What do you think?
Rate this book
Christ and Culture: 50th Anniversary Edition―Being True to Christ in a Materialistic Age
This 50th-anniversary edition, with a new foreword by the distinguished historian Martin E. Marty, who regards this book as one of the most vital books of our time, as well as an introduction by the author never before included in the book, and a new preface by James Gustafson, the premier Christian ethicist who is considered Niebuhr’s contemporary successor, poses the challenge of being true to Christ in a materialistic age to an entirely new generation of Christian readers.
304 pages, Paperback
First published October 5, 1951
99 people are currently reading
2891 people want to read
About the author
H. Richard Niebuhr
52 books46 followersHelmut Richard Niebuhr was one of the most important Christian theological-ethicists in 20th century America, most known for his 1951 book Christ and Culture and his posthumously published book The Responsible Self. The younger brother of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, Richard Niebuhr taught for several decades at Yale Divinity School. His theology (together with that of his colleague at Yale, Hans Wilhelm Frei) has been one of the main sources of post-liberal theology, sometimes called the "Yale school". He influenced such figures as James Gustafson and Stanley Hauerwas.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews
March 31, 2022
Some people speak of three categories of Christian engagement of culture: receive, reject, redeem. And Brian Godawa has written about cultural gluttons vs. cultural anorexics. People using these categories, consciously or unconsciously, have inherited this kind of systemization from H. Richard Niebuhr. Niebuhr notices five main ways that Christians interact with culture.
1. Radicals see Christ and culture in opposition: Christ against culture. Tertullian and Tolstoy are presented as representatives, although in each category, Niebuhr is careful to say that he is speaking broadly to determine types; Niebuhr acknowledges that those whom he calls representatives exhibit qualities of other categories as well. This category corresponds to the "reject" category, especially regarding the withdrawal of Christians from society and the emphasis on 2 Cor. 6:17 and 1 John 2:15. To an extent, the second wave of 20c. Christian fundamentalism could fit here, with its strong stance on separation.
2. Culturalists idealize the relationship between Christ and culture, seeing mostly an agreement: Christ of culture. Representatives could include Walter Rauschenbusch and others who were part of the social gospel, emphasizing the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man in an attempt to accommodate Christ and culture (cf. Barth's "Cultural Protestantism"). This is the "receive" category.
Niebuhr lumps the next three together, and they would all fit in the "redeem" category. But even as hybrids (as opposed to receiving or rejecting), there are significant differences between the groups.
3. Synthesists see Christ as the fulfillment of cultural aspirations: Christ above culture. They see pagans as having a fragmented light, and all they need is to be pointed in the right direction; it's as if unbelievers are able to climb up so far to God on their own, and Christ supplies the missing link to bridge the gap. Niebuhr puts Thomas Aquinas here, with his baptism of Aristotle. Cornelius Van Til puts C.S. Lewis here (see Essays on Christian Education, pp. 9–15).
4. Dualists, best represented by Luther, view sin's effect on humanity as being too powerful for Christ and culture to be in complete synthesis: Christ and culture are in paradox. Society is unconquerably immoral (209), but at least Christians can live out the gospel. The kingdom of the world has useful things in it, which Christians can be involved in, but this kingdom is always in tension with the kingdom of God. The kingship of Christ has little to do with the kingdom of the world, although most secular activities are permitted. Most importantly, there is no way to pursue secular activities in a distinctively Christian manner; that is confusing the two kingdoms, and it's like putting the devil in heaven and God in hell (172). Niebuhr calls Roger Williams the best American example of this idea (183), especially in the separation of church and state (184). As Niebuhr describes this category, "Man is a great amphibian who lives in two realms, and must avoid using in one the ideas and methods appropriate to the other" (183). The emphasis is on "endurance in the expectation of a transhistorical salvation" (45).
5. Conversionists see Christ as the converter of man in his culture and society: Christ is the transformer of culture. Although Augustine did speak about the City of Man and the City of God, Niebuhr thinks Augustine emphasized the transformative potential of the gospel enough for him not to be put in the dualist category. "What distinguishes conversionists from dualists is their more positive and hopeful attitude toward culture" (191). There is an emphasis on creation, fall, and redemption (221)—not the creation-fall-redemption-consummation that dualists sometimes speak of, where God redeems individual souls before the Second Coming, but waits until later to actually fix the world. Because of the fall, human culture has become disordered, but the work of redemption is to reorder creation. Niebuhr puts Calvin here: "Calvinism has been marked by the influence of the eschatological hope of transformation by Christ and by its consequent pressing toward the realization of the promise" (218). Jonathan Edwards would be an American version (219-20).
Highly recommended.
Some responses to criticism here.
Here is Trevin Wax's summary, plus some strengths and weaknesses.
1. Radicals see Christ and culture in opposition: Christ against culture. Tertullian and Tolstoy are presented as representatives, although in each category, Niebuhr is careful to say that he is speaking broadly to determine types; Niebuhr acknowledges that those whom he calls representatives exhibit qualities of other categories as well. This category corresponds to the "reject" category, especially regarding the withdrawal of Christians from society and the emphasis on 2 Cor. 6:17 and 1 John 2:15. To an extent, the second wave of 20c. Christian fundamentalism could fit here, with its strong stance on separation.
2. Culturalists idealize the relationship between Christ and culture, seeing mostly an agreement: Christ of culture. Representatives could include Walter Rauschenbusch and others who were part of the social gospel, emphasizing the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man in an attempt to accommodate Christ and culture (cf. Barth's "Cultural Protestantism"). This is the "receive" category.
Niebuhr lumps the next three together, and they would all fit in the "redeem" category. But even as hybrids (as opposed to receiving or rejecting), there are significant differences between the groups.
3. Synthesists see Christ as the fulfillment of cultural aspirations: Christ above culture. They see pagans as having a fragmented light, and all they need is to be pointed in the right direction; it's as if unbelievers are able to climb up so far to God on their own, and Christ supplies the missing link to bridge the gap. Niebuhr puts Thomas Aquinas here, with his baptism of Aristotle. Cornelius Van Til puts C.S. Lewis here (see Essays on Christian Education, pp. 9–15).
4. Dualists, best represented by Luther, view sin's effect on humanity as being too powerful for Christ and culture to be in complete synthesis: Christ and culture are in paradox. Society is unconquerably immoral (209), but at least Christians can live out the gospel. The kingdom of the world has useful things in it, which Christians can be involved in, but this kingdom is always in tension with the kingdom of God. The kingship of Christ has little to do with the kingdom of the world, although most secular activities are permitted. Most importantly, there is no way to pursue secular activities in a distinctively Christian manner; that is confusing the two kingdoms, and it's like putting the devil in heaven and God in hell (172). Niebuhr calls Roger Williams the best American example of this idea (183), especially in the separation of church and state (184). As Niebuhr describes this category, "Man is a great amphibian who lives in two realms, and must avoid using in one the ideas and methods appropriate to the other" (183). The emphasis is on "endurance in the expectation of a transhistorical salvation" (45).
5. Conversionists see Christ as the converter of man in his culture and society: Christ is the transformer of culture. Although Augustine did speak about the City of Man and the City of God, Niebuhr thinks Augustine emphasized the transformative potential of the gospel enough for him not to be put in the dualist category. "What distinguishes conversionists from dualists is their more positive and hopeful attitude toward culture" (191). There is an emphasis on creation, fall, and redemption (221)—not the creation-fall-redemption-consummation that dualists sometimes speak of, where God redeems individual souls before the Second Coming, but waits until later to actually fix the world. Because of the fall, human culture has become disordered, but the work of redemption is to reorder creation. Niebuhr puts Calvin here: "Calvinism has been marked by the influence of the eschatological hope of transformation by Christ and by its consequent pressing toward the realization of the promise" (218). Jonathan Edwards would be an American version (219-20).
Highly recommended.
Some responses to criticism here.
Here is Trevin Wax's summary, plus some strengths and weaknesses.
October 8, 2015
Now that I've read this, I'm finding that it is considered an extremely important work in the conversation on how Christians should engage with culture. (Western Lit mates, we had a discussion question that drew upon its categorization of possible approaches.)
