WHY THERE ARE NO CHRISTIAN CULTURES

What is left, then, of the myth of America's "Christian" origins? On the positive side we find that the Puritans approached the task of building a culture with some truly excellent principles and many apparently good motives. Christianity accordingly appears to have had positive influences on early New England culture. Such a claim, however, is considerably less than saying that the culture was essentially "Christian" in a strict sense or even that it had an essentially "Christian" base.

The reason why the Puritans and all similar groups have failed to establish a "Christian culture" seems clear—although the advocates of "Christian culture" appear to ignore it. At the base of every human culture is a shared set of "religious" values that help hold the society together. These values are not simply those of the official organized religion of the culture (although usually such a religion strongly supports such value systems). They are rather those ideals or things that persons in a culture value most highly, are committed to, and would be willing to die for. Most of the traits of this central "religion" in a culture reflect directly the values that predominate in fallen human nature. So, for instance, one factor that we find holding cultures together everywhere is sinful pride. This pride might be manifested in any one of a number of ways, but among the most common have been tribalism, racism, nationalism, and an inflated loyalty to one's own class or social position. Each is a means of convincing a people that they are inherently superior to other peoples and hence that they can treat others as inferiors, even as subhumans worthy of disdain or abuse. Similarly, every human culture is held together by the simple shared values of selfish interest. Putting oneself and one's group first is, in fact, almost the premise on which human governments are based. Other widely held values found in almost every culture are materialism, lust for power, and love of violence. While cultures may be held together also by other values— such as love or respect for elders, respect for law, love of virtue— most of the widely held values related to human nature turn out to be directly antithetical to Christianity.

What happens, then, when Christianity is introduced into such a culture on a large scale? First of all, if the "Christianization" is more than just a formality, many persons in the civilization may live lives radically transformed by God's grace. If sin is substantially reduced in the lives of such saints who control the government, the society may be transformed into something that is reasonably Christian in the narrowest sense—except for some areas that might be missed due to blind spots, misinformation, or prejudices of the age. However, in no society of any considerable size has the overwhelming majority of citizens ever been radically committed Christians. Furthermore, even the greatest saints fail to overcome fully in this life such sins as pride and self interest, and often even materialism, lust for power, and the love of violence. So a civilization, even if it contains many true Christians, will retain these nearly universal human traits. The introduction of Christianity will indeed improve the civilization since many persons and some resulting cultural activities and institutions will be shaped by ideals more or less in conformity with God's will.

Alongside the sinful tendencies at the core of civilization may be important positive tendencies to which Christianity contributes.  Hendrikus Berkhof, for instance, has argued that the coming of Christ introduced into Western culture a new concept of the importance suffering and the oppressed. "An ordinary street scene, as an ambulance stopping all traffic because one wounded man must be transported, is the result of the coming of the Kingdom." These and similar observations as to Christianity's impact on culture have considerable credibility. Yet it is important to emphasize, as Berkhof does, that these are at best only harbingers of the Kingdom. "They are the crocuses in the winter of a fallen world."

When Christianity is linked as closely to society as Puritanism was to colonial America, it can transform aspects of culture; yet on any huge scale or in the long run such transformation will be severely limited by other forces at the base of a society. The gains, although real, will almost always be ambiguous, since in many cases Christianity will be amalgamated with the various anti-Christian forces that distort the foundations of any society. Such ambiguities become particularly strong if the society comes to regard itself as more or less officially "Christian." In such cases the name of Christianity will be superimposed on a culture that retains some essentially anti-Christian features.

Puritan culture, then, for all its merits, can hardly qualify as Christian culture. This by no means is to condemn the Puritans for in many ways they present an attractive and successful example of applying Christianity to cultural activities. Yet just because of this degree of success, they are an excellent example of the inherent limits in attempting to establish a model Christian culture.

What can we say then about the positive "Christian" influences on culture other than that it does good for individuals? Certainly Chrisity brings many broad, obviously good influences, as when family lives are improved, charity is displayed, the poor are cared for, high moral standards are pursued, just laws are enacted, personal wealth is properly valued, minorities and outsiders are regarded as persons in God's image—all because of more-or-less proper understandings of God's Word. Yet such influences do not result automatically from the presence of apparently sincere Christians in a culture. The equation between the number of Christians in a society and the positive cultural results is never a simple one. Often, in fact, the positive influences seem not to predominate. To resolve these apparent paradoxes it may be helpful to use the image of the salt of the earth. That is, Christianity acts as a retardant against the natural tendencies of cultures built on sinful human nature to fall into decay. Such Christian influences are not always obvious, but they may be crucial.

These observations have important implications not only for assessing Christian influences in the past, but for our own cultural task. We may speak, as many Christians do, of that transformation which H. Richard Niebuhr described as "Christ the transformer of culture. " But as we do, we must retain a realistic view of the limited and often ambiguous accomplishments of Christians in the past. We should be reminded also that we ourselves do not have the final blueprints for establishing the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. We should recognize that we are no more careful students of God's will than were the Puritans, and we are no more exempt from misreading that will than they were. The relationship between Christianity and culture is always reciprocal. The culture transforms the Christian at the same time the Christian transforms the culture. Hence as we assume our responsibilities for the "transformation of culture," we should do so with an equal appreciation for the view that Niebuhr describes as "Christ and culture in paradox.''

