How Christianity Changed the World

A brief analysis of women, sexual morality, and the sanctity of human life based on the work of Alvin Schmidt in How Christianity Changed the World. This was an assignment in Church History this semester. All discourse is welcome since I raise some controversial points and would love to sharpen iron with others attempting to process similar concepts.

Introduction

            It never ceases to amaze, how desperate the world’s efforts to diminish Christianity and its teachings. In How Christianity Changed the World, Alvin Schmidt researches and coherently presents a solid case for the vast influence Christianity has had in various areas and disciplines throughout history. From sexuality to science, literature to labor, education to economics, Schmidt weaves the teachings of Jesus through the fabric of the centuries.   

            The three areas that affect my ministry the most are: (1) The Sanctification of Human Life, (2) Christianity Elevates Sexual Morality, and (3) Women Receive Freedom and Dignity. Schmidt addresses these issues in the order they are listed, however my personal convictions dictate that the proper order is in the reverse. It is in this order that I will address the three topics beginning with women, followed by sexual morality, and ending with the sanctity of life.

Show what relevance Jesus’ view of women has for life among Christians today.

There is a fine line between oppression and objectification when it comes to women. Whereas the Jewish women were oppressed in role in one extreme, the Greco-Roman women were largely objectified as evidenced by practices such as temple prostitution and sexual immorality. Both are forms of slavery. The devaluation of women as equal to men diminishes their worth and ability to function as a whole and healthy individual. Women learn that their minds are neither trustworthy nor sufficient to exercise authority over her body. When the mind is removed from the process the emotions and body of an individual run rampant. Since this type of individual cannot function rationally in society, men find themselves intervening and stepping out of their individual spheres to exercise mental authority over processes that do not belong to them. When this occurs, the functions of women’s emotions and their bodies become subject to the whims of men. If women are asserted that they are indeed rational creatures and their minds are worthy of expression then they also learn to properly exercise authority over their own emotions and bodies.

Jesus discipled women as well as men and we see this in the instance of Jesus teaching Mary. Mary grasped Jesus’ purpose with such profundity that she was led to anoint him for his approaching burial. The matter of primary importance to Jesus was that he came to die and that his death would cover the sins of all mankind. Jesus’ purpose was about the cross, not about gender. We cannot champion masculinity at the expense of femininity; neither can we amplify femininity to diminish masculinity. Was Jesus a feminist? No, Jesus was a spiritual liberator of people.

Explain what relevance Jesus’ view of women has to radical feminism.

While Jesus clearly offered a discipleship of equals, there is no corresponding evidence that Jesus attempted to overthrow any earthly social system. Jesus did not abolish slavery neither did he abolish any patriarchal order. The freedom that Jesus offered is a spiritual freedom of the Spirit. The abolition of societal ills is an outworking of the spiritual freedom we have in Christ. If we believe in the words of Jesus that our desire is to see the kingdom of heaven instilled on earth then we must follow his example of freeing the oppressed and offering healing to the wounded. Jesus freed mankind spiritually and it is man’s obligation as steward of the earth to implement that same freedom in the physical realm by freeing men and women alike wherever oppression exists.

The usurpation of authority is a delicate matter, but one in which sensitivity is demanded of us as Christians. If the established order of a realm is patriarchal then that authority must be adhered to until release is offered. As with institutions such as the slave trade, biblical admonitions offer guidance in how to function as a believer under the oppressive situation. There is no doubt in the minds of many men and women that to this day women continue to live as oppressed both in the objectification of their sexuality and in the inequality and perception of their aptitude to function as highly as their male peers. The attempts of radical feminism while just in their existence and intent, qualify as a usurping of authority and because of this quality they cause more harm than good. The implementation of true change must occur at the heart of those who oppress. The laws of nature dictate that for every action there is an equal and opposing reaction. In light of this law it is easier to understand why the inception of feminism was closely followed by an astounding reaction in her objectification through areas such as pornography, birth control, abortion and the looming threat of infanticide. When the life giver steps forward to assume her place of equality, the enemy goes after her image and the life of her offspring.[1] The protection and affirmation of men as an accompaniment to this process is essential to the effective release of women into mental and spiritual equality.

Explain how today’s secular norm of “consenting adults” conflicts with what the early Christians believed and practiced in regard to sexual behavior.

