LECTURE 8: CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE

INTRODUCTION

The Christian faith is practiced within cultural contexts. Besides being followers of
Jesus, Christians are also members of their own cultural groups. The double
identity of Christians raise several questions. How should a Christian respond to
cultural demands? To what extent should Christians allow the larger culture to
shape and define them? In order for us to answer these questions, it is necessary
to analyze the components of culture so as to identify aspects of culture that are
either compatible or incompatible with the ideals of Christianity. A Christian is the
one who believes in Christ, a follower of Jesus Christ. He is one who counts
himself as belonging to that community of men for whom Jesus Christ, his life,
words, deeds, and destiny is of supreme importance as the key to the
understanding of themselves in this world, the main source of knowledge of God
and man, good and evil, the constant companion of the conscience, and the
expected deliverer from evil. There is a many sided debate concerning culture and
Christianity.

The debate is done by Christians and non-Christians, Catholics, Protestants,

among others. It is done both publically and within peoples consciences.
Christians have responded a series of typical answers which, together, for faith,
represent phases of the strategy of the militant church in the world. The strategy
is in the mind of Christ, not the followers. But Christians assume that their
responses are guided by Christ. The following are typical answers to the problem
of Christ and culture. In all civilizations, beginning with Judaism, Christ has been
rejected because he is seen as a danger to the culture. What is culture? Culture
may be defined as the integrated system of learned behavioural patterns which
are characteristic of members of a community, and which are not the result of
biological inheritance. It is a people’s way of life. It also refers to a codified system
of symbols and meanings and cognitive schemata transmitted by symbols. It is a
complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, morals, art, law, custom, and
other capabilities acquired by man as a member of a society. Culture is a
sociological concept that is easily discussed but difficult to define because it is too
broad. Edward Taylor defines culture as “that complex whole, which includes
knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits
acquired by man as a member of society” (Taylor as cited in Van Krieken et. al.,
2006:5, c.f. Chemorion 2008:28). It has also been defined as “the symbolic and
learned, non-biological aspects of human society” (Abercrombie, © SPU 2014:
Contact UCC 101 Lecturers Page 65 et. Al. in Van Krieken et. al. 2006:5). According
to Niebuhr (1951:32), culture means the same things as civilization. He defines it
as “the artificial secondary environment which man superimposes on the
natural.” Niebuhr lists the components of cultures as language, habits, ideas,
beliefs, customs, social organization, inherited artefacts, technical processes, and
values. Regardless of how it is defined, culture determines people’s behaviour,
their beliefs, their customs, their values and the survival mechanism they adopt in
their environment. Culture is learned through a process of socialization14 right
from childhood.

A child begins to learn about culture from the immediate family as well as other
people in the society. Every society has its unique features but the following
elements are commonly found in all cultures:

1. Social organization - Social organization refers to the manner in which every

society organizes relationships into smaller and larger units. The basic social unit
in every society is the family. This consists of husband, wife and children. Nuclear
families used to be a phenomenon of western people but it is slowly being
introduced in Africa. Above the nuclear family is the extended family which
comprises of the great grant parents, grant parents, parents, uncles, aunties, and
siblings. This is a typical family set up in Africa. Several extended families make up
a clan and several clans constitute an ethnic group or tribe. In Africa, the family
plays an important role in providing identity. It is the chief means by which one
defines himself or herself in relation to others in society. Cultural organization
tends to be exclusivist as members of a different society are treated differently.
The Christian faith offers a new model of relationship. All believers are children of
God. They are brothers and sisters in the Lord regardless of their ethnic
backgrounds. As a matter of fact, negative ethnicity is not acceptable in
Christianity.
Jesus offered a new definition of immediate family members as those who do the
will of God in Matthew 12:46-50: 46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his
mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told
him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing
to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever
does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

2. Norms - Every social grouping has its own cultural norms which consists of
customs and traditions. A society may have rules of behaviour which are enforced
whenever necessary. The set rules spell out ethical standards. In most traditional
groupings these rules take the form of taboos. In literate societies the rules are
usually written down in form of constitutions. Customs and traditions of a people
group indicate the preferred attire, foods, forms of education, and the major
occupations. 14 Socialization is the transmission of culture from one generation to
another. It captures the way human beings lean to develop the patterns of
behavior, experiences and identities relevant to their culture. It is a continuous
process that takes place from an individual’s birth to the time of death. It is a
lifelong process by which a member of a particular society learns to act like other
members (Krieken et. Al. 2006:6

