Gathje, A Contested Classic

This article offers a critique of Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture paradigm, stating that his liberal, pluralistic theology naturally lead him to disingenuously conclude that Christ Transforms Culture is the correct perspective despite his claims to remain neutral and not commit to any one perspective.

I tend to agree with the author of this article. After all, who can be neutral? I don’t believe anyone honestly can. Also, I believe it is clear that Niebuhr is setting up his book to at least imply that Christ Transforms Culture is the best perspective, even though he refuses to officially commit to it.

What I don’t see is how his liberal protestant theology leads him to this perspective.

Another place where I find myself disagreeing with the article is in the following paragraph:

Critics further complain that even though Niebuhr recognizes a pluralism within culture, the types are defined by how they relate to values that are not simply “culture” but rather are culturally dominant. It turns out that to be responsibly engaged in transforming culture means being responsive to the values and concerns of the cultural elite (much like the ones who Gustafson describes as finding the book helpful). This stance provokes Hauerwas and Willimon’s charge that Niebuhr ends up justifying “what was already there — a church that had ceased to ask the right questions as it went about congratulating itself for transforming the world, not noticing that in fact the world had tamed the church.”

I think Niebuhr says the opposite of this regarding the Conversionist perspective. Conversionists are not inevitably culturally conservative because they are working to improve it for the better. If they believed in maintaining any part of culture, they would be in the Christ Above of Christ of Culture perspective. On the other hand, if they didn’t believe it was redeemable, they would be in the Christ Against Culture or Christ and Culture in Paradox camp. Instead, this perspective takes the middle road, saying culture is flawed but redeemable- and you can’t believe this about culture and defend it at the same time.