            Born from Jewish roots, Christianity placed a great amount of emphasis on sexual morality as did those who adhered to the Law prior to Christ. The early Judeo-Christian perspective of women and their equality as ministers in the Church greatly healed the sexuality of those who believed in Christ. A clear connection existed of a mutual respect between men and women and the ability not to abuse one another for personal sexual gratification. Principles such as submitting to one another and serving one another altered the marital relationship to one of greater fullness and intentionality.

            The concept of “consenting adults” was not possible as we see it manifest today until the introduction of birth control to our society. Never before could sexual relations be severed from the act of procreation. With birth control came the idea that we were no longer required to produce fruit and that it need not be a part of the intimate sexual relationship. Jesus’ teachings and the practices of the early Church contradict this notion however. The idea that a believer would join together as one with Christ as His Bride and yet respectfully decline to bear the fruit of the Spirit because it was (a) poor timing, (b) difficult and uncomfortable to cultivate, or (c) an inhibition to one’s ability to pursue their own desires and goals, would be ludicrous. But this is a reality of our present day culture. Self gratification without the natural consequences of actions became the norm and gradually permeated the philosophy of many other disciplines. This should not be turned into a legalistic sanction dictating that all sexual activity is for reproduction, but it must be understood that all sexual activity has the design and intent to procreate of its own accord.  The inception of birth control as a norm necessitated further measures to ensure that the joining of two as one did not result in any “inconvenience” to personal gratification and pleasure, thus, abortion.

Using the early Christians as examples, how might people today counter sexually deviant behavior?

            With the removal of the procreation of life from the equation of man and woman joined together for a purpose, there are no longer any inhibitors to sexually deviant behaviors. Since we do not intend to procreate and it is merely an unfortunate consequence of our main pursuit, pleasure, then there is nothing that should dictate how we pursue that pleasure. Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and many other forms of sexually deviant behavior become logical since the only pursuit is self gratification. However, if we reintroduce the idea that God designed the sexual union between man and woman as a triune equation that includes the begetting of life then we counter all forms of sexually deviant behavior. Men cannot reproduce together, women cannot reproduce together, and children cannot reproduce before arriving at puberty.

            The modern day Church shot herself in the foot by embracing the lure of birth control; we did not recognize the slippery slope we approached. What we have ended up with is marriages far more sexually abusive and demanding than ever before in history. Adultery and divorce tear unbridled through the Church. The impact of this “pleasure only” mentality seeps into our spirituality as we find we can no longer derive pleasure from bonding with our Creator and we must introduce various foreign stimulators to enhance and enjoy our worship. We must continually be entertained by fresh and new practices. Our fidelity to fellow believers is a mockery of faithfulness as we slink from congregation to congregation searching for the right feel and what best suits our own personal needs and theology. Self-gratification rules in place of servitude.

Explain what modern Christians can learn from their early Christian ancestors with regard to abortion today.

            Schmidt identifies five categories under the mores of human life: (1) Infanticide, (2) Child Abandonment, (3) Abortion, (4) Human Sacrifices, and (5) Suicide.[2] The nature of these mores is progressive in intensity and does not begin with an initial devaluation of life, but an initial degradation of the conception of life – our sexuality – which follows the devaluation and a lack of genuine equality of women as part of the image of God. Abortion and the overall devaluation of human life is a natural consequence of a sexually sickened society. When we do not treasure the means by which we create life, we can no longer place value on the resulting life. The process begins with the view of women as objects. Jesus abolished this notion with his discipleship of equals and affirmation of women as worthy of his sacrifice and salvation. When men and women teach each other to love and care for their own sexuality as precious in the sight of God, we learn also the beauty of giving pleasure and serving others and we reap the joy of new life.

            God creates all life with intent and purpose. If we are truly created in His image then we must take seriously our responsibility to intentionally create life as well. The key component of sexual immorality is the ability to view human beings as objects devoid of personhood and sentience. The result of such an outlook towards our fellow man will always be an insatiable need to kill life, whether it is in the womb or on the deathbed. When we forsake the Son, who is quite literally the divine representation of all life, we forsake our own reflection in His image as being worthy of life. The early Christians placed equal value on the life-givers (women), the life-giving process (sexual intercourse), and life itself. We would do well to refocus our efforts likewise.  

Early Christianity stood for the sanctity of human life. Show how some of that sanctity is present in the world today.

Schmidt focuses a fair amount of effort on the topic of cremation. While a hope in bodily resurrection is identified as the driving force behind anti-cremation sentiments, the fear of preclusion on the basis of cremation seems illogical in light of the fact that God can form man from the dust of the earth. Disregard for the sanctity of life can be observed in other areas such as the entertainment industry and its obsession with violence and gore. While the mature mind is capable of compartmentalizing the real from unreal as we see through the vast usage of pornography, visual stimuli cannot differentiate between the two. Our minds may tell us that the violence is simulated but the windows to the soul cannot filter the information accordingly. This has a profound effect on younger minds incapable of governing the real and imaginary as it pertains to gaming and entertainment. To suggest that this is evidence of a complete lack of regard for sanctity of life does however fall short when we recognize the presence of a rating system. While it is a sad fact that such gruesome and licentious entertainment exists, a fragment of our morality remains in our ability to distinguish what is and what is not appropriate for certain age groups. No such distinction presented itself in the Roman-Greco culture and we have Christianity to thank for its presence today.[3]

A slow trickle in breakdown accompanied a demand for (as opposed to a release into) equality in the women’s rights movement and the induction of birth control as society realized fail-safes must be set in place for the inopportune spawning of life. The legalization of abortion in 1973 started the ball rolling and to this day we battle the progressive infiltration of death into more extreme areas of our life. On a daily basis we hear of occurrences of infanticide, child abandonment, and assisted suicide. Laws are continuously attacked as invasive to privacy if they guard the sanctity of life in any manner. To prevent an all out self imposed holocaust of death we must regress to the issue of women’s bestowed equality to counter this phenomenon. When genuine affirmation is conferred upon woman as equal in the image of God then the life-giver is no longer ashamed by the roles of her body in its ingrained sexuality, birthing capability, sustaining and nurturing functions. Because woman was not appropriately released into equality by men, forced instead to claw her way to the top, she abhors all that men impart to her, to include the very seed of life she is tasked to bear. Her focus, upon functional liberation, becomes one of intentionally creating life in contrast to the tendencies of our culture to affirm only her role of sexual gratification. Service to men becomes a byproduct of her desire to give life just as God’s desire to give us life through the sacrifice of His Son prompted Him to humble himself in service to mankind. 

Conclusion

            The broad scope of influence Christianity has had in all developments on earth is outlined and documented well in Schmidt’s work. The magnanimity of Christ’s impact in changing the world begs the question as to what will be the repercussions of present-day attempts to eradicate Christianity from the world. It has been my goal in this paper to identify how even the slightest of allowances contrary to God given structures such as authority, sexuality, and sanctity of life have consequences much greater than we could ever imagine. Altering the philosophy of the physical realm, ultimately impacts the spiritual realm as well. We alter our view of ecclesiastical authority and submission to the Word of God. We base our spiritual walk on what is pleasurable and tantalizing to our senses. We revel in the role of Christ’s Bride, but find ourselves devoid of the fruit and evidence of our union with God. In essence, we lose our witness to the world by rendering God’s Word impotent.

            How Christianity Changed the World points out that many discoveries and creations were a result of an underlying faith in the God of the Universe. Pursuing truth in any field becomes a cumbersome task when we remove the source of all Truth from the equation. In modern day science, scientists often find themselves at a standstill in progression because of the need to circumvent any indicator of a Creator. A vast majority of literature and art has become mundane and cliché, devoid of inspiration and creativity, because we no longer recognize the Author of our faith. Liberty and justice parade around under the banner of Socialism due to the fact that we no longer require the wisdom offered by the Judge of the earth. Labor has developed into a bothersome nuisance to be avoided at all costs as a result of ignorance to a God that groans and labors to bring forth new life within us every day. Economies topple left and right as we veer into extremes far from the delicate balance between the freedom of capitalism and a God-issued command to care for a fellow man.

At this rate of decline it is a fair assumption that all meaningful developments will come to a standstill within a matter of a few centuries. If Christianity wishes to maintain the glory of her past and its influence on the world, she will need to reassess the areas in which she has conformed to the world. The city and culture we ultimately desire to bring forth here on earth descends from above; it does not rise from below.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schmidt, Alvin J. How Christianity Changed the World. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. 2004.

---

[1] Rev 12:1-17

[2] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2004) 71.

[3] Ibid., 82.

Fruit of the Spirit - Patience

The Greek word for patience is makrothymia. The literal translation of this word is longsuffering or slow of anger. The fruit of the Spirit, patience, follows peace. In the study of peace we concluded that a completion of covenant or faith and fulfillment in promises brings peace in our lives. This becomes an important element in exercising longsuffering. We are incapable of suffering for very long when we do not have hope or promises to cling to that sustain us. Trust in the promises of God and the belief that He will fulfill His Word in our lives empowers us with a sense of peace that enables us to exercise great patience and endurance through all circumstances. Peace comes from knowing that God's plans are complete, but patience (longsuffering) is how we handle the circumstances that arise during the fulfillment of God's plans.

