David F. Wells⤒🔗

Recently I was reading the newest book by David F. Wells called The Courage to Be Protestant. In it he made a number of statements that caught my eye about the relationship between Scripture and culture.

The first statement was this: It is important to remember that culture does not give the church its agenda. All it gives the church is its context. The church’s belief and mission come from the Word of God... It is not the culture that determines the church’s priorities. It is not the (post)modern culture that should be telling it what to think. The principle here is sola Scriptura, not sola cultura.(p. 98)

The second statement came a little earlier in the book and in it Wells comments on a book written by Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, The Churching Of America 1776-1990. He writes,

But what Stark and Finke said was that the content of the faith, its doctrine, had in the past been vital to the success of Christian churches and not, as the seeker-sensitive imagine, an impediment to success. Specifically, they argued that churches that flourish exhibit a high degree of distinction from the culture, of cognitive dissonance... Churches that lose their distinction from the surrounding culture have failed and disappeared.(pp. 55, 56)

Now, both of these statements made me think about what is happening in a lot of Evangelical and Reformed churches today. These churches are bending over backwards to the culture in which they live. They are convinced that in order to grow a church needs to be culturally adaptable and flexible. Hence they accommodate both some of their doctrines as well as their practices to what they assume will bring them in step with the surrounding culture and thus increase their curb appeal.

Niebuhr’s Analysis←⤒🔗

But is this the way we should go? Indeed, here we do well to stop for a moment and reflect on what the approach of the church should be to the culture in which the Lord has placed it. In this connection an instructive book was written back in 1951 by H. Richard Niebuhr called Christ and Culture. In it Niebuhr identified a number of different approaches taken to culture by the church throughout the centuries.

• The first approach identified by Niebuhr is called “Christ Against Culture.” This view regards the surrounding culture as a threat and an enemy and now what all good Christians who follow Christ must do is reject it, as well as to separate from it. Historically, this approach can be traced back to Tertullian in the early church era, to the monastics in the medieval church era, and to the Anabaptists in the Reformation church era.

• The second approach mentioned by our author is called “the Christ of Culture” and under this heading is meant all of those who regard Christ and culture as being compatible and on friendly terms. They see no great tension between the two and are convinced that there is a lot of common ground here. Historically, the Gnostics in the early centuries, the liberal theologians, and the social gospel promoters of the nineteenth century have been put in this camp.

• Niebuhr called the third approach “Christ Above Culture” and by it he describes a Christ who is not against culture but who instead transcends it. At the same time Christ is viewed by some of the advocates of this view as using the best products of the culture as well as synthesizing them with the Christian faith. Some of the leading advocates here have been the church father Clement of Alexandria, the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas, and the Anglican bishop Joseph Butler.

• The fourth approach was summarized by Niebuhr under the heading of “Christ and Culture in Paradox.” What this means is that a Christian can best deal with the matters of Christ and culture by recognizing that we are living in two worlds, two realms, two kingdoms: the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of this world. Fundamentally, then, this approach is dualistic. Unlike the synthesists above, the dualists have a more negative view of culture and the sordidness of sin as it abounds there. Nevertheless, they make a valiant attempt to live with their feet in both worlds. Perhaps the most well-known proponent of this view is the German reformer Martin Luther.

• The fifth and final approach that Niebuhr identifies is called by him “Christ the Transformer of Culture.” According to this view, culture is not something to be rejected, resisted, cherry-picked, or tolerated, rather it needs to confronted and converted by the gospel of Christ. Among the advocates of this approach we have the great church father Augustine, as well as the great reformer John Calvin. One can also add the names of Jonathan Edwards and Abraham Kuyper to this list.

Now in identifying these five approaches it can be said that Niebuhr has done us a real service. Whether he has done so as accurately as possible is something for theologians and historians to consider and debate. For our purposes, however, he reminds us that there have been and continue to be these different ways of looking at the relationship between Christ and culture.

