Richard Niebuhr identifies fives ways that Christianity gets expressed in the world:
1) Christ Against Culture - The easiest way to describe this definition is that it's the one that we grew up in. It's the way of the Anabaptists who chose to reject the close relationship that Luther supported between the church and state, and struck out on their own. This mode rejects culture, specifically a culture that has become conformist. The monastics of the early church left what they considered a watered-down Christianity of the Roman dynasty to live in the desert. It was a response to a clear call to commitment and devotion. The danger of this mode is that it engenders an us vs. them mentality. It can encourage self-righteousness and can lead to extremism. I think about how when I went to Japan when I was 20, and was shocked that Baptists and Pentacostals were on the same mission. I even assumed that other Christians were second-class to being Mennonite Brethren (my affiliated group). I was strongly against culture in any form.
2) Christ of Culture - This group is world affirming. They see that all that exists in culture and nature are not only pointers to Christ's Spirit in the world but are infused by Christ. When the Roman Empire accepted Christianity as the state religion, the Emperor Constantine was seen as an instrument of God and so too Roman customs and laws. A contemporary example could be fundamentalism in the States under Bush. When Bush equates the political decisions he makes with following God's will he is assuming a Christ of Culture model,that is, America is the ultimate expression of Christian vision. The danger with this mode is that a critique of culture is missing. It's the winners of culture that tend to embrace this mode (i.e., not the Anabaptists who had to fight for survival against a culture that wanted to kill them). So if you've made it, it's more likely that you're going to resist critiquing the culture that's made that success possible.
3) Christ above Culture - The mode is a mix of the above two. It's a more rational approach. It sees that we are made in the image of God, thus culture (human-made) is informed by and bathed in the love of God. However, the world is still limited and needs God's redeeming presence. This view holds the delicate balance of Paul the apostle's idea of the now and not yet. God's grace is given to us as created beings (the now) and still the kingdom is not yet present. We meet God in culture (nature, story, social action) but culture does not represent the kingdom of God. That is yet to come. The weakness of this mode is that it can get too attached to the present culture, and not acknowledge how creation still groans for its future freedom.
4) Christ and Culture Paradox - This approach argues that the Christian must expect to struggle in the attempt to lead an authentic Christian life. Martin Luther is a representative of this approach. Luther stressed that the Christian is meant to bear witness to Christ, but must be on guard against the temptations of the world. The paradox part points to the tension of living in a world in which structures such as law, the education system, and the economic system do create stability in which to live; however, these structures are not the structures on which Christians depend. Our primary dependence is on our relationship with God, and when the structures of culture woo us away from our home in God, then we struggle to return to our true place of identity. The danger of this approach is that if we respond to culture in fear there's a chance of becoming anti-creation or anti-body, and we miss out on how living in the world can bring us closer into relationship with God. It's similar to the danger of Christ against culture.
5) Christ, Transformer of Culture - This approach rests on a positive understanding of creation, which is seen as something that is in itself good, yet which requires transformation. Rather than the hope sitting in the present (now), the hope is primarily for the future (not yet). John and Charles Wesley, the founders of Methodism, fit here because of their emphasis on personal conversion and the need for the transformation of the individual. As Christ transforms individuals, the communities they are a part of will in turn transform. Paul thought that this is where Watershed strives to sit, even though as individuals we each live out of one of the other approaches. We hope to stress that the Christian life is about God working in us rather than about our striving after God. We are encouraged to see ourselves as individuals within community, and thus to see how both our fallenness (not recognizing our identity in God) and our gifts shape community. Also, the image of God's future breaking into the now has inspired us. The danger of this approach comes when a perfectionistic striving after future possibilities takes over from a dependence on God working in our lives.
We also talked about anarchy and spirituality. In a nutshell, the idea is that every system out there or in each of us is an archy. Whether it's our career, money, self-image, family, the church, political parties... there are tons of things that seek to control our lives and tons of things that we have the potential to give authority to. Unfortunately, the term anarchy (against archies) has come to mean, "I'm not going to listen to anyone because I'm going to run my own life." Alternatively, Christian anarchy invites us to toss our allegiance to these various powers, including our delusions of self-knowledge, and submit to the Kingdom of God, which seeks the true expression of what our lives were created to be as children of God.
At its best, Christian anarchy is an attitude that is aware of the systems of power in and around which we live and seeks to deal with these archies while resting in the truth of God. Always easier as an idea than as a practice!