Conclusion

How can truth be known absolutely? How can one make the statement “there is no absolute truth” without it being absolutely true? This is the paradox of modern and postmodern thought. Absolute truth is true absolutely, with no exceptions.

Can someone claim to know God and yet adhere to postmodern thought? The subjective truth of postmodernism makes this a difficult claim. If God can change, then what would He change to? He could either change to be better or worse. If God changes to something better, that would imply that he was not the best previously.[1] This goes against what is said in John 3:31 which states, “(t)he one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.”

Furthermore, if God cannot change for the better, can He change for the worse? For God to be worse than what he is would imply imperfection or the presence of evil in a being who is wholly good. God does not change. Psalm 102:26-27 says, “They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.”[2]

This unchanging God strikes at the heart of postmodernist thought. How can truth be subjective and malleable if the author of truth, the one who created truth, is not? The answer is that truth does not change, that God holds the absolute truth.

There exists in the world today a war between cultures. This war is not new as it has been raging since the fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden. However, today this war is everywhere, prompting McGough to comment, “(t)o keep up with the ‘culture wars’…one would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and awake 24 hours a day.”[3] There are so many fronts in this war that one cannot hope to fight on them all.

It is important to take up this battle, but in order to fight it one must first grasp the theology of the Christian faith. Without this knowledge it will be impossible to counter the cultural arguments of those who hold to postmodernism. This doesn’t refer to scholarly knowledge, but to general knowledge. Christians must know why they believe what they believe. I John 3:18-20 says “Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.”

The second weapon in this fight is knowing what exists in the culture around us. “Those who do not know their opponent’s arguments do not completely understand their own.”[4] This is not to say that Christians should immerse themselves in the world’s culture. Christians are called to be in the world but not of the world. Romans 12:2 speaks, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

Third, when talking about “reaching” the lost in this culture, tactics must not take precedence over strategy. The church cannot focus on ways to bring the lost in to the church through worldly means. Christians must engage the worldview of a person with truth, or else the tactics will be seen as empty. Biblical truth contradicts cultural spirituality, “displaces it, refuses to allow its operating assumptions, declares it to bankruptcy.”[5]

Theology is crucial to the Christian walk. The church must not feel that they know something; they must think about it and know it. R.C. Sproul says, “(w)e live in a period that is allergic to rationality . . . (t)here is a difference between thinking and feeling.”[6] This battle is won by God, but the people of the church are the foot soldiers in the war. Christians must engage the culture without becoming enveloped by it. Knowledge of theology and the ability to apply it to the culture around us is a vital tool to reach the lost people of our contemporary society.

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994), 168

[2] Ibid., 163

[3] McGough, A Field Guide to the Culture Wars, xiii

[4] Mitchell Young, Culture Wars (Farmington Hills, Michigan: Greehaven Press, 2008), back cover

[5] John Piper and Justin Taylor, The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2007), 38

[6] Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, xvi

Current Worldviews

Studying Niebuhr’s types is important because it gives one a basic overview of how Christians react differently to the world around them. However, this only gives one a partial view of applying theology to culture. In addition to understanding how Christians respond one must also understand the issues that culture is facing. How does the culture think and what causes them to think that way?

There are a variety of worldviews that are present in this today’s society, but for the sake of focus and brevity, only two will be discussed. The most recent two large schools of thought have been modernism and postmodernism. Some argue that modernism has passed, supplanted by postmodernism. This view is even supported by the name “postmodernism” which literally means “after modernism.”

Modernism

First, what is modernism? Modernism rejected the certainty of Enlightenment thinking, along with the belief in a Creator. It saw society accelerating towards desctruction and meaninglessness, undermining much of the certainty in society.[1] This movement began the process of moving religion from part of everyday life to something more private, more out of public discussion.

The rejection of the supernatural caused people to look for scientific and rationalistic explanations for everything, though it held to the idea that one can know truth and that universal and absolute truth still existed.[2] However, the path for finding these truths moved from theology to the scientific method. Modernism gave rise to several different worldviews, including Darwinism, Marxism, fascism, socialism, communism, and theological liberalism.

Near the end of the 20^th century, modernism was on its way out, giving way to postmodernism. Most of the worldviews proposed by modernism had been found wanting and were discredited.[3]

Modernist Theology

Modernism affected theology as well. Some theologians who subscribed to modernistic theory began to view doctrine as secondary to culture. They sought to synthesize culture and doctrine together, believing that “doctrine was inherently divisive and a fragmented church would become irrelevant in the modern age.”[4] This gave way to a Christian pragmatism, allowing the results to justify whatever needed to be done. While the aim of the modernist theologians was to bring the church up to date with the culture, the movement opened the door to moral relativism and theological liberalism.

The modernist theology emphasized brotherhood and experience to the detriment of doctrinal differences, believing that doctrine should be “fluid and adaptable.” They wanted unity among the denominations and didn’t feel that theology was something worth fighting over. Many people during that time, including church leaders, ignored any kind of warnings about this kind of activity since it came from inside the church.[5]

Postmodernism

Postmodernism is defined as “any of a number of trends or movements in the arts and literature developing in the 1970s in reaction to or rejection of the dogma, principles, or practices of established modernism.”[6] Some view it as a replacement to modernism, while others state that it is an extension of modernism. Postmodernism differentiates itself from modernism by rejecting the idea that absolute truth exists or can be discovered. It represents a move from the rationality and scientific method of modernism to more irrational thinking and skepticism.

To the postmodernist, objectivity is an illusion, and anyone who speaks with conviction about a particular belief is considered arrogant and naïve. Postmodernism holds that everyone is entitled to their own truth.[7] Naturally, this goes against the theology of the Bible in which truth is absolute. Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6, NKJV).

The Postmodern Church

In the church, postmodern thought has given birth to the Emergent church movement. One issue that some take with this movement is the abandonment of certainty, that doubt and skepticism are lauded as humility. John MacArthur writes, “The Emerging postmodernists have blurred the line between certainty and omniscience. They seem to presume that if we cannot know everything perfectly, we really cannot know anything with any degree of certainty.”[8]

MacArthur further points out that by undermining the certainty of truth, the postmodern church introduces doubt and qualms about every teaching of scripture. Any plainly stated convictions are taken as arrogance.[9]

Theology provides the surest way for Christians to contend with the culture. Any outside influence that seeps into Christian theology weakens the purity of the faith.[10]

---

[1] eNotes.com, “Modernism: Introduction”; available from http://www.enotes.com/modernism/introduction; Internet; accessed 9 October 2009

[2] John MacArthur, The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 9

[3] Ibid., 10

[4] John MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1993), xv

[5] Ibid.

[6] Random House, Inc., “Postmodernism”, available from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/postmodernism; Internet; accessed 9 October 2009

[7] MacArthur, The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception, 11

[8] Ibid., 22

[9] Ibid., 155

[10] R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith (Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 199), 156

Niebuhr’s Five Viewpoints

Niebuhr discusses at length in Christ and Culture how Christians have and do interact with the culture they live in. These five viewpoints are summarized below:

Christ against culture

This viewpoint holds that Christ is the sole authority and that the Christian owes no loyalty to culture.[1] This has the effect of segregating the believer from culture, and making their Christian walk almost monastic. The Christian should hold no political office, not serve in any military capacity, shun philosophy and the arts, essentially remove themselves from any kind of public life. Niebuhr stated that “(t)he movement of withdrawal and renunciation is a necessary element in every Christian life, even though it be followed by an equally necessary movement of responsible engagement in cultural tasks.”[2]

Theologically, he points out that those with this view can often be accused of legalism and of neglecting grace in the Christian life. This can lead to the creation of rules which will overstep the saving grace of Christ.

Christ of culture

The second viewpoint Niebuhr explores is that of the Christ of culture, the view that while one considers one’s self a Christian, they still hold great allegiances to culture. These people “interpret culture through Christ” but “understand Christ through culture.”[3] Niebuhr compares those who hold this viewpoint to the early Gnostics, people who are trying to synthesize Christ with contemporary reason, philosophy, and science.

