CULTURAL AND THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

by

Charles W. Carter

I. Introduction

The Bible is the divinely-inspired, and thus reliable record of God’s self-disclosure to man as his Creator, Providential Preserver, and Redeemer. Christian theology, however, is man’s attempt to formulate a rational understanding of God’s self-disclosure in its multifold aspects in relation to man and the universe. Thus divine revelation per se is absolute and infallible, whereas theology is formulated my fallible man and is consequently relative and subject to revision and change. Paul declared that God "is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of God and not from ourselves" (2 Cor. 4:6-7 NASB). Here Paul seems to support the position that revelation is divine disclosure, while theology is cast in the mold of human culture and thus relative to culture, in considerable measure.

The focus on this discussion will be upon the relation of culture to theological education.

II. The Meaning of Culture

A. The Relativity of Culture

The noted anthropologist, Robert H. Lowie, says that

Thus it is extremely important to distinguish between the divinely-given revelation and man’s theological understanding and expression of that revelation. The first is infallible; the second is fallible.

As the culture mold changes, so do the theological expressions, if not the concepts. To this fact the history of theological thought bears eloquent testimony, from the Patristics through the Scholastics and Reformers to the Modern Neo-Orthodox and even secular theologians. Indeed, there have been those special times of spiritual resurgence when theology has proven itself an effective culture-revolutionizing force that has changed the course of human history, as witnesses the work of the reformers and Wesley in their respective times. But even in such revolutions theology and culture have remained inextricable.

B. The Dynamics of Culture

In the light of Tylor’s definition of culture, it becomes evident that the culture of any people is both accidental and superficial, rather than essential or constitutional, and thus subject to change. In this view culture is always potentially, if not actually, dynamic.

History reveals that many cultures which had long remained static suddenly became dynamic under the stimulus of some innovating influence. The awakening of African culture less than a half century ago from its agelong slumber, and its subsequent political, social, and economic revolution, is a notable example of the dynamic potential of a culture. Likewise the radical modification of certain areas o Asian culture under the stimulus of western influence is self-evident. The extensive industrialization of Japan, Taiwan, and many other Asian areas, with their accompanying social changes, are noteworthy examples of this phenomenon. At the Madras World Missionary Conference in 1938, Hendrick Kraemer foresaw and predicted the "fall" of idealistic Asian culture under the impact of western materialistic influences.² However, the most likely potent culture-modifying influence in Asia today, whatever past influences may have been, is neither that of the western missionary personnel, the presence of western military forces, nor scientific materialism per se, but the already culturally modified, western-educated, and returned Asia himself. Conversely, the American military personnel returning from long residence in the East are modifying American culture with their acquired Asian culture, and often acquired mixed families.

C. The threefold Aspect of Culture

If theological education is to function effectively in a culture, it is necessary to take account of three important aspects of that culture, namely, its past, present, and possible future.

History reveals that most Asian culture remained relatively static over long periods of the past. Japan’s static culture of upward of 250 years before the reopening of that country to the outside world following Perry’s visits in 1852 and 1853 is a well-known example. Likewise the phenomenal culture revolution of Japan during little more than three-quarters of a century thereafter, to become a leading world power, is eloquent historical testimony to the dynamic potential of a culture. The recent recognition of mainland China by the U.S.A. is already bearing decisive evidence of radical cultural changes of that long-isolated, colossal country.

However, no people ever completely divest themselves of their cultural heritage. Elements of the past live on into the present, and will be found in the future. There may even be resurgence of the ancient culture, such as the revival of Buddhism in certain areas of Asia, notably in its Soka Gakkai form in Japan with more than ten million adherents; not to mention the recent revival of medieval witch societies in England and America. Even Mao’s abortive "Cultural Revolution" in mainland China witnessed to the difficulty, if not impossibility, of eradicating completely the cultural heritage of a people. The failures of both Russian and Chinese Communism to eliminate the family demonstrate the stubborn persistence of cultural heritage.

The mother tongue of a people illustrates well the persistence of culture. In the mother tongue is enshrined, and through it our expressed, the essential ideas, idioms and ideals of people. Recognizing this fact, Edwin Smith entitled his work of African languages The Shrine of a People’s Soul. No other language, regardless of its flexibility or versatility, can take the place of a people’s mother tongue.

However, due to the paucity of theological literature in most Asian languages, it is presently advantageous, if not imperative, that theological education make large use of Western languages in which adequate theological resource material is presently available. Nor is it likely that any substantial amount of theological literature will be developed in many of the Asian languages until certain vague, mystical linguistic concepts and expressions are clearly defined in harmony with the biblical revelation. Such, for instance, are the Chinese terms Shang Ti, Shen, and Tien for God, and Tsui (crime) for sin, over which so much controversy has raged among scholars. A theology is the product of theologians, and Christian theologians require adequate conceptual and linguistic tools with which to think and work.

Furthermore, if theological education attempts to function only in relation to the past and the present cultural context without a view to the possible, and even likely future changes that it will undergo, it may be that today's theological training will ill fit tomorrow's demands. Thus considered, theological education must necessarily function in process. It must in this sense be methodologically existential in order to maintain relevance with changing culture. To conform exclusively to the traditional pattern of a culture may serve only to contribute to exclusive, conservative religious nationalism. Conversely, to aim only at the anticipated future cultural pattern in theological education may well eventuate in impractical idealism.

However, to function only in relation to the present cultural context may leave theological education stranded on a dry streambed while the cultural current has flown away into its future form. Thus effective theological education must stand squarely in the present cultural situation while holding with one hand the cultural remnants of the past, and with the other the anticipated cultural pattern of the future. Theological education must be historical, current, and futuristic. But in all of these respects it will of necessity be baptized with the Spirit of the Living God if it is to be effective for Christ and Christianity.

III. The Meaning of Culture for Theological Education

A. The Non-Neutrality of Culture

C. S. Lewis sees culture per se as non-neutral.³ It is either good or bad, depending upon its employment. Ethically considered, culture has only instrumental and never intrinsic value. It is contingent upon persons, much as color is contingent upon the cloth that it dyes. The cloth is essential to the dye, but the color may be changed without changing essentially the cloth. To ascribe intrinsic value to culture is to make it ultimate, and this is idolatry. However, culture may be a means, or an instrument, to either a good or a bad purpose.

The New Testament obviously takes a rather dim view of culture, assigning to it a distinctly sub-Christian position and role. Jesus regarded culture as sub-Christian in His discourse in the sixth chapter of Matthew, as elsewhere. Paul regarded it as refuse in comparison with true Christianity (Phil. 3:4-8). Paul prized his Roman citizenship for its instrumental value but in comparison he declared that our real and permanent citizenship is spiritual, in heaven (Phil. 3:20). Though of instrumental value, culture is never meritorious, as concerns man's relationship to God.

The New Testament makes clear that God is no respecter of persons-not even of the Jews with their boasted religious culture (Acts10:34-36). Even the emaciated beggar who died culturally unendowed at the rich man's gate was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom (Luke16:19ff.), while the man who had everything of cultural value descended into hell empty-handed (Luke 12:16-21).

B. Three Levels of Culture

Culture may be seen as having three sub-Christian levels. First, negatively considered, at its lowest level culture may become idolatrous and thus demonic. This happens when it is regarded as having intrinsic value. The affections are then set upon it in idolatrous worship. Paul Tillich rightly brought this charge of idolatry against Nazi Germany when Hitler made the state absolute. The same may be said of any form of totalitarianism, from the Caesars to Mao and Castro. Any institution or item of culture may intentionally or inadvertently be converted to idolatrous worship-an act forbidden by the First Commandment. When so regarded, culture becomes the snare that captures and enslaves men's souls. In this sense culture becomes demonic. Perhaps for this very reason God has allowed the collapse of our boasted Western culture. He is still a jealous God who will not share His glory with another (Deut. 5:9).

Second, positively considered, culture may be used to give pleasure to a people, refine their sensibilities, elevate their standard of living, educate their minds, improve their health, contribute to their general well-being, and advance their temporal civilization. However, though of instrumental value, it is in no sense meritorious before God.

Third, culture may likewise serve as an instrument of value in theological education and its objective of evangelization and Christianization. Gregory is credited with the famous saying that "our use of secular culture was comparable to the action of the Israelites in going down to the Philistines to have their knives sharpened." In order to bring our unconverted fellows to Christ we must understand their culture. As with the early Christians in relation to their pagan neighbors, we must be able to "out-think," "outlive" and "outdie" them. However, this is something quite different from the claims commonly made for culture today. Lewis remarks: "On the Gregorian view, culture is a weapon; and a weapon is essentially a thing that we lay aside as soon as we safely can."⁴

In conclusion, we may regard culture in relation to theological education as the traditional road that leads to Jerusalem. However, it must be borne in mind that the same road that leads to Jerusalem may also lead the traveler away from Jerusalem. Thus we need to keep our theological objectives in relation to culture clear and distinct.

Notes

¹Robert H. Lowie, An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, New and Enlarged Edition (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., 1940), p. 3.

²Hendrik Kraemer, The Christian Message in A Non-Christian World (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel, rep., 1961).

³C. S. Lewis, "Christianity and Culture," Christian Reflections, ed. By Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 33.

⁴Ibid., p. 17.

Edited by KimberLee Bingham for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene University, 2000.