Basically, H. Richard Niebuhr--Reinhold Niebuhr's brother--analyzes five different ways (or "typologies" of ways) that Christians have historically approached the problem of dual commitments to Christ and to the culture in which they live: Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox, and Christ the transformer of culture--and he tries to fairly critique each one.
I would recommend this book to any Christian who has not read it, as it is invaluable in getting a basic overview of the different approaches, the theological traditions to which they are often connected, and the way they have played out in actual practice. However, I'd also add some points I think are important in reading the book carefully (and it does need care).
First, there are some problems with even attempting to align a certain "typology" with a certain Christian tradition or thinker. The lines are rarely that clear cut; hence, although Augustine is placed in the fifth category, he clearly has elements of the first, and so on in many other cases. (Niebuhr does admit this problem, however.) Further, although Niebuhr tries to frame the initial question fairly, it's obvious by the end of the book that the terms are set up to favor the fifth approach (Christ the transformer of culture), which is also the approach Niebuhr neither criticizes nor clarifies what its end objectives are.
Also, the very action of trying to allow for multiple theological understandings of the person and work of Christ is biased against every theological tradition that would exclude any of the others, in favor of Niebuhr's assumption that Christian revelation is relative to time and place and that no one person or church can claim greater adherence to dogmatic truth than any other. Fair enough statement from Niebuhr's rather liberal Protestant viewpoint, and people of all theological traditions will still find the book informative, but those within a particular tradition will need to look elsewhere for further elaboration of the Christian approach to culture favored by their tradition (and it might not fit any of Niebuhr's typologies!), and will probably not appreciate many of Niebuhr's all-inclusive ending remarks.
All in all, useful, but only as a springboard to further study.
December 27, 2010
Niehbur's book, Christ and Culture, presents five different views of how Christians understood Christ and Culture.
The first is Christ Against Culture, which is best displayed by the anabaptists and the Amish. It is the separatist view.
The second is Christ Of Culture. This is best pictured by liberal Protestantism, and its efforts to interpret culture as if it were representative of Christ. These folks tend to interpret philosophy and science as if it is all good and teaches what Christ himself taught. Thus, "Christianity so interpreted became a religious and philosophic system, regarded doubtless as the best and only true one, yet one among many."
The third is Christ Above Culture. This view takes a synthesist approach, there is a Christ, and there is a Culture. To culture we go to discern the laws of culture, because culture is the work of God. Reason and revelation are both equally sources of law and truth for living, dependent upon which area of life one is living in. This is seen in the works of Thomas Aquinas. It is a move from culture (and understanding through reason) to Christ (and understanding through revelation).
The fourth is Christ And Culture In Paradox. This is Luther's view, generally. It is dualist, although not in the Manichean sense. This view takes the opposite approach of Christ Above Culture. It does not move from culture to Christ, but from Christ to culture. Christ deals with the problems of the moral life, and then provides for man to carry on his work in life (culture), but does not directly govern the external actions in which he does so. Further, "No increase of scientific and technical knowledge can renew the spirit within us; but the right spirit will impel us to seek knowledge and skill in our special vocations in the world that we may render service."
The fifth is Christ the Transform of Culture. This view is seen in Augustine and Calvin, as well as others. They believe that "culture is under God's sovereign rule, and that the Christian must carry on cultural work in obedience to the Lord." Holders of this view vary on whether or not the see success in it. Augustine and Calvin sometimes did and sometimes did not, others do. They read into the universalist passages and see the culture being transformed by the community of Christ believers--the knowledge of the glory of the Lord filling the earth as the waters cover the sea.
Most impressive about this book was the author's admission that the Church needs all of these views. One argument to this effect, which can be argued, is that certain views (like the separatist view) tend to reach out to the lowly and have great success among them, while other views (like the Christ of Culture view) tend to reach out to the learned and have success among them. Thus, every creature hears the gospel as the Church does her work.
He concludes the book with an argument that will surely find him labelled a liberal (even though he rejects--or at least finds fault in--the arguments of liberal protestantism in the Christ of Culture view). Namely, he makes an argument in favor of what he calls relativism. He is simply arguing that the conclusions we arrive at in seeking to be Christians in our culture are relative because of the four ways we have to arrive at them,
1)dependent on incomplete knowledge of the individual
2)relative to the measure of our own faith and unbelief
3)related to the historical position and duties of life we occupy
4)concerned with the relative values of things.
The most thought-provoking line from his reasoning upon this is
"Men are generally right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny. What we deny is generally something that lies outside our experience, and about which we can therefore say nothing."
The first is Christ Against Culture, which is best displayed by the anabaptists and the Amish. It is the separatist view.
The second is Christ Of Culture. This is best pictured by liberal Protestantism, and its efforts to interpret culture as if it were representative of Christ. These folks tend to interpret philosophy and science as if it is all good and teaches what Christ himself taught. Thus, "Christianity so interpreted became a religious and philosophic system, regarded doubtless as the best and only true one, yet one among many."
The third is Christ Above Culture. This view takes a synthesist approach, there is a Christ, and there is a Culture. To culture we go to discern the laws of culture, because culture is the work of God. Reason and revelation are both equally sources of law and truth for living, dependent upon which area of life one is living in. This is seen in the works of Thomas Aquinas. It is a move from culture (and understanding through reason) to Christ (and understanding through revelation).
The fourth is Christ And Culture In Paradox. This is Luther's view, generally. It is dualist, although not in the Manichean sense. This view takes the opposite approach of Christ Above Culture. It does not move from culture to Christ, but from Christ to culture. Christ deals with the problems of the moral life, and then provides for man to carry on his work in life (culture), but does not directly govern the external actions in which he does so. Further, "No increase of scientific and technical knowledge can renew the spirit within us; but the right spirit will impel us to seek knowledge and skill in our special vocations in the world that we may render service."
The fifth is Christ the Transform of Culture. This view is seen in Augustine and Calvin, as well as others. They believe that "culture is under God's sovereign rule, and that the Christian must carry on cultural work in obedience to the Lord." Holders of this view vary on whether or not the see success in it. Augustine and Calvin sometimes did and sometimes did not, others do. They read into the universalist passages and see the culture being transformed by the community of Christ believers--the knowledge of the glory of the Lord filling the earth as the waters cover the sea.
Most impressive about this book was the author's admission that the Church needs all of these views. One argument to this effect, which can be argued, is that certain views (like the separatist view) tend to reach out to the lowly and have great success among them, while other views (like the Christ of Culture view) tend to reach out to the learned and have success among them. Thus, every creature hears the gospel as the Church does her work.
He concludes the book with an argument that will surely find him labelled a liberal (even though he rejects--or at least finds fault in--the arguments of liberal protestantism in the Christ of Culture view). Namely, he makes an argument in favor of what he calls relativism. He is simply arguing that the conclusions we arrive at in seeking to be Christians in our culture are relative because of the four ways we have to arrive at them,
1)dependent on incomplete knowledge of the individual
2)relative to the measure of our own faith and unbelief
3)related to the historical position and duties of life we occupy
4)concerned with the relative values of things.
The most thought-provoking line from his reasoning upon this is
"Men are generally right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny. What we deny is generally something that lies outside our experience, and about which we can therefore say nothing."
July 15, 2024
Prea teoretică și prea lungă pentru ceea ce oferă. Am înțeles, sunt 5 tipologii de etică creștină regăsite în societăți creștine și istorice care se manifestă cu pondere mai mare în diferite teologii și perioade. Foarte bine. Nu judecăm ierarhic tipologiile pentru că toate reprezintă o fațetă a modului de înțelegere a lui Cristos prin prisma lentilelor culturale, personale etc. De acord și cu asta.
Nu înțeleg însă lungimea și scopul cărții. După introducerea și înțelegerea lor de ce atâta elaborare doar de dragul elaborării.
In esență cred că e o carte bună, dar nu pentru acum și nu pentru cineva care caută moduri de implementare practică, nu doar de înțelegere a unui fenomen.
Așteptam de mult timp sa îi vină rândul în lista lecturilor. Greu m-am împăcat cu gândul că trebuie să fie lăsată deoparte. Diferite considerate au dus la concluzia... Nu merită. Trist... Mai ales la câți oameni de calibru din Romania o vorbesc de bine pe spatele coperții:))
Nu înțeleg însă lungimea și scopul cărții. După introducerea și înțelegerea lor de ce atâta elaborare doar de dragul elaborării.
In esență cred că e o carte bună, dar nu pentru acum și nu pentru cineva care caută moduri de implementare practică, nu doar de înțelegere a unui fenomen.
Așteptam de mult timp sa îi vină rândul în lista lecturilor. Greu m-am împăcat cu gândul că trebuie să fie lăsată deoparte. Diferite considerate au dus la concluzia... Nu merită. Trist... Mai ales la câți oameni de calibru din Romania o vorbesc de bine pe spatele coperții:))
June 24, 2013
Really enjoyed this. Want to review it with a phrase I don't think has been used concerning it before, which is "rollicking good time." Conversionism, baby!
October 12, 2018
Very smart, although also a good reminder that mid-century American prose could be astonishingly abstract and slippery.
June 28, 2024
My father recommended this. It was a slog. Richard, Reinhold’s more conservative brother, doesn’t like jazz or big band music, or dancing, or movies, or popular novels, or any thing that hints at popularity. I can understand that. But he is not like Kempis. He is not a “just look around you at all the Beauty” type of guy. He is a tear your clothes and knash your teeth and a “I am not worthy” type of guy. ...
Sort of like a companion book to Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans. Neibuhr, like that unstable loon, Steppenwolf, decries popular culture as corrupt and depraved. It distracts from the only thing that matters, he moans.
I certainly can point to instances in modern culture where this is true. Lots of them. Sickening instances. Damien Hirsch comes to mind. Barry Manilow. But then I recall that Neibuhr wrote this in the 1940s or 50s, and realized that he is talking about jazz, modern art, pulp fiction, comic books, Argosy magazine, game shows, Peter Gunn, Frank Sinatra, and possibly, Elvis.
Today, it would be, for example, John Wick movies, Fast and Furious, and Taylor Swift and rap music, social media in general or what have you. Does all of this underpin our national downfall? Only if you want it to. I mean, I think a good case for the money culture of accountants and rich investors taking over Boeing and running down a once great company, is a better example of what has underpinned our national downfall.
But, stepping back a bit, to the Synoptic Gospels of the New Testament, the people Jesus attacked were, primarily, the Pharisees, with special fire reserved for the money-changers in the Temple. But did Jesus go around attacking singers or artists? And who did the Pharisees stand with? They stood with (and for) the wealth and privilege of the land owners, money lenders, priests and judges…
So it kind of makes you wonder, was Neibuhr interpreting the New Testament with his attack, or did he have another agenda? And did his brother, Reinhold, perhaps understand the New Testament better? The Nature and Destiny of Man, Vols 1-2
Sort of like a companion book to Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans. Neibuhr, like that unstable loon, Steppenwolf, decries popular culture as corrupt and depraved. It distracts from the only thing that matters, he moans.
I certainly can point to instances in modern culture where this is true. Lots of them. Sickening instances. Damien Hirsch comes to mind. Barry Manilow. But then I recall that Neibuhr wrote this in the 1940s or 50s, and realized that he is talking about jazz, modern art, pulp fiction, comic books, Argosy magazine, game shows, Peter Gunn, Frank Sinatra, and possibly, Elvis.
Today, it would be, for example, John Wick movies, Fast and Furious, and Taylor Swift and rap music, social media in general or what have you. Does all of this underpin our national downfall? Only if you want it to. I mean, I think a good case for the money culture of accountants and rich investors taking over Boeing and running down a once great company, is a better example of what has underpinned our national downfall.
But, stepping back a bit, to the Synoptic Gospels of the New Testament, the people Jesus attacked were, primarily, the Pharisees, with special fire reserved for the money-changers in the Temple. But did Jesus go around attacking singers or artists? And who did the Pharisees stand with? They stood with (and for) the wealth and privilege of the land owners, money lenders, priests and judges…
So it kind of makes you wonder, was Neibuhr interpreting the New Testament with his attack, or did he have another agenda? And did his brother, Reinhold, perhaps understand the New Testament better? The Nature and Destiny of Man, Vols 1-2
June 24, 2017
The hand on the cover represents the five views of Christ and Culture: Christ against culture, Christ of culture, and Christ over culture. The last has three are related sub-types: syncretism, dualism, and conversionism. Conversionism says that, as Christians in culture, we recognize that Christ is Lord of culture and through history is transforming culture through the application of gospel living to all aspects of life. The kingdoms of the world have become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.
July 8, 2020
Reading some of the summaries of this book to me is better than reading the book itself. Neigbur seems to repeat many of his points and he will talk you in circles.
The book was far too long for the value I got out of it.
The book was far too long for the value I got out of it.
October 26, 2021
I read this because I kept seeing it referenced in other books I was reading. I figured it's worth going straight to the source. It's a weird book for a few reasons - it's very dense in places and maddeningly unclear in others. And it freely admits that the types it defines - five ways of looking at the intersection of Christ and culture - don't actually exist. Very few if any people or groups fall into a single type, so they're more motifs than categories. Because of that, each defined group feels like a strawmen.
And yet despite all that, I found it enormously helpful in framing my own thinking around how Christians should engage in culture. Because in reality, my thinking around that tends to be sloppy and paradoxical. Seeing these motifs laid out helped me understand the considerations I was making without explicitly recognizing it. So it was useful.
It was useful enough that I decided to take rough notes on the whole book:
How Christianity fits into culture is much discussed today and has been an issue from the very beginning. Early Jews rejected Jesus because it challenged Jewish culture, favoring a new Kingdom of God. Romans and others criticized Christians for having contempt for the present existence and hope in immortality. Marx and Lenin thought this made religion an opiate. Others criticized Christianity for relying on grace over human achievement. Somewhat paradoxically, others think that Christianity is intolerant, in that it claims exclusivity. Others still think that Christian values conflict with social justice. So it's an important question to consider.
What is Christ? Christians are usually defined as people who believe in or follow Christ. But what that means varies widely - he can be a moral teacher, savior, or father of the church. But in all these things, he is a real, specific person. Different groups extol different virtues of Christ - love, hope, obedience, faith, humility. But all these things are understood only in light of his relationship with Father. So Christ is best understood as the Son of God.
What is culture? Anything we do to shape nature. Some characteristics:
1. It is always social
2. It is human achievement
3. It is a world of values, meant to be good for man
4. It’s pluralistic
There are five types in how people have framed the relationship of Christ and culture:
1. Opposition- Christ presents an either/or choice between himself and culture
2. Agreement - Christ is the culmination of culture
3. Christ is the fulfillment of culture, what it aspires to but above it
4. Christ is in tension with culture - we must live by both society and Christ but those are in opposition, and can only be fully resolved someday by God
5. Christ must convert culture - they are opposed, but culture must be transformed
Christ Against Culture
This is typified by 1 John - love Christ, do not love the world. Early apocryphal books are more extreme about separating from culture. Tertullian reflects this; while he says there are places we must engage, he advises shunning most social and political life. Tolstoy was even more extreme than Tertullian. He saw Jesus as a new lawgiver, encapsulated by the Sermon on the Mount (which should be obeyed literally), and he thought all society and institutions (including the church) were evil.
This isolationist stance is easy to criticize, but they are sincere and whole-hearted. They’re also necessary at times in history to challenge the church, else it become just a tool for societal advancement. And they ironically end up reforming culture, though never themselves, but through later intermediaries. The problem with this stance is that one can’t escape culture; everything is built on it and must engage it. Even writing against culture requires cultural language and translation.
There are theological problems also:
- They frequently contrast reason (which marks culture) vs revelation, valuing the latter. But their arguments that have force frequently utilize reason, and even with revelation, they must distinguish good and bad revelation.
- They see culture as the source or cause of sin, so separating a way of maintaining holy. But sin is also in each heart, and denying our sin is the worst sin, so separation itself can’t be sufficient.
- They tend to value law over grace, and come close to works-righteousness, although they generally acknowledge that works is not sufficient.
