A Primer on Christianity & Culture
Etymologically, in the 1400’s, the term ‘culture’ referred to the tilling and cultivation of land. It was utilized infrequently by about 1500 as a metaphor to refer to the cultivation of the mind and sensibilities by the educational system. By the 1620’s we see this term applied to the cultivation of live animals like oysters and fish. In 1805 we see it first used to refer to the learning and taste of a civilization, and finally in 1867 it is used as we most commonly use it today to refer to the collective customs and achievements of a people. [As an aside, in the 1880’s it began to be used to refer to the cultivation of bacteria and to the cultured bacteria’s product(s).] [Endnote 1]
Popularly, today, culture refers to the collective customs and achievements of a people (or else to the cultivation of bacteria and bacterial products). Within Christian discussions of how to relate to ‘culture’ we are then discussing how Christians relate to the collective customs and achievements of a society. While this seems simple enough, it is similar to a spider’s web, where a touch on one strand reverberates across the others. Part of a society is its government, another part its families, another its craft, etc. Each of these are intricately related. So, when we discuss culture, we end up discussing aspects of each.
There are numerous perspectives on this, and within these perspectives numerous views on how to Christians should relate to the collective customs of a society. Within Protestantism, the three main views are derived from Lutheran and/or Calvinist perspectives, Neo-Orthodoxy (ie liberalism), or Anabaptist origins. Within Roman Catholicism, three main views could be considered Trentine Anti-Protestantism, Pre-Vatican II Thomism, and Post-Vatican II Engagement. Within Eastern Orthodoxy, three main views are related to Symphonia, Eucharistic Transformation, and Neo-Monasticism.
Protestant Views
I am a Presbyterian, so I am personally most familiar with Calvinist views on the relation of the Church to culture. That said, I also am academically aware of numerous other views and want to review those here as well. Historically, Lutherans and Calvinists developed well-defined perspectives on this, and these evolved into a variety of nuanced views that exist today.
Lutheran and Calvinist Perspectives
Two Kingdoms
Martin Luther and John Calvin developed coordinate but somewhat distinct perspectives on the relationship between the Church and ‘culture’, which is commonly called the Two Kingdoms view. Originally, Luther and Calvin argued that God governs the world via two distinct but interrelated ‘kingdoms’ - the Church and the State. These two kingdoms exist to support one another: the Church to promote the salvation of humanity, instruct us in ethics, curb our sinful passions, and to create godly citizens. Meanwhile the State exists to promote the social welfare of its citizens by defending them from internal and external violence, including defense against the societal unrest of religious heresy and falsehood. Within the United States and Europe today, the Two Kingdoms view has taken on a unique change. Most advocates of a Two Kingdoms view today deny the role of the State in defending society against the unrest caused by religious heresy and falsehood.
Kuyperianism or Neo-Calvinism or Transformationalism
An alternate but closely related view arose out of the teachings of Abraham Kuyper in the early 20th century Netherlands, developed in detail by Herman Bavinck, and later Herman Dooyeweerd in the 1920’s. According to Kuyper, God governs the world via three spheres, sometimes called ‘sphere sovereignty’. These three spheres are: Church, family, and State. Each of these spheres is governed with different laws or rules (ie each is sovereign). Christians are called to labor to bring each of these spheres into conformity with the word of God, and as such they ought to transform (hence ‘Transformationalism’) the various spheres of society. Kuyper famously said, “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!” Note that some distinguish these 3 terms (Kuyperianism, Neo-Calvinism, Transformationalism)[Endnote 2], however they are so closely interrelated it is, to anyone looking at it from outside of a current Calvinist perspective, virtually identical.
Erastianism
Named after the Calvinist, Thomas Erastus, the term itself describes a concept he did not actually introduce. Erastus believed that the sins of Christians shouldn’t be disciplined by the Church by withholding the sacraments. Instead, he argued that the sins of Christians should be punished by the State. A later articulation of this was, effectively, a form of Caesaropapism (discussed later). This view was named Erastianism, and essentially treated the State as supreme over the Church, and in which State figures either determine or are the head of the Church. This position was rejected by the Westminster Assembly with dissent only from John Lightfoot. [Endnote 3]
Reconstructionism or Theonomy
Rousas Rushdoony’s perspective was initially Kuyperian, and heavily influenced by the teachings of Cornelius Van Til, however unlike Kuyper and Van Til, Rushdoony eventually taught that the judicial penalties of the Old Testament law of God ought to be applied to the spheres of society (which he considered: self, family, Church, State).[Endnote 4] This conception was further developed by Gary North and Greg Bahnsen. Uniquely, this perspective denies that the Mosaic law had a temporary civil use, and instead argues that it had only a temporary ceremonial use with an abiding moral use. This perspective is largely dismissed by the vast majority of contemporary Calvinists as a misunderstanding of the application of God’s law in civil society.
Covenanter or Neo-Covenanter
The Covenanter perspective on Christian relations to culture is largely neglected by the majority of Calvinists today, most of us having grown up or joining American Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist or Anglican congregations. It is essentially a modification of the Two Kingdoms perspective of Calvin, arguing that a society of Christians ought to covenant as a State to obey Jesus by following the law of God. This, and historic Two Kingdoms, is distinct from a theonomic perspective in that it suggests the judicial laws regulating the civil society of Israel are useful to Christian societies today only in their moral essence, and not their specific and unique historic application.
‘Faithful Presence’
A contemporary Presbyterian perspective of Church-culture relationship is advocated by James Davison Hunter. In his book To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, he argues that instead of pursuing political change, Christians ought to be faithfully present as Christians in whatever particular post they hold in society. It bears largely a great amount of similarity to the Neo-Anabaptist and Neo-Monastic views we will soon discuss.
Anabaptist Views
Historic Anabaptist
Historically, Anabaptists advocated a form of separatism, a radical Two Kingdoms position from the ‘Radical Reformation’, in which the Church is a voluntary association of peace that rejects the world’s militant governance. Historic Anabaptists advocate for the separation of Christians from worldly society, including its civil oaths, governance, and any military association.
"A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness which the devil planted in the world; in this manner, that we shall not have fellowship with them and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations."— The Schleitheim Confession, Article 4 [Endnote 5]
This is seen currently in old-school Amish and Mennonite communities.
Neo-Anabaptist
John Howard Yoder was a Mennonite theologian who advocated for a similarly pacifistic and separatist conception of Christian relationship to the culture, albeit with an embrace of certain elements historic Anabaptists rejected (such as patterned clothing, etc). He was critical of Richard Niebuhr, whom we will discuss momentarily. In the end, Yoder’s sexual criminality casts a dark shadow upon his legacy.
Stanley Hauerwas was a Methodist minister who was heavily influenced by John Howard Yoder. While he initially adapted some of the Niebuhr brothers works, he later rejected them in favor of Yoder’s position. In his assessment, Christians ought not use any political processes to make a society more ‘Christian', and instead the first task of the church is to make the world the world, not to make the world more just. [Endnote 6]
Neo-Anaptist views, then, can be considered separatist merely in terms of political involvement, while not rejecting the role of Christians within the economic and social life of society.
Neo-Orthodox Views
When the “Social Gospel” and theological liberalism became prevalent in the early 1900’s, numerous theologians raised in that tradition ended up departing it in favor of what is now called neo-orthodoxy. To the neo-orthodox, Scripture is the record of God’s revelation to mankind — neither perfectly inerrant, nor a pure fiction. They perceived the modernist agenda to ‘de-mythologize’ the Bible as a farcical and arrogant attempt, and argued instead that the transcendent God did indeed reveal himself by these means, means which we need to interpret nonetheless.
Karl Barth is a leading figure, perhaps the seminal figure, of neo-orthodoxy. Heavily influenced by Karl Barth, Richard and Reinhold Niebuhr proposed similar perspectives on the relation of Christians to culture. In his work, Christ and Culture, Richard Niebuhr famously developed a five-fold view of how people view Christ and culture: Christ against Culture, Christ of Culture, Christ above Culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox, and finally Christ the Transformer of Culture. In his estimation, the best way for Christians to relate to culture is to perceive Christ as the transformer of culture. Many current authors have utilized Niebuhr’s five-fold view as the definitive explanation of how people view Christ and culture. In this overview, I consider it as simply one perspective, and not as the overarching criteria to catalog how Christians view the relationship of Christ to culture. Additionally, it is somewhat surprising that Niebuhr’s five-fold view is so popular amongst some Presbyterians. It may be because his idea of “Christ the Transformer of Culture” shares a vague resemblance to Transformationalism.
Protestantism Summary
In regards to ‘the collective customs and achievements of society’, most Protestant views can be summed up in Luther’s famous response that a Christian cobbler does his best work by making good shoes and selling them at a fair price. Christians ought to labor in their various fields to produce the best work possible, and to treat their fellow citizens fairly.
Two notable pieces of ‘customs and achievements’ that we ought to discuss are those of icons and relics. These are certainly aspects of various societies that Christians have to determine whether or not to embrace, reject, or tolerate. Many Protestants argue that while icons ought not be venerated, they can be used as helpful teaching tools. Other Protestants argue that icons should neither be venerated, nor created, and some further argue that they ought to be destroyed. Finally, Protestants almost unanimously deny the use or validity of relics.
Additionally, we must mention the role of asceticism in the Christian life and as it relates to culture. Protestants almost unanimously deny the use of asceticism as a practice in the Christian life. In both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, asceticism is commonly practiced, and it can be perceived as one underlying way of relating to culture. Within Protestantism, the only views that come close to an ascetic view are those Anabaptist approaches that call a Christian community of families to separate from the surrounding culture.
Roman Catholic Views
To understand Roman Catholic views on how Christians relate to culture, we need to do a historical overview that traces the nature of the Papal States, the Lateran Palace, and the Vatican Palace. This history is intimately related to Catholic sentiment towards cultural events as it developed in its time, as well as to Catholic views today.
In 313, Emperor Constantine seized and donated a huge estate, including its palace, to Pope Miltiades. Beside this, Constantine built the Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran, which is the official cathedral of Rome and seat of the Pope to this day. Regarding the Vatican, formerly, the Vatican Hill was the site of the Emperor Nero’s circus, where Saint Peter was crucified upside down around the year 64 AD. Early Christians buried Peter in a shallow grave nearby. In the 4th century, Constantine built a grand basilica over that exact tomb (Old St. Peter’s). Popes built a small, modest residence next to it so they had a place to stay when they visited the tomb, but it was not their primary home.
Rome fell in 476, and by the 700’s the Byzantine Empire to the east was too weak to protect Rome from invading Lombards. As a result, the Pope began to organize city defense, food distribution, and act as a kind of city ruler. In 756, Pope Stephen II traveled north to meet with King Pepin the Short to beg for military protection. After the Pope legitimized his claim to rule, Pepin the Short subdued the Lombards, conquered their lands, and then donated these lands to the Pope, creating the Papal States. In 1309 the Pope had to flee Rome, and live in Avignon, France for nearly 70 years. Pope Gregory XI moved back to Rome in 1377, but found the Lateran Palace in ruins. As a result, he determined to reside in his Vatican home instead. At the time, the Vatican structures were a mess, and didn’t function as a permanent residence. While Gregory XI initially stayed in the Vatican home temporarily, in 1450 Pope Nicholas V determined to reform the Vatican into a permanent dwelling for the papacy. Such an undertaking would require enormous amounts of money, and to obtain such, the Popes offered indulges, and collected taxes and tithes from their owned properties (including nearly 1/3rd of all land in Germany).
Trentine Anti-Protestantism
Post-Reformation Catholicism responded to the dismantling or loss of various Catholic kingdoms. While early reformers, such as Huss and Wycliffe, sprung up and challenged Roman Catholic doctrine, it wasn’t until Luther in the 1500’s that massive societal and governmental changes challenged Papal political authority. Luther’s primary concerns were regarding the financial practices of the Pope, the moral corruption of the Church offices, and the Church’s illegitimate use of temporal power. While Luther and the Papacy both agreed on the distinction between Church and State, they did not agree on how they should relate. For the Pope, the Papacy exists as the spiritual sword of one kingdom and the governing authority as the temporal sword of the other. Since the soul is more important than the body, the Papacy is then more important than the governing authorities. For Luther, the Church and State are also two distinct kingdoms, but neither, theoretically, has more power or importance than the other. And while initially not rejecting the Papacy, Luther eventually regarded the Papal office as illegitimate, meaning that the spiritual sword exists in other offices of the Church.
In 1521 at the Diet of Worms, Emperor Charles V declared Martin Luther a heretic, a criminal, and deserving of death. In response, several German princes chose to protect him. Aside from theological conviction, they realized that by protecting Luther they could stop sending tax money to Rome and also seize Church properties within their borders. After this, Charles V left Germany to handle the defense of Vienna against the Islamic Ottoman Empire and to attend to war with France. When he returned in 1530 he called a Diet at Augsburg to attempt a reconciliation with the Lutheran princes, but ended by commanding them to return to Roman Catholicism or face military destruction. In response, the princes formed a defensive league called the Schmalkaldic League in 1531. Again, Charles V’s attention was focused on France and the Ottoman Empire, and when that was resolved, and after Luther died in 1546, Charles V marched on the Protestant princes. While initially it seemed he had claimed victory, other princes (Protestant and Catholic) grew unnerved with his power and united and drove Charles into exile. His brother had to carry out negotiations with the princes, finally resolved by the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. The peace entailed, “Cuius regio, eius religio”, i.e. “Whose realm, his religion” and included the concept of “Ius Reformandi”, or the ruler’s right to reform the religion according to their view. Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism were officially permitted within German regions, though Calvinists and Anabaptists were treated as heretics.
For various reasons, prior to Luther’s death, the Pope summoned the Council of Trent. This council met on and off from 1545-1563. Initially a consideration of doctrines, even inviting Protestants to attend (though not vote), it ended as a denunciation of Protestantism and articulation of Roman Catholicism’s particular beliefs. One particular example is that of the issue of receiving communion in "both kinds" i.e. utraquism (both the consecrated Host/bread and the Chalice/wine). This was one of the central demands of the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s (as well as wars fought over this by the Hussites in the 1400’s!). In response, the Council of Trent doubled down on condemning the practice of utraquism, arguing that Christ is fully present in either form alone, and insisted on giving bread alone to the laity.
By the early 1600’s, numerous German princes had converted to Calvinism, which was technically illegal (but usually tolerated). Ferdinand II was poised to become King, and began shutting down Protestant churches in Bohemia. In response, Protestant noblemen threw Catholic representatives from a third story window (not the first time in Prague’s history), though they surprisingly survived the fall. Ferdinand II launched an invasion in an attempt to crush the rebellion. The resulting conflict drew much of Europe into what is now known as the 30 Years War (1618-1648). [As an aside, there were numerous other wars that got tied up into this, including the 80 Years’ War!]
The Thirty Years’ War concluded in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. This series of treaties included: international recognition of state autonomy within the Holy Roman Empire, concession of the King of Landeshoheit (territorial superiority) to the princes, reciprocal treatment of each state to the other (aequalitas exacta mutuaque), the recognition of Calvinism, the Spanish recognition of the Dutch Republic as a sovereign state, the removal of Ius Reformandi - the requirement (in most areas) that a people had to change their religion if their ruler changed religion, and that all lands reverted to the particular religion that they held in 1624. [Endnote 7]
Pope Innocent X denounced this series of treaties, calling them, “null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, and inane.” [Endnote 8] By cementing the reversion of lands to the religions they held in 1624, the Pope officially lost millions of acres of land, hundreds of monasteries, and countless bishoprics to Protestant rulers. He also lost the temporal right to collect taxes from these lands, shrinking the financial empire of the Vatican. Not only that, when Pope Innocent issued his papal bull, attempting to impose his deposing power (power to excommunicate a secular ruler from the Church and free his citizens from their laws) to prevent enforcement of the Peace of Westphalia, even the Catholic rulers ignored this. It marked the death-knell to this form of temporal power from the Pope. [Endnote 9] Last, with the end of Ius Reformandi, citizens were now free to worship as they desired, regardless of the rule of their particular governors. The Pope could no longer hope to unseat the ruler, seat a Catholic ruler, and force the land back to Catholicism.
What does this mean for Catholic views about culture and Christianity? The Peace of Westphalia ended up putting nationalism above religious solidarity for many common citizens. French Catholics cared more about France than Rome, German Catholic princes cared more about their local autonomy than the Pope's property, etc. Over the next two centuries, as the political philosophy (somewhat) represented by the Peace of Westphalia grew, the religious leaders and nobles of the Church turned inward—building a kind of intellectual fortress of Neo-Thomism to protect it from the modern world.
Pre-Vatican II Thomism/Anti-modernism
Quite distinctly, Roman Catholics also had to grapple with the rise of political liberalism. For nearly 1,000 years the papacy had wielded both spiritual and temporal power. Political liberalism, on the other hand, created nation-states that distinguished between spiritual power and temporal power and severely limited the relationship between the two.
In the mid-1800’s the pan-European liberal revolutions were underway. In 1848 King Charles Albert of Piedmont-Sardinia composed a new constitution called Statuto Albertino. As he conquered and unified the rest of Italy, he applied the constitution, and when he eventually formed the Kingdom of Italy it became its constitution as well. Legally, the Kingdom of Italy was a confessional state. The constitution said, “The Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman religion is the sole religion of the state. All other forms of worship now existing are tolerated in conformity with the law.” [Endnote 10]
Despite this, parliament passed a law that said a person's religious beliefs could not restrict their civil rights, political rights, or eligibility for public office. Further, in the 1850’s and 1860’s they abolished the Church courts (privilegium fori), seized Church property such as monasteries, and established civil marriage as the only union recognized by the Kingdom of Italy. In response, in 1864 Pope Pius IX published a list of errors that Roman Catholics were forbidden to believe. The last error is that “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization." [Endnote 11]
In 1870 the Kingdom of Italy militarily seized Rome. After this, they passed the Law of Guarantees, offering the Pope sovereign status, full use of the Vatican and Lateran palaces, and an annual cash payout to make up for his lost territories. Pope Pius IX rejected it, arguing that if his independence was merely ‘guaranteed’ by an Italian law, then a future Italian parliament could vote to take it away. He retreated inside the walls of the Vatican palace, locked the gates, and declared himself a ‘Prisoner of the Vatican.’ He vowed never to step foot outside the Vatican grounds as long as Rome was occupied by the Italian government. For the next nearly 60 years, five successive popes (Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XI) maintained this strict imprisonment strategy. Whenever they were elected, instead of stepping out onto the external balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica to bless the city of Rome, they stepped onto an internal balcony facing the courtyard to show they did not recognize the Italian state outside.
One example of this approach to political liberalism is seen in 1874. In that year, Pope Pius IX issued a decree that forbade Italian Roman Catholics from voting or participating in the political life of the Kingdom of Italy, framing the government as a malicious, occupying force. This was not rescinded until 1919.
In the meantime, 1897 Pope Leo XIII declared Thomism the official philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church, and urged the Church to return to the study of Thomas Aquinas in order to respond to contemporary philosophies. [Endnote 12] This was the dominant enterprise of religious scholars and leaders within the Church for the next 60-70 years. After Pope Pius X condemned modernism in 1907, people who were adamantly committed to Aquinas and regularly argued against co-religionists, modernists, and political liberals were call “Integral Catholics”. This is commonly called integralism, and is often viewed as similar or equivalent to contemporary Traditionalism (which we will discuss shortly).
Surprisingly enough, Mussolini’s government ended up resolving the conflict with the Lateran Treaty of 1929. In this treaty the Kingdom of Italy recognized the Vatican City State as an independent nation with the Pope as its absolute monarch, the Pope recognized the Kingdom of Italy with Rome as its capital, the Kingdom of Italy paid the Vatican millions of dollars as a lump sum, Catholicism was declared the religion of Italy, and religious education became mandatory.
This financial boon and independence for the Papacy set the stage for a new approach to the changing cultures of the world. The Pope’s role had shifted from the ruler of a large Kingdom, to primarily (and almost solely) a spiritual leader for the Roman Catholic faithful. With such a dramatic change in role, the Papal office, and Catholic sentiment, shifted from anti-political-liberalism to an aim at engaging with the culture.
Post-Vatican II Engagement (Aggiornamento)
Numerous events and ideas can be pointed to as the ‘cause’ of Vatican II and of its massive reforms in the Roman Catholic Church.
Liturgical Reform
For one, in the late 1800’s numerous monasteries advocated for liturgical reform. It began with Abbey of Solesmes in France under Dom Prosper Guéranger. After the French Revolution the liturgy had become disorganized, Guéranger and his fellow Benedictine monks began reading through, standardizing, and disseminating Medieval Gregorian Chant manuscripts for other monks to perform a more organized Roman liturgy. He developed a massive 9-volume textual commentary (The Liturgical Year) mapping out the prayers, history, and theology of every single day of the Church calendar. Last, he fought to re-establish the uniform Latin text of the Tridentine Mass across France and Europe to eliminate local, fragmented liturgical variations.
In 1909, Benedictine monk Dom Lambert Beauduin, made an address at the National Congress of Catholic Works entitled La vraie prière de l’Église ("The True Prayer of the Church"), which he later expanded into his 1914 monograph, La Piété de l'Église ("Liturgy, the Life of the Church"). He took all three of Guéranger’s developments, and wanted to apply it to the laity. [Endnote 13] The Congress was so moved by the address that it officially adopted his proposals as formal resolutions, which could be said to launch the 20th-century Pastoral Liturgical Movement.
It was resolved (among other things) to popularize the Latin texts of each Sunday’s Mass and Vespers by translating them into the vernacular in hand missals; to highlight the importance of the parochial sung Mass on Sunday; to work for a wider use of Gregorian chant, so as to displace the theatrical style of music that was turning all too many churches into opera halls; to orient all devotions toward the liturgy; and to encourage annual retreats for church choirs at centers of liturgical life such as the monasteries at Mont-César and Maredsous. [Endnote 14]
After this call, numerous clergymen began altering their liturgical practices. For one, Dom Lambert Beauduin, following his 1909 address, immediately launched the bilingual, mass-market pamphlet series La Vie Liturgique. This was a low-cost, pocket-sized hand missal containing parallel Latin and vernacular translations so laypeople could read the text simultaneously with the priest. For another, he and Pius Parsch began using the Dialogue Mass (Missa Recitata). Beauduin pioneered the early concept, but the Austrian priest Pius Parsch systematically implemented it at his parish during the 1920’s, training laypeople to read the responses aloud in unison with the altar servers. Finally, as a later development of this movement, some clergymen altered the direction the priest faced from ad orientum (altar wall) to versus populum (facing the people). German theologians like Odo Casel provided the historical research, and Pius Parsch physically implemented the change. These various elements gained a larger consensus over time.
The World Wars
Additionally, both World Wars, particularly WWII, radically re-shaped views on international cooperation and inter-religious dialogue. Clergy and civilians of various persuasions fought alongside one another in war, shaping sentiment about the ethics, intentions, and reasonable nature of other proclaiming Christians.
During the war, many French and German Catholic priests and theologians worked alongside Protestants, secular Jews, and non-believers in the anti-Nazi resistance or in prisoner-of-war camps. It shaped their sentiment toward the need for dialogue with people full of profound goodwill and courage, regardless of their religious conviction.
The New Theology Movement
European Catholic theologians looked at the devastation of WWII, the rise of totalitarianism, and the horror of the Holocaust, and felt the Neo-Thomism of the Church inflexible, dry, and incapable of dealing with real human suffering. In response they chose a theological method called ressourcement - return to the sources. They studied the Bible, the early Church Fathers, and Aquinas’ actual writings, rather than just interpretations of Aquinas. [As an aside, ‘ad fontes’ was also the ‘battle cry’ of the humanists during the Reformation!] Some of these men included Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Jean Daniélou, and Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI). Many of these men were censured or banned from teaching by Rome in the 1950s, but they would become the primary theological architects of Vatican II.
Vatican II (1962-1965) - Aggiornamento
The surprising personality of Angelo Roncalli (Pope John XXIII) instigated a massive change in Roman Catholicism. Though elected in his old age, and expected to do very little, Pope John XXIII called a second Vatican Council, which served to reshape Catholic approaches to culture. For example, at Vatican II, the Council’s very first document, Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963), officially opened the door to utraquism, ruling that Holy Communion in both kinds could be permitted to the laity at the discretion of the bishops. This was a practice that had been demanded by Hussites and later all Protestants! It also radically reshaped the nature of the liturgy, primarily in regards to non-Latin language being utilized, and the direction in which the priest faces. Overall, the approach of Vatican II has been called “aggiornamento” or “updating”.
“The Church has a mission and a message, and divine help, for all mankind; to fulfil her function she must be not only chronologically but spiritually the contemporary of those to whom she addresses herself. Aggiornamento in depth is thus seen to be a pastoral necessity.” - Bishop B.C. Butler [Endnote 15]
Liberation Theology
Vatican II's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes (1965) begins,
"The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ.”
In 1968, the Second General Conference of Latin American Bishops met in Medellín, Colombia, to apply Vatican II to Latin America. Led by theologians like Gustavo Gutiérrez, the bishops argued that the "griefs and anxieties" of Latin America were defined by systemic poverty and military dictatorship. Medellín had adopted Marxist social analysis (specifically Dependency Theory), and institutionalized the concepts of "structural sin" (sin embedded in economic and political systems) and the "preferential option for the poor." Later, in 1971, Gutiérrez published A Theology of Liberation, arguing that liberation from earthly oppression is an essential aspect of Christian salvation.
In a sad irony, the theological movement out of Neo-Thomism was meant to defeat totalitarianism, yet its fruit, liberation theology, frequently aligned itself with Marxist authoritarian regimes. By adopting Marxist analysis, liberation theologians often ended up supporting or validating left-wing guerrilla movements and authoritarian regimes that mirrored the exact totalitarianism Vatican II sought to prevent. Ultimately, in 1984, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), issued a critique called Instruction on Certain Aspects of the "Theology of Liberation” in which he argues that liberation theology reduces Christianity to a political theology, and warns that in seeking to depose right-wing dictators they ignore that Marxism results in the establishment of a differing totalitarian regime.
Traditionalism
Numerous Roman Catholics dislike(d) the results of Vatican II. Opposition to the agenda of Vatican II can be called Traditionalism, or the desire to return to the previous tradition. They fall into three main groups: schismatics, the Sedevacantists, and tolerant traditionalists. There are a variety of schismatic groups, perhaps prime among them being the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) which was formed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970. They believe that Vatican II introduced heresy regarding religious liberty, ecumenism, and the Mass. Sedevacantists, meaning “the seat is vacant”, further argue that since the Vatican II and post-Vatican II popes promote heresy, they are not real popes. From their perspective, the modern Vatican is a false church. But, by far the vast majority of Traditionalists are those within the Roman Catholic Church who remain loyal to the pope, stay in their diocese, but are critical of Vatican II’s teaching and its fruits. They believe aggiornamento has led to collapse in church attendance, a crisis of faith, and a dilution of Catholic identity.
Eastern Orthodox Views
Eastern Orthodox Christianity developed alongside Roman Catholicism and Protestantism with varying amounts of interaction with two. Similarly to both, most Orthodox believe there are two kingdoms administered by God - the Church and the State. Also similarly to both, there are differences of opinion on how the two should interact, and how Christians should live within the state.
Symphonia
Historic Symphonia
While Rome fell in 476, and eventually birthed the Holy Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman [Byzantine] Empire survived for another thousand years. In 535 AD, Emperor Justinian I of Constantinople composed his Corpus Juris Civilis. In Novel 6, he defines the "two greatest gifts" God gave to humanity: the sacerdotium (priesthood) to care for souls, and the imperium (imperial authority) to govern earthly matters, and that they were designed to work in symphony.
“The priesthood and the Empire are the two greatest gifts which God, in His infinite clemency, has bestowed upon mortals; the former has reference to Divine matters, the latter presides over and directs human affairs, and both, proceeding from the same principle, adorn the life of mankind.” [Endnote 16]
In theory, symphonia should be a harmonious work in which the State protects the Church and the Church prays for and sanctifies the State. But even within the Byzantine Empire, it rarely functioned as such. Numerous Church fathers critiqued imperial heavy-handedness in Church affairs, and many today have suggested that the political structure functioned closer to Caesaropapism (the subordination of the Church to secular power). [Endnote 17]
When the Muslim Ottoman Empire conquered Constantinople in 1453, the Byzantine Empire collapsed. The Russians believed they had a divine mandate to inherit the mantle of the Christian Roman Empire, in part because they were the only independent, powerful Orthodox kingdom left, in part because In 1472, the Grand Duke of Moscow married niece of the very last Byzantine Emperor, and additionally because a a monk named Philotheus of Pskov formally articulated the "Third Rome" theory: “Two Romes have fallen. The Third [Moscow] stands. And a fourth there will not be.” [Endnote 18] Finally, in 1547, Ivan IV officially crowned himself Tsar—a word derived directly from Caesar.
Symphonia Broken
Russia’s attempt at symphonia was broken in 1721 (though earlier steps were taken as well), when Peter the Great abolished the Patriarchate and replaced it with a government ministry called the Most Holy Synod. For two centuries, Caesaropapism functioned as the defining political philosophy - the state established Church leadership and demanded Church loyalty to the State. [Endnote 19]
In an absolute break of Church-State relations, in 1917 the Bolshevik Revolution introduced a state-enforced atheism. Following the 1917 October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks launched a campaign to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church because they viewed it as a defender of the Tsarist regime. In 1918 Lenin issued the Decree on Separation of Church from State and School from Church. This law stripped the Church of legal status, nationalized Church property (including icons, chalices, and land), and banned religious instruction in schools. [Endnote 20]
Using the 1921–1922 Russian famine as a pretext, Lenin ordered the seizure of all remaining Church valuables under the guise of famine relief. In a secret memo dated March 19, 1922, Lenin wrote,
”The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing for this reason, the better."
Over 8,000 priests, monks, and nuns were summarily executed during this campaign. [Endnote 21] Further, in 1923 the Bolsheviks converted the ancient Solovetsky Monastery in the White Sea into the first major gulag. Dozens of bishops, including the Archbishop, were imprisoned there, subjected to hard labor, and either executed or left to die of disease. [Endnote 22]
Next, from 1932-1937 Joseph Stalin carried out a campaign with the goal of ensuring "not a single house of prayer remains on Soviet territory" by 1937. This culminated in the Great Purge (1937–1938). In 1937 alone, 85,300 Orthodox clergy were arrested, and 41,200 were executed by firing squad. By 1939, out of roughly 54,000 pre-revolutionary churches, only a few hundred remained open, and out of hundreds of bishops, only four remained active at liberty. [Endnote 23]
The Anti-Modernist / Apocalyptic Symphonia
Prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian imperialists and transnational monks argued for two interrelated views of symphonia. In both cases, they perceived both communism and political liberalism as a poison, and desired the return of an autocracy that would work in symphony with the Church.
On the one hand were the Russian imperialists, particularly Konstantin Leontiev and Fyodor Dostoevsky. In his Writer's Diary, Dostoevsky argued that Russia had a divine right to conquer Constantinople, [Endnote 24] absorb the Slavic peoples, and save the godless West. [Endnote 25] He believed that the Velikorussy (Great Russians), Malorussy (Little Russians / i.e. Ukrainians), Belorussy (White Russians / i.e. Belarusians) were part of a singular Russian spiritual entity. Similarly, Leontiev warned that egalitarian, democratic "progress" was the ultimate tool of homogenization and decay. He argued that an autocratic Russian Tsar was the only thing capable of keeping the world from sliding into a godless, democratic monoculture. [Endnote 26]
On the other hand were the transnational monks. Fr. Seraphim Rose popularized the idea that the fall of the Tsar removed the biblical "Restrainer" (Katechon), opening the door to Antichrist’s global democracy. His book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future argues that secularism, ecumenism, and democratic liberalism are preparing the world for the deception of the Antichrist. [Endnote 27] Similarly, St. Paisios of Mount Athos predicted, prior to this death, that a war would be fought between Russia and Turkey in which Russia would triumph and restore the Orthodox Empire. [Endnote 28] Elder Ephraim of Arizona said nearly the same thing on a few occasions. [Endnote 29]
Militant Symphonia
While the transnational monks such as Seraphim Rose, St. Paisos, and Elder Ephraim of Arizona were more separatist, their highly popular apocalyptic views on democracy and globalism have been weaponized by the modern Russian state. The state has also drawn on the work of Dostoevsky and Leontiev to support their cause. In “The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church”, repeated by Patriarch Kirill, the Russian Church explicitly defends symphonia as its historical ideal, but adapts it to a post-Soviet landscape. Russia has utilized their relationship with the Church as a weapon to back their imperial ambitions and claims to a Holy War against the West. Patriarch Kirill has repeatedly stated in his sermons that any Russian soldier who dies fighting in this conflict has all of their sins "washed away," explicitly turning military death into Christian martyrdom. [Endnote 30]
Not only that, in March 27, 2024, during an extraordinary session of the World Russian People’s Council they issued "The Present and Future of the Russian World”. In it, they state,
“From a spiritual and moral point of view, the special military operation [ie the war in Ukraine] is a Holy War, in which Russia and its people, defending the single spiritual space of Holy Rus', fulfill the mission of the 'Holder' [Katechon], protecting the world from the onslaught of globalism and the victory of the West, which has fallen into Satanism.” [Endnote 31]
They invoke the biblical "Restrainer" from 2 Thessalonians, framing the political Russian state as the final holy barrier preventing the global rise of the Antichrist. Overall, the Russian Orthodox Church operates as a partner to the Kremlin. It has manufactured theological and moral justifications to sustain a long-term war. As a result, as of 2018, it has broken fellowship with Constantinople.
Cultural Symphonia
In Greece and the Balkans, symphonia could be still be said to be the underlying relationship between Church and State, albeit primarily to preserve cultural legacy. For example, Article 3 of the Greek Constitution explicitly names Eastern Orthodoxy as the "prevailing religion" of the nation. The state pays the salaries of Orthodox priests, and major church holidays are national holidays. In Romania and Serbia, national identity and Orthodox identity are heavily intertwined. To be an ethnic Serb or Romanian is, by default, assumed to be Orthodox. However, unlike Russia, the church in these lands does not weaponize this relationship to back global imperial ambitions or call for a "holy war" against the West. It is a localized, defensive arrangement designed simply to preserve national heritage.
Transformational Eucharist
Academics and urban clergy today lean heavily into what could be called the Transformational Eucharist view. According to this position, liturgical life can heal and elevate modern democratic societies. Thinkers influenced by Alexander Schmemann’s “For the Life of the World”, John Zizioulas’ “Being as Communion”, and Christos Yannaras’ “Orthodoxy and the West” argue that the local Eucharistic gathering is a model for true democracy. In the Liturgy, all social classes, political parties, and races are leveled before the chalice. Instead of demanding that the state enforce Christian laws from the top down, this view argues that Orthodox Christians should be excellent, active citizens who transform their societies from the bottom up. They advocate for human rights, environmentalism (a major focus of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew), and dialogue with secular culture, viewing the Church as a healing presence within the world.
