Embodiments of competing visions of the Christian faith

 I have always wanted to read the classic novel The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky, but have been deterred by its length. I am attracted by the way it weaves deep philosophical and theological debates into a narrative about murder. Each of the characters presents competing positions.

Well, popular culture just presented me with something similar: the movie, Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.

On one level, this is a classic murder mystery, being the third in the Knives Out franchise featuring the eccentric detective Benoit Blanc.

Note: if you have not seen the movie, this post does not contain any spoilers.

Four distinct competing philosophical and theological positions are associated with the movie.

Atheistic rationalism. This denies any spiritual realities (naturalism), elevates reason, and claims that Christianity is "just a story" that provides comfort to desperate people. This view is espoused by the detective Benoit Blanc.

Culture war Christianity. The world is divided into good and evil. Sexual immorality is destroying society. Increasing secularisation in the Western world has led to the decline of Christendom. The USA is no longer a Christian nation. Christians need to fight back. Desperate times require desperate measures. The end justifies the means. The dominant emotions expressed and used to control people are fear, anger, judgment, power, and shame. This vision of Christianity is embodied in the priest, Jefferson Wicks. Another character, a social media influencer, sees this culture war as the basis for a successful political career.

Jesus-centric Christianity.  That term is a tautology, as surely the word "Christianity" means it is centred on Jesus Christ! But I use the term to contrast it with "Culture war Christianity". Significant elements of Jesus life and teaching were love, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, and hospitality. He was a friend of sinners, tax collectors, and prostitutes. In fact, his biggest opponents were the Pharisees, religious leaders who were exclusive, angry, self-righteous, legalistic, and desperately wanted to reclaim the power and status of their nation. In the movie, the character who is all about Jesus-centric Christianity is the young priest, Jud Duplenticy.

In the clip below, Jud debates Benoit.

There are also some powerful scenes where Jud debates Jefferson. Unfortunately, I could not find a clip of those. You will have to watch the movie. There is a good one beginning around 27 minutes into the Netflix version.

There is another competing vision of Christianity.

A generic humanistic spirituality. This espouses the values of love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and compassion. Jesus is seen as a nice example of this, and the church as a community that can practise these values. It is described as "faith", but the object of the faith is not clear. It seems to be a belief that if people just look into their hearts, they will find a goodness that will enable them to live out the values. The historical basis for Christianity and traditional doctrines are overlooked or seen as outdated or irrelevant. In particular, the divinity of Jesus, the sinful nature of humanity, the significance of Jesus death on the cross, repentance, and the power of the Holy Spirit to transform people are not considered fundamental. Jesus does provide an amazing and inspiring example of human compassion, mercy, and forgiveness. However, he does so much more. He calls on his followers to repent of their sin. His death is the basis for us to forgive others. We forgive because he forgave us. We love because he loved us.

I did not see this vision represented by a character in the movie. However, many reviews of the movie seem to see Jud as representing this vision.

The video below presents a nice analysis of the movie [including spoilers], but presents Jud's faith as generic, rather than Jesus-centric.

 

This article has helpful background on the writer and director of the movie.

Rian Johnson’s Explains How His Religious Upbringing Inspired ‘Wake Up Dead Man’

A metaphor for traditions

Traditions are a reality. We are immersed in them. We cannot escape them. We need to be aware of them and see their strengths and weaknesses. Previously, I introduced tradition as a potential guide (along with experience, reason, and transcendence) to help make sense of science, God, and life. In this chapter, I explore in more detail different dimensions of traditions, including culture, worldview, narratives, institutions, and hermeneutics. Culture shapes the way we see things, how we do things, and what we think makes sense.

A good metaphor for traditions may be farms. Farms are a reality and won’t go away, as we need food, and they are a means to provide it. Each farm has an origin and history. But even with diligent historical investigation, there will be some level of uncertainty about that origin and history. For example, where does one begin? With the first owner of the land? Or indigenous people? Or the ecological history of the land? Farms are dynamic as they continually change due to both internal and external forces. Farms are diverse in scale, crops, animals, buildings, workers, institutional structure, types of engagement with the external world, sense of identity, and goals. They are multifaceted and can be described in terms of agriculture, ecology, biology, economics, politics, and culture. 

The value assigned to different types of farms, from a small family organic farm to a megafarm owned by a multinational corporation, is subjective and contested. Farms can be associated with idealism, romanticism, or a harsh struggle for survival. The value of farms is tied up with the knotty concept of efficiency. It is unrealistic for most of us to individually grow all our own food, and so we choose to benefit from the hard-won experience and expertise of farmers. We cannot start from scratch. Modernity in the form of science, technology, and capitalism threatens the existence and viability of many types of farms.

Over time, a farm might remain fruitful, or it may become barren and unproductive. Some farms produce wonderful and nutritious food. The produce of other farms may be toxic because of disease, pesticides or contaminated soil. Remember mad cow disease? Farms cannot be separated from their context: the climate, environment, adjacent farms, economics, culture, and politics. Interactions between a farm and its context may be positive or negative. To be productive and sustainable, farms need custodians who both preserve them and adapt to their context. Successful and productive farms may be taken over by people who see them as a means of personal gain and have little interest in preserving the history or what the custodians saw as valuable.

In the paragraphs above, the word “farm” could be replaced with “tradition.” Like models, all metaphors are wrong, but some are useful. Farms are simpler and less controversial than traditions. I like the metaphor because it provides insights into the multifaceted character of traditions and the issues they raise, while possibly protecting us from our strong feelings, either positive or negative, about specific traditions. 

Happy 50th Birthday Papua New Guinea!

 Fifty years ago, Papua New Guinea became an independent nation after years of colonial rule by Australia.

There is much to celebrate!

Here are a few sample postings.

Ten Things I will be Celebrating, by my son Luke.

In Praise of Papua New Guinea, by myself.

Comparing ourselves to 100+-year-old countries is unfair, by Kingtau Mambon.

The centrality of marginality to Christian theology and life

This month at the theology reading group, we are discussing Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theology by Jung Young Lee.

How do we make sense of our life experience in terms of theology? How do we make sense of theology in terms of our life experience? Given our humanity (finitude and egoism), it is impossible to completely separate our theology and our experience. Will they enrich or distort one another? Previously, I have written about the challenges of contextual theology.

