Other Sites I Recommend
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent anyone else's view in any way, including those of my employer.
© Copyright 2008
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent anyone else's view in any way, including those of my employer.
© Copyright 2008
I first was introduced to H. Richard Niebuhr’s 5 models of Christianity’s interaction with culture (from his book Christ and Culture) while reading Alister McGrath’s book, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea. Since being introduced to Nieburhr’s models I’ve also found that D.A. Carson is revisiting the topic later this year, hoping to ‘offers his own paradigm in which all the categories of biblical theology must be kept in mind simultaneously to inform the Christian worldview’ (taken directly from the Amazon description).
I thought it might make for an interesting discussion so here’s a brief summary of Niebuhr’s 5 models.
Christ Against Culture
This is the concept that there is, and must be, an antagonistic relationship between the righteous and their surrounding society. Any culture but that of the Church is to be viewed as evil and forsaken at all costs. Proponents of this view are Tertullian and more recently the Amish and Mennonites.
The Christ of Culture
To quote McGrath, ‘This model argues that the Christian faith represents what “the world values most dearly”, and its aim to adjust and accommodate Christianity to be in tune with cultural norms’ (pg 315). This view attempts to perceive the religious norm through a lens of what is the cultural norm. This concept was introduced by Schleiermacher, disseminating to all of liberal Protestantism.
Christ Above Culture
“The Church judges culture, including its own forms of life. For its forms are created by culture, as its substance makes culture possible. The Church and culture are within, not alongside each other. And the Kingdom of God includes both while transcending both” (Paul Tillich, The Church and Contemporary Culture).
Christ and Culture in Paradox
This view purports that the Christian simultaneously has a dual affiliation and allegiance to spiritual and temporal societies that are in tension due to the fallen nature of man. According to McGrath, Niebuhr sees he epitome of this perspective in Martin Luther’s ‘Two Kingdoms’. McGrath expounds this view as the Christian’s responsibility to impose an ‘order’ onto a chaotic society (ie. Church Structure, Household Order, and Political Order) because synthesis of the two (religion and culture) are not possible.
Christ the Transformer of Culture
The concept that the believer ‘[tries] to convert the values and goals of secular culture into the service of the Kingdom of God’ (McGrath, pg 318). Proponents of this view are Augustine, John Calvin, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Karl Barth, and Neibhur, himself.
Concluding Thoughts
So, assuming my haphazard run through Niebhur’s 5 models have done them any sort of justice, what are your thoughts on their application to modern faith in culture?
Is there a single model that should be encouraged, should we use multiple methods, or should we construct a 6th model to add to the list? After all, I hardly think any historian would say we’re only limited to the previously offered options.
Earl
PS- I pity the fool who don’t comment.
More Options ...
Categories
Tag Cloud
Blog RSS
Comments RSS
Void « Default
Life 
Earth 
Wind 
Water 
Fire Light
Previous 
Next 
Comment Meta:
Last 50 Posts
Back
Dude, those pictures are brilliant!!
I really like Niebuhr. They devoted an entire episode on his work on NPR’s “Speaking of Faith” and it was really good.
I’m interested and worried at what Carson is going to say in his new book. I hope he isn’t as defensive as he has been of late and actually gives those within the missional/emergent/emerging movement some charity and admit when they are correct on points.
Hilarious! Thanks.
[...] single correct interaction between faith and culture. Specifically, the Manifesto addresses ‘Christ Above Culture’ as the only adequate interaction method. “All too often we have tried to be relevant, but [...]
Helpful summary, but your picture in which the guy is wearing a modern western suit shows your cultural bias which is typical of western christians. You do not know the extent of damage western missionaries have done to indigenous cultures in asia, africa and other parts, who are now trying to reverse the damage done by de-westernising Christianity. Sorry dude, but it is hardly amusing!! and your pictures says a lot about who you are.
I understand what you’re saying and you’re wrong. That picture is from 25 years ago and doesn’t even adequately reflect a western perspective of what’s appropriate dress.
There must be some deep emotional trauma If Mr. T in a suit is a sign cultural oppression to you. I’m sorry you were offended, but there’s nothing wrong with the pictures.
