The Next Christians by Gabe Lyons

As I met a friend for lunch the other day, I walked past an Apple store and saw an ad announcing their new partnership with Verizon: “This changes everything. Again.” A handset manufacturer expands to a new carrier, and the world is changed forever. Really?

Now, iPhone 4 is very cool, and Verizon customers have long bemoaned Apple’s exclusive contract with AT&T. The announcement certainly evokes celebration from them, but, “This changes everything”?

Good marketing doesn’t just inform us, it tells us a story. Advertisers convince us that bliss can be ours with a click of the mouse or a trip to the store. Marketing has become its own genre, complete with stock heroes (early adopters), villains (purists), tragedies (classicists who are left behind), and comedies (the geeks redeemed through innovation). Sadly, as I read The Next Christians by Gabe Lyons, I felt like I was reading an advertisement for the next Christians rather than a description of them.

The book is not terrible. There are a lot of cool stories of entrepreneurs using their gifts to help people and promote the Gospel. Jaime Tworkowski’s founding of To Write Love on Her Arms is the high point. Lyons also notices patterns that others have identified in younger Christians—their disdain for culture wars, their longing for community, and their desire to be countercultural—but he supports his claims with anecdotes rather than research.

The Next Christians is not what it claims to be. Promising to combine “current-day models and relevant research with stories of a new generation of Christian leaders,” it delivers a series of anecdotes without indication of their widespread relevance. Like judging an entire generation after a few viewings of Jersey Shore, we can’t stereotype the emerging followers of Jesus by relating how Nick and Josh started a magazine or how Jeremy gave up Facebook for Lent. The next Christians are more complex than that.

Lyons’ ad for the next Christians claims they “engage the dirtiness of our world without fear of tarnishing their reputations” (83), “[create] good culture” (95), “are already positioned to affect the cultural landscape in a big way” (120), “enjoy reading the Bible as much as curling up with a great novel” (136), “live in proximity to one another and often combine their resources to serve others” (163), and “try to create the most good for all people, regardless of race, class, or religion” (184). The movement “has all the signs of being a manifestation as crucial as the Reformation was” (120).

This changes everything. Again.

The Next Christians is filled with inspiring stories of creative people doing “neat” things for the kingdom of God, but we can only speculate on the significance of these stories.

I was not compensated for this review, but I was provided a free copy of the book in return for writing it.

Sally Jenkins on Tim Tebow, NOW, and the Upcoming Super Bowl Ad

This is a good article by a pro-choice writer about the absurdities of NOW's opposition to the Tim Tebow ad.

HT: Justin Taylor

Random Thoughts on Sitcoms

Last night, after we put the kids to bed and cleaned up the war zone they left behind, I collapsed on our couch and decided to watch some TV before I went to sleep. Confession time--the shows I watched were "Modern Family" and "Cougartown."

Modern Family is about the relationship between relatives in a modern extended family. The dad divorced the mom after the kids were grown and married a significantly younger woman with a ten-year-old son of her own. The grown daughter is married with three pre-teen/teenage kids. The grown son is gay, and he and his long-term boyfriend have adopted a baby from overseas (I missed the first episode, so I can't remember which country). The show is about making the best of family dysfunction.

Cougartown is about a woman who married and had a child in her early twenties, then divorced in her late thirties. Now a mature but still fairly young woman, she is looking to start over. The show is about her misadventures in dating as she hangs out with her young-twenties single friends and her late-thirties still-married friend.

I noticed something about these two shows last night--they both have themes of redemption.

I said to Brooke, "Remember in the nineties we had shows like 'Roseanne,' 'Married with Children,' and 'The Simpsons.' These shows all mocked nuclear families--the kids were bad, the parents didn't love each other, and the unmarried characters were happier. It looks like that has changed. Now the shows are all about people trying to make the best out of non-traditional families."

Just now I remembered that between those two eras was the "Seinfeld," "Friends," and "Sex in the City" era that glorified single living and non-traditional lifestyles.