Yet the combination of these two views does not reduce the urgency or the necessity of our cultural task. If anything, we should use such obligations to apply our Christianity to all areas of life even more urgently. Yet as we do so, we should recognize that the positive effects of Christianity are basically those of mitigating the fundamentally distorted character of human cultural life. Although the principles of the Kingdom are anticipated by Christian life in this age, anything even vaguely like the full-orbed reality of the Kingdom in the progress of culture must await another age.

Working with Non-Christians: Common Grace

A difficult question yet remains. Is there, any longer, any basis for such constructive political discourse between Christians and nonChristians, particularly on crucial moral questions? The situation today, it is sometimes said, differs from that of the early republic in that then there was a "Christian consensus," or, more accurately, a consensus that included a synthesis of Christian and Enlightenment views of higher moral law. In such a setting Christians and secularists could assume many of the same rules and principles. Today the situation appears very different. Even the definitions of law and truth differ for the Christian and the radical secularist. Law, says the secularist, is determined sociologically and "truth" is relative to time and place. Should we despair, then, of finding a basis for cooperation with secularists in publiclife? Should we declare with Tim LaHaye that "humanists are not qualified for public office or to receive taxpayer support for children under the guise of public education?"" Must we have it out with the secular humanists to the bitter end in the attempt to establish a government based on the Bible alone?

This choice, so often posed to Christians today is a false one. We do not live in a world in which all Christians will line up on one side of each public moral issue and all secularists on the other. Many theories today, both those of Christians and of secularists would seem to predict otherwise. Some Christians speak as though there is an absolute antithesis between Christian and non-Christian thought neglecting the degree to which Christians themselves are hampered by sin and error, and the degree to which God's common grace allows substantial room for communication and cooperation among all people in practical everyday life. Secularists who accept the radical tenets of relativism make the same mistake. If truth, law, and morality are relative to time, culture, and individual, how can the secularist expect to find any basis for society, since some moral consensus is surely necessary for its survival? In fact, there turns out to be more of a common basis of human beliefs and values than such relativism would suggest. So even Christians and secularists, who may be radically opposed in first principles, often find room for practical agreement and cooperation. Christians are not so consistent in regarding God's law, nor are non-Christians so consistent in disregarding it for the antithesis between them to be so sharp as we might think.

Christians should not be surprised by this commonality. We are taught, after all, that God's law is written on the hearts of humanity, even if suppressed (Romans 1 and 2). We all live in the same world. God has created laws for living that no one can entirely ignore or escape. Even though it may be plausibly argued that there is no basis for objective knowledge of reality, nonetheless in practical living we all must observe the God-created laws of nature, as when we fly airplanes or pick mushrooms. Similarly, while many of today's thinkers suppose that there is no common base for morality in nature or human nature, in fact no one is entirely free from recognizing the constraints of the moral universe God has created.

Because we all live in God's world, we have, in God's common grace, some basis for discussing and shaping public policy without explicit appeal to the Bible. In fact, people from all the nations of the world have been able to agree on many principles of justice and human interest, as for instance, in agencies and statements of the United Nations. That they violently disagree on other points or on the application of their common principles should not obscure this degree of commonality. So Christians and non-Christians may be able to agree on the charity toward the poor and the starving, on the undesirability of genocide, that literacy should be encouraged, on the virtue of loyalty to friends and parents, and on many other things. To be sure, the "light of nature," as America's founding fathers called it, may not be nearly as bright as they supposed. Moreover, there may be, as Augustinians have often argued, a qualitative difference between virtue motivated by love to God and the relatively good that is motivated by other principles. Nonetheless, America's founders were wise in recognizing that the Creator had not left the race so absolutely blind that only those who appealed directly to Scripture were fit to determine public policy.

For Christians, however, the Bible still will play a major role in shaping our approaches to the moral-political issues of the day. Scripture will lead us more directly than will any secular ethical system alone to understanding the principles of God's law. Nonetheless, as we approach these issues we can be sure that if we have correctly identified a biblical principle that should bear upon public policy, that principle will be capable of defense on grounds in addition to the sheer appeal to the authority of Scripture.

Christians will not always persuade fellow citizens "who suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Rom. 1 :18). Nonetheless we have in our common experiences with God's created order some basis for discussion. Even on the question of abortion, the most divisive public issue of the day, Christians and non-Christians can agree that the killing of innocent people is wrong. They disagree not so much on the moral principle, but rather on their willingness or unwillingness to admit that abortion is the killing of innocent people. When it comes to nuclear disarmament or gun control, moreover, the sides are often reversed. Secularists will talk of the sanctity of human life, while some Christians, especially politically conservative evangelicals, will speak about the need to defend freedom. These issues will not be easily resolved; but we do have some basis for discourse without simply bringing the political and legal system "back to the Bible."