Jung Young Lee was born in North Korea in 1935, escaped to South Korea during the Korean War, and immigrated to the USA as an undergraduate student. He then worked as a librarian, obtained a Ph.D., taught in a secular university, became a minister in the United Methodist Church, was active in its Korean-American congregations, and became a Professor of Systematic Theology at Drew University. Over the years, he experienced racism, prejudice, and stereotyping as an Asian-American.  Not feeling he belonged in the USA, he returned to South Korea at one point with the intention of staying. However, he discovered that he felt he no longer belonged there either.

Lee makes sense of his life through three lenses: historical, sociological, and theological. He recounts the historical experience of immigrants to the USA from Japan, Korea, and China, beginning in the nineteenth century. It is a sad and disturbing history of exploitation, discrimination, and humiliation. He discusses the sociological concept of marginality that was introduced to describe the "integration" of immigrants into the American "melting pot." He contests some of these definitions as they are developed by those in the centre and assume that being on the margins is bad and that the marginalised should move towards the centre. The centre is characterised by a concern with "wealth, power, and glory." (page 31)

"Immigration is the most vivid and profound symbol of marginality for us." (page 110).

Lee claims that "Theology is autobiographical so I reflect on my praxis and context." (page 33).

Lee discusses how marginality is central to the Biblical narrative. The Tower of Babel "was the symbol of centralisation" (p. 110). 

Lee suggests that in Old Testament narratives there are three acts (p,111). 

1. God's call to be a marginal people

2. Faith

3. "The promise which includes  receiving land, becoming a powerful nation, and making a great name (Genesis 12:1-9)."

"These three acts are inseparable. The first and third acts seem to contradict one another, but they are connected in the second act. The order of these acts cannot be reversed.... Tragedies in the history of Judaism and Christianity were due to the reversal this order... The coexistence of both marginality (the first act) and centrality (the third act) is possible in faith (the second act), the connecting principle..."

There is a dialectic. It is both/and rather than either/or.

God called Moses from his marginal status to lead the Israelite slaves out of Egypt. They wandered in the wilderness for forty years. Jesus was born in a stable, the son of a teenage unwed woman, and grew up in Galilee. In the wilderness, he resisted the temptation to embrace "wealth, power, and honour." He was scorned by the centre: the local religious and political leaders. The focus of his ministry was on the marginalised: the poor, sick, ritually unclean, hungry, lame, beggars, prostitutes, and tax collectors.  Jesus' death on the cross was the ultimate symbol of marginalisation. His disciples were not drawn from the social, political, or religious elites.

Humility, service, and love are the dominant characteristics Jesus said his followers should have. The early church did this and lived on the margins. Yet, following Constantine and the rise of Christendom, the church embraced centrality and scorned marginality. It was characterised by wealth, honour, and power. Today, the church, in all its diverse forms, still aspires to centrality. It is hierarchical, bureaucratic, and exclusive. Dogma does not recognise multiple shades of grey. (p. 125) "Centralism is the cardinal sin that destroys the authentic church." (p.142)

Lee presents a radical alternative vision for the church, including for seminaries. He argues that cell groups should be the core structural element of the church. Structures should be characterised by flexibility, local autonomy, and informality.

I have sympathy for his proposals, but sometimes I find he is idealistic and overly optimistic. Some of his proposals may work for a marginalised community such as Korean-Americans (who tend to be disciplined, well-organised, and highly educated). However, for groups of people such as the homeless and those with addictions or traumatic backgrounds, it is extremely challenging for them to develop structures and leaders. Such challenges are helpfully described in an earlier post by my wife, Robin.

On a personal level, I found the book challenging and discomforting. I am a child of the centre, in terms of family background, race, education, wealth, social status, and profession. Most of my life, I have been involved in churches and ministries that value and focus on centrality and marginality. This has not involved a blatant seeking after wealth, power, and honour. It has been much more subtle and subconscious, reflecting the surrounding culture and background of the participants and leaders. Too often I have been attracted to the centre and seduced by it. Only over the last fifteen years, I have a moved to a more marginal outlook and focus, stimulated by experiences in the Majority World. Yet the pull back to the centre is there day after day, particularly towards comfort, safety, and predictability.

The orientation and main messages of the book are largely not new to me. Nevertheless, it is a message I need to keep hearing. Lee's description of the immigrant experience, both his own and his historical predecessors, increased my imagination and empathy towards the immigrants I interact with. He gives seven characteristics of the experience of marginality: rejection, humiliation, alienation, loneliness, nothingness, allness, and a vision of new life.

Following Jesus in the 21st Century

I have finished reading a book by Eugene Peterson that I find helpful, enthralling, and challenging.

Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places: A Conversation in Spiritual Theology

Why am I enthralled? Peterson has a way with words, carefully crafting sentences and paragraphs that are both easy to read and profound. The book resonates with much I have personally been observing, learning, and thinking about. The book is challenging because it exposes many of my own struggles and weaknesses, and those of the Christian communities, from the local to the global, that I am a part of or have been involved in over the years.

The title of the book, "Christ plays in ten thousand places" is taken from a line in the poem As Kingfishers Catch Fire by Gerard Manley Hopkins.

A few things that stand out are the following.

The basics matter

Love God and Love others. It can't get "simpler" than that!

Basic concepts: creation, sin, redemption, judgement, Trinity,...

Basic practices and habits: Bible reading, prayer, holy communion, fellowship, reading literature, Sabbath, meals together, hospitality,... We need to do these in an intentional, disciplined, and regular way, and be mindful of their profound theological meaning and significance.

Cultural pressures will choke or derail the Christian life, individually and corporately: individualism, consumerism, pragmatism, immediacy, managerialism, competition, efficiency, functionalism, ...

Most of these pressures derive from living in a capitalist society that is unrelenting in shaping our thinking, desires, and actions. I need this thing. I desire this thing. I will buy this thing.

Abstractions distract. We have a natural tendency to favour the abstract and impersonal over the concrete and personal. But the story of God's action recorded in the Bible is one of particularity of times, places, and persons: Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jesus, Peter, Paul, ...

It is a story, not an academic philosophical treatise. The Triune God is not a philosophical concept or an impersonal being but rather three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Church is not an abstract concept. Churches are Christian communities of particular persons with particular life histories, relationships, struggles, sins, joys, ... Community is complex and messy.

Be rooted in a time and place. Peterson gives a profound and creative exposition of Genesis 1 and 2. The six days of creation and the seventh day of rest define the reality of the rhythm of life. The Garden and the Promised Land are specific places, highlighting our need to be rooted in a particular place. We are not to be nomads, literal or spiritual.

Here is a small selection of quotations.

“If we don't know where we are going, any road will get us there. But if we have a destination - in this case a life lived to the glory of God - there is a well-marked way, the Jesus-revealed Way. 

Spiritual theology is the attention that we give to the details of living life on this way. It is a protest against theology depersonalized into information about God; it is a protest against theology functionalized into a program of strategic planning for God.”

“God’s great love and purposes for us are all worked out in messes in our kitchens and backyards, in storms and sins, blue skies, the daily work and dreams of our common lives. God works with us as we are and not as we should be or think we should be.”

It is all about Jesus! 

“Jesus prevents us from thinking that life is a matter of ideas to ponder or concepts to discuss. Jesus saves us from wasting our lives in the pursuit of cheap thrills and trivializing diversions. Jesus enables us to take seriously who we are and where we are without being seduced by the intimidating lies and illusions that fill the air, so that we needn't be someone else or somewhere else. Jesus keeps our feet on the ground, attentive to children, in conversation with ordinary people, sharing meals with friends and strangers, listening to the wind, observing the wildflowers, touching the sick and wounded, praying simply and unselfconsciously. Jesus insists that we deal with God right here and now, in the place we find ourselves and with the people we are with. Jesus is God here and now.”

The Christian life, individual and corporate, happens in the context of a specific culture. In the West, this culture is dominated by the ideology of the market.

“We live in a culture that has replaced soul with self. This reduction turns people into either problems or consumers. Insofar as we acquiesce in that replacement, we gradually but surely regress in our identity, for we end up thinking of ourselves and dealing with others in marketplace terms: everyone we meet is either a potential recruit to join our enterprise or a potential consumer for what we are selling; or we ourselves are the potential recruits and consumers. Neither we nor our friends have any dignity just as we are, only in terms of how we or they can be used.”

Here the Church and the Gospel of Jesus offer a counter-cultural liberating message: human identity and worth is intrinsic and independent of the whims and ideology of the market. 

Four dimensions to making sense of science, life, and God

Reality and our experience of it are rich and complex. How do we make sense of it? How do we find meaning in life, God, and science? Where do we start? 

To explore such questions I find it helpful to consider four different dimensions: experience, tradition, reason, and transcendence. I have drawn inspiration from the Wesley quadrilateral in theology, but stress that I consider a broader application and perspective.

This quadrilateral is both descriptive and prescriptive. I believe it provides a good description of the different dimensions that people do use to make sense of things, whether science, theology, or ethics, even if they are not explicitly aware of what they are doing. People place different values and emphasis on each of the four dimensions, but they may all be present in their discussions. I also think the quadrilateral is also prescriptive.  For a broad range of topics, considering these four different dimensions is a good way to proceed, particularly when explicitly stating how one employs and prioritises each of the different dimensions. 

In this post, I briefly explain what I mean by each of the four dimensions and the strengths and weaknesses of each. The four dimensions are complementary. A strength of each dimension is that it can compensate for the weaknesses of some of the other dimensions. On the other hand, the four dimensions are not independent of one another.

Experience

In some sense, as individuals, this is all each of us has. We each have a unique personal history: family, education, employment, travel, church, and personal relationships. Associated with our history are experiences of joy, pain, confusion, insight, success, failure, and disappointment. Experience includes books we have read, movies we have seen, and music we have listened to. These experiences shape us: who we are, what we believe, and what we value. The influence of experience plays out at every level: individual, family, community, institution, and nation. Experience is not determinative but it is influential, perhaps more than we might like to acknowledge. Experience influences the relative priority we place on reason, tradition, transcendence, and experience!

A philosophical perspective that puts the highest priority on elements of experience is empiricism. We should only believe to be real what we can experience through sensation (sight, touch, hearing, smell) and measurement.

Experience is central to modern science. Theories are tested by experiments and independent observations (experiments) by different groups have to agree. Experience is validated by others having the same experience. 

In contrast to empiricism, romanticism was a movement in the eighteenth century that put a different emphasis on experience, valuing intense emotions, individualism, nature, intuition, inspiration, and subjectivity.

Strengths. Experience can help us engage with reality, tempering fantasy and wishful thinking. Experience can expose us to a diverse range of perspectives, including the life experience of others. In some sense, this engagement with others enables us to go beyond the limitations of our own individual experiences, abilities, personalities, and perspectives.

Weaknesses. Our own experience is finite and limited, particularly relative to all of humanity and all of history. Our experience is subjective and may not be accurate. For example, two individuals may observe the same event but have contradictory perspectives on what actually happened. Optical illusions, such as that shown below, show that even simple observations can be wrong. Experiences do not stand alone or speak for themselves but need to be interpreted. Any interpretation will involve reason, tradition, and likely transcendence.

In the picture above is the vertical line longer, shorter, or the same length in the left or right panel?

Reason

Reason is an intellectual activity. It means thinking and writing down arguments about what we think is true and why we think it is true. The essential form of a rational argument has two components. First, a set of assumptions (axioms) that are considered "reasonable" (e.g., because they are based on observations or a principle that every "reasonable" person can agree on) are stated. Then one investigates the conclusions that follow from these assumptions, using rules of logic. Reason is central to science, and plays the greatest role in the natural sciences through theories that can be formulated mathematically.

A philosophical perspective that puts the highest priority on reason is rationalism. Truth can only be found by rational argument. This was the way that ancient Greeks did science. They discounted the need to do experiments, deeming that common sense observations about nature were adequate.

Strengths. Careful reasoning can expose inconsistencies in arguments or lead to conclusions that we might not expect. Clearly stating assumptions can clarify the basis of a "rational" truth claim. Mathematics in the natural sciences has been incredibly powerful and successful. Theories such as classical mechanics, relativity, quantum theory, and electromagnetism, are based on just a few assumptions and mathematical equations. Yet, using rules of mathematical logic one can describe diverse phenomena quantitatively and make specific predictions about the outcome of experiments.

Weaknesses.  Reason is only useful and reliable if the validity of the assumptions made in an argument has a strong justification. Assumptions that may be "reasonable" or "self-evident" to one individual may not be to another. The ancient Greeks were wrong about science, believing things about nature that they thought were "common sense", but turned out to be false. In some sense, at some point in the development of an argument, it is necessary to just take some assumptions on "faith." Reason is sometimes claimed to be pre-eminent in contexts that are debatable. For issues that are predominantly emotional, relational, or artistic, reason may be of marginal relevance or unhelpful. 

Tradition

Tradition is all about the past. There are traditions that relate to many different spheres of life, including culture, religion, science, philosophy, morality, and government. A tradition is a framework, inherited from the past, that claims authority about what is true and the way that things should be done. In the context of moral philosophy, Alasdair MacIntyre, states "A tradition is an argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined" by internal and external debates. He claimed, "no way of conducting rational enquiry from a standpoint independent of the particularities of any transition has been discovered and that there is good reason to believe that there is no such way". In different words, reason cannot be separated from tradition.

Traditions are embodied in institutions, such as universities, governments, and religious denominations. Education in a particular subject involves learning a particular tradition.

Culture is an example of tradition. Culture is "the way we do things around here." Culture consists of the ideas, knowledge, beliefs, values, skills, and attitudes, that shape the behaviour of a community.

Strengths. Subjects such as philosophy, theology, and science have developed over centuries. Traditions within them are the accumulation of the knowledge, wisdom and insight gained from all hard work. It is efficient to make use of a tradition. In fact, it is unrealistic to jettison all tradition and claim that in the present one can simply start from scratch and ignore the past. Traditions provide stability, predictability, and a community with shared values, assumptions, and ways of doing things. Traditions can temper some of the foolishness associated with new fashions.

Weaknesses. Traditions can be resistant to the positive change that can come through new ideas, discoveries, and new methods. Traditions can be resistant to adapting to new and different contexts. Traditions tend to leave authority and power with an older generation, who may have a vested interest in things not changing. This is how tradition may stifle the creativity and energy of youth. Max Planck, the founder of quantum physics, stated

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...

Science proceeds one funeral at a time! 

Transcendence

The transcendentals are truth, beauty, and goodness. Transcendence is that which goes beyond the categories of being. In the metaphysics of Immanuel Kant, the transcendent is that which lies beyond our ability to know. In theology, transcendence refers to aspects of God that are independent of the physical universe. Here, I use transcendence to mean that which is beyond reason, experiment, or the content of a tradition. I would include experiences that aim to access truth and aspects of reality through intuition, the subconscious, or mysticism.  Some might claim that transcendence has no role in science, and even goes against the whole spirit of science. However, there are many stories of scientists who made important discoveries that had their origin in dreams, visions, perceptions of beauty, and "flashes of insight." 

Peter Berger argued that there are five aspects of human experience that are inexplicable apart from a transcendent reality. His "signals of transcendence" are the "human propensity to believe that the world is ordered in a trustworthy manner, the capacity to play, the capacity to hope in the face of death, the conviction that some things are just wrong and must be condemned, and the capacity to laugh."

Strengths. Transcendence provides a way to describe the ineffable elements of reality and knowledge that induce mystery, awe, wonder, and paradox. It provides room and a vocabulary for that which goes beyond reason, experiment, and tradition. It allows for the possibility of something more than the material.

Weaknesses. Transcendence and its domain of relevance are hard to define and to constrain. Invoking it may be an escape from the hard work needed to engage seriously with reason, experiment, and tradition. It may be invoked in order to engage in fantasies.

In conclusion, the four dimensions of experience, reason, tradition, and transcendence provide a helpful framework to describe and understand how different people grapple with reality. Although they complement one another they are also inter-related.

Contrasting ways that Asians and Westerner's think about theology

 In the theology reading group over two months we discussed Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives, published by Langham. It is an edited volume with 16 different authors and is divided into two equal parts, covering doctrinal themes and contemporary concerns. Asia is defined in geographic terms and the authors come from more than ten different countries, including Hong Kong, Israel, and Sri Lanka. Although their contexts are very diverse there are some common features, such as gross economic inequality, Christians being a religious minority, societies are largely religious, globalisation, and limited religious and political freedoms.

Previously, I have written some about the challenges of contextual theology.

According to the Ph.D. program in contextual theology at the Asian Theological Seminary in Manila.

Contextual theology does not mean elevating the local to the detriment of the global. It simply challenges other local theologies that have been elevated to classical status. Thus, contextual theology, while oriented towards a particular society or culture or cultural sub-group, is still in conversation with other theologies in a global discourse since it recognizes that the church is both local and universal. This implies that issues tackled in research will be rooted in the local context but will have global resonance or implications.

The first part of the book aims to give some Asian perspectives on the following doctrinal themes: revelation, scripture, the Trinity, Christology, creation, the Holy Spirit, ecclesiology, and eschatology. I felt that these chapters were a little disappointing as they seemed too "Western" to me. Perhaps this is because almost all the authors did Ph.D.'s in the West!

I felt the second part of the book was better and here focus on just a few chapters.

On page 248 there is a fascinating footnote about Asian modes of thinking. 

In his book, Mangoes or Bananas: The Quest for an Authentic Christian Theology, Hwa Yung suggests that Easterners have a relational approach in contrast to the rational approach of Westerners. Melba Maggay suggests that Asians focus on synthesis and seek to harmonise contradictions. In contrast, Westerners have a "mental habit of logical negation and either-or-thinking."

In all Asian countries, except the Philippines, Christianity is a minority religion. This means that daily life for Christians in Asia involves interactions with people from different religions. Ivan Satyovatra and Kang-San Tan each present chapters on this topic.

The discussion of any topic, not just in theology, is framed and even determined by what questions one asks and what framework is used to answer those questions. With regard to non-Christian religions, questions commonly posed are "Can a non-Christian be saved?" and "Is the Christian God present in non-Christian religions?" Furthermore, addressing this topic, one should be clear about how a particular "religion" is defined and evaluated. Is it in terms of beliefs, practices, texts, or culture? And who gets to define these things: local practitioners, Western academics, or religious authorities?

There is a common typology used to classify the perspective of Christian writers on other religions: exclusivist, inclusivist, or pluralist. Tan reviews three main criticisms of this typology (p. 280-1). First, it oversimplifies the diversity of religions and the diversity within them. Second, it restricts the diversity of possible Christian responses. "Third, the focus of the typology has been mostly on doctrinal comparison between religious systems rather than on people and relationships between faith practitioners. In particular, the typology does not allow a sufficient role for the process of encounter between people from different religions." In different words, it represents a false trichotomy. I find this last criticism fascinating because it reflects an Asian inclination to focus on relationships rather than rationality, as noted in the comments from Yung and Maggay that I mentioned above.

