苦炼

Reading Notes

Christ and Culture H.Richard Niebuhr

Chapter II Christ against Culture

II Tolstoy’s rejection of Culture

Monastic Movement is derived from the tradition built by early fathers like Tertullian, which makes incidental contribution to culture in the waves of history. Protestant sectarianism and medieval monasticism are best samples to illustrate those long-term efforts. Other groups like Mennonites (as representative of protestant sectarianism), Society of Friends (as another example less radical) and modern Quakers mark significantly in the first group of positions. Leo Tolstoy is another representative worthy attentions, who in his own time and place stated the radical position as Tertullian.

Tolstoy’s conversion is based on his belief that the new law given by Jesus Christ is on the foundation of the nature of things. (St. Mathew’s Gospel. Chapter Five) He interprets the Words literally without all the ecclesiastical glosses on the texts. For Tolstoy, Christ is the lawgiver of new law and the abolisher of the old law (Moses’ law). He summarizes this new law in five definite injunctions (see p.59) in which the law of nonresistance is the key to the whole.

Like other figures stand in that position, the commandments of Christ are considered as the main account of the opposition to the institutions of culture. He hold that the corruption is resident in human nature, and evil is in culture with which man is contending. He is not simply content to withdraw from social life and live a semi-monastic life, but becomes a crusader against secular evil culture.

There is no such thing as good government for Tolstoy, neither state, church, property system are the forts of evil, even philosophy, sciences and arts are under condemnation. The states and Christian faith are simply incompatible as the prop of state is love of power and exercise of violence. He rejects such assertion posted by Paul that the states are in function of restraining evil thing; for Tolstoy sees the states are chief offenders against life. The approaches to arrive his goals are complete nonparticipation to evil and nonviolent striving for conversion of all men to peaceful, anarchic Christianity.

Tolstoy treats the churches as self-centered organizations and servants of the states, even obscurers and falsifiers of the gospel. He depicts them as ‘anti-Christian institutions’, and reformations in such institutions are wholly inadequate and meaningless. In the end, the judgment of Christ will destroy them completely as Christ did not build the churches from the beginning. For Tolstoy, churches remain identical evil and incompatible to Christianity as the states do; churches and states together represent the institution of violence and fraud.

Economic institutions are equally attacked and rejected by Tolstoy. He treats property claims are based on robbery and maintained by violence. He is against the subdivision of labor in economic society as it violates the Christian sermon of equality of humanity. The contribution made by privileged is dubious and could not be compensated. He counsels intellectuals, landlords and military men to renounce their properties and work in their own hands.

Tolstoy also turns against philosophy, sciences and arts. Sciences and philosophy are bad as they fail to answer the fundamental questions of humanity and life and remain falsehood; also they have no capacity to ameliorate people’s life. Philosophy teaches the vanity of life, while the ordinary people who follow Christ acknowledge more truth than the wise-men do. However, Tolstoy as an artist could not abjure arts in every respect, as he at least makes distinctions between bad and good arts. Only works which express universal feelings and comprehensible by the masses and in accord with Christian moral can be classified to good arts by Tolstoy.

One remarkable trait makes Tolstoy differ from other representatives of the first position is his meager devotion to Lord. For him, Christ presents no more significant than his ‘new law’. He was more of a legalist than the legal Tertullian, for he seldom expresses his ardor toward the grace of God and did not show deep apprehension about their completeness in the Son.

Conclusion: The person of first type share unity of spirit in their common acknowledge of the sole authority of Christ and the common rejection of prevailing culture. They show in two ways: as apocalyptic they will prophesy the coming of divine order and the falling of current culture; as mystics they emphasize the hidden divine order behind the temporal and cultural scene. What significant for them is the Kingdom of Heaven and its way to act upon their life rather than secular business.

 

III Necessary and Inadequate Position

    The anti-culture Christians played a significant role in history and they were needed in the total encounter of church and world. Part of the attraction of the ‘Christ against Culture’ answer lies in its evident reduplication of profession to Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven.

    The Christian withdraw from culture indicates that the believers have maintained the distinction between Christ and Caesar, between revelation and reason, between God’s will and man’s. The men in the first position sort have led to reformations in both church and world, although they did not intend to do so. Ex. Monasticism as conservers of culture during the dark ages; protestant sectarians changed political customs and promote religious liberty.

