Carl Ellis, a former fellow student of mine at Westminster Theological Seminary, has worked hard on developing models of thought that are both new in order to address current problems and old in terms of being orthodox in theology (click here for a bio). And though I haven't fully agreed with his models of thought, I fully appreciate the intent of making the practical theology from the Reformed perspective relevant to today's world.
Anyway, Ellis has developed a new model of thought that promises to free some of Reformed theologians from being frozen in the past. His model contains a division of theology into 2 kinds: a theology based around 'epistemological' and 'cognitive knowledge' issues and a Narrative theology that deals with 'life situation' issues. In in other words we are dealing with a knowing, what Ellis calls Side A, and both ethics and experiences, what Ellis calls Side B. And that unless both theologies are in accord with the Scriptures, we have sin (click here for his article).
Ellis makes such a model because he correctly sees the necessity for Christian theology to handle new issues. And such a concept can frighten some religiously conservative Christians whether they are Reformed or not because such an approach suggests that we need to change and that we can't just rely on work done in the past to answer questions today. That change frightens some religiously conservative Christians for a couple of reasons. First, doing new theology can put us at risk of changing to the effect of straying from our theological heritage and thus it might mean that we no longer have the faith of our fathers. Second, for many, imitation and following explicit commands is their spiritual security blanket that guarantees they are following what the Bible says. And so doing new theology can be very threatening to some.
But, as Ellis noted from the harsh injustices experienced by many African Americans, ethical concerns that were not raised by side A theology have to be addressed. And the point Ellis is making is that for Christians to more fully follow God's Word, we need more than just a valid Side A theology, we need a valid Side B theology as well.
To further explain his model of thought here, he introduces some new concepts. He calls where Christianity influences culture to be more in line with Christianity 'interface.' The parts of culture that go against the Scriptures he calls 'cultural sin.' And when cultural sin becomes significantly greater than Christianity's interface, the more that Christianity falls into 'cultural captivity' where it fails to adequately deal with both individual sins people knowingly commit (Side A) and the sins that come with following one's culture with its conventions and rules (Side B).
Ellis then describes how Christianity has struggled to maintain strong Side A and Side B theologies. He then describes the current battles in maintaining strong Side A and Side B theologies.
There is much good food for thought here. But there is a problem and it is found in the concept of cultural sin. How exacting must we be in defining cultural sin? Here, two questions come to mind. First, are we distinguishing between a definition of righteousness in society from a definition of righteousness in the Church? An answer of 'no' gives a problematic response to the second question: How should Christians share society with others? Answering the first question with a 'no' implies that Christians must seek a privileged position in society to achieve some kind of supremacy over society in order to significantly reduce cultural sin. For this, we have neither New Testament precedents or teachings in support of. We find that a Christian's place in society is often explained in those New Testament passages where Church discipline is being discussed. There, a person who is placed outside of the Church must learn to live in what society gives to a certain extent.
However, answering that first question with a 'yes' does not imply that the Scriptures should have no influence at all on society and culture. Basic justice issues such as protecting the vulnerable and prohibiting corporate murder and theft by the state and society must be insisted on by the Church. But what about other issues?
For many American Christians today, those other issues revolve around sexual issues and practices. We might ask if a society's culture must completely tow the Christian line on sex that consists of abstinence outside of monogamous, heterosexual marriages? Here we see some fuzzy borders between Side A and Side B theologies. Sexual sin can be the result of a person consciously sinning against what they know. At the same time is accepting a culture's sexual standards and conventions in terms of how to treat those who engage in unbiblical sexual practices sin? For example, is it wrong for a Christian baker to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding? Is it wrong for Christians to work to share society with the LGBT community as equals?
The question of how we will share society is also given a suggested answer by the title of Ellis's article and his explanation of that title. The title of his article is the following, Fine Dining Or Dumpter Diving: A Paradigm For Activist Theology. The fine dining pertains to applying the Scriptures to every area of culture. The dumpster diving refers to the mixing of secular thinking to the apply the Scriptures to every area of culture. Here, considering that the fine dining is the product of theologians who have their own sins and issues to deal with while interpreting the Scriptures, it seems arrogant to automatically refer to any secular approach to the same Scriptures in such a demeaning way. This could suggest that, for Ellis, Christians should not share society with others as equals. And that is a sad inconsistency since Ellis works against other inequalities such as seen in racism.
There are some other weaknesses in Ellis's article. At the same time, there is much to gain here. Especially the notion that invites us to keep doing theology in response to today's world while warning us that we must stay within certain confines provided by orthodox Christianity.
A final note would ask why do we need to discuss models of thought that people like Ellis construct in order to encourage Christians to work for justice? We can partially answer that question by saying that there are some Christian beliefs that can never be compromised regardless of the earthly good we might be doing. Thus, distinctions must be made so that working for justice does not cause us to make concessions on what is essential to the Christian faith. But we can also partially answer that question by noting the audience for Ellis's writings and that having to develop some models of thought reflects on the weaknesses of many religiously conservative Christians in terms of their willingness to be engaged in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment