How does Christianity relate to culture?
The study of world Christianity begins with the basic premise that Christianity is, and from its
very inception has been, a cross cultural and diverse religion with no single dominant expression.
Throughout history, all Christians have lived in specific cultural contexts, which they have, to
varying degrees, embraced and rejected. Regardless of a positive or negative attitude toward
their surrounding culture, all Christians must respond to their surrounding context. It is in
Christians of many and various responses that Christianity gains its unique multi-cultural and
polyvocal texture as a world religion.
Those Christians who embrace surrounding cultures use indigenous language, music, art forms,
and rituals as potent resources for their own ends. Christians have a history of taking that which
is not Christian, and then filling it with Christian meaning. There are classic examples of this:
Christians inherited Roman vestments and German Christmas trees. Yet even at a more basic
level, Christians borrow pre-Christian languages and use them for Christian ends. Jesus did not
speak Greek, Latin, or English, yet each of those languages has been used to tell his story and
teach his message. As Christianity continues to find a home in new cultural settings, Christians
continue to borrow new languages and cultures to tell the story of Jesus.
For those Christians who take a more guarded approach to surrounding cultures, their message
will be one of caution. Nevertheless, reaction against culture can be as powerful for identity
formation as would be accepting culture. Thus, Christians throughout time have taken stands
against alcohol, polygamy, divorce, abortion, and a myriad of other issues.
Naturally, the fact that Christianity is polygonal and multicultural leads to many different
answers vis-à-vis culture. Some Christians might reject a certain practice while others gladly
accept it. Debates over ethics and practice are intrinsic to the multicultural nature of the Christian
religion. Thus, the Jesuits saw no harm in Chinese converts honoring their ancestor, while the
Domincans and Franciscans called it idolatry. Western missionaries in Africa were more often
than not solidly opposed to polygamy, while indigenous Church leaders were occasionally more
willing to entertain the possibility. In today’s world, the questions of gender and sexuality fuel
debates among Christians across cultural lines.
Yet this is not to say that Christianity lacks a core and is completely determined by surrounding
culture. On the contrary, at the center of World Christianity is a story. It is the story of the
relationship between God and the world, as told through the lens of Jesus Christ. The example,
influence, and reality of Jesus have provided a touch point for all Christian traditions.
Generations of Christians throughout the whole world have been consumed by the question,
“who is Jesus?” And also “what does his life mean for us?” Christians across cultural lines also
share various rituals—baptism, the Lord’s Supper, gathering for worship, and the reading of and
reflection on scripture.
Thus, the study of world Christianity asks what it is that makes Christians unique as individual
groups and coherent as a whole. It seeks to understand the cause of division and conflict both
within the Christian community and also with the wider world. As Christians become
increasingly aware of their cultural differences, the study of World Christianity will provide tools
for navigating the diversity. It will also, hopefully, provide a space and a platform for discussing
our differences and finding a common ground.
Why “faith and culture”? Do they go together? Can they be separated? Can faith exist without
culture? Can culture exist without faith? These questions are at the heart of the new Faith &
Culture initiative at the Augustine Institute of which I am honoured to be at the helm.
And yet Faith & Culture is not simply about such questions but about the answers to such
questions. Let’s begin, therefore, with the answering of these axiomatic questions.
In the broadest sense of the word, faith and culture are inextricably connected because a culture
is always an expression of the faith which informs it. If a culture is animated by a belief in the
triune splendour of the good, the true, and the beautiful, it will shine forth goodness, truth,5and
beauty. If it is animated by a nihilistic denial of these transcendental foundations it will manifest
only viciousness, falsehood, and ugliness. In the former case, the culture cultivates healthy
growth in good things; in the latter case it cultivates nothing and destroys everything. The former
finds in the faithful fruits of the tree of tradition the seeds of new and renewed cultural
expression; the latter pulls the tree of tradition up by the roots, casting its fruit aside, leaving in
its place a desert wasteland of deconstructed despair, barren and fruitless, capable of nothing but
the sterile sneer of the cynic. The choice is ultimately between faith and culture or the absence of
faith and therefore, and in consequence, the absence of culture also. There is no middle path.
As the foregoing illustrates, any renewal of faith cannot be separated from a renewal of culture,
and vice versa. In fact, to put the matter more correctly and accurately, no renewal of faith is
even possible without a renewal of culture. If we do not give the present generation the fruits of
the tree of cultural tradition, we will leave them malnourished and unable to bear faithful and
fruitful witness, and unable to sustain the life of faith within their culture-starved spirit.
