Christ & Culture (H. Richard Niebuhr)

In the monumental 1951 work Christ & Culture, theologian H. Richard Niebuhr studies a fundamental problem: how Christians over the centuries have related to the culture in which they found themselves. After defining Christ and culture in turn, he offers a fivefold typology (a "mental construct" which he admits in not exhaustive) for the most common approaches/answers, giving historical examples of figures who best exemplified a given type. Highlights follow.

---------

Niebuhr first sets out to define Christ. He acknowledges Jesus as the authority but argues that describing Him is difficult, as "every description falls short of completeness . . ." Studying how others answer the question, he notes that many focus on a single attribute of Christ to the diminishment or exclusion of others. These attributes include His love, the hope we have in Him, His radical obedience to the father, His faith, His excellent character, His great humility, or His work as mediator. 

Niebuhr then does the same for culture. He argues its chief characteristics are that it is social (and a social heritage), focused on human achievement ("it includes speech, education, tradition, myth, sceince, art, philosophy, government, law, rite, beliefs, inventions, technologies"), it is a "world of values", it shows that what we make "is intended for a purpose; it is designed to serve a good," and it is "for the good of man." Ultimately, "culture in all its forms and varieties is concerned with the temporal and material realization [and conservation] of values."

The Five Types:

1. Christ against Culture
• Emphasizing the opposition between the two, this position ("radical") looks at this as an "either-or" decision; Christ is the sole authority and culture must thus be rejected. It can look at the church as a safe/cleansed space and withdraw from the world.
2. Christ of Culture
• Emphasizing the agreement between the two, this position ("accomodationist") feels "no great tension between the church and the world" and seek "to reconcile the gospel with the science and philosophy of their time." It can erase distinctions "between God and man by divinizing man or humanizing God."
3. Christ over Culture*
• Recognizing the gap between Christ and culture due to man's fallenness, this position ("synthesist") seeks "some sort of reconciliation between Christ and culture without denial of either." They look at things as "both-and", synthesizing reason and revelation. They find civil institutions important and seek to cooperate in such things with nonbelievers while maintaining distinctions.
4. Christ and Culture in Paradox
• This position ("dualist") recognizes that both Christ and culture have authority but are opposed; there is tension as we are to obey both—man lives in two realms. They recognize we are all fallen and inescapably part of a fallen/corrupt culture. They are pessimistic about cultural possibilities, believing it can at best restrain wickedness. 
5. Christ the Transformer of Culture
• This position ("conversionist") agrees with the dualists that man is fallen but has a "more positive and hopeful attitude toward culture," believing "that such culture is under God's sovereign rule, and that the Christian must carry on culture work in obedience to the Lord."

*Types 3-5 are technically all "Christ over Culture," but Niebuhr gives unique names for Type 4-5.

After this typology, Niebuhr concludes with a caveat: the “examination of the typical answers Christians have given to their enduring problem is unconcluded and inconclusive.” People rarely fit neatly within one type, and we cannot say of a given position that “this is THE Christian answer.” Seeking to obey God in our present situation means wisdom is needed. “We must make our decisions, carry on our reasoning, and gain our experience as particular men in particular times wand with particular duties.” We need humility, dependence on God, and accept we may have differences as we grapple with how we relate to society. The answer may be fluid, with several (or all!) of the above typologies appropriate to situations over the course of our lives given unique circumstances . . . we must thus make our “confessions and decisions both with confidence and the humility which accepts completion and correction and even conflict from and with others who stand in the same relation to [God].”

---------

I have mixed feelings about Niebuhr's work. 

- the good: I see why it is important, am glad I read it, and valued his insights in this area. He is talented, using profound and witty turns of phrase reminiscent of Chesterton. His knowledge of historical philosophy/theology is impressive. And the categories are a helpful framework for articulating and codifying the different approaches.

- the bad: his definitions of Christ and culture were too vague and inconclusive. His categories are unequally handled, with a discussion for some (but not all) on their biblical faithfulness—the focus is on what people throughout history thought vs. what the Bible says. On that topic, I didn't like how he handled Scripture; I got the sense that he viewed the Biblical writers as having very different (and maybe incompatible?) stances, and I don't think he fairly represented (say) Paul or John.  

