Review of Carson's Christ and Culture Revisited

NOTE: THIS IS A VERY LONG POST, BUT HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SAVOUR THE REWARDS AT THE END!


D.A. Carson’s latest book Christ and Culture Revisited[1] sees Carson exploring the relationship between Christ (or Christianity) and Culture, as the title suggests. It’s not as if such an endeavour has not been attempted before, but that earlier attempts have been largely concerned with deriving various possible models of relation based on selected portions of Scripture (along with the relevant portions of historical or contemporary theology that support such a viewpoint), rather than a consideration of the overall theological message or voice arising from the whole canon of Scripture, i.e. within a biblical theological framework. This is the freshness that Carson brings in his endeavour.

The book is divided into 6 chapters. In the 1st chapter, Carson defines his terms: “culture” being a concept which ‘denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols’ in which ‘men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life’ (p.2).[2] He then picks up the seminal work of H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,[3] and does an overall sketch of the 5 possible paradigms of relation as suggested by Niebuhr: (1) Christ against Culture; (2) The Christ of Culture; (3) Christ above Culture; (4) Christ and Culture in Paradox, and (5) Christ the Transformer of Culture (p.13-29). Carson highlights the key Scripture passages Niebuhr uses and the key figures of historical and contemporary theologians he appeals to, before offering a preliminary assessment for each of Niebuhr’s paradigms.

In the 2nd chapter, Carson picks up his main criticism of Niebuhr’s earlier endeavour – and that is Niebuhr’s presentation of the relation between Christ and Culture is more reductionistic than what Scripture as a whole allows for. The whole of Scripture seems to present a much larger and more cohesive understanding of the relationship between Christ and culture, such that the options Niebuhr presents should really be thought of as nothing more than possible emphases within this comprehensive integrated whole.[4] Carson continues in the rest of the chapter to sketch out how this integrated whole might look like by considering what he terms as the “Non-negotiables of Biblical Theology” (p.44-59). This section is worth a read on its own, as Carson shows us the key theological emphases within each of the great turning points of redemptive history in a succinct manner.[5] The relevant insights exploring the relationship between Christ and Culture can be summarised as follows:
- Creation and Fall informs us that this world is ‘God’s world, but that this side of fall this world is simultaneously resplendent with glory and awash in shame, and that every expression of human culture simultaneously discloses that we were made in God’s image and shows itself to be mis-shaped and corroded by human rebellion against God’ (p.49)
- Israel and the Law informs us that Israel was considered a theocracy, and that ‘the entire Israelite culture was to reflect God’s glory and reveal God’s truth and God’s character’ (p.51)
- Christ and the New Covenant reminds us of the tension that we live with, between the fact ‘that the kingdom is already present and the promise that the kingdom will finally come in the end’ (p.54), and that the new covenant people of God in this kingdom is ‘not in a nation – neither Israel nor any other nation – but in a transnational community made up of people from every tongue and tribe and people and nation’. One entailment of this truth is that on ‘this side of consummation there will be ongoing tensions between the Christian community and all other communities’ (p.55). Finally, Jesus’ statement “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” means a distinction between the authority of Caesar and the authority of God has been introduced, while not conceding that God and Caesar are parallel authorities (p.58).
- A Heaven to Be Gained and a Hell to Be Feared means that current relations between Christ and culture have no final status nor will ever reach utopian ideals ‘as long as we remain in the inaugurated-but-not-yet-consumated kingdom’. Perfection comes with the consummation, and in the meantime, we must live with tensions that will not be finally resolved (p.59)
This is the integrated whole that Carson urges us to think along with, while recognising that different aspects of the whole will clamour for more attention from time to time depending on our concrete existential circumstances. In my personal view, Carson’s integrated whole can be further summarised as two tensions that must govern our thinking in this subject matter: firstly, the tension between the doctrine of ‘common grace’ and the doctrine of total depravity – i.e. all of the potential of the so-called “natural world” (all of art, music, administrative gifts, colourful diversity, creative genius etc.) was called into being by God and operates under the authority of the resurrected Christ, but yet everything is corrupted by sin (p.64). In another words, our experience of culture will always be caught in-between this tension; and secondly, the tension between the fact that we belong to the culture of the consummated kingdom of God, which has dawned among us, while simultaneously live in a world which largely does not recognise this culture nor submit itself under it (p.63-64). These two tensions seem to form the base from which Carson’s interactions in the rest of the book spring from.

