In protestant theological institutions: a critical appraisal of contextual challenges in kerala, india jessy jaison b b s., M d

6.4.2 A Synthetic Model on Specific Issues

The age old tradition of the churches held women only secondary, believing it as the approved message and practice of the scripture. Views altering this traditional attitude that shaped society in line with other religious traditions would not be accepted. The two aspects of influence here are the way people read and take in the biblical material and the crucial practical questions arising in the contemporary social context where women’s educational/employment status is high and their church status is considerably low as stated in the preliminary chapters of this thesis. When a theological vision is communicated, its effect has to be evaluated not only on existential factors, but also on the historicity of the scriptures and the socio political meanings of the message communicated. This demands cultural understanding and willingness to learn its specificities and meanings as people experience. Blount calls those in the interpretive task, to take on board, three investigations to keep the balance- textual, ideational and macro-interpersonal.⁴³⁸ Kraft, in his analysis of Christian faith and culture says,

I hold that the [biblical] message, in addition to its historico-cultural specificity, has a cross-cultural relevance that the original cultural forms do not have. But I believe that the content must be expressed in the linguistic and cultural forms of the receivers of the message. The cultural forms in which that content is expressed are therefore extremely important.⁴³⁹
From the focus of Kraft in preserving the gospel content through a translation task in anthropological cross-communication, this study moves on with Bevans with further emphasis suggesting the need of honouring tradition while responding to social change. There was, I fact, hinted earlier by Kraft.⁴⁴⁰ In the contextualization task the question is on priority – gospel values or cultural values? Some current biblical hermeneutical scholarship affirms the significance of a need to identify the difference between the cultural values and the kingdom values. For instance, Webb talks about kingdom values as those that transcend any culture and time and cultural values as those locked into a particular place and time.⁴⁴¹ Whenever such conflict occurs, the priority goes to the preservation of the gospel message according to the Translation Model⁴⁴² while culture is kept at the hub according to the Anthropological Model.⁴⁴³ The Praxis Model⁴⁴⁴ focuses on Christian identity in changing culture, which too offers newer theological hope to Christians living in the changing society. The Transcendental Model⁴⁴⁵ emphasizes the persons articulating over above the content articulated. While all these models contain their own unique and meaningful contributions, the tendency of too much leaning into any of these distinctive focuses is always there. Bevans introduces the Synthetic Model as a balanced approach⁴⁴⁶ in contextualizing theology to help this task. For him,
God’s revelation, therefore, is understood to be something that is historically circumscribed in the particular cultures, and so has a particularly culturally conditioned message…. Revelation is both something finished, once and for all, of a particular place, and something ongoing and present, operative in all cultures, and circumscribable in every way.⁴⁴⁷
The current research also calls for a balance in doing theology, respecting the centrality of the gospel and sensitivity to cultural values. The undeniable significance of the Bible (Translation Model), focus on people’s unique experience of cultural realities (Anthropological) and the action orientation (Praxis Model) are knitted together in the Synthetic Model for a most effective balance in contextual theology. The use of the Synthetic model can be summarized thus,
It tries to preserve the importance of the Gospel message and the heritage of traditional doctrinal formulations, while at the same time acknowledging the vital role that culture has played and can play in theology, even to the setting of the theological agenda.⁴⁴⁸
A broader utility of this method is stated by Schreiter, who, rejecting the concept of monoculturalism, used this model to construct local theologies-as he says, “Especially when wielded in the hands of local leaders, it can quickly help achieve the twin goals of some authenticity in the local culture and respectability in Western church circles.”⁴⁴⁹ This would suggest a workable procedure to penetrate the subtleties of Kerala culture on women by its very acknowledgement of dialectics that are universally at work and openness to an acceptable synthesis that values the uniqueness of the local culture. Moreover, the synthetic model can offer much on women’s issues due to its incorporation of the praxis model that has its ties with liberation aspects of Christian feminist theology. Further discussions on this are not incorporated as that task is beyond the scope of issues addressed in this study. Bevans explains, “…this model [Synthetic] is synthetic in the Hegelian sense of attempting not just to put things together in a kind of compromise, but of developing, in a creative dialectic, something that is acceptable to all standpoints.”⁴⁵⁰ This acknowledgement of dialectics could be further addressed through a deliberation on Hegelian thought as the current topic consists of a number of such dialectics.

6.4.3 A Dialectical Model in Cultural Transformation

Transformation within a social setting inevitably involves contradictions. Hegel’s use of ‘dialectics’ is used to assist the following discussion. “Hegel altered deductive reasoning from a simple 1+1=2 formula to a series of progressive triads where two opposite premises combine into a synthesis and then each synthesis becomes the premise in the next triad, and on and on it goes.”⁴⁵¹ This dialectic is “a framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution.”⁴⁵²

Hegel’s ‘logic’ has been questioned in different respects.⁴⁵³ But there is a strong case for many that this dialectic is a ‘logic of transformative processes’ and something that teaches us how to think and act in a lacerated, contradictory and ever-changing world.⁴⁵⁴All cultures are inherently predisposed to change and, at the same time, to resist change.  There are dynamic processes operating that encourage the acceptance of new ideas and things, while there are others that encourage changeless stability. There is no situation where conservative forces that resist change do not exist. Regarding the process of transformation of women’s status and the arising cultural conflicts, Hegel’s dialectic might provide useful tips for understanding the present challenge of theological settings that confront changes and challenges. This opens up hermeneutics as Gadamer says, “Dialectic must retrieve itself in hermeneutics.”⁴⁵⁵
Though Hegelian dialectic offered the insight of the logic of transformative processes, which is a theory to conceive contradiction in its fundamental and pure structures, it saw the vacuum of ‘the truth’ or the ultimate synthesis, which could probably be arrived at by a dynamic theological hermeneutic. Nevertheless, theology, where people have comprehended it as a set of finalized lessons has itself, remained stagnant in the process of transformation. When the diffusion of feminist views is largely rejected by the Kerala culture, a biblical hermeneutical diffusion might help to see the picture in a different angle. When the gradual acculturation of feminist views raises threats to the existing values of churches and the society, transculturation in a seminary education environment can use biblical hermeneutics as a tool to interpret it in culturally sensible terms so that people can realize the inevitability of the vision. Each culture, in its own level, is in the process of change and reaching a synthesis that is not viable without confronting conflicting dialectics.
The dialectic does not violate the law of contradiction; rather it sees contradictions as the causes of the dialectic process.⁴⁵⁶ However, “…there has not been an evolutionary development of cultures from a state of overall inferiority to a state of overall superiority.”⁴⁵⁷ The ‘kingdom vision’ should be kept at the centre towards which a progressive approach is employed to help the situation until we reach the ultimate synthesis which gives rise to no antithesis any more, as the Hegelian Dialectics looked for.⁴⁵⁸
For Hegel, the Speculative-dialectic logic has the “movement of truth” which cannot be grasped by the rigid propositional form of judgment with its unmoved isolation of subject and predicate.⁴⁵⁹ This has ever been a challenge to theology and theological education. Christian theology has to move from the static reading of the scripture to see the overall biblical vision, which could be named the ultimate synthesis. This could be probably interpreted as what Webb calls the ‘ultimate ethic’ in his cultural analysis model of ‘redemptive-movement hermeneutic.’ This model follows X→ Y→Z principle⁴⁶⁰ where X stands for original ancient near eastern and/or Greco-Roman culture, Y for the Bible (the isolated words of the text; an ethic “frozen in time”) and Z for ultimate ethic (reflected in the spirit of the biblical text). Any specific culture stands between Y and Z.
The theological seminaries in Kerala, have the potential to design the process of cultural change, starting from the current level of cultural hermeneutics, keep to the general cultural standards but, adapting and learning from other cultures as well, move on to identify and appreciate God’s purpose for women and men in his Kingdom. The dialectics go on and on. When women in church are given one more level of approval as a synthesis to ongoing debate, that synthesis will soon become the premise for another dialectic. However, there is the eschatological hope in Christian theology, that from being subject to frustration, creation will be finally liberated into the glorious freedom. Rom.8:20, 21.

The biblical validity of a cultural hermeneutical approach needs to be explored at this point.

6.5 A Biblical Perspective on Cultural Hermeneutics
Every culture is unique and valid in itself. Therefore, it is equally illogical forcing values of one culture over another and judging one culture based on the values of another. Each culture has its own minute, yet influential features that people of other cultures take a long time to comprehend. This calls us to appreciate the need of cultural hermeneutics in our practice along with addressing the question of biblical validity of cultural sensibility. We will now look into certain conceptual areas that require additional clarification.

