Christ and Culture

Book Review

Niebuhr opens his book by introducing the reader to what he has titled; “The Enduring Problem.” In short, the “problem” lies specifically in the Christian’s effort to reconcile Christ and culture. Niebuhr categorizes a Christian’s response to the problem into five possible answers: “Christ against culture,” “Christ of culture,” “Christ above culture,” “Christ and culture in paradox” or “Christ the transformer of culture.” Niebuhr then takes one chapter each to expand his view on the respective answers. In his final chapter, Niebuhr concludes that there is no single answer and that all answers may apply depending on the situation at hand. Niebuhr’s assessment borders on something akin to situational ethics. Although there is biblical evidence to support each of Niebuhr’s answers, it is difficult to accept that there is no clear answer. This would imply that Christian’s are not able to know God’s will. God reveals and has revealed his will through Christ, Scripture and the Holy Spirit. The fact that we are not able discern exactly what that is at all times does not necessarily imply that there are multiple answers to “The Enduring Problem.”

Niebuhr first reviews the “Christ against culture” answer. A radical separatist answer, its view is that Christ is the absolute and sole authority in a Christian’s life. Consequently, its call to withdraw from society presents an ‘either-or’ choice for the Christian: Either we follow Christ and reject the culture or we are loyal to culture and reject Christ. In part, this view does seem to have biblical support. The Apostle John says; “Do not love the world or anything in the world.  If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.” (1 John 2:15-16) However, there is nothing explicit in that text that is an imperative instruction for Christians to separate themselves from the world. The implication of the “Christ against culture” answer is that the farther a Christian separates himself from culture, the less likely he will be to sin. This is clearly a fallacy. One needs only to look at the various monastic orders of the Medieval Church with their many rules and disciplines as a testimony of the pervasiveness of man’s sinful nature within a formally separated community. Being completely separate from culture is a hypothesis that can only be accomplished in a vacuum. In reality, it is not possible to completely separate from culture. At best, even the most radical withdrawal from culture would only create a radical subculture it would not be acultural.

More importantly, the “Christ against culture” answer is not consistent with Christ’s Kingdom of God perspective. Jesus teaches that the commands to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself are a summation of the Law and the Prophets. This shows Jesus’ perspective on his Kingdom as being both vertical in its relation to God and horizontal in its relation the man.[1] Jesus’ vertical (God) perspective is clear in the verse from the First Letter of John referenced above. However, Jesus also demonstrates his horizontal (man) perspective in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Jesus admonishes the priest and Levite in the parable for keeping themselves separate in order to preserve their holiness. The Samaritan in the parable, crosses cultural barriers lined with cultural barbed wire in order to care for a man beaten, robbed and left to die. The latter is commended by Jesus as an example of the appropriate model for [Christian] behavior. The “Christ against culture” fails to properly address the horizontal (man) aspect of Jesus’ teaching and is therefore not an appropriate answer in any culture where there is an opportunity to serve those in need.

Niebuhr’s second answer is “Christ of culture.” This answer claims the supreme fulfillment of culture’s aspirations interpreted through Christ.[2] If Niebuhr’s first answer was the extreme boundary in one direction, the “Christ of culture” is the extreme boundary in the opposite direction. This answer affirms both Christ and culture while denying any tension between them. Niebuhr restates Oman when he writes; “This Christ of religion does not call men to leave homes and kindred for his sake; he enters into their homes and all their associations as the gracious presence which adds an aura of infinite meaning to all temporal tasks.” (p. 93) Clearly, this view is an accommodation. It is saying; “Jesus, do not ask me to follow you, just bless me where I am.” Niebuhr makes a statement that Jesus was; “Relevant to his time.” (p. 105) However, in order to support his theory, he neglects to expand the context of some of the examples he uses. In one such case Niebuhr writes; “He [Jesus] affirmed the laws of his society.” (p. 105) Unfortunately, Niebuhr fails to support that statement specifically. It is possible that he is referring to Christ’s instruction affirming the payment of taxes in his statement to, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” (Matthew 22:21) Jesus, however, follows this statement with, “And to God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21) This is a perfect example of Christ’s horizontal (man) and vertical (God) perspective. Niebuhr also writes that Jesus; “Showed concern for the peace of his own city.” (p. 105) Yet Jesus himself said; “Do you suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.  I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) I doubt the moneychangers thought Jesus was concerned with peace when he overturned their tables in the temple and then drove them out with a whip. (Mark 11:15-17) The “Christ of culture” answer, in its opposite extreme to the ‘Christ against culture’ answer, so elevates the horizontal (man) aspect of Jesus’ perspective that culture begins to direct the actions of the Christian to the virtual exclusion of a vertical (God) perspective—a bit like the tail wagging the dog. Every social action begs the Church to take some action either in support or in opposition.

