This was an assignment in Church History last semester. It was a very difficult read due to the organization of material, but somehow I managed to wade through it and put it into a framework I could understand better. If you have the patience, feel free to suffer through it. It will make for a good transition into the fruit of the Spirit - Long-suffering.
INTRODUCTION
Richard Niebuhr defines culture as the “artificial, secondary environment which man superimposes on the natural. It comprises language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organization, inherited artifacts, technical processes, and values.” To follow Niebuhr’s work comprehensively a definition of Christ must be attempted apart from culture so that proper attention can then be given to how Christ approaches culture. This leaves us with only the divine attributes of Christ to begin the definition since mankind and thereby Christ’s human nature through the Incarnation cannot be entirely separated from culture. The Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds identify the divine nature of Christ as fully God. Our understanding of Christ must then be that of fully God. We are faced with the pivotal truth and fact that Jesus Christ, fully God, entered the world through the Incarnation as fully man and therefore a cultural product himself as the Son of Man. As a man, Jesus Christ lived in, learned from, and ministered to culture. The “enduring question” that troubles us is how did Jesus interact with culture and how do we mimic his example in our endeavor for Christ-likeness. The nature of culture plays out in our relationships with one another. In the beginning, as God formed Adam He rapidly concluded based on His own nature that it was not good for man to be alone. Upon the creation of Eve and the subsequent command to rule and replenish the earth, culture was formed. God saw the potential of culture and it was good. The problems we encounter with culture are due to the fall of man and the subsequent corruption of culture as a result of man’s corruption. In Christ and Culture Richard Niebuhr attempts to identify a variety of approaches to the struggle between the life of a Christian and civilization around us.
OVERVIEW
Niebuhr outlines five types of Christian interaction with culture as the following: (1) Christ against culture, (2) Christ of culture, (3) Christ above culture, (4) Christ transforming culture, and (5) Christ and culture in paradox. Despite Niebuhr’s endeavor to coherently lay out each view aside from bias, he still manages to favor one particular view. His overall conclusion however is that each believer must reach his own conclusion through careful study as a matter of obedience to Christ. Having reached my own conclusion on the matter, we will firstly summarize each viewpoint before stating any response.
Christ against culture is one of the extremes of the five fold view. This approach focuses on the necessity to deny of self, recognize the Lordship of Christ and his sole authority, and completely reject culture as a product of a sinful world. Culture is viewed as temporal and passing whereas Christ is eternal. Niebuhr cites Tertullian and Tolstoy as prominent exemplifiers of this stance. Tertullian saw Christianity as a lifestyle very much separated from culture. Most proponents of this view have a preoccupation with final judgment, issues of consequence, and a sharply distinguished perspective of truth. Tertullian viewed Scripture as teaching “the avoidance of sin and fearsome preparation for the coming day of judgment.” Seventeen hundred years later, Tolstoy reiterates much of the same sentiment in his treatment of culture. For Tolstoy following Jesus Christ meant clear opposition to the institutions of culture. Tolstoy took a stand against economic, military, intellectual, philosophical, artistic and scientific institutions, seeing them as meaningless to the overall ethos of life. This perspective of withdrawal from culture has characterized many of the more ascetic groups throughout history such as the monastics, Quakers and other Protestant sects. The Christ of culture view swings to the opposite extreme than that of the separatists. These “cultural Christians” believe that Christ is the fulfillment and end goal of all culture. The accommodating nature of this view attempts to align the motives of Christ with that of culture’s accomplishments. Niebuhr invokes the examples of the early Gnostics and the medieval Abelard. The focal point of this outlook is on the horizontal relationships between mankind often to the detriment and loss of one’s vertical relationship with God. However the progress made in the area of social reform in light of this view is astounding and exemplary. Niebuhr refers to the work of Walter Rauschenbusch and his work on developing a theology for the social gospel. Rauschenbusch viewed culture and his ideal of the social gospel as the progression of Christianity to “narrow the influence of old, mechanical views of inspiration.” There is much scriptural support from Jesus’ teaching and his use of parables that lends credibility to the effectiveness of using culture to spread the gospel. Jesus often crossed seemingly difficult and impossible cultural barriers to preach the gospel throughout all of Israel. Culture is how we as humans relate and communicate with one another and it would be impossible to attempt to spread the gospel in a comprehensive manner without utilizing aspects of culture. Just as we are each affected by culture, this view of Christ sees him also as a product of culture. He was clearly Jewish, born and raised, and chose according to the will of the Father to begin God’s plan of redemption through the Jewish culture. Any attempt to dissociate Christ with Jewish culture attacks the core and history of Christianity at its roots in the Old Testament. While there are dangers to accepting every aspect and detail of culture without scrutiny, the repercussions of not understanding Christ from culture is a tendency towards an incomplete gospel. The relational and compassionate factor necessary between humans disappears which ultimately will also negate not only aspects of the Old Testament but much of New Testament teaching. Christ above culture calls for a synthesis of Christ and culture. Since mankind was created by God to function within community and therefore as part of a culture then culture cannot be entirely bad. Obviously culture cannot be perfect through man’s efforts alone since we are now fallen but the synthesist believes that Christ is the Lord of culture and as such they function in unison. The synthesist seems capable of maintaining the core of the hypostatic union in a manner not possible for the accommodationist or the legalist.
The synthesist appreciates the efforts and intentions of mortal law and respects civil authorities as having been given status and power by God. Niebuhr cites Thomas Aquinas as a synthesist with his view that Jesus is King over both the temporal and the eternal. Thomas Aquinas’ vision of the appropriate relationship between church and state is better realized in its separation today. Since this was not a reality in Aquinas’ day it was difficult for him to visualize and in light of this Niebuhr identifies several negative pitfalls with the synthesist view in the framework of a joint church and state. The problem with integration of church and state for the synthesist is that power and allegiance will always be an issue. However, when the powers that be are separated they are allowed to function equally as partners without the inherent struggle which has characterized attempts to combine church and state throughout history. The words of Jesus offer support for this view as well as he clearly separates the concept of church and state in his admonition to render to the state what is theirs and to God what is His. The Christ and culture in paradox view recognizes the validity of the synthesist view but denies the reality of true cooperation between Christ and culture. Martin Luther best dealt with the paradox with his view of the fallen nature of man. While we are saved by grace and no longer under the law, the law is still a necessary element because sin persists. In Luther’s view, a true Christian is no longer in need of the law in the sense that it is no longer a burden to him through Christ. The believer willingly does what is right and therefore does not come into conflict with temporal authority.
The downside of this view of Christ and culture is a level of passivity towards temporal rule that inhibits the progressive nature of culture. The problem in spiritual matters becomes one of struggle between sin and grace. Since we cannot rid ourselves of our sin nature and God’s grace flows freely then what purpose is there in the cessation of sin? The paradox begins to strafe into the realm of dualism.
The final perspective Niebuhr identifies is Christ transforming culture. This view closely resembles the paradox view but differs in its understanding of the hopelessness of sin. The conversionist does not hold that culture is irreparably lost but that Christ’s intent is to transform culture. This view matches the pattern of Christ’s ministry on earth. Jesus did not offer healing and restoration to those he came in contact with by sending them on to a better realm. Jesus provided wholeness to those he touched in the physical realm of the here and now. Niebuhr cites Calvin and F. D. Maurice as exemplary figures of the conversionist view. Calvin’s hope in the resurrection of the body aided him in holding to a healthy view of the physical while still allowing him to reject the negatives in culture and accept the good that culture purports. Maurice’s view incorporated culture as a wealth of diversity centered on Christ. Once Christ has been placed at the center of culture a transformation begins. Maurice’s interpretation of the impact of God’s oneness on mankind resulted in a more or less utopian socialist stance. Maurice saw a plethora of sin in the church’s internal strife over the matter of doctrine itself, its result in divisiveness and the overall lack of unity. For Maurice, the unity of the body was key to the transformation of culture.
Niebuhr summarizes his analysis with the statement that his study is “unconcluded and inconclusive.” It appears from Niebuhr’s writing that while he longs for an answer to the “enduring problem” he has accepted that one may never be found. Despite Niebuhr’s reluctance to articulate his own decisive response, he encourages the individual to wrestle with the question and make a decision reliant on faith but not independent of reason. RESPONSE
“But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift…and He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” The example of Christ’s character and interaction with culture throughout the New Testament utilizes aspects of each view proposed by Niebuhr. It is my opinion that Christ has given to each person a task that incorporates how one must approach and deal with culture so as to make the body a complete and functioning unit that ministers in and to culture. Unfortunately over the course of the last century much abuse has occurred in the misunderstanding of Christ’s empowerment to the five-fold ministry. In light of this abuse, as is the case with any spiritual gift, we shy away from what we do not understand. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and as the Son of Man simultaneously fills the role of prophet, pastor, teacher, evangelist and apostle. Christ against culture conveys the passion of the prophet. The Old Testament is teeming with occurrences of the prophets countering culture. “Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.” The prophet is countercultural, but intentionally so. It is the prophet’s task to observe and decry the errors of culture in order that the body of Christ may stay aligned with the Head. The Christ of culture translates the passion of the pastor. Not to be confused with its loose application today to any leadership role within the Church, the pastor assumes the role of shepherd to a flock. The shepherd eats, lives, and sleeps among his sheep caring for and nurturing their needs. It is not uncommon to find the pastor buried waist deep in the muck and mire of culture simply to lift a despairing sheep from the snares and dangers of the world. The role of the pastor demands understanding, compassion and social grace to effectively carry out his task within the body of Christ. The pastor is inseparably immersed in culture.
Christ above culture relays the passion of the teacher. In his pursuit of research, study and the amassing of knowledge the teacher strives to compartmentalize all tidbits of information into patterned and categorized application. The teachers greatest motivation is to convey knowledge to the body of Christ in the most meaningful and comprehensive manner. The use of culture to instruct believers is pivotal to this function and was often employed by Jesus as he taught his disciples and the crowds of people who came to him through parables. The synthesizing of culture with the purposes of Christ is necessary for understanding how we are to live in this world without being corrupted by it.
The Christ and culture paradox best explains the passion of the apostle as a founder, builder, and exhorter of the faith. Put quite simply, life is messy and it is the task of the apostle to approach culture with a clear understanding of the problem of sin and evil in the world. The apostle understands that without Christ sin will never be eradicated and it is the work of Christ alone that can accomplish such a thing. The apostle, much as Paul did throughout the New Testament, evaluates culture at the most practical level, often condemning both the letter of the law and complete lawlessness and attempts to reconcile the harmful and life-denying extremes in order that the body of Christ may grow and mature. The apostle both prunes and waters so that the yielding of fruit may be at its best.
Finally, Christ transforming culture communicates the passion of the evangelist. Niebuhr aligned this view with the work of John the Evangelist as the interlocking and analogous function of spiritual and natural events. The evangelist must believe with all his heart that he can be an instrument of transformation through the work of Christ and this belief becomes his driving force. The evangelist loves the Word of God with such fervor that he cannot help but preach the Good News from whatever pulpit he can muster. The evangelist proclaims the Kingdom of God both now and in the future. The evangelist infuses the body of Christ with hope for a better future, ever-focused on forward, progressive motion until we come into the presence and glory of God. The Church throughout history swings through popular phases of the various viewpoints presented by Niebuhr in Christ and Culture. Only the first century as documented in the New Testament provides an adequate view all five approaches to culture working together to promote substantial and significant growth comparable to that of a spiritual explosion. During the second and third centuries of the Church much attention was given to the view of Christ and culture in paradox as apostles and founding fathers in the faith strived to lay a foundation for the Church amidst persecution. Peppered throughout the early and middle age, the theme of Christ against culture can be observed as leaders sought to remain grounded in the faith in light of the continual onslaught of heresy. Christ of culture can be seen in history repeatedly emerging in times where the legalistic tendencies of countercultural thought threatened to stifle the experiential life of the Spirit in the Church. The ages of enlightenment and reason beginning with Abelard in the high Middle Ages ushered in an era of Christ above culture as intellectuals, mathematicians, artists, and scientists attempted to amass information and correlate the rapid influx of knowledge with their faith. The last two centuries have seen a shift to a view of Christ transforming culture as the prevalent and increasing expression of faith belonging to Evangelicals. Although perhaps not his intention, it seemed that Niebuhr also favored the transformation outlook. Each perspective as outlined by Niebuhr has contributed to the character and growth of the Church today in some fashion. But none of these views is capable of sustaining the Church by itself and the intermittent dysfunction associated with Christianity through the course of history bears witness to this fact. Each task or view was appointed with a purpose and function in the body of Christ and is meant to be implemented in unison with the others. What Niebuhr inadvertently identified are the ministerial passions of the body of Christ belonging to those who are called by God to love and serve His people and to reach the world. The reason why Niebuhr could not come to a satisfactory conclusion on which view is most appropriate is because there is no single correct view. Each perspective is correct when used as designed to work as part of the body, relaying the passions of God’s heart towards the redemption of mankind. If we disqualify any one of these perspectives we maim the body of Christ and any impact on or integration with culture will be pathetically inadequate.
APPLICATION
I readily identified with the Niebuhr’s explanation of Christ above culture. As a spiritually gifted teacher I recognized the validity and necessity of this stance. After carefully studying each view, I was able to understand the importance of each one and its contribution to the body of Christ even though that may not be my motivating passion. Over the past few years I have been learning to appreciate other’s ministerial gifts as necessary to the functioning of my own. The mindset of one person designed to be the spiritual jack of all trades is hastily declining.
I may not be able to confront culture as the countercultural view is capable of doing, but I must validate those efforts as vital to the function of the body and take those admonitions seriously. I may not be able to crawl down into the trenches with the pastor of culture but I can learn to love his dedication and compassion for people and the social gospel. I take great delight in the role of the synthesist to find connections and meaning between the purposes of Christ and the function of culture. In fact, on closer analysis one might even conclude that I have exemplified my passion for harmony by addressing the “enduring problem” through the synthesis of the separate views in this very paper.
Niebuhr warns of the dangers of taking the view of Christ above culture to its limit and so I must be cautious to balance my perspective with the cultural aspect of others’ ministries. I must allow the prophet to identify the evil present in culture, the apostle to discern between the balance of law and grace, the pastor to love people despite their fallen and ugly state, and the transformational power of the evangelist to change people’s lives. My contribution to the process is to offer knowledge and wisdom gained through study to the complexities of culture that come into contact with the body of Christ. Niebuhr’s enigma of Christ and Culture offers an intriguing field of study to contemplate further.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1951.
Rauschenbusch, Walter. A theology for the social gospel. New York: Abingdon Press, 1917.
Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. 2nd ed. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1995.
