Class 04 -
The Gospel and Culture (continued)
The Gospel and Culture [Kraft, chs. 9-12] continued
[Jan.14] The
Gospel and Culture (continued) [Kraft,
ch.6]
a)
Evangelical
Perspectives: Lausanne Covenant
b)
Niebuhr’s
Fivefold Typology
c)
Biblical
Hermeneutics and Culture
The Lausanne Covenant’s position on Evangelism and Culture is helpful:
The development of strategies for
world evangelization calls for imaginative pioneering methods. Under God, the
result will be the rise of churches deeply rooted in Christ and closely related
to their culture. Culture must always be tested and judged by Scripture.
Because men and women are God's creatures, some of their culture is rich in
beauty and goodness. Because they are fallen, all of it is tainted with sin and
some of it is demonic. The gospel does not presuppose the superiority of any
culture to another, but evaluates all cultures according to its own criteria of
truth and righteousness, and insists on moral absolutes in every culture.
Missions have all too frequently exported with the gospel an alien culture and
churches have sometimes been in bondage to culture rather than to Scripture.
Christ's evangelists must humbly seek to empty themselves of all but their
personal authenticity in order to become the servants of others, and churches
must seek to transform and enrich culture, all for the glory of God.
What follows is a summary of H. Richard Niebuhr's book Christ and Culture. [This summary was prepared by my former Durham colleague, Dr. Atsuyoshi Fujiwara.][1] Niebuhr’s typology has become a standard way of viewing the relationship between Christ and culture. Note that the relationship is not between Christianity and culture but between Christ and culture. Christianity, in its various forms, results from the interaction between these two poles.
The problem of Christian faith and culture has been discussed since the very early stage of Christianity. Niebuhr calls it an "enduring problem" and asserts that the essential problem is not Christianity and culture but Christ and culture. Christianity here is never considered absolute but relative because it "moves between the poles of Christ and culture." After defining both Christ and culture, he then presents five types of Christian response to this problem.
1. Christ against Culture: Exclusivist
Approach
The first approach emphasises the absolute authority of Christ and uncompromisingly rejects loyalty to culture because culture is fallen. The conflict between Christ and culture is conspicuous in this "either-or" position. It interprets the world dualistically; "Whatever does not belong to the commonwealth of Christ is under the rule of evil."
Niebuhr sees as typical examples of this approach in the First Letter of John, Tertullian, and Leo Tolstoy. I John says: "Do not love the world or the things in the world. The love of the Father is not in those who love the world." The second century representative, Tertullian, believed that sin dwelt in culture, and therefore, at least theoretically, rejected culture. Tolstoy interpreted the New Testament literally and sought to obey the law of Christ in it. He discarded every aspect of culture except for the arts. (Being an artist, he could not totally reject the arts!) Niebuhr also alludes to the monastic movement, Protestant sectarianism, Wycliffe, and Kierkegaard in this category.
Niebuhr values this radical approach for three reasons: it is rightfully drawn from the Lordship of Christ; it is a typical early Christian attitude; and it has a balancing function to all other Christian groups, just as Romans 13 is balanced by I John. When one recognizes Christ's radical authority, this exclusive answer is inevitable, without which Christianity loses a crucial aspect.
Although it is an inevitable Christian answer, Niebuhr asserts that it is also an inadequate response. First of all, the radical approach, withdrawal from society or rejection of culture, is not directly effective in changing culture. Although it prepared a way for reformation in the society and church, such a reformation was not achieved because of this radical spirit. It was rather carried out by other people who embraced a different conviction concerning the problem of Christ and culture.
Second, these radical Christians, while rejecting culture, make use of its benefits. The writer of I John and Tertullian, in condemning pagan philosophy, used its vocabulary. Tolstoy was in the midst of the Russian cultural movement of his time. Humans are part of culture, and all that they, even radical Christians, can do is to select and modify, under the authority of Christ, what is already there in culture.
Thirdly, these exclusivists tend to undercut the seriousness of sin. They try to protect the holy community from the fallen world by separating from it. The assumption is that sin abides in culture and the community is unaffected, or less affected, by sin. Nevertheless such a community and the individuals comprising the community are obviously tainted with sin, too.
