Questions
Are Christians Charged with “Taking Back the Culture”?
Summary: Yes and no—the problem is less what happens and more how. Christians are called to expand the kingdom through discipleship, which may incidentally transform culture (as it eventually reshaped Rome), but “taking back” language assumes a prior possession that is difficult to locate historically and impossible to justify theologically.
Yes and no. The problem is less about what happens than how it happens. Christians are to expand the kingdom of God by bringing new disciples under the authority of Christ while strengthening the community of faith by continually learning to observe Christ’s instructions. Will making disciples have an impact on the culture? It isn’t clear that it will. Neither Jesus nor the early church set out to transform Roman culture, and yet it outlasted Rome; the impact was real, but it was a byproduct of faithfulness rather than its goal.
Jesus’s work does not appear to have fundamentally changed Roman culture. It creates a discipleship movement within it, but Roman culture continued despite that movement. The book of Revelation provides a similar picture. It does not paint a picture of a world transformed by the efforts of the church, but of a world that is opposed to God’s order and pressures his people to compromise their faith. Discipleship is not important because it will allow us to “take back the culture.” The phrase itself assumes a prior possession that is difficult to locate historically and impossible to justify theologically. It is important because we have recognized the claim Christ has on us.
Christians don’t need to ignore the culture around them. We are called to love our neighbors and live faithfully within the societies where God has placed us. At times, that will involve political participation. But the church’s primary calling, the one that it cannot set aside, is not to dominate culture but to embody a different way of life that is shaped by allegiance to Christ. Culture change may follow from the church’s faithfulness, and we should celebrate it when it happens. Yet the church is not responsible for fixing the broken world but for living faithfully in a world so broken only God can fix it.
Key Takeaways: Cultural Influence as Byproduct
- The Early Church Did Not Try: Jesus and the early church did not set out to transform Roman culture; impact on Rome was a byproduct of faithfulness, not its goal.
- Revelation’s Picture: Revelation portrays a world opposed to God’s order that pressures God’s people to compromise—not a culture awaiting takeover by the faithful.
- The Historical Problem: “Take back” language assumes a prior Christian possession of American culture that is historically difficult to locate and theologically impossible to justify.
- The “So What”: The church is not responsible for fixing a broken world—only God can do that—but for living faithfully within it.
About the Author — James Spencer, PhD, is a theologian, author, and host of the Thinking Christian podcast, where he writes and speaks on Christian formation, political theology, and technology. He holds a PhD in Theological Studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and completed the Institute for Educational Management at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He serves as President of the D.L. Moody Center in Northfield, Massachusetts, as adjunct faculty in Wheaton College’s MA in Leadership program, and as an Associate Research Fellow at the Kirby Laing Centre for Public Theology. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Christianity.com, and Sojourners; he has been quoted in The Telegraph; and he is a regular guest on Stand in the Gap Today with the American Pastors Network. His forthcoming book is Digital Discernment (InterVarsity Press, Fall 2026). Learn more at jamesgspencer.com.