Christians and High Culture, Again
Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.
As Matthew Arnold envisioned it, high culture is the effort to “know the best that has been thought and said in the world” (Culture and Anarchy). It consists of those products of civilization that are deliberately meant to preserve, shape, and propagate human ideals and mores. It is encountered in libraries, academies, museums, and concert halls. It includes philosophy (broadly defined), the humanities, belles-lettres, music, the visual arts, and the performing arts. High culture can be contrasted with traditional or folk cultures as well as with popular or mass culture.
Each major civilization has produced its own high culture. Typically, high cultures have centered upon worship—not surprisingly, since every culture is the incarnation of a religion. From this center, however, each culture has gone on to examine the enduring aspects of human life: birth and death, comedy and tragedy, love and marriage and childbearing, hearth, home, valor and friendship, among others. They also explore answers to the perennial questions such as the nature of existence, truth, freedom, justice, duty, goodness, and beauty.
Christian leaders have been ambivalent in their opinion of high culture. Saul of Tarsus imbibed deeply from the high cultures of his day, but after his conversion he refused to rely upon cultural sophistication as a strategy for advancing the gospel. Even then, however, he clearly employed his cultural skills in the composition of his epistles. Tertullian, rejecting philosophy as only a trained rhetor could, asked “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?” Others, such as Clement of Alexandria, followed by his pupil Origen, virtually subordinated Christian doctrine to the major philosophies of their day.
This ambivalence has a reason. On the one hand, the content of the various high cultures has often militated against Christian perspectives. On the other hand, the articulation of Christian perspectives seems to require mastery of the very disciplines that are perpetuated within high culture. The utterly unlettered or completely bumptious have only rarely made much of a contribution to Christian thought or sensibility.
Some theologians have railed against the philosophers, but they have nevertheless mastered the tools of thought. Similarly, the great hymn writers—the anonymous author of the Te Deum, or figures such as Athanasius, Hus, Weiss, Luther, Tersteegen, Gerhardt, Watts, the Wesleys, Newton, or Cowper—have been individuals who mastered poetic or musical disciplines, or both. In a word, they have been cultured individuals.
Christianity depends upon cultural mastery for its own wellbeing. The understanding and preservation of correct doctrine requires theologians who have spent sufficient time in the academy to master intellectual discipline. The duty to teach one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs requires individuals who have mastered literary and musical disciplines. When such persons are lacking, Christianity enters periods of base and unfruitful expression (such as the present hour). It loses its power to fire the imagination with truth and to appeal to ordinate affection. It must instead resort to inflaming the appetites.
High culture is necessary for the inner wellbeing of the church. This is not to suggest that every Christian must become highly cultured—far from it! Still, unless at least some Christians are able to negotiate the cultured disciplines, then many aspects of faith and life will suffer. Even less-cultured believers ought to value what only the more cultured are likely to contribute.
It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that high culture is necessary only for the articulation of Christian doctrine and worship. It is also of use for another purpose. Our Christianity is not supposed to be confined to church. It is supposed to affect all of life. Consequently, Christians should look at all of life—including common or mundane things—from a unique perspective, and that perspective should find its place in the expressions of high culture.
High culture itself deals with all of life and thought, whether of mundane activities such as eating and drinking or of such perennial matters as the nature of justice. In addressing these matters, high culture does two things. First, it provides tools of expression and organization through which even non-religious matters can be examined. Second, it preserves the variegated interaction of the resulting perspectives, not merely as a dead record, but as a living embodiment. To participate in high culture is actually to enter into the conversation and to see through the eyes of those who have skillfully given expression to particular points of view.
Christians make a serious mistake when they think that their use of culture applies only to church. It also applies to eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. It is about all of the mundane activities of life, each of which has its own place in the purpose of God and its own luster when it occupies that place. These activities are common to all humans, and so are the enduring questions that arise from the consideration of those things.
One purpose of Christian involvement in high culture is to give expression to Christian perspectives on all of the mundane activities of life, as well as to articulate Christian answers to the perennial questions. Christians should offer these expressions, not because they hope to Christianize the world, but rather because a Christian perspective is worth offering for its own sake. To be human means to be interested in the meaning of the things that humans do; to be Christian means to be interested in God’s perspective on those things.
Articulating Christian insights and fostering ordinate expressions is in the interest of truth, whether or not anyone listens to those expressions. Christians should say some things, not because the masses are likely to listen to them, but simply because those things should not be left unsaid. If the devout never participate in high culture, however, then the Christian voice on these matters will be silenced.
