HERMENEUTICS AND CULTURAL RELATIVISM
by Revd Dr Colin Warner
© Colin Warner. Used with permission 

According to W.H.Larkin [Biblical Hermeneutics and Culture, NY.,1993] the current state of non-evangelical missiology, with its much publicised contextualized ethnic theologies, often reflects the view of a radical relativism. But what does that term mean?

"Radical relativism denies that a person can have true or valid knowledge of anything outside his or her own historical or cultural context. It denies that moral content can be universal, since there is no way to judge between the competing truth and ethical claims of different contexts". [p.19]

Those holding such a view say there are no such things as universal ethics, because there are no absolute truths. They say nor can there be any universal values, because there are no transcultural judgements. Finally they declare that there can be no singular written authority, because all texts are culture specific and historically conditioned. That must include the Christian's scriptures. This is the age of extreme relativism and post- modem thinking. It means that at this time biblical hermeneutics is facing two major challenges.

1. The first is that of historical relativism. This affirms that a work or a text, composed in an ancient time and in an ancient culture, has its meaning in that time and culture. Therefore in our time it may have a different meaning, or indeed no meaning at all.  Those expressing this opinion draw our attention to the to the fact that the past cultural context has influenced the authors of the texts, and therefore has affected the meaning of their original texts.

2. The second challenge comes from cultural relativism. It asserts that all values and morals are relative to their own socio-cultural context. It means that one way of life cannot be judged to be superior to any other way of life. This seeks to draw our attention to the fact that the modem reader or interpreter of any ancient text will be inevitably influenced by their own present cultural context.

Now if one and/or the other of these two assumptions is/are true then the result is this. The authority of our sacred scriptures can never be viewed as universally valid or final. It is just one set of texts against another, and in the right context either or neither is correct. We can summarize the position like this. Hermeneutics of sacred texts are the basis of interpreting the scriptures. But if this carried out from the perspective of cultural anthropology or naturalistic psychology, then we must conclude scripture is no longer the final authority. Cultural relativism and environmental determinism, together with any other humanistic anti-biblical concepts can just seep in and gradually take control. This has in effect already been happening. The World Council of Churches, at its Faith and Order Conference in Louvain in 1971 made a documented assertion. This body of so-called Christian leaders declared that it is the contemporary cultural context that determines the meaning, the interpretation and the application of biblical texts. This was a sell out to the opponents of the Christian Faith, and it opened the door for the advent of religious pluralism. My own personal missiology is built on an exclusive position.

We evangelicals will have to be aware of this new mission mentality, especially as it makes our work worthless. It is not even just inclusivist in ethos, which says that Christ is the best of all possible alternatives. It is pluralist in that Jesus is only one of the ways to come to truth and God, and not the truth, the Way and the Life without whom no one can come to God. We must challenge it and many have already begun the fight back. The name of Charles Kraft comes to mind, but there may be a hint of unacceptable compromise in his response. He has been one of the major advocates of the view that we should allow that cultural relativism does shape biblical hermeneutics and concede the argument. His name is linked to what is called ethnotheology which some see as an answer. [Towards an Ethnotheology, in God. Man and Church Growth, 1973]. It was seen as his considered response to the assertion that was made by the World Council of Churches.

But what is ethnotheology? Ethnotheology is an attempt to combine Theology Proper, that is the study of God with  [Biblical] Anthropology, that is the study of Man. Kraft argues that from the study of  modern anthropology we can discover what he calls culturally relevant truths. We can also perceive how meaning is communicated within a culture or between cultures. From Theology Proper we can come only to culturally relative understandings of what may prove to be absolute supracultural truths about God and his provision for human need, and the conditions for receiving it. This draws a line between culturally relative truth, and culturally relative understandings, or may I add opinions. These may eventually prove to be absolute supracultural truth. Even so Kraft allows that culture bound knowledge of supracultural truth may be adequate, but will never be absolute. According to him the line between supracultural truth and cultural expression is uncrossable on this side of eternity. But here is Kraft's compromise. He accepts the fundamental premise that since interpretation of scripture can never be more than an opinion, no purely objective stance is possible. Scripture forfeits its authority through human interpretation, so hermeneutics with all its fine-tuning is still found wanting.

Kraft's attitude towards the sacred scriptures leaves much to be desired where most evangelicals are concerned. He talks of God's absolute truths, but qualifies that by describing them as "embedded in the inspired case book". Revelation is still taking place, but the Bible is the casebook for divine and human interaction, which carries truth beyond what has been written. Since Christ is a historical figure, and His Cross an historical event, some of his opponents argue that it somehow leaves Christ stranded in time. Kraft affirms that the Bible is a divinely inspired collection of texts, but as given in the cultural forms of ancient peoples. It is relevant, and applicable to the culture bound interpreters who were contemporary with it, but thereby is limited in its ultimate authority .

I find there is an element of confusion creeping in here between the issue of the absolute authority of the scriptures and the cultural relativism of theology. All theology is culturally relative, and the Christian world in the West has woken up to that at last. This means that all Hermeneutics as such will be equally culturally conditioned. But we must not confuse the absolutes in God's word with the relative conclusions of culture bound thinking. The scriptures contain supracultural truths because they are a transcendent revelation of God. N .Ericson, writing from an evangelical position has an observation to make on this. He writes: -

"Our western hermeneutic has its roots in the origins of our western society. We therefore fail to see that our applied hermeneutic, i.e. our theology may be based on our western cultural tradition than on the message".