- They have difficulty dealing with Christ/God/Spirit that rules nature and history. Some deny trinity, or flirt with a Manichaeism that splits spiritual and physical.
The Christ Of Culture
Some see Jesus as the perfecter of their particular societies, the pinnacle of culture. There is no rejection of culture; they take what in Jesus makes the best of civilization and take in culture what matters most to Jesus and smoothes out anything that disagrees. Jesus is not necessarily savior but the best example of a good cultural life. Gnostics were an example of this, who wanted to harmonize Jesus with the best science and philosophy of the day. Abelard did the same.
It’s a common view today, especially in Protestantism but also elsewhere, any time a group sees Jesus as a hero of culture. Locke, Jefferson, Barth, and especially Ritschl fall into this category. All of them see man’s situation as contending with nature, not with God, so Jesus is the leader of a cause, and it’s more about a brotherhood of man than the kingdom of God.
Some who criticize this type are ironically the same - they want to return to a prior culture, e.g. Fundamentalists who criticize liberal Protestantism. They both see man's greatest task as maintaining his best culture. There is good in this type also; historically, when Christianity affects the culture and leaders, the church has grown, partly by helping translate the gospel message to the times. They also remind us that Jesus was relevant to his time, not out of it, and cared for this world.
Problems with it include the fact that it doesn't really seem to sway the world to Christianity. It doesn't go far enough for them. But in other ways they go too far, in twisting and shaping the story of Jesus. They're the opposite of the radical Christ Against Culture camp in that they value reason far above revelation, minimizing or even eliminating the latter where it seems to conflict. Like the radical camp, they envision that it's possible to live without sin and value law over grace, frequently spawning self-reliant humanistic movements. They have similar problems with the Trinity also - what relationship does this Jesus have with a supernatural God?
Christ Above Culture
Most Christians don't live in either of the extremes above but in the middle, and don't see that as compromising, because they don't see the most important issue as Christ and culture but God and man. They all agree Jesus is the Son of God who created the world, so Christ can't be simply opposed to the "world". And since we must obey God the Creator of the world (not just Jesus), that obedience must happen in the natural world. Unlike the first two extremes, they also believe deeply in sin, that it exists in every human heart, and that both grace and obedience are necessary. But they don't all resolve things in the same way; there are 3 groupings.
One group synthesizes Christ and culture, seeing it not as either-or but both-and, affirming both. But unlike the accommodationists, they see a gap between Christ and culture that can't be resolved, but both must be respected. Early examples of this type are Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. Clement was comfortable in the philosophy of his day and saw the best in culture as a tool that can train people to Christ. But still, there's an aspect of faith that transcends culture. Thomas Aquinas embodies this view further. He is on one hand a monk who sees Christ as far above culture, but also sees himself as the guardian of the culture of the church, which has taken over the world. He sees the noblest activity of man to use his reason to move towards the truth, but sees that there is a gap that cannot be crossed without God. There hasn't really been an example since Aquinas.
It's attractive because it tries to resolve in society the same tension that's in every Christian. And the desire to have just social institutions is surely right. Plus it rightly shows that even with all the ordering of society, truth requires something more. But in practice its ordering of society feels very particular to the time so is at best a work in progress, not an arrival at truth. And it tends to institutionalize Christ. In the end, unifying the world with the kingdom of God has to find its ultimate end through God, it's not something we can truly work towards ourselves.
Christ and Culture in Paradox
These are dualists who see Christ and culture as "both-and": in tension, but to be held together. The conflict is primarily about the righteousness of God and the righteousness of self. God has granted man grace through Jesus, yet man is still in sin. So they live with paradoxes, especially in regards to law and grace and wrath and mercy, all of which fully apply even though they’re at odds.
This is less any group but more a motif, and it’s present in Paul. Christ completely transformed Paul and is the starting point of all he understands. He realized that all culture and works of man fall under sin and cannot get us to God. And yet, every part of culture can be redeemed by Christ, not just finally in the future but here and now. Unlike culturalists, it’s more negative - culture cannot be used to bring us closer to God, but at its best inhibits sin. And separating from culture doesn’t work because even Christian communities are affected by sin.
Luther reflects this motif also. He seems to divide strongly between the ethics that’s appropriate for culture (e.g. war) and that for the individual Christian. But he feels that Christ informs how we deal well in the cultural realm, even if it doesn’t direct it. Christ can cause us to view science differently by its own rules, but science can’t lead us to Christ. Modern proponents are for example those who argue for the strong separation of church and state.
It’s useful in how it reflects in society the individual tension between self and God. And it properly takes sin and its effects very seriously. Its dualism though is frequently criticized for leading Christians to antinomianism and cultural conservatism.
Christ the Transformer of Culture
They’re more positive about culture than dualists for three theological convictions: 1/ God is creator, so cultural creation, and redemption acting on it, is good 2/ man’s fall involved a corruption of nature, so creation is not inherently bad 3/ all things are possible to God in history, it’s not just a course of human events, and there is more emphasis on the now than not yet.
John’s Gospel most reflects this motif. He affirms that creation is good, God loves the world, but also that the world is frequently against God. Past and future are less emphasized than eternity time - the coming kingdom of God in other gospels is replaced by eternal life, one that begins now in John. Culture is not to be separated from or taken over, but influenced by Christians’ transformed lives.
Augustine not only represents this motif but embodies it himself - the Roman rhetorician who becomes Christian teacher, bringing his training in service of Christ, and helping transform society toward Christendom. Christ transforms culture by reinvigorating all of human works, which was good but became corrupted. That corruption happened (happens) as men replace the right order of things for God with their own desires. Christ transforms people by reordering hearts towards God, and that brings transformation to the world.
It's tempting after seeing these to conclude that one is the true Christian answer to Christ and culture, but that's not for any individual to decide. At the same time, every individual Christian must decide how to engage with culture for themselves.
And yet despite all that, I found it enormously helpful in framing my own thinking around how Christians should engage in culture. Because in reality, my thinking around that tends to be sloppy and paradoxical. Seeing these motifs laid out helped me understand the considerations I was making without explicitly recognizing it. So it was useful.
It was useful enough that I decided to take rough notes on the whole book:
How Christianity fits into culture is much discussed today and has been an issue from the very beginning. Early Jews rejected Jesus because it challenged Jewish culture, favoring a new Kingdom of God. Romans and others criticized Christians for having contempt for the present existence and hope in immortality. Marx and Lenin thought this made religion an opiate. Others criticized Christianity for relying on grace over human achievement. Somewhat paradoxically, others think that Christianity is intolerant, in that it claims exclusivity. Others still think that Christian values conflict with social justice. So it's an important question to consider.
What is Christ? Christians are usually defined as people who believe in or follow Christ. But what that means varies widely - he can be a moral teacher, savior, or father of the church. But in all these things, he is a real, specific person. Different groups extol different virtues of Christ - love, hope, obedience, faith, humility. But all these things are understood only in light of his relationship with Father. So Christ is best understood as the Son of God.
What is culture? Anything we do to shape nature. Some characteristics:
1. It is always social
2. It is human achievement
3. It is a world of values, meant to be good for man
4. It’s pluralistic
There are five types in how people have framed the relationship of Christ and culture:
1. Opposition- Christ presents an either/or choice between himself and culture
2. Agreement - Christ is the culmination of culture
3. Christ is the fulfillment of culture, what it aspires to but above it
4. Christ is in tension with culture - we must live by both society and Christ but those are in opposition, and can only be fully resolved someday by God
5. Christ must convert culture - they are opposed, but culture must be transformed
Christ Against Culture
This is typified by 1 John - love Christ, do not love the world. Early apocryphal books are more extreme about separating from culture. Tertullian reflects this; while he says there are places we must engage, he advises shunning most social and political life. Tolstoy was even more extreme than Tertullian. He saw Jesus as a new lawgiver, encapsulated by the Sermon on the Mount (which should be obeyed literally), and he thought all society and institutions (including the church) were evil.
This isolationist stance is easy to criticize, but they are sincere and whole-hearted. They’re also necessary at times in history to challenge the church, else it become just a tool for societal advancement. And they ironically end up reforming culture, though never themselves, but through later intermediaries. The problem with this stance is that one can’t escape culture; everything is built on it and must engage it. Even writing against culture requires cultural language and translation.
There are theological problems also:
- They frequently contrast reason (which marks culture) vs revelation, valuing the latter. But their arguments that have force frequently utilize reason, and even with revelation, they must distinguish good and bad revelation.
- They see culture as the source or cause of sin, so separating a way of maintaining holy. But sin is also in each heart, and denying our sin is the worst sin, so separation itself can’t be sufficient.
- They tend to value law over grace, and come close to works-righteousness, although they generally acknowledge that works is not sufficient.
- They have difficulty dealing with Christ/God/Spirit that rules nature and history. Some deny trinity, or flirt with a Manichaeism that splits spiritual and physical.
The Christ Of Culture
Some see Jesus as the perfecter of their particular societies, the pinnacle of culture. There is no rejection of culture; they take what in Jesus makes the best of civilization and take in culture what matters most to Jesus and smoothes out anything that disagrees. Jesus is not necessarily savior but the best example of a good cultural life. Gnostics were an example of this, who wanted to harmonize Jesus with the best science and philosophy of the day. Abelard did the same.
It’s a common view today, especially in Protestantism but also elsewhere, any time a group sees Jesus as a hero of culture. Locke, Jefferson, Barth, and especially Ritschl fall into this category. All of them see man’s situation as contending with nature, not with God, so Jesus is the leader of a cause, and it’s more about a brotherhood of man than the kingdom of God.
Some who criticize this type are ironically the same - they want to return to a prior culture, e.g. Fundamentalists who criticize liberal Protestantism. They both see man's greatest task as maintaining his best culture. There is good in this type also; historically, when Christianity affects the culture and leaders, the church has grown, partly by helping translate the gospel message to the times. They also remind us that Jesus was relevant to his time, not out of it, and cared for this world.
Problems with it include the fact that it doesn't really seem to sway the world to Christianity. It doesn't go far enough for them. But in other ways they go too far, in twisting and shaping the story of Jesus. They're the opposite of the radical Christ Against Culture camp in that they value reason far above revelation, minimizing or even eliminating the latter where it seems to conflict. Like the radical camp, they envision that it's possible to live without sin and value law over grace, frequently spawning self-reliant humanistic movements. They have similar problems with the Trinity also - what relationship does this Jesus have with a supernatural God?
Christ Above Culture
Most Christians don't live in either of the extremes above but in the middle, and don't see that as compromising, because they don't see the most important issue as Christ and culture but God and man. They all agree Jesus is the Son of God who created the world, so Christ can't be simply opposed to the "world". And since we must obey God the Creator of the world (not just Jesus), that obedience must happen in the natural world. Unlike the first two extremes, they also believe deeply in sin, that it exists in every human heart, and that both grace and obedience are necessary. But they don't all resolve things in the same way; there are 3 groupings.
One group synthesizes Christ and culture, seeing it not as either-or but both-and, affirming both. But unlike the accommodationists, they see a gap between Christ and culture that can't be resolved, but both must be respected. Early examples of this type are Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. Clement was comfortable in the philosophy of his day and saw the best in culture as a tool that can train people to Christ. But still, there's an aspect of faith that transcends culture. Thomas Aquinas embodies this view further. He is on one hand a monk who sees Christ as far above culture, but also sees himself as the guardian of the culture of the church, which has taken over the world. He sees the noblest activity of man to use his reason to move towards the truth, but sees that there is a gap that cannot be crossed without God. There hasn't really been an example since Aquinas.
It's attractive because it tries to resolve in society the same tension that's in every Christian. And the desire to have just social institutions is surely right. Plus it rightly shows that even with all the ordering of society, truth requires something more. But in practice its ordering of society feels very particular to the time so is at best a work in progress, not an arrival at truth. And it tends to institutionalize Christ. In the end, unifying the world with the kingdom of God has to find its ultimate end through God, it's not something we can truly work towards ourselves.
Christ and Culture in Paradox
These are dualists who see Christ and culture as "both-and": in tension, but to be held together. The conflict is primarily about the righteousness of God and the righteousness of self. God has granted man grace through Jesus, yet man is still in sin. So they live with paradoxes, especially in regards to law and grace and wrath and mercy, all of which fully apply even though they’re at odds.
This is less any group but more a motif, and it’s present in Paul. Christ completely transformed Paul and is the starting point of all he understands. He realized that all culture and works of man fall under sin and cannot get us to God. And yet, every part of culture can be redeemed by Christ, not just finally in the future but here and now. Unlike culturalists, it’s more negative - culture cannot be used to bring us closer to God, but at its best inhibits sin. And separating from culture doesn’t work because even Christian communities are affected by sin.
Luther reflects this motif also. He seems to divide strongly between the ethics that’s appropriate for culture (e.g. war) and that for the individual Christian. But he feels that Christ informs how we deal well in the cultural realm, even if it doesn’t direct it. Christ can cause us to view science differently by its own rules, but science can’t lead us to Christ. Modern proponents are for example those who argue for the strong separation of church and state.
It’s useful in how it reflects in society the individual tension between self and God. And it properly takes sin and its effects very seriously. Its dualism though is frequently criticized for leading Christians to antinomianism and cultural conservatism.
Christ the Transformer of Culture
They’re more positive about culture than dualists for three theological convictions: 1/ God is creator, so cultural creation, and redemption acting on it, is good 2/ man’s fall involved a corruption of nature, so creation is not inherently bad 3/ all things are possible to God in history, it’s not just a course of human events, and there is more emphasis on the now than not yet.
John’s Gospel most reflects this motif. He affirms that creation is good, God loves the world, but also that the world is frequently against God. Past and future are less emphasized than eternity time - the coming kingdom of God in other gospels is replaced by eternal life, one that begins now in John. Culture is not to be separated from or taken over, but influenced by Christians’ transformed lives.
Augustine not only represents this motif but embodies it himself - the Roman rhetorician who becomes Christian teacher, bringing his training in service of Christ, and helping transform society toward Christendom. Christ transforms culture by reinvigorating all of human works, which was good but became corrupted. That corruption happened (happens) as men replace the right order of things for God with their own desires. Christ transforms people by reordering hearts towards God, and that brings transformation to the world.
It's tempting after seeing these to conclude that one is the true Christian answer to Christ and culture, but that's not for any individual to decide. At the same time, every individual Christian must decide how to engage with culture for themselves.
Read
February 6, 2024It is finished, I sardonically say after reading the last page. Niebuhr’s book is tedious and at times redundant. You want him to get to the point already when he already got to that point, you know? For what it is worth, though, Niebuhr��s work has earned its place as a cornerstone work, and while I don’t foresee myself revisiting this book anytime soon (it’s a concept I find to be easy to understand and hold well without any expectant need for recurrent refreshing in the future), I believe his arguments and ethos are still well rounded, as well as strong and important for a Christian, having aged very little over the last 70 years.
April 11, 2024
Foundational and incredibly helpful categorically. Niebuhr is clear and accessible. Some issues with his methodology, but for the most part, those can be overlooked due to the overall helpfulness of the general categories and other insights (could have been rated 4 stars, but felt like it could swing towards a five as well…so it’s probably more like a 4.5)
March 16, 2022
This seemed never-ending, but I am proud to have pushed through and read it!
July 20, 2021
Niebuhr’s typology is immensely helpful for all believers (even those reading this work decades after its initial publication). His nuance and generosity while covering each of the five motifs encourages the reader to grapple with the complexity of the issue addressed.
January 17, 2018
How should Christians interact with the world? That's the question that Richard Niebuhr tries to answer in this book, exhaustively explaining 5 common viewpoints on the issue. This book is very, very challenging, and not at all for the faint of heart, but the topic is one that all Christians should consider. In the end, Niebuhr never reveals what he believes in this regard, and does a great job of showing no bias in his analysis. Fantastic read, and I would absolutely recommend this book to all who are troubled by seeing Christians interacting poorly with those who are unchurched.
May 21, 2019
A joy to read. Niebuhr was brilliant, but he was also a delightful writer. So succinct. Filled my notes with quotes.
February 25, 2024
Profound. How do Christ and culture relate? These categories will shape my thinking for the rest of my life. Whoever gets these ideas right will change the world. The author shares five views of the relation of Christ and culture. Here’s a summary with my own reflections: each position, its viewpoint, and a relevant criticism.
Position 1: Christ against Culture
Viewpoint: Christ calls the Christian out of/against the mainstream culture. Christ and culture (or, the world) totally oppose each other.
Criticism: Christians cannot completely escape the mainstream culture.
Position 2: Christ of Culture
Viewpoint: Christ affirms whatever the mainstream culture values. Christ totally affirms culture.
Criticism: Such Christians can be swept up in grave cultural evils, such as German Christians were during the Holocaust.
Position 3: Christ above Culture
Viewpoint: Christ is the goal of culture. Through establishing and building on the best of culture, we approach the Kingdom of God.
Criticism: Such Christians can become so caught up in serving and saving a cultural structure that they neglect Christ. Christendom becomes an institution spread by the state and imposed by force.
Position 4: Christ and Culture in Paradox
Viewpoint: The Christian’s loyalty is split between Christ and culture. These two worlds do not affect each other.
Criticism: Such Christians tend to deny the necessity of works to faith. This theory also tends to portray the two masters as equal in authority.
Position 5: Christ Transforming Culture
Viewpoint: Christians enter the mainstream culture, take over it, and transform it.
Criticism: Christians who try to do this become identical to the mainstream culture and, in so becoming, lose what they hoped to offer to it.
I’m still digesting the conclusion chapter, which is a fascinating discussion of decision, the self, and faith vis-à-vis Kierkegaard.
I conclude this: that the mainstream culture is an inescapable, powerful force; that it will never totally submit to Christ, since some people will always reject Christ*; that since culture is only more or less evil, it is not a force to which Christians can simply succumb; and that we need a strong subculture with which to brace ourselves against the mainstream.
*Annihilationism notwithstanding.
Position 1: Christ against Culture
Viewpoint: Christ calls the Christian out of/against the mainstream culture. Christ and culture (or, the world) totally oppose each other.
Criticism: Christians cannot completely escape the mainstream culture.
Position 2: Christ of Culture
Viewpoint: Christ affirms whatever the mainstream culture values. Christ totally affirms culture.
Criticism: Such Christians can be swept up in grave cultural evils, such as German Christians were during the Holocaust.
Position 3: Christ above Culture
Viewpoint: Christ is the goal of culture. Through establishing and building on the best of culture, we approach the Kingdom of God.
Criticism: Such Christians can become so caught up in serving and saving a cultural structure that they neglect Christ. Christendom becomes an institution spread by the state and imposed by force.
Position 4: Christ and Culture in Paradox
Viewpoint: The Christian’s loyalty is split between Christ and culture. These two worlds do not affect each other.
Criticism: Such Christians tend to deny the necessity of works to faith. This theory also tends to portray the two masters as equal in authority.
Position 5: Christ Transforming Culture
Viewpoint: Christians enter the mainstream culture, take over it, and transform it.
Criticism: Christians who try to do this become identical to the mainstream culture and, in so becoming, lose what they hoped to offer to it.
I’m still digesting the conclusion chapter, which is a fascinating discussion of decision, the self, and faith vis-à-vis Kierkegaard.
I conclude this: that the mainstream culture is an inescapable, powerful force; that it will never totally submit to Christ, since some people will always reject Christ*; that since culture is only more or less evil, it is not a force to which Christians can simply succumb; and that we need a strong subculture with which to brace ourselves against the mainstream.
*Annihilationism notwithstanding.
November 22, 2020
This is a question that Christians have been asking themselves since Christ ascended into heaven: How does one live, being "in the world, not of it?" We are sojourners, strangers in a strange land, but we still have to live here among our fellow men and women. How do we live and what does this life look like?
Richard Niebuhr (not to be confused with his brother Reinhold Niebuhr) gave a series of lectures at the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary which were then collected in book form and published in 1951. Is this book out of print? I wonder because the only copy I could find was really old and falling apart. If it is out of print, that is a travesty because the problem of Christ and Culture is one that will never go away. We are still asking this question and will continue to do so until Christ's return.
Niebuhr presents the problem in the first chapter and then lays out five different reactions to the problem as seen in history, with different Christians representing different reactions to the problem. The final chapter gives reasons why each person needs to decide how they will choose to live for Christ within his or her particular culture.
This book has made a huge impact on me personally. I have been agonizing over this problem for decades, and have wavered between different views, and have changed my mind, sometimes drastically, in how much or how little I should be involved in the culture around me. This book doesn't help me solve the problem, but it does help by showing how many wise and notable Christians have dealt with it over the centuries.
Highly recommended.
Richard Niebuhr (not to be confused with his brother Reinhold Niebuhr) gave a series of lectures at the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary which were then collected in book form and published in 1951. Is this book out of print? I wonder because the only copy I could find was really old and falling apart. If it is out of print, that is a travesty because the problem of Christ and Culture is one that will never go away. We are still asking this question and will continue to do so until Christ's return.
Niebuhr presents the problem in the first chapter and then lays out five different reactions to the problem as seen in history, with different Christians representing different reactions to the problem. The final chapter gives reasons why each person needs to decide how they will choose to live for Christ within his or her particular culture.
This book has made a huge impact on me personally. I have been agonizing over this problem for decades, and have wavered between different views, and have changed my mind, sometimes drastically, in how much or how little I should be involved in the culture around me. This book doesn't help me solve the problem, but it does help by showing how many wise and notable Christians have dealt with it over the centuries.
Highly recommended.
May 15, 2024
My oh my I do not have any notion of where to start with this. This has to be the most dense reading I've ever actually done, and the only reason is because I read it in a group with two friends.
This book has changed how I think about my faith and how I must relate or adapt my faith into practical things for my existence in culture. It covers 5 main groupings of Christians and their historical responses to culture. There is so much in there that you will probably only comprehend a third of the material.
This is not for lightweight Christians. Being as knowledgeable about your scripture and your historical church figures and movements before you begin reading is essential. There are so many things I wish I knew more about that would've helped with giving me context for these topics.
The biggest downside to me is the lack of conclusion to his points. He does a good job of laying out material but a bad job of interpreting it for his audience into useful information. You have to do a lot of the legwork yourself on this one.
Probably won't re-read for quite a while.
This book has changed how I think about my faith and how I must relate or adapt my faith into practical things for my existence in culture. It covers 5 main groupings of Christians and their historical responses to culture. There is so much in there that you will probably only comprehend a third of the material.
This is not for lightweight Christians. Being as knowledgeable about your scripture and your historical church figures and movements before you begin reading is essential. There are so many things I wish I knew more about that would've helped with giving me context for these topics.
The biggest downside to me is the lack of conclusion to his points. He does a good job of laying out material but a bad job of interpreting it for his audience into useful information. You have to do a lot of the legwork yourself on this one.
Probably won't re-read for quite a while.
August 7, 2023
I'm blown away by Niebuhr's ability to offer neutral accounts of three different ways of seeing the issue of Christ and Culture. With each, he highlights its strong suits as well as its drawbacks and incongruences with Scripture. However, his writing style is dense and poor, making it hard to recommend to others.
October 20, 2023
Very helpful paradigm describing different ways that the church has historically interfaced with culture.
Christ against culture (Tertullian)
Christ of culture (Abelard, Ritschl, Locke, Mainline Protestantism)
Christ above culture (Aquinas)
Christ and culture in Paradox (Luther)
Christ the transformer of culture (Augustine aka “the GOAT”, Calvin)
Christ against culture (Tertullian)
Christ of culture (Abelard, Ritschl, Locke, Mainline Protestantism)
Christ above culture (Aquinas)
Christ and culture in Paradox (Luther)
Christ the transformer of culture (Augustine aka “the GOAT”, Calvin)
May 26, 2022
How should the Christian church interact with the culture it is located in? Niebuhr presents five potential ways, incorporating historical and biographical evidence for each view. At the end of it all, he argues that all five views have some merit, so long as they are attached to the “absolute”: God Himself. This would be a great book for group discussion, but not for a serious dive into studying culture and Christianity! Solid read.
