Stripping God of his Cultural Clothing

Local theologies makes theology democratic. It looks at the form of the Christian gospel in any given time or place. The main argument is that the ‘pure’ form of the gospel is removed from the Western idea of the gospel and instead it is accepted that you can’t actually get a ‘pure’ form of the gospel. The gospel cannot exist independent of a particular time, place or culture.

Inculturation is the interaction between the gospel and culture. Culture is where we form our identity. It shapes and forms us and this interaction is inculturation and from this emerges Christianity. But where does this take place and when do we see it? The World Council of Churches argues there has been a shift from the White, West Christianity to a global identity. Missionaries have gone to other parts of the world and with them have taken the gospel (their version of it) and planted it into another country. However, ironically in some places Christianity has been more ‘at home’ in other countries. For example, biblical passages like Jesus driving out demons may have to be interpreted for a British culture or it may seem alien and strange. However in some African cultures this may be seen as normal and therefore they can relate to the religion more. Christianity has travelled throughout the world and has found itself in different cultures and has moulded itself around the differences within that culture.

However, it can be argued that Christianity hasn’t moulded at all. What instead has happened is that other cultures have adopted a Western version of Christianity. For example, in India converts are not Christian Indians but Indians attempting to adopt Western values and traditions. Chung Hyung Kyung would support this point. She rejects oppression and injustice and deploys cultural tool in her theology. Her personal struggle was the image of God which she always saw as an old, wise, distant white man. She admits she found this image of God very difficult to relate to. Through a long personal struggle she stripped God of his cultural clothing and rediscovered God as a figure like her mother; a warm, lovable middle aged Korean woman.

Through doing this theology becomes democratic. We can view God how we want to view God. This is essentially local theology. The fact that a theological repositioning needs to take place illustrates the problematic history of Christianity in the first place. Christianity was carried in on the back of political imperialism and reinforced through spiritual imperialism. People not only had their land colonialised but their souls also. Therefore democratic people fought theologically for the de-colonialisation of their souls. They invented God to be the image they wanted God. If one can vote, then one can also make God who one wants God to be. This can lead to one arguing that Christianity contains in itself the seeds of its own destruction but ultimately a democratic and local theology allows people to invent theology for themselves.

Political Religions or Religious Politics?!

Religions such as Christianity are political through their differing ideologies about what church should be, what Christianity should look like, who gets into heaven and who doesn’t and so on. Politics can be influenced and moulded around particular religions for example in American politics in the 1900’s it was essential that the president was a Christian and transmitted openly Christian values. But how does politics relate directly to a particular faith? Liberation theology can be the answer to this.

Liberation theology can be viewed as combining the political and the religious in order to learn about God. Does one learn about God through books or through action? Liberation theology would answer this by saying that to understand God one needs to go out and do his work. The essence of Jesus message can be found in Luke 4:18&19 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour”. His message is one of liberation and social action. Therefore why do Christians seem to be hiding away from the world within church’s attempting to keep themselves pure and holy?  

Gustavo Gutiérrez believed there was a new way of doing theology and this was rooted within Marxism. He argued that if faith were equated with liberation praxis (praxis being unable to separate knowledge from action) then the nature of theology would be transformed. Believing that God had a bias for the poor, by serving the poor the question is do we learn about God? Should one abandon the books, the bible studies, even attending church and just serve the poor and needy instead? Yes it may be possible that one learns about God’s gracious side and develops a servant heart, but even Gutierrez argues action for social justice always needs to be rooted in the practice of faith for example prayer and liturgy.

It can therefore be argued that the more common features of Christianity i.e. praying, reading the bible, attending church etc go hand in hand with social action, serving the poor and fighting for justice. One question that can arise from liberation theology is who is saved? If it is not liturgy vs. social action, does being a Christian mean one has to do to do both? Is it possible to be a Christian by only doing one? Or by not doing either, can one be saved by a simple childlike belief in God and not have to ‘do’ anything.

