M201 Essay

John Southwick 280 041

Title One
Does the 'pilgri principle' as enunciate! "y #n!rew $alls in his essay 'The %ospel
as &risoner an! 'i"erator o( )ulture' ean that )hristians shoul! a!opt what
*ie"uhr !escri"es as the +iew o( ')hrist against )ulture',
Before this question can be answered Niebuhr's and Walls' ideas of culture need to be
defined. Therefore defining what is meant by culture for both writers is the starting point to
the answering of the question. Walls' principle and Nieburhr's typology will then need to be
explained in detail before they can be compared and an answer given.
Niebuhr describes culture primarily as ' an artificial secondary environment which man
superimposes on the natural.'
!
"e describes this as a 'social heritage' and admits it is hard
to define the essence of it but it is possible to describe its characteristics. These include it
being always social# it always being to do with human achievement and it being a world of
values. Walls in his essay does not set out to define culture to the same degree as
Niebuhr but does agree with Niebuhr$s analysis in that he defines culture in societal terms.
Walls states that you cannot separate an individual from their social relationships and
therefore from their society. We are conditioned# that is taught to behave and thin% in
certain ways by society & our culture & and importantly in a particular time and place.
'

We can therefore see that when the term culture is being used by both writers they mean
the modern day anthropological definition.
(
Both agree that culture is social and learned
behaviour# it is human# non biological achievement#
)
but Walls also stresses that it is also
particular to a time and a place.
What is Walls *pilgrim principle$ in regards to culture as already described+ Walls in his
essay# describes the 'pilgrim principle' as the inevitable result of the transformation of the
,hristian to that of the mind of ,hrist. This transformation will ultimately put the ,hristian
at odds with certain parts of their natural culture. This will not mean the adoption of a new
! "- Niebuhr# Christ and Culture, New .or%/ "arper and Brothers 0ublishers# !12!# ('
' 34 5cherer# 5B Bevans# New Directions in Mission and Evangelism 3: Faith and Culture, 'The Gospel as risoner
and !i"erator o# Culture', New .or%/6rbis !111# '!
( 73 "esselgrave# Communicating Christ Cross Culturall$, 8rand -apids/ 9ondervan# !11!# !::
) ," ;raft# Christianit$ in Culture, New .or%/ 6rbis# !1<!# )=
!
natural culture# a new ,hristian culture but the adoption of what could be called a divine
supraculture
2
in addition to the ,hristian's natural culture. The values of ,hrist and
therefore of a ,hristian will naturally be in conflict with certain values in the ,hristian's
natural culture. This friction with the society in which they live will ma%e them a pilgrim in
that society.
=
This principle will also give the ,hristian continuity with the shared history of
all ,hristians throughout history and the history of the nation of >srael itself going bac% to
4braham. 7ue to the fact of this attachment# this adoptive past# to a people and things
outside the ,hristian$s natural culture the *pilgrim principle$ is a universalising factor for
every ,hristian.
?
"owever Walls does not envisage this principle in isolation. "e does not argue that this is
the entirety of the ,hristian$s cultural world view. 6ne that is primarily antagonistic to the
,hristian's natural culture. "is argument is that it does not happen in isolation but in
tension with the 'indigeni@ing principle'. Walls clarifies this by saying that the *indigeni@ing
principle$ is the very heart of the gospel & 8od welcomes us in the culture we are in#
whatever fractured or ungodly state that may be. "e does not wait to repair our ideas or
relationships within our culture any more than he waits to repair our behaviour before "e
accepts sinners into "is family.
<
Walls states this idea simply as *ma%ing the church feel
li%e home$.
1
While the divine supraculture is often in opposition to the ,hristian$s own
natural culture there is also the yearning of ,hristians to live as members of their natural
culture and society# to indigeni@e.
!:
>t allows each community to recognise that 8od#
through 5cripture is spea%ing to their own situation. This principle also means that no
group of ,hristians is able to impose any assumptions about life determined in their
society and in their particular time and place# including from our shared history# on any
other group of ,hristians in any other culture# time or place.