Once the Christian voice is silenced, at least two other calamities are likely to follow. The first will occur when people begin to assume that Christianity has nothing to say about everyday humanity. The result will be a false dichotomy between the sacred (the spiritual activities of life that are governed by God) and the secular (ordinary matters about which—it is now assumed—God is not interested). Christians will fail to recognize the actual Lordship of Christ over significant areas of life or, if they recognize His Lordship in principle, will be uncertain how to apply it. Since they do not live in a social vacuum, Christians will be likely to absorb, and eventually acquiesce to, the perspectives of the anti-Christian civilizations around them.
The second calamity is that thoughtful people will judge Christians themselves to be trite, shallow, and superficial. And they will be justified in that judgment. The matters with which high culture concerns itself are important, even when they are mundane. The tools of thought and modes of expression that high culture offers are the best available for the serious work of the mind and heart. To turn one’s back on these things and to treat them as if they are insignificant is to trample the most distinctively human concerns and endeavors, and is, consequently, to label one’s self a boor. Thoughtful people are not likely to listen to a serious message (such as the gospel ultimately is) when it is presented by those who repeatedly prove themselves to be trivial (such as Christians sometimes do). Once Christians demonstrate that they are frivolous, their message will depend upon propaganda and demagoguery.
There is a balance to be struck here. On the one hand, Christians never bring glory to God by making themselves impressive, for in themselves they are genuinely insignificant. On the other hand, they will never advance truth by rendering themselves trivial, for Christianity is serious. The antidotes to both arrogance and frivolity are the same: humility, temperance, and sobriety. Christianity needs some who will master the cultured disciplines but who will do their work humbly, temperately, and soberly.
Not every Christian needs to be a philosopher, a poet, a composer, or an artist. Some, however, will find that their callings involve exactly these disciplines. They will be called to involve themselves with high culture. Far from opposing high culture, the remainder of Christians should celebrate such callings. Without them, Christian faith and life would be crippled.
The Lamb
William Blake (1757–1827)
Little Lamb who made thee
Dost thou know who made thee
Gave thee life & bid thee feed.
By the stream & o’er the mead;
Gave thee clothing of delight,
Softest clothing wooly bright;
Gave thee such a tender voice,
Making all the vales rejoice!
Little Lamb who made thee
Dost thou know who made thee
Little Lamb I’ll tell thee,
Little Lamb I’ll tell thee!
He is called by thy name,
For he calls himself a Lamb:
He is meek & he is mild,
He became a little child:
I a child & thou a lamb,
We are called by his name.
Little Lamb God bless thee.
Little Lamb God bless thee.
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 49 views
I have not read any literature done by Common Sense Realist authors. I do know that the Common Sense Realists were reacting to the skeptiscism of David Hume. I have read both Marsden and Sandeen on Fundamentalism. I will have to leave it there at this point. That which I find lacking in Kevin’s explanations is showing from Scripture that Kevin’s mistrust of common sense is also God’s mistrust of it. And, like you, I was not convinced by the cow story. Differences in terminology are not the same as genuine differences in perception. If you have ever spent time learning another language, you understand this is true.
Here is what Kevin has said:
Indeed, premoderns perceived some element of transcendence in ordinary objects. They habitually looked beyond what they saw, because every object signified something beyond itself. The perceived object was rarely or never considered as an ultimate (real) reality, but normally as a shadow or image of a greater reality. Right perception always looked through and beyond the thing to the reality that it shadowed. So, to perceive water truly was to perceive something about purity. To perceive gold truly was to perceive something about heaven. To perceive fire truly was to perceive something about hell.This isn’t completely correct. There was a continual debate about what is reality. I mentioned this debate before between Plato and Aristotle on exactly the subject: is it real, or isn’t it? For Aristotle, the material object was real. Each school had its myriads of followers in the ancient world. In my readings of Thucidydes, Livy, Cicero, Seneca, Seutonius, Plutarch, et. al. I found they didn’t spend a lot of time on the transcendence of objects at all. In Pliny the Elder’s “Natural HIstory,” he talks about many objects in nature. He even talks about the “divine power of nature” (in those days most philosophers believed both heaven and earth were divine). But transcendence of objects doesn’t seem to be all that important. At the same time, none of the authors I have cited was an athiest. They all talked about God (not just “the gods”). I am not sure, either, that I have gotten exactly this message from the writers of the Old Testament, but I might be overlooking things. Perhaps Kevin is speaking about the writers of the middle ages. I honestly do not believe that I cannot truly perceive water unless when I look at it I have to think of purity. Maybe God just wants me to quench my thirst so I can go on living.
