Christ And Culture Niebuhr Pdf Download
The present paper revisits the famous typology outlining possible relationships of Christians to culture, as outlined by H. Richard Niebuhr in his Christ and Culture. It seeks to draw upon some particular insights from the critical discussion in order to propose a constructive application of Niebuhr's categories in today's theology of culture. Contending that Niebuhr's typology is best understood in terms of mutually non-exclusive motifs and that culture is to be perceived as a web of multiple perspectives and orientations, the article argues for the use of the so-called praxis matrix as a complementary method which enables one to get a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of Christians' relationship to and engagement with their particular culture(s). As such, it aims to establish a hermeneutical framework for a theology of culture which would be contextually relevant, ecumenically open, and flexible to deal with various issues.
Discover the world's research
- 20+ million members
- 135+ million publications
- 700k+ research projects
Join for free
NIEBUHR'S TYPOLOGY RECONSIDERED:
READING CHRIST AND CULTURE THROUGH
THE LENSES OF THE PRAXIS MATRIX1
Pa vol Barg ár Pra gu e
When H Richard Niebuhr dehvered a SCTICS of lectures at Austin Pres-
byterian Theological Seminary m January 1949, there were probably
very few people who presumed that Christ and Culture, the book that
the original lectures formed the basis for, would come to be a classic 2
Jndeed, even after more than sixty years since It first appeared, Christ
and Culture remains on the list of re tired reading at innumerable uni-
versifies and seminaries around the globe Moreover, the book IS still
a sutyect of intense and lively discussions and endeavours in the aca-
demie world To give but a few examples, there was an expanded 50th
anniversary edition of the book with a new foreword by Martin Marty
and a new preface by James Gustafson ٩ In addition, a significant part
of one of the issues of the Journal o f the Society o f Christian Ethics
was dedicated to a reassessment of Niebuhr's book, bringing together
a number ofleading Christian theologians from various backgrounds 4
Furthermore, there are a significant number of book-length studies
1
C hrist an d Cu lture,
Jo urna l
the So ciety
Chr istian E thics
NIEBUHRSTYPOLOGY RECONSIDERED READING CHRIST AND CULTURE THROUGH THE LENSES
written in order to re¥ s t, critique, and build upon Niebuhr's proposal 5
Last but not least, numerous articles on the theme draw from and use
Niebuhr's insights and methodology in fields and topics as varied as
sociology of religion,^ contemporary Russian Orthodoxy,7 Christian
heavy metal subculture,^ Christian ministry in African American com-
munities^ or Christianity in the South African apartheid society.^ It
needless to add that constructive treatments of Niebuhr's book go
almost without exception hand in hand with critical reception thereof.
^lie present paper seeks to draw upon some particular insights from
the critical discussion in order to propose a constructive application
of Niebuhr's categories in today's theology of culture Contending
that Niebuhr's typology is best understood in terms of mutually non-
exclusive motifs and that culture to be perceived as a web of multi-
pie perspectives and affiliations, the article argues for the use of the
so-called praxis matrix as a complementary method which enables
a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the relationship
of Christians to and engagement with their particular culture As such,
It aims to establish a hermeneutical framework for a theology of culture
which would be contextually relevant, ecumenically open, and flexible
to deal with various issues. However, before doing that, I will first
briefly introduce Niebuhr's book as well as mator points of criticism
Au thenti c Trans formati on A New Vi sion of C hrist an d C ulture ,
Re thinkin g Chri st a nd Cultu re A Post -Chr isten dom
Pe rspe ctive , Chr ist and
Cultu re Re visited,
Ch rist a nd Cult ure
Ο φ ο -
mo so J ourn al o f Theo logy
Jo urna l o ft he S ocie ty of Christian Ethics
Ch rist and C ul
ture ," Jou rna l ofR elig ion & Soci ety
Chr ist and
Cult ure J ourna l of th e Soc iety o fCh rist ian
Eth ics
J ourna l o fT he olo gy fo r
Sou thern Afri ca
PAVOLBARGÁR
"A many-sided debate about the relations of Christianity and civiliza-
tion IS being carried on in our time."11 This IS the opening sentence of
the book which also very clearly indicates the subject that the author
seeks to deal with. Writing in the wake ofWorld War II when the hor-
rors of Nazism and the Shoah were shockingly fresh and a new threat of
communism and the life under the shadow of the atomic
bomb were imminent, Niebuhr seeks to join the emerging discussion
on "how to build a civilization free from prejudice, intolerance, and
totalitarianism "12 George Marsden argues that Niebuhr's prime moti-
vation for writing the book was a response to "cultured despisers of
Christianity [who] say, in effect, that civilization IS the supreme value
and that Christianity IS essentially a threat to Its health."^ This seems
to be a assessment as Niebuhr indeed and discusses
a number of charges that these cultural despisers1* bring against Chris-
tianity, including a contempt for the here and now and a focus on the
hereafter, the belittling of human achievement at the expense of God's
grace, intolerance, the irreconcilability of Christ's forgiveness with the
demands of justice, the incompatibility of the injunctions of the Ser-
mon of the Mount with the duties of life in society, the exaltation of
the lowly at the expense of "aiistocrats and Nietzscheans", and "the
unavailability of Christ's wisdom to the wise and prudent."^
In his book, then, Niebuhr strives to show that Christian responses
and relationships to civilization and culture^ are much more diverse
Chr ist an d C ulture
Dir ecti on
Insig hts The Fac ulty Jo urn al of Au stin Se mina ry
Ch rist an d C ulture
Chr ist a nd Cultiue
Ch rist a nd Culture
NIEBUHR'S TYPOLOGY RECONSIDERED: READING CHRIST AND CULTURE THROUGH ?HE T.ENSES
and complex than the aforementioned charges levelled against it are
willing to admit. Therefore, the central ،question Christ and Cut-
ture poses is about, to quote Marsden once more, "how Christians
should relate to their surrounding eulture".^ Niebuhr himself dubs
this relation as "foe enduring problem" and states unequivocally that
"foe repeated struggles of Christians with this problem have yielded
no single Christian answer, but only a series of typical answers."^ He
goes on to say that "[i]t is foe purpose of the following chapters to set
forth typical Christian answers to the problem of Christ and culture
and so to contribute to the mutual understanding of variant and often
conflicting Christian groups.''^ Employing foe typological method,^
Niebuhr then categorizes foe multiplicity of Christian responses to the
"enduring problem" into five ideal-types. To these we shall now turn
our attention.
