Best of It: Revisiting Niebuhr's Typology

[Series Index]

Today we revisit the famous (for some, infamous) five part typology from Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture as summarized in John Stackhouse’s Making the Best of It. Niebuhr claims that any of the following types can be appropriate in certain circumstances. They are presented in the order they appear in Niebuhr’s book:

Christ Against Culture – Christ is in opposition to culture and calls us into radical opposition. Anabaptists, as well as some fundamentalists and Pentecostal groups, are examples we might typically associate with this type.

Christ of Culture – Christ and his followers embrace culture because the culture has substantially embraced him. Stackhouse suggests that Puritan New England may have approximated this posture.

Stackhouse points that these first two types recognize no tension between Christ and culture. It is either total opposition or complete embrace. The remaining three recognize some tension between the two.

Christ Above Culture – Christ comes to Culture, which is a mixture of good and bad, to instruct and improve it through his church.  Thomas Aquinas was an exemplar of this model.

Christ in Paradox with Culture – Christ calls us to be citizens of two worlds. Contradictions are resolved according to some type of qualification, which Niebuhr never articulates. Stackhouse believes this to be the least developed of the types. This is often identified with Lutheran theology.

Christ Transforming Culture – Christ calls us to redeem the world by bearing witness to him and work for the transformation of individuals and institutions. Stackhouse identifies three modes of this.

1. Converting individuals, who then will act Christianly in all things, infiltrating and influencing all sectors of society and converting others in turn, thus leading to a cumulative transformation of culture. (29) (Billy Graham)
2. Constructing Christian institutions (whether schools, labor unions, news media, or political parties) as wholesome alternatives to the current options offered by other groups, in hope that they will become sufficiently attractive and influential that successive sectors of society will be transformed by their influence. (29) (Dutch neo-Calvinism)
3. Conquering existing institutions with legitimate power, such as taking over businesses by buying stock, taking over legislatures by winning elections, taking over media by producing superior creative products, and so on. (29) (Liberal Protestants, liberation theologians, the new religious right, Christian socialist, to name a few)

Stackhouse also notes that Christians who may be thoroughly against culture can either respond with separation or attempts to take over. Thus, the seeming slide, back and forth, between Christ Against and Christ Transforming by some fundamentalist groups.

Lessons from the Critics

Stackhouse identifies four criticisms that are usually leveled at the typology.

1.  Category Confusion – Some say when Niebuhr used “Christ,” he really meant “Christianity” or “the church.” “Culture” meant “the world” or “the dominant powers and ethos of society.” The terms need to be changed. Stackhouse writes:

I’m not sure they do, as long as we realize what Niebuhr is attempting with these categories. Niebuhr is discussing a kind of fundamental tension for the church: the tension between its fidelity to Christ (the ideal of Christian faith) and its posture toward the society from which the church is drawn and in which it must make its way. How, then, does the church best construe the relationship between those two elements? (31)

Related to this is the critique is the criticism that the Church cannot be conceived of apart from the culture. To which Stackhouse essentially responds, “well of course.” And Niebuhr, as a disciple of sociologist-theologian Ernst Troeltsch, certainly was aware of this. None of that seriously impacts the purpose for which the typology was employed; to highlight the ways we might resolve the Christ and culture tension.

2. Taxonomy doesn’t account for all possible hybrid types or nuances within types – Niebuhr did not create a taxonomy but a typology. There is an important difference. “A taxonomy is a classification of things as they are in all their specificity.” (32) A typology, in the social sciences, “… is a kind of pure intellectual construct, a setting out of logical possibilities in a situation.” (32) Each of these five is an ideal type … not “ideal” in the sense of desirability but in the sense of a pure idea that probably does not exist in reality. These pure types can be useful types in analyzing a real world variable(s) (i. e., tension between Christ and Culture) but they are not intended to be a taxonomy. Regrettably, some scholars (including sociologists who should know better) have not understood the difference.

3. Misapplication by Niebuhr of his own typology - Stackhouse suggests that Niebuhr actually slips into a taxonomical mode in his criticism of the Anabaptist, under the Christ Against Culture discussion, criticizing them for not being consistent with their opposition to culture. According to a typology, no one likely would fit a pure type. He criticizes no other examples in this way when discussing other types. Yet, in other places, Niebuhr notes that when you leave the realm of the hypothetical typology probably no individual or group corresponds perfectly with any one type.

4. Niebuhr sets up Christ Transforming Culture as normative – Stackhouse says that Niebuhr offers the least criticism of this option. It is the last type treated and many have noted how the book seems to build toward the conclusion that it is normative type. Possibly so, but this does not in itself negate the usefulness of the typology.

Stackhouse makes two more important observations. He notes that Niebuhr held that “different cultures can require different stances.” (38) But beyond that, Stackhouse writes:

“… not only can it be appropriate for Christians to take different stances on different aspects of the same culture, but it typically is appropriate. (38) For example, war is never God’s ideal, but within some Christian ethical traditions it may be justifiable. Possibly, one way the church gives witness is that some Christians participate in the war while the pacifist serves as an uneasy reminder that war is never God’s ideal.

Finally, Stackhouse says that his position, which he will lay out in the last half of the book, is probably best characterized as a hybrid of the Christ in Paradox and Christ Transforming.

There you have it. We begin Part 2 next week. What thoughts do you have?

[Previous] [Next]

Comments

[Travis Greene]

Have you read Yoder's critique of Niebuhr's typology? I can't remember much of the specifics, but I remember finding it compelling. He takes great issue with Niebuhr's attitude toward Anabaptist thought as basically "that sounds nice, but you're irrelevant".

[Michael W. Kruse]

I haven't read Yoder's critique but Stackhouse quotes from it with affirmation. I think Stackhouse might frame it this way.

A. Niebuhr created a typology not a taxonomy.

B. Niebuhr inappropriately attacked Christ Against Culture on the basis of a taxonomic use of his typology.

C. Yoder and others discredited Niebhur's attack on Anabaptists.

D. Some therefore conclude that the typology has been discredited.

E. In fact, Niebuhr's misuse of his own typology is what was discredited, not the typology itself.

F. Therefore, the typology is still useful if used as a typology.

When this book was discussed at Jesus Creed it was clear to me that some of the Yoder/Hauerwas club were so antagonistic toward any credibility being given to Niebhur's typology that they shut there minds to anything else Stackhouse had to say. That is unfortunate because I don't think they have understood the use and purpose of ideal types, and Niebuhr didn't help his own cause.

[Josh Rowley]

Great summary. I've been interested in this subject since attending Austin Seminary several years ago. It was the time of the 5oth anniversary of Niebuhr's "Christ and Culture" lectures there--which would later become his famous book. Marsden and others visited, speaking on the continuing relevance of Niebuhr's typology. Marsden was fairly critical of it; he argued for some kind of hybrid approach to culture.

Have you considered (or does Stackhouse consider) the possibility that a focus on converting individuals is really an example of "Christ and culture in paradox"? It seems to me that this focus largely ignores social or cultural issues. Thus, Christians who have this focus seem to be preoccupied with evangelizing culture ("Christ") while having a mostly apolitical attitude toward "culture." The paradox is that individuals need converting, but Western culture is largely acceptable as is (even "Christian").

[Michael W. Kruse]

Stackhouse actually touches on Marsden’s critique. I haven’t read it for myself but I think Marsden is treating Niebuhr’s work as a taxonomy instead of typology. You only need hybrids if you are trying to describe real world situations instead of ideal types.

I can see how the Paradox option might comport well the personal-evangelism mode that ignores social/cultural issues. I don’t think that is the only group that fits here. I believe personal evangelism is important, but so are social/cultural issues. Here is the rock and the hard place I live in.

Paradox can be used as excuse for not taking responsibility for social cultural change. I want to resist that trap. But the other side is epistemic certainty. Many transformationists, IMO, (whether religious right, liberationists, Hauerwasians, etc.) have too great a certainty about two things:

1. Our ability to grasp the complexities social/political realities and the ramifications of changes.

2. Our ability to accurately ascertain what the Kingdom of God is and how it should engage the present context.

In other words, there is a lack of epistemic humility. So I find myself in constant frustration with both the “evangelism only” crowd and the idealistic transformationists. I’ve never found a home with either.

[Josh Rowley]

Love the phrase "epistemic humility"--used it myself in a different context just the other day.

I think you're right that one of the weaknesses of the "Christ transforming culture" type is its idealism. However, I'm not sure Hauerwasians fit this type. Hauerwas is critical of persons who make the goal of the church the transformation of society rather than simply being the church. He sees the transformation of culture as a potential by-product of the church being the church. Perhaps Hauerwasians might be better described as "Christ against culture" minus the withdrawal...?

[Michael W. Kruse]

"Perhaps Hauerwasians might be better described as "Christ against culture" minus the withdrawal...?"

I think that is probably fair.

I think groups like the religous right or liberationists are overly confident in their political agenda. That meets my first criteria.

I haven't read a lot of Hauwerwas but what I perceive from many enthusiasts strikes me as an overly confident understanding of which things are of the Kingdom of God and which aren't. (criteria 2) That is why I picked on them as an example.

My experience is that I tend to provoke a response from all them that I'm too compromised; not radical enough.

[Josh Rowley]

Ah. I'll read you a little longer before judging you.

[Michael W. Kruse]

:-)