How should a Christian – one who follows Christ – approach
issues of culture and what have been dubbed “the culture wars”?
What follows is a short reflection, hardly comprehensive, on some relevant
considerations. Space does not allow for a full defense of each proposed
conclusion, but a general schematic account of the relationship of Christ,
the Church, the state, the market, culture, and “the culture wars”
is proposed.
As Christians, we should realize with the Dutch Calvinist philosopher
and statesman Abraham Kuyper that “there is not a square inch
in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is
sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’” This includes
our family, friends, studies, hobbies, professions, communities, neighborhoods,
cities, states, nations. And, of course, it applies to His Church. One
easy way to summarize these various entities is to talk about culture
– the entirety of what we value and how we express that value
in our lives. Christ claims dominion over it all, for He is “the
Way, the Truth, and the Life” (Jn 14:6).
I’ll begin by highlighting a series of dichotomies that often
arise in these discussions:
First, there is the question of whether the Christian should even be
concerned with “the secular.” As a member of Christ’s
body – the Church – shouldn’t a Christian be concerned
only with the Church’s good? Worldly concerns are issues for the
“City of Man,” not for the “City of God.” The
dichotomy, then, lies between those who would turn politics into the
central Christian issue and effectively place their eschatological hope
in the state, and those who would withdraw completely from civic life
and focus solely on the Church’s activities.
The second question concerns whether the Christian should engage culture
(whatever that means – it’ll be discussed more below) or
simply accept the fallenness of this world, acquiesce to its sad reality,
and place her hope in the world to come. Is the role of the Christian
in society to be prophetic or to be apathetic – aware that Christ’s
Kingdom is not of this world?
Third, should the Christian be concerned with culture, conceived
as all the real goods that people cherish – family, sports, art,
music, drama, film, employment conditions and attitudes, etc.? Or should
the Christian fight the “culture wars” – understood
as working to enact legislation designed to promote certain cultural
goods and to protect against certain cultural evils. Should Christians
concern themselves about fighting abortion, pornography, and indecency
on television and radio, protecting marriage, promoting Intelligent
Design theory, and defending the pledge of allegiance and the Ten Commandments?1
Fourth, should Christians be concerned primarily with what happens
at the national and international levels – “inside the beltway”
of Washington, D.C., and at the United Nations and its affiliates in
New York? Or should they focus on local issues – their families,
friends, neighbors, parent-teacher associations, and recreational leagues?
I submit that, more often than not, when a Christian is faced with
an “either-or” dilemma, he is poised to walk the road of
heresy. Consider examples from history: Jesus is either fully
God or fully human; God is either one or
three; either man is free or God is providential.
This is the folly of the “either-or” dichotomy. In each
case, profound wisdom lies in a “both-and” position. Jesus
is both fully God and fully human; God is both
one and three; both man is free and God is
providential.
Applying the “both-and” wisdom to our present case, we
can come to illuminating conclusions.
Christians should be concerned both with the Church and with civic
life, but each in an appropriate way. The opening quotation by Abraham
Kuyper should not be misconstrued to imply that everything we do must
be explicitly Christian (sacred) to be valuable, or that every earthly
authority must be an explicitly Christian one. The Church has her rightful
autonomy and independence from the state. She is concerned with preaching
the Gospel, teaching truths about God and man (faith and morals), administering
the sacraments, performing works of charity, etc.
But the secular realm, likewise, has its rightful autonomy
and independence. Here we can understand both the healthy and valuable
goods of the secular realm (simply where God’s providence meets
and mixes with our world – not necessarily profane), and the rightful
autonomy of the secular (governed by the laity, not the clergy). While
those responsible for the Church’s administration are endowed
with gifts appropriate to that task, they are not uniquely
suited for the rightful – and crucial – tasks of civil society.
These gifts fall to lay Christians; these tasks, to the secular realm.
