zimmerBlog

Niebuhr gave us four reasons why we should be hesitant to commit to any of the ways Christians have engaged their culture. But is he correct? Can the Bible give us an answer where Niebuhr could not?

Follow up:

Throughout this discussion I have tried to bring in Bible passages to challenge us. In fact, I have tried to give biblical references for each of the five perspectives discussed. As you consider each of the passages in their context, and compare what one passage says with another, some conclusions can be drawn.

For one, neither of the Radical perspectives (Christ Against Culture and Christ of Culture)tell the whole story. If we were to believe that the Scriptures contradict themselves, we would conclude that this was one of the areas in which the Bible holds a contradiction. However, this is not our belief, and this is confirmed when we finally consider the passages together. Neither of these extremes are correct- there has to be another way.

This is besides the fact that the Radical perspectives have a very incomplete view of theology. They don’t take sin or grace seriously enough and tend to focus on a human Christ. Like I’ve said before, the Radical perspectives do not necessarily deny the Scriptural teachings on sin, grace, and the Hypostatic Union of Christ, but their perspectives don’t consider the whole teachings of the Scriptures on these topics either.

Thus one of the three Centrist perspectives (Christ Above Culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox, and Christ Transforming Culture) must be correct (or at least better options).

The fact is, you could take the Scriptures that seem to defend the Christ Against Culture perspective and use them to argue for the Christ and Culture in Paradox view (along with some other passages). This is likewise true for the Christ of Culture passages and the Christ Above Culture perspective. The strength of the two moderate perspectives mentioned here is that they consider a more complete view of the Scriptures- especially regarding the doctrines of sin, grace, and Christ.

But still, although these perspectives are more complete, there is an implicit contradiction as each engages its culture. Thus we are left with one perspective that considers the entire Scriptures in its entirety- Christ Transforming Culture. This is, perhaps, the most Biblical perspective for how Christians should engage their culture, but that’s about as clear as we can get.

SIDENOTE: Although Niebuhr resists committing to any one perspective as correct, it is clear that he prefers the Conversion perspective. I say this because of the way he wrote the book, culminating with this middle perspective and his moderate preferences. Likewise, he offers less criticisms of this perspective than any of the previous perspectives. At least one of Niebuhr’s biographers, Kliever, agrees with me on this point.

Now this is an admittedly vague discussion that not only assumes each perspective can be defended by the Scriptures but also fails to discuss any Scriptures at all. But, even if you were to grant me all of my assumptions, we’d have to agree that it would be difficult to honestly conclude that the Bible promotes solely one of these perspectives. Sure there are hints, inklings, and tendencies towards some of these perspectives, but that is probably the most conclusive statement we can make.

I am not saying that there is no right or wrong or that there is no absolute truth in this world. I am merely arguing that the world is not black and white, especially as we try to engage our culture as Christians.

This becomes even more evident when we start to learn about the five ways Niebuhr describes how different Christians engage their cultures. The fact is that sometimes the lines between the perspectives aren’t always clear. Sometimes this is because people aren’t always consistent. Other times it is because one tendency can easily transform into another- clouding the difference between the two. It is hard to say which perspective is correct when it is hard to distinguish between them.