M201 Essay

Title One
Does the 'pilgrim principle' as enunciated by Andrew Walls in his essay 'The ospel
as !risoner and "iberator o# $ulture' mean that $hristians should adopt what
%iebuhr describes as the &iew o# '$hrist against $ulture''
Before this question can be answered Niebuhr's and Walls' ideas of culture need to be
defined. Niebuhr does the same before beginning his explanation of his typologies. Walls
also assumes a definition of culture in his essay. Therefore defining what is meant by
culture for both writers is the starting point to the answering of the question.
Niebuhr describes culture primarily as ' an artificial secondary environment which man
superimposes on the natural including language! habits! ideas! beliefs! customs! social
organisation! inherited artefacts! technical processes and values.'
"
#e describes this as a
'social heritage' and admits it is hard to define the essence of it but it is possible to
describe its characteristics. These include it being always social! it always being to do with
human achievement and it being a world of values and concerned with the preservation of
these values and achievements.
Walls in his essay does not set out to define culture to the same degree as Niebuhr but
does agree with Niebuhr$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 influenced! or taught to behave and thin% in
certain ways! by society & our culture.
'

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 and Niebuhr also adds that culture is
concerned with the continued preservation of this achievement.
)
What is Walls *pilgrim principle$ in regards to culture as already described+ Walls in his
essay! describes the 'pilgrim principle' as what happens due to the natural 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 culture but this will not be a new natural culture!
a ,hristian culture in and of itself but what could be called a divine supraculture.
-
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! as
Walls states! ma%e them a pilgrim in that society.
.
This principle will give the ,hristian
continuity with the shared history of all ,hristians through the history and of the nation of
/srael itself going bac% to 0braham. 1ue 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.
2

" #3 Niebuhr! Christ and Culture, New 4or%5 #arper and Brothers 6ublishers! "7-"! ('
' 80 9cherer! 9B Bevans! New Directions in Mission and Evangelism 3: Faith and Culture, 'The Gospel as risoner
and !i"erator o# Culture', New 4or%5:rbis "777! '"
( 18 #esselgrave! Communicating Christ Cross Culturall$, ;rand 3apids5 <ondervan! "77"! "==
) ,# >raft! Christianit$ in Culture, New 4or%5 :rbis! "7?"! ).
- 18 #esselgrave! Communicating Christ Cross Culturall$, ;rand 3apids5 <ondervan! "77"! "=(
. 80 9cherer! 9B Bevans! New Directions in Mission and Evangelism 3: Faith and Culture, 'The Gospel as risoner
and !i"erator o# Culture', New 4or%5:rbis "777! ''!'(
2 /bid.! '(
#owever Walls does not envisage this principle in isolation. #e does not argue that this is
the entirety of the ,hristian$s cultural world view. :ne 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 & for ;od to welcome 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 .The fact that it is impossible to separate the ,hristian from their social
relationships and their culture means that the there is another constant within ,hristian
history. There is an attachment to a shared history but also the divine supraculture which is
often in opposition to the ,hristian$s own culture but there is also the yearning of the
,hristian to live as a member of their natural culture and society! to indigeni@e.
7
These two
principles must be seen in tension with each other and Walls describes this as comparable
to a dual nationality. Avery ,hristian *has a loyalty to the faith family which lin%s him to
those in interest groups opposed to that to which he belongs by nature.$
"=
This brings us to Niebuhr$s *,hrist against ,ulture$ typology. Buite simply Niebuhr
describes this attitude as one that asserts *the sole authority of ,hrist over the ,hristian
and resolutely reCects culture$s claims to loyalty.$
""

Niebuhr bases this attitude through the exposition of " 8ohn. #e cites 6rofessor ,# 1odd
in this exposition of " 8ohn! explaining that according to the epistle no one can be a
member of the ,hristian fellowship without at the same time confessing ,hrist as Dord 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 reCection of cultural society.$
"'
Niebuhr argues that this is due 8ohn$s use of the
word *world$ in his epistle and that 8ohn uses the word *world$ to mean the whole of society
outside the church. Niebuhr states that apart from two occasions E" 8ohn '5'! )5")F this is
always 8ohn$s meaning of the word in his epistle.
This world! this society and culture as quoted in " 8ohn '5"-&"2 is commanded not to be
loved or anything in it and if it is then the love of the Gather is not in the ,hristian. /t is a
*murderous as well as dying order$
"(
which is going to pass away and our entire loyalty is
therefore to the new order! *the new society and its Dord.$
")
This negative and hostile view
of culture! that it is condemned! dying and entirely ungodly and is therefore to avoided lest
we be contaminated by it and it$s influence is used by Niebuhr to define his *,hrist against
,ulture$ typology. The outwor%ing of this command is a separation from the natural culture
and a disdain and antipathy to it.
Niebuhr then continues to give examples from history of the ,hristians who adopted such
a stance particularly highlighting Tetullian. /n fact he states that Tertullian$s view was that
the ,hristian$s greatest conflict is not in fact with nature but with culture ! for it is in culture
that sin mainly dwells.
"-
Niebuhr also mentions the monastic movement! the 0nabaptists
? 80 9cherer! 9B Bevans! New Directions in Mission and Evangelism 3: Faith and Culture, 'The Gospel as risoner
and !i"erator o# Culture', New 4or%5:rbis "777! '"
7 /bid.! '(
"= /bid.! '(
"" #3 Niebuhr! Christ and Culture, New 4or%5 #arper and Brothers 6ublishers! "7-"! )-
"' /bid.! )2
"( /bid.! )?
") /bid.! )?
"- /bid.! -'
and finally Tolstoy at length.
9ince 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. Buite simply it
can be answered with an assured no. The main reason for this is not the definition of what
culture is! which both Walls and Niebuhr broadly agree! but with the role of culture and a
,hristian$s response to their culture in regards to their new divine supraculture! what Walls
describes as the transformation of their mind to that of ,hrist.
Niebur$s typology sees culture as wholly evil and in the power of the evil one. The only
right response is therefore to be separate from it! to be completely against it and all it
stands for! in fact this manifests itself often as a physical separation as shown in the
historical examples he gives! in particular his stress on Tolstoy. #uman culture is evil and
is to be avoided. This avoidance has ta%en different forms over the centuries but the
principle has remained the same H a form of natural ,hristian culture is to be strived for.
Walls view is that there are elements of the divine order and satanic rebellion in every
culture and that every culture has the capability for the revelation of ;od$s truth and of its
secretion.
".
This view of culture resonates with a biblical understanding. ;enesis "5'.&(=
is often described as the cultural mandate! ;od created us as social creatures to live in
society and therefore culture is ;od ordained. #owever! ;od may have ordained culture
but since the fall he does not order culture.
"2
Therefore as the Dusanne ,ovenant says
there are parts of culture that are beautiful and fine due to man being made in his
,reator$s image while there are parts of culture which are demonic due to the fall. 0ll
cultures need to be Cudged against the litmus test of the ;ospel and the 9criptures & the
divine supraculture & but there is also a demonic supraculture that can also influence the
natural culture. Therefore although he accepts that some of the ,hristian$s natural culture
will be opposed! upon the transformation of the ,hristian$s mind to ,hrist and the influence
of the new divine supraculture! he does not ta%e the view that all culture is evil but only
those parts in opposition to the new divine supraculture. #owever parts of the ,hristian$s
natural culture will be acceptable! will not be in opposition and will allow the christian to still
'feel at home' in their natural culture.
Niebuhr's typology rests on his definition of the word 'world!' the ;ree% word '%osmos' in "
8ohn. #owever this interpretation of the world is questionable. This word has different
nuances of meaning in 9cripture. This can be clearly seen with the comparison to its use
8ohn (5". and " 8ohn. The world in 8ohn (5". means the whole human race! the pinnacle
of ;od$s creation as has been already mentioned this race with its culture has been given
a cultural mandate by ;od.
"?
/t isn$t our duty to escape it but to remain in it Cust as 8esus
was sent into the world.
"7
The ,hristian should be *unworldly not otherworldly!$
'=
in the
world but distinct from it. The 'world' in 8ohn is not inherently corrupt nor is it derived from
an evil principle! this is neither stated nor implied in " 8ohn but it is filled with evil desires
and systems.
'"
This human world is the world that ;od loves so much that he sends his
9on to save.
''
#owever in " 8ohn '5"- the word is used in a different sense! it does not
mean people as in 8ohn (5". but means a wic%ed system organised under the dominion of
". 18 #esselgrave! Communicating Christ Cross Culturall$, ;rand 3apids5 <ondervan! "77"! ""-
"2 /bid.! ""?
"? 1 8ac%man! The Message o# %ohn's !etters, Deicester5 /nter&Iarsity press! "7??! .=
"7 The &ol$ 'i"le, New (merican )tandard *ersion, ;rand 3apids5 <ondervan! '=='! 8ohn "25"?
'= 83W 9tott! The Epistles o# %ohn, Deicester5 /nter&Iarsity 6ress! "7??! "==
'" 3 9chnac%enburg! The %ohannine Epistles, ( Commentar$, >ent5 Burns and :ates! "77'! "'.
'' 1 8ac%man! The Message o# %ohn's !etters, Deicester5 /nter&Iarsity press! "7??! .=
9atan and not ;od.
'(
This is the world to be hated the one which man%ind is organised in
rebellion against ;od.
')
/t is the attraction of this world! of life lived in opposition to ;od
and its desires that 8ohn warns us against in verses ". and "2. /t is the same world as
envisaged in 8ames )5). This does not mean we hate the material world! which is morally
neutral! or people in it or that we should separate ourselves from it or from contact with
them.
'-
Not only does the typology not rest on proper biblical interpretations of the role of culture
and a ,hristian's response to it but it also
/n fact it could be said that Walls description of the tension of the two principles is what
would be simply described today as a form of contextualisation. That is! communicating
the gospel by comprehensible means within the local cultural context! thus allowing the
,hristian to follow ,hrist in their their own culture. :ften simply put as ''What does the
;ospel loo% li%e here+ 1arrell 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.'
'.
This can also be called holding in tension emic and etic principles.
'2
The
emic analysis being that from within the ,hristian's natural cuture and the etic analysis
'?

from without the ,hristian's culture! critiqued and Cudged against the divine supraculture.
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'.
,arter
shriven
Jc;avern
:utcomes of the two approaches
although he does qualify this by also admitting that no New Testament text entirely
advocates this stance but that " 8ohn is this typology$s closest example.
Niebuhr does qualify this by saying that " 8ohn does not ma%e a direct statement as can
be seen in 3omans "( that the ,hristian is duty bound to be involved in the wor% of social
institutions! to perpetuate and renew them but neither is there a specific denial of the state
either.
'7

#is two principles also show an anthropological influence as they are similar to the etic
analysis & understanding cultures from an outsider's point of view and the emic analysis H
understanding from the being part of a culture and these two principles being held in
tension.
(=

'( 83W 9tott! The Epistles o# %ohn, Deicester5 /nter&Iarsity 6ress! "7??! 77
') /# Jarshall! The Epistles o# %ohn, ;rand 3apids5 Aerdmans 6ublishing ,ompany! "72?! ")'
'- /did.!")'
'. 80 9cherer! 9B Bevans! New Directions in Mission and Evangelism 3: Faith and Culture, 'Conte+tualisation', New
4or%5 :rbis "777! ))
'2 /bid.! ))
'? 6; #iebert! (nthropological ,e#lections on Missiological -ssues, ;rand 3apids5 Ba%er Boo%s! "77)! "(
'7 80 9cherer! 9B Bevans! New Directions in Mission and Evangelism 3: Faith and Culture, 'Conte+tualisation', New
4or%5 :rbis "777! )7
(= 6; #iebert! (nthropological ,e#lections on Missiological -ssues, ;rand 3apids5 Ba%er Boo%s! "77)! "(
1ifferent emphases at different times! tertullian
0dditionally if the translation of the word *world$ is not a strong enough argument 9tott also
references #enry 0lford$s exposition of 8ohn where gives different definitions of the word
used for love! one is a holy 3edemptive love as in 8ohn (5". and the other a selfish love of
participation as in " 8ohn '5"-.
This principle will give the ,hristian continuity with the shared history of all ,hristians
through the history and of the nation of /srael itself going bac% to 0braham. 1ue to the fact
of this attachment! this adoptive past! to a people and things outside the ,hristian$s natural
culture the *pilgrim principle$ is a universalising factor for every ,hristian.
("

Niebuhr then continues to give examples from history of the ,hristians who adopted such
a stance particularly highlighting Tetullian. /n fact he states that Tertullian$s view was that
the ,hristian$s greatest conflict is not in fact with nature but with culture ! for it is in culture
that sin mainly dwells.
('
Niebuhr also mentions numerous examples which he says are not
exhaustive including the monastic movement! the 0nabaptists and finally! surprisingly
Tolstoy at length.
Niebur$s typology sees culture as wholly evil and in the power of the evil one. The only
right response is therefore to be separate from it! to be completely against it and all it
stands for! in fact this manifests itself often as a physical separation as shown in the
historical examples he gives! in particular his stress on Tolstoy. #uman culture is evil and
is to be avoided. This avoidance has ta%en different forms over the centuries but the
principle has remained the same H a form of new natural ,hristian culture separated from
the world is to be strived for.
including language! habits! ideas! beliefs! customs! social organisation! inherited artefacts!
technical processes and values
The fact that it is impossible to separate the ,hristian from their social relationships and
their culture means that the there is another constant within ,hristian history.
,onversely there is also a demonic supraculture that already influences the natural
culture.
This methodology is also detached from a ,hristendom mentality that see%s to 'transform'
culture. This should be the response of the ,hristian to their culture and society not a
separation and an attempt to do the unattainable and logically inconsistent! and more
importantly Biblically unCustifiable as the typology warrants.
0lthough there are parallels with the typology and the principle! the 'pilgrim principle'
cannot be ta%en singularly but always alongside and in tension with the 'indigeni@ing
principle'. Therefore there is no direct correlation between the two and as such the
,hristian should not adopt the typology.
Walls view! which can be understood from his explanation of the two principles! is that
there are elements of the divine order and satanic rebellion in every culture and that every
culture has the capability for the revelation of ;od$s truth and of its secretion.
((
This view of
culture resonates with a biblical understanding. is often described as the cultural mandate!
(" /bid.! '(
(' /bid.! -'
(( 18 #esselgrave! Communicating Christ Cross Culturall$, ../
;od created us as social creatures to live in society and therefore culture is ;od ordained.
#owever! ;od may have ordained culture but since the fall he does not order culture.
()

Therefore as the Dusanne ,ovenant says there are parts of culture that are beautiful and
fine due to man being made in his ,reator$s image while there are parts of culture which
are demonic due to the fall.
Therefore although he accepts that some of the ,hristian$s natural culture will be opposed!
upon the transformation of the ,hristian$s mind to ,hrist and the benchmar% of the new
divine supraculture! he does not ta%e the view that all culture is evil but only those parts in
opposition to the new divine supraculture. #owever parts of the ,hristian$s natural culture
will be acceptable! they will not be at odds and will allow the ,hristian to still 'feel at home'
in their natural culture.
() /bid.! ""?