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.

How Could I Have Not Seen It?

In January 2016, I heard Jayson Georges present on the gospel from an honour-shame perspective and I was intrigued.[1] I had served in Asia for about 20 years, so was familiar with the importance of face and reputation in Asian cultures. What took me by surprise was the claim that the Bible was written out of an honour-shame culture. While his presentation was persuasive, I was still cautious. Afterwards, I asked Jayson if he thought that perhaps the reason the book of Romans was from more of a guilt-innocence perspective was because of the audience Paul was writing to, and he responded, “Actually, the book of Romans is full of honour-shame language.”

So I decided to read Romans for myself, looking for honour-shame references, and what I found has broadened my understanding of the gospel:

Romans 1:16 (ESV)  “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.”  (Not only is there honour-shame language, but power-fear language is central.)

Roman 1:21-23 (ESV) “For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” (The fundamental offense of the ungodly against God is to attribute God’s honour and glory to anything or anyone other than God!)

Romans 1:24 (ESV) “Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity…” (All of the other offenses come as a result of abandoning God’s glory.)

At this point, I was convinced that an honour-shame perspective on the gospel was not a side issue, perhaps beneficial for communicating the gospel in Asia and the Middle East, but was core to understanding God’s message to us. How could I have missed such an important facet of the gospel, even after serving in Asia for more than 20 years?

Werner Mischke, in his book The Global Gospel,[2] gives three reasons for our blind spot to an honour-shame lens on the gospel: It is theologically ignored, it is a new area of study, and blind spots are common.[3] On the one hand, it is understandable that someone raised in a Western culture, steeped in a theology based on a legal model of salvation, would be less prone to notice the honour-shame language of the Bible. But as someone who has been a missionary in Asia for over 20 year surely I should have been alert to language of honour and glory in the Scriptures, shouldn’t I?

It is small assurance that not much was written on an honour-shame lens to the gospel until less than 20 years ago.[4] Even Asian Christians as a whole have been taught a gospel that is based on a justice-justification model, and so there is a distinct Western flavour even to (for example) Thai Christianity. Personally, I have always felt more drawn to a relationally based gospel – an influence from my own early training under the Bethel Bible Series.[5] But I’ve sometimes felt out of step with the more “standard” evangelistic models, such as the Four Spiritual Laws and the Romans Road.

I am thankful to Georges and Mischke for demonstrating that an honor-shame perspective of the gospel is not just “contextualization” (or worse, syncretism!), but is integral to an understanding of all that God’s salvation entails. Integral, though not a replacement. So the question arises: What does a richer view of the Good News of Jesus Christ entail? And what are some of these other perspectives that the Bible itself presents?

---

[1] Jayson Georges is author of The 3D Gospel: Ministry in guilt, shame, and fear cultures, and moderates the honorshame.com blog.

[2] Mischke, W. (2015). The Global Gospel: Achieving missional impact in our multicultural world, Scottsdale, AZ: Mission ONE.

[3] Mischke, Section 1, Chapter 3: “Why our blind spot about honor and shame?”

[4] Ibid.

[5] See www.bethelseries.org. The Bethel Bible Series essentially follows a chronological teaching approach.