Tags
During my recent introductory course to theology, the lecturer shared some additional lecture notes towards the end of the course, which I have not posted yet, but will do so now. They are all on the subject of contextual theology, and follow on from the notes already shared which assert that all theology is contextual. Perhaps I might recommend interested readers to read that assertion once again to themselves and consider what it means if it were true – and I do believe it true. All theology is contextual. All God-talk is contextual.
The first set of notes come in two parts, the first here, and the second Why theology must be contextual?’. From then comes a third post (which, again, for the reader’s convenience will come in two parts) titled How do we do Contextual Theology? A final post will be provide some summary bullet points and some questions to ponder, and perhaps – for those who are interested – it might be nice to have a bit of back and forth on the comments thread when that post is published. Some of the names mentioned in the notes are authors whose books I have listed a couple of months ago in relation to the course – just in case you were wondering.
Perhaps I can mention that the author of the lecture notes has spent some time in the Solomon Islands, which is greatly infused with Christianity. I have been told an anecdote that there are good inter-denominational relationships there: even including between a Roman Catholic church and a Seventh-Day Adventist next-door neighbour church, with some people going to church at both…on a Saturday and then on a Sunday. Presumably the Adventist official views on the status of the bishop of Rome do not feature too highly in the teachings of their church as they relate to the Solomon Islands. Nor apparently, when it comes to Rome, is the European approach pushed too strongly: I am told that an oft heard phrase by Roman Catholics in the western Pacific is “we’re a long way from Rome” as they do all sorts of things that would no doubt get QV (and others?) hot under the collar – an approach taken by RCs, I believe, in many many parts of the world, except Europe (or even then?)
Perhaps I can point out that Stephen Bevans, an author from whom much of the content of the notes below is taken, is a prominent Roman Catholic theologian – look him up online.
Here goes then:
What is Context?
Parratt describes context as “the particular historical, geographic, cultural, political, social, economic and religious circumstances in which any Church or community is situated.”1
Contextual theology then is talk about God arising from a particular social context, relating to the problems and concerns of that particular situation.
Sõlle identifies three elements which govern theology:
- Scripture and Tradition (the text).
- The historical situation of the text and its interpreters (the context).
- The community of faith (the people of God).
Theology has to take account of all three elements. A theology which only repeats Scripture and Tradition in an ossified way, does not articulate what the text has to say in the present context. It becomes irrelevant for the people of God who live in a particular context. There must always be dialogue between text and context related to the people of God as the subject of faith.
Moltmann—The importance of both Identity and Relevance
Bevans—Models of Contextual theology.
Essentially there is no such thing as theology; there is only contextual theology; European theology, Melanesian theology, feminist theology, liberation theology, black theology, Asian theology, African theology and so on.2 All theology is done in a context.
All theology is contextually relative.
Theology was once understood to be an objective science of faith—Scripture and Tradition could and would never be changed and were considered to be above culture and historically conditioned expression.
But present human experience is also a determining factor in any theology. Contextual theology realizes that culture, history, contemporary thought forms etc all exist alongside Scripture and Tradition and are valid sources for theological expression.
Theology is subjective, in that human persons and cultures are contextually relative. What is “true” or “real” only has meaning from our cultural and historical context—What we see and interpret is determined by our context.
For example “rice”. North Americans see rice either about to be harvested, drying in the sun or cooked on the table. They see “rice” in different ways, depending on the context in which they see it. Filipinos have many names for various types of rice. Sinaing (plain steamed rice), Sinangag (fried rice), Tutong (fire burnt rice at the bottom of the cooking pot), Bahaw (left-over rice) and am (rice broth given to babies).
Water is another example in that many languages contain numerous words to describe water. Whether drift, flow, current, wave, ripple, height. All of these describe water, yet different facets of it.
Australian policy makers in Canberra may describe the wantok or Big-Man system as “corruption”. A Melanesian may see things quite differently i.e. as a system to fulfill cultural and social obligations. It all depends on the social and cultural context of the interpreter.
Our world, reality, truth, are not just out there but we construct them. We do not simply “see” but we “see as”.
We can, therefore, never speak of one, right, unchanging theology, because it does not exist. All theology is the product of a context. We can only speak about a theology that makes sense at a certain place and in a certain time. We can learn from other theologies but the theology of others can never be our own.3
Once we recognize the importance of context for theology, we realize that context, to some extent, determines both Scripture and Tradition. The writings of Scripture and the content and practices of Tradition did not fall from the sky. They are the products of human beings and their contexts. They have been developed by human beings, written and conceived in human terms and conditioned by human personality and human circumstances.