On the deepest level, the tree of cultural tradition it is not merely a tree but is the very Tree of
Life, which is to say that it is inseparable from the God who gives it life.
Switching metaphors, we can see cultural tradition as the fruits of the marriage between Christ
and His Church. Prior to the coming of Christ, the Bridegroom, we can see the marriage being
prepared in the theology and history of the Jews, and in the philosophy and literature of the
Greeks. In the Old Covenant of the people of Israel, in the moral and metaphysical musings of
the Greek poets, and in the love of wisdom of the sages of Athens, we see the preparation of a
virgin culture for the wedding feast. With the coming of Christ, the Bride becomes one flesh with
the Bridegroom, united in His Mystical Body. Thereafter, the fruits of genuine culture can be
seen as the children of that mystical marriage.
The saints are, of course, children of that marriage but so, too, are the great works of civilization.
Even as the New Testament baptizes the Old Testament, so Boethius and Augustine baptize
Plato, and Thomas Aquinas baptizes Aristotle. Dante baptizes Homer and Virgil, and
Shakespeare baptizes Sophocles. This is the bona fide tree of cultural tradition, the family tree
descending genealogically from the marriage of Christ and His Church.
At this point we might hear a dissident and dissonant voice, crying in the wilderness or the
wasteland, claiming that we have forgotten those great works which are not Catholic or perhaps
not even Christian. Are we suggesting that such works do not possess any cultural worth? This
voice, which is the devil’s or at least one of his advocates, does not know from whence the
springs of cultural life have their source. Any work of culture which shines forth the goodness,
truth,5and beauty of Triune reality is shining forth the truth of Christ and His Church, even if its
author is unaware of the fact. Thus the works of Homer and Sophocles prefigure Christian
literature insofar as they are asking the right questions and coming to at least some of the right
answers in their engagement with the great moral and metaphysical questions. Such works
express the desire of the virgin for the coming of the Bridegroom.
Modern works, inspired or influenced by secular humanism, can be likened to the divorcee who
has deserted the Bridegroom and wandered off into the dark wood of disenchantment. Such
works have value insofar as they reflect the virtues of the rejected Bridegroom, albeit
unknowingly, but they lose their cultural worth insofar as they succumb to the viciousness,
falsehood,5and ugliness of the Bridegroom’s real absence.
Returning to our original question, we can see and say that there is always culture whenever and
wherever there is faith, and there is nothing but the decay of culture whenever and wherever we
see the decay of faith.
Despite this, I believe that the phrase has become a useful theoretical frame for many of us
attempting to understand Christianity as she is. Let me try to explain. Since the publication of
David B. Barrett’s monumental World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of
Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900–2000&(OUP 1982), these two terms in
conjunction have assumed a conceptual significance that has deeply influenced our capacity to
notice, to some extent comprehend, and to talk about the demographic and sociological shifts
that have transformed the Christian religion over the past century.
The Christianity that has been around for two millennia is a religious phenomenon associated
initially with North Africa and the Mediterranean, then Europe and Northern Asia, and more
recently, North and South America. But as my colleague Todd Johnson points out in his book
Christianity in its Global Context 1970-2020: Society, Religion and Mission (Center for the
Study of Global Christianity 2013), the last fifty years have witnessed a substantial shift of
Christian numbers from the northern to the southern hemisphere of our planet. According to Pew
Research Religion and Public Life Project numbers published online in December 2012, one out
of every three persons worldwide self-identifies as “Christian.” 50% of these are Catholic; 37%
are Protestant; 12% are Orthodox; the rest are simply “other”.
But this redistribution represents much more than a mere headcount of believers! For most of its
existence, ecclesiastical entities in the northern hemisphere—Roman Catholic, Protestant,
Orthodox and so on—have exercised de facto proprietary control over the religion’s theological
content, liturgical practices and mission agendas. This is no longer the case. And the simple
phrase, “World Christianity”, is an acknowledgment of that fact.
The phrase has become the umbrella term reminding church historians, theologians, and
missiologists that Christianity is no longer an exclusive or even primarily Western phenomenon.
While Christianity recedes in its old heartlands, it thrives apace in Africa and Asia. 5Eleven years
ago Prof. Lamin Sanneh published Whose Religion Is Christianity? The Gospel Beyond the West
(Eerdmans 2003). The title of the evocative little book encapsulates, for me, what is meant by
“world Christianity.”
How Much of Our Christianity Is Influenced By American Culture?