Like the Christ against culture believers, the Christ of culture adherents have issues associated with grace and sin, though typically on the other end of the spectrum. These believers think reason “the highest road to the knowledge of God and salvation.”[4]

Christ above culture

If the previous two viewpoints represent opposite ends of the spectrum, Christ above culture falls directly in the middle. This type represents the large center of Christianity. Rather than focusing on the struggle between Christ and culture, adherents appear to be more concerned with the relationship between God and man.[5] Thus, not much attention is paid to the issue of Christ versus culture. This does not mean that believers with this viewpoint do not hold to the authority of Christ, but simply that they don’t believe that Christ and the world can be opposed to each other. This is the synthetic view, which holds that one can live in both the Christian culture and the worldly culture at the same time. This person’s knowledge of the meaning of Christ differentiates him from the Christ of culture type, but his appreciation of culture separates him from the Christ above culture viewpoint.

The first issue with this type of belief is that this is a type of spiritual pragmatism where the ends justify the means. By synthesizing the two previous viewpoints, Christ above culture becomes a melting pot of everything. It inherits the problems with grace and sin, but includes a new problem of the institutionalization of the church, making something Christ freely did for all humanity more like a human achievement.[6] Niebuhr adds that throughout history, an adherent to this belief “tends to devote himself to the restoration or conservation of a culture and thus becomes a cultural Christian.”[7]

Christ and culture in paradox

To the believers in the paradox between Christ and culture, one cannot compare God and man, much less Christ and culture. While previous viewpoints hold human achievement in some regard, those who believe in the paradox “see that all their works and their work are not only pitifully inadequate, measure by that standard of goodness, but sordid and depraved.”[8] Thus nothing could redeem the culture except Christ, but Christ is not in the culture. The paradoxical believers typically consist of those who are worldly-minded but wish to acknowledge Christ slightly, or those who are radically pious and feel they owe some allegiance to culture.[9]

Christ transforming culture

The final viewpoint that Niebuhr expounds on is that of Christ transforming culture. These adherents have a decidedly more positive view of culture and tend to live more in the theological “now”, believing in what Christ can do to the culture. They have “a view of history that holds that to God all things are possible in a history that is fundamentally not a course of merely human events but always a dramatic interaction between God and men.”[10]

Why Christ and Culture?

The main point that Niebuhr makes is that Christians are constantly interfacing with the culture. Whether intentionally rejecting the culture and embracing faith, or embracing the culture and casually acknowledging faith, Christians are constantly in the trenches in the war with culture. Since this is the case, knowledge of theology is crucial. One must be able to apply theology to their culture, regardless of their particular viewpoint.

---

[1] Ibid., 45

[2] Ibid., 68

[3] Ibid., 83

[4] Ibid., 110

[5] Ibid., 117

[6] Ibid., 147

[7] Ibid., 146

[8] Ibid., 152

[9] Ibid., 184

[10] Ibid., 194

History

The history of the modern Christian church begins with the story of Christ and the various accounts of work done by the apostles and other early teachers and missionaries. However, that history as recorded in the Bible ends in the first or second century after Christ’s ascension. As the church spread in the early world it encountered “three centuries of intermittent persecution, martyrdom, and extraordinary courage.”[1]

This early Christian culture had only the theology of the Old Testament to live by at the time. The fact that Jesus fulfilled the law and became the Messiah prophesied about in the Scriptures had not yet been set to written word. Paul’s writings became the basis of much of modern Christian theology. He was the first to declare for a universal and unified church that accepted non-Jews and practiced a universal doctrine.[2]

Early Christians had a broad affect on their culture. Nero blamed them for the burning of Rome.[3] Pliny discovered that the execution of Christians was having little effect on the growing sect, still considered by many to be a cult.[4] Christian martyrs were influenced by their Hellenistic counterparts in their willingness to die for a principle.[5]

During the late second century, a crisis occurred in the Roman Empire which seemed to bring Christianity into acceptance by the Roman citizens. The empire was under constant attack from invaders and common Roman beliefs were being questioned. The Christian tenets of loving and helping your neighbor brought many to think that the feud between Rome and Christianity was insignificant compared to the battle between the empire and invaders. Rather than being viewed as internal enemies, Christians helped to preserve the empire.[6]

During the same period, the theology of Christianity was beginning to integrate with mainstream Roman life. Theologians of the time put forward the idea that Christ’s role “was not to overthrow the empire but to be a teacher and healer” and to bring all previous philosophies and religions under one umbrella, resolving all their differences.[7]

Through the fall of the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, and into the Renaissance and the modern era, Christianity became a way of life, a civilization unto its own. The established church structures became the early civil structures in England and other European countries. The history of Christianity shows ebbs and flows of influence, but what was once considered a small Hebrew cult grew exponentially throughout the world.

---

[1] Roger Osborne, Civilization (New York City: Pegasus Books, 2006), 113

[2] Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 117

[3] Ibid., 116

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 122

[7] Ibid.

Thesis Statement

The clash between Christianity and culture has existed ever since the beginning of the church. Sometimes Christians have had great influence on the culture, other times culture has greatly influenced Christianity. This constant tug-of-war between faith and “the world” defines the struggle many people of faith face every day. A more thorough knowledge of theology as it pertains to these different areas of life can help everyone make headway against the contemporary culture that Christians face.

Introduction

It should be noted from the outset that this paper borrows its title from a chapter in Dr. H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture. In his most famous work, Niebuhr outlines five different viewpoints of how Christians have interacted with the culture around them.[1] Each of the viewpoints given has strengths and weaknesses, but the book itself is a treatise on how Christians can apply theology to the culture every day. Niebuhr’s dedication to pursuing the connection between theology and contemporary culture is summed up in a quote from his obituary in 1962: “Let them orbit. Let them take their sins and their wars to other planets. We will have to ask the same theological questions no matter where we are in the universe.”[2]

How does theology wind its way into contemporary culture? Is theology something that should be left to the academics, authors, and pastors, or is it something that the lay person and even the unconverted can use in everyday life? Furthermore, can theology be used to combat the common views of the world, views that seem to line up with Christian faith, but may run contrary to it under the surface?

In contemporary culture, faith and religion have been pushed back from the public arena. In the last 50 years, what was once a public faith has now become a private matter. Contrary to that, Michael McGough states that “(m)ost battles in the culture wars are joined in the public square.” He adds that both sides of the battle attribute their views to belief in a higher power, making this a theological discussion.[3]

Culture and theology will always contrast each other, but the challenge to the Christ-believer is how to apply theology to contemporary worldviews. Throughout history that challenge has existed, sometimes under threat of violence. It has always been and will continue to be difficult to synthesize culture and theology. This paper will first explore historical viewpoints of theology and culture in order to give some background to the discussion. The remaining sections will discuss various aspects of modern theology and culture, attempting to show that theology can be impressed upon culture in a way that glorifies Christ.

---

[1] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1951), these viewpoints will be discussed further in a later portion of this paper.

[2] “Rev. H. Richard Niebuhr Dead: Authority on Theological Ethics”, New York Times, 6 July 1962, sec. A, p. 25

[3] Michael McGough, A Field Guide to the Culture Wars: The Battle Over Values From the Campaign Trail to the Classroom (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, 2009), 4

Today, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. For what you say? According to the Nobel committed, for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.” Have they not noticed that he’s only been President for nine months? Have they not noticed that he hasn’t really accomplished much of anything in his time in office with the exception of creating trillions more in debt for the children of the United States?

Honestly, I don’t hold this against Obama. I don’t know that it is something that was actively pursued. Heck, as JayTea at Wizbang pointed out, the nomination deadline was February 1st, meaning that he was nominated less than two weeks after he was in office. Had he created so much cooperation between people in two weeks as to deserve this kind of award? I lay this partially at the feet of the people around him. A part of me thinks that this was done so far in advance because they expected him to be such a stellar success and that this would be the cherry on top of his first year in office.

I put the majority of the blame (yes, blame) for this award on the Nobel committee itself. Again, JayTea says it best –

Essentially, Obama’s award is for the outstanding achievement of “not only not being George W. Bush, but joining the rest of the world in blaming him for everything.”