D.J.Hesselgrave offers a helpful reply to that [in Theology and Mission, Baker, 1978, ps.121/3] . It means that both our western hermeneutical tradition and our theology are often monocultural. The divide between East and West begins to occur after the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD, and Christianity became a very westernised affair, leaving the rest of the world to go its own way. Much of theology therefore is now proving to be a very real problem for our non-western colleagues. We have the same scriptures and the same supracultural truths.  In the East they may have to develop their own Hermeneutics, and then formulate their own Theology to express them in their cultural environment. This is not matter of syncretism but of contextualisation of theology.

The advocates of ethnotheology propose that there are what they call three pylons to the hermeneutical bridge whereby we may be able to a way discover the supracultural truths. It has however to be by a de-culturisation if we are ever to cross that uncrossable line. We can begin to do that by:

1. Acknowledging there is a common humanity in which we all participate, that is with the same physical, socio-cultural and psychological needs. [However Kraft himself observed that some anthropologists now say that most forms of cultural relativism are dead. They are searching for universals in the generative  processes of language, structures of mind, and common sense factors];

2. Allowing for the unchanging message of God which we have not lost in translations;

3. Making room for God's ever active Holy Spirit.

Other useful writers on this issue are McQuilkin, "The Behavioral Sciences under the Authority of Scripture", in JETS 20 (1977) ps.31-43; Charles Kraft, Christianity in Culture, 1979; and James Barr, The Bible in the Modern World, 1273. I think however I prefer W.H.Larkin's attempt to build a bridge which is based on five pylons. Here is a helpful quote from his own book [p.303-6].

"Scripture's hermeneutical bridge consists of five elements:

1. human language, which can communicate meaning across time and culture; 2. a faithful God, who speaks eternal and universal truth and illumines it by His Spirit; 3. an inspired and fully authoritative scripture, which purposes to instruct humankind in all generations and cultures; 4. humankind itself, whose unity is m ore basic that its cultural diversity; 5. a historical framework, which sees all humankind since Christ living in the  same time period, the last days."

This of course all leads me on to raise the question of where do we begin to in the task of Christian hermeneutics? By that I mean how do start to interpret Holy scripture? Where is the take off point? To use two technical phrases, is it with orthodoxy, or is it orthopraxis? That is, do we begin with our experiences of life, i.e. our cultural or socio-economic context and work through to scripture to explain our experiences. Or do we begin with scripture and its transcultural truths, form up our theological beliefs and then evaluate our experiences in that light? While most Western theologians may long have forgotten the experiences that shaped their theology, they are realizing that their orthodoxy may have replaced an earlier emphasis upon orthopraxis.This is the age when the two-thirds world is producing its own Contemporary Theologies, e.g. Liberation Theology in South and Central America, Black Theology in Africa, Feminist Theology in the West; and Dalit Theology in India. However the unacceptable face of these theologies where evangelicals are concerned emerges from their approach to biblical Hermeneutics. Let me just quote from three of them to make the point: -

"Feminist interpretation does not begin with dogmatic statements about the authority of scripture and canon, but rather the feminist perspective and praxis" [L.M.Russell, Liberating the Word, 1985]

"Black theology needs a new exegetical starting point..grounded in a material -  epistemology. The social, cultural, political and economic world of the black working class and peasantry constitutes the only valid hermeneutical starting point for black theology of liberation" [Mosala, Black Theology]  

"The important thing is not so much interpreting the text of the scriptures as interpreting life according to the scriptures". [Leonardo Boff]

Social, political, and economic factors are linked with spiritual aspirations as the modern interpreter in the New World allows his own immediate experience and environment to provide the rules for interpreting the scriptures. Socio-critical theories become even more popular as we move from the age of modernism into the age post modernism. A simple but practical illustration of this was the reaction of two distinct socio-economic groups in a South American country to the question put to each of them by a visiting missionary about the text "the poor you will always have with you" [Matt 26: 11]. Their experience of life in terms of poverty and exploitation shaped their interpretation of its content.

We want to be faithful to the text and relevant to our situation so that we can communicate God's truth in a meaningful way. D.A.Carson admits: -

 "We need to insist that all topics are necessarily culture laden. Language is itself a feature of culture. In using language we cannot escape our cultural  locatedness". [The Gagging of God, p.95f]

Really experience and theology are inseparable, they combine in an interdependence that allows us to use each of them to authenticate or validate a starting place. However if it becomes a matter of priority in the task of proper theology I would make the starting place the Word of God, i.e. the written scriptures.. While there are ethnic, racial and national differences in terms of cultural development, there is a common humanity with an underlying supraculture.There are universals, and there is only one human race sharing the same aspirations to be free from oppression, poverty, need and war. God and his recorded revelation have to be the starting point if we are to change our circumstances and make all our experiences meaningful and just. For that reason our orthodoxy can not ignore orthopraxis, liberation from sin in its fullest intent means freedom from everything that is evil, and that touches every area of our life.