Finally, Niebuhr gives two profound theological arguments against this radical position from the doctrine of the Trinity. One is that the radical Christians' loyalty to Christ tends to result in so-called "Unitarianism of the Son," ignoring God the Father and Creator and the Holy Spirit the Sustainer of the world and the church. The other is that the radicals' rejection of the fallen world leads them to a suspicion of the Creator of the world. Radical Christians have a tendency toward heretical dualism: an evil material sphere and a spiritual sphere guided by Christ and the Spirit in the believer. Thus they fail to understand the doctrine of the Trinity, slighting the presence and work of God and the Spirit in culture.
2. Christ of Culture: Harmonious Approach
The second extreme approach relaxes the tension between Christ and culture. It is a "both-and" position and harmonises Christ and culture by overlooking conflicting elements in the New Testament and society. The adherents of this harmonious approach are selective in their attitude both to Christ and to culture, and their Christ tends to be rational and abstract rather than historical and concrete. Their Christ is regarded as the greatest human achievement, or one which should be treasured, yet not as Lord of culture. However it is to be noted that Niebuhr tells us that such people recognize at least something beyond reason and partially acknowledge "a revelation that cannot be completely absorbed into the life of reason." Niebuhr was probably prepared to call them Christians for this reason. We can infer that their Christ is not totally swallowed in culture but contains a meager tension with culture, although it is significantly less than any of the other four types. Niebuhr observes this type of Christianity in various people: Jewish Christians who tried to hold Christian faith and Jewish tradition, Christian Gnostics, Abelard, and Culture-Protestantism (Protestant Liberalism).
Niebuhr sees two positive aspects in this inclusive position. Firstly it indirectly helps the expansion of the kingdom of God. Evangelism is not their primary intention. Yet they stimulate other Christians to take a risk of indigenizing the Christian message, such as translating the gospel into the "vulgar tongue," which can result in fruitful evangelism. They also tend to talk to the leading class of the society in the sophisticated language of their time, and Niebuhr calls them "missionaries to the aristocracy and the middle class, or to the group rising to power in a civilization." The conversion of the leadership class, no matter how political it would be, enhanced the Christianization of the society.
Also, Christ-of-culture people help others by reminding them of "the universal meaning of the gospel." Though Jesus' primary interest was in the kingdom of God, He did not ignore the world. "Jesus Christ has many aspects." He regarded some wise men as nearer to the kingdom of God than others. The inclusivists are aware of differences of culture. Unlike Christ-against-culture people, they do not reject culture as a whole because of their high estimation of culture.
However, this position has been criticized by both Christians and non-Christians, and Niebuhr also has the least positive assessment of this type of approach. Cultural Christianity is not fully Christian nor fully cultural. It did not gain disciples for Christ; and its New Testament Jesus is constantly distorted. Furthermore Niebuhr gives three other shortcomings, which are also applicable to the radical Christians. Firstly, sin is treated superficially. Both exclusivists and inclusivists tend to presuppose an area free from sin: the holy community for the former and higher human spirit for the latter. Secondly, cultural Christians, as much as radical Christians, tend to treat law more seriously than grace. While the radicals emphasize human response more than divine initiative, cultural Christians prefer knowledge which ultimately depends on the human self. While the former is a response to Christ's Lordship, the latter shows a more independent spirit, which seems at variance with the shape of the New Testament witness. Third, Niebuhr comes to the doctrine of the Trinity. Both radical Christians and accommodationist Christians, he says, dislike the doctrine. The former tend to consider the doctrine as an integration of biblical theology with cultural philosophy; and the latter incline to identify Christ with the divine spirit because of their abstract tendency.
Niebuhr's other three types remain in between the two extreme types already mentioned. They are described as superior answers to the former two, and share four common convictions which distinguish them from those extreme positions. First, Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Creator. Nature, on the basis of which culture is produced, is good. Therefore Christ cannot simply be against culture. Moreover they believe that humans are responsible to God in actual and concrete situations. Being given freedom and ability, developing culture is part of human obedience to God. Furthermore the central positions recognise the serious nature of sin and its universality. While exclusive and inclusive Christians tend to disregard the radical nature of sin, these believe that humans can never attain to holiness. Finally the central Christians agree on the understanding of grace and law. They believe in the supremacy of divine grace and necessity of human obedience. Human culture is possible only by divine grace; and the experience of grace leads one to actualising the law in society.