!!
These two principles must
be seen in tension with each other# never in isolation# %eeping each other in balance Thus
preventing either syncretisation to a particular culture# time or place A *ma%ing the faith feel
so at home in a certain cultural setting that no one else can live there$
!'
while also
2 73 "esselgrave# Communicating Christ Cross Culturall$, !:(
= 34 5cherer# 5B Bevans# New Directions in Mission and Evangelism 3: Faith and Culture, 'The Gospel as risoner
and !i"erator o# Culture', ''#'(
? >bid.# '(
< 34 5cherer# 5B Bevans# New Directions in Mission and Evangelism 3: Faith and Culture, 'The Gospel as risoner
and !i"erator o# Culture', '!
1 >bid.# '(
!: >bid.# '(
!! >bid.# '2
!' !' >bid.# '(
'
preventing alienation# disdain or separation from the ,hristian's culture and society. Walls
describes this as comparable to a dual nationality.
This brings us to Niebuhr$s *,hrist against ,ulture$ typology. Niebuhr describes this
attitude as one that asserts *the sole authority of ,hrist over the ,hristian and resolutely
reBects culture$s claims to loyalty.$
!(
Niebuhr bases this attitude upon an exposition of !
3ohn explaining that according to the epistle no one can be a member of the ,hristian
fellowship without at the same time confessing ,hrist as Cord and loving his brothers in
obedience to ,hrist. This positive affirmation he says is accompanied with an equally
powerful countermand. The *counterpart of loyalty to ,hrist and the brothers is reBection of
cultural society.$
!)
Niebuhr argues that this is due 3ohn$s use of the word *world$ in his
epistle and that 3ohn uses the word *world$ to mean the whole of society outside the
church. Niebuhr states that apart from two occasions D! 3ohn '/'# )/!)E this is always
3ohn$s meaning of the word in the epistle.
This world# this society and culture as quoted in ! 3ohn '/!2&!? is commanded not to be
loved or anything in it. >f it is then the love of the Father is not in the ,hristian. This world is
a *murderous as well as dying order$
!2
which is going to pass away and our entire loyalty is
therefore to the new order# *the new society and its Cord.$
!=
This is a negative and hostile
view of culture# that it is condemned# dying and entirely ungodly. Therefore it is to avoided
lest we be contaminated by it and it$s influence. This attitude is used by Niebuhr to define
his *,hrist against ,ulture$ typology. The outwor%ing of this command is a physical
separation from the natural culture and a disdain and antipathy to all of it. The typology
does not allow for any other attitude but that of all out war against the ,hristian's natural
culture in every time and in every place. Niebuhr gives examples from history of ,hristians
who adopted such a stance particularly highlighting Tetullian who thought sin primarily
dwelt in culture not nature
!?
and also Tolstoy at length.
5ince the definition of culture of both Walls and Niebuhr has now been examined# as has
their own expounding of their theories# the question may now be answered. Guite simply it
can be answered with an assured no. The reason for this is not the definition of what
!( "- Niebuhr# Christ and Culture, )2
!) >bid.# )?
!2 >bid.# )<
!= >bid.# )<
!? >bid.# 2'
(
culture is# which both Walls and Niebuhr broadly agree# but with the role of culture and a
,hristian$s response to their own culture. Niebur's typology is also entirely inflexible
whereas Walls' principles allow for a different approach in different cultures# times and
settings A a contextualised approach. 4t the same time it guards against the imposition of
answers from one community of ,hristians upon another# a one si@e fits all approach &
exactly what the Niebuhr typology see%s to do.
Niebuhr's typology rests on his definition of the word 'world#' the 8ree% word '%osmos' in !
3ohn. "owever this interpretation of the world is questionable. This word has different
nuances of meaning in 5cripture. This can be clearly seen with the comparison to its use
3ohn (/!= and ! 3ohn. The world in 3ohn (/!= means the whole human race# the pinnacle
of 8od$s creation
!<
. This human race with its culture has been given a cultural mandate,
8enesis !/'=&(:# by 8od.
!1
>t isn$t our duty to escape it but to remain in it Bust as 3esus
was sent into the world.
':
The ,hristian should be *unworldly not otherworldly#$
'!
in the
world but distinct from it. The 'world' in 3ohn is not inherently corrupt nor is it derived from
an evil principle# this is neither stated nor implied in ! 3ohn but it does tell us it is filled with
evil desires and systems.
''
This human race with its culture is the world that 8od loves so
much that he sends his 5on to save.
'(
"owever in ! 3ohn '/!2 the word is used in a
different sense# it does not mean people and their culture for neither can be separated
from the other# as in 3ohn (/!=# but means a wic%ed system organised under the dominion
of 5atan and not 8od.
')
This is the world to be hated the one which man%ind is organised
in rebellion against 8od.
'2
>t is the attraction of this world# of life lived in opposition to 8od
and its desires that 3ohn warns us against in verses != and !?. This does not mean we
hate the material world# which is morally neutral. Neither does it mean people in the
material world nor that we should separate ourselves from it or from contact with them.
'=
Therefore the ',hrist against ,ulture' typology rests on wrong Biblical exposition of ! 3ohn#
and therefore wrong Biblical interpretations of the role of culture and a ,hristian's
response to it. >n addition to this it is also logically incoherent. Niebuhr's motif for the
!< 7 3ac%man# The Message o# %ohn's !etters, Ceicester/ >nter&Harsity 0ress# !1<<# =:
!1 73 "esselgrave# Communicating Christ Cross Culturall$, !!<
': The &ol$ 'i"le, New (merican )tandard *ersion, 8rand -apids/ 9ondervan# '::'# 3ohn !?/!<
'! 3-W 5tott# The Epistles o# %ohn, Ceicester/ >nter&Harsity 0ress# !1<<# !::
'' - 5chnac%enburg# The %ohannine Epistles, ( Commentar$, ;ent/ Burns and 6ates# !11'# !'=
'( 7 3ac%man# The Message o# %ohn's !etters, =:
') 3-W 5tott# The Epistles o# %ohn, 11
'2 >" Iarshall# The Epistles o# %ohn, 8rand -apids/ Jerdmans 0ublishing ,ompany# !1?<# !)'
'= >did.#!)'
)
typology is that the ,hristian 'appeals to ,hrist as our sole authority over and against
culture.' "owever ,hrist is >ncarnate# "e is fully human as well as fully 8od. "e was
culture bound while on earth# "e was constrained to# inherited and contributed to culture#
to a social heritage. Therefore how can ,hrist be appealed to as a basis for reBecting
culture altogether+
'?
Niebuhr's all or nothing approach to culture is a spurious
dichotomy.
'<
Niebuhr recognises this# as he says a ,hristian can merely 'modify under
,hrist's authority A something which they have received through the mediation of
society.'
'1
5econdly he admits the ,hristians he cites as examples of this typology have
always made use of culture and customs which they ostensibly reBect.
(:
Therefore Niebuhr
sets up a typology whose ideal is unattainable and logically inconsistent. ,raig ,arter
argues that this is done by Niebuhr to caricature this position & Niebuhr's elevation of
Tolstoy as a prime example of this typology being an evidence of this
(!
& and devalue it in
order to to promote his own preferred view of the ',hrist transforming ,ulture'. This
typology Niebuhr though not actually stated as such is the ideal for a ,hristian to assume.
This favouritism ,arter claims is because of Niebuhr's ,hristendom mentality which
ma%es him favour this typology# listing it last in his boo% and offering no critique of it which
leads the reader to assume it is the most adequate one.
