By: Dustin M. Walters
North American Christians need a renewed vision for the relationship between Christianity and culture because the models that have been put forth are inadequate. God’s people have always had unique ways for relating to the culture around them since the first establishment of his covenant people. They have had ways of expressing their faith in counter-cultural ways, though they have done so imperfectly and with varying degrees of effectiveness. While there is always a danger for believers to be influenced by their parent culture and even absorbed into it, Christians are called to be agents of change. The change comes from God’s work of regenerating individuals and communities, yet Christians have an active role to play in transforming culture. This paper will outline a new vision for how Christians should seek to be agents of transformation and renewal. The paper will consider what transformation is, why it is possible, and the biblical and theological foundation for transformative initiatives, even though the world will not be fully changed until Christ returns. The thesis of this paper is that Christians must intentionally seek creative ways to be agents of change in every sphere of life and must not retreat away from this culture in need of gospel renewal.
Defining this Cultural Moment
The dominating philosophy of today is that of secular humanism, which removes all focus on the divine. People have understood the term secular in different ways. Charles Taylor sought to define and trace the changes that take a society from a place it is “virtually impossible not to believe in God to one in which faith is one possibility among others”. [i] Taylor asked how it was virtually impossible not to believe in God in 1500 yet now it is not only easy but inescapable. [ii] From premodernism to modernism and now postmodernism, the guiding beliefs and practices of society have unraveled. There are different reasons for the unraveling of society yet one of the most dominant is the rise and expanse of secular humanism. Christians have unfortunately participated in the decline, though perhaps unknowingly.
The seemingly endless nihilism [iii] of today compels Christians to think long and hard about this cultural moment and motivates them to do something about it. F. Leroy Forlines wrote, “The prevailing mood of doubt and uncertainty in today’s culture presents real problems for human beings…The person who has learned the vastness of the universe and the potential that lies within it but has found himself with no sure and satisfactory answers to the inescapable questions of life is in deep trouble”. [iv] Forlines also wrote that “the culture which denies that truth exists or is accessible is in desperate need of truth. [v] For Christians to make a difference in this cultural moment, there needs to be a new way of understanding how Christians should relate to culture around them and how they can actively participate as change agents. There is an important biblical foundation for how Christians should engage the world.
Biblical Foundations for Cultural Engagement
Scripture repeatedly demonstrates that God designed humans to interact with his world and exercise management over all creation. The creation mandate is expressed through five verbs in Genesis 1:26-28,31 and 2:5, 15. Those verbs are: be fruitful, multiply, fill the waters, subdue the earth, and rule over it. Culture-making is what humans do with their resources. H. Richard Niebuhr defines culture as “the artificial, secondary environment which man superimposes on the natural”. [vi]
Albert Wolters thoroughly articulates what constitutes a Reformed worldview in Creation Regained. His work has proven foundational for other Christian works on worldview. One of Wolters’s key concepts is that the creation mandate of making or creating culture continues on. His comment that “We need some creed to live by, some map by which to chart our course. The need for a guiding perspective is basic to human life, perhaps more basic than food or sex” is spot on. 13 One thing that needs to be pointed out is that the creed of secularism does not meet the most basic needs of our humanity and that the Christian creed outlined through God’s creating and redeeming work more than satisfies the deepest longings of all humans.
Wolters identifies one reason secularism has dominated life in the west. He said, “Indeed, because of their two-realm theory, to a large degree, Christians have themselves to blame for the rapid secularization of the West”. 14 A brief reflection on some historical considerations helps one better understand this cultural moment.
Historical Considerations
The terms Premodern, Modern, and Postmodern outline how Western people have traditionally viewed God, themselves, others, and the created order. These terms are a way of describing the historical development from before the Renaissance and the Enlightenment to the Protestant Reformation, extending to the postmodernism of today. People of each time in human history have distinctive ways of communicating and understanding their world. The point is that Christians now live and minister in a time in which belief in God is ridiculed and rare, which also means that belief in ethical norms has disintegrated. A key argument of this paper is that Christians are called to influence every sphere of culture, yet one of the most convicting truths for the church today is that rather than transforming culture, Christians have been transformed by it. It is imperative to consider how the dominance of secular humanism came to be. Space will not permit an in depth reflection of the historical considerations, yet that kind of reflection will help lay a foundation for a new model.