Neo-Monasticism (The Benedict Option)
Neo-Monasticism is a dominant force for millions of everyday pilgrims in Greece and the Balkans, as well as a more commonly accepted position throughout the world. One form of this is seen in pilgrimage to Mount Athos, an autonomous monastic republic in northern Greece. Laymen from Greece, Romania, and Serbia regularly travel to visit the monks. These laypeople bring a monastic worldview back to their suburban parishes and families. Overarchingly, they view the European Union, globalization, and secularization with deep suspicion. The modern secular state is viewed as increasingly hostile to Christian truth. They don't expect the state to save them. Instead, they focus on building strict boundaries: homeschooling, tight-knit parish communities centered around a monastic spiritual father, and a mental withdrawal from mainstream secular entertainment.
This is also seen in the Americas in books like “The Benedict Option” by Rod Dreher. While he doesn’t specifically advocate for pilgrimage to a monastery, he proposes adapting some monastic practices to family life, and building the kind of tight-knit parish communities advocated by the monks of Mount Athos. Various Protestant converts to Orthodoxy have adapted this view, and also take pilgrimages to visit the monks across the United States.
Final Thoughts
How do Christians relate to the collective customs and achievements of a society? If you’ve gotten to this point, you’ve read a lot of different opinions on that! There are almost as many approaches to it as there are hairs on the human head. But one thing to remember is that there are more separatist approaches, and more adaptive approaches. There are those views suspicious of other professing Christian groups, and those more flexible about that. The one particular view I left out is ‘Christian’ liberalism. This view is a complete redefinition of Christianity, and its approach to culture could be said to be one of adaptation to it. Outside of that, all Christian organizations perceive cultural interaction as, in some manner, attempting to be “in the world but not of the world”.
Endnotes
1 https://www.etymonline.com/word/culture
2 https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/do-we-need-neo-calvinism/
3 Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Erastus, Thomas". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 9 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 732–733
4 https://web.archive.org/web/20121130171756/http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=%2Fethics%2Fligon_duncan_critique.html
5 https://courses.washington.edu/hist112/SCHLEITHEIM%20CONFESSION%20OF%20FAITH.htm
6 Cited from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hauerwas
7 https://pages.uoregon.edu/dluebke/301ModernEurope/Treaty%20of%20Westphalia%20%5BExcerpts%5D.pdf
8 Diamond, Larry Jay; Plattner, Marc F.; Costopoulo, Philip J. (2005). World religions and democracy. p. 103.
9 https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1500?p=emailA0J0IKTRY83Fs&d=/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1500&print#:~:text=7%20However%2C%20probably%20the%20most,notions%20of%20divided%20territorial%20rule.
10 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Statuto_Albertino#:~:text=The%20Catholic%2C%20Apostolic%2C%20and%20Roman,according%20to%20the%20Salic%20law
11 https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm
12 https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html
13 https://grokipedia.com/page/lambert_beauduin#:~:text=Beauduin's%20defining%20initiative%20came%20in,involvement%20in%20the%20Mass%2C%20drawing
14 https://adoremus.org/2024/11/dom-lambert-beauduin-the-moses-of-the-20th-century-liturgical-movement/#:~:text=Pius%20X%20(1903%2D14),10
15 https://vatican2voice.org/3butlerwrites/aggiorna.htm
16 https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/N6_Scott.htm
17 Dawson, Christopher (1956), The Making of Europe (2nd ed.), New York: Meridian Books, pp. 109–110
18 https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/church-history/sixteenth-century/russia3
19 https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/RPPO/SIM-024875.xml#:~:text=The Dukhhovny Reglament (“Spiritual/,Peter's supervision, his colleague F.
20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928–1941)#:~:text=The main target of the,and church publications were prohibited.
21 https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/trans-ae2bkhun.html#:~:text=The greater the number of,resistance whatsoever for several decades.
22 https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2002-05-03-10-solovki-67426547/384093.html
23 https://www.historians.org/perspectives-article/documenting-the-death-toll-research-into-the-mass-murder-of-foreigners-in-moscow-1937-38-may-1999/
24 https://www.reddit.com/r/dostoevsky/comments/xztzxt/this_is_the_writers_diary_published_in_1895_as/
25 https://eugeneehren.medium.com/fyodors-demons-33285afbfce9
26 https://www.e-flux.com/notes/6783450/the-antichrist-today-russian-conservative-and-techno-enlightenment-versions#:~:text=This understanding of the “restraining,Leontiev (1831–91).
27 https://www.scribd.com/document/808126094/Orthodoxy-and-the-Religion-of-the-Future-By-Fr-Seraphim-Rose-4th-Ed-Platina-Calif-California-July-1997-Saint-Herman-of-Alaska-978188#:~:text=spiritual dynamite, especially in Russia,before had such a penetrating
28 https://iconandlight.wordpress.com/2020/05/28/44484/#:~:text=http://prologue.orthodox.cn,war between Russia and Turkey.
29 https://iconandlight.wordpress.com/tag/elder-ephraim-of-arizona/#:~:text=“My%20child%2C%20I%20will,or%20put%20up%20a%20fight%5D.
30 https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-religion-moscow-0d2382ff296b7e253cd30c6bbadeed1d
31 https://www.knoxnews.com/story/entertainment/columnists/terry-mattingly/2024/04/25/mattingly-orthodox-church-of-ukraine-slams-russian-world-theology/73414865007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=false&gca-epti=undefined&gca-ft=0&gca-ds=sophi