If you still disagree with me, I’m willing to talk further to understand how the pictures are representative of an oppression I’m supporting.
Earl
I understand that the pictures can be interpreted in different ways, and that his does not even represent the western tradition. I have no grudge against anyone, but the the kind of Christian Western imperialism by western (specially American) missionaries about a century back is still having its impact in certain parts of the world. Many are still having to recover from post colonial oppression. Clearly they (like Neihbur) endorsed the “Christ the Transformer of Culture” model, but it was not the culture of the Cross, but the culture of Western Christianity that was used as a model to which all culture must conform. It may not be as explicit as i am stating it, but it is nonetheless there.
I am just curious what kind of an “oppression” you are supporting.
ok, thanks for coming back for conversation. If you care enough to have the conversation I’m more than willing to what you’ve got to say.
‘I am just curious what kind of an “oppression” you are supporting.’
I said that I was willing to discuss how you felt I was supporting an oppressive system with the pictures and presenting Niebuhr’s 5 interactions. I didn’t volunteer that I was participating in an oppression.
BUT, for the sake of dialogue…
I’d like to say that I don’t support oppression, but I live in America. I’ve recently come to understand that just about everything I take for granted comes from capitalist empires (ie. large corporations) raping the resources from everywhere else so they can make $$. I want to make sure that you don’t hear me say that America is raping the world though. I saw today that Ikea owns chains in Saudi Arabia. Playboy released their first issue there a handful of years ago. By living in America and participating in the capitalist economy I’m helping to fund the spread of the same virus that’s eroded my society.
I’m not really sure how to stop it yet though. So in the meantime I’m reluctantly participating in the ‘oppression’.
As far as missionary acculturation, I’m very aware that it’s happened and still continues to happen. From my understanding, which may be no where near as extensive as yours, missionaries in Hawaii punished children for speaking in Polynesian instead of English. The modern missionary movement started, in part, as a scouting mission for European nations to find resources and business opportunities. This generally was done through the removal of the native’s culture and importing the culture of the missionary. In taking away the native’s history they removed the native’s identity.
But that’s not what Niebuhr is talking about. 2 things about Niebuhr- 1) you will have to become aquanted 1st hand with Christian theology (not the stuff you see on TV, but actual Christian communities) to understand the ‘Christ’ Niebuhr refers to and 2) Niebuhr is simply explaining the 5 models that he has saw for the interactions between Christianity and Culture- which unless I’m mistaken (an I may be) wasn’t in Africa, or in Hawaii, or in the American Mid-west during its colonization by American settlers.
There are foundational Christian beliefs (held throughout its 2000 year history) that are counter-cultural to nearly every culture and ‘transform’ it in a positive way. Examples of this are the encouragement of family (in whatever form that exists), the promotion of communal living and caring for one another, the promotion of societal basics such as don’t kill, steal, lie, respect/care for elders (family structure again) and monogamous marriages. Read the Gospels and you will see what Niebuhr would call the ‘Christ’ that SHOULD be transforming culture.
But, you are correct, instead often what has happened is that Western pride has gotten into bed with Christianity so much so that the two were inseperable to those caught up in it. This trend is actually still common amongst conservative Evangelicals in America (they mistake patriotism and following Jesus).
An example of the imposition of Western Culture instead of Christianity is the Methodist Church of Southern Africa. It was founded by natives when the missionaries refused to accept the African’s custom of polygamy. This is a perfect example of not only a missionary trying to impose an unnecessary western custom but also the natives rejecting it and making the religion their own.
Now, I admit that, in even the best missionary work, a certain amount of acculturation must occur. To go from worshiping one god to worshiping another requires a transformation of culture. But this is no more acculturation that changing one’s culture because of education. The native believes something new and decides to change their life based on that information.
Now, one may argue that Christians should just leave everyone else alone, many do. But to tell a Christian, who genuinely believes they need to share their faith, that they must keep silent is to impose the same acculturation upon them. Oppressing the oppressors just leads to more oppression.
Ok, this comment has gone on way too long- I’d like to hear your thoughts in response though.
Earl
Thanks. I agree with you on most of the above. I believe that all five models can be put into action simultaneously. Certainly there are a lot of things in culture that must go, and many other things can stay and in complete agreement with Christian faith, and a lot of other gray areas. All five models come into play in dealing with these issues. Unfortunately western missionaries about a century back was not nuanced enough to know all the difference. they had zeal and courage, but i think in certain places they did more harm than good. for example in India, Christianity was put in direct confrontation with Hinduism, a place where religious tradition and everyday culture is one and the same. to give up their religion would be to abandon their culture, which leaves the converts with a complete lose of identity. this is one reason why Christianity fails to make progress in India.
here the whole Christian concept of “dying to self” is a bit dangerous when applied to societies and cultures. I am a Christian and i believe that the teaching of Jesus should be followed by nations and not just individuals. But i just don’t know how we can do so without hurting the sentiments of those outside the faith, or without hurting particulars culture. In the present pluralist religious scenario, diversity, tolerance, respect have become key words. In such a context, how can we continue to hold forth a “transforming culture” model without reminding the Third world of the devastating western imperialism? I am under the impression that Niebuhr endorsed this model, though he claimed to remain neutral on this issue.
I hope i make sense, i am just thinking aloud.
thanks
Just to clarify, that i have a great deal of respect and admiration for western missionaries. They inspire me a lot. I also tend to agree with the “Christ the transformer of culture” more than the others, but i am weary when one culture imposes its norms on another in the name of the “Gospel”, not allowing the gospel to grow up from within. (but i guess those days are over thankfully, but sadly the effects remain as strong as ever).
My whole struggle is this: How can we bring a whole culture on its knees and be willing to dies to itself in response to the Gospel? Jesus tried that in the first century without much success. Should we even try it?
Christi is the God of the living !
Culture is part of life, and it is only Christ who is the judge , Not us !!!
Jan,
I do not understand how your assertion that Christ is the God of the living (the Bible also says that he is the God of those whom are dead, by the way) fits the conversation. Can you please explain your process of thought so that we all can learn from what you have to say.
As for ‘judging’, I think what you are saying is that each person should be answerable to only their conscience and not a larger body. If that is correct… (1) It has nothing to do with ‘Christ and Culture’ and (2) How do you propose Christ judges culture if not through a mediated (ie. people on earth) presence? In the OT God rarely shows up, God uses people to accomplish God’s goals (sometimes they knew they are God’s tools, sometimes they thought they were doing their own thing). If you want to say that each person is answerable to no one but themself, what you are proposing is both anti-Biblical as well as in plain opposition to 2000 years of church teaching.
If you want to talk about how we exercise authority in community, that’s a valid conversation. If you want to talk about how you’ve been ‘judged’ that’s cool too. And I’m still open to hearing about how Christ ‘judges’ cultures in the present. I’m also curious where you are getting your assertion that Christ judges cultures. I haven’t given it much thought, but I just naturally assumed that post-Resurrection God dealt with individuals and not nations. So yeah, I guess I need you to actually tell us what you’re thinking as opposed to belligerently blowing off steam.
Earl
Your images rock Earl. Any chance I can use them (with full reference to you) on my blog to help explain Niebuhr’s framework?
Mark,
Thanks for the compliment! go ahead and use ‘em however you want. I’m really glad they’re of help.
Earl
Thanks Earl!
[...] to illustrate H. Richard Niebuhr’s 5 models of Christianity’s interaction with culture, Wanderings of a Theological Vagabond chooses to represent Christ by an image of Christ as huckster, a view of Christ as completely [...]
It seems to me that the image on the left represents the Christ of culture, or at least of Western capitalist culture.
[...] a funny take on the Christ and Culture discussion by earlbarnett.com. In it he uses pictures of Jesus (“Buddy Christ”, from [...]
[...] that example doesn’t help, you can always try a previous illustration of Christ and Culture- which entertains as well as educates (which I have previously mentioned: Christ and Mr. T). [...]
[...] in favor of “Christ-transforming-culture” position. (The fun pictures to the left come from this blog post.) This move has become the party line for Evangelicals in Hollywood. The claim is that Christians [...]