Has there been a switch between the "Roseanne" era and today? Does that say anything about where we've gone the last 15 or 20 years? How might those changes affect the way we share Christ?

Evangelical Untouchables 2

iMonk has posted the second discussion in his Evangelical Untouchables series. This discussion was about how the "seeker" movement has affected our worship. You can see my response and that of the other untouchables here.

Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson (Chapter 6)

In the final chapter of Christ and Culture Revisited, D.A. Carson investigates "Disputed Agendas, Frustrated Utopias, and Ongoing Tensions." Essentially, he summarizes various traditions' approaches to Christ and culture and critiques each one. (Think of it as a mini version of Niebuhr's book.)

First, he addresses the fundamentalists (Christ against culture?). While Carson appreciates the passion with which they do what they do, he thinks that they are better at combating what they don't like than they are at promoting what they do like. Further, they tend to be selective about the evils they oppose.

Second, he addresses Luther (Christ and culture in paradox?). While Carson appreciates Luther's wisdom in recognizing that it is no use forcing Christian ideals on non-Christians, he says that this model inevitably marginalizes Christians from the public sphere.

Third, he addresses Abraham Kuyper (Christ above culture?). Similar to Aquinas, Kuyper sought to identify what was good and true in culture, and was remarkably successful in making political progress where Christianity and culture overlapped. However, Carson points out that as time when on, the difference between "creation" and "redemption" waned, and his system decayed into something comparable to the "Christ of culture" model. (This is the same critique Niebuhr made of Aquinas and the Christ above culture model. Though the model has some strengths, practically it usually sees the distinction between Christ and culture fall apart.)

Fourth, Carson addresses "Minimalist Expectations," those like Frederica Matthewes-Green who argue that culture is a shifting sand and that it is pointless to try to impact it. (Matthewes-Green is Eastern Orthodox and places a high value on tradition over trend. "There is nothing new under the sun" seems to be her mantra.) Carson points out that Matthewes-Green ignores the significant advances that Christianity has made on the structure of our society (i.e. Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery).

Fifth, Carson looks at "Post-Christendom Perspectives," interacting with Yoder, Hauerwas, and Craig Carter. Carter points out that all of Niebuhr's categories assume a Constantinian view of Christ and culture--that Christians should try to influence culture by "force." Carter instead is a pacifist, arguing that we best influence culture through non-violent modeling. Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu, Mother Theresa, and William Penn did more to influence culture than the Crusades did. However, Carson points out that Carter's view is reductionistic, boiling the whole Christ and culture question down to pacifism.

Finally, Carson looks at persecution, pointing out that Niebuhr's categories are silly to those who live in a culture that persecutes people for their faith.

D.A. Carson's main accomplishment in Christ and Culture Revisited is to destroy the validity of Niebuhr's categories. (Perhaps this was done before Carson, but this is my first exposure to it.) Carson rightly argues that a biblical theology should determine our view of Christ and culture--especially a biblical theology that takes appropriate consideration for the major "turning points" of creation, fall, and redemption. Further, Carson points out that there is no "one size fits all" response to culture. At times, the church is called to be against culture. At times, the church is called to redeem culture. Different situations call for different responses.

As I've stated all along, my only beef with Carson is how narrow he has defined orthodox Christianity. Not that I disagree with his views on creation, fall, or redemption--I just question whether these are fundamentals or merely Shibboleths. So, while Carson's book is an excellent response to Niebuhr for those who fall in Carson's camp, it be a mere frustration to those who disagree with him.

Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson (Chapter 5)

If you’re wondering why I haven’t posted in some time, it’s because I have been camping with my family. Good times.

I finished chapter 5 of D.A. Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited today—it’s called “Church and State.” In this section Carson seeks to describe the church’s proper relationship to the state and concludes that the relationship will look different in different contexts.

