Western Theology vs. The Rest

[Douglas]

This is something that i have been wrestling with being now immersed in studies here in Latin America. I just wanted to get some it down and see if anyone else had any thoughts.

Basically the issue is this: The majority of theology that i have grown up in has been the product of the west meaning Europe and the USA. This however has presented me with an interesting problem. As much as we like to think otherwise our theology is more often then not a combination of our own context and the revelation of God. We reflect on the Word and draw conclusions. As much as we try, I believe that extremely rarely, if ever, is "pure" theology produced. In recent years the Church universal has begun to recognize this and there have been great moves toward unity on core issues. Insteresting as well is that these changed have most often come through the influence of non-western theologians. The result is that many aspects of theology that my dad's generation considers "essential" are no longer called so by the majority of believers.

My challenge then is to identify those aspect of my own beliefs that are more the product of western thought and tradition than pure theology.

For example, the West historically has placed the conversion of the Germanic tribes of Europe in the category of "Church History" where as the conversion of Asia, Africa and South America are placed in the "Missions" category. This may sound insignificant but it has allowed the church to turn a rather blind eye to the incorporation of Germanic tribal tradition (such as the Christmas Tree, Church calender, Easter traditions, as well as others) while any such incorporation of folk tradition by any other culture is immediately called syncretism. Not that I am in favor of syncretism but why are we so willing to put up Christmas trees and hunt eggs while we are so up in arms about Chinese believers burning incense to honor their forefathers. Obviously it this is not a simple issue. And it requires an answer not just from the West but from the East and the South.

Another tendency of the West is to refuse to let go of the authority. This has come across in the mission of the West toward the rest of the world. To often the preachers came and spoke the word but did nothing to change the circumstances of the people that they ministered to. This is most clearly seen the hesitance of the Western missionaries to commission native minsters. The mission was most often contained in the hands of the missionary. People could come to them for life but were rarely empowered and commissioned to transform their communities. Only in the last 20 years has the native missionary movement become a reality. The net result was the people were converted but little changed and the power of the Gospel remained in the hands of the missionaries. This has been the case in theology as well. Only in the last couple generations have non-western theologians been given a voice in the universal Christian community.

It has been said that the most important landmark in Chinese church history was when the missionaries were kicked out. The Chinese church at that point make a crucial change; they stepped into the shoes of the missionaries,took the power of the Gospel and ran with it. Now it is estimated that there are some where between 200-300 Million believers in China.

For me this is a large on going challenge. How much of my so called Christian thinking is product of my western upbringing. How can i open my ears to hear the voice of a tradition (or traditions) so different from my own. Can i learn to be cultural relevant here in Latin America while still holding fast to the faith. This is all very exciting and at the same time very challenge and a little scary. I would love to hear your thoughts. Blessings.

Douglas

[christopher]

This is a great topic Douglas. You raise some really good points. I'd like to give some input on this once I ponder it a little.

The diversity / unity thing seems to be a hot topic these days. I think it's a good sign that we're on the right path.

[Josh]

Douglas,

You know I tend to lean toward the view that Christians should accomodate as much of a culture they're trying to reach as possible, using existing customs and even beliefs as bridges to Christian truth. I'd advocate transforming/ reinterpreting beliefs that contain a mix of error and truth rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Christians did this well in Europe, as you stated, why not do the same elsewhere? Likewise, why force European cultural expressions upon non-Europeans? The Gospel must be portable enough to transcend culture but flexible enough to embrace and fuse with what is already "worthy of praise" in every culture.

What specific examples come to mind in your context?

[Douglas]

i have been trying to think of some specific examples. It is a little difficult as the writing of theology is a disciple that is really just beginning to take place in the non western world. There have been some very good stuff done but here in Latin America the educational system is just starting to get off the ground and they are just finally seeing enough critical mass to begin to produce some of their own thoughts.

The area that come to mind off the top my head in the historical tendency in the West to focus on the Being of God rather than his acts in history. Knowledge as opposed to event. This is related to the age old question of the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian thought. The systemization of the early faith was i believe a necessary development on the part of the church that enable people of God to build a firm foundation and define itself in the multitude of pagan folk religions of the age. However, this way of thinking is only a part of the story. God is not just being or pure essence. He is an active person intimately involved in the creation. to call him the unmoved mover can only be partly true because hi is moving and active in his creation any belief that contradicts this is not an accurate portral of the biblical god. but this organic aspect of the faith was lost by most of the west for many many generations.

Within the Latin context it is not possible to talk about God without talking about a God that is active and present in the world. This comes from several things. First the reality of poverty, suffering injustice in Latin America. Second, Latins just do not think in these categories. Their understanding of person and relationship is intimately related to action. You are who you know, you are your story, you are what you do, in the Latin context. To spit between being and action is unnatural and perhaps a little wrong to a Latin. Not that there is anything wrong with talking about the essence and being of God these questions too need to be asked but they are not the only questions. This is my point. It takes a person from a completely different context to ask the questions that no one else will or can for that matter. I think that this has great potential for rounding out the faith and filling in those places that are lacking.

this is just one small example that comes to mind. I am loving the dialog. Blessings.
Douglas

[christopher]

Douglas,

You are thinking right along the same lines of one of the discussion we just had about "sound doctrine". I think that the Latins, as you describe them, have more of a correct understanding about what doctrine is. It should instruct our living more than anything else. We are subjects of a different King, one Jesus, and our duty is to discover what His bidding is for us both individually and corporately.

This is very interesting stuff to consider. Just how much do we insist on conformity to what has become Christian norms in the west?

Here's another one along these same lines that might take some thinking.

Let's say a missionary goes into a culture where polygamy is the norm. It's a very real possiblity (and I'd say one that has probably already posed a challenge to some missionaries).

Should the western missionary insist that his converts choose one wife and divorce the rest? If so, what do the other women do after that considering they are probably not considered marryable anymore (depending on the culture)? There are still many cultures where marriage is the only option for a woman to make a living.

Thoughts?

[Douglas]

The issue of polygamy is one that i was pondering recently. weird. but karen and i watched the movie, "Ghost and the darkness", wonderful film but their is a scene in which one of the main character reveals that he has several wives and the implication is that he therefore cannot be a Christian. Karen (my wife) and i discussed it and came to the conclusion that while polygamy is certainly not a good thing, (the bible paints a pretty sour picture with the story of Jacob as well as others) it is not a deal breaker with God. In fact as you pointed out, their are still cultures where marriage is the only option for women. To force the husband to choose one would put the rest on the street condemn them to extreme poverty and in many cases probably prostitution which is most often the only other form of "employment".

This really pushes the envelope of what authentic Christianity ought to look like. In my mind a polygamist believer who condemns his formers wives and children to poverty in the name of authentic faith has sinned greatly and will be held accountable before the throne for abandoning hisfamily.

Again this reveals the need to distinguish between essential and non-essential issues, between good and best as well as to see that there are often two (or more) sides to most everything. I think that there is great benefit in stepping to the theoretic shoes of the tribal african with 3 wives and see what authentic faith looks like for him and his family. We have a lot to learn.

[rose]

Another tendency of the West is to refuse to let go of the authority. This has come across in the mission of the West toward the rest of the world. To often the preachers came and spoke the word but did nothing to change the circumstances of the people that they ministered to. This is most clearly seen the hesitance of the Western missionaries to commission native minsters. The mission was most often contained in the hands of the missionary.

Josh's great-uncle & great-aunt were in Papua New Guinea in the 60's and I've always appreciated hearing their stories because at least where they were living there was a real effort made to train up the natives and commission them to be the leaders in the churches. I can understand to an extent why missionaries might have a difficult time passing the baton - I'm a perfectionist and would always rather take care of something myself than trust that someone else will do it "right". I think there is a fear that without enough knowledge and understanding that somehow the natives will fail and the Gospel won't be handled correctly. That of course is misguided thinking, but I do see how many missionaries could fall/have fallen in to that type of trap.

Great thoughts Douglas, I really enjoyed the reading... ;D

[michelle]

Douglas, this conversation wants to make me go back to Mexico so badly. One of the thing that was the most noticeable about their culture is that they live in the now. They don't live in the tomorrow or two weeks from now. When we were going to attend a church service at a small church, Marcus went the morning of to let them know we would be coming. There is no putting it on the calendar 2 weeks in advance. I think this is something that transfers to their spirituality. For them, God is in the here and now and it actively in their lives. From my limited exposure to the culture while we were down there, it was pretty apparent how much more concerned they are with relationships than our culture is. I went to my first charismatic church while down there and the emotion that filled it was unbelievable. While I love the intellectual part of Christianity, there was something so comforting about just connecting with God on an emotional level. I think that is something that Latins are quite clued in to.

Christopher, you pose interesting questions. I am of the opinion that we should do as little as possible in influencing other cultures, with the caveat that if part of their culture is doing unbiblical things, we should slowly show them other ways. You bring up the case of polygamy. I think this one is especially difficult because in the OT there are a number of examples of polygamy and with people that God chooses to be part of the foundation of our faith.

I think that most people would agree that it's important to not sweep in to a new culture and make immediate changes. I think any changes to a culture need to be slow and should happen when somebody has established a solid relationship within the culture. I think that we need to not underestimate the power of God to change people's hearts once they have a relationship with Him. People will change if they feel in their heart that they need to change, not because they are told they have to. I don't think that coming in and preaching that polygamy is wrong is going to be effective and I think it is too judgmental. It's more important to understand why a culture practices polygamy so that the thought process can be influenced. I think just like most behaviors, the behavior itself is just the acting out of thoughts and feelings and if we can understand and influence thoughts, the change in behavior will follow behind.

I do agree with Douglas that a man should not divorce his wives if he has multiple wives. I think that if a change is going to be made, it is a gradual change.

[christopher]

Hi Michelle,

Great input. I agree with you.

There is nothing in the bible that forbids polygamy per se, it simply portrays monogamy as the ideal, as God's true and most beautiful plan for marriage.

I think God winked at polygamy the same way He winked at slavery because those things were a matter of economy and culture and not necessarily oppressive and immoral as they would be for our culture today.

I think these are great questions for missionaries to ask so that they know where to draw the line. I'm for allowing a cultural expression to continue where it doesn't cross the line into things that are expressly immoral in scripture.

Many Western Christians would consider things listed in Douglas' original post (i.e. burning incense to honor the deceased) as idolatry or at least syncretism. But I think that they would have their work cut out for them trying to make that case biblically.

I think there are God honoring ways to partake of many things within a cultural framework. A couple of verses that come to mind:

1 Cor 10:30
30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?
NASU

2 Cor 3:17
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
NKJV

[Josh]

BTW, I put this thread in a new category: "Global Christianity", because it's an important broad topic I'd like to grow over the years

Many Western Christians would consider things listed in Douglas' original post (i.e. burning incense to honor the deceased) as idolatry or at least syncretism. But I think that they would have their work cut out for them trying to make that case biblically.

I'd like to point out that many of the things Protestants find unsettling about Roman Catholicism are areas where the Catholic Church , often very wisely IMO (though not without danger or needed correctives), did try to build bridges between the cultures they were trying to reach and the Christian faith. Examples would be religious holidays, such as Christmas and Easter, the celebration of celibacy, the reverance of saint's/ martyrs graves, interest in Mary, etc...

And all of these things, at least orginally, weren't pernicious syncretism but helpful bridges. Of course, over time, without many healthy balances and correctives, these traditions did become obstacles to genuine faith in many cases.

Still, I don't think we should through the baby out with the bathwater in regard to ancient Christian practices, nor in regard to modern bridges between culture and Christian faith.

[Douglas]

I was just reading a Stephen Neill´s "A history of Christian Missions" and he noted that the monks of the early middle ages where very adept at taking the pagan traditions of the people and forming them into Christian traditions. He noted that the monks love for manuel labor brought them into to constant contact with the commom people. The worked the soil alongside the poorest of the poor and in this way came to know the poor their way of life and their customs. Slowly over the course of years the monks, who had now gained the respect of the commuity became the formers of culture. They often then took the pagan customs and traditions of the people and gently reformed them into ones that reflected Christ.

I think that this is perhaps a missing key in a lot of our actions, thoughts and words about cultures foreign to our own. We speak as strangers and outsiders, we have not gained the respect of the community. This is a great challege personally, rather than stand outside and critize, to enter into whatever community i find me self in and become a integral part of it. With the vision of transforming, it years down the road, from the inside out. Now as a member of that society rather than as a stranger.

[sonlyte]

Wow, this is a place that God may be really working in his people. Questioning the firmly held beliefs that have remained without regard to the present circumstance. Sometimes interpreting the times through prayer and reflection may bear more fruit than trying to fit them into the written expectations. I finally stopped classifying my in-laws as non-christians incapable of love because they do not truly know God, and the declassification has been liberating in my relationship with them.
Blessings right back yo!
Rick

[Douglas]

Interesting how stepping outside your traditional understanding can renew relationships. I firmly believe that the seeds of the knowledge of God and his character have been spread through every culture and it is our job to find them and use them to point back to Him. Even if somethings those seeds look very different from the ones that we are used to.

Douglas