April 14, 2024
Another book that’s intro and conclusion talk about the inability to categorize its’ subject material… then proceeds to categorize the subject material…
December 30, 2019
Thought provoking. The breadth extends wide and the depth delves deep. I picked at this book over a longer time. I would like to reread it but more quickly next time. I think I would have rather been present for his lectures on the subject.
March 3, 2017
A broad but incisive analysis of the historical trends in Christian thought regarding cultural engagement. Niebuhr is as skilled a guide as one could ask for.
October 29, 2019
I found Richard Niebuhr's treatment of the five Christian ethic typologies he lays out to be both generous and challenging. He defends and carefully critiques all of them showing their value and their pitfalls. As a member of the "Christ against culture" group, I appreciated his work--he's not a radical, by any stretch, probably a liberal (Christ of culture), but his generosity with his polar opposite was noteworthy to me. He offers a convincing argument for why Christians should adapt to culture (Christ of culture), synthesize with it (Christ above culture), leave it alone (Christ and culture in paradox), or try to change it (Christ the transformer of culture). He uses biblical and historical examples and encourages us to be a member of the body throughout time, not isolated in our time and place or in our individualism. Great for pastors to read.
January 15, 2019
This book is a classic but that may not be a good thing. Niebuhr presents 5 categories that are somewhat helpful, but the fundamental flaw of this book is that he does not really define Christ or culture that well. His definitions are too broad and loose. His illustrations of "Christians" include many non-Christians (gnostics, Marcion, etc...). Niebuhr hardly uses the bible and when he does use the scriptures he presents the books of the bible as merely human books. For instance, he talks about 1 John as being radically different in its perspective of Christ and culture compared to Paul's writings. Niebuhr's liberal theology is evident throughout the whole book. I do not really recommend this book unless you just want to make yourself more familiar with a book that has become very influential in current Christian conversations on how the church engages the world. However, I would just recommend D.A. Carson's "Revisiting Christ and Culture." In Carson's book, he summarizes Niebuhr's book and provides helpful critiques.
Here is my brief outline:
The purpose of this book is to set forth typical Christian answers to the problem of Christ and culture and contribute to the mutual understanding of variant and often conflicting Christian groups.
Chapter 1 – The Enduring Problem
The purpose of this chapter is to set the stage for the rest of the book. The focus is on defining terms and explaining the issues that will be addressed in the following chapters.
o The Problem – There is a confusing and many-sided debate about the relations of Christianity and culture.
o Toward A Definition of Christ - He is the New Testament figure, crucified and raised from the dead, the One whom Christians accept as their authority. Belief in him and loyalty to his cause involves men in the double movement from world to God and from God to the world.
o Toward A Definition of Culture - It is the social life of humanity, the environment created by human beings in the areas of “language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organization, inherited artifacts, technical processes, and values.”
o The Typical Answers – There are three typical answers: opposition to culture (Christ against culture); agreement between Christ and culture (Christ of culture), and a mixture of the previous two views (Christ above culture). The Christ above culture type can further be broken down into three more categories: synthetic type, dualistic type, and conversionist type.
Chapter 2 – Christ Against Culture
The thesis of this chapter is that some Christians want to remain pure in their commitment to Christ that they try to separate from the world they live in even though they cannot actually do that.
o The New People and “The World” – An explanation of the contrast between Christians who are new creations and the people among the rest of the world who need to be avoided.
o Tolstoy’s Rejection of Culture – Niebuhr illustrates this view by providing examples from Tertullian and Tolstoy.
o A Necessary and Inadequate Position – It is necessary for Christians to be holy and faithful to the gospel, but because Christ sends us into the world we cannot ever fully separate from the world.
o Theological Problems – Niebuhr provides arguments for why this position cannot be held in the strictest sense.
Chapter 3 – The Christ of Culture
Some Christians assimilate into the culture because they see Jesus as the great enlightener, the great teacher, the one who directs all men in culture to the attainment of wisdom, moral perfection, and peace.
o Accommodation to Culture In Gnosticism and Abelard – During the first few centuries the Gnostics thought of themselves as Christians but they assimilated too much in the culture. The same was true with Abelard.
o “Culture-Protestantism” and A. Ritschl – Further illustrations and explanations of how Protestant liberals embody this perspective.
o In Defense of Cultural Faith – There are some appeals to this position that Niebuhr points out.
o Theological Objections – Christians must be fully loyal to Christ and cannot choose this position for their engagement with the world.
Chapter 4 – Christ Above Culture
This chapter argues for Christ above culture as the dominant view throughout church history and that the focus should be between God and sinful humanity, not a clash between God and the world.
o The Church of the Center – The great majority of Christians and churches have rejected the previous two types and have chosen one of the three models of Christ above culture.
o The Synthesis of Christ and Culture – Justin in the early church and Thomas Aquinas much later would be examples of men who tried to take the best of both Christ and culture to help the world however they could.
o Synthesis in Question – The problem with this view is that it always led to institutionalizing the gospel, making absolute things that are relative, and reduce the infinite to the finite.
Chapter 5 – Christ and Culture in Paradox
There is a constant conflict between Christ and culture, between God and humanity. God is gracious, but man is sinful.
o The Theology of the Dualists – The dualists believed in original sin and the depravity of man that corrupts all of creation.
o The Dualistic Motif in Paul and Marcion – In the Bible, the Pauline epistles present a more dualistic approach and in the early church Marcion also taught this perspective.
o Dualism in Luther and Modern Times – Later on during the Reformation, Martin Luther Kierkegaard would also defend this approach.
o The Virtues and Vices of Dualism – This view aligns well with the experiences in the world, but it often leads to antinomianism or cultural conservatism.
Chapter 6 – Christ the Transformer of Culture
This approach to Christ and culture emphasizes the conversion that transforms lives and then the rest of the culture.
o Theological Convictions – The world is sinful and will be judged by God because he is the sovereign ruler. Christian must carry on cultural work in the obedience to the Lord. The creation is good, but it was corrupted and needs to be redeemed.
o The Conversion Motif in the Fourth Gospel – The gospel of John’s writings in the bible are one of the clearest examples of these themes.
o Augustine and the Conversion of Culture – In church history Augustine aligned himself with this perspective.
o The View of F.D. Maurice – Later on Maurice also embodied this viewpoint.
Chapter 7 – A “Concluding Unscientific Postscript”
The purpose of this final chapter is to encourage readers to not choose only one option because these options need one another.
o Conclusion In Decision – There is not one Christian answer and there will not be one through wider and deeper inquiries.
o The Relativism of Faith – Our conclusions as Christians are relative because they depend on the partial, incomplete, fragmentary knowledge of the individual; they are relative to the measure of a Christian’s faith and unbelief; they are related to whatever historical position they occupy and the stage of life they occupy; and they are concerned with the relative values of things.
o Social Existentialism – As Kierkegaard and Climacus would say, we must arrive at some answer for ourselves and whatever that answer is, then it is the Christian answer. Niebuhr critics this view because it is too individualistic.
o Freedom In Dependence – We make our free decisions not only in such dependence on origins beyond our control, but also in dependence on consequences not in our power. The two strands of faith are loyalty and trust.
Here is my brief outline:
The purpose of this book is to set forth typical Christian answers to the problem of Christ and culture and contribute to the mutual understanding of variant and often conflicting Christian groups.
Chapter 1 – The Enduring Problem
The purpose of this chapter is to set the stage for the rest of the book. The focus is on defining terms and explaining the issues that will be addressed in the following chapters.
o The Problem – There is a confusing and many-sided debate about the relations of Christianity and culture.
o Toward A Definition of Christ - He is the New Testament figure, crucified and raised from the dead, the One whom Christians accept as their authority. Belief in him and loyalty to his cause involves men in the double movement from world to God and from God to the world.
o Toward A Definition of Culture - It is the social life of humanity, the environment created by human beings in the areas of “language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organization, inherited artifacts, technical processes, and values.”
o The Typical Answers – There are three typical answers: opposition to culture (Christ against culture); agreement between Christ and culture (Christ of culture), and a mixture of the previous two views (Christ above culture). The Christ above culture type can further be broken down into three more categories: synthetic type, dualistic type, and conversionist type.
