Beginning: Interaction with Culture
“And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.” - Stephen the Martyr, Acts 7:22
Further Reading: Alister McGrath, ‘Christian Theology,’ pp. 116-120. “The Theology of the Relation of Christianity and Secular Culture.”
For anyone looking for an introduction to Christian Theology, Alister McGrath’s book is by far the best I have encountered. Most volumes on theology are systematic theologies, and are overviews of what the Bible teaches on different doctrinal subjects (creation, salvation, baptism, etc). The unique thing about McGrath is that his is a blend of both systematic theology, and also historical theology; that is, an account of what theologians of history have written on subjects as well (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Barth, etc). In his introduction, he writes that his intention is not to persuade the reader as to what to believe (systematic), but rather to introduce the reader to what has been believed (historical).
His book has three sections: (1) Church History (Patristic, Middle Ages, Reformation, and Modern), (2) Sources and Methods of Theology (General & Special Revelation, Theology & Philosophy, etc), and (3) Systematic Theology. Click on the photo to see a very thorough online text of the book.
I decided that since the main overarching theme of this blog is to discuss theology, and the Christian Church’s interaction with culture, it would be suiting to hit this topic first. The first question that one must approach is the method in which the two interact. H. Richard Niebuhr outlined five historical means by which the Church has interacted with contemporary culture in the past. Here is a summary of his outline, as noted by Alister McGrath:
- “Christ Against Culture.” This view encourages opposition, total separation, and hostility toward culture. The values of the Kingdom of God, on this view, stand in contrast to those of the world. Anabaptists stressed the need to form alternative Christian communities, often in rural areas. They refused to have anything to do with secular power or authority, rejecting the use of force.
- “Christ Of Culture.” This approach is more or less the direct opposite of the previous view, in that it attempts to bring culture and Christianity together, regardless of their differences. A world-affirming approach can be found in nineteenth-century German liberal protestantism, which tended to amalgamate German culture with Christian ideals. Liberal Protestantism was inspired by the vision of a humanity which was ascending upwards into new realms of progress and prosperity. The doctrine of evolution gave new vitality to this belief.
- “Christ Above Culture.” This position attempts to correlate the fundamental questions of the culture with the answer of Christian revelation. The famous maxim of Thomas Aquinas can be seen as underlying this approach: “Grace does not abolish nature, but perfects it.”
- “Christ and Culture in Paradox.” This model rests on what could be described as a “dualist” approach, which holds that the Christian belongs to “two realms (the spiritual and the temporal),” and must therefore live in the tension of fulfilling responsibilities to both. Niebuhr saw Martin Luther as an excellent representative of this understanding of the relation of Christianity and culture. According to this model, the Christian community must expect to live in a degree of tension with the world. Luther set out this tension in terms of his doctrine of the “two kingdoms” - the “kingdom of the world” and the “kingdom of God.” These two very different realms of authority coexist and overlap, with the result that Christians experience the tension of living in one kingdom, yet trying to obey the authority of another.
- “Christ Transforming Culture.” This model includes “conversionists” who attempt to convert the values and goals of secular culture into the service of the kingdom of God. Augustine, John Calvin, John Wesley, and Jonathon Edwards take similar positions.
I think that an eclectic approach is the most appropriate, but perhaps the fifth point resonates the most with me. However, that being said, there is an element of truth (and some faults) in each of the first four in the list as well. Each can offer distinct insight into how Christians can approach their daily living, being “in this world yet not of it.”
In the early church, the big dilemma facing Christians was to what extent Christians should assimilate culture
into Christianity. This was of particular importance as the church founders and fathers were trying to lay out the church’s beliefs and ward off rogue heresies, and establish sound doctrines and creeds. Would it be compromising the Christian faith to adopt methods of secular philosophy into the “process” of dialogue? Could Christian writers draw on “classical modes” of writing, in order to communicate the faith, or is this method tainted and fallen?
