Latest / Reformed Thinking / Contextualizing Theology

Transcript

Contextualizing Theology · Reformed Thinking

0:00
You know when you purchase a brand new piece of software
0:02
today, you carry this very specific expectation in your
0:07
head about compatibility. Oh for sure, You just assume
0:10
it's going to. Work right?
0:11
You assume that when you click the download button, that
0:14
progress bar will fill up and the new application will run
0:17
Florida State on your machine. Yeah, you assume the developers
0:20
coded it to match your current operating system.
0:23
Totally. It is the baseline expectation
0:26
for technology. The operating system recognizes
0:29
the code, translates the instructions, and executes the
0:32
commands. And you never even have to think
0:34
about the background processes, you know, It just happens
0:37
seamlessly. But imagine taking a massive
0:40
life altering software update, something that promises to fix
0:44
every single bug in your system. OK, I am picturing it.
0:47
And imagine trying to install that update on a piece of
0:50
hardware that was built 2000 years ago.
0:52
Oh. Wow, that would be a disaster.
0:54
Yeah, it is like bringing a modern solid-state drive back to
0:58
the Roman Empire and trying to plug it into a wooden Atticus.
1:00
Right, that seamless compatibility is completely
1:03
broken at that point. We are looking at a
1:05
communication gap that is just staggering.
1:09
How do we take the absolute, unchangeable truths of Scripture
1:14
and communicate them to a modern world that thinks and processes
1:18
reality so differently? That is the big question.
1:21
They view the cosmos completely differently than the original
1:25
biblical audience did. Welcome to Reformed Thinking.
1:28
I'm glad you're joining us for this new deep dive.
1:30
We are super excited to get into this one.
1:33
Today we are bringing you an analysis of some highly relevant
1:36
source material. We are looking at excerpts from
1:38
Miller, J Christian Theology. Specifically, we are focusing on
1:42
his section regarding the critical task of contextualizing
1:46
theology. So our mission for this deep
1:48
dive is highly specific. Yes, it is.
1:50
We need to figure out how to separate the fixed core of
1:52
Christian doctrine from the temporary cultural rappers it
1:55
originally arrived in. And by that we mean the faith
1:58
once delivered, as we understand it, in Reformed theology.
2:00
Right. And we have to do this without
2:02
losing a single drop of biblical truth.
2:04
It requires, well, surgical precision.
2:07
It really does. And before we get going, let us
2:09
establish a ground rule for our chat today.
2:11
Sounds good. We have a lot of dense material,
2:14
so we're going to keep a conversational, respectful
2:17
rhythm. We will let each other finish
2:19
our thoughts fully without talking over one another.
2:22
I love that a steady pace will help us unpack all these layers
2:25
clearly. So before we can fix this
2:28
massive communication problem, we have to grasp how huge the
2:32
gap actually is between the biblical world and the world you
2:35
and I live in today. Yeah, the hardware and the
2:37
software are speaking completely different languages.
2:39
The challenge of intelligibility is the very first hurdle Erikson
2:44
identifies in the text. Erikson brings up Rudolf boltman
2:54
He does. Boltmann was a highly
2:57
influential German New Testament scholar from the mid 20th
3:00
century. He published a famous essay in
3:02
1941 that introduced A radical concept.
3:06
Yeah, he called it demythologization.
3:08
Let's breakdown what Boltmann meant by that.
3:10
You have to remember he was writing right in the middle of a
3:12
world that was rapidly advancing in science and technology.
3:16
Right and Boltmann looked at the biblical writers and argued that
3:19
they viewed reality through the lens of a flat 3 level universe.
3:23
The ancient cosmological view. Precisely.
3:27
Boltman pointed out that the 1st century mind pictured A literal
3:31
spatial heaven up above the clouds.
3:34
Right, inhabited by God and angelic being.