True to his method of integrating biblical theology to the question of Christ’s relationship to culture, Carson begins by asking what the Scriptures teach us about the relationship between church and state. Carson notes that we need to be careful to distinguish between church as an institution and church as a collection of individual Christians. Even though the institutional church may not have a role in influencing the state, individual Christians certainly will. Further, we can’t discount the differences between current notions of “the state” with what existed during Paul’s day. The Roman Empire was hostile to Christianity, while many states today are sympathetic to it. Carson says that in democratic societies individual Christians have a responsibility to participate in the government according to their beliefs, even if the institutional church remains on the sidelines.

Having discussed the biblical notions of “church” and “state,” Carson explains how individual Christians might respond to modern states. He argues that different states require different responses. First, Carson says that Christians should generally be loyal to the state, based on Jesus’ teaching to “render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar” and Paul’s teaching on the state in Romans 13. However, the early Christian message was also “Jesus is Lord” in the sense that “Caesar is not.” Caesar’s power was always seen as relegated power, so civil disobedience was called for when Caesar’s decrees went against God. Carson notes that a Christian’s response to a Muslim state hostile to the Gospel might look different than his or her response to a state that is sympathetic to it. In the first context, the Christian says “Jesus is Lord” and continues to live out the faith amidst persecution. In the other, he or she might say “render unto Caesar” as he or she submits to the state.

Finally, Carson argues that “Separation of Church and State” in America was never meant to keep Christians from forming public policy, but to keep the state from establishing a church. Carson says that the church’s involvement as an institution in politics might violate the spirit of the First Amendment, but that Christians voting their faith is the same as anyone else voting their beliefs. Democracy by definition means people pushing their agendas—whether they be secular, Muslim, or Christian.

Carson summarizes that while Christians wait for God to establish His rule on earth, “we engage in the proclamation of the good news about Jesus in word and deed and remember that he himself taught us that Caesar has a sphere, under God, that is to be respected, an authority that is to be obeyed.” (D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2008].)

Carson’s views on church and state are pretty straightforward and non-controversial. He rightly notes some inconsistencies in Niebuhr’s paradigm and shows that there is no “one solution.” However, he merely touched on some issues that run deeper than he cared to elaborate (this is not to say he hasn’t thought about these issues, just that he didn’t explore them in this work).

First, he mentions the state’s willingness to sponsor faith-based humanitarian work when their goals align with those of the state and where “the message” is not proclaimed. I am always on the lookout for opportunities for our church to get involved in the community, and I am especially interested in those programs that are not religions. But non-religious humanitarian organizations are hard to find. It seems that most of the work being done in the Pacific Northwest is being done by faith-based organizations—many of which receive state money. However, these organizations are prohibited from preaching a message. So, if someone wants to start a homeless shelter or food bank, they can get some government help, but if they require people to sit through a sermon to get food, they lose their funding.

This makes me wonder about how our culture naively separates beliefs from actions. If I am out volunteering at a food bank, I am doing so solely because of my beliefs. In fact, I would argue that my actions communicate my beliefs more than my words do. So, even if I am not “preaching a message,” I am still preaching a message. If the state is so concerned about taking care of the poor, why would they be against the preaching of a message that says, “Go and do likewise”? If I went to a food bank, I would want to know what it was that drove the volunteers at that food bank to do what they do. Why is the state afraid of the message?

The other question that Carson’s book raised to me was the early church’s attitude toward the state. Sure, Jesus and Paul taught that we should be submissive, but was this just a practical concession? N.T. Wright and others seem to think that the message of the church was “Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not.” Perhaps the command to “submit” to the government was more about the means of building the kingdom—i.e. don’t be like the zealots who use violence. I want to study this more—what was Jesus’ attitude toward the state?

Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson (Chapter 4)

In chapter 4 of Christ and Culture Revisited, D.A. Carson investigates four dominant forces in Western culture—secularism, democracy, freedom, and power.

