Theology and Culture in Dialogue
He also commended Grudem and Piper's theological (Complementarian) position.
My response is below:
I would like to reflect on your comment “it is vital that we stand on God’s word” (yes!) “not bowing to cultural pressures” (yes, but…)
May I say – somewhat provocatively – that theology is always
developed in the context of, in dialogue with, and in contrast to culture.
The theology of God’s people (revealed in the Old Testament)
was developed in the context of and in contrast to other cultures – in Egypt,
Palestine, and Babylon. Jesus’ teaching was in the context of first century
Roman-occupied Palestine; and he confronted the cultural and religious
practices of the day (e.g. consider the “Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees”
passage). We see in Acts and the Epistles wrestling with what it meant for the
church to spread from a Jewish group to the ends of the earth. Initially the
apostles asked merely that the Gentiles abstain from sexual immorality, blood,
and meat offered to idols, after a robust discussion about Jewish law. Later and
elsewhere Paul noted that meat offered to idols was fine unless it offended the
conscience of a weaker brother. Advice was contextual.
The patriarchs developed theology in the context of their
culture and in apologetic dialogue with opponents. Augustine developed his
theology in the context of a Christian Roman Empire. Luther developed his
theology in the context of the Holy Roman Empire 500 years ago. In Campbell’s
writings we can detect the influence of John Locke and the ideals of the
relatively young United States of America, not “the bible alone” (although this
was his aspiration).
A strength of Churches of Christ is that theological
decisions are local; they are thrashed out in the local cultural context. What
makes sense for the mission of the church in one place might be a hindrance to
the gospel in another.
John, unwittingly you almost seem to imply that Complementarians
like Grudem and Piper are doing pure biblical theology entirely divorced from
the cultures they inhabit, and Egalitarian scholars are simply caving in to
culture without doing vigorous theological work.
My view is that like every other theologian ever, Grudem and
Piper are doing theology in the context of their culture, and like every
theologian ever, are influenced by their existing world views.
Grudem is a Reformed Calvinist, strongly conservative, and
Republican. He has written a book that critics say justifies American right
wing political positions as “biblical”. He famously wrote an article titled
“why voting for Donald Trump is a morally good choice”. I suspect his veering
into an unorthodox view of the Trinity was influenced by his existing highly conservative
view of gender roles.
John Piper’s biggest controversy was probably the suggestion
that a godly woman could not work in any role where she might have to exercise
authority over a man. This was roundly criticized by other Complementarians who
suggested gender roles for the church and family could not be extrapolated into
the secular workplace. (There would be few professional jobs a woman could do
if Piper’s view was true).
This is not to say these men are not good theologians or
good people; this is simply to point out they – like all theologians, all
church communities, and all people, engage in theology through the grid of
their church culture, upbringing, and prejudices. As do you and I. This is
normal.
Egalitarian scholars also dialogue with culture and
scripture. This dialogue does not mean that it is poor theology.
Churches of Christ should be cautious about adopting
theology from other traditions; we are revivalist / evangelical in our roots
more so than Calvinist. That does not mean we do not dialogue with other
traditions; indeed, the more we engage in theological dialogue with the church
universal the more we are likely to reflect on our own cultural blind spots.
You also seem to imply because most Australian Churches of
Christ embraced women in eldership on a relatively recent time scale they must
be wrong.
To me this is like suggesting those who believe it is
immoral for Christians to own slaves are wrong, because it took until 1833 for
Great Britain to pass the slavery act (and 2015 to pass the modern slavery
act).
Great Britain had been at least a nominally Christian
country for centuries. The length of time it took to decide that owning slaves
was wrong (and more recently, to decide in law that profiting from slavery in
other countries is wrong) doesn’t mean that the earlier views on slavery were
right.
Moves to ban slavery were influenced by consideration of human rights (a
cultural influence). There are plenty of biblical verses that were used to
justify owning slaves. This does not mean that owning slaves is God’s ideal for
redeemed humanity. When we look at the biblical passages on slavery we
interpret them now through a different theological grid than the slave owners
of earlier centuries.
In other words, culture has changed, and we interpret the
bible accordingly. We should never accept culture uncritically, but we should
always dialogue with culture in order to communicate God’s message in
appropriate ways.
Is the move toward egalitarian churches influenced by
culture? Of course. Does this mean it always involves bad theology?
I don’t believe so.
Comments