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.

Can We Solve Racism Without Changing The Status Quo?

There are some people I prefer not to review because I am not sure if I am capable of doing a credible job. Carl Ellis is one of those people. He's a good man who went to Westminster Theological Seminary around the same time I did. While it took a good day for me to be an average student there, he excelled. He has a more complete theological education than I do--which might be difficult for some to believe since I have an AMAR (Almost Master of Arts in Religion)--and he has ministry and seminary teaching experience. I only have the AMAR. And yet, his blogpost on racism in America and what could be done about it needed commenting on (click here  for the article). He is also articulate whereas I struggle in writing.

Though his analysis of the problems Black Americans face have good insights, it's what's missing which requires some comments to be made. Ellis is rightfully distraught over the latest two unarmed Black men, Michael Brown and Eric Garner, who were killed by police along with absence of any indictments. He points to racism in America as an ongoing problem and a possible contributing factor to those deaths. But overlooked in our problems with racism and police violence is another factor which Ellis calls the 'elephant in the room': culture.

To explain how culture, besides race, are the two reasons the Civil Rights Movement has had limited effects, especially in the 'hood, Ellis states that a dysfunctional culture adopted by those in the subdominant culture causes self-sabotaging behaviors and attitudes by too many, though not a majority of, Blacks. To illustrate this point, Ellis provides a 2-dimensional model where on the x-axis lies the divide between the dominant culture on the left-hand side and the subdominant culture on the right-hand side. The White culture is the dominant culture here with the Black culture serving as the subdominant one. The y-axis shows the divide between a culture of functionality and a culture of dysfunctionality (see image below for a complete picture).

Enabled by government assistance programs and protected by political correctness, quadrant 4's subdominant's culture of dysfunctionality produces an ineptitude to positively fit in society and fosters destructive tendencies all of which play a major role in preventing the 'hood from being transformed by the advances of past movements. Again, that is not to say that racism doesn't also play a role. Ellis acknowledges that most Blacks have experienced racism from the dominant culture. But values in the subdominant culture have emerged to further separate the two cultures and even causes those in the subdominant culture to attack each other as exhibited by Black on Black crime.

To make matters worse, multiculturalism in the dominant culture is causing it discard our 'historical core' values many of which have been Biblically based, obtained from the Civil Rights movement from the past.

At this point, Ellis seems to give a mixed message that says, on one hand, we must return to those Biblical values, but, on the other hand, we must seek out 'new paradigms' from what the Civil Rights movement employed. Ellis also points out a struggle for Blacks who have been trying to avoid too much assimilation to the dominant culture have been affected by the culture of dysfunctionality. In the past, some assimilation was one of the keys to success.

Part of Ellis' solution to the problems of racism leading to oppression from the dominant culture and a culture of dysfunctionality embraced by too many in the subdominant culture is to return to using theology as a weapon as was practiced by the Civil Rights movement from the past and to acknowledge the role culture plays in problems we are experiencing today.

Ellis finishes proposing his solution by appealing to Nehemiah as he had to face some similar problems with rebuilding after the exile to the problems Blacks face today. We need, according to Ellis, a kind of discipleship mentoring that passes Biblically based values from the culture of functionality.

Again, we need to recognize Ellis' insights. Cultural values do play a role in the kind of lives people live. And Ellis is acknowledging that the difficulties many Blacks are facing can be complex. But as written before, the problems here revolve around what Ellis is not saying.  For example, Ellis is not specific in listing the different attitudes and behaviors included in the culture of functionality for either the dominant or subdominant cultures. Nor does he describe the contexts in which the culture of functionality plays in both the dominant and subdominant cultures. 

Something else is missing here. With the divisions caused by the legalization of same-sex marriage, we need to be specific in terms of which Biblically based values we will be promoting in society. This because the real debate between Conservative Christians and those who are supporting legalizing same-sex marriage is about the position Christianity will have in determining the laws and mores in society. Will the Church be content with having an equal co-participatory rule as other groups do and would be implied by  democracy for society in determining society's laws and values or will it seek a paternal role in society by trying to reestablished its past privileged position? We should note that the Black community has not been the only subdominant culture in America. Those in the LGBT community have also been members of their own subdominant culture. What is currently changing their position is this shedding of our historical core values Ellis referred to in the past.

We should also note that not all of the positive values adopted and promoted by the Civil Rights movement from the past were values garnered from just reading the Scriptures. For example, much of King's commitment to nonviolence came from reading Gandhi and reading what was happening in India. In addition, atheists also participated in and contributed to the Civil Rights movement.

But so far, we have yet to reach the core concern of this blogpost and a point which Ellis neglected to mention. That concern which Ellis might have neglected to mention because of his focus on cultural values could possibly make us realize that sometimes, there can be more than one elephant in the same room. Another elephant that could be occupying the same room as cultural values is our economic system. At least, this is what one of the most revered, past leaders of the Civil Rights movement thought. Martin Luther King Jr. stated on several occasions that problems with racism were strongly linked to problems from economic exploitation. King called for a restructuring of 'edifice' that produces too many beggars and a changing of the road to Jericho which produced too many victims as ways of saying we need to change our system.

Now it isn't that King doesn't see cultural values as playing a role in racism and economic injustice. It is that King doesn't see the need to follow appeal to Biblical values as much as he appeals to human values, not that the two sets of values are disjoint. King saw that our society was a 'thing-oriented society' rather than a 'person-oriented society.' And it would not be until our society changed to being a person-oriented society that we could finally start to eliminate racism and poverty. But King is talking about something different from what Ellis does here. King is talking about changes that need to be made to Ellis' dominant culture. In the blogpost being reviewed here, Ellis expresses concern with changing cultural values in the subdominant culture.

Perhaps, the reason why places like the 'hood have not improved since the days of the Civil Rights movement is not just due to a persistent racism along with a dysfunctional culture. Just perhaps we won't see a serious reduction in racism until we fix our economic system that fails to produce any hope for the future. This economic system has maintained both wealth disparity between the races and it has caused a stagnation in income for those whose income ranks in the bottom 90% in the country. And when we realize how our economic system has changed to make things worse since King was murdered, we should feel a greater urgency to change it. This is because the changes in our economic system since King was alive has produced a further objectification of workers.

It isn't that we should look at changing values and changing the economic system as an exclusive-or choice. It would not be unreasonable to suppose that both a culture of dysfunction and an unjust economic system produce effects in each other. The point here is that without changing our current economic system to one that emphasizes people and justice rather than private accumulation, we will, if King is correct, make no headway in eliminating racism in this country. So we have a choice, we can avoid rocking the boat for the status quo and have delusions about addressing racism without changing our economic system or we can demand  the changes there which will also address racism. We should note that King also linked war and militarism to our problems with racism. Perhaps this blog will explore that further in the future.