“Theology is not something that is delivered to us by some totally objective universal mind. Nor is it delivered by angels or inter-galactic spaceships. It is something worked out by particular people, with particular agenda, trying to deal with particular issues arising within their own culture and their own time, and addressed to particular people with particular concerns and particular abilities.”4
As we study Scripture and Tradition we have to be aware not only of their contextual nature but also that we have to read and interpret them within our own context as well.5
Context, however, is complex, representing a combination of interconnecting and complicated realities.
First, it includes the experiences of a person’s or group’s personal life. Experiences of success, failure, births, deaths, relationships etc. can allow or prevent people experiencing God in their lives.
Secondly, context also includes the experiences of life both personal and communal in our present world. These include moments of tragedy as the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990’s, the conflict in Solomon Islands (1998-2000) and the murder of the seven Brothers (2003). Or experiences of wonder or awe such as the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989), the spectacle of the Olympic games, uniting nations, or the coming of the new Millennium.
At the most basic level, theology interconnects with life experiences. It is about working out and taking stands on what we value and what we believe in. The commitments a theologian is prepared to make come down to who he/she thinks God is or who he/she denies God to be.6
Thirdly, context includes a person’s or community’s social location. Whether one is male or female, rich or poor, from North America or Latin America, Melanesia or Polynesia, powerful or powerless etc. makes a difference and will determine the type of theology that develops.
Social location can be a limiting factor to theology, in that theologians see and interpret from a particular situation and standpoint, but it can also enable theologians to pick out strengths and weaknesses in theological traditions. It may also be a position which enables people to ask contextually relevant questions never before asked in theological reflection. For example how is theology relevant to the context of suffering and oppression in Latin America?
It is essential therefore that as theologians do theology, their social location needs to be acknowledged and embraced. (Not all theologians do this)! It is possible to move beyond our social locations but not acknowledging who we are can result in poor or confused theology!
Finally, present experience in context implies social change. No context is static, it is continually growing, developing, improving or declining. Cultural and contextual change is inevitable, particularly in the face of increasing culture contact, migration of peoples the forces of globalization and information technology.
1 John Parratt, A Guide to Doing Theology, SPCK International Study Guide No. 35 (London: SPCK, 1996), 108.
2 Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, Revised and Expanded Edition (Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 2002), 3.
3 Bevans, 5.
4 Neil Darragh, Doing Theology Ourselves: A Guide to Research and Action (Auckland: Accent Publications, 1995), 17.
5 Bevans, 5.
6 Darragh, 7.
St Bosco said:
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
His yoke is easy.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Did you spot the name-check in Jessica’s post here: https://jessicahof.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/doing-theology/
It explains why you are wrong in assuming theology does not matter; read and inwardly digest.
LikeLike
Struans said:
If the yoke is easy, then you’re on the wrong path. The next time you come to a junction – where choice is in your hands – then I exhort you to choose the narrow gate. And again, and again. Good luck, my friend. And thank you for sharing your views.
S.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
The servant is not above his master. If the world hates me, it will hate you.
If the blind lead the blind, both shall stumble and fall into the ditch
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Indeed, and being of this world Bosco, you hate Christ’s Church. You are blind, and you are being led by the blind, and yes, you forecast truthfully where you will end up.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
It just occured to me. Marys mother would be the grandmother of god. So, where is her statue? I wanna bow down befor it.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Yes good brother, if im not careful i will end up in the ditch. Anything i say goes double for me.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Bosco yes, yes , yes, His yoke IS easy!
That’s very good theology in fact its great theology and extremely well contextualized by Jesus as the teachers of the time placed hard yokes on the people. This was radical, ground shaking theology in such a little phrase – Jesus does it all the time.
The only thing I would advise is that you keep acquiring more such knowledge of God and wisdom in its communication. Prov. 1:6-23..
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Thanks good brother Rob. His yoke is easy. Satan wants to muddy the water with precept upon precept. And his followers obey. All the while Jesus knocks on the door. All they have to do is answer the door and open it. But they would rather contextualize it. ….No, i cant open the door..im busy contextualizing.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Bosco: precept upon precept, here is the way scripture teaches us we learn more and more of the Lord as we implement into our lives each precept He takes us onto the next
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good brother Rob, i think that was used in a negative way. Ill look at it again when i get the strengh.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Precept upon precept Isa. 28:10-13 yes your right – used of a people who would not listen to the lord so line by line they were given more instructions that they rejected, stumbled, were broken, snared and captive. The line by line method seems to me a means of emphasizing accountability for their sin as they reject each line each time.
Well spotted Bosco
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
“We can, therefore, never speak of one, right, unchanging theology, because it does not exist. All theology is the product of a context. We can only speak about a theology that makes sense at a certain place and in a certain time. We can learn from other theologies but the theology of others can never be our own”
I can already foresee the attacks coming in for this “heresy” but I think it is very reasonable thinking.
LikeLike
Struans said:
Quite so, Carl. I have already predicted a few lines of attack – let’s see if they materialise – but I don’t think a bookie would give me great odds.
S.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Most interesting, Struans. Rather then come at this seriatim before you have had the chance to unfold the argument fully, I have asked Jess if she’d mind my posting a response. So I shall await today’s second before putting something up tomorrow, and then wait for the rest.
I don’t, incidentally, disagree that all theology is contextual, not not all theology is all contextual, if that makes sense? I have a problem, predictably enough, with the idea that there is anything that could be called ‘European’ theology, as my experience of Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and English Nonconformity make such a catch-all term too ‘baggy’ for use – a bit like ‘feudalism’.
That said, this is, as I say, most interesting, and I look forward to the rest of it – and to responding and to your responses. C451
LikeLike
Struans said:
Delighted that you find some interest here. I’m afraid that your question has me scratching my head though. I think, by European theology, what is meant is simply speaking God-talk that takes place in a Europe-centric environment. It’s not meant to be a precise term though.
I have no doubt that we shall be in further discussions soon 🙂
Let me add that I do find your lines of argument, when we disagree, interesting – because they cause me to think how to counter them. I am sure though that each of us is not going to change our minds in any substantial manner, however, that’s not the point of engaging. Rather it is to exercise the mind and to expand ones learning by making the journey!
Looking forward to your further post and comments.
S.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I really do not know what a ‘Euro-centric’ environment might be. Greece is part of Europe, as indeed are Spain and Portugal and Germany, but I am not sure there is a theology which embraces them all.
In my experience, Greek Orthodox (like the Russian Orthodox with whom they have much in common) ‘do’ theology in a way which, say, the Copts understand, and which, say, a Spanish Catholic would have trouble grasping – and, of course, vice-versa.
It is good to have these sorts of civilised disagreements, and I reciprocate what you say here – it certainly helps expand the mind – and by my stage in life, that’s a good thing 🙂
I look forward to the rest of the posts.
C451
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
Arguably an American -centric exists though. Certainly in American RCC re birth control and in most Protestant thinking that Anglicans are not Protestant . It is also reasonable to see that there is a great deal of difference in Scottish Presbyterianism and American Presbyterians. Islam and Mormonism and non aligned Pentecostal are the fastest growing religions in US. On the other hand American-centric may not be definable in a Euro-centric model because US is not a mono-culture or a mono-race(as compared to a country like Japan or Norway for example) and with immigration there are vast enclaves of non English speakers. Some say diversity strengthens the country but it weakens it as common denominators among people evaporate. For example I would present that 2/3 of people in South Florida have never heard of American baseball icon Babe Ruth.Nor could they care less.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Struans, this is a very interesting post that brings many questions to mind and gets to the heart of much of what we are each wrestling with in life, both materially and spiritually.
This final observation of yours is of particular importance: “No context is static, it is continually growing, developing, improving or declining.” For who is to say that a particular theology is growing, developing, improving or declining; another theologian? I think that is another reason for abiding with a ‘set of rules’ and a final authoritative ‘editor’ when reviewing some particular theology or all is subjective truth and nothing is objective truth being built upon that which went before. Each person is laying a brick in a building without regard to a proper foundation or without a view to how the building should be commence that will lead toward completion. If we are dealing with decorum or paint etc. then there is no problem: but the contexts, as you rightly stated above can be devastating because it not only can be a state of decline but of actual destruction.
Two examples: Some people might treat all illness as a state that needs the patient to be bled in order to let out the demons that reside in the blood which is bad medicine and kills the patient more often than it cures. Also, take the novel being written by the bloggers here on this post who build upon the last writer’s ideas. What if I then continue by having a new protagonist awake from a dream in modern day New York and discovering that all that had gone before was but a dream and the ‘real’ context for viewing this entire work was flawed from the beginning.
This is where your 3 elements of theology may need modification: for I would, perhaps, change number of 3 to 3a and 3b, where 3a is the community of the faithful and 3b is the umpire who can tell us whether our individual theologies have gone astray or have actually built up the knowledge of God as it should. We are each writing our own gospel in this life or our anti-gospel and this must somehow be determined as best we possibly can so that we have not wasted this one chance that has been afforded to us to reach the final destination that the Christian Triune God has desired for our end.
Much to think about in all of this. I thank you for your post.
LikeLike
Struans said:
Thanks for the comment, SF. You always have something interesting to say.
Perhaps I can make some brief points:-
– there is good theology and bad theology…..as the previous lecture notes have indicated, theology involves owning an understanding, and good theology involves having shared ones understanding with others, and listened to others. I am of the view that such individualised theology as I think you write about is always going to be bad, as it needs to be reflected against the theologies of others.
– I am not disagreeing about the need for boundaries, which is I think what you mean about ‘rules’. This is, of course, an area that has almost been flogged to death on this blog – however, perhaps I can suggest that there are more models than just the one currently offered by Rome.
– the lecture notes are not ‘mine’ in the sense of authorship, so I don’t want to claim learnedness off the back of the efforts of others.
I hope you like the next posts too. 🙂
S.
LikeLike
NEO said:
I think in some ways, Struans, the use of the word relative works against you, even if it is appropriate. I think I know what you mean but the common cultural inference of the word in society is that there is no longer good or bad: it’s all relative. I think that not to be what you’re saying but many will read it that way. I don’t have a solution, it’s just an observation.
Other than that, I like the point. I have a passing familiarity with the RCC in the Philippines and suspect it would horrify many North American Catholics, and perhaps vice versa.
Really interesting stuff, I’m looking forward to more as well.
LikeLike
Struans said:
Many thanks for the comment NEO – and your well remarked observation. Interesting to hear of your Philippine connection – maybe something to share later on?
S.
LikeLike
NEO said:
It happens sometimes with some words that have taken on meanings far beyond the dictionary.
It’s not real strong, we’ve just chatted a bit. A friend’s fiance to be exact, and an industrial engineer specializing in LEAN management, which is mostly what we were chatting about.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Struans, I am sure that I will enjoy your next post as I always enjoy what you write.
One final thought on ‘context’ and ‘boundaries’ that we might think about is brought to mind quite nicely by the illustration at the head of the post of a tree with its root system. It seems to me that we can all agree that the context of ‘tree’ is bound by the law that the roots must have as much or more mass than that which sprouts out above ground otherwise it will be unstable. And on a personal spirituality one’s ‘root system’ or interior life must grow if our ‘theology’ is to grow; otherwise it will fail to bear fruit or to live at all. Perhaps one of the ‘other models’ to which your refer (as opposed to Rome’s) is that it must be a living theology that not only survives but thrives and grows without destroying the growth that came before? If that is the case, I would tend to agree as the ‘context’ seems to me to be the earth in which the tree was planted and the ‘roots’ our interior, spiritual foundation, and the resultant tree, our natural growth by use of our will to conform our growth to that which we were intended to be: each different in specifics but the same in structure and generality. But an organic growth must be present to both root and stem alike if we are to have a tree that continues to grow and bear fruit.
A bit of metaphor to ponder. 🙂
LikeLike
Rob said:
SF. I like the metaphor and am pondering. 🙂
LikeLike
Struans said:
Thanks for your comments once again. However, I don’t think we can agree about the tree – there can be more mass above ground than below – surely it is about stability and the strength of the roots in order to have purchase to prevent the elements toppling it. I am no expert on trees though, but what you have suggested don’t seem right to me.
I am not particularly at this stage going to be contrasting with Rome – after all, my views are known – a conciliar church governance. Albeit that we can argue until the cows come home about who gets to be in such councils. However, that (again) is a matter of catholicity. That’s how I see it. I hope much later to revisit that topic, but I don’t want to get dragged into the same old arguments right now about the matter.
I do like your suggested alternative model though – and your continuing reflections on the grown of interior spirituality.
S.
LikeLike
Rob said:
SF Wrote: “I think that is another reason for abiding with a ‘set of rules’ and a final authoritative ‘editor’ when reviewing some particular theology or all is subjective truth and nothing is objective.”
This concept of objectivity is far short of the objective experience of those who knew Christ in the flesh, which is why their eye witness testimony is the most authoritative. 1 Jn. 1:1-3.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
I think you misunderstand the need for the ‘editor’ was I meant it to be taken. My point was that those who either ‘knew Christ in the flesh’ and also for those who have ‘know Him by leading a life transformed in Christ’ are invaluable to establishing the essence and objective truth of what we believe and therefore we can (by looking at all the evidence’) come up with an essential objective criteria that is inviolate. Without an editor or authority then we are simply picking and choosing theologies that tickle our ears.
LikeLike
Rob said:
I understood what you were saying and about the weighing of all the evidence. However evidence is often viewed differently, we each have to consider is it good or bad evidence. The editors opinion whoever he is, is just that his or a collective opinion, many may consider it best opinion. Each of still has to determine whether we accept that the evidence stands up.
There is substantial difference between all of this (which revolves around what is still ‘subjective spiritual experience’, even though it is the experience of a large collective) and the objective experience of those who knew Christ in the flesh.
The objectivity of apostolic witness it what gives it priority. It was the very reason for the condition for Judas’ replacement by one, who had to be one, who had first hand witness of Jesus from the beginning until the time He was taken up.
This is true objectivity and if we stray from it and consider anything else as objective in the same order of magnitude we open the door to error and deception.
We surly agree on these basic facts and apply such reason in considering the foundational gospel record.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Rob, the ‘editor’ I refer to is threefold: scripture, the tradition of the people, and the magisterium of the Church. They stand united in presenting a coherent theology. If not, then we have incoherence which is unacceptable.
As to the private or subjective interior life of approved saints (though not authoritative on their own) is always accepted theologically as having stated nothing that is in disagreement with Church teaching. That is the coherence of theology and their helps in the development of theological ideas and growth in theology to suit differing cultures and differing times is still operating within the objectively accepted norms of Christian theology.
So all I am saying is that any theologian, regardless of his or her interior lights, might be able to add to theology in certain ideas and insights though the whole of their contribution might be in question or rejected outright. However, those bits and pieces that are developed over time, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and accepted by the Church through its threefold process can be held to be a genuine development to the theology for Christians.
And we have not even discussed the different theological disciplines. For example, in moral theology, there is much that is rather straight forward and beyond the influence of novel ideas or the winds of a particular culture or time. If we do not have such an objective system of values then our spiritual lives are subject to the winds of change at every juncture. I do not believe that we have been left a Church without a firm foundation and objective constants that cannot be violated. There can be growth in the nuanced understanding of any doctrine but the doctrine is undoubtably sound from country to country and age to age.
LikeLike
Rob said:
SF: I think somehow we are talking past each other, I assure you having been debating on this site for a few months ‘I do understand’ the RC view of how you arrive at theology by scripture, the tradition of the people, and the magisterium and the value of the private or subjective interior life of approved saints.
It might surprise you that I and the movement I’m part of would agree entirely with everything you have posted here. We have a high regard for scripture, the church’s teaching authority and contribution of saints and tradition.
Your church has identified acceptable and unacceptable tradition, magisterium and saints. So have other churches. It’s not the exclusive practice of the RC Church and much of what we arrive is common to us both as are all the essentials of salvation. But you probably reject as invalid these same means of establishing “a coherent acceptable theology” by what you consider to be ‘other churches.” I do not have the “other churches” concept.
I am left with the feeling that our communication problem lies in the fact that you are seeking to establish the exclusive ability / authority of the RCC to define doctrine and establish security of faith.
Please forgive me if I am making a wrong assessment in this. I do not mean to cause offence and if I were of your persuasion I would undoubtedly be employing all my efforts to convince others.
If this is the sticking point is your insistence will just not work, it fails to weaken my security in Christ Himself.
Divergence of theologies do not cause me problems, they exist within all Christian communities as well as between them. Tradition is not uniform and has much variety and divergence. I live comfortably with what I’m not sure of and know what I consider error and why, while constantly learning.
However the above is just an attempt to clear miss-understanding it has little to do with the point I was attempting to make. Which point is that all the above means of theology, with all the checks and balances is no more than a collective subjective process, very valuable though it is.
What is absolutely objective is the truth passed onto the apostle, directly by the Lord from heaven, in the flesh, on the ground, being witnessed by them and faithfully transmitted to us i.e. the gospel, the kerygma.
A hymn from my childhood sums up the location of my security in the one to whom I have dedicated my life as I have the sense that you also have done and continue in:
My faith has found a resting place
Not in a form or creed
I trust the ever living one
His wounds for me shall plead
I need no other argument
I need no other plea
It is enough that Jesus died
And that He died for me
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Rob, I think you have taken me to a bit afield from my purpose. I was speaking of things that (even if you do not accept the RCC theology in all aspects and in all disciplines) all Christians should and mostly do accept in common. It is from that perspective that I speak of essential theology and find that there are essential boundaries that we all must abide by: thus my mention of moral theology. It can be built upon but it does not change in essence. I know that how you or other Christians reach the essentials may differ from the RCC methods though in most of the essentials we arrive at the same place: with the notable exceptions of the 7 Sacraments of the Church, and the Authority that the Church holds to without apology.
So yes, we may have been speaking past one another but the RCC’s role in accepting theology positions of various writers or rejecting them is important to the salvation of souls as is the Bible or the Confessions of various other denominations. My problem is with the feeling I get from the post that we must simply accept that there is no truth that is certain and that can apply to cultures that are not our own. Cultural contexts are important for individual understanding and for evangelists to confront in applying these truths. But it seems to be insinuated that truth itself must be modified and changed because others do not hold to our world views or that their cultures are different. However, every Christian has come exactly from that very place: a previous culture, tongue which has either been replaced in time or modified to meet the essentials of acceptable Christian theology. Truly, this is not about the RCC or any specific denomination as it is about the continued growth of theology to help us understand God within our own day and our own culture and yet draw others from very different backgrounds into this personal relationship with God that transforms persons and entire peoples.
You, in your work, encounter this all the time. But I doubt you would abandon or bend theology as you know it to accommodate a specific culture different from your own. You might present it in a way you find easier to draw them into the mystery of a personal God but would you give a wink and a nod to the practice of cannibalism or voodoo or witchcraft or morally decadent behavior?
I hope this lets you understand that I am not trying to confront you on how you and others judge good and bad theology – but that there is such a thing and that most of us accept and reject it (not on the basis of our culture) but on the basis of long-standing belief that has been held for centuries and by what we have received. We must ‘test the spirits to see if they are from God.’
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Rob, sadly I wrote a long response to this comment of yours and when I hit reply it did not post. Since I am tired, I will simply say that my approach, though RCC, is not strictly that but overall Christian in nature. We ‘test the spirits to see if they are from God.’ We accept that which passes the test and reject that does not. Different theologies exist in various denominations but much of the essence is shared and we do not negate it for a novel new teaching or for the convenience of winning other cultures over to our faith. We present the faith according to the cultural divides to make it more understandable but we do not abandon our moral theology or defined theology to make it fit. We try to make their culture fit into Christianity and not the other way around. I hope that helps. 🙂
LikeLike
Rob said:
I agree with all of that and thought no less than that of you.
Sleep tight don’t let the bed bugs bite 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Struans – fascinating, and I am glad people are responding.
I wonder if this helps explain some of the problems encountered at Ephesus and Chalcedon?
I think I’d be prepared to go with a broad argument (and be shot down) that said that early Christianity grew to talk theology in a Graeco-Roman-Jewish culture, where, if you like, the cultural contexts were close enough for, say, the Corinthians to understand what Paul was saying, and for him to understand how to talk to them.
But, by the time we get to the 300s, we have a world in which those who were part of a Latin-speaking culture understood those who were part of a Greek-speaking culture less than either of them realised? I do wonder how far the arguments over Leo’s Tome at Chalcedon came down to the fact that the Alexandrians didn’t understand what he was saying because they didn’t read Latin and were dealing with a bad translation? That’s not to say it was just that, but that that may have been a symptom of a wider inability to understand the cultural context of Alexandrians, Antiochian and Latin theology? Just a thought (Jess ducks for cover).
LikeLike
Struans said:
Very interesting musings Jess. I think what you say likely.
I was out for a curry earlier this evening with my scholarly friend David W, currently translating into English a long work of Michael the Syrian – and it sounds fascinating. Never before published in English! Anyway, David says that after many Syraic Christians came to live under Islam, many of their monasteries stopped teaching monks Greek – there was thought to be no need for it. Their records of who was bishop of Rome also fell into abeyance, so the evidence seems to show.
I’m glad that there are some comments coming in too 🙂
S.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Do give David my best – the book sounds fascinating. Yes, I think there was a divide even before Islam, as the Syriac world and the Latin world never really did mesh.
Good comments so far 🙂 x Jess
LikeLike
Struans said:
I have passed on your regards to David – and invited him to comment here too. I’m sure he’ll oblige when he’s back in the office on Monday.
S.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Always good to hear from him 🙂 x
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
I think a synopsis of what Struans is saying is, “The map is not the territory.’
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Indeed it isn’t David. For I can meet all of the mapping rules of drawing out some territory and if I have not been there and am not faithfully representing what I, myself, experienced first hand then my map is bound to be flawed. There are maps that are reliable and other maps that are not. All of them are not useful.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Are you saying that Struans didn’t say that or you just disagree with Struans?
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
I think I will have to wait and see what Struans might say are the boundaries that comprise ‘good’ theology and ‘bad’ theology. I’m assuming he might be more specific in his ensuing posts.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
The unsaved can only philosophize about god. Thats the same as being on the outside looking in and wondering what its like to know god.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
What makes you say that, Bosco? Did you read Jessica’s post today? Theology gives us contact with the many other Christians who have also known Christ. If Christ is in you you don’t just want to revel in that in a selfish manner, you want to understand more about God and to share that with others. Simply telling someone you are ‘saved’ and they just have to ‘ask God’ is not a recipe for a firm and lasting commitment to Jesus.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good observation good brother. I invite you to meet Chtist. I keep walking down the road and am gone forever. You ask the Lord in, and he comes in and He opens your eyes and the spirit teaches you all things. In other words, god takes over from there. Dont you believe he can do it?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, and he does it within his church, as he said be would. I don’t recall him saying there would be stray spirits claiming to have personal knowledge which would lead you into calling other Christians idol worshippers.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
I have no personal knowledge. I know the same as the woman at the well. I met him. No secret knowledge. She ran and told the towns people to go meet him for themselfs. She didnt put a fish hat on and a robe.
Christians, the saved, dont bow befor idols made by human hands. I call people who bow befor idols made by human hands idol worshipers. As even you noted, bowing is an act of worship. Even thoght the idolater doesnt think he is worshiping the stone or wood, he is still bowing befor it. Thats like the biggest no no , and God reminds us plenty of times in the OT. This behavior drive one further from having a relationship with the invisible god. Its not trivial. And people who do such things need to think long and hard about it, and the religion that promotes such behavior.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
What I noted was that bowing to a pagan idol is an act of worship; this is something no Christian does. God does not forbid either bowing or the making of sculptures or images; he forbids the worship of anyone but Him. You know this. You say you know Jesus, well, let Him stop you from telling untruths.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Stone is stone, wood is wood, cement is cement. One has a piece of stone in each hand. Which one is pagan?
A; Neither
Wood is wood.
How can you call one graven image pagan and another good?
Lets look at what God says ; Hes says not to make these graven images for use in religious service. So, one doesnt even have to bow befor it to be guilty of idolatry. All one has to do is be a member of a group that uses them. And, all one has to do is to think they do something for you. I understand they serve as prayer aids. Mary images come alive and cry and move and inspire. I dont get it. how can people quote the 2nd command and continue in this, and even defend it tooth and nail. Beyond me.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Bosco, we are talking about worship. Do you really claim to know what is in the minds of other Christians? God forbids the worship of images as though they were Him. To claim Christians worship images is to bear false witness. If this spirit makes you tell lies, Bosco, and if you claim it is the Holy Spirit, you are committing the unforgivable sin, I fear. Repent.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
+`By the way, a car can be an idol. A guitar can be an idol. Money can be an idol. Ive been guilty of idolatry and the HS gets after me for it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
On your current logic, Bosco, you should be suggesting we ban cars and money.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Good sister Jess, i think someone hijacked good brother Chalcedons name and is using a bot or something. Can you ask good brother if he really authored the above entry?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Nope, was me Bosco.
You say you have had an experience. It seems not to be one to which others can relate. It may be you are really the only saved person here – but the opposite may also be true.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Well good brother, most people are unsaved. Whats the odds that everyone in here is saved and im the only one who isnt? i think Christ is working on you good brother. I know your looking for him. Humor me, as a favor, ask Jesus to show himself to you. Whats the worst that can happen.?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The odds, Bosco, are that none of us know for certain until the final judgment – which might mean some people get a surprise when they say “Lord, Lord” – as He said would be the case.
I often talk to Jesus, Bosco, but when He shows Himself to me, it is in His own way.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Gods speed to you good brother Chalcedon.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
And to You, Bosco.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
PS, i skimmed thru good sisters post. I dont hear the Shepherds voice in those philosophers.
LikeLike
Struans said:
I will leave this comment for C to address – if he sees it. I think Don Bosco is asking him rather than me.
S.
LikeLike
Rob said:
TEST
LikeLike
Rob said:
S: /Jess I have tried to post this comment a dozen times and it has not gone in:
By 300 AD they had probably also drifted somewhat in their understanding of the faith’s Hebraic meaning/s and roots towards a Greek philosophical understanding. Their skill and discipline in this both helped and hindered.
Paul being Jewish Rabbi par excellence and skilled cross cultural missionary could bridge the gap, Jerusalem to Athens, without loss in communicating the divine revelation he had received. Look how he addressed the Athenians; it was quite a unique speech for him on Mars hill.
But I think there was some loss of Paul’s understanding later on, as they read back into Paul from a Greek philosophical perspective and presented it into their cultural context with a degree of distortion e.g. the determinism of Augustine steaming from his previous philosophical background.
This is why contextual theology’s first important task is to understand accurately what the revelation / text meant in the culture in which it originated (exegesis), only then can the revelation be conveyed accurately into the mission culture and contextualized for a new host culture (hermeneutics).
In this way we extract from scripture what is revelation, lay aside what is cultural and communicate the revelation with a minimum of distortion.
e.g. What teaching do we introduce to a society with current polygamous marriages? What was revealed about including such persons in the church? Rather that the imposition of the Jewish understanding. Paul had to unravel this and implement a righteous approach. How did he solve it?
LikeLike
Struans said:
Very good Rob.
S.
LikeLike
Rob said:
S:/Jess: tried to post this many times
Later theologians may also have drifted somewhat in their understanding of the faith’s Hebraic roots towards elements of Greek philosophical understanding. Their skill and discipline in this probably both helped and hindered.
.
Paul being Jewish Rabbi par excellence and skilled cross cultural missionary could bridge the gap, Jerusalem to Athens, without loss in communicating the divine revelation he had received. Look at how he addressed the Athenians; in a contextual manner.
I think there was considerable loss of Paul’s understanding by Augustine steaming from the determinism of his previous philosophical background.
This is why I think the first important task of theology is to understand accurately what the revelation / text meant to the culture in which it originated, only then can the revelation be conveyed accurately into the mission culture and contextualized for its new hosts.
In this way we extract from scripture what is revelation / timeless truth, and lay aside what is cultural so as to communicate the revelation with the minimum distortion.
e.g What teaching do we introduce to a society with current polygamous marriages? What has been revealed about including such persons in the church?
Rather than the imposition of the Jewish understanding what did Paul do?
How does this relate to a righteous approach?
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
The saved dont drift in their understanding. Once youve met Jesus you cant un meet him
LikeLike
David Wilmshurst said:
Hi Jess and Struans,
Michael the Syrian (d.1199) is trying to explain why the Syrian Orthodox Church had so little information on Western Christianity after the Arab Conquest. Up to 630 he punctiliously mentions all the patriarchs of the 4 traditional patriarchates of the Roman Empire, and is very well informed about the general history of Christianity in what, to him, was ‘the West’. Then things peter out …
‘Up to now I have been able to discover in our own books the names of the archbishops who occupied the four classic thrones (Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople and Antioch), back to the earliest days and in Greek, the language of the Romans, even though these men were Chalcedonians after the period of the Council of Chalcedon. From here on, however, I do not find anywhere in our Syriac books the names of the Chalcedonian patriarchs who governed at Rome and Constantinople; and only the names of the Orthodox patriarchs for the two thrones of Antioch and Alexandria, chosen from among our people and from among the Egyptians.’
‘This seems to have happened for two reasons: firstly, because our writers had no longer the occasion nor the need to inform themselves about these Chalcedonians, the enemies and persecutors of the Orthodox, because Syria and Egypt, where our people and the Egyptians lived, had been occupied by the Arabs and were now part of their empire; and secondly, because the Chalcedonians, as we have shown already and will show again, had become more and more perverted by the heresies that were springing up in their midst.’
‘When the holy fathers who wrote for our Church saw that the Chalcedonians were perverted not only by the heresy of the two natures, but also by that of the two wills, essences, operations, forms and properties, and that instead of one Christ they confessed two, they turned away from them completely and no longer made use of their language or their literature, as they had formerly done. Meanwhile, in their own country, there were no longer any Orthdox scholars to be found.’
There is something wonderfully Monty Python-ish about ‘perverted not only by the heresy of the two natures, but also by that of the two wills, essences, operations, forms and properties’. No wonder Dorothy Sayers and Father D’Arcy once considered composing a book of limericks on the major Christian heresies. Sadly, it never got off the ground. Miss Sayers was sidetracked into writing verses on the major Christian Churches instead:
A Roman
Is a follower of the Scarlet Woman;
He revels in tortures
And the sins of the Borgias.
She wrote something equally neat on the Church of England, which momentarily escapes my memory …
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Lovely to hear from you, David. That is really interesting – in, as you say, a ‘Life of Brian’ sort of way. Hope the work is coming along well 🙂 x Jess
LikeLike