On a recent episode of Trending Faith, Dean of the College of Theology Jason Hiles, PhD, began
the discussion by saying everyone, no matter where they come from, starts somewhere culturally.
From the greatest leaders to the best thinkers, we are all influenced by the society we are born
into. Even Jesus was influenced by culture during his time here on Earth.
He would use parables that presented the Kingdom of God based on things the people of the
culture knew and could identify with easily. The imagery used, like shepherds watching over
their flock, were commonplace for the time and still carry similar connotations for some people.
These parables provide many layers to represent our multilayered relationship with God and His
nature.
The same concept applies today, as we all look through a set of cultural lenses daily. These
lenses influence the way we see the world. However, when we look deeper, the foundations of
Christianity are not only cultural reflections.
“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave,
free; but Christ is all, and in all.” Colossians 3:11, ESV5
Our culture gives us a starting point to understand the world. However, it is by no means the end
of the story. No matter where we start it does not mean we will be defined by those influences
forever. We must press beyond our cultural influences and come to know Jesus on a personal
level, so we can understand his teachings and live in a way that is honorable to him.
Even though we have all come from different cultures and backgrounds, we must learn to listen
to Jesus above all else. As Christians, we are trying to come to know Jesus in a relational way.
His teachings transcend culture and worldly knowledge. The truth is not bound to how society
acts but to God Himself.
Different Ways of Expressing Belief
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for
you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28, ESV
Dean of Students and GCU Pastor Tim Griffin discussed how, when traveling to different parts
of the world and experiencing different cultures, one can see that God’s people express their faith
in different ways. It is easy for us to become accustomed to our way of doing things, but it is
important to realize things were done differently in the past and are done differently across
cultures. What matters most is following God’s will and accepting Jesus as the savior.
Ultimately, while there is a subjective dimension of the Christian faith, there is a distinctly
objective part that allows us to come to know God, the source of all goodness. While our
responses to the Creator of the universe may vary across time and various cultures, we all have
the opportunity to be in a personal relationship with Him.
In Every Square Inch, Dr. Bruce Riley Ashford surveys a variety of perspectives on the
relationship between Christianity and culture. According to Ashford, the conversation boils
down to these three main views:
1. Christianity against culture
This first perspective sees Christianity and culture as two opposing forces of influence. The
church stands on one side of the line, and culture on the other. Ashford says, “This is especially a
temptation for Americans who realize that their country is becoming increasingly post-Christian
—and in some ways, even anti-Christian. They realize that their beliefs on certain theological
and moral issues will increasingly be rejected and mocked by the political and cultural elite and
by many of their fellow citizens.”
Within this perspective, Ashford identifies two analogies to represent the perceived relationship
between Christianity and culture: “Some proponents of ‘Christianity against culture’ tend to
view the Church primarily as a bomb shelter.”
This stance transforms the church into a sanctuary, where people seek refuge from the spiritual
siege of the outside world.
Christians sometimes talk about trying to find the balance between immersing yourself in the
world and isolating yourself in a comfy little bubble.5This perspective has fully embraced the
bubble.
“Believers with this mentality have good intentions,” Ashford says. “They want to preserve the
Church’s purity, recognizing that the Church is under attack and that therefore we should hold
fast to the faith (Revelations 3:11). They know that there is a great battle being waged
(Ephesians 6), a battle that plays out both invisibly in the heavenly realm, and visibly in the
cultural realm.”
But these*man-made barriers*only create the illusion of safety from sin.
“[This] externalizes godlessness and treats it as something that can be kept out by man-made
walls, rather than understanding that godlessness is a disease of the soul that can never be walled
out.”
So what happens?
“This mindset tends toward legalism and tries to restrict Christians’ interactions with society and
culture,” Ashford says. “While it rightly recognizes that the Christian life involves war against
the powers of darkness, it wrongly tries to wage that war by escaping from the world. This obeys
only one half of Jesus’ admonition to be in the world, but not of it (John 17:14–16).”
The bubble of legalism can’t keep sin out of the Church, and it hides one of God’s most
useful tools—us.*
Ashford’s second analogy for this perspective takes a more confrontational approach to the
conflict.
“Other proponents of ‘Christianity against culture’ view the Church primarily as an
Ultimate Fighter.”
You can certainly find biblical support for a view that pits the Church in the ring against culture.
“Believers with this mentality are clinging to the biblical principle of waging war against what is
evil. They rightly recognize that we must put on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:11), fight
the good fight of faith (1 Timothy 6:12), resist the devil (James 4:7), and cast down anything that
exalts itself against God (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).”
