Tag: d. a. carson

Resources for Wisely Engaging Culture

The issue of how to engage the fuzzy issues of culture came up last night in our Partners Class. How should Xns respond to the so-called ethical “gray areas”? In order of most to least accessible, here are a few resources to help you cultivate cultural discernment:

Articles

Journals/Magazines

Accessible Books

Academic Books

Revisiting Christ & Culture Revisited (Chp 2 con't)

I have reviewed chapters one and two of Carsons’ Christ and Culture Revisited. Here I will continue to review chapter two and move into chapter three.

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.

Reviewing Christ & Culture Revisited (Chp 2)

My review of the first chapter of Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited is here. Onto the second chapter…

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! ­čÖé 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.