What this article shows is that Asians and Americans have different outlooks on how they view themselves. I think this has to do with context as well as values that each culture inhibits. Americans, or to put it in a general term, westerners have this guilt based complexity. What this means is westerners has this "I am good" concept wired in them. Although this is way too general to state with precision, but westerners are far more confident in their opinions, having a strong self belief in their capabilities, and a general motivation of self improvement.
Asians on the other hand struggle in these things. There is a complexity that looks at themselves as second rate or worse compared to a certain group or people in authority. In this manner Asians tend to shy away from voicing out their opinions or views by fear of rejection and criticism. They have a culture of high respect for authorities, so much so that one is obligated to accept anything or everything a high ranking official or authority figure says. This is what the author of the article calls people in a shame based complex. Again an oversimplification of descriptive projection, but the general understand of the projection is true to my experience of things.
I'm not trying to put up a summary on the article as a whole but just to show how cultural context as well as values also play in how we are to present a faithful projection of biblical teaching on certain doctrines. I am not at all saying that theology is governed only by context and culture but these two things are worth considering when we are in the business of communicating. The scripture has the capacity of being vast enough to capture the imagination of each cultural context. So with the doctrine of atonement for this matter, what we need is a more robust outlook to its meaning, i mean there are four theories that are always mentioned upon which penal substitution always gets the spotlight. To me, every theory 'works'. One does not capture the whole although some would disagree. Like for this article, some cultures might not grasp the message fully following one view. So, since the atonement can't be pinned down, it's theory, why get into all the fuss in just having one view and not use the wide biblical array of expression to capture the minds of a specific culture?
I was motivated to think through atonement because these fellow bloggers have been blogging about it the last few weeks. Check them out.
Discussing the atonement when it is no longer cool
Atonement and the warfare worldview
Penal Substitutionary Atonement
2 comments:
Hi Jon (can I call you that?),
I guess I should reciprocate and leave a comment on your blog considering you have done so on mine a few times. :)
I was interested in your thoughts. I am, of course, an Asian myself, and I work mainly amongst East Asian non-Christian students. I am sympathetic to the point that we all are, to some extent, culturally conditioned, and I'm also glad you sought to clarify that Scripture speaks to every culture. There is merit in distinguishing between guilt and shame-based cultures, and I use this framework myself.
I also agree that Scripture uses a wide array of metaphors or angles, if you like, to describe the atonement, and that we should make use of this variety more often, especially in cross-cultural contexts. Also, we shouldn't be too quick to read a monolithic understanding of penal substitution into every biblical text that touches on the atonement.
Nonetheless, I do think we can't simply jettison penal substitution. Most importantly, because it's biblical! :) One of the frustrations of using terms such as "theory" and "model" (and I use it myself), is that we get sucked into thinking that we can pick and choose which "theory/model" we like. John Stott and I Howard Marshall, for eg., contend that penal substitution isn't simply a theory, but foundational in the wide variety of expressions used about the atonement. Christus Victor, for eg., needs penal substitution to be coherent. (I haven't read it, but apparently Henri Blocher has written a superb article showing the relationship between the two). So I think it's not so much about putting penal substitution on the shelf, but finding creative new ways to tell the Christian Story, of which penal substitution plays an indispensable, although not the only, part.
I've just recently come back from visiting an East Asian friend of mine. He became a Christian less than a year ago upon hearing this Story and is persevering in the faith. So yes, it is possible if not easy! Anyway, God can use our feeblest efforts :)
I confess to being frustrated with the article/Powerpoint you linked as well, as it's honestly a complete caricature of penal substitution. eg. page 15, which, amongst other things, states that those who hold to penal substitution see "sin as wrong action, thoughts, activites", "Cross comes between the Father and the Son" and "is about debt-forgiveness" - I completely fail to recognise this as penal substitution! Or page 10: "The Son seems like a innocent victim..." Hmmm, maybe the clue is that this is an "American Fundamentalist understanding"??? Though I should be nice, it does have some thought-provoking stuff: thinking through how "debt-language" works with Asians is certainly worth pondering more on, and we (or me anyway) should definitely think more about union with Christ!
Aiyoh, write too long already...my ceramah is over...
BK,
Haha, jon would be just fine thank you. Thanks for your thoughts on the subject, or rather ceramah...haha. I like what you said here:
"So I think it's not so much about putting penal substitution on the shelf, but finding creative new ways to tell the Christian Story, of which penal substitution plays an indispensable, although not the only, part."
I must say that at the moment im still a student that is swimming in the streams of the debates. I don't have big problems with atonement in actual fact but reading stuff around the net and from books lately made me interested in what the whole issue is about. You do have substantial stuff to say here in addressing that we need the whole Christian story to actually tell "of which penal substitution plays an indispensable, although not the only, part."
Maybe i did mention that "So, since the atonement can't be pinned down, it's theory, why get into all the fuss in just having one view and not use the wide biblical array of expression to capture the minds of a specific culture?". To rephrase the statement, i did want to mean why not we use the wider corpus of thought displayed in the scripture explaining the atonement. But you did mention that penal substitution is "foundational in the wide variety of expressions used about the atonement." I will have to do a more through study on this before i mention anything at the moment though, although i am open to correction hehe.
But my initial views are lets not get too tied up in 'theories' or 'one metaphors' kind of thing. Is that a possibility? I'm still asking but the thought resonates with me.
And on the last paragraph of your comment, the explanation is from a western thought school. Some explanations were simplistic i must add. But yes i was drawn initially draws on his description of Asian thinking on "debt-language".
Wow, now i'm more like doing a ceramah as well. It's interesting to hear your views on this though. I must add that I have been drinking too much on emerging/emergent theology. Good thoughts! I think i might do a through 'blog post' on it in the future. Will be plowing books till then!
blessings
Post a Comment