Tan then proposes an alternative typology that is built around Hans Frei's Five Types of Theology, as recounted by David Ford in Theology: A Very Short Introduction. Although I think this is an interesting discussion and it surpasses the three-fold typology, I did not find it more illuminating.

In chapter 11, "Jesus and Other Faiths," Ivan Satyavratra first gives a detailed critique of the pluralist position. He concludes that its most serious weakness is "the huge logical inconsistency inherent in its attempt to deny the right of other worldviews to make any privileged claims, even as pluralism itself employs tradition-specific criteria in evaluating religious beliefs." It "makes exclusive truth claims about the nature of reality just like any other religious belief system." (page 229).

He then presents an alternative proposal in his own context, a "fulfillment" approach. Jesus is the ultimate fulfilment of other religions, in some ways similar to how Jesus was the fulfilment of Judaism. Paul's addresses to Gentile audiences that are recorded in Acts 14 and 17 reflect a similar perspective as Paul argues Jesus is the fulfillment of the god found in the local religion. There is then a nice overview of Indians with Hindu backgrounds who have embraced this approach over the last two hundred years. A similar approach has been advocated by John Mbiti with respect to African traditional religions.

How do we characterise this age?

Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.            

A recent sermon at church by Philip McGann on Ephesians 5 brought to my attention the following passage written by Neil Postman in 1985. He reflects on whether the dystopian future envisioned by George Orwell or that of Aldous Huxley had been realised.

We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another—slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. 

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

Neil Postman - Foreword to Amusing Ourselves to Death

This characterisation of modern life was written long before smartphones, Twitter, and Netflix came on the scene. It is even more apt today.

A model academic conversation about Christian transformation

What does it mean to be human? How might a Christian address this question? How does Christian formation happen and what are its moral implications?  

This week at the theology reading group we are discussing a book that wrestles with these questions.

Becoming Whole and Holy: An Integrative Conversation about Christian Formation, by Jeannine K. Brown, Carla M. Dahl, and Wyndy Corbin Reuschling

The three authors are all seminary professors in the USA. They present a conversation drawing on their respective academic disciplines: social science, biblical studies/hermeneutics, and ethics.

The "method" used is "offer, receive, and integrate." Specifically, each author presents two chapters that give a perspective based on their discipline. This is followed by a chapter in which the two other authors respond, and then a three-way conversation about how their insights and perspectives might be integrated. 

In some ways, this book is (sadly) unique in that the tone is one of humble listening, mutual respect and appreciation, but with room for questioning and dissonance. I found the generosity of spirit refreshing. This has been facilitated by the authors being friends and professional colleagues for several decades.

There are many ideas in the book I found refreshing, helpful, and resonated with.

Multi-disciplinarity. There is a serious and sincere attempt to obtain a multi-faceted perspective by seriously engaging with other disciplines, including acknowledging the limitations of each discipline. Christians need not be afraid of the social sciences.

Rich theology. Several concepts are at the forefront. The Trinity is a model for the character of God and human relationality and particularity. Humanity is made in the image of God and this underscores human dignity, including the Other (those different from us). Personal holiness and wholeness mean participation in Christ and theosis (taking on the character of God). The Old Testament concept of shalom is the model for social wholeness and holiness.

Ethics matters. We live in a complex world of smartphones, sweatshops, marketing, wars, gross inequality, and refugees. How should then should communities of Christians live? Discerning answers requires ongoing prayer, study, debate, initiative, experiment, and reflection.

Context-sensitive. The authors repeatedly emphasise how hermeneutics is about being sensitive to differences (and similarities) between the original context of the different books in the Bible and the context of any reader today. They also wonder about how their own USA context influences their interpretation.

Beyond individualism. Holiness, wholeness, and formation are not just about individuals or something that can be achieved by isolated individuals. Rather, they all have communal dimensions. A Trinitarian perspective embraces the dialectic of relatedness and distinction. Christians need "to navigate between the extremes of living the narrative of "humans as autonomous, rugged individuals" and humans as "little more than social constructs."" (page 146). This resonates with John Wesley who said “The gospel of Christ knows of no religion but social; no holiness but social holiness”.

Embodiment. The Christian life is not just "spiritual". Holiness "has an important visible, bodily dimension" highlighted in the Incarnation: God dwelt in a human body. We worship and serve God with head, hearts, and hands.

Hospitality. This is highlighted as "a marker of holiness and wholeness" (pages 47-51).  "Hospitality is at the heart of the Christian life." Hospitality is not about entertainment, luxury, or fancy food and wine. It is a disposition that creates space for the other, particularly those who society keeps on the margins.

Later, I hope to discuss a few weaknesses of the book.

Science, contemplation, theory, and theology: from Boyle to McLeish

 I really enjoyed watching the 2021 Boyle Lecture, given by Tom McLeish, "The Rediscovery of Contemplation Through Science."

A paper based on the lecture is here. I have extracted a few choice quotes below. 

McLeish suggests that there are four “wrong turns” concerning "science and religion" that occurred with the scientific revolution and the rise of a modernist worldview.

1. (1)  A turn from human contemplation of nature as subjects fully immersed in the world, toward an illusion of perfect objectivity.

2. (2)  A turn from the appreciation of imagination as a legitimate pathway to knowledge, in partnership with reason, to an elevation of reason alone.

3. (3)  A turn from science as a shared cultural experience, to a restricted, professional, and institutional expertise.

4. (4)  A profound misreading of the Book of Nature—that traditional metaphor of the natural world and our epistemological relation to it as “God’s Second Book.” 

5. If we are to understand science theologically, I will propose that we should rediscover how to read the world, not as prose, but as poetry.

He makes a subtle point drawing on his experience working as a theoretical physicist on soft matter. At this point in the video, he gives a physical illustration of this in terms of modeling polymers [molecules that are very long chains of atoms].

1. The glorious paradox is that by negotiating our entropic relationship with the world, by formally knowing less in this way, we can arrange to understand more.

McLeish has discussed the Old Testament book of Job extensively in his wonderful book, Faith and Wisdom in Science. Here he states

1. Job, like modern science, needs a re-orientation in his relationship to an apparently chaotic cosmos more than he needs anything else.

2. In the long question-form poem, Yahweh points Job to his co-creating imaginative task to reach behind the surface of the world, into the ice, out to the star-clusters, onward to light itself. It remains a great pity that mainstream scholarship has tended to interpret this most healing and affirmative of texts as a form of petty divine put-down.

