Preface
I have written this article and am looking for feedback on it, both the content and the manner of expression. Any comments would be gratefully received! Michael
Abstract
This
paper brings together the thinking of the best of contemporary missiologists,
Andrew Walls, and emergent theologians, Rob Bell and Ray Anderson. Walls shows
that the Christian faith makes itself at home in different cultures in quite
different ways, and that theology must be local in character. Because of this
no group of Christians has any right to impose their assumptions upon another
group of Christians. Rather, we are likely to find theologies arising out of other
cultural contexts puzzling, even disturbing. Anderson demonstrates that the ‘work
of God’ helps us interpret the ‘Word of God’. For example, the Apostle Paul
used the fact that God poured his Spirit out on uncircumcised Gentiles (that
is, a work of God) to reinterpret the Word of God – and he found an
interpretation of the Word of God that was in line with that new reality. Anderson
then gives two contemporary example of something similar going on. Bringing
together these two strands of thought, this paper argues that in any culture,
even contemporary Western culture, we need to be alert to the work of God by
his Spirit as we explore how to be culturally relevant, while true to our
faith. This is risky business, always running the risk of taking one small step
too far into ‘heresy’ (Bell) or ‘blasphemy’ (Walls). The current debate about
the blessing of homosexual couples is an example of this process.
Introduction: heresy and blasphemy
Rob
Bell[1]:
The great German scholar
Helmut Thielicke once said that a person who speaks to this hour’s need will
always be skirting the edge of heresy, but only the person who risks those
heresies can gain the truth.
Andrew Walls[2]:
It was necessary to
explore the sense of the Scriptures using the indigenous vocabulary, the
indigenous methods of debate, the indigenous patterns of thought. It was a
risky business. There’s no such thing as safe theology. Theology is an act of
adoration fraught with a risk of blasphemy, but an act of adoration, of
worship, nevertheless.
Risking heresy. Risking
blasphemy. I do not know whether Rob Bell has read Andrew Walls. I do not know
whether Andrew Walls has read Helmut Thielicke. But Bell and Thielicke on the
one hand and Walls on the other hand are saying pretty much the same thing: if our
theology (that is, our study of God and God’s relation to the world) is going
to be relevant it will be right there on the cutting edge, running the risk of
going too far. But unless we run that risk of going too far (heresy, blasphemy)
we will never gain the truth.
Andrew Walls and The Indigenizing Principle of Christianity
It was in 1982 that Andrew
Walls wrote his paper, The Gospel as
Prisoner and Liberator of Culture. The paper begins with five snapshots of
the global church down the ages. First there are the original Jewish Christians
in Jerusalem, around 37AD. Then there are Greek Christians at the Council of
Nicea in 325AD. Thirdly, a group of Irish monks, c600AD. Fourthly Victorian
Christians in London in the 1840s, and finally Nigerian Christians dancing through
Lagos in the 1980s. These groups are very, very different from one another, yet
they are all good examples of the church in different places and at different
times. Walls goes on to point out that there are certain key similarities
between these (and any other) local incarnations of the Church:
Ø
each was founded (in some way) by the previous group
Ø
Jesus Christ is central to each
Ø
all use the same sacred writings, and use bread & wine and
water in special ways
Ø
each thinks of itself as having some continuity with the others
Ø
each sees itself as in some way continuous with ancient Israel.
Walls proceeds to explain
what he calls The Indigenizing Principle.
That is, since God accepts us as we are, culture and all, there has always been
the desire – the need, even – to make the church a place where people feel at
home. This was what was decided at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Walls
summarises: Paul taught that “since God accepts the heathen as they are,
circumcision, food avoidance, and ritual washing are not for them”.[3] The broader principle that
Walls extracts from this is that, “no group of Christians has any right to
impose in the name of Christ upon another group of Christians a set of
assumptions about life determined by another time and place” (ibid p8).
Walls’ second principle is
The Pilgrim Principle. That is, God
transforms people, God transforms cultures. As part of this process the
Christian is given an adoptive past, linking all to the people of God of all
generations and to the whole history of ancient Israel.
The final part of Walls’
paper looks at The Future of Christian
Theology and its Cultural Conditioning. Even in 1982 when Walls wrote this
paper he could state that the centre of gravity of the Christian world has
moved south, to Africa and Latin America. How much more is that the case now,
31 years later! In fact in a more recent paper, the one from which the initial
quotation was taken, Demographics, Power
and the Gospel in the 21st Century written in 2002, Walls adds
Asia and the Pacific to the list of places to which the centre of Christianity
has moved. And so he states that the theology of Europe and North America is
going to become a backwater, while it’s the theology of the new centre (or
centres) that is going to be of greatest significance. Because: theology
“springs out of practical situations and is therefore occasional and local in
character” (p10). Scripture is paramount, but hand in hand with real life:
“Theology is about testing your actions by Scripture.” (p11) “Theology arises out of situations that
actually happen, not from broad, general principles.” (p11) In short: theology is about doing. Therefore each agenda will be
local and different.
Walls’ focus is on new
African theologies, particularly as Africans grapple with their past. What
might we white Anglo-Saxons make of African theology? Walls suggests: “It is
safe for a European to make only one prediction about the valid, authentic
African Biblical theology we all talk about: that it is likely either to puzzle
us or to disturb us.” (p11) The sourcebook of all valid theology is the
canonical Scriptures, but they are read with different eyes by people in
different times and places. We all approach Scripture wearing cultural
blinkers, and as we do theology we are engaging with the communities with whom
we live and in the context of whom we are doing our theology. This is dynamite!
Walls’ Principles and the 21st Century West
As just stated, Walls’
focus is on the emerging church in Africa and other places which were once the
mission fields of western missions. That is, lands which until a few hundred
years ago had not had interaction with the Christian faith; cultures which were
grappling with local theologizing because they had not had any Christian
influence earlier.
I would suggest that when
culture changes that same process must take place. Unless that process of
theological grappling takes place in each generation, our theology will quickly
become outdated and of less relevance. Rob Bell compares this with his old
Oldsmobile car. “They used to be popular, and your grandparents or roommate may
still drive one, but the factories have shut down. Eventually the only ones
left will be collector’s items, relics of an era that has passed. Oldsmobile
couldn’t keep up with the times, and so it gradually became part of the past,
not the future. For them, not us. For then, not now.”[4] So with God and theology.
Our grandparents grappled in their day and age so that their faith and their
articulation of it was relevant – or, in the words of Andrew Walls quoted
above, “occasional and local”.
Western culture is
changing at breakneck speed. What kind of theology and theologizing is “occasional and local” to contemporary post-modern Western culture? Before we seek
to answer this question let us note, from Walls (quoted above) that:
Ø
the church looks utterly different in different places and eras
Ø
“no group of Christians has any right to impose in the name of
Christ upon another group of Christians a set of assumptions about life
determined by another time and place”
Ø
theology “springs out of practical situations and is therefore occasional and local in character”
Ø
traditional modernists who do not embrace post-modern culture
are likely to find emergent theology puzzling or disturbing.
The Work of God and the Word of God
Ray
S. Anderson wrote An Emergent Theology
for Emerging Churches in 2007. Chapter 6, entitled It’s about the Work of God, not just the Word of God, looks at the
interaction between the written Word of God (the Scriptures) and the
contemporary Spirit-inspired work of God. He begins with Jesus.
Jesus
did not observe the law of Moses as understood by his contemporaries. For
example, he broke the Sabbath law and allowed his disciples to do so too:
One
Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked
along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The
Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the
Sabbath?”
He
answered, “Have
you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in
need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which
is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
Then
he said to them, “The
Sabbath was made for man, not
man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2.23-27)
Note
that Jesus did not tell the Pharisees that the Sabbath law no longer mattered.
Rather, he appealed to Scripture itself for a different interpretation of the
text of Scripture.
