One recognizes a classic by the conversations it engenders. Nearly forty years after H. Richard Niebuhr wrote Christ and Culture, it is still being analysed, critiqued and revisioned. (In that work H. Richard Niebuhr outlines five ways that Christians understand the interaction of Christ and culture: 1. Christ above culture; 2. Christ of culture; 3. Christ against culture; 4. Christ and culture in paradox; and 5. Christ transforming culture.) Charles Scriven’s book redefines the ‘enduring problem’ through Anabaptist eyes. It may, in fact, have been more aptly titled Christ and Culture: An Anabaptist Revisions the Debate.

Scriven focuses on two questions: 1. How the church should relate to the dual authorities of Christ and the prevailing culture, and 2. How the church can remain faithful to Jesus if it condones violence. H.R. Niebuhr saw these concerns as central to many in the ‘Christ against culture’ stream. Scriven turns the tables, analysing each of Niebuhr’s categories as well as recent Christian social ethics in terms of these two questions.

This revisioning presents two problems. First, it is difficult to separate Scriven’s reporting of Niebuhr’s thought and his critique. In asking ‘What Was Niebuhr’s Real Question?’ (chapter 2), Scriven is in danger of losing sight of what Niebuhr actually said. Secondly, framing the Christ and culture discussion in terms of a dual authority of Christ and culture subsumes the entire debate under one or two of Niebuhr’s five types (Christ against culture and/or Christ and culture in paradox). Instead of discussing various views of the Christ/culture dynamic, Scriven focuses on a partial agenda: how Christians and the church respond to two disparate authorities.

After ‘revisioning’ Niebuhr’s project, Scriven analyses the thought of nine recent Christian social ethicists. He discusses the theologies of Gustavo Gutierrez, Johannes Baptist Metz, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder, among others. He critiques the Christ/culture dynamic of each, asking his questions about dual authority and non-violence. Scriven’s goal is to show that the Anabaptist analysis is more cogent than any other and that it shows the way that Christ transforms culture.

Scriven’s analysis helps the reader to see the Christ and culture debate clearly from one point of view. For example, his arguments on natural law and pacifism are fairly predictable and come directly out of his tradition. His section on character ethics and Hauerwas is quite good, showing his familiarity and compatibility with this stream of ethics. On the other hand, his interaction with Langdon Gilkey, who comes from a different and more synthetic tradition, makes one wonder if he feels the pull of that position at all. His assessments of the work of others bear the stamp of his Anabaptist tradition, showing the types of questions that face one attempting to be ‘in culture as loyalists to Christ’ (p. 158, italics his).

The weaknesses as well as the strengths of that tradition are reflected in this work. One must take care, therefore, to keep Scriven’s agenda clearly in mind. He does not give a thorough analysis of the thought of any one thinker, but rather selects his discussants and his points to further his own position. Scriven is forthright about the determined direction of his argument: ‘Niebuhr charges Anabaptism with being anticultural, unresponsive to human social needs and goals’, he states (p. 28). This book is a response to that charge.

Scriven does not solve the ‘enduring problem’. Nor does he show that the Anabaptist tradition is thedefinitive way to Christ’s transformation of culture. However, the discerning reader interested in hearing a strongly argued Anabaptist position in the debate will appreciate this book.

---