Modern science is based upon the concept that we perceive reality. It has been very successful at eliminating diseases. I am rather certain this is what God has desired. He sends the rain upon the just and the unjust. He desired that the infants in Nineveh would be spared His wrath. He cares about people, even the unbelieving. All doctors practice on the basis that we genuinely perceive reality (even if we only understand part of it). The basis of modern science does not lie in modernity, but in the logical conclusions of Christian truth: developed through the middle ages. The “moderns,” most notably the philosophers of the Enlightenment, used the conclusions of modern science unrelentingly to destroy the foundations of the Christian faith. But modern science isn’t really based on modernity. It is based on Christian principles, and only emerged in Europe, where Christian beliefs had saturated the culture. All that to say that contending we don’t correctly percieve reality is, to a certain extent nonsense. When you see a car speeding down the highway, you don’t get out in front of it, regardless of what language you speak or your level of education.
I am not finished, so I will have to take this up again tomorrow or the next day
Jeff Brown
However, it’s not clear to me (and others) that all the criticism is well-founded. A solid, if somewhat underwhelming, recent treatment of the issue is Paul Helseth’s “Right Reason” and the Princeton Mind. My general take is that committed Reformed theologians have expressed very similar concepts, though one side employs the language of post-Heidegger (post-Gadamer?) Continental philosophy and the other the language of British analytical philosophy.
The idea that we can simply go back to a pre-modern consciousness, if anyone is actually suggesting that, I find incredibly naive.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Aaron,
Here is the rest of what I would say. I have read the Imagination 1-5 articles. You all had quite a discussion going on back then. Kevin did a splendid job of critiquing post-modernism. I would concur that there is immanent reality and ultimate reality, as Kevin denotes them. But I would not draw the same conclusions. I do not agree that the first real gold that we will see will be in the New Jerusalem. I am quite convinced that I am wearing real gold around my ring finger. Heavenly Gold will be a type of which I have not experienced. Gold on earth is too soft in its purest form to take the pounding of millions of people’s feet. But I still have a real gold ring on my finger. Both realities are precisely that: reality. We simply do not see all of reality.
Likewise, he makes the valid point that the Bible uses images with which we are familiar in order to portray God, so that we will have a chance to comprehend Him. If, however (and now I go back to the dictum of Kant, that we do not perceive reality as it is, but only interpreted reality), we do not perceive hands, feet, voices, eyes, etc. as they really are, but only our interpreted impressions of them, then they are only vague guides to gaining more understanding God. But this is not how the Bible uses the figures: “Did I not bear you on eagle’s wings?” assumes that we really do know what an eagle is like. God tells such things and expects both full trust and immediate obedience. Only arbitrary despots give vague commands and poorly comprehendible descriptions of their authority, and then demand complete obedience. God gives His people reference points in time and space
“If you should say in your heart, ‘These nations are greater than I; how can I dispossess them?’ — you shall not be afraid of them, but you shall remember well what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt: the great trials which your eyes saw, the signs and the wonders, the mighty hand and the outstretched arm, by which the LORD your God brought you out. So shall the LORD your God do to all the peoples of whom you are afraid.” Deuteronomy 7:17-19
So, as I see it, yes, there is an ultimate reality in heaven (which will come down to a new earth, by the way in very physical form), and yes, Kant was right to stress that we interpret reality. But for God, unlike for Kant, space and time were God’s creation (Gen 1). They did not originate in the human mind. So in God’s mind, the Israelites saw genuine reality and should have understood God rather well. No one was allowed to cop out with the explanation, “I did not honestly see the real thing. I did not apprehend it directly!”
As to Scottish Common Sense Realism, I cannot say how you or I line up with regard to this philosophy. I have not read any work of any of those writers. We are all to a large degree “moderns.” The stress on reason and scientific measurement made by modernist philosophers was a correct exercise of our God given abilities. We are also to a certain sense Kantian and post-modern as well. Each one of these philosophies has touched on something valid and in the meantime worked itself into the thinking of our culture. But because none of them begin with God’s Word, they all on their own lead a person astray. Above all, I would want any philosophy I might examine to be judged by the Word of God. Otherwise, I will adopt a philosophy, then use it as a grid to be placed over the Bible as I read it. This would cause me to miss a huge amount of reality.
Well, Aaron, I made a stab at it.
Jeff Brown
I was just thinking it would be a delight to have a sit down with both of you and Kevin and just pick your brians for a while. It’s a lazy—but much more fun—way to catch up on a whole lot of not completed reading!
It may be that what Kevin is saying and what you are saying, Jeff, are not as different as they seem, depending on what you mean by “real.” Seems like one really (pun not intended!) hard thing about metaphysiscs is coming up with words for these very difficult ideas—words that facilitate mutual understanding and getting at where the real differences are.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion