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-