The first force that dominates Western culture is secularism. The term “secular” is not bad in and of itself—it simply refers to that which is not explicitly religious or superstitious. Secularism as a philosophy, on the other hand, is the desire to squeeze all things religious out of the public sphere. Thus when we speak of “Christ and culture,” Christ will necessarily be against a “secularist” culture because his claims are both religious and public.

Another force that dominates Western culture is democracy. While Carson argues that democracy is a good thing, it is not necessarily a “Christian” thing. Democracy can lead to all sorts of evil if the people choose to take it in that direction. For instance, he relates a story from a Slovakian pastor who noted that he had never seen pornography sold on the streets of his country until it became a democracy. Therefore, Carson notes that democracy is good in that it prevents tyranny, but it by no means goes hand-in-hand with Christ.

In addition to secularism and democracy, the desire for freedom is also a driving force in Western culture. But there is a difference between being free “from” something and being free “toward” something. Which of these do we mean when we talk about our desire to be free? For instance, a government ban on firearms might at the same time infringe upon someone’s freedom toward owning a gun and preserve someone else’s freedom toward safety. What do we mean when we say we value freedom? As it relates to Western culture, Carson writes:

“The democratic tradition in the West has fostered a great deal of freedom from Scripture, God, tradition, and assorted moral constraints; it encourages freedom toward doing your own thing, hedonism, self-centeredness, and consumerism. By contrast, the Bible encourages freedom from self-centeredness, idolatry, greed, and all sin and freedom toward living our lives as those who bear God’s image and who have been transformed by his grace, such that our greatest joy becomes doing his will.” (D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 138.)

Finally, Carson tackles the driving force of power. While power is not a bad thing (Carson notes that we like it when the police show some power when rescuing us from a mugging or a rape), it can be abused (much like the police sometimes abuse their power). The biblical view of power is that all power is God’s power, and all earthly power, therefore, is derived power.

I am struck by how different Carson’s book is than Niebuhr’s. From the title of the book, I expected it to be an updated version of it or at least a reaction to it. While Carson does interact with Niebuhr in the early chapters, the book seems to be headed in a direction in which Carson is going to explain how his theology should be worked out in his culture. It’s almost should have been titled Carson’s Plan for America. While Niebuhr’s book introduced a paradigm for making deducing the relationship between Christ and culture, Carson’s book just gives you the answer from his perspective (or at least that is where I anticipate he is going).

That being said, Carson has a gift for pointing out what is wrong with the world. Americans idolize secularization, democracy, freedom, and power, and Carson’s rebuke is well-placed. If Christ were to comment on our culture, I think He would agree with Carson.

I’m afraid that Carson isn’t going to answer the question that is on everyone’s mind when we talk about “Christ and culture.” My faith looks very different than that of the early church. Much of that difference is because they were first-century Roman citizens and I am a twenty-first century American. Part of the Gospel is that there is “no longer Jew nor Greek,” and so inherent to it is the question of where you draw the line between Christ and culture. I’m afraid Carson isn’t going to offer anything helpful to those who don’t live in a culture exactly like his and don’t hold to a theology exactly like his.

Hopefully he’ll prove me wrong. He’s got two chapters.

Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson (Chapter 2)

In chapter 2 of Christ and Culture Revisited, D.A. Carson explores the impact of a more developed biblical theology on the work of H. Richard Niebuhr. Niebuhr tried to write to a universal Christian audience, so he minimized the amount of biblical theology that went into his book. He tried just to focus on Christ and culture.

Obviously, there was some merit to Niebuhr’s attempt. His book has been accepted across a spectrum of traditions because the tent of what he considers “Christian” is wide. (Carson is not so generous.) However, by broadening his definition of “Christ” so much, Niebuhr unnecessarily (in Carson’s mind) expands the number of viable ways in which Christians can interact with culture.