Restraint, slow to anger, or long-pinioned are all word developments from the root of patience. We see Jesus exemplifying these characteristics during times of temptation and great suffering. Romans 5:3 states "And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope." Patience is a fruit that we obtain on a "need to know" basis. Patience can only be exercised in the presence of suffering. If we beseech for patience out of its season then we are in essence requesting suffering. We should not desire patience simply because it sounds like a holy prayer or attribute. We should desire patience because there is a real and present suffering that we must endure.

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Pet 3:9 This verse has hidden insight in its identification of the idea that God suffers as well. Since we are the direct recipients of his longsuffering then it is we (in our sin) who cause His suffering. We see this in the fall of man, throughout history, and at the foot of the very cross. The repentance of sin becomes the means by which we ease God's suffering while simultaneously allowing Him to eradicate those sins from our lives through His forgiveness.

Over the last two years I have undergone tremendous suffering of which I am still unable to voice in its fullness. My immediate desire was to respond in anger; to avenge my hurt by venting my wrath. The study of longsuffering convicted me to lay down my lust for revenge and give it over to God. In response God afforded me promises that helped me to overcome my pain and sustain me through it as I cultivated patience with the circumstances that tore my heart apart.

There is an inherent battle that is waged by the world against Christ. The very physical depiction of Christ's suffering on the cross is a graphic example of what happens spiritually in the daily battle against sin. Because Jesus Christ lives in those of us who profess to be believers in him there is a constant battle waged within us against the sin of this world. We struggle with it in every breath we take. The evil in this world is intent on killing Christ and because he lives in us the world attempts to kill our hope in Christ through the infliction of pain and suffering. It is of vital importance then, in order to obtain patience and endurance through suffering that we take hold of and cling to the promises God gives to us. If you find you are experiencing great suffering and feel the despair of a losing battle, spend some time with God in pursuit and petition for promises that will sustain you through it.

While we know the world persecutes us with a vengeance, the fact remains no matter what the fatal result of our suffering, we have hope in the resurrecting power of God. This week I experienced the emotional death of something very precious to me. I suffer. But in my suffering I know that in spite of this significant emotional event I have hope in the power of  Christ's resurrection. I have the promise of new life, which without suffering would not have been possible. Thank you God for my new life. Even though I cannot see all the details and cannot know its fulfillment at this moment, I have faith that I will eventually see it and that eases my suffering.

We Interrupt This Presentation On Fruit For A Little... Christ and Culture

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.”[1] 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.[2] Niebuhr cites Tertullian and Tolstoy as prominent exemplifiers of this stance. Tertullian saw Christianity as a lifestyle very much separated from culture.[3] Most proponents of this view have a preoccupation with final judgment, issues of consequence, and a sharply distinguished perspective of truth. [4] Tertullian viewed Scripture as teaching “the avoidance of sin and fearsome preparation for the coming day of judgment.”[5]

            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.[6] Tolstoy took a stand against economic, military, intellectual, philosophical, artistic and scientific institutions, seeing them as meaningless to the overall ethos of life.[7] 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.[8]

            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.[9] 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.”[10]

            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.[11] 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.[12]  

            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.[13] 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.”[14] 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.[15]

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.”[16] 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.”[17] 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.[18] 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.[19] 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.[20] 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.[21] 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. 2^nd ed. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1995.

---

[1]  H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1951), 32.

[2] Ibid., 48.

[3] Ibid., 49.

[4] Ibid., 50.

[5] Ibid., 52.

[6] Ibid., 60.

[7] Ibid., 62.

[8] Ibid., 77.

[9] Ibid., 100.

[10] Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1917), 191.

[11] Jn 4:1-42 [NKJV].

[12] Matt 22:21.

[13] Niebuhr, 191.

[14] Ibid., 230.

[15] Ibid., 249.

[16] Eph 4:7-12.

[17] Jn 4:44.

[18] Niebuhr, 197.

[19] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, 2^nd ed. (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1995), 27.

[20] Ibid., 47.

[21] Ibid., 197.

Fruit of the Spirit - Peace

The third fruit of the Spirit is Peace.  Not to be confused with silence, quiet, or inactivity as we often use the word, (ie: “Hold your peace” or “Rest in Peace”) the word means harmony, tranquility, security, or prosperity. Peace in a very literal and physical sense can be vividly seen in the Old Testament as can its connection to the Old Covenant. Close adherence through obedience to the terms of the Old Covenant meant harmony, tranquility, security and prosperity for Israel.   

The Hebrew word for Peace means “completeness.” This interpretation brings more significance to terms such as “Prince of Peace” or the “Peace of the Cross.” There is an element of wholeness and restoration that accompanies this word – Peace.  As angels announced the presence of peace on earth to shepherds in the field, one may better understand the proclamation of God’s purposes coming to completion and fruition with the arrival of His Son, Jesus Christ.

The lack of spiritual peace throughout the Old Testament as evidenced by a continual need for rituals and practices to combat impurity is the setting on which Christ arrives. So much striving, pain, oppression, and brokenness have plagued the world since the Fall of Man and now, finally there is peace on earth. Wait… what? Clearly one may look around at the various wars, famines, death and destruction still prevalent in the world today and claim that peace has not arrived. And one would be correct. Perhaps I will step on some eschatological toes here but this is my blog so I am allowed to do so. The establishment of a covenant as we see in the Old Testament does not guarantee its immediate fulfillment. In fact from start to finish, the Old Covenant lasted roughly 2000 years (Abraham to Jesus). But Jesus did in fact fulfill the Old Covenant and with that fulfillment and completion he brought peace. There is also the matter of spiritual completion and wholeness we find through the cross. 

The cross marked two covenantal milestones. The first feat was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant and the second was the establishment of a New Covenant.  Carrying our definition of peace into the New Covenant we can see that the elements of harmony, tranquility, security and prosperity are eternal qualities that hinge on our obedience to this New Covenant and its demand to believe in Jesus Christ. There is much parallel between the Old and New Covenants but that seems to be God’s pattern throughout the history of mankind. I would like to stop for one second and confront the issue of “prosperity” teaching. God does not ever promise us physical prosperity under the New Covenant, only eternal prosperity as our spiritual journey will not be barren, or devoid of fruit. We will be fruitful and multiply spiritually both in numbers and in personal growth and maturity. To promise physical or material prosperity (not to be confused with promises of meeting our needs) is to subject oneself to the terms of the old structure under a fulfilled covenant. We then profess that the Old Covenant is not in fact complete and in doing so negate the work of the cross. All that to say, please be cautious with prosperity teaching as the Kingdom of God is about bearing spiritual fruit not physical or monetary fruit.  And please do not think I am knocking those who are financially blessed either. God blesses each of us according to His good will and purpose and in a matter that best suits His Kingdom and its advancement. 

Returning to the matter of fulfilled covenant we see that there is freedom from the Law now that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled. The 2000 year journey from start to finish was fraught with times of prosperity and times of barrenness, times of justice, times of injustice, times of slavery and of freedom, times of immense wickedness and times of faithful adherence.  What are we to learn from this? Firstly, that God’s timetable is not our timetable. Secondly, as we sit precariously close to the end of yet another 2000 year period of covenant, peace hinges on our faith and belief in promises. There is peace to be found in God’s promises whether we ever see their fulfillment or not. Abraham believed, but never saw and he found peace. Moses believed, but never saw and yet remained faithful and he too found peace.  The prophets, in the face of great opposition believed and delivered the promises of God and they too found peace at the end of their suffering. There is great peace (eternal prosperity, tranquility, wholeness) available to those who would believe in God’s promises without seeing.

The fruit of the Spirit is often the object of much scrutiny and little legitimate practice.  This is unfortunate, but a balance of both analysis and application should be our ultimate desire. I have looked at the fruit in several ways. One approach is to dissect the fruit into digestible (pun intended) triads. If we analyze this first group of three as a triadic grouping we see the culmination of Trinitarian effort in Love, Joy, and Peace - Love of the Father, Joy of the Spirit, and Peace of the Son. Peace falls into place as a natural progression from God’s love, to joy in His presence to the peace found through fulfillment of His promises. Patterns are essential to me for memorization so there is no secret formula I am trying to prescribe here; simply a means which better incorporates the fruit into my life. Speaking of memory techniques, have you ever noticed that the peace sign is three prongs that converge into one? If all else fails just remember that peace is at the end of the first triad.  And so we arrive at the end of the first three fruit of the Spirit. I challenge you to love God more deeply so that you may experience His joy and that in His joy you may find the peace that comes through belief in His promises. I hope the journey thus far has not been overwhelming.

Upcoming fruit: Patience