Moving Beyond “Christ and Culture”
Five Categories of Cultural Engagement
You would be hard pressed to find a major discussion about Christianity and culture in the second half of the Twentieth Century that does not reference the work of ethicist H. Richard Niebuhr. His book Christ and Culture, published in 1951, defined the conversation for a generation. The book had wide and lasting influence for at least two reasons. First, it addressed a topic that many Christian thinkers considered to be of utmost importance. Second, it provided clear and satisfying handles for talking about ways Christians might respond to culture.
Niebuhr offered five categories for the relationship between “Christ and Culture”:
“Christ against culture” rejects culture in favour of Christ’s radical demands, leading to withdrawal from culture.
“Christ of culture” represents the opposite extreme, advocating not so much for interpreting the culture through Christ, as interpreting Christ through the culture. We therefore pick and choose those aspects of “Christ” that resonate with what is best in civilization. As a result, we ignore the more radical claims and demands of Christ.
“Christ above culture” holds a positive but realistic view of culture. Culture can lead us in the direction of Christ, but not all the way. Christ uses positive aspects culture to move people toward the goal, we reach the goal itself only in Christ.
“Christ and culture in paradox” sees culture as utterly corrupt, but acknowledges that it is the necessary context of our lives. Consequently, we must live in a constant state of paradox between faith and doubt, sin and righteousness, law and grace.
“Christ transformer of culture,” Niebuhr’s preferred category, combines the pessimism towards culture of the “paradox” position, with the optimism towards God’s work through culture of the “above culture” position. In this way, Christians can have a positive attitude towards culture based on God’s work of transformation. In this view, Christians can and should engage in cultural work in obedience to the Lord.
Weaknesses of Niebuhr’s Approach
These categories have given generations of Christian thinkers a vocabulary for talking about our cultural engagement. However, through the years they have proven to fall short in some important ways. I’ll briefly point out three of them.
Fuzzy concept of “transformation”
First, though Niebuhr offered detailed critiques of the strengths and weaknesses of the other four categories, he presented “Christ transformer of culture” in much more abstract terms, with no critique at all. In fact, the “transformational model” is so undefined that every Christian leader might claim that their approach is “Christ transforming culture.” All three of our hypothetical preachers in the first post in this series (the warrior, the pacifist, the diplomat) could well see themselves as cultural transformers.
Narrow view of “culture”
Niebuhr’s categories also suggest an inadequate understanding of “culture.” He treated it as a monolithic “bloc” which we must deal with consistently, either through withdrawal, accommodation, paradox, or transformation. He failed to recognize that “culture” is actually a complex and many-faceted phenomenon, which may require different responses in different times and places.
Weak view of “Christ”
Finally, Niebuhr was also weak in his presentation of “Christ.” He did not portray “Christ” as a world-changing God-man who entered human history in a concrete time and place. Rather, “Christ” was more a concept, a distillation of religious beliefs and practices. In addition, Niebuhr presents Christ as inadequate by definition. “Christ” makes radical demands which must be tempered and tweaked to find a more urbane and productive relationship with culture. In the words of John Howard Yoder, one of Niebuhr’s early critics, “Jesus is very important; Lord he is not, if ‘Lord’ denotes an ultimate claim.” (“How Richard Niebuhr Reasoned: A Critique of Christ and Culture,” in Stassen, Yeager & Yoder, Authentic Transformation, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996, p.43)
Andy Crouch, in a more recent critique, wonders what kind of book Niebuhr might have written if he had chosen the title “Jesus and the Cultures.” (Culture Making, Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2008, p. 181) For all his helpful contribution, Niebuhr misses the simple truth that Jesus is not an abstraction, but a person. That culture is not a monolithic bloc, but a myriad of social expressions, with varying qualities and values. That transformation takes place, not on a grand scale, but in small, concrete ways through common and creative encounters.
Implications for Preaching and Culture
As it turns out, we may get more help from Niebuhr’s critics than from Niebuhr himself. Here are three important thoughts to take away:
Culture is not a concept, a set of issues, or even a list of values, but a network of personal human interactions. Culture does not control people. People create culture. The same people who listen to our sermons every Sunday.
“Christ” is not an abstraction, a principle, or even a message, but a divine person who has entered concretely into human history and culture as a life-changing, culture-shaping, world-transforming force. Jesus changes everything. Not because he is a good idea, but because he lived, died, and rose again in the context of human culture.
In our engagement with culture, there is no silver bullet. We should not look for a decisive battle to win, a crushing blow to deliver, or an irrefutable argument to present. We should look to help people who are daily engaged in culture creation to encounter the person of Jesus, who is daily bringing about a new creation in us.
Perhaps most importantly, this reframing of the conversation about faith and culture calls us to think beyond mere ethical tensions to think in terms of missional engagement with the cultures of the world around us. This is the topic of our next post in this series.
