“Instead of imagining that Christ against culture and Christ transforming culture are two mutually exclusive stances, the rich complexity of the biblical norms, worked out in the Bible’s story line, tells us that these two often operate simultaneously.”
D. A. Carson
Christ & Culture Revisited — pg. 227
I would only disagree with Carson here by insisting that Christ against culture and Christ transforming culture always operate simultaneously, for when we are against culture is it not for the purpose and with the hopes of transforming culture? And when we are attempting to transform culture is it not always precisely because we are against that aspect of culture we are seeking to transform? Perhaps others can come up with some examples but as I think this through I can think of no instances where a person operate in the Christ against culture mode wasn’t at the same time seeking to transform culture. Similarly I can think of no examples where we seek to transform culture except that we are against it at some point.
Great thought. No need to fix something that ain’t broke. On the other hand, what are we trying to fix? Culture has a lot of great things that I agree with. I’m certainly not against culture. My friends who don’t know Christ may not be “saved” but they are still great friends and I love them and they are valuable members of society. I certainly wouldn’t reject them or stand against them, but I certainly do want to see their heart transformed by God’s love.
So, I guess I would agree with Carson (no offense) that there is a distinction and that there are certainly things about our culture that we should be against, but there are also things of a secular nature that we can stand for even while desiring to bring about spiritual transformation.
On the contrary, Christ Against Culture advocates a removal from culture because it is so corrupt while Christ Transforming Culture suggests that although culture is corrupt, it can be improved. Niebuhr’s paradigm suggests how we engage culture not whether or not we approve of it.
Nathan,
I agree with the idea that there are things in our culture (no such thing as secular) that we can stand for but we can stand for them only because as no culture can be perfectly anti-Christ there are things in every culture that in some way reveal Christ. This is because God hating societies and cultures must borrow from Biblical Christianity in order to get their God hating societies and cultures off the ground. So I agree there are things in this culture we ought to stand for (families) while there are (many) things we need to be against.
David,
If you are speaking of Christ against culture as expressed by Amish groups then you no doubt are correct, though I must wonder if even their withdrawal is with hopes of being transforming salt and light to the larger culture. Still, on the Christ transforming culture I would insist that people that are seeking to transform it are doing so because they are against those points they are seeking to transform.
Also David, while Niebuhr may be writing how we engage culture that can’t be separated from one’s attitude towards culture (approve or disapprove). One would never engage culture the way they engage it apart from how and what they think about it in approval or disapproval.
Thanks to both of you for stopping by,
Bret
p.s. — Nathan I’m sorry I didn’t respond earlier. For some reasons my system notifies me when messages are left and sometimes it doesn’t.
p.p.s. — David, I did my Seminary in Columbia South Carolina. You’re living there now? I see you’re a member of the ARP. Tell Paul Pepin I said “hey.”