# Christ and Culture Revisited (DA Carson)



## RamistThomist (Aug 3, 2017)

Carson, D. A. _Christ and Culture Revisited_. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Carson reworks Niehbur’s typology and offers numerous insights on how to navigate the murky waters of our relation to culture. Note, I say he offers insights. I do not say he solves the problem, for I don’t think this problem can be solved on this side of the eschaton. Niehbur’s typology is as follows:

(1) Christ against culture (Tertullian, anabaptists)
(2) Christ of culture (liberalism)
(3) Christ above culture (Thomism)
(4) Christ and culture in paradox (Lutheranism)
(5) Christ transforming culture (Calvin, Augustine)

It’s a clear typology but quite wrong in many areas. For example, (2) is flawed because liberalism isn’t Christian, so it’s out of the conversation. But before we answer the question, “which is correct,” we have to first answer the question, “What does the Bible say?” But even then, that’s not an easy answer.

In answering that question Carson traces the movement of biblical history: Creation, Fall, Calling of Abraham, Giving of the Law, Jesus, Church, Eschaton. We can see how this structures our reflection in noting (5). Christ can indeed have a transforming influence, but it’s always limited--the eschaton hasn’t happened yet.

Carson’s revision of Niehbur also sheds light on ethical difficulties. We often hear, “Well the apostles never did __________, so it’s obviously wrong.” Well, the apostles never had a constitutional democracy, so the latter is obviously wrong, too. Carson disposes of such inane reasoning. The apostles lived in a time of Christ against Culture. But what about when Constantine came on the scene? The problem is that the church had to reflect anew on a unique situation. Therefore, we can’t use such shallow reasoning.

The book was a joy to read. Carson brings mature and sharp reflection to every page. I would offer further reflection on some parts. (3) is an unstable concept and as Carson hints elsewhere, these categories blend into each other. (4) is wrong because dualism is wrong, yet (3) has within itself an implicit dualism. Of particular importance, though not noted in this review, is his dismantling of James K. A. Smith and later the neo-anabaptists.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 3, 2017)

Thanks for the review, Jacob. I have thought for a while, however, that the word "culture" has too many components to it today to make the taxonomy helpful (in other words, I think it is too rigid). There are certain aspects of culture that are informed by common grace (many works of art, for example). How are Christians to relate to something informed by common grace? Well, I would imagine that we can react with appreciation. However, other aspects of culture (especially when culture traipses into moral categories) become completely rebellious against God and His Word. In cases such as these, we have to be against culture, while being for personal (not cultural) transformation by means of the gospel. This transgresses the categories above rather a lot.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Stope (Aug 3, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> We often hear, “Well the apostles never did __________, so it’s obviously wrong.” Well, the apostles never had a constitutional democracy, so the latter is obviously wrong, too. Carson disposes of such inane reasoning. The apostles lived in a time of Christ against Culture. But what about when Constantine came on the scene? The problem is that the church had to reflect anew on a unique situation. Therefore, we can’t use such shallow reasoning.


This is gold


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 3, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Thanks for the review, Jacob. I have thought for a while, however, that the word "culture" has too many components to it today to make the taxonomy helpful (in other words, I think it is too rigid). There are certain aspects of culture that are informed by common grace (many works of art, for example). How are Christians to relate to something informed by common grace? Well, I would imagine that we can react with appreciation. However, other aspects of culture (especially when culture traipses into moral categories) become completely rebellious against God and His Word. In cases such as these, we have to be against culture, while being for personal (not cultural) transformation by means of the gospel. This transgresses the categories above rather a lot.



Carson has a chapter that shows just how "slippery" the word culture really is. For example, we can speak of "Mexican" culture vs American culture, but Mexican culture collapses into North American culture when we contrast it with, say, Chinese culture.

And if culture is ultimately derived from a linguistic nexus, as Carson hints at (and I think he is right), then it really doesn't make sense to say "Christ against Language."


My own take of culture leans heavily on Schilder's critique of Kuyper.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 3, 2017)

Stope said:


> This is gold



Seriously, I've had people actually tell me "Theonomy is wrong because you never saw the apostles shooting up Caesar with machine guns."

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 3, 2017)

I'm sorry-- are we talking Richard or Reinhold Niebuhr? It's been many years since I've read either one.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 3, 2017)

Richard.
https://www.amazon.com/Christ-Cultu...1501812398&sr=8-1&keywords=Christ+and+culture


----------



## yeutter (Aug 4, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> And if culture is ultimately derived from a linguistic nexus, as Carson hints at (and I think he is right), then it really doesn't make sense to say "Christ against Language."
> My own take of culture leans heavily on Schilder's critique of Kuyper.



I agree with you that Schilder's insights are helpful. 

I also agree with Carson; that the interface between language and culture is critical to understanding particular cultures. 

The diversity of languages occurred only after mankind was dispersed after the tower of Babble. The diversity of languages and therefore cultures is related to the fall. Therefore it is does make sense to say "Christ against Language"


----------

