A Look at Christ and Culture
The Church began with a flurry of activity. Jesus, the man who began, and indeed was this movement, had been horribly executed, but rose again after a few days. He did not immediately return to his father, but rather stayed around for a while, giving his disciples an even more complete instruction about who he was. After a while, a little more than a month in fact, he ended his earthly ministry, saying, among other things, “…you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8) And so, those in the church, about one-hundred twenty souls, waited for this to happen. With a dramatic commotion, the Spirit did come at Pentecost, inspiring and motivating preaching, healing, and other signs of the dawning of the Christian Church. Everything was shared, and the believer’s were “one in heart and mind” (Acts 4:32). This did not last. Eventually, the passion and excitement of the initial days abated. The Church was no longer filled with those who had known Jesus directly and were at Pentecost, rather the majority were those who had heard about him from a dynamic preacher and responded to the message given. As the initial enthusiasm wore off, believers realized that they were now in a new position. Christ was their guide and Lord, the savior of their souls, but they were not yet fully realizing the coming Kingdom. Christ had come, bringing power over death and life, but he had not yet come to inaugurate his rule fully. So, as members of Christ’s kingdom, yet sojourners in another, a pertinent question arose: How then should we live both in Christ and in culture?
This question has never received a direct single answer. Rather, answers of all sorts, shapes, and styles have abounded throughout history in attempting to understand how our Christianity and our current world interact. In his book Christ and Culture H. Richard Niebuhr attempts to survey the multitude of responses. Because of the plethora of subtle shades and nuances which abound, he creates a basic framework in which to gain a general overview of the responses. There are five general categories of response, in which he feels, can provide models for analysis. The first is Christ against culture, in which Christ, and thus Christianity, was seen as opposed to the culture. The second was Christ of Culture, the polar opposite of the first, in which Christ was not seen to have any issue with culture, that the two could interact easily and promote each other. Niebuhr’s final three were the positions that fall between these two ends of the spectrum, each with a slight difference in emphasis: Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox, and Christ the transformer of culture. Each of these five views have major movements as supporters.
Rather than provide a simple overview of these five views, which while a useful exercise may not be the best use of the brief space of this paper, I will instead discuss my own placement within this framework and some of the questions that Niebuhr’s models raise in my mind. I am from a long line of Christians. The tendency of my family history has always been conservative, though with a fierce streak of individuality. It seems as though my forbears always wanted to be in on the newest movements, following where, they felt, the Spirit was active in both word and deed, without much of a regard and commitment to a specific tradition. This tendency influenced an early association with Methodism, moving on to the Christian Church as they moved West, and as Methodism lost its initial drive. Finding themselves in California early in the century, my family began to attach itself to the Fundamentalist movement, transforming along with many others easily into Evangelicals. This is where I find myself today, decidedly Evangelical, both theologically and culturally. This is, in this era, a very broad term which does not at all narrow down in which model of Niebuhr’s I would be placed. Historically, however, this is true as well, since examples of my families past can be placed in virtually each category.
If I had to choose a model to be in, the model would probably be “Christ and Culture in paradox.” Those who hold this view “dissent from the synthesists’ definitions and combinations of Christ and culture” (Niebuhr, 149) which seeks to co-operate with culture. But, it also desires “to seek to do justice to the need for holding together as well as for distinguishing between loyalty to Christ and responsibility for culture.” (ibid.) There is an inherent conflict between the Holy God and the sinful culture, but we have been place within that culture and cannot get out of it, thus God provides the grace to live within it. In looking at the view of Paul on the situation of the Christian in this world, Niebuhr states, “As far as this world was concerned it was their [the Christians] task to work out their salvation, and their gift to live in the spirit of Christ in whatever community or station in life they had been apprehended by the Lord.” (Niebuhr, 164)
The reason I would place myself here is my family does not seem to reflect a direct struggle with the culture around them, rather viewing culture as something which we must work in, but is not our focus in life. Just as there are paradoxes in other aspects of Christianity (i.e. law and grace, God and man, eternal and temporal) so there exists an inability to truly combine the two aspects. It is a bridge which cannot be crossed, but which must still be struggled with. In short, there is not an easy answer or reaction to be given. This is reflected in my reading and reaction to Niebuhr’s thoughts on the subject. The questions and criticisms which were raised in my mind, on further reflection themselves show an adherence to this model. It is these questions which I will now direct my thoughts, and on reflection of which will show my own inherent leaning.