Someone needs to organize traffic patterns; make provisions for music,
art, and libraries; provide systems of justice (courts) and defense
(police, fire, and armed services). And none of these tasks falls properly
to the Church. (Please note, however, that I am not suggesting
that they all fall to the state, or that we conflate the secular and
civic with the state.) But neither does the secular sphere operate in
total independence from Christ or His Church. While there is no one-to-one
correlation between Christ’s teaching and public life –
most of these matters require careful prudential judgment – Christ
comes to bear on the secular by purifying our reason and enlightening
our consciences. Thus, while the state and civic life should not be
viewed as the places where all the real, important work gets done (the
Church’s work of teaching and sanctifying is quite real and important),
neither should they be dismissed. The rest of this article examines
the other three dichotomies to propose how the Christian’s faith
can inform his decisions in the secular realm.
In embracing a “both-and” view of the second dichotomy,
a Christian should both accept the fallenness of this world,
placing his hope rather in the world to come, and recognize
that the Kingdom of God is at hand, that he is called prophetically
to be “salt and light”—to bring this fallen world
out of its darkness and towards “new things.” Christ redeemed
all of human life – including civic life. To take historical
examples, Christian engagement with culture should have worked to end
slavery, include women and blacks in political life, and resist and
denounce Nazism at every turn. At the same time, however, Christians
should never aspire to create the Kingdom of God – fully present
– here on earth. We have no final fulfillment, “no lasting
city,” apart from the Heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 13:14). At the
same time, God calls us to transform our pilgrim world as its light,
its salt, its leaven.
Thus, a Christian should care about culture. For it’s not only
the sacred things (worship and witness) that count. But as St. Paul
tells us: “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is
just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if
there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think
about these things” (Phil. 4:8). Our family, sports, arts, music,
drama, film, employment conditions and attitudes all matter. But do
the “culture wars” matter? I’d wager that they do,
for public policy is the citizen’s tool for collectively promoting
certain goods, and the law is a teacher that points towards true human
fulfillment and away from illusory enticement. It teaches precisely
by protecting certain goods, reinforcing or redirecting citizens’
values. But it is not the only – or primary – teacher. Some
goods are best promoted by the more “traditional” cultural
expressions: art, music, books, plays, operas, magazines, movies, TV,
fashion, etc. More than mere expressions of taste, these mediums not
only display – but also shape – our values and
goals, our culture. And hence, the market matters. Though it, too, enjoys
a certain autonomy from the state and the Church, it cannot function
devoid of value.2 These values are brought to the market by consumers
and producers. The market acts not only as the expression of our consumer
preferences, but also as their shaper. Thus, the Christian
should think carefully about the type of goods he chooses to consume
and produce. For wherever you find rational agents making choices
(market, polis, Church, etc.), there you necessarily find values (both
expressed and being shaped). So the market, despite our talk of “impersonal
forces” and “invisible hands,” responds to and forms
our choices, and therefore the values those choices express.
Turning to the fourth dichotomy: If culture and the culture wars matter,
then certainly both my family, friends, neighbors, and PTA
matter, and the policies drafted and implemented in Washington,
D.C., New York City, and our state houses and city halls matter. I should
care about Fred’s academic achievement, Sue’s grief at her
mother’s passing, and Jen’s athletic victory. And precisely
because I care about Fred, Sue and Jen, I am concerned with the D.C.
bill, the UN charter, and the EU policy – for these affect them.
Hence, it is our love for specific human beings as the concrete subjects
of values and goods lived out, expressed and actualized that motivates
our concern for the public policy that affects their lives.
Two examples – drawn from work I’ve undertaken over the
past two years – may help to clarify:
Consider the vexing issue of abortion. Christ’s grace helps purify
our intellects to conclude that the fetus is a full (though immature)
human being and that all human beings possess a profound, inherent,
and equal dignity. Christ illuminates our consciences to see that protecting
unborn human life is imperative. He also transforms our mere philanthropy
into a charity motivated by supernatural love for God’s “image
and likeness” (Gen. 1:26) and Christ’s presence in “the
least of these” (Mt. 25:40). Of course, protecting the unborn
goes well beyond outlawing abortion, though it includes that. It also
includes providing the living and earning conditions that would allow
women to welcome their children in life, and fostering a culture where
women have the support of men to bring children into the world with
fathers. But often overlooked is how the law, in this case Roe v.
