In his new book, Cultural Sanctification, Stephen O. Presley seeks to answer the question, “How did the early church engage culture?” Contemporary discussion about Christian cultural engagement tends to divide between two attitudes, often pitted against each other: isolation or attack. Presley posits the concept of cultural sanctification as a way to bridge these two tensions and hold them in better balance. “Cultural sanctification recognizes that Christians are necessarily embedded within their culture and must seek sanctification (both personal and corporate) in a way that draws upon the forms and features of their environment to transform them by pursuing virtue” (p. 12). Cultural sanctification is comprised of three components: “defending the faith”; “sharing the good news of salvation found in Christ”; and visibly embodying Christian virtues in a persuasive manner (p. 12). According to Presley, the early church is a valuable example and guide on cultural engagement as Western Christians today find themselves amidst a new, though not unfamiliar, paganism.

Catechesis and liturgy firmly established the identity of early Christian churches and new converts and served as the foundation of the process of cultural sanctification. “Catechesis entailed a long period of examination to form new believers in the contours of the church’s doctrine and morality” (p. 25). Through this catechesis and the unique rhythms of the church’s liturgy (or worship), the early church crafted “a communal identity” that drew “sharp theological and moral contrasts with the world” (p. 20). Through this patient, intentional work, early Christians sought to form their identities around Christian doctrine and the Christian story. Presley argues that any cultural engagement must first begin by “cultivating our Christian identity” through a “kind of slow steady discipleship that builds a bulwark of faithful followers who do not live in fear or anger but in holiness” (p. 54).

Chapter 2 examines early Christian political and public theology, which was built on an unwavering commitment to the doctrine of providence. This commitment to the providence of God meant that “the early church had a positive view of the state even amid persecution” (p. 63). Yet, early Christians recognized that the state could not hold ultimate authority over their lives. They developed an “active political dualism,” which became a “precursor to the modern pluralism or divided sovereignty that covers the political landscape today” (pp. 68–69). In addition to a robust political theology, the early church also engaged intellectually with the pagan culture (ch. 3). Early Christian intellectuals “organically emerged” from within the ranks of the culturally marginalized church to “challenge the very basic assumptions of the surrounding culture” (pp. 90–91). These early intellectuals eventually fostered a Christian vision of education and learning in which “everything was oriented toward the study of the Scriptures for growth in holiness and godliness” (p. 101).

The church’s social witness forms the subject of chapter 4. “Christians were called to live lives of virtue among their neighbors and to demonstrate the beauty of holiness through their public witness and service” (p. 21). For Presley, this commitment to embodied virtue may be the greatest lesson we can learn from the early church. The development of virtue meant that Christians had a “culturally discerning spiritual life” that involved “contingency, sanctification, and improvisation” (p. 117). Christians were “actively indigenizing in the world around them while navigating between the virtues and vices in every situation” (p. 138). The fifth and final chapter reflects on the essential component of early Christian cultural identity: hope. “Christian hope was, and is, defined by two key tenets: the future kingdom of God, and eternal life or beatitude” (p. 143). Faithfulness to the doctrine of the resurrection and the final judgment sustained Christians in the assurance of future reward so that they could live godly, virtuous lives within their current culture. This hope helped early Christians navigate difficult cultural situations and circumstances without surrendering to fear or despair.

Though presented as a way to unify debate, Presley’s concept of cultural sanctification needs more clarity. Questions linger about what “sanctification” means and to whom or what the term is applied—individual persons or the culture generally. Perhaps this ambiguity is intentional. If so, greater clarity about why this ambiguity is beneficial should have been provided. The early church’s relationship to power should have received greater attention. In To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (New York: Oxford, 2010), James Davison Hunter has persuasively argued that cultural influence comes largely through institutions of power. Therefore, marginalization from these institutions decreases the ability of people to change culture. According to Presley, the pre-Constantinian church “was engaged in a slow and steady process of living faithfully and seeking sanctification both personally and corporately in ways that transform[ed] the culture” (p. 20). From “the time of the apostles to the rise of Constantine,” Presley writes, “the church lived rooted within the culture, hoping to transform it through their presence” (p. 20). However, without access to real centers of cultural power, did the early church actually transform culture? That the early church explicitly set out to transform culture may be a modern reading of their history. An acceptance of martyrdom seems to have characterized the early church more than overt efforts at cultural transformation.

Still, pastors, lay leaders, and historians should take Cultural Sanctification seriously. Presley argues that effective cultural witness must begin by forming virtue within the lives of individual Christians, churches, and institutions. “If the early church has anything to teach us, it is that virtue and the spiritual life are more important than all hopes of financial and professional prestige” (p. 124). The current cultural climate should not be the cause of ultimate alarm. Instead, we should remember that “the church survived and even thrived in times like our own, and God was faithful through it all” (p. 169).