;)
A Global Hermeneutic?
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
One of the most important developments in Evangelical Christianity in recent years has been the spread and spectacular growth of Evangelical churches in the area of the world known as the Global South (largely overlapping with, but not entirely equivalent to, the old term, “the Third World”). As people with a missionary heart, we rejoice at this news. Though the Great Commission has certainly not been fulfilled completely, and, on this side of Jesus’ return, there will always be work to do, as we seek to make disciples and bring them to “the unity in the faith” and “the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13), in many ways, for the first time in history, Evangelical Christianity is truly becoming a world religion.
Though there have been significant, and many times largely forgotten, episodes of church history that have transpired in places such as Africa and Asia, a major portion of what has been passed down to us as Christian tradition has been forged in a specifically Western (or Global North) context. For example, down through the years, the vast majority of theology textbooks have been written by Western authors. More and more, though, all that is beginning to change. As the church in the Global South grows numerically, it is only logical for it to continue to grow in global influence as well.
Some Evangelical thinkers have made the observation that, since Christianity is, in essence, a universal religion, valid and applicable for all cultural contexts, in order to truly grasp Christian doctrine in its fullness, it will be necessary to see it through multicultural lenses. Indeed, Christians from one part of the world and one cultural context may have insights into certain passages of Scripture or certain doctrinal applications of Scripture that those in other parts of the world and other cultural contexts may not quite so readily perceive.
For example, the cultural context in many places in Africa today is closer, in many respects, to that of the original setting of the Bible than that of most places in the West. As a result, many Africans tend to naturally and intuitively understand some biblical practices and customs better than many Western scholars with extensive cross-cultural and historical education.
To a certain extent, though, each of us, whatever our cultural background, when we approach the Bible, tends to do so with cultural blinders. Because of this, many today are calling for a global hermeneutic, in which the insights of interpreters from a plurality of cultural backgrounds are taken into account.
Upon reading about this general idea from various sources in the past several years, my gut reaction has been to accept it as a valid observation. Certainly, we can all learn from others who, due to their cultural upbringing, bring a different set of presuppositions to the table when reading and studying the Bible. But I have wondered, at the same time, how to best identify the most valid spokespersons of these different cultural perspectives. There are a few well-known non-Western Evangelical theologians, but are these really representative of the Body of Christ around the world as a whole?
In conjunction with the recent Lausanne Congress of World Evangelization in Cape Town, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life decided it was an opportune moment to collect and collate the opinions on several key issues of a broad representation of Evangelical leaders from around the world. Thinking it over, I believe it would be hard to come up with a group of people anywhere in the world more representative of present-day global Evangelicalism than those gathered together at Cape Town. As the preface to the Pew Study states:
The organizers of the Cape Town 2010 gathering sought to bring together a geographically representative “global parliament” of evangelical leaders that would reflect the “demographic, cultural, theological and ecclesiastical diversity of the global Church.” The selection of participants was largely decentralized, with the LCWE’s international deputy directors working in each of 12 regions to invite participants in approximate proportion to each country’s share of the global evangelical population.
The Pew Study, however, adds this important caveat:
This selection process resulted in a body that was ethnically and linguistically diverse. At the same time, however, the participants surveyed by the Pew Forum differ in important ways from rank-and-file evangelicals in their home countries. They are predominantly male, middleaged and college-educated, and nearly three-quarters (74%) are employed by churches or religious organizations. Fully half (51%) are ordained ministers. Hence, the survey results do not necessarily reflect the views of evangelicals as a whole. Rather, the survey captures the attitudes and experiences of the global group of evangelical leaders who participated in the Lausanne conference, which is the way the results are characterized throughout this report.
All in all, out of a total of about 4,500 registered attendees of the Third Lausanne Congress, 2,196 Evangelical leaders, representing 166 different countries and territories, responded to the survey, using Web and paper questionnaires.
In order to see the full results of the survey in context, you can download the 118-page PDF document here.
The Results of the Pew Forum Study
Some of the results are rather predictable. However, there are others that, if not totally surprising, give pause for thought. Some of the most interesting results are those in which the compiled responses of those from the Global South differ significantly from those of the Global North.
For instance, in response to the question on whether or not the respondents expect the state of evangelicalism in their respective countries to improve in the next five years, 71% of those from the Global South responded affirmatively, while, in the Global North, 21% expect it to stay about the same, and 33% expect it to worsen. In addition, a majority in the Global South (58%) believe that Evangelical Christianity is gaining influence in their countries, while a majority in the Global North (66%) believe it is losing influence. This relative pessimism is especially acute in the United States, where 82% of the respondents replied they believe Evangelicalism is losing influence.
In a number of areas, the respondents in the Global South appear to be more conservative than their counterparts in the Global North. For instance, 58% of those in the Global South say they believe the Bible should always be taken literally, while only 40% of those in the Global North affirm the same thing; 58% in the Global South would be in favor of making the Bible the official law of the land in their countries, compared to 41% in the Global North; 59% of Evangelical leaders in the Global South believe abortion is always wrong, while only 41% in the Global North believe the same thing; and, 67% in the Global South say that a wife must always obey her husband, compared to 39% in the Global North.
An especially interesting result, given the recent commentary here at SBC Impact, and in Baptist and Evangelical life in general, is that 75% of the respondents in the Global South believe that the consumption of alcohol is incompatible with being a good Evangelical, compared to only 23% in the Global North.
