Like Location Is In Real Estate, Context in Theology Is Everything

Around 5 years ago, Carl Ellis (click here for a bio) wrote an interesting article that made a very important point about theology. To illustrate his point, he started with a story about a student he had who didn't believe that there should be an African American theology because there was only just theology, or 'theology proper' as his student put it. Ellis corrected him and then wrote the following

'What my student did not realize is that all theology is contextual—historically and culturally determined. What he called “theology proper” developed in a Western context. Accordingly, while it addressed the true nature of salvation, etc., this “theology proper” also addressed Western cultural concerns.'

This point was made in an article about freeing theology from Western culture. Without understanding that theology is always contextual, we could end up equating any theology with the Scriptures and that would not be good (click here for the article).

Ellis says that we need to understand that while many cultures can share some issues and concerns, they also have their own set of concerns and issues to deal with. To illustrate the point, he wrote about the need to write the Westminster Confession of Faith. That confession was written in the middle of the 17th century by 21 Presbyterian ministers in England because the confession of faith they were using, the Belgic Confession, had been written in the middle of the 16th century in Holland and it didn't necessarily address all of the necessary concerns those ministers were facing. So their new confession of faith included much of what the Belgic Confession said plus some additional statements that addressed their then current issues. Here we should note that the Presbyterian Church in America modified that confession in the latter part of the 18th century because of its own concerns and issues.

Ellis makes that point in order to show that we still need additional theological works to address current issues. Current issues that he rightfully wants to be addressed in today's theology revolves around racial justice. Ellis includes with this call for additional theologies a description of how to approach theology. 

According to Ellis, there are two different approach by which we should understand theology: a Side A way and a Side B way. The Side_A approach to theology revolves around propositions and how we reason and logic to create and/or understand them. The context for the Side A approach to theology addressed challenges posed by philosophy and science. So the Side A approach sought to develop what we know with our minds.

The Side B approach to theology helped people who, because of a lack of education or because of life's hardships including being oppressed, either could not have access to the Side A approach or needed a theology that addressed more than the questions of scientists and philosophers had. This Side B theology, which Ellis also calls Paradigm Theology, dealt with what Ellis described as 'basic patterns of biblical life situations.' So the issue here is what do the life situations described in the Bible teach us about today's life situations. Ellis then makes the following claim about which I am not so sure:

There is no situation we go through in life whose basic pattern is not already revealed in the Bible.

I struggle with that statement because the term 'basic pattern' is not well-defined. When I think of the world we Christians live in today, I see great differences between our situations and the various situations that the people of God faced both in the Old and New Testaments. Those differences include the fact that God's message has already been spread throughout the world, that many people live under governments that require varying levels of participation, societies based on equality, the human capability to continue to advance weaponry that could destroy all of civilized life, and that the human species is systematically soiling the planet to the extent that its capability to support human life will soon start to diminish especially with its growing population. That challenge is not to imply that the Scriptures are inadequate or have nothing to say to us. All I am saying is that the differences between now and then are great enough to question whether the basic pattern of our life today fits a model found in the Bible.

According to Ellis, biblical narratives and certain kinds of teachings like the parables reveal the patterns of life that humans from any time period and location have faced or face today. They can serve or mis-serve by providing examples follow or adapt.

From here, Ellis rightfully notes that while Reformed Theology, as expressed in writings of certain theologians along with the Reformed confessions and catechisms do not address or even introduce issues that African Americans have had to face living in America. And thus, instead of limiting our theology to the writings and concerns of past Reformed Theologians, we need to continue with what was theologically sound from the past while addressing today's social justice issues and social ethics. Such implies that at least some of today's issues were not part of the life situation of past Reformed theologians. And thus, we cannot take Reformed Theology written in the past as being sufficient for all time, as the end of all theology. And to do this, we must update our Side B theology without ignoring our Side A theology. In addition, our theologies must be based on the Scriptures rather than taking the approach of using the Scriptures to support our favorite theologies.

There are issues to address in addition to the ones already covered in Ellis's article. For example, what does Ellis mean by the term 'context'? He seems to restrict the meaning of that word to concerns or issues people are dealing with. But perhaps we need to either add or emphasize how worldviews and thinking patterns come into play too. In a very recent article on this blog (click here for the article), I mentioned how the authoritarian, possibly to an abusive extent, culture in which the ministers who wrote the Westminster Theological Confession lived might have partially influenced what they wrote about such as in  their comments on the 7th Commandment prohibiting adultery. As stated before, a few other parts of the Westminster Confession were either eliminated or modified by American Presbyterian ministers a little over a century later because those ministers faced a different living situation.

In addition, what Ellis wrote about context and what has been added here needs to be inserted in our understanding of the Scriptures too. We need to note here that the writers of the Scriptures were as heavily influenced by their context as the Reformed theologians of that past were when writing their theologies. The difference between the two sets of writers is that God didn't let the context of the Biblical writers corrupt the words they were writing so as to prohibit them from writing infallibly. The same cannot be said of any theologian, Reformed or not, who wrote theology outside of the Scriptures.

But that also leads us to another point. That point is that the context of our lives in todays world is significantly different from the context of the lives of the authors of the Scriptures. Never did the Scriptures, New or Old Testaments, describe the living situation for God's people, not just individuals, as being that of living in a religiously heterogenous society in participatory governmental systems where God's people are called on to work alongside of and for unbelievers as equals while preaching the Gospel to them so that they could believe. And as mentioned before, never has the Scriptures recorded a living situation in which human existence was threatened by widespread environmental hazards or by WMDs. The examples of Joseph and Daniel portrayed specially selected and gifted leaders to work for unbelieving leaders. But working side by side with unbelievers as equals in a participatory society while seeking their conversion was never a situation found in either the Old or New Testament.

Now that doesn't mean that we throw out the Scriptures. But because of the contextual differences, the principles and examples that come from the scriptures might have to be implemented differently today than in the past. Martin Luther King Jr. did exactly that when he thought about how one could follow what Romans 13 said about submitting to the governing authorities and the need to address racially unjust laws in the South. 

Ellis is more than correct in the major points that he makes. Theology is not the Bible, all theology is contextual, past Reformed Theology as expressed in the confessions and catechisms did not address the subject of racial injustices, and we need a theology for African Americans that promote social justice and equality. Also, Ellis's division of Side A and Side B approaches to theology is helpful. Ellis's quest to always be reforming is an important one for all to have.

But the weaknesses of Ellis's article can be found in not providing adequate definitions for 'basic patterns' of life and 'context,' especially for the latter term when describing the situation and perspective from which past theologians wrote. We might also add that whatever theology is written to address the social injustices faced by African Americans and other minorities may not address issues faced by our descendants. And thus, in order to always be reforming, they might have to write new theologies too to fit the concerns and issues they face.