Christ and Culture

I sensed some confusion Sunday about Andy Crouch's call for the church to be a counterculture, and how Christians should relate to the church in general. In an attempt to make some sense of this call and stimulate discussion, I want to summarize H. Richard Niebuhr's book Christ and Culture.

Niebuhr notes five strategies the church has undertaken to balance the demands of Jesus and the demands of culture. The first he calls "Christ against culture." This strategy holds that engagement with the culture is dangerous for the church. Only through withdrawing from the world can the church maintain its holiness and remain obedient to God. Niebuhr dismissed this viewpoint as sectarian and irresponsible.

The next strategy is "Christ of culture." Christians who take this option believe that the teaching of Jesus reflects the highest aspiration of culture, so there is no conflict between Jesus' teaching and what the world teaches. Both Jesus and the culture teach love, so there is no need to mark a difference between the two. Niebuhr is also dismissive of this viewpoint, because it accomodates the gospel to the desires of the world.

The final three strategies Niebuhr takes more seriously. "Christ above culture" recognizes that there are differences in the aims of God and the world, but mostly sees similarities. God created the world, and by extension the worldly order, so one can serve both Christ and the culture much of the time. This view sees God as king over culture, so obedience to culture is obedience to God.

"Christ and culture in paradox" describes strategies that resolve competing claims of God and the world by assigning them to separate spheres. A person should act according to Jesus' teaching in private life, but in public life the same person might need to act according to the world's expectations.

The final strategy, and the one Niebuhr implicitly supports, is "Christ the transformer of culture." Here, the church is somewhat critical of culture, but generally looks at it in a positive light. Those who take this view seek to use the culture's good points as a base from which to reform the entire culture.

This is of course a brief description of Niebuhr's types, and incomplete, but I hope it allows us to ask some questions. Which of these strategies do you personally find most appealing? Which do you think Trinity represents?