Justin Martyr noted that the “seeds of divine wisdom had been sown throughout the world,” and that Christians were therefore at liberty to draw upon classical culture, in the knowledge that whatever “has been said well” ultimately draws upon divine wisdom and insight” (McGrath 117). This has many implications, and was criticized by some. Tertullian famously wrote, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What relevance has the Platonic Academy for the church?”
However, Augustine built on Justin’s idea with a more critical approach. He wrote that “If those who are called philosophers have said anything which is true, and consistent with our faith, we must not reject it, but claim it for our own use.” Augustine himself quotes the passage in Acts (noted above) where Moses was educated in “all the wisdom of the Egyptians.”
That is enough for now, but it’s something to think about. Are Christians meant to be monastic, isolated from culture? Are Christians meant to adopt and absorb culture?
Jesus said we are to be salt and light in the world. I don’t like it when I’m eating, and there’s a huge clump of salt in one large pile on my food. Salt should be scattered, permeating throughout. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is like a small amount of yeast, that eventually leavens all of the flour.
There is no contradiction between being involved with culture and yet distinct from it. We need to avoid the mistakes of the liberal protestants that overly assimilate culture, and the opposite pietists that withdraw from and avoid culture. We can take what is good and true in our culture and “redeem” it for the Kingdom.
That’s all for now.
-ACR
I think you won’t find many people reading this blog to disagree with a lot of the stuff written here. However I will say that it is easy to say we need to take a “middle of the road” approach when it comes to Christianity in Culture, middle of the road being not completely withdrawn for culture, or losing our identity by being completely absorbed in it. What would be more provocative would be to discuss how a Christian takes this approach to Christianity in Culture. Maybe present some situations and examine how Christianity would be reflected from this, and in what ways could/would Christianity influence here without being withdrawn or too absorbed.
My personal recommendation for a practical book dealing with the topic would be Evaluating the Church Growth Movement: 5 Views by McIntosh which takes primarily the church growth movement and discusses the benefits/consequences by 5 different theological view points, and each view point cross examines the one presented. While this is obviously a church growth book, it does touch on a lot of aspects dealing with Christianity and Culture and the best way to handle church growth in those arenas.
http://www.amazon.com/Evaluating-Church-Growth-Movement-Counterpoints/dp/0310241103/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202921572&sr=8-1
I actually own a copy if anyone wants to take a look at it sometime.
This particular post may or may not have a lot of dissenting opinion, but it is certainly there today.
The most prevalent view in American evangelicalism today is that we need to “take back America for God.” Take over gov’t, align ourselves as closely as possible to the Republican party, and institute the Bible as law. This is kind of like #3 in the list above, but in a much more terrible way.
Greg Boyd, an author that I really like, is the author of the Amazon Top-20 Bestseller “The Myth of a Christian Nation.” In it, he proposes a more pietistic approach, and tells the Church that it needs to withdraw itself from culture. He swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, following the Anabaptist-like approach. I recently read a review by James K. A. Smith (”Radical Orthodoxy”) that critiques this view. This would be like view #1 above.
I’d be interested to hear your propositions of hypothetical situations to apply it to. I think there may be differing ideas that would be interesting to investigate.
I’ll take a look at the book, no doubt when I’m in my third-year if not sooner. I’m also interested in the emerging church movement, and its approach to culture. Perhaps it takes the “adopt culture” approach, which is why it has some liberal, postmodern, pluralistic theology dripping into it.
Good ideas-
ACR
I agree that fleshing out this middle of the road recommendation would be a good thing. How about talking about a Christian response to the visual entertainment industry? Do we watch? Do we not watch? Do we create Christian networks and films? Do we seek to be involved in the existing secular industry, thereby making it salty? Do we attempt to undermine the secular industry in order to encourage higher morals and less violence, consumerism, etc.? Wow, that’s a lot of questions. Perhaps this issue is helpful despite being a bit cliche. I’d be interested to know what Jim had in mind.