Why do I use the word blame? Simply because awarding this to Obama does nothing to increase the reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize. You’re giving an award to someone who has done little to deserve it, at least not yet. As much as I disagree with what Jimmy Carter says and does, for years he has worked towards peace in the Middle East. It may not be the way many would like to see, but he is doing something. I think when Al Gore was awarded the prize, it was a joke. Climate change fearmongering doesn’t bring about peace. By giving the award to Obama, they are joining in the nonstop praise for someone who has so far not shown the ability to bring people together.

Links ahoy at Instapundit

Jonah Goldberg at NRO has a great idea. Why not give it to the Iranian protestors? (H/T Will Collier)

It’s about time that someone let someone from the administration have it about the controlled meetings. Good for the White House press corp.

Tonight I watched “The Pentagon Wars“, a movie from 1998 about the development of the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle. During a scene where a general is being grilled about oddities during testing for the vehicle, he finally gives them the cost so far to develop it. He says “14″, one of the senators replies, “million?” The general doesn’t say anything, and the another senator says “billion?” incredulously.

Wouldn’t it be nice if $14 billion was still a lot of money to our government, not a pittance to be thrown at every little whim?

I attended the Town Hall for Hope with Dave Ramsey tonight at our church. It was different than Dave’s usual things, as it was more of a pep rally than a straight up ‘how-to’ on managing your money. The main topic was the state of the economy in general.

What did I bring away from it? Actual hope and change. None of this hope and change promised to us from Washington (from either party for that matter), but hope that we can successfully make changes in our life to combat these kinds of economic issues.

Because of the baby we had last year and the one we are about to have, Collette and I have racked up some significant medical bills to the detriment of other debt we had. Being there tonight gave me a shot in the arm that we can actually overcome our bad habits and poor stewardship and turn it around.

Thanks to Dave Ramsey for the financial wisdom, and thanks to our church for making this available to everyone here in the community.

Driving home the other night, I was listening to one of the talk radio stations in the area while they were discussing the pros and cons of the morning after pill. I disagree with the idea of it, but that’s another post entirely. The conversation drifted to whether abortion should even be legal or not.

A man called in to the show and stated that he wasn’t really sure whether he was for or against it. He said that he is a Christian, but considered himself to be pro-choice. When pressed on this, the man remarked that his father and brother are physicians, and that many years ago his father saw countless numbers of young women who had been injured seeking then-illegal abortions.

The comment that struck me came next. He said that he would rather see these young women be able to get their abortions legally than see more of them injured through illegal means.

I made a post last year on my old site (which you could find here if you want to look) where I laid out my case for why even though I believe abortion is wrong, it’s not in my power to stop someone from doing it. Looking back on that view, I would like to correct it.

Abortion is wrong. Deathly wrong.

Abortion is an easy way out of taking responsibility for an issue that we created for ourselves. If you are not ready for the responsibility of taking care of a child, don’t engage in a practice which can produce the child. Those young women who were injured getting illegal abortions refused to accept responsibility for the act they engaged in. If I commit murder, should I not face the consequences? If I steal a car, should I not go to jail? If I have sex, should I not be expected to raise the child that might be produced?

Holding to my previous view allowed me to remove myself from the problem, as if by giving over the choice to someone else it absolved me of responsibility. What goes on around us, in our community, in our families, in our nation, is our responsibility. Don’t agree with me?

³¹“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

³⁷“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

⁴¹“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

⁴⁴“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

⁴⁵“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

⁴⁶“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Matthew 25:31-46

One day we will all be held accountable for how we treated those around us. Who deserves more protection than a child? My wife and I have a seven year old, six year old, 11 month old, and will have another child in less than two months. As their father, it is my responsibility to take care of them, to provide them shelter, food, clothing. I also must teach them they are responsible to those around them, a task given us by no less authority than Jesus Himself!

So, no more nuanced, mealy-mouth positions on issues. In my early 20s, I was very black and white in my thinking. In my late 20s and early 30s, I allowed a lot of grey to be introduced into it. No more. We must be fully aware of what the Bible says and be willing to be laughed at by those around us for our views. I read a book not long ago that I’ll post about later that really challenged me on these points.

Thoughts?