Anyone interested in the theological intersection of Christ and culture should be familiar with Richard Niebuhr’s 50’s classic, Christ and Culture. Niebuhr’s work bequeathed the familiar Christ and Culture typology to Christians of the Western world. In a follow up work, New Testament scholar D.A. Carson recently published Christ and Culture Revisited, a deliberate reassessment of Niebuhr’s ideas. Carson’s aim is bold and clear: “[to] focus on how we should be thinking about the relations between Christ and culture now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century.” Instead of reviewing every chapter, I will focus on the thrust of Carson’s alternative proposal, which commends a set of biblical theology “non-negotiables” over and against Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture typology.  

What is Culture?
Carson appropriately launches his book by establishing a working definition of culture. After citing various sources (Geertz not the least), he settles into a definition of culture that recognizes both the behavioral and the material aspects of culture, e.g. “the shared understandings made manifest in act and artifact” (Redfield). To be sure, culture deals in action and artifacts, but is also deals in assessments or ideas.  

Next, Carson critiques Niebuhr’s definition of culture “because it includes beliefs and religion” (12). In other words, Carson doesn’t approve of the way Niebuhr includes Christianity as part of culture. This point was confusing. Isn’t every expression of the gospel of Christ expressed in cultural form? As John Mbiti has noted, Christianity is like a beggar seeking food and shelter from the cultures it inhabits. There is only one Christ, but many Christianities, e.g. African Christianity, American Christianity.

Carson seems to assume that there is a monolithic, un-enculturated Christian faith. I find it hard to believe that this is, in fact, Carson’s point. One of the distinct things about the Christian faith is its inherent translatability into any culture. The incarnation is both the model and means for translation. Is it not Christ himself that, at times, stands apart from culture, while at other times stands within it? If so, this seems to strengthen Niebuhr’s approach.

This blurry point raises one of the weaknesses of the Carson’s robust work. There are a number of points throughout the book that are unclear. At times, the book feels more like a collection of lectures cobbled together instead of a cogent and persuasive thesis. Onto the thesis.

Carson’s “Non-Negotiable” Paradigm
Christ and Culture Revisited is largely occupied with offering an alternative to Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture typology. Pressing into Niebuhr, Carson takes the high ground by meeting Niebuhr on his own authorial turf, citing Christ and Culture extensively. He summarizes the five positions offered by Niebuhr (Christ vs. Culture, of Culture, above Culture, and Culture, transformer of Culture). These summaries are, indeed, summaries, many of which may be unclear to readers who are not familiar with Niebuhr’s work.

While Carson commends Niebuhr’s use of Scripture to ground his typology, he also critiques him for a lack of Biblical Theology. Carson notes that Niebuhr tends to identify and universalize certain “Christ and Culture” positions with certain biblical authors. Advocating a more sensitive reading of Scripture, Carson’s alternative paradigm for cultural engagement follows the grain of biblical narrative. He coins the following categories as the “non-negotiables of Biblical theology”: 1) Creation/Fall, 2) Israel/Law, 3) Christ/New Covenant and 4) Heaven/Hell. These non-negotiables don’t exactly roll off the tongue, but any approach should not be driven by pragmatics alone. Carson’s point is well taken—we should submit Niebuhr’s categories (or any others) to biblical examination, including Carson’s!

Creation/Fall
In an age that is soft on truth and sin, Carson’s section on the relevance of the Fall for engagement with culture is refreshing. He states that the heart of evil is idolatry and that all humans have fallen under this universally devastating curse. All peoples are alienated from the holy Judge and are in need of reconciliation. He writes: “The drama of the entire storyline of the Bible turns on our persistent alienation from God. (49)

What implications does the Fall have for culture? Carson notes that Christians cannot long think about Christ and culture without reflection on the fact that this is God’s world, but that this side of the Fall this world is “simultaneously resplendent with glory and awash in shame, and that every expression of human culture simultaneously discloses that we are made in God’s image and shows itself mis-shaped and corroded by human rebellion against God” (49).

This eloquently stated truth shares much in common with Niebuhr—who would simply say that a fallen world requires the simultaneous use of Christ vs. culture and Christ affirmer/transformer of culture categories. Unfortunately, Carson does not offer any Niebuhrian comparisons. Rather, he simply and impressively unpacks theological summaries of his categories, making it difficult to adopt his categories over and against Niebuhr.

Israel/Law
In this section, Carson briefly notes that Israel drew no lines between the sacred and the secular. They were a theocratic state. How should this fact affect our approach to the traditional separation between “church” and “state”? What bearing does this biblical-theological category have upon the relations between Christ and culture?

Christ/New Covenant
After affirming penal, substitutionary atonement Carson writes: “it is simply non-negotiable for any form of Christianity whatsoever that seeks its shape in the cruciform gospel. Those that contest these fundamentals may receive high marks from the culture, but where there are competing authority claims on this sort of issue, Christians simply cannot afford to take their cues from the culture” (55). His Christ-centered perspective is solid and inspiring.

Heaven/Hell
Carson offers some theological wisdom when he notes that the already-not-yet-consummated kingdom does not mean we usher in the consummation; that is reserved for Christ and should hold in check any sort of Christian utopian or triumphalism (we are not a theocracy). Yet, again, there are few practical comments to help us press Carson’s wisdom into the everyday challenges of cultural life.

Carson is staunch about his non-negotiables, stating that it will not do to adopt some configuration of a few of the categories and then call it a Christian option. Creation/Fall, Israel/Law, Christ/New Covenant, & Heaven/Hell are an all or nothing proposition. While he convinces the reader of the merit of biblical theology, he falls short in showing how this theology is helpful in actual cultural engagement.

Carson vs. Niebuhr
Carson is a formidable New Testament scholar and theologian. The very fact that he is willing to “revisit” Niebuhr will send many running in his direction. And here is a real concern. Some, if not many who read Carson, will not have read Niebuhr nor will they read him, and if you are reading this, read Niebuhr! To be sure, Carson’s summaries and critiques are good but not gold. They fall short and are unfounded in some places.

However, the strength of Christ and Culture Revisited is its depth theological reflection and breadth of theological vision. Something about Carson’s thesis rings deeply true, namely the call to embrace every chapter in the Biblical story as formative for Christian discipleship. Shortcuts will not suffice.

And yet, Christ and Culture Revisited is in short supply of examples where the biblical theology categories trump Niebuhr’s typology. Even scarcer are the sentences that connect the dots between the biblical theology non-negotiable categories and their helpfulness in engaging culture. The chapters devoted to an analysis of secularism, democracy, freedom, church and state remain largely theoretical (though insightful), yet the theory does not warrant jumping ship from Niebuhr.

In summary, Carson’s work is thoughtful, well reasoned and, at times, compelling. His clarion call to engage culture in light of biblical theology must not go unheeded. It is a good attempt to integrate a rich theological discipline with praxis. However, it will not be the last visit to Niebuhr.

Comments

Leave a Comment