1. Christ above Culture: Synthetic Approach
The synthesist approach is a "both-and" response like the harmonious approach. It acknowledges the gap between Christ and culture, and affirms the priority of Christ. Nevertheless the synthesists regard culture as having positive value of its own, although imperfect, and their Christ is the instructor rather than the judge. They think that Christian teaching and good products of culture are different but not always contradictory. We can infer that the synthesists by Niebuhr's definition do not accept any and every aspect of culture, but affirm culture conditionally and selectively.
Niebuhr lists Clement of Alexandria and Thomas Aquinas as typical examples of this type. Clement lived in the period when Christians were still in a minority; therefore his interest was limited to the "culture of Christians" rather than the "Christianization of culture." While maintaining a distinctive Christian faith, Clement believed that Christians were to attain cultural virtue and good cultural disciplines were to be kept in the church. Aquinas is the most typical representative of the synthesist type. He worked on a Christian culture involving the whole of Medieval society. His Christianity is often considered to have two storeys. While his Christ was far above culture, his ground floor is controlled by the wisdom of culture.
Niebuhr describes the synthesist position as an attractive choice. The synthesists open the door for the co-operation between Christians and non-Christians at the ground floor level. At the same time, they maintain a distinctive Christian message. Moreover, particularly in the medieval period, they preserved and developed Greek and Roman culture for the following generations.
Their shortcomings are spelled out as well. The synthesists tend to consider their approach, in particular Aquinas' theology, equal to the eternal law of God. Any answer is produced in a particular culture and is relative, but the synthesists by Niebuhr's definition do not recognize the cultural limit of their answers; when they realize such a limitation, they are regarded as moving towards Niebuhr's own view, the conversionist. Also, the synthesist understanding of sin is superficial. Although they do affirm sinfulness of humans and take sin more seriously than cultural Christians, their recognition of it is not sufficient. Human reason for them may be darkened but it is not totally damaged, and this does not seem to be profound enough at all for radical, paradox, and conversionist Christians.
2. Christ and Culture in Paradox: Dualist
Approach
The dualist position, like accommodationist and synthesist positions, attempts to give a "both-and" answer to the Christ-culture problem. Yet dualists do so in an extremely sharp tension. Unlike the accommodationists and the synthesists, the dualists, along with the radicals, are sensitive enough to recognize the serious depravity of both human beings and culture. They are certain about two things: (1) sectarian withdrawal from society could not help them since both the church and the world are seriously affected by sin; (2) nevertheless God sustains them in culture and they are responsible for the world. Thus they hold the conflicting elements together: loyalty to Christ and responsibility to culture. Their most explicit paradoxes appear in "law and grace" and "divine wrath and mercy." Human performance falls short of the law, yet grace overcomes the law without ruining it; wrath lies upon sinful humans, yet mercy embraces them. The dualists choose to live in this dynamic tension.
The Apostle Paul and Martin Luther are viewed as representative of this type. While proclaiming the distinctive Christian message, Paul utilized cultural wisdom for practical matters. Such a cultural Christian ethics was based on reason and wisdom of the culture. Although these did not contradict the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus, they were at best only non-vicious and could not be virtuous. After all, Paul was preoccupied with the kingdom of God; and for him matters of this world are secondary or worthless in comparison to the kingdom.
Luther distinguishes two kingdoms: the kingdom of God filled with grace and mercy, and the kingdom of the world filled with wrath and severity. Niebuhr asserts: More than any great Christian leader before him, Luther affirmed life in culture as the sphere in which Christ could and ought to be followed; and more than any other he discerned that the rules to be followed in cultural life were independent of Christian or church law. However he believed that these two kingdoms are closely related, and tried to hold them in tension without separating them. He did not "divide what he distinguishes." Thus Luther could write both a tract entitled “A Treatise on Christian Liberty” celebrating faith and love (“from faith flow love and joy in the Lord, and from love a joyful and free mind that serves one’s neighbors willingly”), and one entitled “Against the Robbing and Murdering Horde of Peasants” which is addressed to the authorities and asks them to “stab, smite, slay whoever you can … here there is no time for sleeping, no place for patience or mercy”.
