A Friend of the People of the Cross

Should Christians drink liqour, smoke cigarettes, attend parties, use contraceptives, join politics, etc? The answers to those questions are also connected to the question what does the Bible say and for what purpose did Jesus Christ die?

Richard Niebuhr, in his book Christ and Culture written sixty years ago, tries to provide answers to the questions above but acknowledges the problem of 'infinite dialogue' due to complex realities of Christ and culture issues throughout the history of the Church. To simplify the complexities, Niebuhr created five typological responses of the church that answer those issues:

First, Christ Against Culture typology. This response taught the believers to withdraw from or abandon the 'world' and anything—i.e participating in any institution, custom, practices, etc— that does with it. They believe that Christ is opposed to these whether they are good or bad because sin resides in culture—who molds individuals—and inherently natural to human being. This typical response characterizes either/or thinking and literal reading of selected passages in the Bible like 'do not love the world or anything of he world', that the believers are 'sons of God and not ofthe world' etc; Prominent inviduals associated with this typology were Tertullian and Tolstoy. But reading the historical context—Christian persecutions in 2nd century for Tertullian and the 19thcentury curruption of the state supported by the modern church especially in Russia for Tolstoy—this response is understandly necessary albiet inadequate, according to the book.

Second typology: The Christ of Culture. Its proponent, Gnostics and Ritschl, tried to interpret culture thru Chirst and understand Christ thru culture which the goal in general is training believers in their current culture to prepare them for a better life to come in the next world. They were called different names: CulturalChristians, Cultural Protestantism, Liberal Chirstianity, Christiansocialism or Christian Accomodators.They believed Jesus is savior of the world and not just of the few 'elected' believers. Thus, loyalty to Christ leads to active social engagements in every cultural work and to care for the preservation of every great insitution. They find the best in culture and redeem those perceived as not. But critics have these to say: cultural christians evidently is less effective to gain conversion to Christ because it is percieved as more loyal to culture than to Christ; social institutions (elite,governments, etc) see it as no threat because it is just recommending gospel elements but do not embrace it because it is suspected to break or weaken present cultural systems; too critical of the mainstream christianity (so called radical or separatist christians in the early christianity and Calvinists and Lutherans in modern christianity) that responds with rejection and decreases the possibility of dialogue and partnership. Nevertheless, cultural christians profess strong love to and centrality of Jesus as Christ and Savior as mainstream Christians do, the author said.

Third typology: the Christ Above Culture w/c tries to synthesis the first and second typologies. Its advocate (Clement and Thomas Aquinas) both reject and appreciate secular culture (arts, philosophy, state, sciences,etc) and advance both loyalty to Christ and Christian culture. It tries to distinguish God or law of nature from culture and its institution but both are in unified structure—God supreme ruler who rules the kings who rule their men who exact obedience from the lowest in this hierarchy. Though it uses the 'both/and' approach, Christ is seen as far above culture and Christian culture as more worthy. Hence, the need to reform social or cultural institutions w/c by nature is carrier of the law of nature or God, not of evil, but corrupted by men. This synthesis type, however, did not go mainstream depite its prominence among theologian, philosopher, educator of the period and subsequent era due to the following objections: it puts reason confined to one historical period (medieval w/ its strong feudal and hierarchical orientation) above faith and the Bible without considering their historical contexts; it is seen more as similar to cultural Christians than synthesists who are believed to be more concern of defending the culture synthesized with the gospel than gospel itself;

The fourth typology: Christ & Culture in Paradox. Its proponents, Marcion and Luther, see Christ in paradoxical terms as God and Man, Creator and Redeemer, the Grace of God and the God of grace. Sin is in man and man is in sin. Sin is so pervasive that it affected all of creations. Hence, all culture including Christians and non-Christians are corrupt. Evil is present in even in Christian life, theology, mission, worship, etc., just as in the non-Christians'. So the real battle is not between God and Satan but between God and humanity; the righteousness of God and the righteousness of self, the Kingdom of God and the world's kingdoms.The death of Christ made possible the reconciliation not between God and Satan but between God and humanity, and the grace and forgiveness of God to sustain the believers who are under law and yet also undergrace, who are sinner and yet righteous, who have faith and yet are doubters, has assurance of salvation and yet live a life full of insecurity. Though paradoxical christians sound like dualists or speak in contradictory terms, they believed that life in Christ must be followed through human culture—music, commerce, politics,etc—because Christ did not allow the believers to escape from i tbut to save it. However, critics have this to say: paradoxical Christians relativized culture that is does not matter any more whether believers is sinfully obedient or sinfully disobedient to law or whether they are sinfully obedient or disobedient to sinful law.

The fifth typology: Christ the Transformer of Culture. Its proponents (Augustine, F.D Maurice) are called Conversionists. Conversionists are more positive and hopeful of human culture. They hold that the story of the fall is the first sin of human not thefirst human to sin. Human did not sin to become evil but only fall short of her/his created goodness, not totally deprave of but only currupted the image of God. Thus, human loves with the love given her/him in creation but loves beings or things wrongly, desires goodthings but also bad things, produces fruits that sweet and bitter, organizes society but also disorganizes things by the very act oforganizing. So the problem of culture is conversion not replacement.Another emphasis by conversionists not given emphasis by othertypologies is its view of history as a dramatic interaction betweenGod and humanity. When the Logos becomes flesh, Christ becomes redeemer and reconciler―all things were created through him and fo rhim― not giver of a new law, and participant of historical present.The Logos is not in the past but the beginning of the present and his second coming is not an eschatological future but an eschatological present. Nothing exists without the Logos. Therefore, conversionists give more important to the present, and present working of God and humanity and that all things are possible (individual and societal transformation,etc) because it is not merely human events but always involved God's mighty works.