Theological Considerations
The Christian who seeks to engage with culture must ensure he has a solid theological foundation. This section of the essay will explore the orthodox Christian perspective on the material world, the role of metanarrative in worldview formation, and relationship between theology proper and one’s ecclesiology. Theology and practice are inseparable. Forlines said, “Any presentation of Truth that does not speak to life has a missing element”. [vii] The first theological consideration centers on theology proper.
Theology Proper: Who God Is
All attempts to describe the Triune God of Scripture fall short. Though human descriptions of God are imperfect, humans can use language to describe God’s character and attributes as revealed in the Bible. The Judeo-Christian faith bases its understanding of God on revelation. Classical Christian theism is distinct from other theories about God including Deism and atheism. One reason secular humanism gained such a strong following is because during the Enlightenment, what counted as knowledge changed. Millard Erickson uses the phrase doctrine of God to avoid confusion when he defines theology proper. [viii] Erickson points out that “Correctly understanding the doctrinal teachings of Christianity is the solution to the confusion created by the myriad of claimants to belief”. [ix] Understanding God as he has revealed himself in the Bible is the first theological consideration, among others, that influence one’s understanding of how Christians should relate to culture. Christians affirm belief in one God who is revealed through the three persons in one essence. The Belgic Confession begins by stating, “We all believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that there is a single and simple spiritual being, who we call God–eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, unchangeable, infinite, almighty, completely wise, just and good, and the overflowing source of all good”. [x] This God is the one who makes transformation not only possible but also the one who actualizes renewal and often does so through his people.
Christianity and the Material World
Christians understand the cosmos, the material order, as ontologically good and shaped by Creator God. There is a connection between the cultural mandate and a biblically faithful view of creation. Unfortunately, some Christians have drawn strong lines against the material world or the common kingdom and do so to a detriment of their cultural engagement as will be demonstrated later. A failure to recognize the goodness and beauty in creation undermines Scripture’s claim that all that God created is good. No doubt, all of creation has been negatively impacted by Adam’s sin, yet glimmers of God’s creational beauty remain intact. God as sovereign king rules over every sphere, including the created order. Christians engage with culture because they are created to create. Ken Myers expressed it this way: “Man was fit for the cultural mandate. As the bearer of God’s image, he could not be satisfied apart from cultural activity”. [xi] Complete isolationism or a dualistic view of creation undermines the biblical description of the cosmos.
Ecclesiology, Soteriology, and Culture
Humans can use reason and relationship to impact culture because they are made in God’s image. Anyone can do something to improve the parts of culture he participates in, whether, education, politics, the arts, or entertainment. One can make a difference whether he is a believer in Christ or not, yet in the long term those changes must be rooted in a regenerated person who submits to the Lordship of Christ and the centrality of the church for life. In short, one’s theology of salvation and the church impacts how he engages with culture. Cultural engagement is tied to one’s creed, whether it is the secular humanist creed or the creed that God is making all things new through Christ. Though the Protestant Reformation was a needed corrective to the abuses of the church of Luther’s day, the Reformation did set somethings in motion that cannot be undone now.
Luther undermined the institutional church and papal authority when he nailed his ninety-five theses to the church doors at Wittenberg in 1517. It comes as no surprise that a few hundred years later, the Enlightenment swept across the world and prioritized what could be known empirically. Though there is not a direct connection between the Reformation and the rise of Enlightenment thinking, one cannot overlook the relationship between the seed of doubt Luther sowed toward authority and the eventual subjectivism and relativism that have dominated western thought to the point it has presently reached where objectivity and trust have been thrown out. Christians who want to impact culture for Christ will not do so easily because even in the church, people trust less than humans did a few centuries ago. Even so, Christian cultural engagement must be rooted in a biblically faithful view of the church. A biblically faithful view of the church is one that recognizes that it is through the church that God renews the world. An additional theological consideration centers on human limitation.
Human Limitations and Cultural Renewal
Christians today have a fear of too much cultural engagement because they have witnessed the problems of the social gospel movement of the twentieth century. The main problem with the social gospel movement was that it sought to change culture without a strong emphasis on the need for individual regeneration. Humans cannot build Christ’s kingdom through mere effort. There are limitations embedded in what it means to be human, and limitations imposed in light of the Fall. The Christian must not overlook the theological consideration of human limitation as he considers what cultural engagement should look like.
Christian Paradigms for Cultural Engagement
H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962) was an important seminary professor at Yale from 1938 until his death. He was influenced by the teachings of Karl Barth and Earnest Troeltsch. [xii] Richard Niebuhr identified more with a liberal type of Christianity even though more conservative Christians also appreciate his work, especially his famous work Christ and Culture, which was originally published in 1951 and continues to impact Christian cultural engagement today. Niebuhr outlined five approaches to Christianity and culture including Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ above culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox, and Christ the transformer of culture. Two of Niebuhr’s categorizations inform this thesis more than the other three do.
Christ Against Culture
Niebuhr’s first category describes the way Christians reject or isolate themselves from culture. He identifies Tertullian and Tolstoy as figures who affirmed the Christ against culture paradigm. One key consideration for this position is the relationship between revelation and reason. Niebuhr said, “There is a tendency in the radical movement to use the word ‘reason’ to designate the methods and content of knowledge to be found in cultural society; ‘revelation’ to indicate that Christian knowledge of God and duty that is derived Jesus Christ and resident in Christian society”. [xiii] This position is not without biblical warrant due to the numerous contrasts between Christians and “the world” in scripture. There is a separateness that has always and should continue to define the people of God. The strong bifurcation between revelation and reason is built on an understanding of the material world, which is viewed negatively under this perspective. One wonders whether the tendency for Christians to reject cultural products altogether stems more from a Platonic view of the world or from Scripture. The Christ against culture paradigm expressed itself in the rise of fundamentalism in the twentieth century.
Carl F. H. Henry keenly observed and criticized unhealthy and unbiblical aspects of fundamentalist, Christ against culture, Christianity in his The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. Henry was troubled that, “Whereas once the redemptive gospel was a world-changing message, now it was narrowed to a world-resisting message”. [xiv] He was frustrated that he saw a Christianity “divorced from the great social reform movements”. [xv] Henry would not have identified with the Christ against culture paradigm because “A Christianity without a passion to turn the world upside down is not reflective of apostolic Christianity”. [xvi]
Christ the Transformer of Culture
Whereas Niebuhr’s first paradigm reflects a dualistic rejection of the material world and the Christian’s ability to effect change, his last category encourages meaningful cultural engagement. He recognized that conversionists have a more positive and hopeful attitude toward culture than dualists do. [xvii] While Christians cannot usher in Christ’s eschatological kingdom, they can and must seek to influence culture as they submit to the Triune God and devote themselves to kingdom work. Niebuhr said it well when he said, “To mankind with this perverted nature and corrupted culture Jesus Christ has come to heal and renew what sin has infected with the sickness unto death”. [xviii] Paul urged the Roman Christians not to be conformed to the world but transformed by the renewal of their minds (Romans 12:1-2). That transformation is not merely an internal matter, but it must come to express itself through the actions of the total person who thinks with his mind, feels with his heart, and acts with his will. The Christ as transformer of culture model, more than any other paradigm, lays the foundation for a newer and better model for Christianity and culture.
An Aside on Two Kingdoms Perspective
The above discussion on Niebuhr emphasized two aspects of the way Christians relate to culture-avoid it or try to transform it. There is another perspective that needs to be mentioned, the perspective referred to as the two kingdoms perspective. David VanDrunen describes the doctrine of two kingdoms as teaching that “God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world but is preserving them through the covenant he made with all living creatures through Noah in Genesis 8:20-9:17”. [xix] For VanDrunen, cultural activity is part of the common kingdom, whereas redemptive activity is exclusive to the redemptive kingdom of grace. One can affirm the key themes of the biblical metanarrative (creation, fall, redemption) without being necessarily neo-Calvinistic, though. Early in the book, VanDrunen makes the claim that, “Those who hold a traditional Protestant view of justification consistently (emphasis his) should not find a redemptive transformationist perspective attractive”. [xx] VanDrunen clearly disagrees with Albert Wolters when he says that “Redemption is not ‘creation regained’ but ‘re-creation gained’. [xxi] The two kingdoms perspective closely resembles Niebuhr’s Christ and culture in paradox even though it has its differences. A primary strength of the two kingdoms perspective is that it emphasizes the distinct culture of the church.
VanDrunen is right to criticize the lack of attention to the church in the Christianity and culture conversation. He said, “Books about Christianity and culture often spend much time speaking about cultural activities such as education, vocation, and politics but say little about the church”. [xxii] He also emphasizes the reality that “the church is the only earthly community that manifests the redemptive kingdom”. [xxiii] VanDrunen concludes his chapter on the church by stating that “Christians should hold the church closest to their hearts…but they still have important tasks in the common kingdom and are called to honor God by pursuing them well”. [xxiv] Even though VanDrunen’s Two Kingdoms perspective is strengthened by his chapter on the church, this position when taken to the extreme does not encourage meaningful cultural activity and undermines the cultural mandate, which does extend to New Covenant believers. There are some practical considerations about the need for a new vision for understanding how Christianity and culture intersect.
Practical Considerations
Whatever paradigm the Christian chooses regarding his cultural engagement, he does so as an exile and a pilgrim. Now more than ever, Christians must live out the metanarrative of Scripture. Christians are exiles, meaning that they will face rejection by some in contemporary culture. They are also pilgrims who know that they are on a journey to Christ’s kingdom, where the curse of sin will be removed (Revelation 22:2). Christians can meaningfully engage all of culture, yet an engagement in education, politics, and entertainment will result in kingdom growth.
Conclusion
Christians need a new model for cultural engagement that avoids the extremes of both fundamentalism and the social gospel. The preferred model for cultural engagement is the Christ transforming culture model even though it needs to be more tethered to the local church than Niebuhr’s perspective was. This essay has reflected on the historical development of Western thought, Christian paradigms for cultural engagement, and the theological foundations needed for a robust understanding of the cultural mandate. Much more could have and should be said. Future studies on Christians and culture can go further on the historical background and the significance one’s epistemological beliefs have on worldview formation. Additionally, future studies might elaborate further on the relationship between the biblical view of time and the importance of embracing change and transformation. Christ is building his kingdom. Christians unite themselves to Christ and other believers and hope to be “salt and light” in whatever sphere of influence Christ has placed them in. This cultural moment pleads for meaningful Christian engagement with culture so that a people yet to be born may praise the Lord, the chief end of all humanity.
[i] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2007), 3.
[ii] Ibid., 26.
[iii] James Sire said, “Strictly speaking, nihilism is a denial of any philosophy or worldview-a denial of the possibility of knowledge, a denial that anything is valuable. James Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 94.
[iv] F. Leroy Forlines, The Quest for Truth: Theology for Postmodern Times (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2006), 1.
[v] Ibid., 2.
[vi] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, (Harper One: New York, NY, 2001), 32.
[vii] Forlines, Quest, 4.
[viii] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 10.
[ix] Ibid., 16.
[x] “The Belgic Confession” in The ESV Bible with Creeds and Confessions, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 1265. The Belgic Confession was among the three confessions of faith that Reformed believers adopted and adhered to. The definition of God provided here in article one is a fitting description of who God is.
[xi] Ken Meyers, All God’s Children & Blue Suede Shoes: Christians and Popular Culture, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 40.
[xii] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1160.
[xiii] Niebuhr, 76.
[xiv] Carl F. Henry. The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003), 32.
[xv] Ibid., 39.
[xvi] Ibid., 30.
[xvii] Niebuhr, 191.
[xviii] Ibid., 213.
[xix] David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 15.
[xx] Ibid., 21. This is one of the more troubling comments in the book. One could also argue that the Reformed position advocates for this rather than against it.
[xxi] Ibid., 26.
[xxii] Ibid., 131.
[xxiii] Ibid., 134.
[xxiv] Ibid., 160.
everydaytheologyco.com 