A few more results I found especially interesting were the following:
On a global basis (combined results of both Global South and Global North), 61% believe “the Rapture of the Church will take place before the Great Tribulation,” while 32% said they believe “End Times will not occur exactly this way.”
76% claim to have experienced or witnessed divine healing
61% claim to have received direct revelation from God
57% claim to have experienced or witnessed exorcism
47% claim to have spoken or prayed in tongues
40% claim to have given or interpreted prophecy
On the question of the Prosperity Gospel, though, a solid majority appear to support the official statement offered in the Cape Town Commitment, with only 7% agreeing with the statement, “God gives wealth and good health to those with enough faith,” and 90% agreeing that “God doesn’t always give wealth and good health even to believers who have deep faith.”
On a couple of issues (if I and the questionnaire respondents are reading the questions the same way), it would appear my own views are not in line with the majority. For instance, only 13% believe that religious leaders should keep out of politics, while a whopping majority of 84% believe that religious leaders should express political views. This is somewhat tempered by responses to another question to which 80% say that efforts to promote Christianity in their respective countries should focus “more on changing individual hearts,” while only 16% say that they should focus “more on reforming social institutions.”
For many of us as Southern Baptists (and for me personally), one of the most disconcerting results is that, on a global basis, 75% believe women should be allowed to be pastors, while only 20% believe they should not.
How Seriously Must We as Fellow Evangelicals Take the Results of This Survey?
It should be made clear, first of all, that the results of the survey only reflect the answers of those who responded, and do not in any way represent the official position or have the endorsement of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. Some may want to argue about the degree to which the attendees of the Lausanne Congress truly represent global Evangelicalism. Others may argue that those who define themselves as “Evangelical” are not necessarily the best group by which to measure biblical orthodoxy. On these types of surveys, it must also be taken into account that the way a particular question is worded may (whether intentionally or inadvertently) skew the responses given. Also, the limited selection of possible answers given to the various questions often precludes nuances and explanations on the part of the individual respondents that may cast their responses in a different light. This may well help to explain the fact that the responses to many questions do not add up to 100%, as some, perhaps, chose not to respond to certain questions, feeling none of the provided alternatives accurately reflect their own views. In any case, while not the last word on any of these issues, I think it is hard to make a good case that, in general, the responses to these questions should not be taken seriously, when trying to gauge the opinions of Evangelicals around the world on the issues treated in the study.
Now, just because a majority of Evangelicals around the world hold to a certain position does not mean, though, that I must also hold to that position. On many occasions in world history, the majority have been wrong. As spiritual descendants of those like Martin Luther who were bold enough to stand up to a hierarchical hegemony like none present today, and spit in the face, as it were, of centuries of religious tradition, we don’t just hold our fingers in the wind, and follow wherever it might blow. Our conscience (at least in theory, if not in actual practice) is captive to the Word of God. On certain occasions, significant groups, even of Evangelicals, have clearly been wrong on this or that. An example that quickly comes to mind is that of early Southern Baptists and their views on slavery.
So, to a certain extent, it doesn’t ultimately matter what any group of people believe on this or that, even if they do legitimately represent a broad-based, multicultural collective of brothers and sisters in Christ. As the Apostle Paul exclaimed in Romans 3:4, “Let God be true, and every human being a liar.”
But, as I understand it, that still doesn’t mean I can just cavalierly ignore the responses to questionnaires like this one. If I am to be honest and humble, I must continually ask myself, on any particular issue: Do I hold the position I hold because the Word of God itself demands it, or because my culturally biased reading of the Word of God demands it? And, while not even a broad-based, multicultural majority of Evangelical leaders is infallible, they may well have some legitimate insights into certain matters that my own cultural blinders have kept me from seeing.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
David,
I am enjoying your thoughts and reflections pertaining to the Lausanne Conference. Keep it up!
I don’t think a global hermeneutic can exist, but I’d appreciate more of your thoughts on what would constitute a global hermeneutic before I can adequately form and express an opinion on it.
Andrew,
As Evangelicals, we don’t have a Pope to tell us what to believe, or how to interpret the Bible. We don’t even have official Church Councils, though, for the most part, we accept the decisions of the first Early Church Councils as accurately reflecting what Scripture teaches. Each believer, as a priest before God, is responsible to read the Bible for him/herself, and respond, according to his/her understanding and conscience, accordingly. Yet, we not only believe in the priesthood of the believer; we also believe in the priesthood of the believers (plural). There is an obvious danger in reading into Scripture something the rest of Christendom does not see. Yet, as I observe in the post, the majority of Christendom has not always interpreted Scripture faithfully. There is a balance to be struck somewhere in the middle here. The search for a “global hermeneutic,” as I understand it, is merely an honest attempt to listen carefully to voices from cultural backgrounds which have not previously been heard quite so often and clearly, speak into our own search to understand, before God alone as our Judge and Master, the Word of God. It is, undoubtedly, something that will never be completely or perfectly attained, but that doesn’t free us from the responsibility to listen carefully, and pay attention to what these voices are saying.
Interesting post, David, with many insights with which I can resonate. Teaching hermeneutics in an international setting with many different cultures present (i.e. Canada), I have long been fascinated by factors that influence one’s worldview, which in turn influence how one interprets the scripture. From your post I am most intrigued by the north-south dichotomy, and I believe it calls those of us with a northern orientation at least to take a generous and gracious look at our brethren’s perspective from the south and cause us to ask questions if they see things in the scripture that we don’t. Where we see that we will not come to a consensus on certain issues, perhaps those issues should deliberately be determined not become necessary for fellowship with each other.