Another
time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shrivelled hand was
there. Some
of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the
Sabbath. Jesus
said to the man with the shrivelled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”
Then
Jesus asked them, “Which
is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
He
looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts,
said to the man, “Stretch
out your hand.” He
stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then
the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus. (Mark 3.1-6)
Jesus
could have healed this man on any day of the week. But he didn’t. He
deliberately chose to heal him on the Sabbath. He wanted to make a point.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of traditional Sabbath practice, Jesus, as “Lord
of the Sabbath” reinterpreted it. And he wanted his disciples, the Pharisees
and any others who were watching or listening in to note this reinterpretation.
Jesus did not claim a higher independent authority over the Scriptures. That
is, he did not say, “The law of Moses says such and such, but that no longer
matters because I’m saying to you something else.” Jesus showed high respect
for the Scriptures (our Old Testament) and used it to show that another
interpretation was possible, and indeed preferable.
Paul
worked similarly. He faced the objective reality that Gentiles had received the
Holy Spirit. They had received the Holy Spirit as Gentiles. They had not been circumcised and become Jews first.
The problem was that the Scriptures stated that circumcision was necessary to
be included amongst God’s people and to be considered righteous before God. The
fact was that the Word of God (circumcision is necessary for God’s approval)
disagreed with the work of God (God pouring out the Holy Spirit on uncircumcised
Gentiles). So Paul did what Jesus did: he went back to the Scriptures and
discovered that the popular interpretation was not the only possible
interpretation, and indeed another interpretation was preferable. Paul dug more
deeply and discovered Abraham – or rather, Abram, as he was at that point:
Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him
as righteousness. (Genesis 15.6)
Paul
realised that when Abram believed the Lord, and the Lord credited this to Abram
as righteousness, Abram was an uncircumcised Gentile. So clearly circumcision
was not necessary to be considered righteous before God, not necessary in order
to have God’s approval.
If
it had not been for the work of God (filling uncircumcised Gentiles with the
Holy Spirit), Paul might never have gone back to the Scriptures and sought for
an interpretation which was in line with this reality. It is the work of God
that forces Paul to go back to the Word of God and dig more deeply in it. Anderson
describes this in terms of two ‘narratives’: there’s the written narrative of
Scripture, the Word of God, and then there’s the new action narrative of the
work of God. And so he writes, “The contemporary narrative of the Holy Spirit’s
coming to the Gentile believers is laid alongside the narrative of Scripture so
that the work of God through the Spirit becomes the lens through which he reads
the Word of God.” (p123) This is an important point, let’s unpack it.
First
of all, let’s consider Jesus again. Jesus showed that another interpreted of
the law of the Sabbath was possible. From that point on it was not that
followers of Jesus would choose, ‘Shall we adopt Jesus’ new interpretation or
shall we keep the traditional interpretation?’ No. The followers of Jesus saw
the work of God through Jesus (as summarised in the statement, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”) as the
definitive understanding of the Sabbath – or, to use Anderson’s phrase, it
“becomes the lens” through which the written Word of God would
now be read. There was no choice. The work of God (Jesus’ Sabbath activities
and his accompanying statements) has become the “new narrative” which guides
the behaviour of those who followed Jesus.
Likewise
Paul and the Gentiles. Paul and the early Christians recognized that it had
been God’s intention right from the beginning to include Gentiles in his plan.
When the Old Testament (the Word of God) is read through this “lens” of the
work of God (God pouring out the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles) God’s truth falls
more fully into place. This is the lens
through which to read the Old Testament. We don’t have a choice in the matter.
I don’t believe there are any followers of Jesus today who believe that
Gentiles need to, essentially, become Jews in order to follow Jesus. In fact
the great majority of followers of Jesus are not Jews, and (quite rightly) feel
no sense of obligation to adopt a Jewish lifestyle.
Anderson
emphasises that the Word of God and the work of God function together. On the
one hand, the work of God does not replace the Word of God. But on the other
hand, the Word of God does not crush the work of God. Both come alive “as
revelation”(p123). By this I believe Anderson means that both the Word and the
work reveal God and his will to us, and that is why they need to operate
together. The work of God interprets the Word of God, and we discover the truth
of God by studying both these two narratives, the Scripture text and the work
of God through the Holy Spirit.
Discernment
is of course vital. Not everyone who claims to be led by the Spirit of God is
in fact led by the Spirit of God. If a new work of God seems to be happening we
need to search the Scriptures. Jesus and Paul always had a “biblical antecedent
for what presents itself as a creative and liberating work of the Spirit”
(p125). “Without such an antecedent we cannot allow for what might be claimed
as a new work of the Spirit to become a hermeneutical criterion.” (p127) A hermeneutical criterion is a pivotal point
which guides or determines our understanding or interpretation of the issue in
question. In other words, if there’s no antecedent the so-called new work of
the Spirit is most likely not actually a new work of the Spirit.
Was
God at work through his Holy Spirit only in the days of Jesus and the New
Testament Church? Anderson: “The same Holy Spirit that brought about the work
of God in the church at Antioch and those that emerged out of Antioch, is at
work today as the Spirit of the risen and coming Christ.” (p125)
Which
brings us back to Walls and contemporary missiology.
What happens when Christianity makes itself at home
“Christianity
lives by crossing cultural frontiers.”[5]
This is a deep and profound truth. In his 1982 paper Walls shows us glimpses of
Christian communities in different places and times (p1 above). Not only are
these different incarnations of Christianity, but Christianity lives by means
of incarnating itself in different
cultures. Walls observes that if Christianity had remained a Jerusalem-based
Jewish sect it would never have survived. But it “had crossed a cultural
boundary into the Greek world” (ibid p4). Then, before the Greek world
declined, Christianity had crossed another cultural boundary, to the barbarians
of Northern Europe. This pattern has followed over the centuries. “Christianity
lives by crossing the boundaries of language and culture. Without this process
it can wither and die.” (ibid p5)
Each
time Christianity crosses a new boundary and makes itself at home in a new
culture, the Spirit of God is at work. The new believers, living as part of a
culture which had never before been Christianized, need to find a way of being
a Christian that is true to both the Word of God and to their own culture. The
Holy Spirit is what equips them for this formidable task. “Hellenistic believers
would have to find a Hellenistic way of being Christian under guidance of the
Holy Spirit because they had to live in Hellenistic society and they would have
to change Hellenistic family and social life, but change it organically, from
the inside. The Hellenistic way of being Christian would be different from the
Jewish way of being Christian and yet the two belonged with each other.” (p5)
Every culture where
Christianity takes root needs to use its own local materials as theological
building blocks. As the Greeks did this they gave us the doctrines of the
Incarnation and Trinity, constructed “from the materials of middle-period
Platonism converted to handle the material of the Christian tradition” (p7). As
the barbarians did this they brought a higher level of understanding to the
doctrine of the Atonement. How did this happen? “Of course the Bible was
central to the debate, but there was no single text that would clearly settle
the matter. It was necessary to explore the sense of the Scriptures using the
indigenous vocabulary, the indigenous methods of debate, the indigenous
patterns of thought.” (p8)
Walls writes of
“exploring”. Anderson writes of “contemporary works of God”. These two need to
work together closely. There is no single proof-text in the Bible for most of the
issues Christians grapple with as their culture interacts with Christianity. And
so we explore the sense of the Scriptures using the tools our culture gives us.
But God does not leave us alone in this. He is at work by his Holy Spirit, and
so it may just be that it is a contemporary work of God by his Spirit that
shows us the route that we need to explore. This exploration, as Walls points
out, is risky business. “Theology is an act of adoration fraught with a risk of
blasphemy.” (p8) Or, as Rob Bell and Helmut Thielicke put it, “A person who
speaks to this hour’s need will always be skirting the edge of heresy” (p4).
“This hour’s need” is one’s culture’s need at this point in time.
Are there any absolutes?
Or is theology destined to drift on the tides of culture as each evolving
culture grapples with what its own occasional
and local theology looks like?
Yes, of course there are absolutes, and Andrew Walls hints at them when he
draws our attention to what the original Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, the
Greek Christians at the Council of Nicea, the Irish monks, the Victorian
Christians in London and the Nigerian Christians in Lagos had in common. That
is, the centrality of Jesus Christ as revealed in the sacred writings we call
the Bible, and a sense of continuity and connection with one another and with
ancient Israel. These statements could be unpacked at great length – but this
is not the place for that.
Walls’ interest is those
parts of the world to which the centre of gravity of Christianity has now
shifted: “More and more the responsibility [for theological creativity] will
fall on the Christians making their Christian choices in mother tongue theological
thinking in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America, in the Pacific islands.” (p8) But
what of those formerly Christian cultures in Europe and North America?
Contemporary Western examples
What does this mean for
the 21st Century Church in the West? What are some of the issues we
face in Europe and North America where Christianity is grappling with our
contemporary culture, where a “work of God” is evident and we explore the
significance? Anderson gives two examples.
Anderson’s first example
is the ordination of women. Although there were instances earlier, it was during
the 1960s that God began to call women into the ordained ministry and their
churches were affirming that call. Anderson states that this was not based on
ideological feminism or cultural changes. However I would suggest that if the
surrounding culture had not been beginning to place an emphasis on the equality
of women and men that this “work of God” might not have taken place and neither
would the subsequent exploring of Scripture using indigenous vocabulary and
patterns of thought. The result of this exploration of Scripture was that it
was discovered that there are ways of exegeting the Scriptures to allow women a
full role in church leadership, including ordination, just as it was discovered
nearly two millennia earlier that Gentiles have a full and equal place amongst
the community of the people of God.
Anderson’s second example
is divorce. The Bible states clearly that divorce followed by remarriage would
constitute adultery. See, for example, Mark 10.11-12:
Jesus
answered, “Anyone
who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And
if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Yet it would seem that the
Spirit of God is at work, enabling divorced people to experience the forgiveness
and healing of Christ. Should they have the Word of God held against them when
the work of God brings them mercy and forgiveness? This was brought home
personally to Anderson (who is also a pastor) when a member of his
congregation, a divorced woman, asked, “On which side is God? Is God on the
side of the Bible, or is God on our side in our new relationship in Christ?”
(p131) Such a question and the way it is phrased bring home the warning that
Bell, Thielicke and Walls give about being on the edge of heresy and blasphemy!
But unless the question is asked, real theologizing cannot take place. Anderson
states his conclusion: “When Jesus said that humans were not made for
the Sabbath but that the Sabbath was made for humans, I took that also to apply
to marriage. Humans were not made just to live under the law of marriage with
no mercy for failure, but marriage was made for the benefit of humans. Jesus is
not only the Lord of the Sabbath, he is the Lord of marriage… I could not and
would not use the words of Jesus to cancel out the work of Jesus in his
redemption of those who were not able to live by the law.” (p132) And so he
married her and her partner.
Paul
brought greater understanding of the inclusivity of Christ. Classical Greek
culture brought greater understanding of the person of God. Barbarian culture
brought greater understanding of the atonement of Christ. Is 21st Century
emergent culture bringing greater understanding of the mercy of God?
The current Big Debate in
the Western Church is homosexuality, and in particular whether the church
should bless homosexual couples and be in favour of gay marriage. Some
well-known Christian leaders, such as Rob Bell, Steve Chalke and Brian McLaren,
say yes. Others say no. I do not consider myself qualified to say either yes or
no, but I will offer one or two thoughts, based on the preceding analysis of
Gospel, culture, the Word of God and the contemporary work of God.
1.
The Word of God, both Old and New
Testaments, states that homosexuality is wrong. For example, “Do not have
sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
(Leviticus 18.22) “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual
relations for unnatural ones. In the same way
the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust
for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in
themselves the due penalty for their error.”