For instance, the second model in Niebuhr’s paradigm is the “Christ of culture.” This category can generally be applied to the old liberals in America. They are the folks whose primary allegiance is to the culture and who trumpet the teachings of Jesus that parallel the values of the culture. Typically, they downplay “seams” in history—i.e. the fall, the resurrection, and the return of Christ. Carson wonders whether we can legitimately consider this type of “Christianity” genuinely Christian. He has a point.

Further, Carson notes that the historical examples that Niebuhr offers as following his categories don’t consistently follow his categories. This is a serious weakness of Niebuhr’s book. Almost everyone that I have seen interact with Niebuhr’s categories have picked and chosen elements from each. Carson rightly says that this is evidence that the categories are artificial and dependant upon circumstances.

Having shown the deficiencies in Niebuhr’s biblical theology, Carson outlines what the Bible says about God, man, creation, redemption, etc. The narrative is classic Carson—the typical stuff coming out of TEDS and prevalent in American evangelical churches. Carson says that it is from this starting point that we should investigate the relationship between (the real) Christ and culture.

Finally, Carson offers a series of parting shots at Niebuhr. First, he emphasizes that a well-developed biblical theology should influence our thinking about Christ and culture all of the time. Second, he points out that bifurcating ways in which Christ relates to culture is methodologically flawed (in the same way that bifurcating models of the atonement is errant). Instead, we should view Niebuhr’s models holistically and ask, “When is Christ against culture? When is Christ above culture? When are they in paradox?” Third, Carson notes that Christ and culture are not always mutually exclusive (I think this is a criticism of Niebuhr’s definition of “culture,” to which Carson will return in the future). Finally, Christ’s relationship to culture often depends upon historical circumstances.

Carson’s take on Christ and culture is very different than Niebuhr’s. Niebuhr sought to be more inclusive, which limited the extent to which he could talk about the relationship between Christ and culture. It may have even led him down paths that shouldn’t have been trodden. Carson sticks to what he believes and says, “Who cares about the liberals? How does the evangelical Christ relate to culture?” On the one hand, Carson’s model will be more helpful to me because he and I are on the same page on most doctrines. On the other hand, I disagree with how narrow he has defined Christianity. I would almost have preferred him to title this book The American Evangelical Christ and Culture.

I agree with Carson’s view of the “seams” in history, but I am not willing to say that everyone who deviates from Carson’s narrative is not a Christian. I think you can believe in sin without interpreting the fall like Carson does. I think belief in the resurrection and Trinity are non-negotiables, but I am not sure about substitutionary atonement. I think to be a Christian someone must believe that Jesus died for sins (whatever that might mean) and that He rose bodily from the dead. Christians also believe in the Trinity and that “faith” involves a conscious decision to follow/live like Christ. Obviously there is more to being a Christian that just that, but if we are talking sine qua non, that’s what I think it is.

In short, I think Carson’s net is too narrow, but since I’m in his net I’ll read what he has to say.

Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson (Chapter 1)

In chapter 1 of Christ and Culture Revisited, D.A. Carson introduces "Christ" and "culture" and how they interact. We find ourselves in a multi-cultural context in which many voices compete to be "heard" in the culture at large. The relationship between Christ and culture is a sensitive one because any claim that Christians make to be relevant to culture implies that their voice is in one way or another superior to the other voices. Thus, "Christianity can be tolerated, provided it is entirely private: Christian belief that intrudes itself into the public square, especially if it is trying to influence public policy, is most often taken, without examination, as prima facie evidence for bigotry and intolerance" (D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 6).

At the same time, the world is by and large becoming "more religious," so the question of Christ's relationship to culture is unavoidable. This brings Carson to the most significant investigation of Christ and culture in the English speaking world, H. Richard Niebuhr's book Christ and Culture.

Niebuhr sees five general ways in which Christians have viewed Christ's relationship to culture:

1. Christ against culture. The claims of Christ are necessarily against that of "the world." The task of the Chistian is to retreat into the Christian ghetto to avoid pollution from the negative influence of "the world." The problem with this view is that the Christian can never escape from culture. Everything we do, from the language we speak to the way we make money to the laws that we obey or disobey, is culturally bound.

2. Christ of culture. The claims of Christ represent what is best in culture. Jesus' message was simple--love your neighbor, be at peace with everyone, work for harmony. These same claims are the claims made by the culture at large. Thus, Christ is indistinguishable from culture. The problem with this view is that it does not account for evil in culture.

3. Christ above culture. The claims of Christ are above culture. All truth is God's truth, even when it comes from a non-believer. The "truth" of culture that is really "true" is that which lines up with Christ. If we perfectly understood Christ and perfectly understood culture, we would see that they are the same. The problem with this view is that it is a little too neat in theory and it doesn't always work out in reality.

4. Christ and culture in paradox. Since God's ways are not man's ways, Christ and culture will always be opposed to each other. The Christian is at the same time a citizen of the world and a citizen of heaven. Thus the Christian is always living a life in paradox. The problem with this view is that its adherents often get comfortable with the sins of the culture and don't push for change. (For example, someone is able to justify being a Christian and yet owning slaves at the same time, since they are a citizen of two worlds.)

5. Christ the transformer of culture. Christ and culture are often in opposition, and Christ is always seeking to conform the culture to his ways. Thus there is much in culture that needs to be redeemed. Carson notes that since Niebuhr does not offer negative criticism of this view, that this was probably the one that he supported (28–29).

When I read Niebuhr's book a few months ago, I took a survey that put me in the "Christ above culture" camp. I stick to that still. Where do you fall? Or do you want to wait until Carson shows that the correct answer is "6: None of the above," "7: All of the above in different contexts," or "8: Wrong question"?

Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson

Now that I have finished Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright, the next book I will be discussing chapter-by-chapter is Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson. It is, among other things, a response to Niebuhr's book Christ and Culture. I am looking forward to it! The chapters are longer than the ones in Surprised by Hope, so I won't be discussing a chapter every day. The book just came out, and you can buy it here.

D.A. Carson is a research professor of New Testament at TEDS in Illinois. He is also the champion of conservative American evangelicalism.

"Hadji Murad" by Leo Tolstoy

Well, I finished my first book by Tolstoy. The last short story in this collection is "Hadji Murad," set in the 19th Russian war with the Chechnyans. (I know nothing of Russian history, but still found the story enlightening.)

The story starts with the narrator describing the act of destroying a beautiful thistle as he tries to extract it from a plant. The act reminds him of how mankind destroys things when we try to harvest them for our own purposes. Case in point, the narrator remarks, the life of Hadji Murad. Madji Murad was a noble man, destroyed by the politics of the Russians and Chhechnyan Muslims. The story then moves to recount the life and death of this young Muslim "warlord" and his battles with the Russians and with rival Muslim "warlords."

The story is great and it makes some revealing parallels between the ancient Chechnyan Muslim culture (thought to be barbarous by the Russian aristocracy) and the Russian aristocracy itself. Hadji Murad is certainly the hero of the story--he is noble, loyal, proud, pious, and strong. However, he is not idealized. Tolstoy points out that he and his contemporaries are polygamists, they punish rebels by maiming or beheading them, and they maintain blood feuds between rival tribes for generations. At the same time, the Russian artistrocracy is lampooned in the story. Tolstoy exposes their petty jealousy and rivalries, debauchery, and greed.

Tolstoy includes just enough stereotypical ancient Muslim customs to make westerners shake their heads in disapproval, only to follow them up with parallels in Russian culture. (This is the same rhetorical technique many of the ancient Israelite prophets used.) For instance, a westerner might look down on Muslim polygamy, but when Hadji Murad is taken to a Russian ball, topless women are paraded around for the men the gawk at, and only Hadji Murad disaproves. Further, westerners might scoff at the Muslim blood feuds, but Hadji Murad is able to identify "tribalism" within the Russian society. When he surrenders to the Russians, he can tell by way of their mannerisms (he doesn't speak Russian) who is "really" in charge. Although Meller-Zakomelsky was the ranking officer in the camp, Vorontsov, being the son of an aristocrat, was viewed as "more important" by the soldiers. Hadji Murad picks up on this and refuses to talk to anyone except Vorontsov.