3:37
Yeah, and they picture the Earth right in the middle, functioning
3:39
as the stage for human history. And then a literal hell down
3:43
below. Spot on an underworld populated
3:46
by the devil and demonic forces physically located down below
3:49
the surface of the Earth. So Boltman argued that in that
3:52
ancient worldview, almost everything that happened on
3:55
Earth Earth was attributed to the direct intervention of those
3:58
angels and demons. If a storm rolled in and
4:01
destroyed a crop, it was seen as a spiritual attack.
4:04
Or if someone fell violently I'll with a seizure or a high
4:07
fever. Yeah, the immediate explanation
4:08
for that illness was often demon possession or a divine curse.
4:12
And Boltman recognized that the scientific revolution completely
4:16
dismantled that framework for the modern mind.
4:19
Totally. I mean, we know the Earth is a
4:21
sphere orbiting a star in a massive Galaxy.
4:24
Right, not a flat plane with a solid Dome over it.
4:27
And we know that illnesses are caused by microscopic bacteria,
4:30
viruses and genetic mutations. So we treat a fever with modern
4:34
medicine, not by casting out a localized spirit.
4:37
Because of all this, Boltman believed modern science rendered
4:41
the ancient biblical worldview completely obsolete.
4:44
His solution was to propose that modern people simply cannot
4:47
accept this mythical picture of the universe anymore.
4:50
Now we should clarify when he used the word myth, he did not
4:54
mean a fairy tale. Right in his academic framework,
4:57
a myth was just the story ancient people used to explain
4:59
the unexplainable. Yeah, Bultman did not actually
5:02
want to throw the Bible away. Instead, he wanted to
5:05
demythologize it. He wanted to strip away all the
5:07
physical miracles. And the literal resurrections
5:10
and the supernatural interventions.
5:12
He wanted to reinterpret those ancient texts as mere
5:15
existential truths. He was heavily influenced by the
5:18
existentialist philosophy of Martin Heidegger.
5:21
Right, Boltman thought the true value of the New Testament was
5:24
not in its historical claims. Instead, he saw its value in its
5:28
ability to challenge human beings to live authentically in
5:32
the present moment. He essentially wanted to keep
5:34
the emotional sentiment of the text well, discarding the
5:38
supernatural mechanics. This introduces an intense
5:41
psychological clash for the modern believer today.
5:44
It really does. Erickson points out a very
5:47
uncomfortable reality that many Christians face.
5:50
The average believer attempts to live in 2 completely
5:52
contradictory worlds. Yeah, at least to a sort of
5:55
theological cognitive dissonance.
5:58
Erickson frames this as the Sunday morning versus Monday
6:00
morning divide. Think about the typical Sunday
6:02
morning for a second. Between 11:00 and noon,
6:05
believers sit in a Pew. And they mentally inhabit a
6:08
universe where the laws of physics are routinely suspended.
6:11
They sing about and listen to stories where iron axe heads
6:14
float to the surface of a river. Where bodies of water part on
6:17
command and where donkeys speak with human voices.
6:21
Where men walk on the surface of an angry sea.
6:24
And where a dead man walks out of a tomb after three days,
6:27
believers accept the virgin birth as a historical fact.
6:31
But, and here's the friction, The moment the benediction
6:34
finishes, that same believer walks out the doors.
6:38
Right. They step into a world governed
6:39
entirely by the rigid laws of cause and effect.
6:42
You walk to the parking lot and drive away in a vehicle relying
6:45
on internal combustion and satellite GPS navigation.
6:48
You go home to a climate controlled house wired with
6:51
electricity. And when you develop a severe
6:53
bacterial infection on a Tuesday afternoon, you might pray for
6:57
healing. But you absolutely get in your
6:59
car, drive to a medical clinic and ask a doctor for
7:03
antibiotics. Erickson asks a very blunt,
7:06
piercing question about this How long can a person maintain this
7:10
kind of mental split? Yeah, how long can you keep your
7:12
religious beliefs in a sealed compartment, completely separate
7:16
from your daily practical life? Now Boltman's solution of
7:19
discarding the miracles was radical.