6.5.1 Cultural Adaptability/ Sensibility is Biblically Valid

Change occurs progressively in God’s will. But conflict occurs when the powerful resist change. In Jesus’ time on earth, ‘the powerful’ were not the ‘worldly’ ones but the ‘spiritual’ e.g. Pharisees. “As in Jesus’ day, when the hermeneutics of the powerful prevented them and many others from understanding the Bible’s words about Jesus, today’s established authorities skew biblical interpretation and prevent many from following the Lord.”⁴⁶¹ God uses human culture, “primarily as a vehicle to be used by him and his people for Christian purposes, rather than as an enemy to be combated or shunned.”⁴⁶² The theological interpretations offered by one culture might upset another culture and a particular culture cannot be condemned blindly for its resistance of a theological vision that does not seem to correspond to its values. It is the responsibility of seminaries to stand in the gap with their own initiatives to put the women’s concerns on the desk in seminars, public talks, writings and practical work plans to get women more involved in ministry.

…when individual transformations take place, they lead to changes both in the individual’s use of culture and in the structuring itself in terms of which the person lives. When groups of people undergo such transformation, more pervasive changes may be made both in use and in structuring. When such transformation takes place as a result of a relationship with God we may speak of the influence of God on cultural change. Such change, in that it often involves drastic cultural reorientations, is often labelled “transformational”.⁴⁶³
This cultural sensibility can also be identified in Pauline ministry and writings; for instance, his culturally interpreted message at Areopagus (Acts.17:22 ff.) and his head shaving at Jerusalem. But the intervention of the Holy Spirit in his mission continuously took him further from his personal and cultural constraints to move towards God’s redemptive plan as seen in his approval of the gentile mission. Concluding her writing of Woman in the Bible, Mary Evans says that in the New Testament,
A great emphasis is placed on the importance of glorifying God by giving a good impression to outsiders, so that behaviour sometimes needed to be regulated not only by what was right, although this was the primary consideration, but also by what was appropriate in a particular cultural situation.⁴⁶⁴
Throughout the Bible we see God is in a business of engaging with the culture of human beings. The distortions seen in human relations were resultant on the fall of humans, who are presently groaning for liberation, which is already in process through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. It is not yet complete; rather, still progressing. But the theological and prophetical hope is still bright as God, in his sovereignty, is at work to restore this broken relationship.
But this relationship between God and culture is not a required relationship in the sense that God is bound by culture. On the contrary, God is absolute and infinite. Yet he has freely chosen to employ human culture and at major points to limit himself to the capacities of culture in his interaction with people. On occasion he freely chooses to transcend cultural, spatial and temporal limitations in events that we term “miracles”. But frequently even in miracles he operates largely in terms of cultural factors rather than counter to them. Any limitation of God is only that which he imposes upon himself- he chooses to use cultures, he is not bound by it in the same way human beings are.⁴⁶⁵

6.5.2 Balanced Cultural Relativism is Biblical

The conflicting elements in culture and the Bible raise hard debates on the role of women in theological education and ministry. It is disparaging to impose certain biblical texts on specific cultural settings without evaluating their relevance and impact on the contexts. Nida’s “relative relativism”⁴⁶⁶ affirms a divinely inspired scripture of its original cultural meanings and at the same time that it is relevant and applicable to present cultures in all their distinctiveness. What is real in one culture may not be so in another and this does not make any culture less significant. Webb’s attempt to distinguish between the merely cultural and the trans-cultural words in the Bible has been a great contribution in this direction. The ‘reality out there’ is different from ‘reality in people’s heads.’⁴⁶⁷ In Kraft’s view,

A belief in the validity of other cultures does not obligate one to approve of such customs as cannibalism, widow burning, infanticide, premarital sex, polygamy and the like. But it [cultural validity/relativism] does insist that one take such customs seriously within the cultural context in which they occur and attempt to appreciate the importance of their function within that context.⁴⁶⁸
Yet, he appears to be according prime focus to scriptural authority. There are varying views in hermeneutical preferences. Larkin notes that Kraft “does not regard the current context as the starting point and primary source for discovering God’s message to modern men and women.”⁴⁶⁹ Kraft is not always right in his approach of denying sufficient autonomy to indigenous cultures. As it would be beyond the scope of this study to open up this any further, it would go more in line with the primary focus on God’s truth to contemporary context rather than the other way round. Kraft affirms that we “need to be open to what [God] seeks to say to contemporary hearers in contemporary cultural contexts.”⁴⁷⁰ This, however, does not call us to give up some cultures as bad and promote others as good. Each culture has its own elements- some in line with the biblical overall truth and others not so. Every culture is in the process of change and it is the mission of the theologian to guide them to move in the right direction and at the right pace. In fact, the static reading of the Bible prevents people from seeing the ‘real tension in the text’⁴⁷¹ between the immediate and the overall objectives. The New Testament upholds the need for being contextually relevant not just through the transformational attitude of Jesus but also in the teachings and practices of the apostles.
When the early church realized that there was a problem with respect to the Greek-speaking widows they did not look to the past, but, claiming the leading of the Holy Spirit, faced the problem and worked out a solution (Acts. 6:1-6). Though the early church ordinarily required Gentiles first to convert to Jewish culture in order to become Christians (Acts 15:1), Paul, Barnabas, and Peter advocated a change in their rules.⁴⁷²
For the adopting of a new approach in the new situation, the Council’s letter to gentile believers in Acts 15:19-29 could be an example. On the other hand, too much analysis of cultural specificity has the potential danger of taking people away from the actual message of the Bible.