In the 3rd chapter, Carson pauses to reflect greater on the two terms of “culture” and “postmodernism” – something which must be done as current discussions of culture or reliance on postmodern thought have often led to the dissuasion of reflection on Christ and culture. Through a series of 4 questions Carson himself poses, he upholds the importance of not succumbing to the ‘indenfensible mantra of many cultural anthropologists (today): no culture is superior or inferior to any other’ (p.72), or the relativists who state that it is grossly misleading to be sorting out the relationship between ‘Christ’ and ‘culture’ when all Christians inevitably constitute part of culture (p.75). Instead, Carson insists that culture, ‘like every other facet of the creation, stands under the judgement of God’ (p.75), and that Christians, though inevitably finding themselves from a larger culture and part of it, can nevertheless be simultaneously distinguishable from that larger culture (p.75). And here is where the biblical theological framework mentioned earlier comes in – it provides Christians a way of evaluating their larger culture, as they grapple with the theological message that comes from considering all the turning points in redemptive history, while recognising that their own cultural location demands that certain biblical emphases have a higher priority than others (p.85). In terms of postmodernism, Carson highlights there is a middle way between the hard battle currently ongoing between proponents of modernism and postmodernism, between foundationalism and postfoundationalism theological method – the middle way is what he terms “chastened modernism” or “soft postmodernism” (p.90). He states:
“A chastened postmodernism heartily recognises that we cannot avoid seeing things from a certain perspective (we are all perspectivalists, even if perspectivalists can be divided into those who admit it and those who don’t) but acknowledges that there is a reality out there that we human beings can know, even if we cannot know it exhaustively or perfectly, but only from our own perspective.” (p.90)
This is what the storyline of the whole Bible provides – a worldview by which to understand the questions of deity (if there is a God, how is he like?), origins (Where do I come from?), significance (Who am I?), evil (Why are things not the way they’re supposed to be?), salvation (What’s the problem and how is it resolved) and telos (Why am I here? What does the future hold?) (p.95). Carson’s conclusion is key: “[The Bible’s storyline] does not claim to say all that might be said about God. It merely claims to cast a broad enough vision to be able to see the shape of the whole.” (p.96). In fact, Carson states that while such a vision includes a system of beliefs, it is more than that and also includes the volition that thinks and acts in line with such beliefs (this leads me to affirm once again that the theodrama concept might be a good way of capturing this Christian worldview and in relating the three disciplines of biblical theology, systematic theology, and ethics). Carson’s conclusion is clear from the 3rd chapter: the bible’s storyline i.e. the biblical theological framework provides a way to effectively discuss the relations between Christ and culture, despite the current postmodern climate and it’s spilling effects into discussions on culture.

In the 4th chapter, Carson turns his attention to considering 4 key elements or cultural forces which shape our modern culture – secularism, democracy, freedom and power. One wonders why Carson stops short at these 4 cultural forces and has not included what in my mind is another key cultural force – consumerist individualism and free-market globilisation, leading to materialism and greed.[6] That aside, a discernible pattern is soon noticed in this chapter – all 4 cultural forces are interconnected. The Biblical theological framework advocated throughout the book also shows that while some of the cultural forces may have good intentions and noble ideals behind them, our depraved natures soon corrupt these cultural forces. Hence, we ‘cannot embrace unrestrained secularism; democracy is not God; freedom can be another word for rebellion the lust for power, as universal as it is, must be viewed with more than a little suspicion’ (p.143). This all means that ‘Christian communities honestly seeking to live under the Word of God will inevitably generate cultures that, to say the least, will in some sense counter or confront the values of the dominant culture’ (P.143). But Christians, in understanding the Bible’s storyline, will also be committed to enhancing the culture they find themselves embedded in.

The 5th chapter sees Carson taking all the above mentioned principles and applying it to the specific question of church and state. This is a lengthy chapter (60 pages), and hence reflects one of the dominant priorities of Carson’s book. Carson first clarifies the key expressions of ‘religion’, ‘church’, and ‘nation/state’, before surveying biblical texts and their priorities for thinking the relationship between church and state (a summary is found in pg. 171). He then turns to looking at historical and theological reflections, covering reflections on the work of Augustine, Stanley Hauerwas, Oliver O’Donovan, and Bonhoeffer. Carson finally concludes this chapter by providing some concluding reflections on this topic. After reading this chapter, my thoughts are stirred as follows:
- It is difficult and not as straightforward as how we often like things to be when it comes to talking about relations between church and state. Inevitably, the deeper issues of Christians and state and religion and state will be drawn in.
- We ought to ultimately remember where our ultimate citizenship and primary identity lies, while remembering that Scripture exhorts us to submit to the authority of the state except where it involves the believer in doing disobedience to God.
- For those of us who live in democracies, we must remember that this was never an option for first-century believers. This means that for us, such a position brings new freedoms and responsibilities, and we must ‘improvise’ based on Scriptural principles which we see from the whole Biblical storyline. At least, for one, it means taking our responsibilities seriously (all the way from voting to influencing government to legislating and governing (for some)), while at the same time, not confusing the kingdom of God with our own government or party.
- What light does this shed on public theology (how can Christians do theology on the public front)? Carson warns against ‘translating our Christian values and priorities into secular categories’ (p.196). While we may likely appeal to a broader range of people if our arguments are not couched in Christian categories, we may inevitably allow such secular values to take precedence over our Christian frame of reference, or we may end up being accused by our opponents of ‘being in reality religious wolves in sheep’s clothing’. This is a difficult area to think through. While opponents are likely to cry the ‘religious game’ when hearing out Christian arguments, they have to realise that it is impossible to argue a case from a “neutral” position when we are first and foremost Christian believers. Would some kind of “natural law” serve as the way forward to carry out public theology? Perhaps, though I’m sure that would have weaknesses of its own. At least in multi-religious Singapore, if we were to provide arguments on social issues on the basis of the church, then we must be prepared to likewise allow that space to the other religions as well.
- Ultimately, we must remember that utopia will not be found in any form of political system, but in the eschatological hope of God’s consummated kingdom which He will bring in His time and His way. Perhaps, in this regard, we can pray for our government that they will continually to govern in such a manner that would not hinder the progress of the gospel, and the concept of religious freedom, while having some complications of its own, may nevertheless be the best we can do this side of God’s Kingdom.
- I like Carson’s point on this, and I quote it by way of concluding my thinking on this issue:
“Perhaps this is the place to affirm that, however complicated the theorectical discussion becomes over the relationships between church and state, the most attractive outworking by far is found in the individual Christian or group of Christians who, precisely because they live out their faith, become involved not only in bold witness but also in ways of helping others in the community that cross many thresholds normally controlled by government agencies. A church starts a center in its poor area to mentor kids without dads, to help kids read, to look after the sick and elderly, to start a school that has far more care, discipline, Christian influence, and rigor than in the available options, and so forth. Let the critics cry “Foul!” and demand that religion be private. We serve a Lord who will not allow us to be silent and retreat.” (p.202)
“Amen” to that!

We must end (chapter 6 in my view summarises the argument of the previous chapters). This book review has way exceeded what I first set it out to be (but what can we expect when one tries to summarise Carson?). Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited is a good and rewarding read – though not the easiest one due to Carson’s prose and his unique way of presenting sub-ideas and excurses through his numbering and paragraphing format! But his main ideas are clear. What is most commendable is Carson’s seriousness in teaching us to think biblical-theologically, and this involves not just knowing the main turning points in redemptive history, but seeing how these turning points lead us to address and rigorously think through a topic as complicated as that of Christ and culture. Biblical Theology for Carson is, ultimately not just about a system of beliefs, nor even about the volition to act and live in light of these beliefs, but also includes the willingness and ever-readiness to engage every area of our life and culture with it. This itself is well worth the hard work and effort in reading this book!


[1] Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
[2] Carson follows Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 89 , in his definition.
[3] New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1951.
[4] Carson rightly suggests that the failure of Niebuhr to consider this integrated whole could be due to his view of how the canon should function. For Niebuhr, the canon ‘rules’ by providing not so much a totality of the canon’s voice, but by providing boundaries of the allowable paradigms, and that one is faithful to Scripture so long as our choices are aligned with anyone of these paradigms. This is contrasted with Carson’s own view where canon ‘rules’ by providing an overall theological voice, even as we recognise the diversity of the voices within (p.40-43).
[5] Carson does something similar in a more extended fashion in his earlier book The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), chapters 5-7.
[6] Richard Bauckham, ‘Reading Scripture as a Coherent Story’, in The Art of Reading Scripture (ed. Ellen Davis & Richard Hays; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 46, has insightfully pointed out that postmodernist who are strongly adverse to the ideas of ‘metanarrative’ have strangely missed out ‘the powerful, late modern grand-narrative of consumerist individualism and free-market globalization’.