Christianity and Culture

Any religion best relates to a culture by relating well with other components of the culture. A healthy religion is one that contributes to the constructive development of the whole culture by elimination of destructive elements and development of edifying ones. Since man is a rational, emotional, truth loving, political, sociological, and religious being, each of his needs must be healthily met. And so it is not practically possible for any religion not to contribute in any way to the culture. But the question is "Can Christianity maintain a healthy relationship with culture by being a significant factor in its development?"

Relationship with nature has been a significant feature of many religions. Totally segregating from any relationship with nature is impossible since survival requires relationships with nature. Even in religions like Hinduism, Catholicism, Buddhism, and Jainism ascetism has been the pursuit of a few, while the majority liberal, considered the common laymen, are left to pursue in accordance to the religious values vital relationships with nature. As a matter of fact, the blessings of the ascetics are often sought for natural prosperity. Any purely ascetic religion paralyses material cultural progression. And such asceticism doesn't appeal to the common folk. And so cultural developments, despite presence of ascetic elements in religion, are very obvious in India, China, Sri Lanka, and Japan.

Troeltsch expressed his conviction that Christianity was the only religion that can be endured or lived with by European culture. He viewed religion as a necessity of every culture but thought that trying to transplant any religion into alien soil was doomed to failure. A religion grows only in a certain soil and a certain climate. Separate it from that environment, and the results may be fatal. Troeltsch, evidently, was assuming too much. Christianity was born and grew up in Palestine but is the major religion, not of Palestine but of Europe, America, and important parts of Asia, Africa, and Australia. This despite the fact that it was already a dominant 'Way' in Jerusalem during the first century A.D. Buddhism was born and grew up in India but is the dominant religion of Korea, Japan, Sri Lanka, and other Asian countries except India itself. Facts prove that Troeltsch was wrong.

But perhaps Troeltsch is not totally wrong! This because any religion transplanted anywhere cannot survive unless it has adjusted itself there (contextualised) through interaction with the already present cultural heritage, failing which its survival there becomes difficult as either it doesn't appeal to the people or it seems to be meaningless to them.