(Romans 1.26-27)
2.
It may be that the contemporary
work of God is blessing gay people and gay couples. There are testimonies of
gay Christians who live monogamously and faithfully with their same-sex spouse,
potentially affirming a contemporary work of God in blessing monogamous,
committed gay marriages.
3.
On the other hand there does seem
to be a parallel work of God whereby gay people, through Christ, change their
sexuality and celebrate the greater richness of life they experience
heterosexually. Or they are convicted that a homosexual lifestyle is
incompatible with Christian faith, and as a result remain celibate.
4.
Points 2 and 3 above do not
negate each other. In Corinth there were different forms of Christian
conviction and practice with regard to the eating of meat sacrificed to idols,
and Paul affirms both. If monogamous, gay, Christian marriages are a work of
God, that in no way invalidates those who are convicted to give up their
homosexual lifestyle. Neither would the fact that some are convicted to give up
their homosexual lifestyle invalidate monogamous, gay, Christian marriages.
5.
Paul states in Galatians 3.26-28,
“In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for
all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There
is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Paul was listing contrasting pairs well-known in his day. Could we legitimately
add “neither gay nor straight” to this list, or would that be one step too far?
6.
If we were to accept this as a
contemporary work of the Spirit of God as we engage with contemporary Western
culture, we would need to go through a process similar to Jesus’
reinterpretation of the Sabbath law, Paul’s reinterpretation of how God accepts
those who are not Jewish, and Anderson’s examples relating to the role of women
and the permissibility of divorce. Chalke, McLaren, Bell and others would seem
to have already gone through this process and are ready to affirm that this is
a contemporary work of God. Others have gone through this process and state
that this cannot be a work of God since it is in direct violation of the Word
of God.
Closing thoughts
Anderson
cautions (in the context of the ordination of women): “To refuse to
recognize the work of Christ through the contemporary operation of the Holy
Spirit might well be hindering the work of God.” (p130) However, Gamaliel
advises (in a quite different context, but the truth of his words transcend
context): If this is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you
will not be able to stop it; you will only find yourselves fighting against God
(paraphrased from Acts 5.38-39).
The
truth is that we need to make decisions. We, that is, inspired by the Spirit of
God who dwells within each of us who follows Jesus. We have dual citizenship:
we are each part of the culture into which God caused us to be born. We are
also citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. May we have the discernment to see
where the Spirit of God is at work in our day and age, the ability to
distinguish what is of God and what is not, and the courage to risk following
him. May our roots be firmly planted in the Word of God so that we will not
take that small step into heresy or blasphemy as we seek the truth of God and
seek to make the Church a place where people feel at home, whatever our place,
time and culture. But may fear of that small step into heresy or blasphemy not stultify
us from following the Spirit of God.
Bibliography
Anderson,
Ray S (2007) An Emergent Theology for
Emerging Churches
Anderson,
Ray S (2001) The Shape of Practical
Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis
Bell,
Rob (2013) What we talk about when we
talk about God
Bell, Rob and Andrew Wilson with Justin Brierley (2013) Homosexuality & The Bible Live
discussion @ www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable
Dickenson,
Ruth (ed) Christianity magazine,
February, March & June 2013
Walls,
Andrew (1982) The Gospel as Prisoner and
Liberator of Culture. This is also published as chapter 1 in Walls (1996) The Missionary Movement in Christian History
Walls,
Andrew (2002) Demographics, Power and the
Gospel in the 21st Century, available at http://www.wycliffe.net/resources/missiology/globalperspectives/tabid/97/Default.aspx?id=3041
[1]
What we talk about when we talk about God
(2013) p4
[2]
Demographics, Power and the Gospel in the
21st Century (2002) p8
[3]
The Gospel as Prisoner and Liberator of Culture (1982) p8
[4]
What we talk about when we talk about God
(2013) p5-6
[5]
Andrew Walls, Demographics, Power and the
Gospel in the 21st Century, p4