Niebuhr calls his Type I "Christ Against Culture" and posits that it is
"foe one that u n^promisin g ly affirms foe sole authority of Christ
over the Christian and resolutely rejects culture's claims to loyalty."^
The gospel is seen as the new law, calling Christians to holiness and
separation from foe world. As Niebuhr puts it, "[t]he counterpart of
loyalty to Christ and foe brothers is the rejection of cultural society;
a clear line of separation is drawn between foe brotherhood ofthe chil-
dren of God and the world."^ Type I is, therefore, the separationist
or rejectionist model, putting "Christ" and "culture" in opposition.
Historical representatives include, according to Niebuhr, Tertullian,
Benedictine monks, Mennonites, Quakers and Leo Tolstoy.
Chr ist a nd Cult ure
C hrist a nd Cultu re
A uthe ntic T ransfo rmati on,
Chr ist a nd Cultur e
Chr ist a nd Cul turey
PAVOLBARGAR
In contrast, representatives ofType II "feel no great tension between
church and world, the soctal laws and the Gospel, the workings of
divine grace and human effort, the ethics of salvation and the ethics
of social conservation or progress.''^ This type, called "Christ of Cul-
ture", thus represents the assimilatiomst or accommodationist position.
However, that does not mean that these Christians would simply sur-
render to surrounding culture, accepting It as a whole. Quite the
contrary, Niebuhr reminds his reader that Type II Christians empha-
size the "ideal" in that culture, finding no major disagreement between
this ideal and essential Christianity.^ They are, therefore, able to "hail
Jesus as the Messiah of their society, foe fulfiller of Its hopes and aspi-
rations, the perfecter of its true faith, the source of Its holiest spirit "25
Niebuhr gives early Gnostics, ?eter Abelard, Thomas Jefferson and
Albrecht Ritschl as examples of this type
While foe two previous types can be described as extreme posi-
tions or the poles ot the spectrum, foe remaining three types stand for
mediating positions, representing "[t]he great majority movement m
Christianity, which we may call the church of the center".^ Type ¡II,
"Christ Above Culture," maintains a synthesis between Christ and cul-
ture. It views culture as both divine and human, both holy and sinfiil,
and as such It needs grace to be completed. Christ comes from above
with "gifts" that humans can never provide oftheir own to attain perfec-
tion. Niebuhr discusses Clement of Alexandria and Thomas Afin as
as examples of this type.
Although proponents ofType IV, "Christ and Culture in ?aradox,"
similarly to Type 111, also seek to "do justice to the need for holding
together as well as for distinguishing between loyalty to Christ and
responsibility for culture," they are acutely aware of permanent con-
flict between God and humans, or between Christ and culture. Due to
the pervasive effect of sin the latter IS corrupted and must therefore be
kept within appropriate boundaries. Therefore, the Type IV (or dual-
st) Christian lives a life of paradox, realizing that "[h]e IS under law,
and yet not under law but grace, he IS sinner, and yet righteous; he
Christ an d Cu ltur e
1 1
Chri st an d Cu lture,
Chr ist a nd Cult ure
NIEBUHRSTYPOLOGY RECONSIDERED READINGCHRIST AND CULTURE THROUGH THE LENSES
believes, as a doubter, be has assuranee of salvation, yet walks along
the knife-edge of insecurity"^ As ?eter Gathje interprets this posi-
tion, "[t]hs type sees a duality in which culture has a legitimate place
in Christian life, but that place IS not the Christian's heart or church, m
those places Christ must rule "28 The most prominent representative IS
Martin Luther, others include S0ren Kierkegaard and Roger Williams
F1m111y,Ty^V,wh1ch Niebuhr calls 4'Christ the Transformer of Cul-
ture," represents the conversionist position The conversiomsts differ
from the dualists in their "more positive and hopeful attitude toward
culture" 29 However, this stance IS not an expression of arbitrary opti-
mism or naivety, but IS firmly rooted, as Niebuhr maintains, in three
theological convictions, namely, the creative activity of God in his-
tory, human nature as corrupted and in need of transformation, yet not
"bad", and the view that "to God all things are possible in a history
that IS fundamentally not a course of merely human events but always
a dramatic interaction between God and men "3° As a conse،؛uence.
Type ٧ Christians believe in the possibility of transformation of this
reality, including culture, here and now Some of foe representatives
that Niebuhr names ¡nclude Augustine, John Calvm, and F D Mau-
Several scholars have noticed that Niebuhr examines all types in
relation to some traditional theological issues In this respect, Diane
Yeager provides a helpful chart in which Niebuhr's types are analyzed
according to SIX categories 1) reason and revelation, 2) nature and
grace, 3) sin and foe good, 4) law and gospel, 5) views of history, and
6) church and "world" 31 While the first four categories are employed
by Niebuhr himself m Christ and Culture, foe last two are added by
Yeager as useful She maintains that the SIX categories (and possi
Chr ist a nd Culture
Chr istian Cent ury
Chr ist an d C ultur e
C hri st
Cultu re,
i b id
Chri st a nd Cultu re
The Oxford Han dboo k of Th eolo gica l E thics
PAVOLBARGÁR
bly some others) might help to make Niebuhr's models more concrete
when used to explore the relationship ot various Christian individuals
and communities to their culture Douglas Dttati then shows a practical
example for the use of these categories in his exploration of liberation
theology. In particular, he uses a Niebuhrian analysis to read A The-
ology ofLiberation by Gustavo Gutierrez Employing the dialectical
categories of sin and the good, law and gospel, and God and world,
Gttati shows that Gutierrez's theology, with Its accent on the God of
the Bible as the God ot history and ot (political) liberation and on Jesus
as one who embodies a new humanity, IS likely to be inclined to Type
I I 32 To my mind, such an approach can help produce a more compre-
hensive picture of the relation between "Christ" and "culture"
Similarly to Yeager and Ottati, Gordon Lynch in his book on the-
ology and popular culture argues that Niebuhr's model IS helpfiil in
identifying what he calls "core issues and different perspectives in the
theology of culture "33 These "core issues", according to him, include
the (questions of whether or not culture can be a force for goodness and
truth, how truth IS revealed to humans, whether involvement in cultural
endeavours can be viewed as a "creative opportunity, duty, or threat",
and whether or not culture can be changed constructively34 However,
Lynch IS at the same time well aware of the limited use of Niebuhr's
model for detailed analysis and constructive dialogue between theol-
ogy (or "Christ") and culture 35 Such acknowledgment leads us to foe
next section which discusses various criticisms that Christ and Culture
has evoked
Ch rist a nd Culture
Jo urna l o f the Soc 1 e t\ o f Ch ristia n Ethi cs
Un derstanding Theo logy and Pop ular Culture
Unde rstan ding Theo logy an d Po pula r Culture,
U nder standing The olog y an d Po pula r Cult ure
NIEBUHRSTYPOLOGY RECONSIDERED READING CHRIST AND CULTURE THROUGH THE LENSES
Although Christ and Culture has certainly been highly influential in
various circles. It nevertheless has not escaped substantial and often
fierce criticism 36 In addition, there have also been constructive pro-
posais to "save Niebuhr's categories''.^ The following part will dis-
cuss some of the mam points of criticism as well as those constructive
proposals.
First, Niebuhr has been criticized for holding an inadegate Chris-
tology. He defines "Christ" as follows:
Such a Christ thus effectively stands in opposition to culture, lead-
mg people away ftom their earthly existence and pointing towards an
unspecified transcendence 39 Moreover, such a Christ stands in opposi-
tion to foe Jesus of the Gospels, a first-century Falestiman Jew of flesh
and blood, who was very much rooted m his own culture.^ Yoder
Ch rist and Cu lture
Re side nt Ali ens L ife in the Chri stian C olo ny,
C hrist a nd Cultu re
Chr ist and Culture
Chr ist a nd Culture ,
Chr ist
Cult ure
Chr ist an d C ultu re
PAVOLBARGÁR
argues that Niebuhr's Christ IS a moralist, but uot Lord.41 Interpret-
ing Yoder's critique, Craig Carter goes even further when he accuses
Niebuhr of promoting modalism with regard to the Trinity. He says
explicitly: "Nevertheless, in Christ and Culture Niebuhr's Christ IS
docetic and his view of the Trinity IS Sabellian."4^ Carter sees the
reason for this "inadequate Christology" in Niebuhr's omission of sub-
stantial aspects of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, due to which
"Niebuhr's view of Christ has no place for the Lordship of Christ" or
for the community,4؟ living m anticipation of the Kingdom under his
Lordship.44
Second, critics have noticed that Niebuhr implicitly advocates the
superiority of a single position, namely Type ٧ ("Christ the Trans-
former ofCulture"), despite his proclaimed objectivity m surveying the
spectrum and the insistence that there IS not only one correct answer to
the "enduring problem".4؟ There are several arguments to support this
charge. First, Type ٧ IS the only one which Niebuhr does not critique
at all, in contrast to extensive critiques of the first four types. Second,
the very way the types are put in order, with Type V coming at the end
leads the reader to identify themselves precisely with this position as
the most adequate 46 And third, the vagueness of the term "transfor-
mation" as Niebuhr presents It gives space for multiple interpretations.
Jour nal o fth e S ociety
o f Christian Eth ics
C hrist and
Cul ture Authent ic Transfo rmati on
Chris t and Cu ltur e The Mennon ite Qu arte rly Re view
Rethm hm^ C hrist a nd Cultur e,
Ch rist a nd Cult ure
War and the C hristia n C ons cience,
NIEBUHR'S TYPOLOGY RECONSIDERED: READING CHRIST AND CULTURE THROUGH THE LENSES
SO that it can function as an umbrella term for various views and con-
victions. As Yoder puts it:
Another common criticism points out that it is virtually impossible
to assign a certain person ٠٢ group to one of the Niebuhr's ideal-
types only. Yoder, for instance, objects strongly to Niebuhr's putting
the Mennonites in Type 1,48 whereas he would like to see them more
appropriately in Type V.49 Similarly, historians in particular have found
Niebuhr's typology "overly schematic and relatively useless" for their
work.^ One is then legitimately led to ask, what foe point of foe whole
endeavour is, if it does not facilitate a precise classification. George
Marsden offers a possible way forward in this respect. Being not too
quick to discard Niebuhr's typology but rather intent on interpreting
it constructively instead, he suggests a musical analogy of motifs in
a symphony, with one motifbeing dominant while others subordinated,
yet present nonetheless. Marsden explains:
dominant.
Chr ist a nd Culture
PAVOLBARGÁR
This IS د helpful insight for the argument of this paper as I will later
try to show that Niebuhr's typology ean be put to a good use it under-
stood in terms of mutually ^ -ex clu sive, but rather complementary
motifs, being more or less visible m various cultural activities pursued
by various individual Christians or Christian groups
The last criticism to be discussed here concerns Niebuhr's definition
of culture Several scholars pointed out that It IS undifferentiated and
vague and as such It confuses the whole issue 52 Following Bronislaw
Malinowski and his anthropological functionalism, Niebuhr under-
stands culture as
01
culture civilization
It was Yoder who argued very convincingly that such an understand-
mg of culture as basically "everything people do togethei"'^ IS not
particularly useful, showing that culture IS a much more diverse and
complex phenomenon
Chr ist and Cul tiue
as su ch, Us c erta in aspe cts
ib id
NIEBUHR s TYPOLOGY RECONSIDERED READINGCHRIST AND CULTURE THROUGH THE LENSES
This rather lengthy passage clearly illustrates that culture IS to be
treated with discrimination. In other words, Yoder shows that mono-
lithic understandings of culture are not productive. That IS a very
important point to keep in mind if one IS to make use of Niebuhr's
categories. His monolithic understanding of culture m Itself IS not nee-
essarily a reason for dismissing them, as Marsden argues, calling for
a "more specific and discriminating" use of the term "culture" He rea-
sons. "We always need to ask what general culture or sub-culture we
are talking about and further what specific aspect ofthat culture IS our
matter of concern "56
This IS a very important point and It can be even farther helpfully
developed through insights of Frans Wijsen. W ]sen notes that due to
modernization and globalization most societies in the world are not
"multi-cultural in the sense of a patchwork quilt or mosaic of sep-
arate pieces with hard, well-defined edges, but of a cultural mix or
cocktail."^ In practice It means that megalopolises as well as smaller
centres of urban settlements today create cultures that represent a mix-
tore of traditions and elements, including those stemming from the
reigns of religion, ethnicity, politics, arts and music, and others 58
This situation leads some scholars to ask whether It IS even legitimate
and appropriate to use the term "culture", e to speak of culture as
a clear-cut, discrete unit59 Drawing from the observations ofWim van
Binsbergen, Wijsen, therefore, suggests thinking in terms of "a plural-
lty of overlapping cultural orientations, in such a way that each person
Ex chang e
و ؟ j o Ehe Invent ion
Tra dition
PAVOLBARGÁR
IS always involved in a multiplicity of such orientations at the same
time, while none of these orientations coincide with only one society
or one territory''.^ As far ba،;k as the early 1980s another Dutch mis-
siologist, Joseph Blom^us, argued that instead of inculturation It IS
much more appropriate to speak of interculturation as the latter term
much better emphasizes the fact that "the process of inculturation IS
not simply the interaction between gospel on the one hand and culture
on the other, as ؛ they represent two monolithic meaning systems, but
between multiple cultural orientations.''^*
This point IS also crucial for our discussion of Christ and Culture.
A particular person or a group does not have to necessarily fit into
a single discrete and well-defined culture, but can rather move within
a space which I would name as a "cultural in-between", a space where
numerous traditions and influences coexist, contradict and/or overlap.
Such a space IS characterized by fluidity, plurality, and complexity. In
what follows I will draw upon the notion of culture as a complexity
of multiple orientations, perspectives and affiliations which needs to
be considered when analyzing the relationships of Ch^stians to their
surrounding environment. Introducing a particular method of analy-
sis I will seek to show, in an effort not dissimilar to Marsden's, that
Niebuhr's types can "continue to be a rich resource for helping Chris-
tians think about their lelationships to ffie world."^
For the argument of the remaining part of this paper three observations
from ffie previous discussion will be of particular importance. First, in
line with Marsden's musical analogy Niebuhr's types are to be usefully
0
Cultu ren best aan m et Re de in v erko rte vor m Ultgesproken bij de
aa nvaa rding van het a mbt van bijzo nder hoo gleraa r 'gr oncbl agen van in tercu lture le
filosof ie',
African E ccl ésia l Re view
NIEBUHRSTYPOLOGY RECONSIDERED READINGCHRIST AND CULTURE THROUGH THE LENSES
regarded as mutually nomexelus^e motifs. Different motifs are then
present in the thinking and praetiee of various Christian individuals ٠٢
groups, whereas one (or more) of them is at the forefront while oth-
ers play more subservient roles. Second, culture IS not to be viewed
as a monolithic system, but rather as a complexity of vaiious cultural
orientations, perspectives and affiliations. A single person or group of
people can thus belong to multiple categories, or "subcultures". More-
over, people belonging to foe same subculture on one account can be
very much at odds with regard to other cultural issues. For example,
two young males can both be IT geeks, and yet one of them IS a hip
hop fan, embracing rap music and graffiti art, while foe other identifies
with the Gothic community
And third, foere IS widespread scholarly consensus that m Christ and
Culture Niebuhr argued, albeit perhaps covertly, for transformation as
foe most adequate answer to foe "ednngpr oble m ".^ Nevertheless, It
was also noted that Niebuhr's understanding of transformation IS rather
vague and loose. In their book, Stassen, Yeager and Yoder therefore
seek to elaborate Niebuhr's conclusions and to explore what shape such
"authentic transformation" could take, and what implications It has 64
The present article also pursues a similar direction. Drawing on the
observations regarding the nature of culture as well as that ofNiebuhr's
typology It strives to introduce a means through which foe complex-
lty of foe mutually transformational relationship between Christians
and their culture(s) could be grasped in a more concrete manner.