I have recently read a book in which Tim Keller (pastor/author) mentions Niebuhr’s five points. He takes a similar “best of all” sort of approach. I can’t remember if he gives any examples. I’ll take a look later.
Finally, I’m a bit uncomfortable saying that Boyd advocates Christian withdraw from culture. Having read the book and listened to the sermons it is based on, I do not believe that this is at all what he is saying. It seems to me what he is arguing for is for Christians to cease putting their hope in political power for bringing the Kingdom of God. He does in fact advocate rigorous cultural engagement that shows Christ through humble service. His reaction is more against using power to make people submit (i.e. passing laws to legislate righteousness).
I disagree with your review of McGrath’s Christian Theology. I see it as a difficult resource to use. Combining both systematic with the historical creates a long read on a particular doctrine when you want a succinct answer, I would never combine the two. Your making yourself go the “long way” for a answer. I enjoy McGrath’s Historical Theology and Grudem’s or Erikson’s Systematic Theology. this gives you a more in-depth look at both topics rather than a shallow look at the two together.
I think the reason a amalgamation seems obvious is the truth that each possesses. But instead of creating a eclectic I see them as more a progression of the Gospel and the natural cultural reaction upon the success of the great commission.
First it must be acknowledged that a biblical world view is dynamically different from any given culture (Christ against Culture). Next, With the Church out-working of the great commission we [Christians] live out the Christ and Culture in Paradox. Almost simultaneously as Christians become more populace the culture itself would become more in the process of Christ Transforming Culture. And finally, recognizing that God created different cultures and that culture of all kinds is good especially fused with Christ (Christ above Culture).
To Daniel-
I think the visual entertainment industry is simultaneously a fantastic example, and Pandora’s box, all in one nice package =). Matt has a lot of good ideas on this one, so I won’t steal all of his thunder, but just some of my own thoughts.
We have been discussing this topic recently, as well.
Paul spoke and wrote to the believers quoting the contemporary plays and Greek dramas of the day, and literature (Euripides, etc). I can imagine this as a likewise equivalent of today someone harnessing a quote from Spiderman (”With great power comes great responsibility”) or themes of redemption from the Matrix. I think whether we watch or abstain depends on the content material, with the attitude to withdraw as little as possible, in order to be relevant to the culture and “on the same page.”
Creating Christian subcultures, I believe, is not the answer. Matter of fact, I think it contributes to the problem. However, I think that there is certainly a place for strictly Christian-themed music (and film). I think we can pervade the industry to “make it salty,” and that is a desirable goal, because it then can also proclaim more Kingdom-valued films to the wider culture. (I do not mean Christian movies, but Kingdom-principles within a cultural-relevant film). Matt has lots of good thoughts on this, I’ll let him contribute them.
I think, however, that because we live in a capitalist economy, what we “vote” for with our dollars as consumers is very important. Capitalism is simply supply and demand- there will only be a supply of a product if there is a demand. If there is a great demand for this or that, there will be a supply. If we continually consume the filth that Hollywood keeps producing, we are sending them the message to keep producing it.
“Voting” as consumers in capitalism, to me, is the same as “voting” as citizens in democracy. I come against a lot of opposition when I raise this point.
An example recently discussed: What do Christians do about movies that are about gay cowboys? What do Christians do with a children-oriented fantasy film, based on promoting atheism?
I definitely made a broad generalization on Boyd (intentionally), just to show that not everyone is in total agreement on every element. Thanks for further developing his ideas for everyone to read =).
To Matt-
I think McGrath’s approach is only good as an *introduction*, not for more thorough study, as your approach would suit.
It’s an extremely interesting proposition that each cultural-dialogue-method is progressive upon the others. Perhaps it does not apply when each point is taken as a whole, but maybe when you only apply the “positive” element (rather than the negative byproducts), you could propose that.
