“...then quite possibly, we are getting a foretaste of the Christianity of the next generation. Or--as some worry--might it be less than a pure Christianity? Just how much have the newer churches done to fit in with the cultures in which they find themselves?”
Christianity was inculturated, absorbed, into Northwestern culture. As it is absorbed by Southern and Eastern Cultures, is it further from its origin? It’s hard to imagine what truth we could possibly have remnant of after 2,000 years. One idea: to study theologians of several cultures, and sort of “average” them out. Extract common themes, truths... revelations if you will. This reminded me of my Weber reading. The vetoed idea of “averaging” cultures in order to find some sort of object truth, or paradigm through which to see.
“...we must be able to establish the core idea from the incidentals.”
“Christianity as ‘infinitely translatable.’ Christianity became inculturated in different societies, and each in turn contributed to the larger package of Christian beliefs.”
I haven’t the first clue how to establish the “core idea from the incidentals.” Is this part of culture theory and anthropological studies? Is objectification to be sought after in order to discern truth from the culture it has been absorbed into? Is it possible to observe Christianity, faith, truth, outside of culture/practice? As fallen people in a fallen world how capable are we of experiencing, and being able to identify truth? It’s important that I ask all these questions with the common presupposition that truth exists in the form of God the Father Son and Holy Spirit.
Why did Dr. Howell tell me that of all people I am not culturally determined? What could that mean? And what could possibly convince me of that? Even my thoughts on what could convince me of this are culturally determined. I want a logical book.
The Holy Spirit MUST play a larger role in the church than has been attributed to H.S.
I’ve been thinking so much about how nothing is original. Nothing is creative. Nothing is new. You know, Ecclesiastes. We determine culture and culture determines us. Popularity of music and style and academia ebbs and flows according to the environment each individual of a generation is exposed to. What are the independent variables here? Everything depends on everything, everything is cyclical.
Not God. God is original. God is creative. God is the only one who has been, and continually is, creative.
Am I a vessel of creativity? Does the Holy Spirit creatively reveal God to each generation?
-cultural/sociological deterministic ideas disallow room for God, Holy Spirit, creativity,
-consistent interaction between God and people is necessary if truth is allowed to persist in culture today.
What is condemning my understanding of Christ and his teachings?
I think answering this question and helping others to answer this question may be more important for speaking truth, rather than attempting the great task of deconstructing another’s entire worldview in order to replace it with a “Christian worldview.” Aren’t the condemnations and lies and paradigms that hinder me towards an understanding and closer relationship with God, similar to those of Indians? The example of Karma was brought up in my reading. Is it syncretism when an Indian feels freedom from the weight of karma through Christ? Or is it Christ’s truth breaking into their worldview? Isn’t it impossible to completely deconstruct worldview? One cannot lift every experience of an individual and start them from scratch in such a way that they might understand God, Christ, or “Christian worldview” perfectly.
Americans are syncretistic too. Just because we are unable to identify our flaws, does not mean we are perfect.
-quotes from Jenkins The Next Christendom
""... might it be less than a pure Christianity?""
ReplyDelete"Christianity was inculturated, absorbed, into Northwestern culture. As it is absorbed by Southern and Eastern Cultures, is it further from its origin?
It’s hard to imagine what truth we could possibly have remnant of after 2,000 years."
I hope that last statement is hyperbole. I tend to exaggerate and use hyperbole freely, so I resemble that remark :)
But I think it is important to distinguish doctrine from cultural forms- even though they are connected and affect each other.
(The most obvious way they are connected is language. It is impossible to state doctrine without words, and the words have to be in a particular language.)
In spite of this inculturation, I believe that it is possible to understand the truth of the original doctrine by studying and learning the creeds of the church.
(see this link)
http://www.lifeatliberty.org/resources/documents/Essential-Doctrines.pdf
Again, I acknowledge that we are all affected by inculturation, but I do not despair of knowing the truth.