I argue that the so-called "praxis matrix" represents a hermeneutic tool
which allows for a detailed analysis of the peculiarities of the rela-
tionships of Christians to foe world As such, It can complement foe
model suggested by Niebuhr by exploring various dimensions of foe
aforementioned "enduring problem". The praxis matrix was elabo-
rated by South African missiologists j. N. j. Kritzinger and Willem
Saayman who built upon foe work of liberation theologians in gen-
Auth enti c Trans forma tion
Aut hentic Tr ansfor matio n
PAVOLBARGÁR
eral and social analysts Joe Holland and ?eter Henriot in particular.
Using the basic concept of Holland's and Henriot's "pastoral circle"^
Kritzinger and Saayman develop their praxis matrix^ as a hermeneutic
method "to explore the transformational praxis (theory-and-practice)
of another person or group.67״ It is a research instrument which focuses
on and seeks to explore seven interrelated dimensions, namely, foe
identification of agency, contextual understanding, ecclesial scrutiny,
interpreting foe tradition, discernment for action, reflexivity, and spir-
ituality. It can be graphically depicted as follows:^
Ecclesial
scrutiny
Interpreting
th e traditinnn
Contextual
understan ding
Spirituality
Agency,
identification □ isce rm e ntfor
action
Reflexivity
S ocia l Anal ysts Linki ng Fai th an d Jus tice
D avi d j Bosch P roph etic Inte grity, Cruc iform
V erbum et Ecc lesia
Da vid j Bo sch,
IS Da v id Bosch p
NIEBUHRSTYPOLOGY RECONSIDERED READINGCHRIST AND CULTURE THROUGH THE LENSES
Through an in-depth analysis of each of these dimensions with
regard to the experience or situation of the researched individual or
community a better and more comprehensive understanding is ac-
quired. There are a number of questions which might help sharpen the
exploration with regard to each of the seven dimensions. Here I briefly
some of them.69
Who the ^r^co m m um ty under review? What
social, economic or class position do they have in society^ What their
sense of identity^ That what stories do they tell about themselves^
Who are their "conversation partners"^
What are the social, political, eco-
nomic, religious and other cultural factors that influence the society
where the ^r^co m m um ty under review lives} How do they under-
stand these factors^ Can they acknowledge their biases and interests^
How do they "read the signs of the times"?
What place does the church play in the life
of the ^on /co m mum ty under review? How do they relate to the
church(es) active in their context? How do they relate to the global
church of Christ? What role does the history of the church(es) in that
context play in the current situation? What their view on and relation
to interfaith issues and secularism/secularization respectively?
How does the person/community
under review interpret the Bible and Christian tradition in their context?
How do their sense of identity and agency, their contextual understand-
ing and their ecclesial scrutiny shape their own contextual theology?
What practical implications does such a contextual theology have for
relation to
What methods, activities or projects
does the perso^community under review employ in their effort to
implement their ideas and visions? How do they plan towards their
goals? What discernment techniques do they employ in their deliber-
ations about culture? What aims do they pursue? How do they relato
to other agents in their context? Are they willing to collaborate with
agents who do not belong to their denomination/faith tradition غ
D avi d j Bosch,
PAVOLBARGÁR
How consistent and honest is the ^rso^community
under review in their endeavours? How do they reflect on their previous
experiences? Do they learn from their mistakes and achievements? Are
they willing to modify and adjust their stances? If so, how flexible are
they in these processes? Do they make an intentional effort to be aware
of the current situation and trends in the world around them?
What spirituality does the person/community under
review practice? Is it a s^rituality of contemplation, activism, justice,
dialog, withdrawal, etc.? What is the dominant spirituality in the given
context? What spiritualities do the other agents involved practice?
I propose the praxis matrix as a framework which is particularly
suitable to complement Niebuhr's model from Christ and Culture.
I contend the praxis matrix can be very helpful for several reasons.
First of all, it is a versatile hermeneutic device as it represents not
only an academic research tool, but also a model of practical work for
transformation in a given context. On this point, Kritzinger and Saay-
man say: "This matrix can be used to mobilise a group of committed
Christians to together for transformation in their context, but also
to explore the transformational praxis (tl^ory-and-practice) of another
person and group."™ In addition, the praxis matrix allows for consid-
ering foe experience of both individuals and communities as, again,
foe cited passage clearly shows. In this regard, it could serve particu-
larly well to fill a lacuna in Niebuhr's model which, as we have shown
above, almost completely disregards foe communal (ecclesial) aspect
of the relationship between Christians and culture. Furthermore, foe
praxis matrix enables not only foe research of other individuals and
communities, but is also suitable for self-exploration.
However, there are also other arguments in support of this model.
The praxis matrix conceives of the relationship between foe Chris-
tian(s) and culture dynamically, taking into consideration the fact that
the former at foe same time transforms and is transformed by foe latter.
In other words, such a relationship always entails a dynamic process
of mutual transformation, and the praxis matrix provides a hermeneu-
tic tool which can deal with the complexity of this process adequately.
Moreover, it gives serious attention to a multiplicity of dimensions,
Da vid j . Bosch ,
NIEBUHRSTYPOLOGY RECONSIDERED READINGCHRIST AND CULTURE THROUGH THE LENSES
thus underfilling the necessity to consider seriously the complexities
of human - and particularly Christian-relationship to culture Never-
theless, this multiplicity IS approached through a series of well-focused
and specific steps. As a result, the approach to the "enduring prob-
lem" by way of the praxis matrix discourages vague answers, but l'athei
strives to offer a clear and concrete picture which can, at the same time,
be comprehensive as It allows for a plurality of perspectives.