Fraser argues the central purpose of God is justice through activity. Ideas alone are never the message of the gospel- action is. However one criticism of liberation theology is that by placing trust in Marxist analyses of history then theologians are elevating humanism at the expense of God. Furthermore, with the collapse and failure of Marxism, is not the whole argument and fundamental belief system undermined?! Therefore, how can one argue a point from a sinking ship (or a sunken ship?).

To summarise, despite its faults, liberation theology encourages people to learn more about God through action. It is not arguing we should abandon the books but telling the rich Western culture to maybe view Jesus as the radical political revolutionary rather than just the divine teacher and through this second viewing encouraging us to go out and learn about God through action.

Revelation through Correlation

The nature of revelation is how we understand and learn about God.

Public theology is looking at the different ways that we learn about God.

Correlation is looking at the relationship with how we have and do view God and how we learn about God in different ways throughout history; it is where Christianity and culture interact.

                                                          

This interaction can change Christianity or Christianity can change the process of the interaction. One question that emerges from this is whether Christianity continues to re-shape itself in light of contemporary philosophical thought or does Christianity say contemporary philosophical thought is wrong? Christianity within culture can either attempt to change culture and tell culture to adopt the underlying messages of Christianity. Or it can be argued that one can find God within culture. Sometimes God can be found within the things that occur within our culture. For example, Marxism; although atheistic some Christian theologians can take a lot from it because it looks at how the poor can gain justice and equality and therefore it can be said to be of God. Some of the messages in Marxism are good which remove the contradiction and therefore God can be found in that culture. One can further learn about God from culture. For example, the church’s view on women has begun to change because society changed its view on women. The women’s movement began outside the church but was then filtered into the church as feminists encouraged a feminist reading of scriptures which revealed women had been very important key players within the bible and in church history. Therefore the revelation developed outside the church but was filtered into church. Many argue the church works better when it notes and learns from contemporary culture.

Paul Tillich developed the term correlation defining it as “the task of articulating a body of understanding by which people can live meaningfully in today’s world which is fundamental to the theological enterprise”. He argued that Christian theology could answer the questions which are posed by contemporary society. He found connections between psychology (guilt, freedom, repression) and Christian concepts (sin, grace, forgiveness). In his 'Systematic Theology' we are urged to “not seek anything…simply accept the fact you are accepted” Tillich’s answer to contemporary culture’s questions’ is the notion of how to live well and how to live authentically; Christianity fills the gaps in our lives and encourages us to live healthily-spiritually, physically and intellectually. However, Hiltner questions Tillich’s view that ‘Christianity is the answer to culture’ as he proposes that contemporary society may be the answer to the question of theology. For example, if theology raises the question of the nature of creation, then contemporary culture can answer that question through science- Darwinism, ‘survival of the fittest’, the ‘big bang’ theory and so on.

Ultimately public theology makes Christianity relevant and accessible to a contemporary society. With each new thought and idea within culture Christianity is allowed to reform and create a new or developed identity. However, because of this Christianity has a fluid identity or many identities. As culture is in a constant process of change, so is Christianity and therefore it will always look different, whether geographically or historically, Christianity will never be the same.

A World Run by Women

Given the question ‘List the ways in which it would be better if women dominated social and political life” our group failed to do this. Not because women wouldn’t effectively run society and not because men ineffectively run society but our final conclusion was that for an ideal society, equality is key. We flipped the coin and imagined a matriarchal world but still developed the same problems that exist today. The main problem with our social and political life being run by men is that this is sexist. If a woman ran our social and political life then this would still be sexist. Therefore, our political and social life should be run by both male and female together.

However, is this possible? Is it possible for men and women to actually be equal and lead together? If it is possible, then why isn’t it occurring today? Does there always have to be one sex above the other for society to function or can it work effectively together? A major factor to why there are so many problems in our society is because equality does not exist, whether this is equality in gender, race, religion, age etc.