Chapter 2 – Christ Against Culture
The thesis of this chapter is that some Christians want to remain pure in their commitment to Christ that they try to separate from the world they live in even though they cannot actually do that.
o The New People and “The World” – An explanation of the contrast between Christians who are new creations and the people among the rest of the world who need to be avoided.
o Tolstoy’s Rejection of Culture – Niebuhr illustrates this view by providing examples from Tertullian and Tolstoy.
o A Necessary and Inadequate Position – It is necessary for Christians to be holy and faithful to the gospel, but because Christ sends us into the world we cannot ever fully separate from the world.
o Theological Problems – Niebuhr provides arguments for why this position cannot be held in the strictest sense.
Chapter 3 – The Christ of Culture
Some Christians assimilate into the culture because they see Jesus as the great enlightener, the great teacher, the one who directs all men in culture to the attainment of wisdom, moral perfection, and peace.
o Accommodation to Culture In Gnosticism and Abelard – During the first few centuries the Gnostics thought of themselves as Christians but they assimilated too much in the culture. The same was true with Abelard.
o “Culture-Protestantism” and A. Ritschl – Further illustrations and explanations of how Protestant liberals embody this perspective.
o In Defense of Cultural Faith – There are some appeals to this position that Niebuhr points out.
o Theological Objections – Christians must be fully loyal to Christ and cannot choose this position for their engagement with the world.
Chapter 4 – Christ Above Culture
This chapter argues for Christ above culture as the dominant view throughout church history and that the focus should be between God and sinful humanity, not a clash between God and the world.
o The Church of the Center – The great majority of Christians and churches have rejected the previous two types and have chosen one of the three models of Christ above culture.
o The Synthesis of Christ and Culture – Justin in the early church and Thomas Aquinas much later would be examples of men who tried to take the best of both Christ and culture to help the world however they could.
o Synthesis in Question – The problem with this view is that it always led to institutionalizing the gospel, making absolute things that are relative, and reduce the infinite to the finite.
Chapter 5 – Christ and Culture in Paradox
There is a constant conflict between Christ and culture, between God and humanity. God is gracious, but man is sinful.
o The Theology of the Dualists – The dualists believed in original sin and the depravity of man that corrupts all of creation.
o The Dualistic Motif in Paul and Marcion – In the Bible, the Pauline epistles present a more dualistic approach and in the early church Marcion also taught this perspective.
o Dualism in Luther and Modern Times – Later on during the Reformation, Martin Luther Kierkegaard would also defend this approach.
o The Virtues and Vices of Dualism – This view aligns well with the experiences in the world, but it often leads to antinomianism or cultural conservatism.
Chapter 6 – Christ the Transformer of Culture
This approach to Christ and culture emphasizes the conversion that transforms lives and then the rest of the culture.
o Theological Convictions – The world is sinful and will be judged by God because he is the sovereign ruler. Christian must carry on cultural work in the obedience to the Lord. The creation is good, but it was corrupted and needs to be redeemed.
o The Conversion Motif in the Fourth Gospel – The gospel of John’s writings in the bible are one of the clearest examples of these themes.
o Augustine and the Conversion of Culture – In church history Augustine aligned himself with this perspective.
o The View of F.D. Maurice – Later on Maurice also embodied this viewpoint.
Chapter 7 – A “Concluding Unscientific Postscript”
The purpose of this final chapter is to encourage readers to not choose only one option because these options need one another.
o Conclusion In Decision – There is not one Christian answer and there will not be one through wider and deeper inquiries.
o The Relativism of Faith – Our conclusions as Christians are relative because they depend on the partial, incomplete, fragmentary knowledge of the individual; they are relative to the measure of a Christian’s faith and unbelief; they are related to whatever historical position they occupy and the stage of life they occupy; and they are concerned with the relative values of things.
o Social Existentialism – As Kierkegaard and Climacus would say, we must arrive at some answer for ourselves and whatever that answer is, then it is the Christian answer. Niebuhr critics this view because it is too individualistic.
o Freedom In Dependence – We make our free decisions not only in such dependence on origins beyond our control, but also in dependence on consequences not in our power. The two strands of faith are loyalty and trust.
June 14, 2022
Niebuhr, un autor pe care nu l-aș fi citit dacă nu s-ar fi ivit publicarea acestei cărți. Pot spune că este o carte eveniment. Promovarea ei premergătoare lansării, a fost una pe măsură și recenziile pe care le-am citit despre ea, înainte de a citi cartea efectiv, au fost extrem de convingătoare. Eu văd cartea "Cristos și Cultura" ca fiind un titlu clasic, scris la mijlocul secolului XX, în mijlocul unei lupte interminabile dintre societate și biserică și dintre oameni și evanghelie. Mă bucur să văd că o echipă întreagă s-a mobilizat pentru a aduce în lumina tiparului și cititorului pasionat acest titlu extraordinar. Sincer, mi-a depășit așteptările cu mult. La început o priveam ca o carte bună, care merită citită. Acum însă, o văd ca o lectură necesară.
Tensiunea din Cristos și cultură se poate explica în multiple moduri, iar Niebuhr ne pavează calea înspre o asemenea demonstrație. Relația dintre împărăția lui Dumnezeu și împărăția acestei lumi este una delicată, tensionată, uneori chiar paralelă, deși facem tot posibilul să o explicăm cât mai bine, începem să o înțelegem pe parcurs, dar încă nu pe deplin. Atât de complexă este. Întregul sistem de gândire creștin se intersectează cu cultura umană încercând să formeze ceea ce noi înțelegem prin tradiție și istorie. Linia de demarcație dintre cele două entități este obscură, fină și oscilantă, de aceea, pentru un asemenea studiu, este nevoie de un discernământ fin și echilibrat. Problema este mai nuanțată decât pare inițial, de aceea îndemn la răbdare.
Așa că, recomand cartea spre citire, recitire și desigur studiu mai aprofundat. De aceea, luați-vă timp și veți fi răsplătiți intelectual și spiritual în urma acestei lecturi.
Tensiunea din Cristos și cultură se poate explica în multiple moduri, iar Niebuhr ne pavează calea înspre o asemenea demonstrație. Relația dintre împărăția lui Dumnezeu și împărăția acestei lumi este una delicată, tensionată, uneori chiar paralelă, deși facem tot posibilul să o explicăm cât mai bine, începem să o înțelegem pe parcurs, dar încă nu pe deplin. Atât de complexă este. Întregul sistem de gândire creștin se intersectează cu cultura umană încercând să formeze ceea ce noi înțelegem prin tradiție și istorie. Linia de demarcație dintre cele două entități este obscură, fină și oscilantă, de aceea, pentru un asemenea studiu, este nevoie de un discernământ fin și echilibrat. Problema este mai nuanțată decât pare inițial, de aceea îndemn la răbdare.
Așa că, recomand cartea spre citire, recitire și desigur studiu mai aprofundat. De aceea, luați-vă timp și veți fi răsplătiți intelectual și spiritual în urma acestei lecturi.
January 21, 2013
Many things impressed me positively about this book, but the one thing that stands out among the rest is the way in which Niebuhr reveals the viability of each typology while attempting to fairly critique each one. He takes into account the complexities of the Christian ethos with respects to culture and context and does not ascribe “true” Christianity to one specific typology. He insists, rather, that each typology presented have both strengths and weaknesses, and no one can “itself exist without the counterweight of other types of Christianity” (82). This perhaps brings hope to the problem of Christian pluralism, ensuing the possibility for positive factors of “counter-balance” in a religion with over twenty-two thousand denominations. Though the “grey areas” of Christianity are often noted by some as overwhelmingly discouraging, the potential viability of each typology is a reminder that grey areas are perhaps meant for the Christian to discernibly wrestle with, since, if all areas of life were simply black and white, there would be no use for contextual discernment or wisdom. My overarching negative impression was the unmet hope of finding greater depth regarding the first type and its relation to 20th century evangelical streams; namely Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism. This a great book to have a revisit once in a while and I recommend it to anyone serious about the complex relationship of Christ and Culture.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 178 reviews