The dualist position brought a profound understanding of sin and its redemption by Christ. Its dynamic understanding of the Christ-culture problem was not only more persuasive and realistic but also more inspiring than other static approaches. Nevertheless, Niebuhr points out three insufficient aspects of the dualist approach. First, the dualists open the door to the antinomianism. No matter how morally humans try to live, they still fall short of the divine law. This can discourage people from living conscientiously. Second, their predominantly spiritual concern leads them to be culturally conservative. Their focus remains mainly in the religious realm, and social matters are principally left untouched. We can regard as distorted examples of this approach in modern history would be pro-Hitler "German Christians" and not a small number of Japanese Christians during the second world war. Both of them were schizophrenic in their loyalty to the nation and to Christ. Third, those upholding this approach have a tendency to pay insufficient respect to the positive aspects of God's creation because of their principal preoccupation with Christ's redemption, the radical nature of sin, and spiritual matters. Although it is ultimately temporary, fallen, and needs to be redeemed, it is nonetheless a good creation.
3. Christ the Transformer of Culture:
Conversionist Approach
The conversionists recognize a sharp distinction between Christ and human achievement; they are aware of the radical sin in the human and culture. Yet they have a distinctively positive attitude toward culture. They believe that God reigns over culture and therefore Christians are responsible for cultural duties.
Niebuhr gives three characteristics of the transformation approach related to their involvement in culture. First, they value the creation as much as redemption. They see the work of God in Christ not only in the Cross, the Resurrection, and the Second Coming, but also in the Incarnation. Christ who creates the world participates in culture. Second, the conversionists sharply distinguish the evil human fall from the good creation by God. This corruption is a departure from the created goodness and is exclusively a human act. Although it is evil, it is perverted good. Third, their understanding of history is existential. They believe that God interacts with humans in the here and now. They are more concerned with the present divine restoration than events in the past and future.
An approach of this sort appears in the Fourth Gospel and in the theology of Augustine of Hippo. Although the Gospel of John clearly expresses the fall, the creation is essentially good since it is God's work through Christ. The fall is the perversion of the goodness of the creation. Although he indicates the end of history, his major emphasis is on the eternal now or the existential moment. Thus Niebuhr sees John's concern with the divine transformation of the human in the present time. Nevertheless John did not mix the Church and the world outside, and thought that such a transformation was possible only to the few. In this sense, Niebuhr says, he had an exclusivist flavor.
Augustine was a living example of the transformation of culture. Following his conversion, he transvalued and reshaped what he had learned as a non-Christian, instead of rejecting it all. Augustine believed that Christ "redirects, reinvigorates, and regenerates" all human activity, which is perverted and corrupted from the essentially good. Yet Augustine did not dream of the total transformation of culture in which all human activities are directed to God in harmony and peace. He rather stayed with the traditional eschatological vision of the Scriptures: eternal separation of the saved and the damned.
Niebuhr wonders why Augustine did not thoroughly carry out the conversionist view, and conjectures that it is to be attributed to his defensiveness and justification of the Christian tradition. Obviously Augustine did not dishonor the Christian tradition, nor did he depart from the Scriptures, and he did have a defensive approach as a church leader. Yet it seems to me rather that Augustine took sin more seriously than Niebuhr, and this did not allow him to entertain the optimistic idea of a thoroughly transformed culture at the end.
How do you personally evaluate these different approaches? Which represents the approach of your church or denomination in general? Which approach do you prefer as an individual?
Finally, we must apply this to cultures today. Our world changes rapidly. Enlightenment assumptions about science and reason are no longer as universally accepted as they once were. This is called postmodernity. How should the Church respond to this new situation? Has it even responded adequately to modernity yet?