The Theology of the Relationship Between Christianity and Secular Culture
The Theology of the Relationship Between Christianity and Secular Culture
Theology is undertaken in a context – that of culture at large. The word “culture” is not especially easy to define. In his work Christianity and Civilization (1948), the Swiss theologian Emil Brunner defined culture as “the materialization of meaning.” A study of church history strongly suggests that the Christian church is engaged in a perennial struggle to clarify its relationship with culture. Where should Christians see themselves as located? Inside the culture? Or outside it? Should they ignore it? Or isolate themselves from it? Or should they try to transform it? And, more importantly, what is the theological basis for these attitudes? How does what people believe about the essence of the Christian gospel affect their attitudes toward culture?
While these debates have taken place throughout Christian history, they were of especial importance in the patristic period. One of the most important controversies in the early church concerned the extent to which Christians could appropriate the immense cultural legacy of the classical world – poetry, philosophy, and literature. In what way could the ars poetica (“the poetic art”) be adopted and adapted by Christian writers, anxious to use such classical modes of writing to expound and communicate their faith? Or was the very use of such a literary medium tantamount to compromising the essentials of the Christian faith? Should Christianity turn its back on the classical heritage or appropriate it, even if in a modified form? In view of its importance and interest, we shall cite extensively from some of the most important writings offered as contributions to this debate.
Justin Martyr (c.100–c.165)
One early answer to this important question was given by Justin Martyr, a second-century writer with a particular concern to exploit the parallels between Christianity and Platonism as a means of communicating the gospel. For Justin, the seeds of divine wisdom had been sown throughout the world, which meant that Christians could and should expect to find aspects of the gospel reflected outside the church. For Justin, Christians were therefore at liberty to draw upon classical culture, in the knowledge that whatever “has been said well” ultimately draws upon divine wisdom and insight.
Important though Justin's argument may have been, it received a somewhat frosty reception in most sections of the Christian church. The main difficulty was that it was seen to virtually equate Christianity with classical culture by failing to articulate adequate grounds for distinguishing them, apparently suggesting that Christian theology and Platonism were simply different ways of viewing the same divine realities. Justin's pupil Tatian (c.120–c.180) was skeptical concerning the merits of classical rhetoric and poetry, both of which he regarded as encouraging deception and a disregard for matters of truth.
Tertullian (c.160–c.220)
The most severe criticism of this kind of approach was to be found in the writings of Tertullian, a third-century Roman lawyer who converted to Christianity. What, he asked, has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What relevance has the Platonic Academy for the church? The manner in which the question is posed makes Tertullian's answer clear: Christianity must maintain its distinctive identity by avoiding such secular influences. This wholesale rejection of every aspect of pagan culture had the advantage of being simple to understand. Christianity, according to Tertullian, was basically a countercultural movement which refused to allow itself to be contaminated in any way by the mental or moral environment in which it took root.
Yet there were difficulties with this consistently negative approach. It seemed to deny Christians access to or use of any of the intellectual and cultural heritage of the classical era even for the thoroughly laudable purpose of preaching of the gospel. Many early Christian writers studied classical rhetoric as a means of improving their preaching and writing, and thus facilitated the communication of the faith to those outside the church. Was Tertullian excluding this?
The matter became of greater significance with the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine (272–337; reigned 306–37), which opened the way to a much more positive evaluation of the relation of every aspect of Christian life and thought to classical culture. In view of the importance of this development, we need to explore the background to it in a little detail. Since it had first established a significant presence at Rome in the fifth decade ad, Christianity had had a decidedly ambiguous legal status. On the one hand, it was not legally recognized and so did not enjoy any special rights; on the other, it was not forbidden. However, its growing numerical strength led to periodic attempts to suppress it by force. Sometimes these persecutions were local, restricted to regions such as North Africa; sometimes they were sanctioned throughout the Roman empire as a whole.
Under such conditions, it is hardly surprising that many Christians felt negatively toward classical Roman culture. This was the culture of an oppressor, determined to eliminate Christianity. It was easy to see the force of Tertullian's arguments under these circumstances. To adopt Roman cultural norms could be seen as a betrayal of the Christian faith.
With the conversion of Constantine in 313, the issue of the interaction of Christianity and classical culture assumed a new significance. Rome was now the servant of the gospel; might not the same be true of its culture? If the Roman state could be viewed positively by Christians, why not also its cultural heritage? It seemed as if a door had opened upon some very interesting possibilities. Prior to 313, this situation could only have been dreamed of. After 313, its exploration became a matter of urgency for leading Christian thinkers.
Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
Augustine of Hippo developed an approach which is best described as the “critical appropriation of classical culture.” For Augustine, the situation was comparable to the people of Israel fleeing from captivity in Egypt at the time of the Exodus. Although they left the idols of Egypt behind them, they carried the gold and silver of Egypt with them, in order to make better and proper use of such riches, which were thus liberated in order to serve a higher purpose than before. In much the same way, the philosophy and culture of the ancient world could be appropriated by Christians, where this seemed right, and thus allowed to serve the cause of the Christian faith. Augustine clinched his argument by pointing out how several recent distinguished Christians had made use of classical wisdom in advancing the gospel:
Figure 5.1 Augustine of Hippo (354–430).
Source: The Art Archive / Museo Civico San Gimignano / Gianni Dagli Orti.
If those who are called philosophers, particularly the Platonists, have said anything which is true and consistent with our faith, we must not reject it, but claim it for our own use, in the knowledge that they possess it unlawfully. The Egyptians possessed idols and heavy burdens, which the children of Israel hated and from which they fled; however, they also possessed vessels of gold and silver and clothes which our forebears, in leaving Egypt, took for themselves in secret, intending to use them in a better manner [Exodus 3: 21–2; 12: 35–6]. [...] In the same way, pagan learning is not entirely made up of false teachings and superstitions. [...] It contains also some excellent teachings, well suited to be used by truth, and excellent moral values. Indeed, some truths are even found among them which relate to the worship of the one God. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and their silver, which they did not invent themselves, but which they dug out of the mines of the providence of God, which are scattered throughout the world, yet which are improperly and unlawfully prostituted to the worship of demons. The Christian, therefore, can separate these truths from their unfortunate associations, take them away, and put them to their proper use for the proclamation of the gospel.
The fundamental theme is that of taking a way of thinking – or writing, or speaking – which had hitherto been put to pagan use and liberating it so that it might be put to the service of the gospel. Augustine argues that what are essential, neutral, yet valuable ways of thinking or self-expression have been quarried in “the mines of the providence of God”; the difficulty is the use to which they were put within pagan culture, in that they had been “improperly and unlawfully prostituted to the worship of demons.”
Augustine's approach thus laid the foundation for the assertion that whatever was good, true, or beautiful could be used in the service of the gospel. It was this approach that would prove dominant in the western church, providing a theological foundation for the critical appropriation by Christian writers of literary genres whose origins lay outside the church. In addition to literary forms already known within the church, and widely recognized as entirely appropriate in Christian usage – such as the sermon and the biblical commentary – might be added others, whose cultural pedigree was thoroughly secular. Examples would include drama and – to anticipate a later development – the novel.
The scene was thus set for the creative interaction of Christian theology, liturgy, and spirituality with the cultural tradition of the ancient world – unquestionably one of the most interesting and fertile examples of cultural cross-fertilization in human intellectual history.
The Twentieth Century: H. Richard Niebuhr (1894–1962)
As noted earlier, theologians have debated the relationship between Christianity and culture for the past two thousand years. In recent years, a theological framework developed by the American writer H. Richard Niebuhr has found wide acceptance as a useful tool for reflection on this issue. In his highly influential Christ and Culture (1951), Niebuhr set out five theological paradigms or frameworks. This book was originally based on lectures given at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Texas, in January and February 1949. These five paradigms are to be seen as “ideal types.” It is important to note that no individual person or group will conform to them exactly, and representatives of one type will often show characteristics of others. The five approaches identified by Niebuhr are the following:
Niehbuhr's approach has been criticized on many grounds. For a start, it is easy to think of other categories that need to be included. Liberation theology doesn't really fit into any of these five categories. Furthermore, Niehbuhr uses the word “culture” in a rather restrictive way, which fails to account for the fact that many Christians endorse some aspects of culture (e.g., social outreach and compassion) while rejecting others (e.g., pornography). This is not on account of an inconsistent attitude toward culture, but because culture is complex!
For Niebuhr, the importance of clarifying the theological relationship between faith and culture had been given new importance by the Second World War, which had only recently come to an end. Western culture has changed considerably since then, leading many theologians to wonder whether Niebuhr's five categories have now outlived their usefulness. Yet they are still widely cited in theological literature, and remain helpful – within limits! – in describing the main approaches to culture found within Christian theology.
In this chapter, we have explored a number of issues that are preparatory to engaging with the study of theology. The aim has been, in effect, to clear the ground a little, before we move on to deal with specific issues of substance relating to theology. We are now ready to move on to the next chapter, which considers the sources of Christian theology.