After studying the book of Colossians, I posted this quote on twitter:
"We must differentiate culture from biblical theology to connect to this generation and avoiding false teaching. #lessonsfromcolossians"
After posting this quote, this dialogue was the result...
Charles Affholter: Do you mean the differentiation between the culture of the early Church within which the Pauline community produced this document and the particular, and notably well-developed, Christology that is the central point of the larger argument, or a differentiation between modern culture and theology? I hopefully assume the former to be what you mean, rather than the latter.
As you well know, I find "relevance" to be nothing more than a nasty case of "buzzword toxicity" infecting evangelicalism which was itself a response to the very relevant, though theologically vacuous and equally toxic buzzword, "social gospel", that had become de rigeur in main line Protestantism early last century.
Granted, it bay be a step up from the days when high Christology was fodder for dock-side chatter, but to my mind, the dumbing down of america in general, at which most fundamentalists have excelled far beyond their secular brethren, has left few christians with the education to adequately engage in serious theological reflection. "Engaging the culture" does not and cannot condone the watering down the gospel into the cheap grace that pervades the ecclesiastical communities that are growing the fastest.
14 hours ago
Chad Logan: Biblical principles are indispensable prescriptions for us today; however, there are methods we use to implement those principles. If principles and methods are unchanging, then I would label you as a Christian fundamentalist. Theology should be closed, fixed, and non negotiably biblical; On the other hand, our methods may be culturally contextualized and flexible to change. Some call that cultural capitulation, but they have already contextualized whether they have realized it or not. i.e. latin to English liturgy, Old to New Calendarists, driving a car etc.. Cultural contextualization may and can be bad thing... For instance, many methods may overemphasize or underemphasize the characteristics of God. For example, much of evangelicalism overemphasizes the imminence of God and underemphasizes the transcendence of God. Eastern orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism often emphasize vice versa. On that regard, I would argue that each has much to offer the other and we should pursue a healthy balance of rightly observing the characteristics of God...
Of course I would argue the NT should be the criteria for what contextualization should and ought be. Paul declares to be all things to all people.. The reality is that many churches are so insular that they are providing great reasons for the unchurched to remain unchurched. Creating a Christian culture of a moral majority is NOT being obedient to the scripture in being IN the world but not OF the world; this idea deserves more insight for another occasion. at any rate, creating a coalition of Christian soldiers is not the prescription of scripture by any stretch.
What must be avoided in the balance of biblical principles and cultural contextualization is syncretism; syncretism can be traced throughout all of Christendom. Some argue that Gnosticism and Greek paganism has left its mark in many forms of Eastern orthodoxy. St. Augustine’s reliance on Plato’s philosophy may be an example of syncretism as well. The middle ages brought a change between the Bible and the church. Therefore, more and more classical non Christian philosophers were freely mixed in dogma. Aquinas’ use of Aristotelian philosophy is an example. The mixture of Biblical teaching and philosophy led to a disregard to scripture because truth could be found without it. May it be that even systematic theology is more indicative of culture than the Bible?
Mexico is an extraordinary case of syncretism of Spanish catholicism and Native Indian cultures. The Virgin of Guadelupe can be traced back to an ancient tribal goddess. The Virgin of Guadelupe is just one of many examples of Mexican syncretism that has invaded catholicism. America evangelicalism is experiencing syncretism on an epic level. The American dream has infiltrated evangelical pulpits with the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel. The list goes on and on... This discussion is a very delicate topic that requires much reliance humility through prayer and the biblical pursuit of orthodox doctrine. Will there be mystery? of course... But at the end of the day, let our faith be in the Gospel alone, not culture or tradition. My thoughts here may be one reason I have a newfound interest in the early church fathers of whom were not tainted by 2,000 years of cultural history.
chad-
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your reasoned response here, and I genuinely think it's something of a middle way that serves will serve most (including the college students you serve) quite well.
the more these issues surface the more it becomes clear to me that the real problem is/was/always will be that modern theological constructions (fundamentalism) are ultimately irreconcilable with higher biblical criticism. the problem is that in the quest for academic legitimacy, fundamentalists (even the least committed to inerrancy) have had to use the language of von Rad and Bultmann though they both think it heresy.
I guess what I'm getting at is I don't think you can have your cake and eat it to--which is why "relevance" is never a hard sell to the liberal camp, but an exercise in futility among fundamentalists. Not to mention that where inerrantists speak highly of theological language and education, they got that very language from men and women who knew better than to take it literally.
your virgin of guadalupe metaphor is is well constructed, but one could just as easily use the "city on a hill" image of America which is as prescient now as it was in the days of the Puritans.
paul on mars hill was doing relevance--he hijacked a pagan deity for rhetorical sport. jesus was doing the same when he twisted the familiar Jewish moral tale on a prodigal son. if we fail to do it, we don't just deny scripture--we deny the Creative capacity God imbued us with--and the gospel becomes more sales pitch than lived out faith.
I agree with Trey's last two paragraphs. While I agree that succumbing to the pressures of modern culture and seeking to make the religion look like the world is a problem (which is generally what "relevance" amounts to) we also need to be fully engaged in the culture around us, speaking its language and such. Just as I can't go to some random African village totally divorced from modern civilization and try to sell them an iPad, so too we can't stand behind our pulpits and preach the Gospel in words that no one can grasp. While the Bible speaks of hell as the spiritual equivalent of the local trash fire, we may need to change the analogy to something more "relevant" to our listeners since we generally don't burn all our refuse in a giant pile.
ReplyDelete