renew chapter summary

Chapter 3: The Christ of Culture

Helmut Richard Niebuhr (1951) presents one of the most ideological and theological works that has been used by many in the 20th century. “Christ and Culture” by Richard Niebuhr provides in-depth coverage and evaluation of the significant classification of the manner that Christians associated with the culture over the centuries. Today, when modern authors seek to relate to society and Christian life, they have to adopt Niebuhr’s work in the field. For this reason, the works presented by Richard Niebuhr regarding Christianity and culture is termed as the most relevant and essential theological piece. In chapter three of the book ‘Christ and Culture,’ Niebuhr points out a view of culture and Christianity, where he points out the relationship between Christian Truths and society. In this chapter, Niebuhr presents that Christians have chosen to exist faithfully following Christ’s guidelines as they respect the culture. The Christians have an agreement involving culture and Christ hence the chapter’s title, ‘The Christ of culture.’

(This was a strong introduction. The only other part I would add is a brief explanation of what you will be doing in this paper. It lets the reader know what to expect.)

From the Christ of Culture perspective, Richard Niebuhr explains his position by taking back the discussion to ancient Ritschl, Albrecht, Abelard, and Gnostics. All these agree on one thing, the fact that there is no tension existing between the world and the church. The idea of this commonality is based on the notion that Jesus fulfills society’s aspirations and hopes; hence there is no tension between society and Christ. (Missing Citation?) Niebuhr (1951) points out that “Christ is the great enlightener, the great teacher, the one who directs all men in culture to the attainment of wisdom, moral perfection, and peace” (P. 91). The author entirely explains the power that Jesus has when Christianity is related to society. As a teacher, a director of men, an agent of peace and morality, Jesus Christ is considered part of the community, which means that with culture in society being practiced, Christianity can also be practiced without significant compromise. Therefore, with culture and Christ, there is a clear and notable agreement or commonality. (Missing Citation?)

The author proceeds to explain that even though the society had powerful and elite groups in the civilization area, the focus on culture does not create disloyalty to the Christian truths. In other words, the existence of culture in the world does not mean that Christians cannot follow the ways of Christ. (Missing Citation?) Richard Niebuhr (1951) insists that culture and Christ can exist together as people’s lives in society are highly influenced and granted meaning by Jesus (Niebuhr, 1951). For this reason, culture and Christ have a commonality as they are separate facets that can co-exist without the other dragging the other. Moreover, the fact that Jesus Christ influences the aspirations and hopes of people in society agrees with culture and Christ evident. (Missing Citation?) In this sense, Richard Niebuhr presents a view that seeks to explain the agreement between Christians and society’s culture.

(You covered a lot of important aspects of this chapter. It would be good to say what some of the strengths and weaknesses are that Niebuhr pointed out in this approach.)

Personal Reflection

When reading and reviewing chapter 3, I learned a lot of things regarding the issue of society and Christianity. There are some facts that I agree with Niebuhr along with others that I do not find convincing. For example, Richard Niebuhr points out that culture and Christianity can exist without the compromise of either ideology (Niebuhr, 1951). I strongly disagree with Niebuhr due to some reasons. First, when culture and Christian Truths are made to co-exist, then one has to be compromised. As Niebuhr (1951) presents “They do not necessarily seek Christian sanction for the whole of prevailing culture, but only for what they regard as real in the actual; in the case of Christ they try to disentangle the rational and abiding from the historical and accidental” (P. 84). In this case, Christian Truth may be compromised to ensure that culture is accommodated when both aspects are linked together historically or accidentally. For this reason, whenever there are culture and Christ practice, then Christianity is, to some extent, compromised for the sake of culture in society. Another reason I disagree with Niebuhr’s point of view is that not all people that practice culture in society will agree to conform to Christian ways.

Secondly, Niebuhr presents that culture and Christ are in agreement due to the influence that Christ has on the society and its people. I agree with Niebuhr on this point regarding Jesus Christ’s impact on culture and society as a whole. In the community, people firmly believe that praying to Jesus Christ will help them in achieving that which they wish to achieve. As the Niebuhr (1951) points out, Christ helps fulfill people’s aspirations and hopes, making society dependent on Christ. “Hence the great work of Christ may be conceived as the training of men in their present social existence for the better life to come; often he is regarded as the great educator, sometimes as the great philosopher or reformer” (P. 103). In other words, people’s culture significantly relies on the power of Christ for regular and continuous prosperity. In this case, it is logical to state that society’s expectations on Jesus Christ bring about a connection involving culture and Christ. Additionally, the author also describes Jesus as an agent of peace and morals, along with direction for men (Niebuhr, 1951). These terms describe the fact that culture and Christ have some commonality, including the desire for peace in society and the existence of morals that are associated with Christian Truths.

In summary, I agree with Richard Niebuhr’s works, and details regarding the commonality observed between culture and Christ. In my view, Chapter 3, ‘The Christ of Culture,’ points out the fact that cultural expressions in the society are significantly accepted without criticism and deemed as desirable in two distinct dimensions. First, when it is on a theoretical basis, Christian truth and culture do not display any form of misunderstanding or conflict. In other words, Christian truths and cultural expressions do not conflict with each other when presented in theory. However, the case is different when the two aspects are connected in practice. When culture and Christianity are practiced, Christian truths have to be compromised in a way to ensure that culture is accommodated. These perspectives of theory and practice are pointed out from liberal Protestantism and Gnosticism, all of which Richard Niebuhr cited in his works. Therefore, it is of the essence to understand that culture and Christianity can have some commonality in theory, and some compromise is required when both are practiced.

1

This was a very well written paper. You explained all of your conclusions in a clear and concise manner. Please see some of my comments throughout of where I thought the paper could be made a bit clearer and where there might have been some misunderstanding.

References

Niebuhr, H. R. (1951). The Christ of Culture. In Christ and culture (pp. 83–108). Harper & Row: Harper Colophon Books.