# Identifying Historical/Cultural Blind Spots



## ClayPot (Jan 29, 2012)

How does one "get out" of their historical/cultural setting to discover theological blind spots? e.g., I presume everyone on PB would condemn the racial slavery existing in early America. When we look back on Christians who defended the practice, we are aghast. 

And what about beliefs that we accept today that are clearly out of sync with the early church? e.g., the early church almost universally condemned the practice of contraception. It is now the accepted practice in the Christian community (and of course the larger culture). Many would look back and say that the early church was merely a product of their time in their view of the issue. However, how do we know it isn't us who are blinded by the larger culture?

Ultimately, it boils down to discerning what God says on a matter. But how do we identify biases introduced by our culture, tradition, time period, etc., so as to rightly divide the word of God?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 29, 2012)

Yes, I believe that in heaven, looking back on this current era, we will marvel at the cultural blindness in regards to: 

(1) the ready acceptance of contraception, 

(2) the immodesty of the culture, and even little girls in commercials and on tv that are dressed inappropriately, 

(3) the compromise of the church in regards to evolution, falsely believing that there is a way to accept both the bible and any form of Darwinianism, 

(4) The ready acceptance of homosexuality,

(5) The materialism and the unhappiness despite the poor in this era living better than noblemen of centuries past.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (Jan 29, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I believe that in heaven, looking back on this current era, we will marvel at the cultural blindness in regards to:
> 
> (1) the ready acceptance of contraception,
> 
> ...



the ready acceptance of lawless deeds and activities as a innocent source entertainment and amusement (i.e. the TV, internet, movies, and some sports that portay these things)


----------



## ClayPot (Jan 30, 2012)

Thanks for your replies. Does anyone have thoughts on how to identify biases introduced by our culture, tradition, time period, etc., so as to rightly divide the word of God?


----------



## J. Dean (Jan 30, 2012)

jpfrench81 said:


> Thanks for your replies. Does anyone have thoughts on how to identify biases introduced by our culture, tradition, time period, etc., so as to rightly divide the word of God?



To be honest, a lot of it has to do with simply getting more into the Scriptures and allowing them to shape us properly. Where Scripture speaks, we must listen.

At the same time however, we need to differentiate with care, because some issues are "meat offered to idol" issues that are a matter of conscience. While there are many culturally acceptable things that are clear violations of the Christian faith, there are also some that are not.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 30, 2012)

jpfrench81 said:


> How does one "get out" of their historical/cultural setting to discover theological blind spots?



You can (by reading) try to really get inside the mindset of another culture or another time. But even that is of limited utility, not only because it is imperfectly realized, but also because they didn’t necessarily speak to the areas of blindness here and now.
I think many of our ancestors would be genuinely shocked and horrified at the egalitarianism that is so pervasive it hardly occurs to notice it. For us
“_When Adam delved and Eve span
Who then was a gentleman?_
is no longer a radical question.


----------



## Philip (Jan 30, 2012)

I think that we will be shocked at the extent to which we (Americans) bought unquestioningly into classical liberalism, the language of "rights" rather than responsibilities, and a general mentality of _sola bootstrapsa_.


----------



## J. Dean (Jan 30, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I think that we will be shocked at the extent to which we (Americans) bought unquestioningly into classical liberalism, the language of "rights" rather than responsibilities, and a general mentality of _sola bootstrapsa_.


R.C. Sproul made this point at a conference once and said that we are all saved while still stained to a degree with our culture's paganism. 

All I can say is thank God for grace on those "blind spots."


----------



## JS116 (Jan 30, 2012)

I think I get the question,but honestly as of right now I don't have an answer.

I will say in history,it has never been and never will be beneficial for the church to know the possibility of potential blind spots and not try to find them or weed out issues biblically.We slide down a slippery slope if we embrace anything because it's acceptable in our culture,we should keep in mind this world is pushing away from God and not towards him.If we get too comfortable we compromise,so we have to constantly be willing to examine our thoughts and hearts if we want to continue to reform and not conform.

My


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Jan 30, 2012)

It is rather shocking to see such anti-womanhood-anti-maternal substance deemed feminine or (feminist) in our day.
It is just as odd to see the masculine male attributes (even fatherhood) debased and overshadowed with effiminate tones.
This seems to be a day which stands on its head.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 30, 2012)

It helps to spend time living among believers of a different culture. Not a cure-all, but it can help.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 30, 2012)

Jack K said:


> It helps to spend time living among believers of a different culture. Not a cure-all, but it can help.



Jack, I think you have made an important point. Each of us are born into a culture which serves as our baseline. We naturally assume that what is, is what ought to be. I would argue that with a solid grounding in the Scriptures one could then study widely different peoples and cultures (including our own) holding them all to the scrutiny of the Word of God. Couple this with a broad understanding of human history and we might just begin to have the objectivity to critique culture.


