Christianity & Culture: God’s Double Sovereignty by Gene Edward Veith

Posted: April 18th, 2006 | Author: david | Filed under: christ and culture | No Comments »

http://www.issuesetc.org/…ives/veith2.htm

In this article, by Gene Veith, he summarizes Niebuhr’s different perspectives to Christ and Culture and offers his own opinion for the correct approach.

Who am I to argue with Veith but, in this article, he makes some common mistakes as he attempts to understand the perspectives. It is worth our time to read this article because by discussing his misunderstandings, we will become more clear.

The first perspective Veith describes is Christ of Culture, which he accurately describes as “culture Above Christ.” He defines this perspective saying,

In this view, Christianity serves culture, or, in the words of the National Council of Churches slogan: “The world sets the agenda for the church.” When the culture changes, Christianity must also change to maintain its relevance. This is the path of liberal theology.

This is an adequate definition of the perspective, as Niebuhr understands it, but when he begins to give examples, they better describe the Christ Above Culture perspective- where someone uses their culture to promote Christ. This is especially clear in his warning to evangelical churches:

Churches that were once evangelical, boldly standing up for the gospel and the authority of the Bible against modernist culture and its liberal theologians, are now changing their teachings and their practices to keep up with the culture. They conduct market surveys to find what the religious consumers of their culture want, then they respond like any other successful business. They throw out time-tested modes of worship in favor of whatever styles are most popular. Told that people do not want to hear about how sinful they are, they switch to more positive messages of self-esteem. They comb the Bible for principles for successful living rather than preaching that Christ died for sinners. Though these Christians may have the best of motives in trying to reach their culture, they often fail to see that, instead, their culture has reached them. Though they often call themselves evangelical, those who uncritically follow the dictates of the culture are not evangelicals at all but simply the latest version of an old theology: they are liberals.

I understand why Veith is confused here. I made the same mistake earlier (just read some of my previous posts). One of the reasons this is an easy mistake to make is because, and I agree with Veith here, that once you start to use culture to promote Christ, you are starting down a slippery slope that can lead to liberal theology. Nevertheless, this better describes someone who is Christ Above Culture than Culture Above Christ.
A better understanding of Christ of Culture comes when Veith describes Christ Above Culture. In this perspective, someone is making Christ in the image of their culture or, as Veith says,

In this view, Christianity offers standards to which the culture should be made to conform. Those who place Christ above culture will attempt to develop and promote distinctly Christian approaches to art, music, economics, science, and every other sphere of life. Society should be reformed until it approximates a Christian civilization.

Proponents of this view want a Christian culture that resembles what they decide is Christian. They are making Christ into the supreme example of a virtuous member of their culture.
Veith hits the nail on the head when he describes the problems of the Christ of Culture perspective- namely its neglect of the doctrines of sin and grace.

In the first place, it often underestimates the effect of the Fall and the scope of human sinfulness. No earthly kingdom, even one ruled by or consisting of Christians, can be a utopian paradise this side of Eden. All are transient and will prove disappointing, corrupted by injustice or pride, until Christ rules directly in the kingdom of heaven.

There can be no such thing as a Christian culture as such, because Christianity comes from faith in the Gospel, not the works of the Law, and God saves individuals, not nations. Not every member of a culture is going to be a Christian. Since conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to coerce or require anyone to become a Christian. The unregenerate cannot obey biblical principles so as to be part of a Christian culture. Neither, while they are in their fallen flesh, can Christians.

Last Veith describes the Christ and Culture in Paradox perspective

According to this view, God is sovereign both in the church and in the culture¯but he rules the two in different ways. In the church, God reigns through the work of Christ and the giving of the Holy Spirit, expressing his love and grace through the forgiveness of sins and the life of faith. God also exercises his authority and providential control through all of creation¯upholding the very universe, so that the laws of physics, the processes of chemistry, and other natural laws are part of what he has ordained. Similarly, God rules the nations¯even those who do not acknowledge him¯making human beings to be social creatures, in need of governments, laws, and cultures to mitigate the self-destructive tendencies of sin and to enable human beings to survive.

This is an excellent definition of this perspective. However, when he begins to conclude his paper suggesting that Christians should follow this “Two Kingdom” idea, what he is really describing is Christ Transforms Culture

Should Christians get involved in politics? Yes, as part of our vocation in God’s secular kingdom. The goal should not be necessarily the election of Christian rulers, nor to make America a “Christian nation.” Rather, it should be to apply God’s law in our social relationships and to establish justice and righteousness in our land. Abortion, for example, is a monstrous crime against the weakest and most defenseless in our society, and Christians are right to work against this evil, as against many others. Christians in politics must play by political rules, whether hard-ball power plays or the arts of compromise and consensus building. The church should be gentle and loving, while never compromising its doctrines. The rough-and-tumble of the political process, however, means that Christian politicians should not be prevented from exercising power or from making a tactical compromise by the charge that to do so is “not Christian.” That confuses the kingdoms. Christian politicians, however, like all politicians, must exercise their power justly and in accordance with God’s law.

This is not a Paradoxial view. That perspective suggests that culture is a necessary evil that should be tolerated while on this earth, waiting for the next life. Instead, Veith suggests we should let our Christianity affect how we work in this world and try to make it better- not by making it into our view of what a “Christian” world would look like but to improve it for everyone. He us promoting the Christ Transforms Culture perspective.

All this reiterates the difficulty in trying to pick any one perspective as the right one. One of the major reasons this is difficult is that it is hard to keep the perspectives apart- if Veith got confused, what about us novices?

This does not mean we should avoid coming to any conclusion at all. Even with his misunderstandings Veith is doing the right thing- trying his best to see how we should approach our culture. If we were all working half as hard as this to influence our culture- rather than let it influence us- the world would be a much better place for all.

---