    Though men in first sort answer did contribute much in history, they never achieved these results alone and directly but only through the mediation of believers who gave a different answer to the fundamental question. Ex. Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Augustine but not Tertullian undertook reformation of Roman culture. In every case the followers did not compromise much to the radicals exclusive teachings. They were inspired by other answers.

    So long as the Christ and Culture cannot be amalgamated, so long is the radical answer inevitable in the church. It is needed in the past and now. The radical answer keeps Christian faith not to degenerate to a utilitarian device controlled by the states and individuals, and it also balances other Christian groups.

    Still we can point out that answer is equaled inadequate to inevitable, as it’s impossible to reject culture in every aspects. Christ claims no man purely as natural beings. And men are cultivated men into whom culture has penetrated and into whom political beliefs and economic customs are also resident. Actually, the anti-culture Christians are always making use of culture or part of the culture although they reject it ostensibly. Ex. Tertullian with his legal tradition; Clement of Alexandria with his semi-stoic ideas. They meet Christ as an heir of their own cultures.

    Culture plays important role in communicating with God and comprehending gospels as mediation. Firstly, people have to use language to explicate and interpret the theological concepts and principles or even modify them in the context to their own culture. Secondly, as the words of Christ are not sufficient to supply an answer to all the questions of daily life, men need other helps and supplements. Ex. Early Christian groups separated themselves from the Jews and gentiles while borrowed their customs but abandoned their authorities. Benedict of Nursia sought reflections of human experience to manage and organize his monastic community when the Scripture could not suffice him. The withdraw from culture even produces new cultural pattern: monasticism regenerates the rituals and rites; only after the authority of the states was shunned, the Christian community developed into a political community; Controversy among Francis monks about conservation of ecclesial property showed clearly that men needed clothes and sheltered even in poverty.

    The radical Christians have also always been required to take recourse to principles he could not derive from his conviction of Christ lordship. They were living in an interim. Ex. Tertullian’s advises to his wife about her remarriage after he passed away (see p.71 while personally I thought this case is not convincing at all). It’s necessary to recognize laws and morals relative to the time of the interim and to the existence of pagan society. Tolstoy had renounced his property but remained bound to his family. Etc.

Conclusion: The difference between the radicals and other groups is often only this: that the radicals fail to recognize what they are doing and continue to speak as though they were separated from the world.

 

IV Theological problems: 4 problems left

A.   The problem between the reason and revelation.

    The radicals share a tendency to denigrate reason and exalt revelation: ex. Tertullian: I believe because it’s absurd. (Though he’d never expressed it directly) Because they consider reason is erroneous and deceptive therefore cultural reason lead not to the knowledge of God and truth of salvation. Also they make distinctions between natural knowledge possessed in human soul and vitiated understandings in culture. Furthermore a distinction is told between revelation given by spirit or inner light, and the revelation historically given and transmitted through Scripture. It’s a dangerous tendency.

B.   The problem about human nature and prevalence of sin

    The radicals use social terms to explain the inheritance of sin among men, which contribute much to theology. They recognize both culture and nature are the carriers of sin: ex. Asceticism. They face up to the fact of their sinfulness.

    However, if they admit that sin is resident in themselves (but not outside human nature unilaterally), the separation between themselves and cultures is meaningless.

C.   The problem about the relation of law and grace

    One general accusation: legalism, as they neglect the significance of grace and forget that the gospel is for all men.

D.   The distinction between Jesus Christ and Creator of nature and Governor of history, as well as Spirit immanent in creation and in Christian community.

    Some of the radicals like sectarians and Tolstoy regard the doctrine of Trinity as corrupt invention by corrupt church. It indicates that the Trinitarianism is by no means as speculative a position and as unimportance for conduct as is often maintained. And a temptation those radicals frequently face is that they are tempted to transform their ethical dualism to ontological bifurcation of reality; furthermore they are induced to divide the world into the material evil side and spiritual holy side. Thus the ghost of Manichean heresy is difficult to eliminate. Ex. Tertullian’s Montanism; George Fox’s reformation finally compromised and enthroned to human private conscience to lead the reformers.

   Conclusion: the reason why the radicals deviate from their starting point: The authority of Christ is hard to fathom. Perhaps it is indicated that Christ alone cannot be followed alone, as he cannot be worshipped alone; and that radical Christianity, important as one movement in the church, cannot itself exist without the counterweight of other types of Christianity.