their beliefs to desires of a communist state. In many nations of modern world underground church is still being persecuted.

Such cases are disturbing but expected. In many nations there are overt and covert attempts to silence religion, that is out of favour, from being expressed in public institutions. Religious views are being marginalised and reduced to impotent fairy tales better suited to children's bedrooms before a good night kiss, or perhaps some trivial, private and quiet hobby like stamp collecting. Religion is seen as an activity not befitting an intelligent public-spirited adult. Religion is seen as a past-time not a lifestyle. The issue is very much current as well as historical. To tackle question of Christ and culture we should clearly define Christ and culture.

Christ as Son of God points us away from many values man tends to prioritise and to one God who is truly good. Yet at same time, Jesus is a mediator between God and man, in Jesus we see God's love for man as well as man's love for God. Christ in us is a joining of two. This duality in Christ leads us to a corresponding duality of expression of Christ in us.

Our faith has both a vertical dimension (directed to God Father through Christ in us) and a horizontal dimension (directed through Christ in us to our neighbour). Any adequate address of Christ and culture needs to emphasise both that we are seated with Christ in heavenly places, above and beyond world and hate world, in that we find no cause for identity in it, and at same time God in fact gave His life for world as a result of His love for mankind, and enjoins us to do same.

We hate sin but love sinner. Culture comprises of language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organisation, inherited artefacts, technical processes, and values.

So what happens when Christ and culture collide? How are we to deal with Christ and culture in daily life. Here are a few ideas of how Christians have often dealt with this issue.

1. Christ is against culture The most radical answer is that Christ is against culture. God is sole authority for Christian, presenting Christ and culture as an either/or choice. If we follow Christ we must reject any loyalty to culture.

Do not love world or anything in world. If anyone loves world, love of Father is not in him (1 John 2:15).

Some would argue that prince of this world is Satan therefore to choose culture is to choose loyalty to devil.

All state obligations are against conscience of a Christian - oath of allegiance, taxes, law proceedings and military service. Christians in this view are encouraged to separate themselves from culture, either individually as Tolstoy did, or corporately as Mennonites have done, as a monastic community.

The integrity of those adhering to this option is shown firstly, in their willingness to suffer martyrdom in some cases under evil governments, and secondly, in social reforms they provoke.

The problem with this option is that it is impossible to separate oneself from culture as it permeates our thinking and language, in fact it is as much around us as it is in our heads. Though it may be possible to keep some evil aspects of culture out of our communities by separatism, we cannot rid ourselves of our own predisposition to sin.

If Amish live apart from state institutions or from mainstream technology and consumerism, all they succeed in doing is creating sub-cultures that while they may be counterculture, never attain to acultural status. The fact that a monastic lifestyle often required many rules and forms of discipline is proof enough of inherent tendency of man to fall into old patterns of sin. Because of this, separatist groups tend to adhere to grades of holiness that can only be maintained through works. Claiming that monastic life lead to greater holiness is why Luther said that it was not only unnecessary but, if it was chosen for this reason, it would become an institution of devil!

Separatism also only emphasises Christ's role in drawing us away from culture (the vertical dimension) but ignores God's role in our continued relationship with culture (the horizontal dimension). If Tolstoy was right, a Christian should pay no taxes, something that Jesus Christ said we should do. Jesus also tells us to love our neighbours, who are for most, part found in mainstream culture where practical works of love have to be culturally relevant to people who need God's love to understand it as such.

A different perception of God has arisen in Evangelical Christianity that while not being new, has challenged way we have always thought about God's nature. This paradigm shift is seen by it's authors to bring us closer to biblical conception of God. The book is called The Openness Of God and is seen to be very controversial in it's perception of God and will have sweeping effects on every other area of evangelical thought and life.

The God shown in this book is not immutable monarch controlling human history and man's individual lives but rather a loving and suffering Father who has chosen to allow man's actions to affect Him in very real ways. At face value what they propose looks like Libertarian process theology with a twist of arminianism. But it seems it is actually much more. These authors introduce us to a God who is with us in time through self-limitation and does not know future in absolute detail. This new view of God is called "the open view of God," "creative-love theism," or "free-will theism." It is extreme Arminianism, but stops short of full-on process theology.

Some definitions may be helpful at this point, there are two main theological beliefs currently accepted by mainstream church, Armenianism and Calvinism. Arminianism is belief that God has given man choice to accept or reject Him. Predestination is conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to gospel. It is also possible for a believer to fall from grace. Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born again of God.

Calvinism states that fallen man is totally unnable to save himself, and that God's electing purpose was not conitioned by anything in man. That Christ's atoning death was sufficient to save all men, but efficient only for elect. That God's grace is irresistable to elect of God and that they being regenerated and redeemed will persevere in faith.

Less commonly accepted, is Process Theology which is more philosophically than biblically or confessionally based. Process Theology is belief that God is evolving with universe and does not know future but is learning along with his creation, He is confined to time and thus knows possibilities and probabilities but He doesn't know actualities.

The Openness of God is not a new concept. In sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Socinians made same argument. "God does not know, in such a way that whatsoever he knows will surely come to pass." So in regard to human choices, God knows future possibilities but not future certainties.

Both Calvanists and Arminians, along with most part of christendom affirmed God's foreknowledge of human choices.

John Calvin wrote,"[God] foresees future events only by reason of fact that he decreed that they take place." Jacob Arminius wrote,"[God] has known from eternity which persons should believe...and which should persevere through subsequent grace."

Christian orthodoxy has never denied God's foreknowledge of human choices. Both Arminianists and Calvinists ( whole church) do not agree with Open theology.

I believe that a defective doctrine of God would affect all areas of Christian life and leadership as well as discipleship to bring about an eroding of glory due to God. Your theology will directly influence your leadership style and outworking of your salvation. After all your conceptualisation of God's nature is what is imitated and lived out in daily life.

Openness theology is not necessarily an extension of Arminianism and neither is it opposite of Calvinism, nor even a response to calvinist tradition. Instead it appears to be another tangent in quest to reconcile divine providence and human freedom with a little input from Process theology.The followers of this particular view are I believe genuinely concerned with preaching word of God and work of discipling others in Christ. Nevertheless, it does seem clear that openness theologians lack adequate scriptural grounding and are outside of theological mainstream with regard to God's omniscience and providence. Biblically, future appears to be less open than they propose.