Wade, clearly functions as teacher. Besides a constitutional
“right” to abortion, Roe v. Wade created the cultural
milieu and intellectual climate wherein cloning and embryo destruction,
euthanasia and infanticide are all “live options.” Thirty
years ago, creating new human beings only to destroy them in the embryonic
or fetal stages, and killing “defective” newborns and adults
(infanticide and euthanasia) were beyond the pale. Roe helped
create a culture (not inappropriately dubbed a “Culture of Death”)
in which such options are regarded a perfectly legitimate by many people.
A virtuous society wouldn’t fathom considering these choices.
And as John Courtney Murray reminds us, “only a virtuous people
can be free.” Of course, all the blame doesn’t lie on Roe;
the law isn’t the only teacher. Media and works of art that glamorize
extramarital sex, promote abortion as empowering, and dehumanize the
unborn have all inched our nation’s psyche in that direction.
That is to say, the products of the market have also taught.
Consider the equally controversial question of marriage. Again, Christ’s
teaching can help to elevate our intellectual grasp of the good of marriage
and our concern for the dissolution of the human family – pre-marital
sex, adultery, fatherlessness, divorce, single-parent childbearing and
rearing, etc. The Christian should engage the culture to foster and
protect the good of spouses and children (who need a committed mother
and a father), together with an understanding of chastity as normal
and virtuous. Law, public policy, and media have all contributed to
the erosion of marriage and the family. Consider the widespread distribution
of contraception outside of marriage, which helped to detach
not only sex from procreation but, more disastrously, sex from marriage.
More recently, the legal introduction of no-fault (unilateral) divorce
eviscerated the marital norm of permanence. Now, same-sex marriage threatens
to detach gender, sex, babies, and moms and dads from marriage. Law
teaches. If you doubt this, consider the recent events in Boston and
San Francisco in which Catholic Charities is under attack for maintaining
that children deserve both mothers and fathers, and thus refusing to
place children for adoption by same-sex partners. But it is certainly
not just the law and public policy that have wreaked these
changes. Consider our sources of entertainment – Friends,
Beverly Hills 90210, Sex in the City, Married with Children, Desperate
Housewives, and now HBO’s sitcom about polygamy, Big
Love. The media, rather than presenting faithful marriage, chaste
courtship, and authentic family life, have instead chosen to glamorize
fornication, exalt single-mother families, normalize one-night stands,
and present every alternative family arrangement as equally good for
spouses and children. This, of course, flies in the face of all of the
social science evidence about spousal and child wellbeing. It also flies
in the face of right reason – and Christ’s teaching. Once
again, we see the market shaping values—teaching. Christians should
be at the fore in creating and promoting media that send a pro-family
message, precisely for the good of children, spouses, and society at
large.3
Why do Christians care about these issues? It is not out of some blind
adherence to ideology or a partisan desire to wield power. As should
be clear, it is precisely out of love of neighbor and the authentic
goods that perfect human life that the Christian should care about their
public presentation. For the way that they are presented shapes the
way that we understand, respond to, and participate in them. Thus, reinforced
by our religious convictions, we can debate these issues using “public
reasons” by pointing to intelligible goods – reasons accessible
to all rational people of good will, even in a pluralistic society.
And by our own concrete participation in and appreciation of these authentic
human goods we come to express concern for the welfare of our neighbor
and his own flourishing. This, in short, is what is meant by a Christian
concern for culture.
There is, of course, a danger: In the “culture wars,” we
must resist the temptation to instrumentalize the faith’s propositions,
philosophy, organizational capacities and structures just for the sake
of a social cause. While our faith informs our cultural engagement,
subjugating the former to the latter destroys both by rendering our
“faith” insincere and cutting us off from the grace needed
to initiate, sustain, and complete our efforts to transform culture.
Given the vast array of cultural goods and societal needs, it’s
important, too, to remember Paul’s discussion of the diversity
and multiplicity of gifts within the Body of Christ. Limited by time
and space, each of us has a unique and irreplaceable call from Christ
(a vocation) to follow a distinctive path in heeding the above broad
considerations. God may call some to be completely devoted to Church
ministry, others to service in the civic realm, and others still to
volunteer associations like the local recreation league or the community
theater. Some may be called to prepare academic papers about politics
and ethics, others to write screen plays, compose albums and design
new clothes. The ways to promote goods are endless, and God calls His
people to certain of these tasks according to their gifts and circumstances.
In conclusion, we should recognize the unique and autonomous roles
of the Church, the state, politics, economics, and culture. None of
these realms has a monopoly on our time and attention. But while the
institutional Church does not claim such a monopoly, Christ does. He
is sovereign over the Church, the state, the polity, the economy and
culture, but each in its own way. Christ reveals the truth about God
and about man. The Church – His mystical body on earth –
is charged with transmitting this teaching to the world. For the Church
imposes nothing; she merely proposes. And the truth of what she proposes
imposes itself.4 This, then, is how Christians should approach culture
and culture wars: The Church, the state, the market, politics, and culture
are independent but bound by truth – indeed, by Him Who is “the
Way, and the Truth, and the Life” (Jn. 14:6).
Christians should thus be concerned with the evangelization of culture
as well as individuals. We should proclaim the truth about God and man
as it applies to the individual (personal formation and salvation) and
to society (social justice), for much of Christ’s preaching was
aimed at showing how we should live as community. This community
is coterminous not with the formal Church but with all of society.
With St. Paul, every Christian should engage culture positively: “I
shall show you a still more excellent way” (1 Cor. 12:31). For
just as Christ came to redeem all of reality – the Church, the
state, the polis, the market, and culture – so should Christians
extend His work in sanctifying it all. And so, beyond all discussions
of the City of God and the City of Man, of ecclesiology and politics,
beyond discussions of culture and the culture wars, lies the Person
of Jesus Christ. And in that Person lies friendship with His Father
and a sharing in the divine life of the Holy Trinity. Everything done
here below – regardless of the sphere – is ultimately aimed
at, and entangled with, that value, good, and goal – that Person.
1 These are the issues that are often portrayed as “culture war”
issues. As will be apparent latter, I do not think they are exhaustive,
nor should they garner universal support.
2 A complete discussion of the relation of the market to the state
and the Church is not possible given the space restraints of this article.
Likewise, a discussion of the compatibility of market economics with
Christian revelation and right reason is beyond the scope of this paper.
Nonetheless, the point stands: Though the market should enjoy a certain
degree of autonomy, it too needs to be shaped by values.
3 I use bioethics and marriage as my examples because those are the
issues I know best given my vocation over the past two years. Other
issues could include living wages, fair prices, environmental protection,
the Pledge, torture, the Ten Commandments, just war, Intelligent Design,
immigration, etc. While some matters (like the taking of innocent human
life in abortion or embryo-destructive research) involve intrinsic evils
which the just society can never tolerate, others (like immigration
policy) require prudent discernment and creativity for their just political
resolution; on the latter’s solutions alone is fully rational
disagreement possible. Additionally, the law cannot prohibit every form
of immoral conduct, but needs to be concerned with injustice and with
vices that cause the most serious harm to the common good of society.
Where these lines should be drawn is a matter for political prudence.
4 This is a mantra borrowed from Pope John Paul II and Fr. Richard
John Neuhaus.
Ryan T. Anderson ‘04 is a graduate of Princeton University
where he received his AB in music and a certificate in musical performance.
He currently is the Ministry Coordinator for the Aquinas Institute at
Princeton University and the Executive Director of the Witherspoon Institute
where previously he worked as a research assistant to Professor Robert
P. George. Beginning in July, Ryan will be on sabbatical from these
positions, while he spends a year as a Junior Fellow at First Things:
A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life, in New York City. He
would like to thank Sherif Girgis ’08 for his help in preparing
this article.