----------



## Miss Marple (Jan 30, 2012)

Our American prison system comes to mind. I'd rather be arrested in the USA than anywhere else I know of in the world, don't get me wrong. The jury system, the presumption of innocence, habaeus (sp?) corpus, the right of appeal, the ability of a spouse not to testify, no torture allowed, the need for supporting evidence, even a free press are all very helpful.

However, prison rape seems to be an object of casual mockery. I find it appalling. It seems to me people in prisons should be in single cells so as to avoid abuse. Some are innocent. Those who are guilty are not (biblically) to be subject to being tortured by fellow inmates.

Also, the whole concept of prison is head-scratching. Aside from a (safe) place to keep someone for trial, I don't see a biblical warrant. I'd favor restitution (or death), which is more humane for the guilty, the victim, and society at large in my view. But aside from civil trials (where the "restitution" gets beyond all proportion), there seems to be no concept of restitution in our current American culture. It seems to me the most obvious of justice.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 30, 2012)

The American mindset of spirituality seems to be private bible study, alone, whereas many cultures are more communal. I believe this is a cultural blindspot on our part.

Also, historically, I believe past centuries held to a historical blindspot concerning their views on church and state.


----------



## Edward (Jan 30, 2012)

jpfrench81 said:


> presume everyone on PB would condemn the racial slavery existing in early America. When we look back on Christians who defended the practice, we are aghast. And what about beliefs that we accept today that are clearly out of sync with the early church? e.g., the early church almost universally condemned the practice of contraception.



Do you not see the inconsistency of what you wrote? You condemn slavery because it is out of touch with modern views, but would have been accepted in the early church, but then use the early church to attack the modern views of contraception. 

Do not test against a time; test against scripture.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Jan 30, 2012)

Humanism in many forms. Anybody ever read the book, "How Should We Then Live?" by Francis A. Schaeffer? It is basically about highlighting key moments in history that helped shape our modern day culture. Basically, we took very simple issues and made them more intricate.


----------



## MW (Jan 30, 2012)

jpfrench81 said:


> When we look back on Christians



It seems to me that you have mostly answered your own question by this appeal to history. Looking back into history and having an awareness of our development from it certainly provides an helpful looking glass.


----------



## ClayPot (Jan 30, 2012)

Edward said:


> jpfrench81 said:
> 
> 
> > presume everyone on PB would condemn the racial slavery existing in early America. When we look back on Christians who defended the practice, we are aghast. And what about beliefs that we accept today that are clearly out of sync with the early church? e.g., the early church almost universally condemned the practice of contraception.
> ...




Edward,

If you read what I wrote again, I do not state a reason for why I believe racial slavery is to be condemned. It would be a travesty to hold that something is morally wrong (or right) simply because the culture one lives in finds it acceptable. I certainly do not believe slavery is wrong because it goes against our modern sensibilities. I was simply using this as an illustration of a cultural blind spot.


----------



## Andres (Jan 31, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I believe that in heaven, looking back on this current era, we will marvel at the cultural blindness in regards to:
> 
> (1) the ready acceptance of contraception,
> 
> ...



I'll add the high divorce-rate indicative of divorce being an easy-out when marriage isn't all roses.


----------



## Edward (Jan 31, 2012)

jpfrench81 said:


> I do not state a reason for why I believe racial slavery is to be condemned.



You certainly can't think it can be condemned based upon the early church, which you then appeal to as your standard. If you want to look to the early church, you should advocate for slavery, not against it.


----------



## Philip (Jan 31, 2012)

Edward said:


> You certainly can't think it can be condemned based upon the early church



You think that the early church would have approved of race-based chattel slavery?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 31, 2012)

Just so, Philip, there's no clear race-based slavery until later in the Middle Ages, coming into Western consciousness with the beginning of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Classic works by David Brion Davis, Winthrop Jordan, et al. point this out. So do a number of more recent works, incuding one of Covenant's professors, Ken Stewart, in the last of the myths that he discusses in his _Ten Myths about Calvinism_.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2012)

Alan, 

Thanks...I would love to read those works if you have more specific links to where to buy or read these works or the specific titles of such works. Thanks.


----------



## Andres (Jan 31, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> Alan,
> 
> Thanks...I would love to read those works if you have more specific links to where to buy or read these works or the specific titles of such works. Thanks.



Let me Google that for you... 

Sorry Perg, couldn't resist.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 31, 2012)

Perg:

Ken Stewart's book is a new one and can be obtained at Amazon. Those other fellows were some of the leading scholars of earlier years: I vividly remember meeting David Brion Davis in 1984 when I was doing a Masters in Colonial American History at William and Mary. He was quite amazing. He was Sterling Professor of History at Yale for many years. Perhaps his most well known work is _The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture_. 

