My Theology on Culture

Introduction

In “The Perscription Against the Heretics,” Tertullian asks the question, “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens…?” Specifically speaking, Tertullian rhetorically asks his audience what religion has to do with philosophy. What does religion have to do with philosophy? Broadly speaking, however, Tertullian asks a question about the Christian religion and culture. What does the Christian religion have to do with culture? The interaction between faith and culture can date back to the dawn of time itself. Scholars, such as Andrew Crouch, see God and the first man Adam creating and cultivating culture in the Garden of Eden. In the Garden of Eden, culture had a perfect relationship with people because the culture, the people and the relationship itself were all perfect. Perhaps if the Fall had never occurred, it would have stayed that way and a discussion about the relationship of Christians and culture would not be needed. Yet a fall into sin did occur, which resulted in a corruption of humans and a corruption of culture. Since that fall, believers in the faith have struggled on how to handle culture and its imperfections.

One of the greatest attempts to answer this question of faith and culture came from H. Richard Niebhur in his book Christ and Culture. In Christ and Culture, Niebhur presents five approaches on culture: Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ in paradox with culture, Christ above culture, and Christ transforming. Niebhur seems to side with Christ transforming culture because he spends most of his time discussing Christ transforming culture, and he does not list any negative aspects to the position. Niebuhr’s book has come under criticism, besides his heavy favoring towards the Christ transforming culture view. Many scholars, such George Marsden and Andy Couch, point out that Niebhur poorly defines both “Christ” and “culture.” Evangelical critics and Anabaptist critics alike criticize Niebhur for improperly categorizing the categories, putting Christian denominations and movements in the wrong category, and not allowing categories to cross over. All these criticisms, however, do not provide an excuse to ignore Christ and Culture. Clearly, all five categories can be seen in the church’s attempt to deal with culture. Niebuhr’s views, as presented in Christ and Culture, merely need to be corrected. This paper will attempt to make those corrections. Instead of viewing the topic as Christ and culture, this paper will view the topic as Christians and culture. This paper will view culture as multi-faceted. Because of a multi-faceted view of culture, this paper will conclude that all five categories meshed together, in proper context, is the best way to view culture.

Christians Against Culture

Christians against culture fully reject culture. These Christians see the culture in the world as sinful and evil because of the fall. According to Christians against culture, culture is sinful because culture has rejected the Lord as authority. Therefore, since Christians accept Jesus as Lord, Christians should not have anything to do with someone or something that does not acknowledge Jesus as Lord, such as culture. If Christians should avoid everything sinful, then the Christians against culture would say to avoid oppose culture because culture is evil.

Biblical Examples

Christians against culture would quote the New Testament epistles for their reasons to oppose culture. Romans 12:2 tells the reader not to conform to the world, but be transformed. A Christian against culture would interpret to mean to not conform to culture, but instead reject culture to grow spiritually. In all of John’s epistles, when John talks about “the world” (except for two occurrences), it refers to secular culture. In 1 John 2:15, John says a true Christian cannot love both God and the world. If anyone loves the world, that person does not love God. Throughout John’s epistles, John continues to emphasize that anyone who loves the world cannot love God, which means that person is not a Christian. Christians against culture would say that “the world” in John’s epistle could be interchangeable with “culture.” Those who love culture cannot love God, and thus they are not Christians. Christians cannot love culture. This rejection of the world not only appears in John’s epistles, but also in John’s other writings. Revelation shows the world rejecting God, accepting an evil antichrist and fighting against everything good and Christian. A Christian against culture could not support that kind of world. If the world rejects the Christian faith, then the Christian faith must reject the world. John continues the thinking into his Gospel book. People commonly paraphrase John 15:19 as a command to be in the world, but not of the world. In John 17:14-16, John quotes a prayer from Jesus, where Jesus shows the contrast between his disciples and the world. John isn’t the only New Testament writer who stands against culture. According to Christians against culture, Matthew used Christ’s sermon on the mount to persuade the Jewish Christians to reject the Roman culture and to motivate them to go back to the Jewish culture. To follow God and obey his commands, a person must reject the secular culture.

 

Historic Examples

The earliest examples of Christians against culture date back to the early church fathers. Letters from these early church fathers, such as Barnabas and Clement, showed the early church fathers made sure they lived lives different from culture, and from all cultures. Christians saw themselves different from both the Jewish culture and the Roman culture, almost making themselves their own special culture. The epitome of the early church Christians against culture would go to Tertullian. Tertullian believed culture was so evil, if it weren’t for culture, humans would enter this world purely good. Tertullian saw non-Christian culture as savage, and  Christians he saw as mature and civilized. Tertullian believed Christians should not practice politics or government because they made the Christian living in the Roman Empire have to choose between Christ and Caesar. Tertullian refused to listen to philosophy believing it had nothing to do with religion. All in all, Tertullian distanced himself as far away from culture as possible, believing culture was pagan at heart.