To mitigate these two extremes, Niebuhr suggests the “Christ above culture” answer. In this view, the Christian neither withdraws from culture nor fully embraces it. It is an attempt to synthesize Christ and culture. Although this answer appears to be appealing theoretically, it seems impossible to apply practically. Niebuhr is correct when he writes; “When we begin with the distinction between black and white, most of the shades we are asked to identify will be grays.  When we start our analysis of Christian communities with the church-sect division, most of them will seem to be hybrids. It is so with our present procedure. If Christ and culture are the two principles with which Christians are concerned, then most of them will seem to be compromising creatures who somehow manage to mix in irrational fashion an exclusive devotion to a Christ who rejects culture, with devotion to a culture that includes Christ.” (pp. 116-117) The late Medieval Church is a relatively good example of a failed synthesis between Christ and culture as represented by Church and State. The result of man’s sinful nature ultimately led to compromised teachings, abuses of power and widespread corruption. The sword instead of the Word was used to bring people into submission.[3] Consequently, the flaw in the “Christ above culture” answer is the failure to recognize the pervasive nature of man’s sin and its destructive power on even the healthiest synthesis.

Niebuhr’s next answer of “Christ and culture in paradox” also falls between the two extreme answers of “Christ against culture” and “Christ of culture.” It is, however, different from the “Christ above culture” answer in that it recognizes that no synthesis can adequately reconcile the tension between Christ and culture. The strength of this answer lies in its reliance on God’s grace as the bridge between Christ and culture. Man is both saint and sinner at the same time.[4] The Christian, as a sinner, lives in a world governed by the Law. Simultaneously, the Christian, as a saint, lives in a state of redemption governed by God with grace as the bridge. Although they exist together, they can never be fully synthesized in this life. As a result, since man is saved by and lives under the constant state of grace, he has been set free to interact with the world. Martin Luther was a proponent of this answer. Niebuhr writes; “Luther affirmed the life in culture as the sphere in which Christ could and ought to be followed.” (p. 174) Mengue writes; “Since one is saved by grace, not works, there are no grades of holiness, or any need to separate oneself from culture.  This means that any vocation (provided it is a true vocation, a station instituted by God) can be pursued for the glory of God. In that sense, Christians can participate fully in what is best in culture: we are ‘set free to serve.’”[5] The question however arises; how can we know what is “Best in culture?”  In this vain Niebuhr writes; “From Christ we receive the knowledge and the freedom to do faithfully and lovingly what culture teaches or requires us to do.” (p. 175) Additionally, Niebuhr restates Kerr that; “In a person ‘regenerate and enlightened by the Holy Spirit through the Word’ the natural wisdom of man ‘is a fair and glorious instrument and work of God.’” (p. 174) Since the strength of this answer is rooted in God’s grace, the anxious development of a perfect synthesis between Christ and culture is recognized as practically unattainable and any actions taken in the pursuit to be obedient to God are therefore subject to God’s grace. This view fully validates Christ’s vertical (God) perspective in its complete reliance on God’s grace while fully validating Christ’s horizontal (man) perspective by freeing Christians to act within their culture under that grace.

Niebuhr’s final proposed answer is; “Christ the transformer of culture.” Foundationally, the answer is rooted in the principle that all things have been created good and that due to the “Fall” they have become tarnished. Therefore, since all things are inherently good, they can be reformed.[6] This is a utopian view of the relationship between Christ and culture. It supposes that the reformation of culture is the purpose behind Christ’s redemption of man. Niebuhr writes; “To mankind with his perverted nature and corrupted culture Jesus Christ has come to heal and renew what sin has infected.” (p. 213) This view seems bent on conveying the idea that given enough time, Christians can transform the world into a community of believers cured of their sinful nature. The transformation of culture ultimately becomes the means and the end for the Christian. Mengue writes; “The ‘social gospel’ may quickly replace the true gospel of grace and promise with a works-righteous religion of Law, a danger which has been clearly realized in the strident, coercive activism of some of the main-line Protestant churches.”[7] Furthermore, “Such earthbound hopes tend to undermine the belief in an afterlife by seeking a heaven on earth.”[8] The “Christ the transformer of culture” answer is more appropriately an outcome to any one of the other four answers. Any Christian action in obedience to God will ultimately have a transforming effect on culture. Christ died for the redemption of man. Until Christ returns, the transformation of the world in terms of culture occurs through the actions of Christians engaged in the culture. This cultural transformation is seen as a by-product of Christ’s work on the Cross. While that is a positive result, it is nevertheless a by-product.

It is unfortunate that Niebuhr cannot seem to find a position to take with respect to his proposed answers to what he calls “The Enduring Problem.” However, given his relativistic views, it is understandable. Niebuhr weaves his way through his treatise on relativism then arbitrarily defines God as “Absolute”. (pp. 238-241) What Niebuhr fails to acknowledge is that the will of the “Absolute” as revealed through Christ, Scripture and the Holy Spirit is, as a consequence, equally absolute. Niebuhr’s relativism is simply an accommodation for the inability of sinful man to clearly discern the will of the “Absolute.”

As a literary piece, Christ and Culture is painfully confusing. Theologically, the book addresses an extremely important topic even while doing little to help sincere Christians solve “The Enduring Problem.” Such is the case with all relativistic thinking. Relativism either paralyzes a person to inaction for fear of making the wrong decision or liberates a person to any action because no decision is wrong. This state of confusion is uncharacteristic of the God of order. Jesus said that he would send a Helper that would teach us, remind us and lead us into all truth—Truth is not relative. (John 16:13) As an American theologian, Niebuhr’s inconclusive conclusion seems in itself to be an accommodation to the general American attitude of equality and individual rights. Niebuhr’s approach gives Americans obsessed with “freedom of choice” a potpourri of options to choose from. Obviously, Americans do not need more choices—they need direction. The foundation of the “Christ and culture in paradox” is built on the grace of God and recognizes that the tension between Christ as the ideal and a culture that has been distorted by sin can never be perfectly synthesized. Consequently, taking into consideration both the implicit and explicit Biblical evidence, it appears that the “Christ and culture in paradox” serves as a trustworthy guidepost for those seeking to integrate their faith into their everyday lives.

Born in Wright City, MO in 1894, Helmut Richard Niebuhr is an American theologian. Niebuhr graduated from Elmhurst College in 1912 and Eden Theological Seminary in 1915. He received an M. A. from Washington University in 1917. He received and B. D. from Yale Divinity School in 1923. He received a Ph. D. from Yale in 1924. He was ordained a minister in the Evangelical and Reformed Church in 1916. He is the younger brother of author Reinhold Niebuhr. H. Richard Niebuhr died in 1962.[9]

---

[1] Angus J. L. Mengue, Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture Reexamined, (Online: http://www.kfuo.org/bissar26.htm), p 2

[2] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 4

[3] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 7

[4] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 8

[5] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p 8

[6] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 9

[7] Mengue, Christ and Culture Reexamined, p. 10

[8] Ibid., p. 10

[9] The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001 (Online:  http://bartleby.com/65/ni/NiebuhrH.html)