User-Friendly Niebuhr?

Posted: March 7th, 2008 | Author: david | Filed under: Christ & Culture in Paradox, Christ Above Culture, Christ Against Culture, Christ Transforming Culture, Christ of Culture, christ and culture | No Comments »

http://journeyinghome.org…olitics-part-1/

According to Steve at Journeying Home:

Gerry Breshears, Professor of Theology at Western Seminary, translated Niebuhr into more user-friendly English. Breshears suggests the following windows for viewing the relationship between Christ and culture:

I’d like to comment on this summary in a hope to better explain Niebuhr’s categories. I think that Breshears (even if he is a Prof and I am mere pastor) shows some common misunderstandings of the categories.

1) Transforming. Transformers see themselves called to penetrate society and Christianize its structures. Christ’s mandate for the Church includes using political means to take back America and restore Christian values. Dobson, Scarborough, and Falwell are leading this transformation. Chuck Colson’s BreakPoint ministry is another pivotal player.

This betrays a common confusion between Christ Transforming Culture and Christ of Culture. I’ve commented before that these perspectives are close but can be distinguished by their views of Christ. As I’ve also discussed before, Falwell, for example, is not trying to transform culture as much as he is using politics to promote Christ. Third, and again I quote myself, politics isn’t the only way to transform culture- and sometimes isn’t the most effective way.

2) Triumphant. The triumphant camp argues that the gospel will prevail and the world will be Christianized. For example, Pat Roberson preaches that we will bring the Millennium by preaching the gospel and winning everyone to Christ.

This might be what Niebuhr means by Christ of Culture. When we use the word “Christianize” and primarilly mean living according to Christian ethics and morality, this is best characterized by this one of Niebuhr’s categories. Of course, the problem comes in which Christian morality we are to promote and how we know whether we are promoting Christian morality or using Christ to promote a morality that makes us feel comfortable.

3) Ambivalent. If the proclamation of the gospel results in revival, society will improve as a secondary effect. Billy Graham faithfully preaches the gospel and willingly admits that he has learned the hard way to steer clear of politics.

This is the perspective Niebuhr calls Christ and Culture in Paradox. Graham is a good example of this because, even though he has had the ear of every President over the last 30 years he has been more of a personal, spiritual than policy adviser.

4) Negative. The negative camp believes that only the Messiah will change society. The Church can save people from Satan’s domain, the world, and bring them into the lifeboat, the church community. In short, the world is going to hell in a hand basket, so the church and state must remain totally separate.

Niebuhr calls this Christ Against Culture.

5) Prophetic. Prophetic adherents proclaim the gospel and seek to win people to Christ. The mandate of the Church is to proclaim righteousness in the culture by deed and word and to expose the evils of society in a context of grace. Politics is not the means by which the Church will accomplish its goals; rather, the Church is directed to pray and preach the gospel.

This is similar to what Niebuhr describes as Christ Above Culture- namely the focus on preaching and conversion of individuals. What is lacking is its use of culture to promote Christ. Because this description neglects culture and therefore is better summarized as Christ and Culture in Paradox. What is unclear is how this is different than the third of Breshears descriptions.

By its placement as the last perspective, I can only assume that Breshears intends to place this as the culmination and therefore best perspective for Christians to engage culture. That is common among Evangelical Christians- to hold the Christ and Culture in Paradox perspective.

In conclusion I find Breshears’ summary a little confusing. He seems to conflate perspectives, not having a clear distinction between them. While it can be hard to strictly stick to Niebuhr’s perspectives and at some degree, with any taxonomy, it falls apart, Breshears summary doesn’t help this. This is because it is better to say that someone tends to hold one of these perspectives in specific instances rather than stereotype people to fit consistently into any one of these perspectives- something I tend to do in this blog, and am trying to get away from myself. This is something I learned from Guenther (there I go quoting myself again).

I hope that by discussing Breshears summary I have made Niebuhr’s perspectives more clear to you.

---