And Winthrop Jordan's _White over Black_ is worth perusing. Recently, I have also found quite interesting David M. Whitford's _Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era: The Bible and Justifications for Slavery_ (Ashgate, 2009). I do not necessarily agree, obviously, with everything in these books (or any book, but the Bible). 

I don't want simply to keep adding authors and titles but Eugene Genovese just comes to mind. Google him and see some of the magnificent books that he has on slavery and allied topics (he is a Roman Catholic convert from Marxism). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## ClayPot (Jan 31, 2012)

Edward said:


> jpfrench81 said:
> 
> 
> > I do not state a reason for why I believe racial slavery is to be condemned.
> ...



Edward,

Where did I appeal to the early church as my standard regarding the morality of slavery? I referenced it in relation to the issue of contraception (in terms of what has been historically believed), but not slavery unless I am misreading myself. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your posts, but you seem to think I am advocating a position regarding slavery and contraception. I am not (though I have opinions about both based on my understanding of Scripture). I am simply pointing out that the overall Christian church has had different opinions on these issues at various times, and I am wondering how we work to get outside of our time/tradition to discern what the Bible actually teaches.


----------



## chuckd (Feb 19, 2012)

jpfrench81 said:


> Thanks for your replies. Does anyone have thoughts on how to identify biases introduced by our culture, tradition, time period, etc., so as to rightly divide the word of God?



Although, of course, we should allow Scripture to shape our understanding of the world, we will always read it with a certain bias. This goes for any book for that matter. I think it has been suggested, but to [begin] to identify biases would be to read works that are immune to it. For example, we live in a postmodern world. If you want to identify any biases this philosophy has on our understanding, read works that predate postmodernism. Or modernism. Or the Enlightenment. James K.A. Smith devotes a few chapters to this in his book Introducing Radical Orthodoxy.

Another bias would be feminism. Many Scriptures today are interpreted in a way that allow for feminism. Head coverings (1 Cor. 11), for example, are largely interpreted as cultural and do not need to be observed. However, most works that are immune/predate feminism will interpret that the tradition of head coverings should be observed.

Culturally, read other culture's theology. For example, there is work on a sino-theology (Chinese). Today, Enoch Wan from Western Seminary devotes much of his time considering Chinese thoughts, culture, tradition, philosophy, and shaping a theology that makes sense to them.

Now, once the biases are identified, how to rightly divide which is right or wrong, or if there a right or wrong on every issue, is much more complicated and way over my pay grade. We have to keep in mind though that we are all looking through a mirror dimly (1 Cor. 13:12) and this thread points it out.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 19, 2012)

Andres said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Alan,
> ...



Thank you for your tireless work on my behalf......_."SOMEONE GET THAT MAN A MEDAL!"_

---------- Post added at 12:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 AM ----------




Alan D. Strange said:


> Perg:
> 
> Ken Stewart's book is a new one and can be obtained at Amazon. Those other fellows were some of the leading scholars of earlier years: I vividly remember meeting David Brion Davis in 1984 when I was doing a Masters in Colonial American History at William and Mary. He was quite amazing. He was Sterling Professor of History at Yale for many years. Perhaps his most well known work is _The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture_.
> 
> ...



Thanks. I am looking into that Curse of Ham book now.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 20, 2012)

jpfrench81 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > jpfrench81 said:
> ...


Josh, if you go back and reread what you wrote in the OP the topic of the paragraph moves in such a way that I read it the same way Edward did. A paragraph is supposed to be topical and seems to run a thought process that I believe is supposed to be tied all together. 


jpfrench81 said:


> And what about beliefs that we accept today that are clearly out of sync with the early church?



The above was your connecting sentence of what you desired to be transitive. It did transfer but maybe not the way you wanted it to.

To answer the OP I would suggest that scripture is the way to help us recognize our blind spots. The scripture's addressing cultural issues in light of God's will has always been key to causing revival of truth and stirring the hearts of men for change. William Wilberforce, Martin Luther, St. Augustine, St. Paul, and our prime head Jesus Christ all addressed cultural issues in light of God's word and changed the world. Sure we can all distort the word of God for our own purposes as Satan tried to do with Jesus Christ in Matthew 4. But our LORD is capable of revealing truth and overcoming all sin by His Spirit and Word.


----------



## Edward (Feb 20, 2012)

jpfrench81 said:


> Where did I appeal to the early church as my standard regarding the morality of slavery?


You raise two issues - slavery and contraception. You look to the early church for authority on how to deal with one, but ignore it as to how to deal with the other. Either you should use the Roman Catholic standards of using the traditions of the church to set your standards, or you should use the Biblical standards of the reformed faith. But you shouldn't pick and choose between the two approaches to get the result mandated by the current culture as to one, but not the other. 


jpfrench81 said:


> How does one "get out" of their historical/cultural setting to discover theological blind spots? e.g., I presume everyone on PB would condemn the racial slavery existing in early America. When we look back on Christians who defended the practice, we are aghast. And what about beliefs that we accept today that are clearly out of sync with the early church? e.g., the early church almost universally condemned the practice of contraception.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 20, 2012)

Well, the easy answer is to strip it all down to _sola scriptura_ and go from there. But everyone has cultural issues, even the reformers (take a look at what 'witchcraft' was responsible for, even in Geneva). To me though, that's the great danger - once we start the process of discernment and discount this or that due to 'cultural considerations', we are soon left with a gutted OT/NT because _everything_ is in a cultural context.


----------



## JS116 (Feb 20, 2012)

I hate to be repetitive buttt...I think this will be helpful because it addresses some of the same questions here.

Audio/Video for the Jonathan Edwards, Slavery, and Theology Lecture Available – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile

Skip towards the end if you HAVE to hear the QnA.


----------



## chuckd (Feb 20, 2012)

Edward said:


> You raise two issues - slavery and contraception. You look to the early church for authority on how to deal with one, but ignore it as to how to deal with the other. Either you should use the Roman Catholic standards of using the traditions of the church to set your standards, or *you should use the Biblical standards of the reformed faith. But you shouldn't pick and choose between the two approaches to get the result mandated by the current culture as to one, but not the other.*





kvanlaan said:


> Well, the easy answer is to strip it all down to _sola scriptura_ and go from there. But everyone has cultural issues, even the reformers (take a look at what 'witchcraft' was responsible for, even in Geneva). To me though, that's the great danger - *once we start the process of discernment and discount this or that due to 'cultural considerations', we are soon left with a gutted OT/NT because everything is in a cultural context.*



Do your churches practice head coverings? I'm not sure of any Reformed theologian who spoke against them prior to 1900. Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc. all taught to observe it.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 20, 2012)

Chuck,

Don't forget that Luther, Calvin, Knox, et al were all influenced by culture on the issue of headcoverings, too.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 20, 2012)

Calvin, at any rate, taught it as a point of decorum, not an intrinsically necessary point. Consider his words about men not covering their heads.



> Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has
> established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head,
> when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the
> woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his
> ...


----------



## Edward (Feb 20, 2012)

chuckd said:


> I'm not sure of any Reformed theologian who spoke against them prior to 1900.



What Reformed theologians have spoken *against* head covering since 1900?


----------



## chuckd (Feb 20, 2012)

Pergamum said:


> Chuck,
> 
> Don't forget that Luther, Calvin, Knox, et al were all influenced by culture on the issue of headcoverings, too.



I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm just identifying cultural blind spots. Meaning headcoverings were observed by [most-all] theologians prior to the 20th century. In the 20th century, the understanding of 1 Cor. 11 shifted to headcoverings as being a specific, cultural observance of the 1st century church, maybe Corinth alone, and not binding for today's church. This to me is a cultural blind spot. To me, it's obvious that today's theologians have been influenced by feminism.

Now, whether or not headcoverings should or should not be observed, whether feminism did good things in our understanding for certain passages, or whether we'll ever know these questions on this side of eternity is beyond me and (I thought) *not the point of this thread*. We are simply _identifying_ cultural blind spots.

Another huge cultural blind spot is America's obsession with individual liberty. Bill of Rights, get the government out of my life, Republican v. Democratic propaganda, is not only in the news, but within conversations in the church. When I hear about taxes, individual liberty, personal "rights", etc. from others in the church, I wonder if they came to their conclusions based on a careful exegesis of some specific passage or if it is only American culture speaking.



Edward said:


> What Reformed theologians have spoken *against* head covering since 1900?



Granted...poor choice of wording. Most hold that the tradition is not binding anymore.



py3ak said:


> Calvin, at any rate, taught it as a point of decorum, not an intrinsically necessary point. Consider his words about men not covering their heads.



haha..."catching a cold." Is this from his same sermon that he discusses the natural end of women uncovering her head is uncovering her breasts?


----------



## ClayPot (Feb 21, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The above was your connecting sentence of what you desired to be transitive. It did transfer but maybe not the way you wanted it to.



Thanks for clarifying where the confusion lies.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 21, 2012)

chuckd said:


> haha..."catching a cold." Is this from his same sermon that he discusses the natural end of women uncovering her head is uncovering her breasts?



It's from his commentary on 1 Corinthians.


----------