3. The textual encounter of Job, where the Creator, a human image of that Creator, and created nature meet, feeds our task to fashion a theologically conceived framing of science. Surprisingly to those attuned to the old “natural theology,” this re-orientation is entirely opposite to that tradition. It urges us not to look on the natural world for signs of God, nor through it as a window onto some dim divine image, but to learn to look on nature with God’s eyes, aligning our servant gaze with, not at, the divine.  

Science and theology in different contexts

 How are science and theology related to one another? Given that all theology is formulated and discussed in some context, we should consider how attempts to explore the relationship between science and theology also occur in particular contexts.

There is no such thing as the relationship between science and religion and this is the book about it.

This statement is made by David Livingstone in Which Science? Whose Religion?, the last chapter in the insightful book, Science and Religion Around the World, edited by John Hedley Brooke and Ronald L. Numbers.

Aside: The author is not the famous missionary from the 19th century, of the same name.

Livingstone reviews the chapters in the book to show the diversity of interactions between different religious traditions and different sciences (from astronomy to anthropology) in different locations and at different times. To understand the complexity of interactions he considers a set of imperatives: pluralise, localise, hybridise, and politicise.

Pluralise

There is a plurality of religions and within any major religion, there is a plurality of traditions. Consequently, the interaction with a specific science or issue may also be incredibly diverse. There is also a diversity of sciences.  A specific science can be viewed from many different angles: knowledge content, method, philosophy, ethics, history, or practitioners.

Localise

Any interaction needs to be considered in its geographical location. Many traditions and perspectives are unique to a particular location. Even something as narrow as Calvinism can vary significantly between countries and communities.

Hybridise

Consider cross-cultural syntheses between different conceptions of science and religion. This is particularly true in this era of globalisation, whereby what people believe and how they live can be a mix of Western modernism, postmodernism, capitalism, and distinctly non-Western worldviews. For example, an astronomer in South Asia may be quite comfortable consulting an astrologer in order to determine an auspicious date for the wedding of their daughter.

Politicise

Political contexts do have an influence on both science and on theology: what topics and perspectives gather the most attention, funding, and debate. Furthermore, these political contexts can significantly influence discussions, whether it is discussions about biological evolution in the USA or about astrology in a South Asian country. 

Livingstone's imperatives (pluralise, localise, hybridise, politicise) are oriented towards describing and understanding a specific science-theology interaction that has happened or is underway. But, there is a question that is important to discuss and has contested answers.

How does one discern what might be normative in a science-theology interaction in a specific context?

A related question is what should be normative in contextual theology?

Behind these questions, there is a general philosophical problem that reflects the is-ought problem, the fact-value distinction, and the relationship between descriptive and prescriptive statements. 

Deep Life

Reflecting on trends in society, churches, and universities, a significant challenge and concern is the accelerating rush to superficiality. Constant electronic connectivity through email, texting, and social media promotes urgency, immediacy, oversimplification, fads, and superficiality. Noise, hurry, and crowds push out quietness, stillness, and solitude. The nuance associated with deep reflection is lost and replaced with a Twitter storm of celebrity, "spin", and conspiracy theories. Money, marketing, management, and metrics dominate discussion and decisions.

On the one hand, this reflects human nature. On the other hand, to see the problem is getting a lot worse consider history, whether that of the church or universities. What individuals, institutions, and work (scholarship, art, music, literature) have had a lasting positive influence? 

Who do I admire and respect? I suggest that two essential features are the depth of what was produced and the long and sustained effort (free from distractions) that was required to produce it. The depth may be in insight, creativity, scholarship, personal integrity, engagement, understanding, or relationships. I see this depth in people such as Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Augustine, Calvin, Karl Barth, Mother Teresa, Einstein, John Stott,...

The figure above shows how some trees have root systems that have a depth greater than their height. The image is from here.

Now I consider how this issue of depth is receiving increasing attention from a range of authors in quite different contexts: business, the knowledge economy, social commentators, universities, and churches.

In the context of the modern information economy the need to turn from "shallow work" to "deep work" has been carefully argued by Cal Newport, a computer science professor, in his 2016 book, Deep Work:

"Shallow work is non-cognitive, logistical or minor duties, often performed while distracted. These efforts require little cognitive effort, tend to create little value, and are usually easy to replicate." Examples include replying to emails, browsing websites, looking at social media, filling in forms, and attending meetings.

"Deep work is the ability to focus without distraction on a cognitively demanding task. These efforts create new value, improve your skill, and are hard to replicate.”

This ties in with Malcolm Gladwell's argument that the 10,000-hour rule is one key ingredient for professional success.

In a different vein, in The Road to Character, The New York Times columnist David Brooks confesses, “I was born with a natural disposition towards shallowness.” He recounts his efforts to find a way out of shallow punditry and to cultivate personal character, particularly to move beyond "resume virtues", beloved by the modern world, and to move towards "eulogy virtues" such as humility, bravery, and kindness. The book is based on a course that Brooks taught three times at Yale University.

Piling higher

Some of the language that follows may offend some. But consider what the Apostle Paul said in the following verses. Interestingly, most English translations are sanitised. Here are renditions from The Message.

Why don’t these agitators, obsessive as they are about circumcision, go all the way and castrate themselves! (Galatians 5:12)

Compared to the high privilege of knowing Christ Jesus as my Master, firsthand, everything I once thought I had going for me is insignificant—dog dung. (Philippians 3:8)

Christian Smith is a distinguished sociologist who has done seminal work in the sociology of religion including adolescent spirituality, racism, and American evangelicalism. (Perhaps I particularly like him because he argues that critical realism and emergence are important in the philosophy of the social sciences). 

Of relevance to this post is that in 2018 Smith published an excellent (but depressing) article, "Higher Education is Drowning in BS: And it’s mortally corrosive to society" in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

 

Harry Frankfurt, a distinguished philosopher at Princeton University, wrote  On BS  that became a New York Times bestseller. According to Wikipedia,

Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care if what he or she says is true or false, but cares only whether the listener is persuaded.

Anthropologist David Graeber refers to Frankfurt's book in his book Bullshit Jobs, which argues that today, half of the jobs are pointless and are psychologically destructive.

Now I turn to the church in the West. It is embedded in this culture and prone to fads, superficiality, and a focus on the four M's: money, marketing, management, and metrics. In his book, Ordinary: Sustainable Faith in a Radical, Restless World, Michael S. Horton expresses concern about the preoccupation in the USA church with the "next-big-thing" that promises radical transformation, and advocates instead "a renewed appreciation of the commonplace."

The pandemic has made this even more urgent and challenging because the world (including everyday life, work, ministry) has become even more complex, unpredictable, and fragile.

Deep Life in the Bible

The Bible addresses the issue of superficiality versus depth, particularly with regard to integrity and relationships. For example, in Isaiah 58, the Israelites complain to God.

"Why have we fasted and you see it not?. Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it?"

God responds that their worship is actually superficial and lacks integrity.

Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure,

    and oppress all your workers.

4 

Behold, you fast only to quarrel and to fight

    and to hit with a wicked fist.

Fasting like yours this day

    will not make your voice to be heard on high.

5 

Is such the fast that I choose,

    a day for a person to humble himself?

Is it to bow down his head like a reed,

    and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him?

Will you call this a fast,

    and a day acceptable to the Lord?  

“Is not this the fast that I choose:

  to loose the bonds of wickedness,
    to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
    and to break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
    and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
    and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Matthew 13 recounts Jesus telling the parable of the sower, which describes different responses to Jesus' teaching (the Word).

“A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.

Jesus' condemned the Pharisees, the religious elite of his day, for their hypocrisy, particularly their concern with outward appearances rather than a deep integrity based on a pure heart. For example, in Luke 11 Jesus says,

“Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you."

We don't need just Deep Work, we also need Deep Integrity, Deep Relationships, and Deep Spirituality. I suggest they are often interrelated. Deep Work is concerned with "cognitively demanding tasks" but we also need to set aside time to focus on tasks that are morally, relationally, or spiritually demanding. In different words, this is about Formacion (spiritual formation and discipleship).

Christian leaders in a smartphone world

Is there depth to how I follow Jesus with my heart, hands, and mind? This involves movement and engagement in horizontal, vertical, and inward directions. Is there depth in my relationships: with God, with family, with co-workers, with students, and with supporters?

A deep understanding is required of God's Word, the world, ourselves, our context, and the university. Such understanding can only come with sustained periods of thinking, reading, writing, learning, listening, praying,... 

How can we move in this direction? It is not easy because we are all constantly being pushed in the wrong direction: noise, superficiality, rush, distraction, ... 

Although it is not possible to cut out all the noise and distractions, they can be reduced with planning, organisation, and discipline, from the individual to the institutional level. Many of the practical suggestions that Cal Newport makes about Deep Work are relevant to other areas of life. His suggestions include quitting social media, digital minimalism, and rigorous scheduling of time for deep life.

Institutions are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. As they grow and age they have a natural tendency to lose the passion, commitment, innovation, outward orientation, and flexibility of their founders. Instead, they tend to become self-focused, bureaucratic, inflexible and centred around the careers and interests of their management. 

Institutions and their leaders can move in the right direction by hiring and promoting people with real depth, implementing policies and procedures that shift the emphasis away from the four Ms, and create space for deep life, including by shifting conversations towards deep work, deep integrity, deep relationships, and deep spirituality. 

Relating Word (logos) and World (cosmos)

The last two posts reflected on the nature of the logos and the cosmos. I now consider how are the logos and cosmos to be related. 

What is the relationship between Word and World? More specifically what is the relationship between theology and the sciences? How are cosmos and logos in a university to be related? Going back to Plato there are rich and subtle philosophical issues concerning ontology [what is real] and epistemology [what is true] that are still being explored and debated in universities. Could a Christian perspective be even richer?

A place to begin is to acknowledge the central role of hermeneutics (how we read and interpret a text), not just the text of the Bible, but also how we “read” the world in which we live. To access the living Word requires engaging the text of the Bible in a manner that uses a “hermeneutical circle (or spiral)”, whereby a specific part of the text is related to its context (chapter, book, whole Bible) in an iterative manner that goes from the part to the whole and back to the whole. Any theology should also be constructed in an iterative interaction with the text. Similarly, a local context (cultural, social, political, economic, linguistic, religious) has to be “read”; this requires observation, recording, analysis, and interpretation. Too often this is done in an intuitive manner without reflection or a basis in evidence. However, this “reading” can be done in a more systematic and reflective manner, drawing from methods in the social sciences. The local context must also be related to the global context and one needs to discern the relationship between the particularity of the local context and universals that describe many contexts. 

When relating Word and world things become more complicated, challenging, and rich because these two hermeneutical practices are intertwined, perhaps more than we would like to admit. Again, perhaps the best approach is iterative, whereby both “readings” are done in parallel and allowed to influence one another in a constructive manner. Indeed, Peter Harrison has argued in detail that modern science arose in seventeenth-century Europe because the Protestant Reformation led to new ways of reading the Bible (in particular, a shift from the allegorical to the literal) that in turn led to new ways of “reading” the “book” of nature.

A key issue for the dialogue of logos and cosmos is the tension inherent in the Bible’s picture of the world. The cosmos is God’s creation, made through the logos (John 1:1). Christians need discernment as they live with a tension between the goodness of the creation and the fallen, rebellious nature of the world. What do we affirm and enjoy about the world? What do we deny or critique or resist or seek to redeem? Being made in the image of God, we have an incredible ability to read, analyse, and understand both the Word and the world. Yet, both these processes of observation and understanding are also corrupted by our sinful and rebellious nature. Sometimes we see what we want to see and don’t see what we don’t want to see. Pride, finitude, and self-deception diminish our understanding.

The good-bad tension is present in universities. Some of the logos about the cosmos that is presented to students and "discovered" by researchers reflect God’s truth about His amazing world and some of this knowledge reflects Kingdom values (truth, justice, human dignity, reconciliation, ...).  On the other hand, some of this so-called knowledge is false, hostile to God, or does violence to Kingdom values. Universities grew out of medieval monasteries and were centred around theology until the last century. In the monasteries, scholarship was integrated with worship, service, communal life, and virtue. Today universities aspire to be global corporations with multi-billion-dollar budgets. In the process of this transformation from God-centred institutions to powerful businesses, there is less of the good and more of the bad. 

For IFES some guidance comes from John Stott. In his book, The Contemporary Christian: An urgent plea for double listening, he discusses listening to the world and to the Word.

How can we develop a Christian mind, which is both shaped by the truths of historic, biblical Christianity, and acquainted with the realities of the contemporary world? How can we relate the Word to the world, understanding the world in the light of the Word, and even understanding the Word in the light of the world? We have to begin with a double refusal. We refuse to become either so absorbed in the Word, that we escape into it and fail to let it confront the world, or so absorbed in the world, that we conform to it and fail to subject it to the judgement of the Word. Escapism and conformity are opposite mistakes, but neither is a Christian option. 

In place of this double refusal we are called to double listening, listening both to the Word and to the world. ... We listen to the Word with humble reverence, anxious to understand it, and resolved to believe and obey what we come to understand. We listen to the world with critical alertness, anxious to understand it too, and resolved not necessarily to believe and obey it, but to sympathise with it and to seek grace to discover how the gospel relates to it. 

This is the origin of the title of the IFES journal, Word and World: Theological Conversations about the world students live in. How might we go about relating logos and cosmos? John Stott also says the framework of creation-fall-redemption-renewal is helpful for developing Christian thinking on a wide range of issues. 

Finally, I come back to the role of local context. There is not one world, but many worlds. The beauty and potential of God’s multi-faceted creation can be seen in the diversity of human cultures and local contexts. Tragically, this diversity also reflects the creativity of human rebellion and sin. 

Most discussions about science and theology are dominated by academics embedded in elite Western universities and seminaries. The discussions focus on issues associated with biological evolution, Big Bang cosmology, quantum physics, and human consciousness. Social sciences receive scant attention. It is contentious whether these Western discussions are helpful or relevant to other contexts, particularly in the Majority World.

One model for the logos-cosmos dialogue is provided by the Ph.D. program in Contextual Theology at Asian Theological Seminary in Manilla. Later I may discuss in more detail a few key elements of the philosophy of the program. These include a focus “on empowering local faith communities on empowering the faith community by giving it a language and praxis in its formation, growth, and service in the setting/s in which it finds itself”, bringing the local into dialogue with the global, and inter-disciplinarity.

Reviewing models of contextual theology

Here is a brief synopsis of three of the distinct models of contextual theology discussed by Stephen B. Bevans, in An Introduction to Theology in Global Perspective.

Bevans proposes six distinct models of contextual theology. They put different relative emphasis on the past and the present, represented by their different locations on the diagram above. Those on the left emphasise the goodness of creation (including culture created by humans) and place a higher value on general revelation than on special revelation. Those on the right emphasise the fallen nature of the creation (including culture created by humans) and the need to redeem it, and put a low value on general revelation, particularly that God can be seen to be present and working in human cultures.

In discussing each model Bevans describes the following

1. alternative names of the model

2. the basis that the model has in Scripture and in Tradition

3. presuppositions that the model has about revelation, Scripture, Tradition, and context

4. methods that practitioners of the model use

5. a horticultural analogy 

6. a "bumper sticker" catchphrase that may summarise the model

7. a positive and negative critique of the model.

Tradition may be Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Calvinist, ...

Translation model

There is a message that is independent of any context and the primary task of theology is to translate that message into specific contexts.

1. the translation is not one of "formal correspondence" but rather "functional" or "dynamical equivalence." Translation involves "adaptation" and "accommodation."

2. Pauls speech in Athens (Acts 17) is an example.

3. there is a content to Christianity that is independent of context and must, by all means, be preserved. Revelation is understood as propositional, containing a concrete message. Both the essence of the message and the Tradition of the proponent are considered to be supracontextual and complete.

4. one first finds the "essence" of the Gospel and then "clothes" it with the trappings of the local culture.

5. a grain of wheat. the husk is removed in order to find the kernel, which is then enclosed in a new husk.

6. "essence of Christianity" and "put the gospel into [new contexts]"

7. Positive: places a high value on Scripture, Tradition, and can be very respectful of different cultures. Negative: may have a naive understanding of the gospel and of the context. may be overly confident about the ability of a person from a particular culture and Tradition to understand the "essence" of the gospel and contexts and to be able to perform a faithful/accurate translation of the gospel from one context to another.

Proponents include Charles Kraft, David Hesselgrave, Tite Tienou, and Hwa Yung.

Anthropological model

This is the most "radical" model. Local cultures can reflect the goodness of God and theology needs to affirm them and be adapted to them. The primary concern is to preserve the cultural identity of a person of Christian faith.

1. "indigenisation" or "ethnographic" model. It is anthropological because the center of the theology is the human person and it makes use of anthropological methods, such as ethnography.

2. the stories of the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:21-28) and the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30) showed "how even Jesus in his full humanity needs to have his horizon expanded beyond Jewish prejudices to the realization of the full implication of his gospel message."

3. tends to approach revelation as not a set of propositions to be preserved but rather an account of God's presence in past contexts.

4.  starts where people are at.

5.  a gardener waters a dry and barren area of soil and from it come flowers and vegetables, the seeds of which were already in the soil.

6. negative: naive about the goodness of human contexts. needs to recognise the sinfulness and fallibility of humanity. does not address issues of injustice and immorality that may be endemic to a society. positive: honours people and their communities, emphasis on humility.

7. "pull the gospel out of" contexts

Examples are Leonardo Mercado, Laurenti Magesa, and Diego Irarrazava.

Praxis model

Practice and theological reflection cannot be separated. Praxis is a combination of practice, or action, and reflection on that action in a continuing spiral.

1. "liberation"model, "situational" model, or "theology of the signs of the times."

2. old Testament prophets (e.g. Isaiah 1:15-16 and Micah 6:7-8)

3. "Not only are women and men of God called to be friends of God; they are called to be partners as well." Revelation is a concrete model, that invites relationship and action, particularly to join God in his liberating and saving activity within history.

4. Action, reflection, action, reflection, .... Reflection involves an analysis of the context using social sciences and a rereading of the Tradition in light of the action. The entire process is the doing of theology.

5. Tending a garden involves an ongoing process of hoeing, sowing, weeding, and watering.

6. Positive: the fullest knowledge is not just intellectual but also through experience and reflection on that experience. Negative: liberation theology is sometimes too influenced by Marxist ideology. 

7. "To know Christ is to follow him." (Jon Sobrino)

Gustavo Guitterez (Peru), Jean-Marc Ela (Cameroon), and Aloysius Pieris (Sri Lanka) are examples.

In a later post, I will discuss the other three models.

Synthetic model

There are strengths and weaknesses of all these models and so one tries to take the good things from all the models.

Countercultural model

Without Christ, cultures are fallen and stand against Christ. They need to be changed.

Transcendental model

The focus in on the subject, the person. Revelation must be experienced. In ones context, one experiences God.