A more modern example of Christians against culture would be the fundamentalists of the early twentieth century. Fundamentalist arose out of conservative Protestant Christianity during a time of increasing liberal Christianity. In a time when liberal Christians focused on themselves saving society, conservative fundamentalist Christians focused on saving the souls of the individual. While liberal Christians saw God returning in them, conservative fundamentalists patiently awaited Christ’s second return. These differences in doctrine would lead to difference in practices. When fundamentalists rejected a Christ returning in Christian hearts and accepted a literal return of Christ, they took on a view that Christians could not save culture; only Christ could. If Christ cannot save culture until he returns, then society could not currently be saved. Therefore, the fundamentalist had no need for human reform. They remained focused on saving souls from hell. Eventually, it would become saving souls from culture. After successfully evangelizing to a person, fundamentalists would encourage the newly saved Christian to pursue holiness in order to continue to save themselves from culture. Any human reform or social movement became suspicious of being liberal.

Yet fundamentalism became a social movement themselves, but of a religious social movement. They upheld many fundamental Christian doctrines that were under attack by liberal Christians, such as the inerrancy of Scripture and miracles, but the fundamentalists did more than just merely uphold them. They fought for them because they believed that true doctrine kept society in tact, while false doctrine destroyed society. Their militant attitude towards keeping such doctrine led to their defeat in popular opinion. Fundamentalism would never gain approval in mainline Protestant denominations in northern America because it lacked tolerance and focused more on being right. Then, when the Scopes Trial put fundamentalist on trial, fundamentalists came out looking like reactionary, anti-intellectually rednecks. The humiliations made the fundamentalists believe they were the rejected minority, although they grew in numbers. Therefore, they retreated from culture, both liberal Christian and non-Christians. They formed their own culture, one where everyone had to hold on to the same doctrine, no matter how big or how small. Overall, when the fundamentalist Christians went against culture, they separated totally from the world, putting themselves in their own little world.

Christians of Culture

Christians of culture are the complete opposite of Christians against culture. Christians of culture do not see culture as sinful and evil, but good and righteous. Therefore, any good act in culture comes from God. Christianity becomes what is good in culture and doing good things in culture. Christians of culture see Jesus as a good teacher and activist who brought about great change in the Jewish and Roman world during the first century. Therefore, being Christian means taking the same course and bringing about social reform in the culture which a Christians lives. In this way, culture becomes Christian by becoming better.

Biblical Examples

The Garden of Eden, as found in Genesis chapters 1 & 2, shows a time and place without sin. The Garden of Eden, existing for a time on earth, has culture, just like any other civilization that spent time on earth. The Creation account shows God creating culture out of nothing. Then God passes off the duty of creating culture to the first man Adam. Adam creates culture by naming the animals and tending to the Garden of Eden. Culture can be seen in the relationship between God and man, as well as the relationship between man and woman, for relationships are a part of culture. In this small window of a perfect, culture existed, and it was not against God. God and culture were the same, and so humans and culture were the same. If humans accommodated with the culture before the Fall, surely humans can accommodate with the culture after the fall, too.

To prove humans can accommodate with the culture after the Fall, go no further outside the Old Testament. Just look at the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel in the Old Testament could not separate their religion from the rest of the culture, such as the food they eat, the clothes they wore, the language they spoke and the holidays they celebrated. In fact, the Israelites’ religion told them what foods to eat, what clothes to wear and what holidays they celebrated. The Israelites did not separate culture from religion, but rather, they accommodated. Religion accommodated culture, culture accommodated religion. The Israelites, commanded to be a light to the Gentiles, were suppose to demonstrate to the Gentile nations what a culture looked like when God ruled, and they were to show it made culture better, too. Most likely, Old Testament Israel remained unsuccessful in communicating this message, due to idolatry. Yet if Israel did communicate this message successfully, it would have displayed God in culture.

Historical Examples

Nineteenth and twentieth century liberal Christians show the world what Christians of culture look like, and they demonstrate it through the Social Gospel movement. Christian liberalism in America developed out of American liberalism itself. Nineteenth century Americans began to believe humanity could be perfected, to the point of becoming divine itself. Americans believed they could achieve this perfection through progressing in scientific knowledge and in technological production. Yet scientific knowledge and technological production still lacked morals. So many Americans simply merged the Christian religion with “American religion” to give the American religion morals. The problem that arose from this merger was that Christianity merely accommodated to culture to serve culture, not for culture to serve Christ. Nevertheless, this merger of Christianity and American civic religion brought about progressive reform, such as regulation of corporations and social justice. Examples of such would be anti-trust laws and child labor laws.

