The Same Animal?

Six blind men came across an elephant and tried to discover the nature of the beast by feeling one part of the elephant. Each man’s conclusion about what an elephant is was informed only by which part of the animal he felt; the one who felt the trunk concluded that an elephant is very much like a snake; the one who felt the leg argued it was more like a tree trunk; the one who felt the tail decided it was like a rope and so on. The disagreement became very heated, with each insisting that he was right and the others wrong…

The parable of the blind men and the elephant has been used to make the claim that all of us are spiritually blind and that different religions are just exploring different parts of the same ultimate truth.  As support for spiritual relativism the parable might be more persuasive if it could be shown that all were talking about the same animal as opposed to, say, tails of quite different beasts. While there is certainly some overlap, it is difficult to sustain the belief that superficial similarities contain the same DNA when deeper examination of those supposed similarities reveals striking incompatibilities. For example, belief in reincarnation contradicts belief in resurrection: They are not variations of the same “truth”, but differing explanations for the afterlife with wildly differing understandings of the nature of matter.[1]

While I believe the parable is not particularly persuasive when trying to harmonize religions, it does seem to be an apt picture when it comes to understanding the riches of the Good News of Jesus Christ. There is a core reality that can be explored from several perspectives, and each of us have a preferred position from which to view the gospel which highlights certain truths yet obscures others. As in the parable, what blinds us most is (1) fear that we might stray into heterodoxy and (2) the cultural context that has shaped our values and view of reality. As for the first, we are (rightly) wary of falling for “another gospel which is no gospel”. And concerning our cultural context, cultural anthropologists are fond of quoting the proverb, “A fish does not know what water is.” That is, we are quite unaware of our cultural context – our beliefs about reality, our values, our ethics – until that context is contrasted with a strikingly different cultural context and we are forced to see life differently or struggle with trying to survive in that new culture.

How are we, then, to ensure that we have not strayed from God’s truth and that we are “talking about the same animal”? For the orthodox Christian, the answer is plain: What does the Bible say? The Bible is our standard, and a description of the gospel that contradicts God’s Word must be rejected.

However, as we read the Bible, we need to realize that our reading of Scripture is narrowed by our cultural blinders. How, then, are we to see that which is obscured by our ingrained views of reality? One important gift from the Lord is a diverse, multicultural body of Christ, made up of people who hunger for more of God’s truth in their lives and are willing to be challenged by His Word to us. We need our brothers and sisters from around the world – they can see things in the Word that we cannot easily see. I would extend this diversity to different denominations, each with different insights that I need. (This is not to say that I agree with all their conclusions, but I need to hear all those who in good faith and humility seek to know God as He is, not just as we wish to see Him.)

The other gift that the Lord gives freely is His Holy Spirit. As we pray in humility, hungering for more of Him, He graciously leads us into depths we could not imagine on our own. We are indeed blind until the Holy Spirit opens our eyes and reveals the riches of God’s glorious inheritance in the saints, to which He has called us (Eph. 1:18)

It will also be helpful for us to have a framework of the message of the Good News to help us explore the different perspectives. I think it would be a mistake to narrow our definition of the gospel to a single verse: Even Mark 1:15 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 do not include all the elements of the gospel: Paul does not mention repentance (for example), while Jesus does not mention what Paul declared was “of first importance”: Christ dying for our sins, being buried, raised and appearances. Of course, Jesus’ proclamation was pre-crucifixion, yet His call is to “believe the Good News”. There need not be conflict between the two descriptions of the gospel: it can be argued that Paul implies repentance and that “the Kingdom is at hand” is founded on Christ’s death and resurrection. In any case, in my next post I would like to suggest a broad outline of key elements of the gospel with sample Bible passages to support their inclusion and a set of “encompassing terms” – key words related to the gospel that can be seen from a variety of perspectives.[2]

---

[1] By the way, I’m happy to discuss other belief systems elsewhere, but would like to keep this blog focussed to understanding a biblical view of the gospel.

[2] For example, sin can be seen from various perspectives as lawlessness (justice perspective), folly (wisdom perspective), rebellion (regal perspective), slavery (freedom perspective). See Andy Smith, Meaningful Evangelism, especially the chart at the end, for his suggestions of sets of words for describing sin, salvation, Jesus’ role, repentance, and key response. In later posts, I plan to examine some of these perspectives and relevant terms.

Seeing the Whole Teapot

          

The Good News of Jesus Christ is bigger than we tend to see, due to our cultural and theological blinders and personal bent. Seeing the gospel through an honour-shame perspective opened up for me a richer understanding of all that was accomplished on the cross.[1] However, embracing insights into the gospel from an honour-shame perspective does not entail abandoning the important truths of justification by faith and substitutionary atonement through Jesus’ death on the cross. The guilt-innocence perspective is still valid and biblical, and of much value for all believers. Not only so, there are other ways of explaining the gospel that can be found in the Bible that may resonate better for those for whom the honour-shame and innocence-guilt explanations are not as effective.

Eugene Nida categorizes human cultures according to their primary way of responding to “transgressions of religiously sanctioned codes: fear, shame and guilt.”[2] While all cultures utilize all three emotional reactions to maintain social cohesion, different cultures emphasize them differently, normally with one response dominant over the others. The opposite of each of these is used as reward for those who adhere to social expectations: innocence[3], honour, and power.

 European and North American (Western) cultures tend to be primarily guilt-innocence cultures (though there seems to be a cultural shift in process); Asian and Middle Eastern cultures tend to be honour-shame cultures; and African, Polynesian and South American cultures tend to emphasize power-fear. This is a broad generalization that is tempered by effects of globalization, urbanization, and technological innovation.[4]

Another way of categorizing worldview lenses is presented in Andy Smith’s very practical book, Meaningful Evangelism: Choosing words that connect.[5] Smith looks at ways of presenting the gospel to people with different values and experiences that “have shaped each of their views of reality.”[6] The nine he looks at are Honour, Intellect, Justice, Legalism, Life, Pain, Power, Harmonious Relationships, and Spiritual Realities. He does not claim this as an exhaustive inventory of worldview lenses, but does find biblical language that can be used in presenting the gospel to people holding these different perspectives.

While Smith is examining the defining dynamics that shape the view of reality for individuals, Nida and anthropologists are more interested in cultural generalizations. Both sets of analysis find that the Bible proclaims the Good News with a variety of pictures and diversity of language that can speak to a wide range of life experience and worldview. Georges and Mischke compare the gospel to a diamond with many facets, and each of us tend to focus on a preferred facet. I prefer the metaphor of a teapot: Some will see the spout (and only the spout!) and declare that this amazing spout is the teapot. Others admire the handle, reveling in its beauty while hardly noticing the spout or the lid or the base. The reality is that the teapot is all of these together, and while we may have a preferred view that we default to, the teapot is more than just a handle or spout or lid.

Such is the gospel. We in the West (and many Christians in the rest of the world) have seen the Good News of Jesus Christ almost exclusively through a guilt-innocence lens. In the Pentecostal movement, a fear-power lens has been dominant. I am not advocating other lenses as a replacement, but believe we all will benefit from a broader view of “the whole teapot”, and will miss key elements of God’s Good News for us if we close our eyes to aspects of the gospel not as easily accessible through our preferred perspective. We may think of the proverbial elephant, with blind men feeling over different parts and defining the elephant by his own limited experience rather than exploring beyond that which is easily within reach. Yet we must ensure that each description is of the same elephant, and not tails of two very different animals.

---

[1] See “How Could I Have Not Seen It” (post #2).

[2] Nida, E. (1954). Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian missions. New York: Harper and Row, p. 150. Found in Jayson Georges, The 3D Gospel.

[3] I suspect a more precise opposite for guilt might be justification, though it doesn’t roll off the tongue as nicely as “guilt-innocence” and is less of a mainstream term.

[4] This is a personal observation based on my experiences in Thailand and needs to be researched to be confirmed.

[5] Most easily obtainable through Amazon.com or its affiliates.

[6] Smith, p. 12.