I am most sympathetic and liking towards the Transformationalist model of Christian and culture engagement, because it is active in influencing culture. It has the Kuyperian touch of Neo Calvinism, which spreads the influence of Christ over all aspects of culture. This model looks at the secular work in the world as important way to serve Christ and his Kingdom, and calls for the importance for Christians excelling in the work, and their spheres of influence. Christians must bring their distinctive Christian commitment to Public Square. And make them as part of the identity. I do have reservation of their triumphalism, self-righteousness, and overconfidence, which comes from the lack of theological understanding of the common grace outside the church. And their politically active in wanting to change politics is attractive, and compelling as Kuyper’s view on Christ rules overall including politics. However, excessive confidence in politics as a means of changing culture may be backfiring, though it’s the right direction as part of the overall package.

The Countercultures model is the saddest because they withdraw or separatist from the world, with a dispensationalist mentality. Saying that the return of culture is imminent, so no point in saving the culture. Basically, leaving the world to rot, and the spiritual darkness takes over the governments, and implement whatever godless culture to our kids and families and society. And they downplay penal substitutional redemption because they don’t believe God will endorse a violent atonement. The other problem is this philosophy undermines communication with the fallen world as Christians are so separated from the world, the culture.

The Two Kingdom Model places high value on secular vocations, like teacher, lawyer, etc. They believes in a strong doctrine of common grace in the public sphere. Christians and non-Christians can work together well. I do not like the low expectations for cultural reformation prior to the eschaton, in the Amillennialism viewpoint, resulting in the mindset that Church is going to be a minority. And it’s not big for cultural transformation and will not have a great deal of influence and power in the world. This is problematic in my view.

They tend to accept secularism. They encourage the church not to take action against society’s ills. Church only does gospel ministry and not meant to get involved in politics, social issues. Not to speak out on social political. And not act to organize on social issues. All these are problematic. In my view.

The Relevance model. They have such great optimism about cultural trends. Instead of influencing the culture, they’re bringing the culture into the Christian life. They emphasize on the common good and human flourishing. That Christians needs to promote the common good, and not just the welfare for the Church, but all of society and seeking to rectify injustices, which is a very good. Mindset of this model is to treat Christian and church as synonymous. There are groups like Liberation Theology, Black, Liberation Theology, Feminine Theology. And seeker sensitive movement like Willow Creek and Emerging Church Movement.

The biggest problem of this model is they have a low view of theological precision or orthodoxy and Christian tradition. And this another huge problem is this supplanted evangelism and conversion by emphasis on social action. There’s not much preaching of the gospel and asking for repentance, but move to social action and social gospel, false gospel. There is an erosion of the biblical distinction between the church and the world. And they regard any distinction will be problematic by them. They have a lack of enthusiasm for membership and discipline under authority of eldership. To me, this doesn’t sound like they’re even a born again group of Christians.

Tim Keller., Loving the City., Zondervan,  2016.

H Richard Niebuhr,  Christ and Culture, Harper one,  2001.