Christ and Culture (Part 1)
Christ and Culture Part 1
The conflict between Christ and culture is not new and neither
is it rare. It is a daily occurrence as the boundaries are
blurred and the culture develops. Christians have been viewed
more often than not as subversive because of a belief that they
are destined for more than just a human destiny. Many times they
have paid a high price for it and continue to do so, from the
early Christian martyrs of Rome to those who refuse to bend
their beliefs to the desires of a communist state. In many
nations of the modern world the underground church is still
being persecuted.
Such cases are disturbing but expected. In many nations there
are overt and covert attempts to silence religion, that is out
of favour, from being expressed in public institutions.
Religious views are being marginalised and reduced to impotent
fairy tales better suited to children's bedrooms before a good
night kiss, or perhaps some trivial, private and quiet hobby
like stamp collecting. Religion is seen as an activity not
befitting an intelligent public-spirited adult. Religion is seen
as a past-time not a lifestyle. The issue is very much current
as well as historical. To tackle question of Christ and culture
we should clearly define Christ and culture.
Christ as the Son of God points us away from the many values man
tends to prioritise and to the one God who is truly good. Yet at
the same time, Jesus is a mediator between God and man, in Jesus
we see God's love for man as well as man's love for God. Christ
in us is a joining of the two. This duality in Christ leads us
to a corresponding duality of expression of Christ in us.
Our faith has both a vertical dimension (directed to God the
Father through Christ in us) and a horizontal dimension
(directed through Christ in us to our neighbour). Any adequate
address of Christ and culture needs to emphasise both that we
are seated with Christ in heavenly places, above and beyond the
world and hate the world, in that we find no cause for identity
in it, and at the same time God in fact gave His life for the
world as a result of His love for mankind, and enjoins us to do
the same.
We hate the sin but love the sinner. Culture comprises of
language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organisation,
inherited artefacts, technical processes, and values.
So what happens when Christ and culture collide? How are we to
deal with Christ and culture in daily life. Here are a few ideas
of how Christians have often dealt with this issue.
1. Christ is against culture The most radical answer is that
Christ is against culture. God is the sole authority for the
Christian, presenting Christ and culture as an either/or choice.
If we follow Christ we must reject any loyalty to culture.
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves
the world, the love of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15).
Some would argue that the prince of this world is Satan
therefore to choose culture is to choose loyalty to the devil.
All state obligations are against the conscience of a Christian
- the oath of allegiance, taxes, law proceedings and military
service. Christians in this view are encouraged to separate
themselves from the culture, either individually as Tolstoy did,
or corporately as the Mennonites have done, as a monastic
community.
The integrity of those adhering to this option is shown firstly,
in their willingness to suffer martyrdom in some cases under
evil governments, and secondly, in the social reforms they
provoke.
The problem with this option is that it is impossible to
separate oneself from culture as it permeates our thinking and
language, in fact it is as much around us as it is in our heads.
Though it may be possible to keep some evil aspects of culture
out of our communities by separatism, we cannot rid ourselves of
our own predisposition to sin.
If the Amish live apart from state institutions or from
mainstream technology and consumerism, all they succeed in doing
is creating sub-cultures that while they may be counterculture,
never attain to acultural status. The fact that a monastic
lifestyle often required many rules and forms of discipline is
proof enough of the inherent tendency of man to fall into old
patterns of sin. Because of this, separatist groups tend to
adhere to grades of holiness that can only be maintained through
works. Claiming that the monastic life lead to greater holiness
is why Luther said that it was not only unnecessary but, if it
was chosen for this reason, it would become an institution of
the devil!
Separatism also only emphasises Christ's role in drawing us away
from culture (the vertical dimension) but ignores God's role in
our continued relationship with culture (the horizontal
dimension). If Tolstoy was right, a Christian should pay no
taxes, something that Jesus Christ said we should do. Jesus also
tells us to love our neighbours, who are for the most, part
found in mainstream culture where practical works of love have
to be culturally relevant to the people who need God's love to
understand it as such.
Christ even seems to reject separatism in the parable of the
Good Samaritan. The Samaritan crossed cultural norms to help
whereas the priest and Levite for the sake of holiness kept
themselves apart from him. The Samaritan is held up as our moral
guide in the story.
In order for culture to be rejected in favour of Christ, logic
requires that God Himself is not a part of culture. This would
make sense if we only knew God as solely spiritual, but we also
know Him as incarnate. He shows His nature in creation, which
expresses His attributes, in Jesus by incarnation as a specific
and very cultural human being (Hebrews 2:14-18), as well as in
believers today through the indwelling Spirit of Christ in every
believer. Since we are to follow Christ in all things, we should
follow him in the cultural dimension as well.
2. Christ is of Culture Cultural Christians claim that Christ is
to be understood as the highest aspiration and fulfilment of
culture. So it is possible to affirm both Christ and culture and
to deny any necessary opposition between the two.
Culture can be interpreted through Christ, where the elements of
culture that are most complimentary to Jesus' work and person
are the best; as are those things that can be understood of God
through culture.
In this way they are most accommodating, reconciling
Christianity with what appears to be the greatest achievements
of culture. The early church had it's share of Hellenizers,
Judaizers and Gnostics who joined Christ to their mystical
philosophy, and in the same way today there are many who attempt
to reduce Christianity to practical morality and Jesus Christ to
one of many great moral teachers.
The error of this option is equal to, but also in direct
opposition to separatism in that it is so concentrated on the
world that while focused on the horizontal dimension it ignores
the vertical dimension. Thus putting very little emphasis on
grace or eternity aand the afterlife, and producing a
self-reliant form of humanism.
Ultimately this deifies man and humanises God, creating theology
in man's image through connecting Christ with some cultural
movement one wishes to endorse. So we have Christianity AND
homosexuality, Christianity AND new psychology, Christianity AND
Veganism, Christianity AND political correctness or Christianity
AND any other syncretism you could care to mention.
So we end up thinking that some aspect of God can be found in a
same-sex relationship and the acceptance of homosexual rights.
Political correctness in a culture takes preference over what
the Bible may say about a subject. And we find that as the
horizontal dimension gets distorted the vertical dimension gets
ignored. We listen to the spirit of the age more than the Holy
Spirit.
There is one aspect of accommodation that is relevant to us.
When communicating the gospel we do need to adapt it to our
audience, that is, while not compromising the message of the
gospel we should present it incarnate so that it translates into
the understanding of the people-group. We need to present a
contextualised Christianity, not syncretism. Paul adapted his
delivery dependant on whether his audience was Jewish, gentile,
Roman or Greek in order to make it relevant to their way of
thinking. Jesus did the same with His parables. By being
cultural chameleons we can take the gospel message and find
culturally relevant clothing to make it relevant. This is the
incarnation of Christ in the prevailing culture.
3. Christ is above culture In this view Christ and culture are
synthesised. This option says that culture has good in it since
God created the world and though it was distorted by the fall it
is not entirely evil, it still has attributes of God in it. So
in this view we cannot say "either Christ or culture" because we
are dealing with God in both cases and we also must not say
"both Christ and culture" as if there was no distinction between
them.
Thomas Aquinas believed that the church is simultaneously in and
beyond the world, leading people to salvation in heaven, while
affirming the best in this world's culture. He believed that God
has purposes in the temporal as well as the eternal realms. This
option affirms a stable relationship between church and state as
well as encouraging the conservation of values and authority.
The church should back up the government's authority to maintain
order. So in the earthly as well as in the Heavenly realms there
is a hierarchical organisation in church and state.
There is one King over the temporal and the eternal and we have
practical solutions for living the Christian life within culture
and gives incentive for government and education as well as
encouraging academic principles. The danger is that the church
will socially stagnate and fossilise with it's emphasis on
values and authority, it may perpetuate dictatorships and
prevent legislative reform. If respect for temporal authority is
too great, there is a danger that man made laws will undermine
God's law.
There is also no separation of church and state, leading to
prohibition or the evil of forcing people to change their
beliefs by relying on the sword rather than the word. The
integration of church and state to make people believe things is
evil and pretty impossible because changing someone's behaviour
produces a hypocrite, and even though you can change someone's
behaviour through force, it still does not mean you have changed
their belief.
Please see the other parts of this article..... Christ and
Culture