Let us now consider one particular example of how the use of
the praxis matrix can complement an analysis provided by Niebuhr's
model. In order to show that Niebuhr's types are still helpful, espe-
cially if understood in terms of simultaneously present dominant and
subservient motifs, Marsden takes the case of fundamentalist / post-
fundamentalist evangelicalism in the us context.^ As for Niebuhr
himself, he unhesitantly assigned "Fundamentalism" to Type II due
to Its "greater concern for conserving the cosmological and biological
notions of older cultures than for the Lordship of Jesus Christ"^, while
disregarding the obvious countercultural stance of these Christians on
many issues. Marsden, on the contrary, argues that all five motifs
are to be found in fundamentalism to a greater or lesser degree On
various occasions, fundamentalists thus not only blend American patri-
otism or even nationalism with "the cause of Christ" (Type II), but also
often radically oppose many dimensions of contemporary American
culture (Type I), christen their fundamentally entrepreneurial lifestyle
and worldview (Type III), strictly distinguish spiritual issues from
"worldly" ones (Type IV), and try to transform their culture and society
using various means, including political ones (Type ٧) 73
Although Marsden does not explicitly refer to the SIX categories
elaborated by Yeager on the basis ofNiebuhr's own analysis, his obser-
vations are very much in that line. For instance, when Marsden points
out that fundamentalists often interpret America as either New Israel
or New Babylon (or both at foe same time, depending on their frame
of reference), he IS focusing on what Yeager defines as views of his-
tory Similarly, Marsden's remarks on fundamentalists' efforts to add
spiritual dimensions to foe "business IS business" attitude belong to
Chr ist and Cult ure
PAVOLBARGÁR
the category of nature and grace. The remaining categories can be
helpfully employed to provide additional insights on Marsden's case.
For example, the category of reason and revelation might shed more
light on the dialectics between fandamentalists' insistence on the Bible
being the sole source of authority and their (c)overt rationalism with
regard to more mundane matters, such as business, suggesting an affil-
iation of fundamentalist Christianity with Type IV, or possibly Type
I. Likewise, the category of law and gospel can be explored with
respect to fundamentalists' stance on various dimensions of culture,
including politics and lawmaking.
Let us now read Niebuhr's typology through the lenses of the praxis
matrix to pursue a more detailed and concrete analysis of ^ r s d en 's
case. In particular, considering the dimension of agency can help
understand the identity of fandamentalists vis-à-vis other individu-
als/groups within the American society. Exploring the aspect of con-
textual understanding makes one more sensitive to religious, social,
economic and political factors which influence both fandamentalists
themselves and the society in which they live. Ecclésial scrutiny,
in turn, shows not only how fundamentalists view church, but also
what their relationship is to other Christian (and, for that matter, non-
Christian) communities in the common pursuit of missio Dei. Simi-
larly, the dimension of interpreting the tradition offers a closer look
at hermeneutical/exegetical and theological endeavours undertaken by
fundamentalists in their specific contexts. While the "discernment
for action" dimension explores both strategies and particular projects
through which fundamentalists strive to implement their ideas and
visions regarding the relationship between the gospel and culture, the
aspect of reflexivity seeks to attain a certain meta-level by considering
fundamentalists' own reflections on their experiences, achievements
and/or failures. Finally, the dimension of spirituality tries to investigate
the very root and source of their faith which motivates their thoughts
and actions vis-à-vis cultural trends in the American society.
It has now hopefully become clear that Niebuhr's model is helpful
in identifying core theological issues and basic frames or reference,
while the complementary use of the praxis matrix informs a detailed
analysis of particular contexts in an effort to explore various modes of
between Christians and
NIEBUHRSTYPOLOGY RECONSIDERED READINGCHRIST AND CULTURE THROUGH THE LENSES
In her famous study Kathryn Tanner interprets Niebuhr's ،;oneern !n
Christ and Culture a^ a "worry about Christianity's simple submersion
in the culture of the day and about the loss thereby of the distinc-
tiveness of Its message."™ Based on this conclusion Tanner identifies
a major task of the theologian as "to determine the shape theology
should take in light of historical developments in the modern West so
as to further Christianity's positive contribution to the future ofWest-
ern culture."^ While Tanner'؟ as؟e؟؟ment ofNiebuhr's contribution IS
admittedly one-sided and her Eurocentric focus IS simply striking and
hardly adequate for the present era ofWorld Christianity, she points out
an important and still valid contribution Niebuhr makes to the theology
of culture-
As we have seen above, Gordon Eynch perceives this issue simi-
larly, albeit his assessment IS somewhat more critical than Tanner's
"Niebuhr's typology IS very useful in identifying core issues and dif-
ferent perspectives in the theology of culture, but It IS of limited use
however ص helping us to think in detail about how a dialogue between
theological norms and popular culture might be conducted."™ Conse-
quently. Lynch introduces a scheme through which Niebuhr's model
"can usefully be supplemented by an understanding of four different
ways m which a dialogue between theological tradition and popular
culture might be conducted."™
The present article has pursued a similar objective It took the posi-
tion that Niebuhr's typology IS, despite ample criticisms which ought
to be taken with the utmost seriousness, still useful and suggestive. In
the words of George Marsden, Niebuhr's categories which aim to grasp
and make sense of the plurality of Christian responses to the "world"
can be "saved".78
T heor ies of Cu ltur e A N ew Ag end afor The ology
T heories ofC ultu re,
Understan ding T heol ogy and Popu lar C ultu re
Unde rstan ding Theo logy a nd Pop ula r C ulture ,
PAVOLBARGÁR
Nevertheless, It requires ه rigorous reconsideration and a creative
approach. Such an endeavour then entails different steps and strate-
gies. In this article two of them were ^ ticularly emphasized. First,
Niebuhr's model is not to be perceived as a taxonomy of clear-cut
and mutually exclusive categories, but rather as a dynamic interplay
of dominant and subservient motifs. In practice it means that individ-
ual Christians ٠٢ Christian communities do not unambiguously belong
to a single category only, but to a various degree show traits of different
types at the same time.
Second, this paper has argued that culture is not to be understood
as a monolithic and self-enclosed entity, existing alongside other such
entities. Instead, it has pleaded for an understanding which con-
ceives of culture as a plurality of divergent, overlapping, and at times
even conflicting orientations, perspectives, and affiliations. One then
belongs to and lives within a multiverse of culture, constantly crossing
the imaginary boundaries.
It is clear that these observations need to have an impact on the
way in which one employs Niebuhr's model. I agree with Lynch
that Niebuhr's typology remains to be a preeminent method to iden-
tify core issues and perspectives, especially if sharpened by additional
categories which Niebuhr implied, and Yeager and Ottati further elab-
orated in a more explicit way. However, one also needs to take
seriously Lynch's objection that Niebuhr's model is less helpful in
pursuing detailed research into particular ways in which Christians
relate to culture. The argument and contribution of this article has
been that Niebuhr's model can be complemented by using the praxis
matrix as a hermeneutic device which enables a more comprehen-
sive and nuanced understanding of the relationship of Christians to
and engagement with their particular culture. Such an approach can
help address and possibly resolve some of the criticisms that Niebuhr's
models have been charged with. In particular, the following issues
can be mentioned. First, the use of the praxis matrix as a comple-
mentary analytical tool can correct the vagueness of the concept of
transformation that Niebuhr's model is prone to by exploring primar-
ily (but not exclusively) the dimensions of discernment for action,
contextual understanding, agency, and reflexivity in detail. Second,
the praxis matrix is capable of overcoming the individualistic bias of
NIEBUHRSTYPOLOGY RECONSIDERED READINGCHRIST AND CULTURE THROUGH THE LENSES
Niebuhr's model as It allows for an analysis foeused on communal
aspects ot the researched subject Third, the comprehensive frame-
work of the praxis matrix has a potential to deepen what has been
viewed by some as Niebuhr's inadequate Christology. Christological
issues can be fruitfully addressed through the lenses of (again, primar-
lly but not exclusively) the dimensions of interpreting the tradition,
ecclesial scrutiny, spirituality, agency, and reflexivity. And with refer-
ence to Wijsen's insights discussed above, one can add that, fourth, the
approach introduced m this paper revises and sharpens the admittedly
vague concept of culture as maintained by Niebuhr.
In an effort analogous to those of Lynch and Tanner, then, the present
article has sought to establish and introduce a hermeneutical frame-
work for a theology of culture which would draw upon foe strengths of
Niebuhr's model that remains relevant even today, while, at foe same
time, overcoming Its weaknesses It was furthei argued that foe praxis
matrix, being a versatile hermeneutical tool and taking a dynamic inter-
play between various dimensions into account, represents a suitable
method to complement Niebuhr's model in pursuing a theology of cul-
ture which might be of interest for a number of reasons First, tt IS
contextually relevant as the praxis matrix with Its focus on various
dimensions, such as agency, tradition, church community, reflexiv-
lty or spirituality, considers pop ularities and complexities of a given
context with utmost seriousness Second, thanks to a variety ot angles
and perspectives from which the praxis matrix pursues Its explorations.
It IS flexible to focus on various issues. Such a theology of culture can
thus embrace Niebuhr's all-inclusive notion of culture without having
to compromise clarity and concreteness in Its analysis and conclusions.
And third, tt IS ecumenically open in Its constructively critical approach
towards any and all Christian traditions and communities.
The proposal presented in this paper has potentially relevant impli-
cations for Christian theology today. First of all, as Christianity IS
increasingly emerging as a truly world religion, and not merely one of
European provenience imported globally, such approaches are needed
that would take into serious consideration multiple perspectives and
traditions as well as their manifold encounters of different kinds. The
approach I have introduced has foe potential to stand up to this expec-
tation. Moreover, tt can be helpful for theological reflection due to Its
PAVOLBABGÄB
emphasis on both traditional loci theologici, as maintained by Niebuhr
in his typology (reason and revelation, sin and the good, law and
gospel, and nature and grace) and his more recent interpreters such as
Yeager and Ottati (views of history, and church and world), and contex-
tual explorations pursued by the praxis matrix. Furthermore, with its
emphasis on both rigorous analysis and praxis (theory-and-practice),
this approach strives to bridge the gap between the academic world and
the grassroots - admittedly one of the ma)or challenges Christianity
needs to face today.
In conclusion it can, therefore, be said that Niebuhr's model is still
useful today, especially if complemented by stimulating and construe-
tive hermeneutical methods such as the praxis matrix. It can then seek
to establish a framework for a theology of culture which will make
a relevant and constructive contribution "to interpreting and crit^uing
cultural values and practices"^ from a Christian perspective, ٠ ٢ - in
Niebuhr's words - to giving ever more ade^ate answers to foe "endur-
ing problem" of the relationship between Christians and
This paper revisits the famous typology outlining possi-
ble relationships of Christians to culture, as outlined by H. Richard
Niebuhr in his Christ ﺲﺤﻣ Culture. It seeks to draw upon some partie-
ular insights from the critical discussion in order to propose a con-
structive application of Niebuhr's categories in today's theology of
culture. Contending that Niebuhr's typology is best understood in
terms of mutually non-exclusive motifs and that culture is to be per-
ceived as a web of multiple perspectives and orientations, the article
argues for the use of foe so-called praxis matrix as a complementary
method which enables one to get a more comprehensive and nuanced
understanding of Christians' relationship to and engagement with their
particular culture(s). As such, it aims to establish a hermeneutical
framework for a theology of culture which would be contextually rele-
open, and flexible to deal with various
Keywords: H. Richard Niebuhr - Christ and Culture - Christianity ·
culture ־ praxis matrix - theology of culture
U nderst andin g T heol ogy and Popular Cu lture
Copyright and Use:
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions of tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia؛ funding from Liiiy Endowment !) .
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property ofthe American
Theological Library Association.
-
![Pavol Bargar]()
This article argues that narrativity has the potential to be a key hermeneutical concept in ecumenical theology. Instead of pursuing a complex elaboration of the notion, it will seek to explore various aspects of narrativity. The thesis will be explicated in three major steps, consecutively discussing culture as the general setting of narrativity, explicating narrativity as a concept that can helpfully address some of the major issues in ecumenical theology and proposing transformation as the ultimate horizon of the faith and practice of the Christian koinonia.
-
![Darryl Trimiew]()
Christ and Culture remains a useful heuristic device for discerning and interpreting the process of struggle and change produced by the attempts of the church to minister to the world. It is also helpful for ecclesial self-evaluations. While its typologies are conceptually imperfect, they can be used, nevertheless, to disclose important changes in society and within denominations. These attributes can and do help to facilitate the African American church's ongoing liberation efforts and therefore, hopefully, the flourishing of African American communities.
- D.M. Yeager
Accepting James Gustafson's recent argument that right reading and valid criticism of H. R. Niebuhr's Christ and Culture must begin with an informed understanding of Niebuhr's utilization of the ideal-typical method, the author reviews characteristics of Weberian typologies and discusses the levels of criticism to which typologies are legitimately subject. Right appreciation of the text's genre exposes many criticisms of Christ and Culture to be misguided, but it also throws into relief those features of the text that cannot be accounted for by that method, revealing the complexity of a text that advances both a comparative descriptive analysis and a bold theological argument. Recognition of this tension prompts the question whether the one so compromises or constrains the other that the enterprise does, indeed, fail as a whole, even though it remains intensely interesting in all its parts.
- Glen H. Stassen
In The Kingdom of God in America, H. Richard Niebuhr argued that three dimensions are crucial for transformative faith: the sovereignty of God over all; the independence of the living God from captivity to human ideologies or institutions; and a revolutionary strategy with particular normative content from God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Without the historically particular content of the way of Jesus, Christian faith has a vacuum only too eagerly filled by alien ideologies. Hence Niebuhr begins Christ and Culture with a historically particular and concrete understanding of the way of Jesus Christ, and evaluates the five types with this three-dimensional standard. The puzzle is that the farther the book goes, the thinner Jesus becomes, until the concluding chapter backs off from evaluation. Niebuhr moved back to his more Christocentric ethics before he died, and thus recovered his prophetic edge. To learn from Niebuhr's history and teach a transformative faith not accommodated to ideologies of injustice, ethics needs to recover a thicker Jesus. Helpful resources are emerging from which Christian ethicists can draw rich help: the third quest of the historical Jesus, new exegetical and canonical approaches, the new emphasis on normative practices, historically situated narrative ethics, and some models by Christian ethicists, all of which point to a thicker, richer, historically particular way of Jesus in the prophetic tradition of Israel.
- Douglas F. Ottati
This essay argues that H. Richard Niebuhr's classic book, Christ and Culture, is best understood as a typology of moral theologies. Each of Niebuhr's five types may be regarded as a patterned resolution of four theological relations: reason and revelation, God and world, sin and goodness, and law and gospel. Many of his evaluative comments reflect his preference for what he calls a transformationist or conversionist pattern. However, it is not difficult to imagine evaluative comments on the several types, including the transformationist one, made from the perspective of a different preferred resolution of the four theological relations. Moreover, Niebuhr's scheme remains useful for analyzing more recent texts in theological ethics, such as Gustavo Gutierrez's A Theology of Liberation. Thus, while the book is not without its flaws and while readers may wish to enter some emendations and revisions, Christ and Culture is still worth reading because the categories it presents for analyzing moral theologies remain unsurpassed in their richness, usefulness, and suggestiveness.
- John P. Burgess
WESTERN SCHOLARS HAVE POINTED OUT BOTH THE USEFULNESS AND limitations of H. Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture. This essay relates Niebuhr's five types to discussions of church and culture in contemporary Russian Orthodoxy. I propose a sixth type, Christ in culture, that best illuminates the Church's current program of votserkovlenie ("in-churching").To its Russian representatives, "Christ in culture" enabled the Christian faith to survive communist efforts to destroy the Church, and this cultural legacy continues to define Russia's national identity today. The Church's task, therefore, is not to convert Russians but rather to call them back to their historic self-understanding by means of historical commemoration, religious education, and social outreach. The essay critically evaluates this program of in-churching and the possibilities of a Christ-in-culture type for understanding distinctive features of historically Christian cultures in both East and West.
Posted by: rodgerdepontee06909.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282654252_Niebuhr's_Typology_Reconsidered_Reading_Christ_and_Culture_through_the_Lenses_of_the_Praxis_Matrix
Posting Komentar untuk "Christ And Culture Niebuhr Pdf Download"