That being said, Ashford believes this mindset still falls short—it’s too easy to see ourselves
fighting against people instead of sin. God uses the Church in his plan to rescue people, not
destroy them. Ashford says, “Our social and cultural contexts are full of unbelievers—but those
unbelievers are not only enemies of God, but also drowning people in need of a lifeboat. The
Church is not only a base for soldiers, but also a hospital for the sick.”
Here’s a different take on the fighting analogy: culture is actually beating people up. Left to their
own devices without God, people will take blow after blow—perhaps without even realizing that
it’s culture (and themselves) delivering the pain. The false promises, social norms, distorted
morality, and unchecked sin present in various cultures can all appear good to people without
God. But we know that God’s law is actually designed with love (Matthew 22:37–40). People
are fighting themselves, not the Church, and many of their wounds are self-inflicted.
The Church fights culture by continually pointing to the one who heals the brokenness.
2. Christianity of culture
The second view Ashford presents embraces culture and brings it into the Church.
“Those with a ‘Christianity of culture’ perspective tend to build churches that are mirrors
of the culture.”
Cultural shifts that happen independently of the Church aren’t always bad. Ashford says, “God
has enabled all people—Christian or not—to make good and valuable contributions in the
cultural realm.” The human rights movement and the abolition of slavery brought about
monumental positive changes. Looking back now, we can recognize that there were Christians
on both sides of these movements—some advocating them, and others resisting them. We can
agree that the Christians resisting these cultural shifts were in the wrong. But culture isn’t always
right, and the Church can’t mirror every move culture makes. Without God, culture raises up
idols in his place—celebrities, politicians, sex, wealth, power, and even productivity and
freedom.
Can the Church embrace culture without also embracing its idols?
Ashford says, “Christians with this mindset tend to view their cultural context in very high
esteem—perhaps disagreeing with aspects of it here and there, but for the most part finding it to
be an ally rather than a threat.” Generally, this view sees advances in culture as positive changes
the Church should embrace. While parts of Christianity can be defined in black and white,
culture often creates large gray areas. Different perspectives may identify the gray as black or
white. This perspective fully embraces the gray.
“Believers with this mentality rightly recognize that God ordered the world in such a way that
humans would make culture, and they rightly recognize that their culture exhibits real aspects of
truth, goodness, and beauty,” Ashford says. “However, this mentality is misguided because it
fails to sufficiently see the way in which every culture, and every aspect of culture, is corrupted
and distorted because of human sin.”
By becoming a reflection of culture, the Church can lose its position as a champion of a better
way to live. When Christians embrace the “gray areas,” the better way of life we offer can
become a gray area, too.
Ashford puts it this way, “When Christians adopt a ‘Christianity of culture’ mindset, they take
away Christianity’s ability to be a prophetic voice and usually end up sacrificing doctrines and
moral beliefs that run contrary to the cultural consensus.”
There are good intentions and can be positive fruits, but it may not ultimately be the best route
for the Church to take.
3. Christianity in and for culture
It’s no secret that Ashford believes this is the best way to view the relationship between church
and culture: “A third and better mindset is one that views human beings as representatives of
Christ who live their lives in the midst of and for the good of their cultural context, and whose
cultural lives are characterized by obedience and witness.”
Ashford doesn’t use a metaphor to describe this perspective, but here’s a common example you
might find helpful:
As Christians, we are Christ’s ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20)—we represent another
world, while we live in the midst of this one.
God created the structure that allows culture to exist, shift, and progress. As humans, we
formulate and shape that culture within God’s structure. “Every cultural context is structurally
good, but directionally corrupt,” Ashford says. “For this reason, we must live firmly in the midst
of our cultural contexts (structurally), all the while seeking to steer our cultural realities toward
Christ rather than toward idols (directionally).”
As ambassadors, we are fully immersed in the culture, but everything about us points back to the
one we serve. This doesn’t mean we agree with everything culture does, but we learn to
understand it and speak its language, identify its true desires—all with the intention of showing
how Christ is the only one who can correctly fulfill those well-meaning (though often misplaced)
desires.
Ashford says, “Every aspect of human life and culture is ripe for Christian witness. Every
dimension of culture, whether it is art, science, or politics, is an arena in which we can speak
about Christ with our lips and reflect him with our lives. We thank God for the existence of
culture and recognize whatever is good in it, while at the same time seeking to redirect whatever
is not good toward Christ.”