3. Language- Language is basic to every culture. It is the inventory of the

worldview of every culture. It is a system of signs for encoding and decoding
information. In language certain symbols (sound or things) are used to convey
meanings. Language informs us about the material and non-material aspects of
culture. Language is the method of human communication. It can be spoken or
written. It can also be symbolic.

4. Arts - Arts are the product of human imagination teach us about cultural
values. They are divided into three: visual arts (painting, sculpture, music,
drawing, architecture), literary arts (literature) and performing arts (theatre,
music). Can encourage pride or

5. Religion- Religion refers to the belief system of a society. Some religions are
animistic, while others are either monotheistic or polytheistic. Religions give
people a sense of the meaning of life. They also lay the basis for a society’s ethics.
The major religions in the world are Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and
Buddhism.

6. Government/political organisation - This refers to a body that sets and

administers public policy, and exercises executive, political and sovereign power
through customs, institutions in a state. Its role is to keep order in society and
protect it from outside attacks. There are different types of government:
democratic, republic, dictatorship,

7. Economic systems In every culture, people have a way of organizing resources

satisfy their wants and meet their needs. They have certain economic activities.
There are different types of economies: traditional, market, mixed economies.

CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE CONFLICT

The contention is that Christians are animated by a contempt for present

existence and by confidence in immortality. Christianity seems to threaten culture
because Christ enables people to regard the disaster in this world with certain
calmness by directing their hopes toward another world, and so seems to deprive
them of motivation to engage in the ceaseless labour of conserving a massive but
insecure social heritage. Marxists consider Christians as opiated (numbed), not
struggling for a new order on this earth.

Christianity induces men to rely on the grace of God instead of summoning them
to human achievement. Modern philosophers regard this as antinomism while
Marxists think that it is a sleeping pill as potent as the hope of heaven. Christians
are intolerant: they violate sacred customs and education and religious heritage
of the nation. They despise the traditional religions of their ancestors. The
Christian belief in radical monotheism is a threat to other religions. The
forgiveness and teaching of love that Christianity stands for is said to be
irreconcilable with the demands of justice or the free man’s moral responsibility.
Worldview and culture

Worldviews are the bedrocks of world cultures. Every culture is embedded in a

worldview; Culture includes the people’s way of life as evidenced in products,
language, thoughts, and actions. Worldview underlies the more explicit aspects of
culture. On the surface we see visible elements of culture. Below these are myths
and rituals that form the basis of values, beliefs, and feelings of a culture. Below
myths and rituals are systems of beliefs that encode cultural knowledge. Below
these systems are the unseen structures underlying the entire explicit culture
worldview.

Christian worldview and culture

Christian faith is within a cultural set up. The cultural context shapes Christian
behaviour in certain ways. Throughout the history of the church, Christianity has
wrestled with the question of how to relate to the larger culture of the society.
While certain aspects of culture are consistent with the Christian faith others
contradict the teachings of the church. It is a Christian’s responsibility to retain
positive cultural aspects and reject retrogressive aspects of culture. In order to
bring about positive transformation, Christians must be firmly grounded in the
teachings of scripture. They must first analyse culture in order to make decisions
regarding proper actions and reactions within culture.

Stability and change in culture

All cultures are dynamic. They adapt to changes that are caused by inventions,
discoveries, conquests, education, and contacts. The ability to adapt to change
differs from one culture to another. Some cultures are very resilient while others
are easily influenced. Some cultures are religions in themselves: Hinduism, Islam,
A.T.R. But Christianity is not a cultural religion though the Gospel is expressed in
cultural categories. The Bible is a cultural book but it contains a unique spiritual
message. The biblical culture of the OT is theocentric. Christianity is friendly to all
cultures. Christian faith is the same but it is expressed differently in different
cultures. In this case we can say that Christianity is not a cultural religion.
Culture and religion

Most of the world’s faiths are cultural religions. Hinduism with its caste system
and social rituals is inextricably tied to the culture of India. Tribal religions
mythologize tribes’ customs, history, and social organization. Secular sociologists
go so far as to define religion as a means of sanctioning the social order.
According to this line of thought, cultural institutions are invested with a spiritual,
divine significance, so that people will more obediently go along with them.
Christianity, on the other hand, is not supposed to be merely a cultural religion.
The Bible offers a radical critique of culture while encouraging believers to engage
their culture in positive ways.

Gospel and culture

When we contemplate the relationship between Gospel and culture, it is

important to keep in mind that basically the Christian faith is the same
everywhere but the way it finds expression may differ from culture to culture.
Two essential Biblical truths should never be compromised by orthodox
Christians: Monotheism and the Resurrection of Christ, i.e. faith in the Biblical
God of creation and faith in the Risen Lord as the Saviour of the world.

Five paradigms of Christ and culture

According to Richard Niebuhr15 Historically, Christ-culture tension has taken a

variety of forms. Richard Niebuhr defined five basic patterns throughout the
history of the church. These are five paradigms responses to culture, namely
Christ against culture; Christ of culture; Christ above culture; Christ and culture in
paradox; Christ the transformer of culture. According to Richard Niebuhr, the
“enduring problem” is the relationship between “Christianity and civilization”.
This is a problem because we know Christ is perfect/sinless, and if culture is man-
made according to Niebuhr, and since humans are imperfect/sinful, how can
Christ mingle with imperfection? This is compounded by the fact that there are
verses in the Bible that suggest we should be out of the world and also verses that
suggest we should be in the world. This is even harder to see when the biblical
literatures do not represent a single example of a belief that is represented in
non-cultural forms. To show how Christians have attempted to deal with this
“problem”, Niebuhr introduces and interacts with five views; Christ against
culture, Christ of Culture, Christ above Culture, Christ and Culture paradox and
finally, his recommended, Christ the transformer culture. To begin with, Niebuhr
attempts to ‘define’ who we mean by ‘Jesus Christ” and what is meant by
“Culture”. About Jesus, Niebuhr states that our definitions of Jesus are
inadequate in the sense that they do not fully capture His totality, since they are
culturally conditioned. But still he believes that they are adequate, for the
purpose of meeting Him (Niebuhr 2008:14).

Culture is defined as “the total process of human activity” and its result; it refers
to the “‘secondary environment’, which man superimposes on the natural.”
(Niebuhr, 32)

Christ against culture

This is the most uncompromising view towards culture which “affirms the sole
authority of Christ over culture and resolutely rejects culture’s claims to loyalty”
(45). “The counterpart of loyalty to Christ and the brothers is the rejection of
cultural society; a clear line of separation is drawn between the brotherhood of
the children of God and the world” (47-48).

Anything to do with culture is seen as sinful. It recognizes the sinfulness of human

institutions and calls Christians to separate from the corrupt culture, withdrawing
into distinct Christian communities. The church becomes an alternative to the
mainline culture, and Christians refuse to take part in the culture as a whole. It
asserts opposition and total separation. The people who believe/adopt this way
are the single-most reason why we can have some sympathy for this view,
according to Niebuhr (66). The people who reject the world “have not taken easy
ways in professing their allegiance to Christ. They have endured physical and
mental sufferings in their willingness to abandon homes, property, and the
protection of government for the sake of his cause” (66). Nevertheless, Niebuhr
believes that this position is inadequate; primarily because this separation from
world and Christianity has never actually been achieved at any time, nor can we
think that it can be. Also, there seems to be the false notion that sin lies in culture
and when the Christian escapes culture, he/she can escape sin. This is certainly
not the case (78). Most importantly for Niebuhr, this view does not adequately
recognise Jesus’ and the Spirit’s role in creation. “Their rejection of culture is
easily combined with a suspicion of nature and nature’s God:… ultimately they are
tempted to divide the world in the material realm governed by a principle
opposed to Christ and a spiritual realm governed by the spiritual God” .

Christ of culture

The “Christ of Culture” perspective is exactly the opposite of “Christ against

Culture” because it attempts to bring culture and Christianity together, regardless
of their differences. Christ of culture paradigm assumes that nothing is wrong
with culture. Christ is an element which will simply be added to man’s lifestyle
and will enrich it. Christ is portrayed as the hero of culture. Christians are thus
encouraged to participate openly and freely in the things of culture. In this view,
men/women ‘hail Jesus as the Messiah of their society, the fulfiller of its hopes
and aspirations, the perfecter of its true faith, the source of its holiest spirit”.
These people seek to maintain fellowship not only with believers with also with
unbelievers. “They feel no great tension between church and world, the social
laws and the Gospel,… the ethics of salvation and the ethics of social conservation
or progress. On the one hand they interpret culture through Christ, where those
aspects that are most like Jesus are given most honour. On the other hand, they
interpret Christ through culture, selecting from his teaching that which best
harmonizes with the best in civilization (83). People tend to feel that only those
who refuse to adapt to culture can make an impact on culture (blood of martyrs).
However, history testifies that people were attracted to Christ also because of the
“harmony of the Christian message with the moral and religious philosophy of
their best teachers.” (103). This group of people also tends to attach themselves
to many positions in society where they have the potential to make a deep impact
in the lives of people. Niebuhr’s biggest problem with this view lies in distortion of
Christ when seen with the intention to make Jesus conform to the best of society.
We are left with a non-authentic view of Jesus.
Christ above culture

This view does not make the ‘battle’ between Christ and culture, but rather it sees
the ‘battle’ between the Holy God and the sinful man (117). This paradigm holds
that there may be some shortcomings found in culture. In this case, Christianity is
used to fill in what is lacking in culture. The “Christ above Culture” position
attempts “to correlate the fundamental questions of the culture with the answer
of Christian revelation. The adherents stress that God orders culture, and thus
culture is neither good nor bad. When man sins, his rebellion against God is
expressed in cultural (actual) terms, yet that doesn’t mean that culture is bad.
They argue that culture is sustained by God, and they see the harmony (synthesis)
between Christ and culture as the best way to address the ‘problem.’ This view
strives for a theology of synthesis, with cultural expectations subordinated to
Christian concerns.

Niebuhr notes, “They cannot separate the works of human culture from the grace
of God, for all those works are possible only by grace. But neither can they
separate the experience of grace from cultural activity; for how can men love the
unseen God in response to His love without serving the visible brother in human
society?” (119). It attempts a fine balance between seeing Christ as part of culture
(as the incarnation), and yet being outside culture (as God who sustains culture).
Through this position, we can arrive at moral law for society, and even Christian
involvement in society. Niebuhr explains saying that God created man as a social
being and it is impossible for society to function without direction from God. The
Church, therefore, while functioning for a spiritual purpose, has also an earthly
purpose of being guardian/custodian of that divine law (136), and in that sense
serves the world.

One of the problems that bother Niebuhr, however, is that this position when
pushed to its limit leads to the institutionalization of Christ and the gospel. This is
evident especially when this position can draw attention away from the “eternal
hope and goal of the Christian” towards instead the “temporal embodiment” in a
“man-devised form” (147). Also, “they do not… face up to the radical evil present
in all human work” (148).
Christ and culture in paradox

Similar to the ‘Christ above Culture’ is the Christ and Culture in Paradox view. This
paradigm assumes that Christ and culture are reconcilable. “Christ and Culture in
Paradox” describes the “dualists” who stress that the Christian belongs “to two
realms -the spiritual and temporal; and must live in the tension of fulfilling
responsibilities to both, i.e. a tension between the church and the world around
it, even as they interpenetrate one another. Each Christian is a subject of two
realms – two “kingdoms,” but one king, Jesus Christ. While the members of this
group want to hold together “loyalty to Christ and responsibility for culture”
(149), they believe that this cooperation is not a happy balance/union that the
above Culture group would like people to believe. Alongside the cooperation of
Christ and culture, they stress on a severe ‘paradox’ where a ‘conflict’ exists
between Christ and culture due to sin in culture; in the dealing of Christ with
culture, we see both sin and grace.

This view rightly captures the biblical tension depicted for Christians in this world.
For man is “under law, and yet not under law but grace; he is sinner, and yet
righteous…” recipient of “divine wrath and mercy” (157). This is in fact a dynamic
process, not a static rejection or acceptance of culture of the previous ‘models’
but rather we sense, almost from experience, that our dealing with culture is
fraught with pain and peace. However, Niebuhr says, that this position becomes
static; it is in that the Christian loses the voice to say anything meaningful in/to
culture. It is a position that leads us to accept culture (conservatism) because we
see in each instance both wrath and mercy; and because we see both, there is a
danger that we act in favour of neither.

Christ the transformer of culture

The last perspective is Christ the Transformer of Culture. This perspective includes
the view of the “conversionists” who have a more “hopeful view toward culture”
(191). They attempt to convert the values and goals of secular culture into the
service of the kingdom of God. These people give culture too much credibility; an
overemphasis on the works of man instead of God; and centering on man’s efforts
instead of God’s power. As salt, we are to be used by God to add flavour and act
to preserve that which is pleasing to Him. We are not to transform the culture by
force, but by the power of God’s Spirit living through us. There theological
conviction comes from seeing God as creator, knowing that man’s fall was from
something good, and the view that we see God’s dramatic interaction with men in
historical human events (194). Thus about human culture they believe it can be “a
transformed human life in and to the glory of God” through the grace of God
(196). If we are to be transformers, we must also be ‘discerners,” a very important
word for contemporary Christians. We are to apply “the faculty of discerning;
discrimination; accuracy of judgment and understanding. We are to be actively
involved in the transformation of culture without giving that culture undue
prominence. The ‘salt’ of people changed by the gospel must change the world. In
order to transform the culture, we must continually recognize what is in need of
transformation and what is not. In practice, this view means that we work in
culture for its betterment, because God ultimately had some hand in human
creativity, and it was good (and can be good). We also work for its transformation
because while there is sin in culture, not all is lost; there is hope through Christ,
for redemption of cultures. Furthermore, we would defeat sin not by escaping it
or fighting it directly (like focussing on the devil), but rather with our eyes on
Jesus, our desire to be positive and God-oriented, will help to defeat sin (like
focussing on Christ, thinking whatever is excellent).

Niebuhr’s Conclusion

Niebuhr ends his book calling for decision. This is not because he believes that the
last option is the best presented and most logical; on the contrary he believes
that the answers for the enduring problem remain “unconcluded and
inconclusive” which could be extended indefinitely (230). Saying that theory can
go on and on, he proposes that we move from “consideration to action, from
insight to decision” (233). The problem of Christ and culture cannot be answered
through study but in the realm of “free decisions of individual believers and
responsible communities” (233). Niebuhr is not appealing for simple/un-critical
social action. He proposes an awareness of three things to guide our action.
Niebuhr argues that we need to be aware of the relativism/culturally conditioned
nature of our actions. He says that since we have “partial, incomplete,
fragmentary knowledge” we need to have a measured opinion (not be too
optimistic) about our ability to be involved in culture for the Lord. We are limited
by our “technical knowledge” and “philosophical understanding,” and
consequently our decisions for/in this complex world are coloured by our
limitations (235). Niebuhr also stresses that we do not act alone, or for ourselves
alone. Rather, we act as believers, for a higher purpose, to act in the present
moment (history) with real consequences and results alongside eternal reward.
The way out of this relativity, and our action, Niebuhr rights states, is faith. In light
of Jesus Christ, we make our “confessions and decisions both with confidence and
humility which accepts completion and correction and even conflict from and
with others who stand in the same relation to the Absolute” (238). This is not a
position of laziness, but recognizing that in our faithfulness to attempt to
transform culture, we rely on the grace that will change our minds and work in
and through our limitations (241). According to Niebuhr, “To make our decisions
in faith is to make them in view of the fact that no single man or group or
historical time is the church; but that there is a church of faith in which we do our
partial, relative work and on which we count. It is to make them [our decisions] in
view of the fact that Christ is risen from the dead, and is not only the head of the
church but the redeemer of the world. It is to make them in view of the fact that
the world of culture—man’s achievement—exists within the world of grace—
God’s Kingdom” (246).