('
Walls description of the tension of the two principles is what could be described as a form
of contextualisation. This can be defined as communicating the gospel by comprehensible
means within the local cultural context# time and setting. This is often simply put as# 'What
does the 8ospel loo% li%e here+' 7arrell Whiteman mirrors the tension described by Walls
when he describes contextualisation as 'a fine balancing act between necessary
involvement in the culture# being in the situation and also maintaining an outside# critical
perspective that is also needed.'
((
The critical dimension# which Whiteman says should
offend# but for the right reasons# mirrors Walls 'pilgrim principle' while the involvement in
the culture mirrors Walls' 'indigeni@ing principle'. The balance and interpretation of this will
also be different for different cultures# at different times and in different settings.
>n conclusion it can be confidently said that ,hristians should not assume the ',hrist
'? , 5criven# The Trans#ormation o# Culture, 5cottdale# 0a/ "erald 0ress# !1<<# )'
'< ,4 ,arter# +ethin,ing Christ and Culture, 8rand -apids/ Bra@os Boo%s# '::=# '2
'1 "- Niebuhr# Christ and Culture, ?:
(: >bid.# =1
(! ,4 ,arter# +ethin,ing Christ and Culture, )!
(' >bid.# 2!# 2'
(( 34 5cherer# 5B Bevans# New Directions in Mission and Evangelism 3: Faith and Culture, 'Conte-tualisation', New
.or%/ 6rbis !111# ))
2
against ,ulture' typology in response to Walls' enunciation of the 'pilgrim principle'. >t has
been shown that they are not synonymous A although there are similarities between the
principle and the typology because they are both opposed to the natural culture of the
,hristian. "owever# the *pilgrim principle$ can never be ta%en in isolation but always in
tandem with the *indigeni@ing principle$. The typology itself is also based on a false Biblical
view of culture and therefore an incorrect ,hristian response to it. >t is logically incoherent &
as Walls' essay title states# the ,hristian is as much a prisoner of culture as the 8ospel is.
,ulture cannot and should not be attempted to be escaped from. The typology's view of
culture forces the ,hristian to separate themselves from their culture. Walls' principles# for
they can not be ta%en in isolation# allow the ,hristian to remain in their culture# as 8od
intended# but not to conform to those parts in opposition to 8od. Niebur's typology is
inflexible and forces one interpretation of a response to culture at all times and in all
places. Walls$ response to culture is to contextualise for particular cultures# times and
places but with all answers and interpretations being Budged against the litmus test of the
8ospel and the 5criptures & the divine supraculture. ,ontinuity is assured by an
attachment to the shared history of >srael and the ,hurch. 6ur response as ,hristians
should not be complete withdrawal from culture A which is unfeasible & but how far to be
separate and how to be integrated into our culture.
()
Walls gives ,hristians a Biblical
framewor% to do this.
-i"liography
() , 5criven# The Trans#ormation o# Culture, =(
=
)arter )#. Rethinking Christ and Culture, %ran! /api!s0 -ra1os -ooks. 2002
3esselgra+e DJ. Communicating Christ Cross Culturally, %ran! /api!s0 4on!er+an.
1551
Jackan D. The Message of John's Letters, 'eicester0 6nter78arsity press. 1588
9ra(t )3. Christianity in Culture, *ew :ork0 Or"is. 1581
Marshall 63. The Epistles of John, %ran! /api!s0 Eer!ans &u"lishing )opany.
15;8
*ie"uhr 3/. Christ and Culture, *ew :ork0 3arper an! -rothers &u"lishers. 15<1
Stott J/$. The Epistles of John, 'eicester0 6nter78arsity &ress. 1588
Scherer J#. -e+ans S-. New irections in Mission and E!angelism "# $aith and
Culture,'The %ospel as &risoner and Li'erator of Culture', *ew :ork0Or"is 1555
Schnacken"urg /. The Johannine Epistles, ( Commentary, 9ent0 -urns an! Oates.
1552
Scri+en ). The Transformation of Culture, Scott!ale. &a0 3eral! &ress. 1588
The )oly *i'le, New (merican +tandard ,ersion, %ran! /api!s0 4on!er+an. 2002
?