For example, Daniel and I were recently discussing Boyd’s view of withdrawing from a strict church and gov’t relationship, and focus back on the gospel. This will change hearts and minds from the ground up, rather than changing the laws in order to change men from the top down. However, Daniel pointed out the potential conflict that this has with some Kingdom-oriented themes of being relevant to every sphere of culture and society. I proposed that perhaps the latter is a healthy developmental progression of the former.
Just to point out to everyone:
Daniel has put a post on his blog that mirrors the discussion here, albeit with a very specific focus on Jesus himself. How did Jesus himself interact with culture? Join the conversation here:
http://danieljstory.blogspot.com/2008/02/jesus-was-not-american.html
-ACR
Aaron,
Well done for putting this blog together. Discussion is always good, even if it is only between a few people.
I think we need to approach culture knowing that ‘He who is in us is greater than He who is in the world’. In my (limited) experience, many Christians are scared of engaging with what they would term ’secular’ culture, because they fear it will corrupt them. I can think of many Christian friends who have this attitude (often unintentionally), simply because at some point they stopped engaging with non-Christian culture, and they are now scared of re-engaging. I accept that Christians can be negatively influenced by the world, especially undiscerning and immature believers (not to suggest that any of us get to a place where we are so mature that we are untouchable), but I believe:
1. Scripture encourages us to engage with culture for missional purposes
2a. That there is much good in culture that we can enjoy - much that is ‘admirable, praiseworthy, lovely etc.’, to quote Philippians. And I believe that God wants us to enjoy these good aspects in culture, because ultimately they point to Him - the source of everything good.
2b. Linked to this, that all truth is God’s truth - so being instructed in the ‘wisdom of the Egyptians’ (like Moses) is no bad thing, although we must be discerning enough to recognise weaknesses in human wisdom.
By way of application, let’s look at the area of popular music (I know Daniel brought up the issue of visual entertainment, but this is a ’soapbox issue’ of mine). There is a lot of ‘Christian music’ out there, which in my view is sub-standard and predictable. I know this is subjective and that others may love three-chord Christian rock, but it’s not my thing. In fact, I think much of this music sells simply because it is ‘Christian’, in that it has Christian lyrics, is written by Christians and is sold in Christian stores. This irritates me, as I think Christians should strive to exceed the creativity of non-Christians in areas such as music, because we are in relationship with our eminently creative Creator God. As a creative person and musician, there are only a handful of Christian artists who I enjoy listening to. By listening to mainstream or non-Christian artists who I like, therefore, am I at risk of losing my faith or becoming a diluted Christian? Of course not, because I have the Holy Spirit in me and he’s greater than whatever supposed evil (?) is in the music of Arcade Fire, Coldplay or the Killers. If my faith can be shattered by listening to Arcade Fire, then it wasn’t up to much in the first place! Indeed, in my opinion, there is often more that is ‘admirable and praiseworthy’ in Arcade Fire’s music than in that of many Christian bands. Not that Christian bands should stop - but I think they should be pushing the boundaries a heck of a lot more. Sufjan Stevens is a great example of a Christian musician who is doing this - and he is respected in both Christian and non-Christian circles.
I hope these thoughts are helpful, feel free to disagree, agree or expand on them, as they have been written quickly and are a little sketchy.
I am not so sure that Niebuhr is so interested in determining which perspective is “right” as much as describing the possible ways Christians interact with Culture. Theologically Niebuhr is “left-of-center” in that he doesn’t have a clear doctrine of revelation or Scripture. This is the sympathetic reading of his work.
Personally I think that he does conclude that “Christ Transforming Culture” is the “correct” way. And I humbly agree. The confusion some (Hauerwas, etc) make is that they think transforming culture is only done politically. Sometimes political changes are made with Christ as the motivation (eg abolitionism and civil rights) but sometimes simple Christians acting out their faith are even more powerful to change culture than that.
The “middle-of-the-road” idea makes sense becaue each of the paradigms has a sense of truth to them. You can come up with Scriptures to support any perspective. I would argue, however, that Christ Transforming Culture takes into acount everything, and is thereby a sort of “middle-of-the-road” perspective.
