In response to a recent blog on “ethno-theology,” one reader suggested I give an example of the difference between theologies born out of a different cultural context than of the West. While I am happy to do so in the limited space of this venue, I start off by saying that I do not consider myself an expert in this field and there are varied opinions on the subject. Nevertheless, I am happy to give a short-overview of the topic.In 1991 I attended a conference in Riga, Latvia. This conference was for pastors throughout the former Soviet Union, which broke apart just a little over a year earlier. One of the pastors that spoke was a Russian ethnic Hungarian who spoke of the persecution on his people for decades under the brutal hands of the Communist government. His text was 2 Kings 5. This is the story of Naaman the leper and how he was brought to Elisha for healing through a slave girl from Israel. Most sermons I had heard from this passage dealt with how leprosy is a type of sin and that the river of Jordon, where Elisha had told Naaman dip seven times, was a type of salvation (an act of obedience of accepting grace through faith). However, this pastor, whose people suffered not only slavery but also death at the hands of their Russian masters, interpreted this passage differently - much differently than a Westerner might. He said this,
“For many years we were under bondage. We now have freedom. Our former masters are dying, what shall we do? In retribution of how they persecuted us shall we just let them die and say may the God of heaven judge you for your atrocities? Or shall we, like the servant girl tell our former masters about the One who can save them? Shall we, the Church of the former Soviet Union, show grace or revenge?”
As I listened to this pastor’s message, the people gathered were weeping as they, too, had suffered much for their faith under their Communist masters. I thought then that only someone under such a context of oppression could possibly interpret the Scriptures in such fashion.
The principles of Scripture are universal, which transcends borders, ethnicity, time and space. However, it is through the context in which man lives how those principles will be applied, or even realized.
Kenyan theologian John Mbiti writes,
“Theology should strain its neck to see beyond the horizons of our traditional structures, beyond the comforts of our ready-made methodologies of theologizing; it should be with the Church where it is, rubbing shoulders with human beings whose condition, outlook, concerns, and world views are not those with which we are familiar.”
“The African theologian who has experienced the agonies of having a burning appetite but nothing to eat will surely theologize differently on the theme of food from the American theologian who knows the discomfort of having a plate full of steak but no appetite.”
6 comments:
After 24 years in South-Central Africa I can attest that people here see things differently here than in Western Europe or North America. Thanks for sharing the difference even between Eastern Europe and their western neighbours.
Richard,
Thank you, as usual, excellent post! The one-dimensional-ethnocentric-theology that plagues many pastors/teachers is sad at the very least. I have been blessed in as much as many years ago when I first started teaching the Bible, it was suggested to me that I would do well to buy one of the books by the Chinese theologian, Watchman Nee. While I cannot say it changed the way I taught; it certainly “opened my mind” to a multi-dimensional, critical way to understand and teach the scriptures. Reading your post first thing this morning was fortuitous; I was going to order a commentary by the Jewish theologian David H. Stern, now I am going to include in my order one of the books by John Mbiti as well! [However, I still might have steak tonight :)]
Maranatha
Bill
Richard,
At one point you say we interpret differently, but then later clarify that there is one interpretation but many applications. I agree with the latter but not the former in the sense of being able to reading into the text what we with our cultural glasses. Of course that happens but it is corrected by continually letting the historical/grammatical sense of the passage rule.
Many of the "many applications" are often missed due to cultural blindness and others are seen due to cultural vision.
Chris
Excellent post brother.
Have you read Vishal Mangalwadi or Ravi Zacharais?
Certainly there are ethnoapplications. I repeat, though may get hammered for saying it, all theology is theory (note the Scriptures are not, but our interpretations are). So whether it comes from the Latin misapplication of liberation or U.S. misapplication of capitalism, we do indeed, as you have stated, look through (literally) Scripture with
the lens of cultural bias. Are there different interpretations and not just applications? I believe so. The whole purpose of theology is to probe the mysteries of God’s Word. I would like to think I have my essential theological ducks in a row, but, as my professor of hermeneutics, Dr. Noel Smith, said, “We all preach heresy sometimes.” Our great challenge is that we don’t mess things up with our
ethnocentric, mono-cultural explanations.
Thanks for the thoughts.
thanks :)
-David
Post a Comment