Seeing the positive reforms in culture, Christians of culture jumped on the Progressivism bandwagon to form the Social Gospel. Christians of culture rejected premillennialism because premillennialism believed that only Christ’s return could bring about change in the world, so change happening in the present could not happen. Instead, Christians of culture accepted postmillennialism, believing God would change culture through humans. Christians of culture saw salvation meant more for society as a whole, not the individual. Christians of culture used the Social Gospel to do good and bring about justice to the fallen world. Christians of culture created the YMCA, Salvation Army and other rescue missions in order to bring love and justice to the poor in the cities. In exchange, however, Christians of culture became liberal Christians, denying many Christian doctrines and watering down others.

Christians in Paradox with Culture

Both Christians against culture and Christians of culture stand at two opposite extremes. Christians against culture stand at the conservative extreme, while Christians of culture stand on the liberal end. Niebuhr presents three “in-between” options. Only one of them is truly an “in-between” option because the other two options do have a conservative or liberal lean on spectrum, although they are not as extreme as Christians against culture or Christians of culture.

Christian in paradox with culture lean towards the conservative end of the spectrum, although they do not take the same extreme as the conservative Christians against culture. While both the Christian against culture and the Christian in paradox with culture profess culture to be sinful and evil, Christians in paradox to culture admit they cannot escape culture, while Christians against culture try their hardest to separate from culture. Christians in paradox see themselves living in two different realms: the realm of faith and the realm of culture. Since Christians live in both realms, Christians in paradox with culture realize that culture can seep into faith, for better and for worse, but their concern is mostly with sin corrupting the church. Christians in paradox with culture see their faith constantly in tension with the culture. Therefore, the Christians in paradox with culture believe their job is to constantly correct the church from the evils of culture in order to keep them pure. Through the church, God will uphold His followers and bring about His will.

Biblical Examples

The best Biblical would be none other than Jesus Christ. Christ’s teachings always came into conflict with the Jewish culture of the first century. For example, the first century Jews taught law, while Jesus taught grace. The Jews taught God’s wrath, while Jesus taught God’s mercy. The second best example would be the apostle Paul. Paul’s teachings continued to contrast the faith and the culture with dualism. Those who lived in the world lived in darkness, but those who lived in the Christian faith lived in light. The non-Christians are slaves to sin, but the Christians are slaves to Christ. Both Jesus and Paul seemed to see life as always in tension with the culture they were living in.

Historical Examples

Many church reformers during the Reformation period believed in Christians in paradox with culture because of the church-state ties with the Catholic Church and Holy Roman Empire. Martin Luther sticks out of all those reformers as one of the leaders of Christianity in paradox with culture. Luther believed Jesus defined what actions are moral. Jesus uses those moral definitions to build a moral community within the church. On the other hand, Jesus does not command the culture of the community outside the church. He lets them go to their own free will. Martin Luther was one of the first reformers to decide which philosophies outside the church Christians could accept and which philosophies Christians should reject. Luther also allowed Christians to pursue art and education from secular culture. Yet the Christians still had to abide to Christian laws and commands, especially those commands that contracted cultural norms.

 

Christians above Culture

Christians above culture take another “in-between” view on the spectrum, but they take a liberal lean, although not as liberal as the Christians of culture. Christians above culture directly oppose Christians against culture and Christians in paradox with culture because they believe that the church cannot be fully separate or fully opposed to culture. Instead, Christians above culture synthesize the church with culture. God lives and moves in both the church and the culture. Therefore, Christians must live and move in culture, too. Christians must strive to achieve goodness in both the faith and the culture they live in. For examples, Christians must submit to both God and the government. When a Christian achieves this goodness, God uses this person to advance the culture in ways the culture can advance by divine grace. In God’s grace, God calls Christians above culture in a relationship with Him, and then he sends them back down to culture to advance it.

Biblical Examples

The first Biblical example appears with all the patriarchs in Genesis, especially Abraham. God blessed Abraham, promising that Abraham would bless the world through Abraham’s blessings. Abraham lived a life above the culture by having a relationship with God very few people in that culture had. Because Abraham had the relationship, God blessed him. In turn, Abraham blessed everyone Abraham came in contact with, such as the king of Egypt and the king of Gerar. God blessed the cultures of Egypt and Gerar through his follower Abraham.