I’ve been thinking about all this for a couple years, and writing my conclusions in my blog if you are interested in seeing how I got here.
Going back to Daniel’s thing on visual entertainment, the book Eyes Wide Open: Looking for God in Popular Culture, by William Romanowski (professor at Calvin), takes a good look at a Christian attitude to popular culture. He majors on visual entertainment, while also looking at other areas such as the music industry, and looks at how Christians can “most profitably and critically hear, read and view popular culture”.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eyes-Wide-Open-Looking-Popular/dp/1587432013/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203072478&sr=8-2
Oooo, good recommendation Simon, that’d be interesting to look at.
I wholeheartedly agree on the Christian music comments. Christians in the past were at the forefronts of their fields of expertise. As a matter of fact, in the US, the top Ivy League schools were ALL founded by Christians, promoting higher education.
I had that exact quote in my last paper- “All truth is God’s truth.” This is actually the subject of my next discussion entry (General Revelation & Special Revelation).
I think it’s very insightful to note that Christians are in communion with the living God, and as such should reflect that in their work.
I also would add Radiohead and Muse to the list ;-).
David, thanks for the thoughts. I like how your blog entries are all divided into each of these five categories of interacting with culture. I think you have a good point that perhaps the fifth (Transforming Culture) is a culmination of the positive elements of the four former points.
-ACR
Dick Keyes, in his book Chameleon Christianity, points out that Christians have generally tended to lean one of two ways in their interaction with the world and culture we live in: 1) Chameleons, where we so blend in with culture that there is no distinctiveness between those of the kingdom of God and those of the kingdom of darkness; 2) Musk-oxen, when musk-oxen are hurt, the rest gather around the hurt one in a circle and turned outward with their horns pointing out, all to keep any attacking enemies from approaching the hurt musk-oxen; hence, we can so shelter ourselves from “the world” that we do not know how to interact, speak to, listen to, engage with, and just generally live amongst them.
Obviously, Keyes suggests we need to find a good balance between the two. And I would agree - we need to interact but also have the kingdom distinction that we are being led by another. Seems that is what Jesus said - he never ran and hid, he actually hung out with the “sinners”; but he also had something so different yet appealing about Him that people wanted a taste (unless they were the hard-headed and hard-hearted religious ones).
Any thoughts concerning this?
Hi Scott,
Great to see you hear adding some thoughts =D.
Mark Driscoll put it very well. He said if you are liberally overassimilating culture, you are too far; if you are a fundamentalist, you are too far. We need to be culturally relevant.
I have heard it said, we carry an unchanging message in a changing culture. We need to change our methods of communication, but not the message that is communicated.
It is good to bring it back to Jesus- he is the fulcrum and crux that we should constantly be looking toward.
I realize that I am quite late in response to all of this, and I also realize that my knowledge and experience with this subject is very limited. However, in recent thinking, learning, discussing, and other forms of musing about this issue of Christianity in culture I have come to the point of another question, especially in regards to the Emerging Church Movement. From what I know, and that is very little, this attempt is one that is trying to take the cross-cultural model of ‘incarnational’ mission and apply it to the post-modern western societies. My question is, in “crossing culture” as missionaries, is it possible without compromising on, for lack of a better term, “Kingdom” cultural demands.
An example would be this. I have a lot of good friends who aren’t Christian, one of the things we used to all do together is get drunk. In fact, for a lot of them, when they aren’t at work this is the favorite past time. How then do I, a Christian, who is not meant to be getting drunk (even drinking for some) continue to relate to these friends of mine within “their culture”?
Garrett, I think the church is called to be incarnational in its mission. That simply means that the church, as representatives of the Kingdom and of Christ, ‘pitch their tent’ in the world, in the same way Christ ‘pitched his tent’ among us (John 1). In John 17, Jesus prayed not the Father would take [us] out of the world, but that he would protect [us] from the evil one. Just as Christ was sent into the world, we, who carry Christ with us through the Spirit, are sent into the world.