6.5.3 God is not Bound by Culture

Human cultural limitations can be mistaken as God’s limitations. Unless God is seen as one who works through culture but transcends it, people cannot share his theological vision that transcends culture in the path of dignified relationship between men and women who share in the same value in responsibilities and in the same worth of life. “Culture is not in itself either an enemy or a friend to God or humans. It is, rather, something that is there to be used by personal beings such as humans, God and Satan.”⁴⁷³ According to Hiebert, “The message of the Bible is supra-cultural- it is above all cultures. But it must be understood and applied in all cultures.”⁴⁷⁴ The seemingly different responses in different situations in the Bible can also be best interpreted by this. God cannot change his nature but he can impose certain choices on himself without contradictions to enable his people know him better. “Since God is self-consistent, such contemporary revelation of himself will never contradict scripturally recorded revelation.”⁴⁷⁵ This scriptural revelation is “directional” rather than “positional.”⁴⁷⁶ The effort here is to incorporate a proper ‘integrative motif’⁴⁷⁷ as Grenz explains it. It means that a helpful theology incorporates the biblical message, the theological heritage of the church and the thought-pattern of contemporary culture.

Seminaries should model the equilibrium between the scriptural revelation, church’s practice and God’s contemporary activity within culture. It is equally worthless to restrict God only within cultural limitations and exalt human culture over above scriptural truths. The tremendous balance God maintains in both these aspects in the Old and New Testaments is evident in His approval of David and his people eating from the table of shewbread which was abhorrent both to the law of God and to the Israelite culture as a community. Jesus handled the question of healing on the Sabbath exactly the same way in the New Testament. In all such instances, the human tendency to interpret God’s activities purely in human terms is evident. In the biblical records, hence, there are numerous situations where God leads women into various kinds and levels of ministry roles whereby human beings can have a model of balanced hermeneutic.
On women’s emancipation too, the biblical approach is no different. Jesus who excluded women from the twelve but developed women as disciples and ministers in alternative ways that men of the time could never expect. It is therefore, central to see the cultural hermeneutic employed by Jesus.This is discussed after a figure depicting the methods of dealing with cultural issues and the potential outcomes. Cultural problems for women can be of at least two types: The first type talks about rampant deliberate atrocities such as sati (widow burning) and dowry killing, which require immediate confrontation. Secondly, there are those cultural practices although incompatible with the kingdom values but can well afford a gradual transformational approach. These are mostly found in terms of discriminatory practices, alienation, rejection, verbal abuse and the like for which a slow and steady processes of change is deemed advisable. However, though the first category requires immediate confrontation, it takes place only useful in isolated/single cases. For attitudinal changes in the longer run, only gradual transformational processes can help.
This discussion focuses on the second type of issue that is particularly relevant to the women’s concerns in the theological training context. Kraft’s discussion on polygamy is relevant in making such a distinction.⁴⁷⁸ Tinker writes on the 1988 Lambeth Conference, where Bishop David Gitari mentioned of ‘gospel tolerating culture’ (at least provisionally), as in the case of polygamy in an African context.⁴⁷⁹ All these, cannot be explained away on mere tolerating, but tolerating towards transformation as the figure shows below. The philosophical exploration of this is done in further depth in the following sections. The figure below portrays the practical summary of the ideas presented already and seeks further to address the problematic cultural situation where the liberal and conservative forces are in constant influence and quandary. It can guide the self-evaluation of the current practice of seminaries and explore a desirable approach to help the women’s constituency.


FIGURE 5
Cultural Situation – Three-fold Process

Resist learning

Open to learn

Cultural

Situation

Structural Inefficiency

Abrupt

Structural

Collision

Structural

Integration

Transformational Stability

Gradual

Chaos











6.6 The Jesus- Model of Theology-Culture Hermeneutical Equilibrium
Jesus was not following a set of prescriptions; rather his methods were mostly in terms of transforming the internalized attitudes of the larger society towards women. Pharisees and sometimes his own disciples questioned his actions. This is evident, for example, in the accounts of a woman pouring oil on Jesus and the disciples wondering at his discourse with the Samaritan woman.