Mennonites and most Anabaptists have often been shoe-horned, without their consent into Niebuhr's "Christ against Culture" typology: "...a theological viewpoint that emphasizes the fundamental opposition between Christian faith and the surrounding secular culture. It suggests that cultural values and practices are inherently corrupt and incompatible with Christian beliefs, leading to a need for Christians to withdraw from or reject the dominant culture."
or:
"This is the classic “sect” type: Anabaptists and other radicals who reject natural law and the duties of governing in order to adhere to the letter of Christ’s commands, above all the Sermon on the Mount."
There's much in this typology that I resonate with and perhaps accurately describes much though not all of the Anabaptist world. Nevertheless, I've often felt as though there was much that was left wanting with this description. Put another way, complete separation from the world for those of us that don't live in farming communities or on a commune is not how we experience life. How then to truly live out Romans 12:2? Reading through the rest of the piece, this quote from the late Lutheran theologian, Robert Jensen, jumped out at me:
I like it, and it too resonates with me. I think some of JBG's thought comes close to echoing this idea but then it's quickly batted down in 4 rejoinders. Here's #3:So what, if anything, should the Church do about the state of Western culture? To deal cogently with that question, we must avoid an error that has confused much of the discussion. The question about “Christ and Culture,” as if Christ were one sort of reality and culture simply another, has generated much admirable thought but is nevertheless a category mistake. For the Church is herself manifestly a culture, and according to the New Testament the Church is the embodiment of Christ. The question then should be about “Christ and Other Cultures.”
Christ embodied as his Church does not swim in a homogeneous sea of “culture.” Rather, the Church makes a way through history between Pentecost and the End, encountering other cultures as she goes. Each newly encountered culture already has its own morale and worship, and given that the world is at once the good creature of the one God and fallen into evil, the encounter between the Church and any culture will be both appreciative and polemical. The Church will find practices and ideas she can adopt and transform for her own, and others which she must combat. Neither the Church nor the other culture will ever be the same.[2]
The rest of the piece goes onto advocate for what could best be summarized as "taking the best of each of Niebuhr's typologies". I'm genuinely curious about thoughts on this piece and Romans 12 more generally....it is a proposal by and for the upper-middle class. Almost without exception, the examples of faithful presence adduced by Hunter belong to professions and careers filled exclusively by the college-educated and sometimes only by bona fide elites. He refers approvingly to “business … policy and law … inquiry, scholarship, and learning … art [and] music.” He calls for civic leadership, entrepreneurialism, founding institutions, and joining or contributing to the highest levels of cultural production and influence. All this, in service to and funded by a Reformed theology of work that sees labor of whatever kind as an ennobling participation in the creative work of God. Though he seeks to head off the following criticism, it is difficult to see most working people’s jobs in this account.
so skip the first 6 minutes or so. He starts discussing Niebuhr around 48:30 (after discussing the historic framework) and at 56:00 gets into his own conclusions. The transcript is helpful.