A later Biblical example comes from the remnant of Israel during their exilic period. An exiled Israel, consisting of the nation’s finest people, lived in Babylon for seventy years. One of those fine men was Daniel. Daniel lived a life above culture. He pursued his relationship with God as his highest priority. He refused to eat the meat King Nebuchadnezzar sacrificed to the Babylonian gods. He continued to pray to the Lord when Darius passed a law forcing his subjects to only pray to him. God blessed Daniel for his obedience, and Daniel, in turn, used it to bless the Babylonians. God gave King Nebuchadnezzar dreams, Daniel interpreted them for Nebuchadnezzar, and Nebuchadnezzar praised and worshiped God. Daniel lived above the Babylonian culture and brought advancement to the Babylonian culture through the king.

Christians Transforming Culture

Christians transforming culture take a moderate “in-between stance” on culture. Christians transforming culture do not see culture as evil as the Christians against culture or the Christians in paradox with culture. Christians transforming culture do not believe that culture is as good as the Christians of culture and the Christians above culture claim it is. Christians transforming culture see culture as a perverted good that needs to be converted to good. The Christians transforming culture, like the Christians of and above culture, claim culture can be converted, unlike the Christians against culture and the Christians in paradox of culture, who claim culture is beyond saving. Christians transforming culture have a positive outlook and a hopeful possibility of converting the culture to Christianity.

Historical Examples

Most examples of Christians transforming culture come from modern history, mainly twenty-first century evangelicals and the emerging church. Both seek to make the faith relevant to the culture. They show that culture can be redeemed by taking something from culture, which could be evil, and give it Christian values, guaranteeing it to be good. In turn, Christians evangelize their faith by creating their own culture with the culture of the secular world. For example, evangelical Christians have created a culture within Christianity that is pro-life, and that culture has grown so much, the culture is pushing out into American culture. All in all, evangelical and emerging Christianity has been able to defend Christianity with apologetics, while at the same time they preach a message of love.

 

Conclusion

In Christianity and Culture, Niebuhr categorizes the relationship between Christ and culture into five different categories: Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ of culture, Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox and Christ transforming culture. One of the biggest problems with Christianity and Culture is that Niebuhr shouldn’t have talked about the relationship between Christ and culture, but rather Christians and culture. This paper has reviewed all the categories again, but this time relating culture to Christians, not Christianity. By doing so, this paper has fixed a second problem with Niebuhr’s book, which is the simplified definition of culture. Culture cannot be simplified into one broad meaning, but must keep in mind that multiple cultures exist. This paper shows that each view has worked, in both Bible times and after Bible times in history. Therefore, each of these views should be considered because each view has worked at some place and at some time.

Each view does have both positives and negatives. Christians against culture remember to always keep God as the holy authority over a sinful world, but it forgets God created the world and it also forgets sin could happen within the church. Ultimately, most Christians against culture end up becoming separatists, living in their own little world. Christians of culture can find good in the culture, but they ultimately go liberal and take Christ out of the picture. Ultimately, Christians of culture go from liberal Christian to humanitarian atheists. Christians in paradox with culture recognize sin can happen in the church, but they also have a habit of separating the physical world from the spiritual world. Their idea of engaging culture ultimately becomes criticizing culture. Christians above culture seem to actually be living in the real world, attempting to make a Christian culture. Still, they depend on human efforts too much. They would claim that even so-called “Christians,” those who do not hold to orthodox doctrinal beliefs, could bring about good in culture. Christians transforming culture have more hope towards re-gaining a perfect creation that was lost in the Fall, but when they try to transform culture, their transformation seems to be a Christian copy of secular culture instead of creating culture itself. Since each view has both positives and negatives, no one can say one view works better than another view, which is even more the reason to consider all views.

If Christians want to grasp a correct view of culture, they need to consider all views of culture. Sometimes, a Christian needs to be against culture. Christians need to condemn sexual liberty that has developed in secular culture, such as premarital sex, extramarital sex and homosexuality. Sometimes, a Christian should be of culture. Christians should be involved in ending racism and sexism, as well as helping the poor and oppressed. Sometimes, a Christian needs to be in paradox with culture. When the culture world promotes revenge, Christians need to demonstrate forgiveness. Sometimes, a Christian needs to be above culture. Christians can work on lowering the divorce rate in society by developing marriage counseling programs and also lowering the divorce rate within the church as well. Sometimes, a Christian needs to transform culture. Christians do need to transform church into a program that reaches out to its culture yet uphold its faith statement. When Christianity begins to use all five views in the theology on culture, Christians will be able to engage in culture, reach the lost, preach love and keep their doctrinal statement and still be able to pursue holiness, all for the glory of God.