Christ Against Culture?

Forgive me while I psychoanalyze...

I'm reading Christ and Culture by H. Richard Niebuhr--I'm about half way through and it is excellent. Niebuhr pieces together historic Christian approaches to how Christians ought to live in the World (which he calls culture and spends a chapter defining. Niebuhr in short: the World is the value systems, philosophies, art forms, politics, and economics that make up a culture).

The problem, it seems, is that Jesus promises eternal salvation, but we're not dead yet. How ought Christians live (and how should I live) in the interim?

Niebuhr examines five answers that Christians have posited to this question, and each answer is fascinating. Each approach has taught me more about my self and my faith.

Of particular interest has been the approach that Niebuhr calls 'Christ against Culture' or the 'radical' approach. These Christians--represented by groups like the Benedictines (back in the day) and the Mennonites, and people like Leo Tolstoy--were convinced that the Christian must separate from culture in a radical way, either through vows of poverty, disavowal of political action, or, in Tolstoy's case, disengagement with culture altogether. These men and women are to be commended.

"In history these Christian withdrawals from and rejections of the institutions of society have been of very great importance to both church and culture. They have maintained the distinction between Christ and Caesar, between revelation and reason, between God's will and man's."

Amen.

I have been drawn to this approach in the past and am drawn to it now. I dream of living a radical life and were it not for video games and girls I might pursue it more seriously. It seems to me that Christ is worth being radical for. Some people are radical Marxists or radical libertarians--that's fine--but those ideologies have very defined material ends, while Christ promises change and transformation that transcends politics, culture, and economics; affecting and saving the soul. He promises a new society, a new ethics, a new life, and a second chance for anyone who has failed. What a Man to follow radically!

But at times the 'radical' approach is not the right approach:

"Now that we have recognized the importance of the role played by anticultural Christians in the reform of culture, we must immediately point out that they never achieved these results alone or directly but only through the mediation of believers who gave a different answer to the fundamental question. Not Tertullian (a radical), but Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose, and Augustine initiated the reformation of Roman culture. Not Benedict, but Francis, Dominic, and Bernard of Clairvaux accomplished the reform of medieval society often credited to Benedict...in every case the followers did not so much compromise the teachings of the radicals as follow another inspiration than the one deriving from an exclusive loyalty to an exclusive Christ (against culture)."

Augustine, Francis, and the other followers took ideas and values from the radical approach and used them to engaged culture. They saw tremendous change. Whole countries, whole empires became more just and more God-fearing because of their work.

Now, I'm trying to figure out how I want to live my life, and I keep getting pulled back to this desire to be a radical Christian. For some reason, I can't pull it off. I try to be a radical, but lose my desire after about 45 minutes. It seems like I just wasn't made to be a radical. In light of this struggle, I appreciate Niebuhr. Perhaps I can live for Christ as a radical-inspired non-radical. Perhaps I can take the ideas of Benedict and St. Antony and apply them in the context of my normal life. And as Niebuhr suggests, perhaps living this way I can have more of an impact than if I were a radical.

What do you think?