I did Niebuhr a disservice by reading D.A. Carson's Christ and Culture Revisited first, which is a critique and a correction of this work. I'm glad I read both, but agree with Carson's assessment that the typology has value only when we recognize that the Bible doesn't call us to hold to one position in all times or ways; we need humility, wisdom, dependence on God, and a willingness to walk with others who may disagree as we seek to faithfully follow Christ.

Rating: B-

Forest Shuffle

Today's review is of the 2023 release, Forest Shuffle. For 2-5 players, it takes 60 minutes.

Overview

You are building a habitat by planting trees and placing animals, plants, and mushrooms [all represented by cards] around them. Each card has characteristics that tells you how it thrives; if you can place your cards wisely, you will earn more points and prevail. Do you have what it takes to produce a balanced ecosystem?

To start, place the game board in the center, deal six cards to each player, and prepare the remaining deck with three winter cards shuffled in as the rules indicate. Play begins and moves clockwise; on your turn, you either draw two cards (from the board or deck) or play one card to your tableau. If you play a card, you must pay its costs by discarding other cards from your hand to the board. If the board ever has ten cards, those cards are discarded.

Generically, cards are trees or animals/plants/mushrooms., and each has attributes that show how it scores points (generally, by the presence of other types of species it likes). Tree cards must be played first. Once you have a tree, you can play the other three card types, each of which have two halves (split horizontally or vertically and representing two different animals/plants/etc.) and are placed around a tree  (top, bottom, left, or right) as permitted by their orientation and your preference. A tree can have no more than four cards around it unless a card indicates otherwise. Over the course of the game, you can play any number of trees, and they needn't be 'full' (have cards on all four sides). Whenever a winter card is revealed, it is set aside and another card is drawn. Once the third winter card is revealed, play immediately stops, points are tallied, and highest total wins!

Example game layout; image from here

Review

This game is highly regarded, and I enjoyed it. It is simple, though it can be overwhelming given the sheer number of options and ways to score points. (It can feel like a 'point salad' game in that respect.) The split cards were an interesting twist leading to meaningful decisions. Player interaction is low: the main way to interact with your opponents is through the cards discarded to the game board (you can help or hurt others based on your choices there). Otherwise, your goal is efficient resource management, wisely balancing your hand size with playing cards and looking for synergies based on your cards. Overall, recommended, especially for fans of comparable games like 7 Wonders (which is more interactive) or Wingspan (which is more complicated).

Rating: B

Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

The Foot Clan is in Gotham, stealing experimental tech. Shredder is with them . . and he has a partner. If they have their way, the city will fall and evil will last forever. Batman is on the case, but he'll need help. Maybe some teenagers with ninja skills. Turtle mutants.

I expect any 'cross-IP' offering to be a money grab and thus had low expectations for this 2019 movie. I was wrong; I loved it. The plot is predictable ("the worlds of Batman and TMNT collide; chaos ensues"), the message minimal (but solid), but where this film shines is the humor—it was hilarious. We laughed out loud through the whole film. There are a few instances of language or scary images, but this is a winner, best enjoyed by those familiar with both franchises.

Rating: A

Reflecting on the 2026 World Cup

That's a wrap! Spain just won the 2026 World Cup.

Soccer has a special place in my heart. It is the first (and primary) sport I played on an organized team. It is the only sport I have ever refereed (I've officiated games in two countries and two spurts—in the late '90s and late '00s). I love it . . . and there are parts I can't stand about it. All the emotions come to the fore every four years during the World Cup. 

The 2026 World Cup is now in the books; 48 teams played 104 games in 16 host cities, most of which were in the USA. I watched more of this Cup than any other . . . and I have some opinions. But first, the group stage and knockout brackets.

The Group Stage

The groups; image from here

The 48 teams (expanded this year from the normal 32) in this World Cup were organized into 12 four-team groups (see above image). Each team played against all others in their respective group. Draws were fine. By points, the top two teams from each group (and the third-place team in eight of them) advanced to the knockout stage.

The Knockout Stage

The knockout stage; image from here

In prior years, the knockout stage featured the top 16 teams, but since this year's tournament expanded the field to 48 teams, the first round of knockouts was the round of 32. 

On to my likes/dislikes.

Likes

• The kit. All national teams change their kit every couple years (2 or 4, I don't remember and I think it depends anyway). It's always fun seeing what a given country is wearing, from the expected (like Argentine stripes or Croatian checkers), to bold new designs, to homages to classic jerseys of decades past. Eight examples below . . . note the subtle details some feature. Norway's was a particular favorite this year. This ESPN article shows and ranks all the kit.

• The team names. National team nicknames can be basic, straightforward . . . or hilarious. You can see a complete list here; my favorites are the Socceroos (Australia), The Selection (Argentina), The Team (Germany), The Three Lions (England), Orange (Netherlands), The Tartan Army (Scotland), The Canal Men (Panama), The Pharoahs (Egypt), and The Chivalrous Ones (Jordan).
• The camaraderie. Soccer is the world's sport. Fans come together for love of country and/or love of the game. It's fun to watch that play out. This year, to list a few examples, the Scottish fans drank Boston out of beer, the Norwegian fans had a viking 'row' routine, and the Japanese cleaned up stadiums. 
• The skills. There is no denying the technical skill of players on the pitch. My favorite are one-touch passing sequences, sometimes involving no-look passes or step-overs. But the strength and accuracy of the passes/shots, the goalie acrobatics, the timing to avoid offsides . . . it is all impressive.
• The tension. Is soccer the only sport whose game end is up to the referee? There are two 45-minute halves, but each has stoppage time, a discretionary number that ranges from 1 to 9 minutes of added play to account for the fake injuries (see below) and other delays. But even that number (made public at the start of stoppage time) in only a guide, and stoppage time can have its own delays that adds more time, meaning they play until the ref decides to stop. It makes for nail-biting uncertainty in close games.
• Cape Verde. This year's sweetheart was Cape Verde; the island nation drew with Spain, made it to the knockout round and took Argentina into extra time. Incredible performance from such a small nation. You can view their highlights vs. Argentina here.
• Select players. Erling Haaland (Norway), Jude Bellingham (England), Lionel Messi (Argentina), Vozinha (Cape Verde), Folarin Balogun (America), and Marc Cucurella (Spain) are a few of the players who stood out to me this World Cup. This is a team game, but individual talent shines through.

Dislikes

• The low scores. Let's be honest . . . in any sport, we like scoring. In soccer, goals are scarce . . . and it can be a yawn-fest (unless both teams are pressing and just failing to finish). England vs. France in the consolation game (a 6-4 thriller) shows how much more exciting this game can be when both teams commit to the attack. Consider:
• In this WC, there were 308 goals in 104 games, about 3 scores per game.
• 120 goals came in 21 of the games, meaning 188 came in the remaining 83 contests; just over 2 goals per contest. 
• By comparison, other popular sports score more often. The NHL (6 goals per game), MLB (9 runs per game), and football (45 points per game, divided by 7 = 6.4 scores per game) blow soccer out of the water in this category.
• Turtling. Some teams 'turtle' (hunker down and play defense) from the start or if they go up. This is effectively giving up goal-scoring opportunities and hoping that playing your entire team on defense will deny goals to your opponent. It doesn't always work (see England or Egypt vs. Argentina this year), and it is annoying to watch.
• Flopping. Soccer is a unique sport in that theatrics pay off. When a player is brushed, lightly touched, or looked at, the average soccer player falls over, rolls around wildly and grabs a body part (generally, the ankle or head) writhing in pain. Everyone else on the field throws up their hands and looks at the official, clearly expecting a foul will be called on the other team. If it is, 'great.' If it isn't, the nearly-dead player just hops up and starts playing again. Or they keep rolling around if they want to really sell it (and/or just give everyone on the field a break as the ref whistles in an ambulance or whatever). Then they hop up later. To top it off, announcers buy into it completely. They analyze the play, see a player fall over for basically no reason, and fawn over them, bemoaning the 'injury.' Sheeeeeeesh.
• Games ending in penalty kicks. What a terrible way to end any game. But in the knockout stages, this is the way draws are resolved (after an extra period of play). Penalties decided four games in this Cup. One of them went against Germany. Not that I'm bitter.*
• Draws. In this World Cup, 25 games ended in draws. I'm indifferent to those. I guess.
• Certain fouls. Maybe the rules have changed since I was refereeing**, but I was shocked at some of the fouls that got red cards in this tournament. Players both going for the ball . . . a foot comes down in the wrong spot and the player is sent off. Ridiculous in my mind. Related: I don't know how many goals were disallowed due to questionable fouls, but it felt like the refs looked for reasons to keep the scoring down.
• Delays in calling fouls. When I was refereeing, the only time you didn't call a foul upon recognition is when the fouled team had the ball and advantage (in which case you allowed them to play on). In this tournament, apparently, you can call fouls when:
• it happened a half-minute earlier (offsides calls were notorious for this)
• it happened on the other side of the pitch, minutes earlier
• it happened on the other side of the world, days earlier
• Team USA (vs. Belgium). For whatever reason, the USA just cannot master men's soccer.
• The common hairstyle. AI tells me that this "textured crop with a mid-fade is one of the most popular men's hairstyles, combining short, choppy layers on top with clean, faded sides." Alex Baena (below) showcases the look. Many other players did in this Cup. I wasn't a fan; echoes of mullet.

Alex Baena (Spain)

Jury's Still Out

• The expanded format. Increasing the teams by 50%? More teams can be thrilling (see Cape Verde above); it can also mean more 'chaff' can get in, diluting the talent level and making for embarrassing blowouts.
• VAR. This year they used a team of Video Assistant Referees (VAR). In certain cases, the on-field ref could appeal to VAR (and review the footage himself) to determine if any calls needed to be adjusted. I'm of mixed mind here . . . on the one hand, every ref wants to get it right, and if video can aid that, why not? On the other, several VAR episodes this WC caused only drama (going from 'no foul' to 'red card' is a bit much to me). I think this is best used for offsides or offenses that happened away from a referee's vision vs. things he sees and calls on the field.

Final Thoughts

The fact that I watched so much indicates where my heart lies—I love this game. It was delightful to see it on U.S. soil (and thus at reasonable times), I'm glad the games were largely broadcast over the air so I could enjoy them, and the likes listed above outweighed my dislikes. It was fun to see the world come together and celebrate. Until next time, world. See you in four years.

*I am. But I concede that the Germans didn't deserve to win.

**They didn't. I checked. Okay, they did, but not in ways relevant to my point.

Fear is Not a Sin (Edward T. Welch)

In Fear is Not a Sin, psychologist and counselor Edward T. Welch seeks to help those wrestling with fear and anxiety by pointing them to Jesus. He argues that fear is not a sin but a call to action, looking at both in turn. Highlights follow.

--------
We are prone to fear. "Scripture assumes that we live with fear and anxieties. We are weak people who can control very little." Many times Jesus says things like "don't be afraid" or "do not weep;" Welch argues that in each case, though in the imperative form, Jesus's words "are not a command, but an expression of care and compassion." "Fear and anxiety are not sinful. Left unattended, however, they can be dangerous. If you don't bring them to Jesus, you are left trusting in yoruself, which is sin, and that will chock your soul (Mark 4:19)." So what are we do to with our fear?

• First, we recognize that desires the underpin our fears and anxieties. "Fears identify what we want, what is important to us, and what we desire." "Fear is a desire that is threatened; grief is a desire taken away." 
• What do you desire? Is it an acceptable desire or excessive (and thus an idol that needs to be confessed and repented of)?
• Second, we learn to turn to God, who does not promise a specific outcome but routinely says "I am with you . . . I will not leave you." (Genesis 28:15) He remembers that we are dust (Psalm 103:14) and tells us to fear not because of who God is and what God will do (Luke 12:32). He wants us to tell Him about our fears (see the Psalms, which are filled with such things). Our task, even as those with little faith, "is to rest in Jesus and grow."

As we turn to God with our fears and rest in Him, our faith, courage, and confidence in Jesus will grow. We see this in the Psalms, as many of them "begin with fear, move toward the faithfulness of the Lord, and end with confidence and hope." Turning to God through Scripture and prayer will teach us to say/believe "yes [Jesus], I believe you care." And that will go a long way toward calming our fears.

This change won't happen overnight. After a fearful episode, learn to ask yourself "Did I turn toward the Lord or not?" "Your growth is measured not by the intensity of your fears and anxieties, but in how you turn to Jesus."

--------

This little booklet is succinct and helpful. Its argument and approach is Biblical and powerful. It is just 70 pages, some of which are blank for journaling and reflection. Recommended.

Rating: A

Daredevil: Born Again (Season 2)

Shortly after last time . . .

Wilson Fisk tightens his grip on New York City from the Mayor's office, using the Anti-Vigilante Task Force, personal henchmen, and allies inside the courts. Daredevil and Karen Page debate their dwindling options in a city rampant with corruption. How can one be just in the face of such injustice? What hope do they have? They cannot do it alone . . . and friends old and new will help in various ways. But ultimately, if they want to win, they will put it all on the line . . . and may lose everything.

This 8-episode season was much in keeping with those prior: well-done and extremely suspenseful, with intriguing themes and plot twists. The story moves along nicely, and the characters have depth. The ending was thought-provoking. Let the viewer beware, there is some bad language and it can be gruesomely violent. But overall I give this high marks; Matt and others realize the way out involves help, grace, forgiveness, and self-sacrifice. Powerful indeed. It was nice to see the show reach a degree of closure, even as I hear that season 3 is in development and the door is open for some new focus areas. Overall, recommended.

Rating: A

A Declaration Worthy of Reflection

The Bennington Flag. Image from here

Happy 250th Birthday, America!

On July 4th, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the revised Declaration of Independence, making today our nation's birthday. (Side note: they voted for independence on July 2nd, but then spent two days revising wording of the Declaration, finally approving it on July 4th.)

You can (and should) read a transcript of the Declaration of Independence here. Here is my summary:

First paragraph: When a people need to dissolve political ties, they should explain why.

Second: I'll quote the first half as it is the most famous:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . .

Governments shouldn't be dissolved for just any reason, but the King of Great Britain is terrible and we need a change.

List: It then lists 27 reasons why the King is terrible.*

Third: We've presented our grievances repeatedly and humbly, but we get only more injury in return. A person who acts like this is a tyrant and unfit to rule.**

Fourth: We told the British people, too, but they also ignored us. We thus must separate and "hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

Fifth: We thus declare "That these United Colonies are . . . Free and Independent States . . ." 

Signatures: It is signed by 56 people from across the 13 colonies. Pennsylvania has the most representation (9) and is thus the best state.***

-----------

On our birthday, I'd like to point out a few things: 

1) "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . ."

Our nation, like everything in our lives, is built on faith. On something you cannot prove, but a set of underlying assumptions you operate out of. (Recent books reviewed here talk more about this—see this book by Glenn Sunshine and this one by James K.A. Smith for more.) What were our founding fathers' assumptions? What are ours today? How have they changed? Why does it matter? Worthy questions for reflection.

2) How can we best enjoy (and leverage) our liberty? What does the Bible say about freedom? How are Biblical notions of freedom the same or different? How then should we live? (1 Peter 2:13-17 and Galatians 5:1-15 are good starting points.)

3) Enjoy and reflect on the truth in the below picture (from Etsy).

-----------

*All related to governing America poorly; it doesn't get into personal factors like hygiene, though I suspect (given the realities of the age) that it would have been fair to include.

**Yes, we mean you, King.

***Go Birds