However, I don’t believe there is any tension here, we are in the world, but we are different from it - we are a ‘peculiar people’, a ‘counter-culture’, and an ‘alternative community’. We are not peculiar in the sense that we’re weird to people, you know, like in silly ways such as talking in ‘Christian-ese’, or (I believe) that we live ascetic lives, abstaining from alcohol and the like. Rather, as you say, we are different because we live by a different set of values - in very shortened form, we love God and our neighbour, love our enemies etc. We are also peculiar in that we believe very particular things about Jesus, things which shape our lives. Jesus modelled a life which was entirely ‘in’ the world (hung out with harlots, tax collectors, outcasts), but entirely not ‘of’ it (he loved those who hated him, called people to repentance etc.). In this way, not only was he ‘in’ the world’s culture AND representing a ‘counter-culture’, but he was ALSO yielding culture himself, by modelling a new way of living. ‘Culture’ is simply the makings of humans (Gen. 1:28-29 is known as the cultural mandate), it is never all evil or all good, always a mix.
How can we as Christians be a peculiar people or a counter-culture if we are not ‘in’ the world - if the only people we hang out with are Christians, then that just makes us normal, right? It is the fact we are in the world AND not of it that defines us. So our identity is found in our difference. But we can only be different if we are incarnational, and living 24-7 in the world, rather than in a Christian bubble. And of course it is hard to do this, but isn’t that the point?
In sum, having just written a paper on it, I think the Emerging movement are right to be incarnational - and they are not the first to advocate such an approach (see the likes of Newbigin, Bosch, Guder to name a recent few). Where they sometimes go wrong is that they forget their difference, usually by forgetting what makes us unique as Christians. But a lot of them do get it right. Mainstream Christianity needs to listen to such challenges, stop being scared of ‘postmodernity’, and get on with the mission for which it was sent.
Of a more practical note, I enjoy watching movies. I can relate to non-Christians through this activity. But sometimes they might choose to watch something that I don’t particularly see as healthy to my walk with Christ (maybe something like The Blair Witch Project or a film with a lot of sexual perversity). So I choose not to watch those, and explain why if asked. As with drinking, you can enjoy a few beers with your friends, but we are encouraged to be controlled by the Spirit and not by the drink through getting drunk. So we choose not to participate in that activity, even if they are choosing such. And if need be, you can explain yourself if asked. If they are unwilling to value such beliefs and practices, then I would begin to question the true reality and strength of the friendship. And if they continually only get drunk, then I would question the validity of spending large amounts of time with them, just as if my friends started spending large amounts of time only watching ‘unhealthy’ movies. Sometimes we will have to ‘make a break’ from people. We have to expect to lose some things and people (maybe even all). It is part of taking of the cross in death to self. I am not saying that will be the outcome in your situation, but we have to be willing to consider such. I hope that is helpful.
To echo Simon-
Paul writes to Corinth, “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.” (1Cor 9:19-13). He follows later quoting the psalms, “The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof…So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (10:26,31).
To echo Scott-
Jesus said, “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three.”
Thanks for the responses guys I appreciate it. I like what Simon said in his final paragraph, about that in the attempt to connect with culture Christians often forget their differences. There is certainly always going to be a distinction between Christians and “non-Christians”, but there doesn’t have to be a divisive wall between them. I think another thing that often goes awry for me when hanging out with non-Christians is that not only do I forget the differences, but I also find myself downplaying these differences when they do become evident.
I think we all struggle with that one. On one hand, it’s right that we make an extra effort to relate to people, to show them that we’re all ultimately the same - ‘only human’; and in need of the same things - forgiveness / integration with God. But hopefully our lives also point to something bigger than ourselves (God), and that is the difference. In practice, it’s really hard, but we try and find the tension nonetheless.