As usual, Tolstoy has amazing insight into human behavior. In this case, he is right to point out the similarity of most cultures. In 21st century America, we subconciously think that we are "more civilized" than say the native tribes high in the Andes mountains. In reality, our cultures are structured more or less the same. Further, America prides itself as being a "democracy," but you can see signs of an aristrocracy. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election, that means for at least 24 straight years this country will have been run by someone from either the Bush or the Clinton family. Statistically, would that happen in a true democracy? Now, granted, there are systems in place in America in which a "nobody" can rise to the top through innovation, but this is certainly the exception rather than the rule.

I have worked with the urban poor and the suburban rich, and I have to say that the two cultures are pretty similar. People sort themselves through power plays. Among the urban poor, those power plays might look like street fights or drive-bys; among the suburban rich they might look like "networking" with people from the same ivy-league league school or the same country club. (Among pastors it might be sorting based on the size of one's congregation or budget.) It's the same game, just a different context.

To this, Christ confronts us with the challenge to serve people--the last will be first and the first will be last. Application of that message might look slightly different to a gang member in Tacoma than it does to a businessman in Gig Harbor, but it's the same challenge to both groups. But, man, is that a hard message to preach to people.

I loved reading Tolstoy, but War and Peace and Anna Karenina are some big books.

Christ and Culture by H. Richard Niebuhr

Well, I finally finished Christ and Culture by H. Richard Niebuhr, and I took the Christ and Culture test on David Zimmer's blog. I was very surprised by the results of the test, but the more I thought about it, the more the results made sense. I tested as Christ above Culture, which surprised me because I usually disagree with Thomas Aquinas (the poster child for Christ above Culture). But I no longer think that the test was that far off of the mark.

First, I grew up in a conservative Baptist tradition that was very Christ against Culture. I have a lot of respect for people who hold to that view because, having grown up with them, I know that they believe what they believe out of a sincere love for God. Many sacrifice a lot to live the life that they feel God wants them to live. They taught me that there are real forces of darkness at work in this world that are hostile to the kingdom of God. (The Christ of Culture model is not an option for me.)

Second, I have seen the darker side of the Christ against Culture model, and so I have reacted strongly against it. The Christ against Culture model often becomes "Christ against your Culture," whether it be the long-haired culture, the rock music culture, the hippie culture, or worse yet, the Hispanic culture, or the African culture, or whatever. I think we need to be in the culture (plus, we are in it a lot more than many of us would like to admit). So, the Christ against Culture model is out for me.

Third, I was trained theologically in the reformed tradition, and I react strongly against any attempt to force non-Christians to behave like Christians. I think God changes someone's heart before He changes their behavior. Further, I have since rejected the dualism found in Martin Luther that the Christian is simutaneously justified and a sinner. I don't think he takes seriously enough the spiritual change that takes place in a person when God regenerates them. (So, the Christ and Culture in Tension view is out for me.)

That leaves the two I am torn between--Christ above Culture and Chist the Transformer of Culture. Initially, the second sounded more appealling. However, there is that part of me that sees "The World" as hostile to God. There are parts of our culture that cannot be redeemed (the global sex slave trade, unfair global markets, racism, tribalism, etc.), but need to be rejected outright. To take the global sex trade for example, I would not approach the issue asking the question, "How can we redeem this for Christ?" but "How is this a symptom of our failure to understand God and ourselves or of our rebellion against Him?" To me, God has created a right way to have sex, and using sex slaves is a corruption of the divine intent. To change the culture, people need to understand who God created them to be and how their actions are falling short of the divine intent. Then, they need a work of the Holy Spirit to live the life they were created to live.

I guess that makes me a Thomist. Never saw that coming.