Which Approach?←⤒🔗

At the same time, however, we must also ask, “Which approach is now the most accurate? Which one is most in harmony with what the Scriptures teach? Do we identify most with the view that Christ opposes all culture, or that there is no profound difference between Christ and culture, or that here and there some elements in our culture that can be combined with Christ, or that we have no recourse but to live in two radically different worlds, or are we convinced that Christ really can and does change culture?”

No doubt most of the Calvinists among us would side with the last position. At the same time I suspect that there would be some sympathy with the “Christ Against Culture” as well as the “Christ and Culture in Paradox” positions. Perhaps the thing that holds us back from a wholesale endorsement of the fifth view is that there is a degree of cultural optimism attached to it that we do not always share. Of course, we believe that on the final day Christ will transform everything, but just how much of that transforming will get done between now and then remains very much an open question.

Still, there is no doubt that there is a great deal that we would agree with here. There is much in human culture today that is stained and marred with sin. There is much that has to be rejected and repudiated. There is much that needs to be changed and transformed before it can be seen as an integral part of the kingdom of Christ. In short, our fallen culture needs Christ to transform it. Indeed, it needs Him desperately.

Catering to Culture←⤒🔗

But now the question arises, “Do we still believe this and proceed from out of this assumption?” As one looks around in the broader Christian community today both in Europe as well in North America, one cannot help but see so many churches catering to and capitulating to the prevailing secular culture. To cite some concrete examples, there is the issue of what the Bible says about homosexuality as a sin. There is the question of whether or not women can hold ruling positions in the church. There is the matter of modern worship style with its imported atmosphere, music, and style.

With respect to homosexuality in the church, the surrounding culture has been drinking deeply from the secular well of human rights and equal rights and would have us believe that any and every lifestyle that we humans adopt, including homosexuality, is acceptable and tolerable. And as for the Bible, it has now been re-interpreted by many as either mute on these points or else as being lovingly accepting. In this area, culture has completely pushed aside what Scripture teaches.

With regard to women in office, we have another hot button issue in which many churches and attendees see nothing wrong with women occupying the offices of pastor-elder and ruler-elder. Some have even become very vocal about these matters and deem all churches that disagree with them to be utterly out-of-step with both the Scriptures and the times. But what then shall we do with the scriptural words of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:9-15? What shall we do with those biblical references that go all the way back to Adam and Eve? No problem, we shall assign them all to the time-bound category and rule them out of order for today. Again, culture dominates over Scripture.

When it comes to the worship of the church, our prevailing culture is one of casualness, of informality, of light and breezy, and this too has consequences. The same goes for much of the music that is used in worship. Often the only thing that distinguishes rock music from worship music is the words. Much of the beat, the volume, the genre, and the manner of presentation have been taken over from the rock and rap concerts of the world. Where is the holiness, the order, and the awe that the Apostles Peter and Paul write about? Once more it would seem that what Scripture says hardly matters.

Culture Wins?←⤒🔗

Hence the prevailing impression is that when Christ and culture clash, or when the church and culture clash, it is culture that wins. Indeed, much of what calls itself Christianity is no longer firmed rooted and anchored in the inspiration and infallibility of the Word. The voice of the world matters more than the voice of God. Is it thus any wonder that the church in the West is rapidly losing its distinctive edge? It no longer confronts or challenges the culture because it has become so much a part of the culture.

And that will be the death of the church. Thinking historically for a moment, why did the churches of Asia Minor and North Africa cease to exist? Why is the church in Europe and North America living on the brink of extinction? Instead of confronting Western culture with Christ, the Transformer of Culture, it has exchanged Him for Christ, the Doormat of Culture. Where is the uniqueness of the church today?

A Challenge!←⤒🔗

Nevertheless, I do not want to end this editorial with an obituary and a lament, but with a challenge. And the challenge is this: let churches everywhere who claim to be ruled by Christ go back to the Word of Christ and proclaim the gospel of Christ to this world in rebellion against Christ. With deep love, great zeal, and sure hope, it is the task and calling of the church and its members to re-capture what it means to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. May our God give to his church in the West new boldness, deep conviction, and a mighty voice that dares to exclaim, now and always: “Thus says the Lord!”