Below I set up some important quotations from Carson’s chapter that help us clarify just what the Gospel is.

The Kingdom Gospel vs. The Salvation Gospel

Some have identified a “Gospel of the Kingdom” in contrast to a “Gospel of Salvation.” Carson explains why a distinction between the “individual” and “communal”, the saving and the kingdom gospel is artificial. His main point is that the Gospel of the Kingdom is something that is heralded by Jesus on his way to complete the Gospel Story. In other words, the Gospel of the Kingdom announced by Jesus in the Gospels can only be announced because of where Jesus is headed in the Gospels, namely to the cross and to the resurrection. To interpret it otherwise is backwards hermeneutics. He writes:

That is why it is so hermeneutically backward to try to understand the teaching of Jesus in a manner cut off from what he accomplished; it is hermeneutically backward to divorce the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels from the plotline of the Gospels. p. 160

Are the Narrow & Broad Two Gospels?

Carson then enters into a discussion of the narrower and broader foci of the Gospel. He points out that the narrower focuses on Jesus’ story (cross/resurrection) and the latter focuses on what Jesus’ story has secured (kingdom/new creation). Some have protested that there is too much focus on the former and that we need to focus more on the “gospel of the kingdom.” Carson points out that this reasoning assumes there are two gospels, to which he replies:

But this means that if one preaches the gospel in the broader sense without also emphasizing the gospel in the more focused sense of what God has done to bring about such sweeping transformation, one actually sacrifices the gospel. (emphasis added) p. 162

The Gospel is not Just for Non-Christians but for Christians

Preaching the gospel, it is argued, is announcing how to be saved from God’s condemnation; believing the gospel guarantees you won’t go to hell. But for actual transformation to take place, you need to take a lot of discipleship courses, spiritual enrich- ment courses, “Go deep” spiritual disciplines courses, and the like. You need to learn journaling, or asceticism, or the simple lifestyle, or Scripture memorization; you need to join a small group, an accountability group, or a women’s Bible study. Not for a moment would I speak against the potential for good of all of these steps; rather, I am speaking against the tendency to treat these as postgospel disciplines, disciplines divorced from what God has done in Christ Jesus in the gospel of the crucified and resurrected Lord. (emphasis added) p.165

qa carson004 from james hsiao on Vimeo.

HT: The Center for Gospel Culture

Clarifying the Terms

Of course, there is always discussion and debate on this topic, which reflects its importance. Very often, terms like “culture” and “engaging” are not well defined. D.A. Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited attempts to clarify some of this, as well as contribute to the ongoing discussion regarding cultural engagement. I will be speaking on this topic at the upcoming ACE Conference in Arizona. As a warm-up, Q has kindly published my review of Carson’s work.

Christ & Culture Revisited and Reviewed

My review attempts to address the heart of Christ and Culture Revisited—an alternative, biblical-theological approach to engaging culture. I’m not sure Carson’s approach stands up in practice (is anyone using or equipping on it?), though its is thoroughly biblical-theological. Although the review relies on some of my previous posts on Carson’s work, it expands upon them in an effort to both review Carson and “revisit” the all important topic of Christ and Culture. Consider it a minor contribution to the major topic. Enjoy!

• Revisiting Christ & Culture Revisited (Part 1)
• Revisiting Christ & Culture Revisited (Part 2)
• Revisiting Christ & Culture Revisited (Part 3)
• Should We “Redeem” Culture?

Andy Naselli provides a helpful summary of the 60 minute audio.

Carson on Culture

D. A. Carson recently cautioned against using “redemption” language when engaging culture. He wrote: “Redemption terminology in the NT is so bound up with Christ’s work for and in the church that to extend it to whatever good we do in the broader world risks a shift in focus.” I love Carson’s commitment to the Bible, and he is correct that redemption terminology is often bound up with Christ’s work for and in the church. However, redemption is also bound up with creation and culture in the New Testament. Apparently, Tim Keller has been affected by Carson’s caution. His comment during a Q&A session at the Dwell Conference revealed sympathy for Carson’s position. Is redeeming culture wrong-headed?� Let’s consider this question from Colossians:

Colossians on Culture

• “and through him (Jesus) to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” Col 1:20

The emphasis of this verse is upon the reconciling work of Christ, a subset of redemption, accompished through Jesus death on the cross. It accomplishes peace, shalom, restoration. The scope of the redemptive, reconciling, shalom promoting effects of the cross are universal. When it comes to people, they are reconciled by faith or by force. When it comes to all other things they are reconciled in fact. That fact is breaking into the present through the Church. All things then, including creation and culture, are affected by the already-not-fully redemptive work of Jesus on the cross. The church is the embodiment of the redemptive gospel to and in the world, which is made plain by the rest of Paul’s letter to the Colossians. The implications of this culture redeeming posture are spelled out in Paul’s ethical exhortations regarding society and vocation. He tells the church to produce counter-cultural, redeemed forms of:

1. 1. marriage and family, a social institution:
   2. work and slavery, cultural norms and ills
   3. social, economic, and ethnic prejudice and barriers
   4. how we spend our time, a rather sweeping category that applies to everything!

• “Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the best use of (literally “redeeming”) the time.” Colossians 4:; cf. Eph 5:14

Redemptively Engaging Culture

This sweeping command to redeem the time, explicitly through conversations, but implicitly through everything we do warrants redemptive engagement with culture. Perhaps there is something wrong with Carson’s definition of “culture” or maybe we need to clarify what we mean by “redeeming”? Provisionally, I am thinking of gospel-motivated critique and change of cultural forms and content. Nevertheless, the gospel compels us to redemptively engage both peoples and cultures. How? To redeem places—where you gather as a church, where you live in a neighborhood or condo or apartment complex. To redeem cultural products—films you watch, music you listen to, art and advertisement you take in, games you play. To redeem bad political practices—voting for certain propositions, supporting certain policies. To redeem domains like education—to raise the quality of education offered, to promote theological perspectives alongside secular perspectives, to advocate better salaries for teachers.

These are a few ways (here’s more on that) we can redemptively engage culture, which are warranted by Christ on the cross, by Paul from prison, by the Bible as a whole, a document that is, itself, redemptive literature that has affected the writing of novels, short stories, journalism, history, and so on. Should we redeem culture? I think so, but we must be careful not to call the creation of Christian sub-culture redemption of culture; that, of course, is often just bad culture creation and Andy Crouch recently has helped us out with that. I say, redeem, but redeem wisely!

Articles

• Start using this cultural continuum.
• v.Culture by yours truly.

Journals/Magazines

• First Things
• Gospel & Culture Project
• Check out Ransom Ministries and their thoughtful magazine Critique which is free by request/donation.
• The Other Journal

Accessible Books

• All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes (Ken Myers) – don’t let the lame title fool you. Myers is the producer of Mars Hill Audio, an audio journal that robustly addresses matters of faith and culture. This book provides a concise biblical theology of culture, followed by a medium is the message approach to cultural engagement.
• The Culturally Savvy Christian: A Manifesto for Deepening Faith and Enriching Popular Culture in an Age of Christianity-Lite by Dick Staub
• Culture Makers (Andy Crouch) – excellent stuff. Main thesis is that we need to focus less on transforming culture and more on making good, true, and beautiful culture.

Academic Books

• Everyday Theology. The first chapter is worth the book. See short review here.
• Read Niebuhr’s classic Christ and Culture.
• I am slow to recommend D.A. Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited. It is unnecessarily dense and confusing in places, but his thesis is excellent–how should biblical theology help us rethink Niebuhr’s categories? See my blog reviews of the book here.
• Translating the Message by Lamin Sanneh.
• Trilogy by David Wells

The Five Trends

Niebuhr Typology vs. Biblical Theology Typology

Chapter two is intended to state the impact Biblical Theology should have on our understanding of Christ and culture, specifically our embrace of Niebuhr’s five-fold typology. In my earlier review I pointed out that Carson seems to misrepresent Niebuhr (certainly not intentionally), making Niebuhr’s categories more water-tight that Niebuhr himself advocates. Carson perceives this as a flaw, that the Niebuhr categories are too restrictive, that they require a more BT reading. Thus, he coins Creation/Fall, Israel/Law, Christ/New Covenant and Heaven/Hell the “non-negotiables of Biblical theology,” whereby we should pass judgment on Niebuhr’s categories (Christ against, of, above, paradox, & transformer of Culture).

Before commenting on Carson, I would like to point out that he seems to set up somewhat of a straw man. Though I can not speak for Niebuhr, I am certain that many who use the Christ and Culture typology do not use just one category in their approach to culture. Instead, most people use two or more of his categories when engaging culture. For instance, there are things in culture that must be clearly rejected, that Christ is against, and there are things that are of value and can be made more value through their transformation, which Christ is for. This is not a new way of thinking about Niebuhr yet Carson comments: “if for any reason we continue to think of different models of the relationship between Christian cultures, we must insist that they are not alternative models that we may choose to accept or reject” (62). So we use all of the categories to chart a path for godly interaction with culture. What Carson is trying to add is a plea for these categories to be chucked for biblical-theological categories. The trouble is that he is rather unclear in his explanation of how we are to proceed in this manner. Yet, I could not agree more that we must submit Niebuhr categories to biblical examination. Let’s check those categories out.

Creation/Fall

In an age that is soft on truth and sin, Carson’s section on the relevance of the Fall for engagement with culture is refreshing. He notes that the heart of evil is idolatry and that all men have fallen under this curse:

The consequences of the fall are universal and devastating because they are first and foremost revolt against the Almighty. We must be reconciled to God, for he is the One who now stands against us not now only our Creator, but our Judge. The drama of the entire storyline of the Bible turns on our persistent alienation from God. (49)

What is the cultural implication?

Christians cannot long think about Christ and culture without reflection the fact that this is God’s world, but that this side of the fall this world is simultaneously resplendent with glory and awash in shame, and that every expression of human culture simultaneously discloses that we are mage in God’s image and shows itself mis-shaped and corroded by human rebellion against God.

Agreed. Sounds like a simultaneous Christ vs. culture and Christ affirmer/transformer of culture. However, Carson continues his BT non-negotiables with very little cultural reflection. They are primary theological summaries of the categories. What we need is practical application to demonstrate sufficient reason to adopt his categories over and against Niehbur.

Christ/New Covenant

After affirming penal, substitiutionary atonement Carson writes: “it is simply non-negotiable for any form of Christianity whatsoever that seeks its shape in the cruciform gospel. Those that contest these fundamentals may receive high marks from the culture, but where there are competing authority claims on this sort of issue, Christians simply cannot afford to take their cues from the culture (55). I would think this is obvious to anyone who reads this book, but it is a rare cultural reflection in the mass of biblical-theological summary.

Heaven/Hell

Carson notes that the already-not-yet-consummated kingdom does not mean we usher in the consummation; that is reserved for Christ and should hold in check any sort of Christian utopian or triumphalism. Yet, again there are few cultural comments to press Carson’s words into the issue of Christ and culture.

Yet, Carson is staunch about his non-negotiables, stating that it will not do to adopt some configuration of a few of the categories and then call it a Christian option. Creation/Fall, Israel/Law, Christ/New Covenant, & Heaven/Hell must all be embraced, and I agree, though I would parse them out a bit differently and make many more connections between the non-negotiables and culture (and I have in some talks I have done on the Gospel and Culture).

Provisional Critique

By way of provisional critique, Chapter Two is in short supply of examples where the BT categories trump the Niebuhr’s, and more importantly, scarce are the sentences that connect the dots between the BT non-negotiable categories and their helpfulness in engaging culture. I am not yet convinced of the need to jump ship from Niebuhr.

A Biblical-theological Critique?

I have anticipated this chapter for some time. It is close to 40 pages long, so I will review it in two different posts. The second chapter of CCR explores the promise and critique of Biblical Theology as it pertains to Niebuhr’s Christ and culture paradigm. Carson commends Niebuhr for using Scripture to support his paradigm but also critiques him on the basis of Biblical theology. Carson notes that Niebuhr tends to identify and universalize certain Christ and Culture positions with certain biblical authors. For instance, the Gospel of John and the incarnation become paradigmatic for Christ Transformer of culture (John 1). However, as Carson points out, John’s gospel also advocates other paradigms, such as the Christ against culture (i.e., Jesus as judge of the world). Carson claims that Niebuhr too easily makes biblical authors synonymous with certain Christ and culture positions (41). This claim should be qualified. Niebuhr plainly states that John advocates both Christ transformer and Christ against culture positions in his writings. Niebuhr writes:

They (conversionist motifs) are suggested in the First Letter of John; but are accompanied there by so many references to the darkness, transitoriness, and lovelessness of the world on the one hand, and to the distinction of the new community from the old on the other, that the tendency of this document seems to be toward exclusive Christianity. (196)

When referring to conversionist elements in the gospel of John he calls them “motifs,” which indicates that he is not reducing John’s gospel to a “Christ Transformer of Culture” position. Commenting on the gospel of John he writes: “…it is accompanied there also by a separatist note.” In other words, Niebuhr has room for “conflicting” Christ and culture positions within a single author and single book of the Bible. He is not so “anti-biblical theology” as Carson makes him out to be. Nevertheless, the biblical theology critique will bear more fruit.

And yet here is a real concern. Many who read Carson will not have read Niebuhr nor will they read him, and if you are reading this, read Niebuhr! Carson’s summaries and critiques are good but not gold. They fall short and are unfounded in some places. Don’t take my word, Carson’s or Niebuhr’s word; do the hard work of thinking this all through for yourself because your posture towards culture has everything to do with Christ and following Jesus.