My first comment on Niebuhr’s model has to do with his perspective on the Christ and Culture question itself. His opening chapter on his definitions of the terms was an excellent reminder on the importance of making sure that there is a common understanding of vocabulary before a discussion is ensued. Niebuhr in his explanations of the two main terms reflects the theological slant of his own views, which I believe tended toward neo-orthodoxy. With this he tends to shape his models with culture as the monolithic whole to which Christ must respond. The question he asks history is how does Christianity relate to culture? He views culture as being a whole to which Christianity must somehow learn how to deal with in some way. This, to me, does not seem like the proper Christian question. Rather, we must be in a position to where we force the culture around us to ask, “What do we do with Christianity?”. This seems to me to be the stance that Jesus took. His example as Christ and culture was glossed over by Niebuhr, but I feel that it is vital that we look to him for guidance.
Jesus was definitely in a culture. Yet, his life reflected a removedness from this culture that did not so much reflect a transcendence as something more. I think if we came to terms what this “more” is we can come to have an understanding of our own role in society. He was an intruder into history, the reality meeting the shadow so to speak. And while he was a Jewish male living in the first century he was not exactly integrated within his culture. This fact infuriated and confused those around him as they sought to understand what he was about, because he did not just not conform to a model, but was himself an authoritative model on his own. He brought the kingdom of heaven to Earth, and humanity did not know what to do with it. He forced his culture to ask how it would adapt and deal with him, rather than ask how he would deal with culture. He felt himself to be the inflexible whole, with culture being flexible – Niebuhr seems to be looking at Christianity as flexible with culture as the static source to be dealt with. So, there is a question here that must be asked in regard to the starting point of the inquiry. And by assuming his starting point is the same throughout time he has a tendency to take answers to his question from examples that were asking different questions (i.e. his portrayal of Paul).
The other question which was raised in my mind was whether perspective has a bearing on one’s view of this question. A person within a culture looking out might have a different perspective than someone outside looking in. What brought this to mind was his use of Tertullian and Tolstoy as “Christ against culture” adherents. Both of these men have some harsh criticisms of the world around them, and encourage a separateness. Yet, both of them were enmeshed within their own culture. Tertullian, for example, wrote an entire book on why Carthaginians should not wear a toga, because it was a cultural sell-out to Rome. He dealt with cultural interactions, and did not encourage total separation from society. As a lay person, he dealt with the culture around him and realized that there was much that did not fit in with Christian standards and beliefs. So, he encouraged some distance to be made from some cultural ideals. Those outside of culture (i.e. Christians reacting to traditional practices and standards) may encourage an engagement with the culture. There is not necessarily a different theological view involved here, but rather simply a different perspective on the issue. It is vital to take account of the historical situation involved and not take statements out of the context they arose.
I also wonder if there is a need to look at the culture itself. Paul had much more of a chasm between his Christian ideals and the Hellenistic ideals than Niebuhr did between his theology and his culture in the 1950s. I think that a reaction can be fluid within the models depending on the cultural situation to which we are exposed. Again, this goes back to the idea that as Christians we are called to be Christ-like in all that we do. How we react to a specific cultural situation depends on the situation more than a general rule. Luther, for example, did not have a ideal relationship with his government, but was allowed to work in relative freedom, thus his two kingdoms approach arose. The examples Niebuhr drew on are skewed for comparison because each person was operating in a vastly different cultural context, so of course their reactions would differ. This does not account for every variation of opinion, but it does need to be brought up.
The question of Christ and Culture is one which has to be dealt with. Not because of the importance of the query itself, but rather because it is an issue we all face everyday whether we acknowledge it or not. Niebuhr gives us some general models which have been shown to be the range of reactions to this difficulty. His framework provides a way of giving order to a very fluid history of reactions. Yet, in doing this Niebuhr is reflecting a need of his era to provide these kind of frameworks, to force into specific boxes every nuance of thought. In doing this, I think he raises some excellent issues and forces one to think on how this is to be dealt with. Ultimately, however, I think this is a moot question to ask. For, in my reading of the various authors, the question is not how we are to live our Christianity in the midst of our culture, but rather how, being in a culture, are we to live in Christ. This is a theological question rather than a sociological one. We have been given the law of love to live by, and the mind of Christ to give us counsel. The law of love is too vague for some people to live by, and they need specific guidelines and models of thought. But the only authoritative command in specifically dealing with Christ and Culture is when Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Luke 20:25). And so we must figure out in our own lives what this means, and seek to live in Christ in Culture, until the time comes when the Kingdom comes and there will be no variance between the two.