One question we discussed was that if we had lived in a matriarchal society throughout history then would our world today look completely different or would we again be facing the same problems? Would everyone be living in peaceful harmony or would men be fighting for their rights to have more to look forward to in life than just being a ‘house husband’? Furthermore, is it possible for women to receive full equal rights? Some argue yes; we live in a world today where women have the choice to go to work or stay at home, they have the vote, they can earn their own wage, they have rights for their career, their marriages, their own bodies and therefore we’re living in the most equal world we have ever lived in. However, others argue that it is impossible that women will ever have full equal rights for the simple fact that they are the sex that have children. If women decided to focus on a career instead of have children (though arguably they can do both) then society would cease to exist. It is tradition and it is engrained that women will have the children and stay at home with them. Yes, there are an incredible amount of stay-at-home fathers nowadays, yet the percentage of this is tiny compared to stay-at-home mothers.

We then focused our attention on sexism within the church. We came to the conclusion that sexism within Christianity can be eradicated. The two main problems to why sexism exists are tradition and difficult biblical passages. By researching into the context of why what was said was said in the bible, then many believe women can access full leadership potential. If women are then seen in leadership roles then tradition will slowly ebb away. However, this does pose a dilemma for many in the church. If a woman were to be a priest because the bible just needs to be looked at in context then why can’t a homosexual become a priest because again, what was said may just have been said in the context of that day? Ultimately, women are slowly becoming more equal within the church, though very slowly.

To summarise, a world led by women would not necessarily be better than our world led by men. Our social and political life would be better if women and men lead equally.

Interpreting life through stories

Canonical theology is taking stories, particularly scriptural stories and using them to interpret life. One’s Christian identity is shared by the traditional Christian story. Christians believe that events in the bible especially the gospels, show and tell us how to live well. For example, The Anabaptist churches who rejected the violence of the reformation for pacifism and were heavily persecuted. They were radically committed to the gospels and therefore literally rejected the surrounding social and political order. By doing this they were a great witness to their faith and God. However some may see their extreme obedience as foolish, unwise or even ridiculous. Furthermore, by separating themselves from society in a monastic-like way, they are refusing to be culturally relevant. This not only led to their death but can also be seen as excluding. They were a separated community and therefore it would be hard to join unless one was radically committed to the literal interpretations of the gospel also. Thus, were the Anabaptists excluding a large amount of the population?! What if one believed in God and lived well but believed in self-defence rather than pacifism when it came to the danger of his own family? He would be rejected by the Anabaptist church for this and therefore may reject God.

Canonical theology can lead to extreme ways of living. For example St Francis of Assisi gave up his possessions and wealth to imitate the life of Jesus and put Jesus’ teachings into practise. St Francis was a great witness to his firm belief in God and Jesus’ teaching however St Francis’ life can be seen as an impossible task. St Francis interpreted Jesus’ teaching to live in obedience, be self sacrificial, be in no position of power, live in chastity and humility, not to slander or quarrel, love one another, rely fully on God and live in poverty. This list would have put many off following Christ and also seemed an impossible task. Despite this, St Francis shows that it is still better to live well in service of the poor, rather than just drifting through life with no purpose.

Barth argues that Christianity and its stories allow you to critique the society one lives in. Growing up in society it is hard to interpret and critique ones own life as they have grown up in the social norms and values of that society. In that society religion can often seem unusual and strange. This strangeness is key for Barth who argues the stranger a story may seem the closer you are to stepping out of society’s norms and values and radically criticising society. Christianity is a critique by its own standards and therefore a Christian should abandon reason and live by faith. Biblical Christianity provides a world view which makes it possible to resist the social and political norms of the day (like Barth did with Nazism) and by doing so, one is able to reject the sinfulness of humanity and live well for God.

The Story Telling Species

The reason why Dawkins is failing is because we are not ‘just’ Homo sapiens living in a propositional world but we are story telling species who construct our own and others identity on stories. When Dawkins tells us we need to live rationally and propositionally he is preaching to a majority of story tellers and thus atheism makes up for only 3.8% of the population.

Why is it that we use the method of story telling to construct identities and to learn more about God, ourselves, the world we live in and so on? Is it because we are unable to speak the truth? Is it because we live in a dark and mysterious world and therefore story telling makes everything easier? Is it so we are able to put the divine into words that humanity can understand? Is it merely because stories are more interesting than facts?

Sally McFague argues that Jesus used parables to communicate the ordinary. Jesus’ parables shocked, upset conventions and expectations and therefore had revolutionary potential. However this provides a problem for the church as McFague argues Jesus’ parables don’t assume a belief and therefore something like the parables of the kingdom can be interpreted as secular. Furthermore, she recognises that we use metaphors to convey an experience that we are all able to recognise. Therefore if theology is metaphorical and secular, then it is appropriate for not just Christians but atheists who also feel they want to learn how to do life well.

One of Webster’s Dictionary definitions of ‘story’ is “A piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events”. If a story is defined as fiction and yet we construct our whole identity and the identity of our world based around stories then are we all living in one big lie? In a fairy tale that we have constructed for ourselves? This is not true because the whole of humanity would be living in the same ‘fairy tale’ which is impossible and therefore the conclusion must be that story telling is an effective method of constructing the world we live in.

The question that follows is, is the method of story telling effective in telling us more about God. In the bible there are hundreds of stories told and through these stories one may argue that we learn the nature of God, the personality of God, the love of God and so on. Through Jesus’ parables we learn about the kingdom of God, justice, how to live correctly and purely. Therefore we are learning about God aren’t we? Well, it could be argued that we are learning our own construction of God. We all interpret and listen to stories differently. We all create and paint different pictures of characters in a story, whether it be their physical appearance or their personality, we all have different views of different characters. Therefore when reading stories in the bible do we actually construct the correct image of God. Are some people interpreting God as a condemning God whilst others see him as a loving God? Do some see him as friend and others as father? Is this wrong? Is it okay that we all have different views or is there one image of God that we all need to discover through the story? Ultimately, even if different constructions of God do occur, it is the process of the story which allows the construction of God to occur in the first place reiterating that stories are what help us learn about God.

Is Religious Experience actually Religious or just ‘An Experience’?

After examining the method of theological reflections of the heart the question that continued to arise for myself is whether a non-religious person can have a religious experience or whether one can fully understand God if they have not had a religious experience. Graham, Walton and Ford argue that we can experience God intimately and by reflecting on that experience we learn about God. Therefore, can those who have never had a religious experience ever fully understand God, his divine intervention in our lives and the peace he provides?

One may also question the religious ‘experience’ itself. John Wesley described his religious experience as an experience of ‘grace’ and ‘salvation’ which made his ‘heart strangely warm’. In a modern age one could look at Freud and Young’s work and argue Wesley was just having a psychological experience. It can be argued that after taking drugs one may feel peaceful and content which is how Wesley describes his experience. Therefore, is it right for one to be transformed and form their own identity on an experience which may just be an after affect of a drug? Is there any meaning to ‘experiences’ or are they just a figure of our imagination induced by drugs or our own chemicals within out body?

Another issue is whether a non-religious person can have a religious experience or is that impossible? Some may argue that God can ‘break through’ and touch lives that don’t even believe in him. Others such as 1Dr Michael Persinger performed research into epilepsy and argues that an artificial magnetic field focused on the connection between the temporal lobes of the brain can give people a feeling of ‘not being alone’ or a ‘religious sensation’. Persinger experimented his techniques on Richard Dawkins who very surprisingly didn’t find God. Nevertheless Persinger’s findings do provide another explanation for religious experience and can support the argument that a religious experience can be experienced by anybody.

This leads to the question of what exactly is a religious experience?! What makes a religious experience different to just an experience of anything like drugs or a happy feeling? How does one know when they are interacting with God or not and can this be tested? Furthermore, by evaluating a religious experience as we do in Wesley’s writings are we actually learning about God or is it simply our own interpretation of God? If everyone’s religious experience is individual then everyone will have an individual idea of whom and what God is. Is it even possible for humans to understand and analyse a divine experience? Do we miss the bigger picture of a religious experience by trying to evaluate it and not just except it for what it is or do we have to analyse to understand? By evaluating and critically analysing our experiences are we removing the divine or playing with God and the experience he is trying to provide? Do we actually experience personal growth because of this experience or do we grow naturally and in our own time in our society?

Ultimately these questions are unanswerable, however it is possible to agree that an experience with God when framed into words does enable reflection.

1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml