Rethinking Christ and Culture: A Post-Christendom Perspective

by Craig A. Carter

In 1951, theologian H. Richard Niebuhr published Christ and Culture, a hugely influential book that set the agenda for the church and cultural engagement for the next several decades. But Niebuhr's model was devised in and for a predominantly Christian cultural setting. How do we best understand the church and its writers in a world that is less and less Christian? Craig Carter critiques Niebuhr's still pervasive models and proposes a typology better suited to mission after Christendom.

Genres: Theology, Cultural, History

222 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2007

Reviews

[Drick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Craig Carter crtiques Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture. His basic point is that Niebuhr's whole typologyis built on the notion of Christendom - that religion purpose is to serve the needs of the culture and therefore naturally is used to justify violent coercion of others. He then offers another typology based on whether one accepts Christendom as a foundational assumption ornot. As a student of Yoder, it is clear Carter rejects Niebuhr's basic premise.

The book is thought provoking and insightful in its analysis, but overly simplistic in the alternatives it offers. While a rejection of violence is a key factors, I think there are other critiques needed, such as a critique of capitalism, a deeper analysis of liberation theology's "preferetnial option of the poor," and the role of racism in the history of the church. Carter leaves the reader with a simple either/or choice, when in fact I think that the issues are far more nuanced and complex.

The role of postmodern thought in the demise of Christencom needs to be more fully explored, and how we live as Christians in the midst of global, cultural pluralism. I also would have liked to see a critique of the culture of Jesus, because in both Carter and Niebuhr Jesus is portrayed a a-cultural, as somehow beyond culture, when in fact like all of us he arose out of culture. Like Niebuhr, I don't think Carter takes the humanity of Jesus seriously enough. The fact is we all make Jesus in our own cultural image, and from my perspective that is part of the problem.

At the end of the book I was left with the feeling that the last 1600 years of church history (since Constantine) have been a huge wrong turn. Perhaps it has, but then what does that say about our view of God in/over history? What do we do with all that has been said or learned in theology for that time? Have we even got a shred of "true" Christianity to build on? Carter leaves me pondering these questions, and deeply troubled by them.

[Daniel Wells · Rating 3 out of 5]

Carter recapitulates much of John Yoder's critique of Neibuhr and the 'Christendom' narrative. The various figures and new proposals for understanding C&C are generally helpful.

However, I think Carter (and by extension, Yoder) are to anxious in making Christendom v Post-Christendom the dominating motif of this discussion, and it often leads to rise eisegesis. Case-in-point, is the devil's temptation of a Jesus really about Christendom?

Also, Carter, and much of the contemporary Anabaptist movement aren't always precise in defining Christendom and how various theological streams relate to Christendom.

Still, a worthwhile boom for anyone interested in the topic.

[Zach · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars. The title of this book is a little misleading, as there is no attempt to actually work through a view of Christ and culture. This is rather a defense of pacifism, with the assumption that anyone who rejects Christian pacifism is probably not Christian.

Carter’s rejection of the use of violence in order to spread the gospel is excellent, and the best part of the book. The book suffers, however, from three major flaws: 1. Carter views infant baptism as the creation of Christendom and as an outworking of coercive violence. While there may be reasons to oppose infant baptism, no one who supports the practice sees it this way. 2. The historical analysis in this book is simplistic at best. At worst it is cartoonish special pleading. Orthodox Christians are accused of having a docetic Christology because Carter doesn’t like the implications of their ideas. Anabaptists who actually held a docetic Christology can’t actually be anabaptists because Carter has defined them as the good guys so that’s impossible. 3. Those with whom Carter disagrees are caricatured to the point of misrepresentation throughout the book. His treatment of opposing views is so irresponsible that his taxonomy is useless. Example: in his chapter on what he calls “Christ transforming culture,” Carter doesn’t cite a single source that actually advocates this view. He puts words in his opponents mouths without citation- most likely because his opponents don’t actually believe the things he makes them say.

These three flaws leave the book as one not fully worth the time of anyone truly wrestling with the issues of Christ and culture.

[Heather · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had to read this book for a Cultural Foundations class. I need to write a review for class which I will also post here when I'm done. Overall, though, I'd have to say that I was a little disappointed.

[Becca]

thought-provoking