7:21
Oh, absolutely. And from a Reformed perspective,
7:24
it completely undermines the historical reality of the
7:27
Christian faith. But we have to admit, Bultman
7:30
correctly identified the intense friction modern people
7:33
experience when reading ancient texts.
7:35
He did, and the gap we are dealing with is not just
7:38
scientific, it is intensely theological, which creates an
7:42
even larger barrier. This collision is especially
7:45
stark for those holding to a Reformed theological framework
7:48
adhering to the Westminster Confession.
7:50
The Bible declares God as the absolute transcendent sovereign.
7:55
It presents a universe where God is Lord over all human lives,
7:59
dictating morality and demanding obedience.
8:02
Furthermore, the Reformed tradition highlights the
8:04
biblical teaching regarding human nature.
8:06
It teaches that humanity is fallen, corrupted by sin, and
8:10
naturally inclined toward rebellion and self-interest.
8:13
A concept known as total depravity.
8:15
Right. This means human beings are
8:17
incapable of saving themselves or even desiring God without
8:21
divine intervention. Now compare that biblical
8:24
framework work to the modern secular environment you and I
8:27
inhabit today. The old cultural structures of
8:29
absolute, unquestioned authority have crumbled.
8:32
Modern Western culture places the autonomous individual at the
8:36
absolute center of the universe. The highest cultural good is
8:39
personal expression and individual rights.
8:42
Often completely detached from any sense of absolute moral
8:45
responsibility. Modern psychology and sociology
8:48
frequently insist that human nature is basically good.
8:51
The prevailing cultural narrative suggests that if a
8:53
person out, it is likely due to a poor environment.
8:57
Or lack of education or societal oppression.
9:00
The secular world preaches a gospel of self esteem,
9:03
suggesting that humanity simply needs positive reinforcement to
9:07
reach its full potential. That is a head on collision.
9:10
The cultural demand for absolute personal autonomy violently
9:14
crashes into the biblical teaching of divine sovereignty.
9:17
And total human depravity. When a modern secular person
9:20
hears the traditional Reformed message, it does not just sound
9:24
confusing. No, it sounds offensive.
9:26
It sounds entirely alien to their baseline assumptions about
9:28
reality. This friction prevents many
9:30
people today from even considering the claims of
9:33
Christianity. But Erickson pushes the
9:35
conversation further. We have to realize this is not
9:37
just a chronological issue. Right.
9:39
It is not simply ancient times versus modern times.
9:43
It is a massive geographical and cultural issue happening across
9:47
the globe right now. Ericsson makes some fascinating
9:50
observations about global Christianity to prove this
9:53
point. For centuries, the default
9:57
assumed model of Christianity was distinctly European or North
10:01
American. Missionaries from the West would
10:03
travel to other continents and prescribe their specific
10:06
localized cultural practices. They treated their local habits
10:10
as the absolute biblical standard.
10:12
They exported their architecture and their social customs
10:15
alongside the Gospel. You would see missionaries
10:17
building church structures in Nairobi, Kenya or rural India
10:20
designed with steep steeples and stained glass.
10:23
Looking like they were plucked straight out of a suburb in
10:25
Nashville, TN, OR. London, England, England.
10:28
They exported Western hymnity, complete with four part harmony
10:31
and pipe organs. While actively forbidding native
10:34
musical styles, in some historical cases, they banned
10:37
the use of drums in African churches.
10:39
Or clapping in Latin American services, viewing those native
10:42
expressions as inherently secular or Pagan.
10:45
They confuse their localized cultural habits with eternal
10:49
biblical doctrine. They assumed that to be a good
10:51
Christian, a person first had to become a good Westerner.
10:55
That is a tragic misunderstanding of the Gospels
10:57
capability to cross cultural lines.
11:00
It really is. And today, the explosive growth
11:03
of vital, robust Christianity is not happening in the traditional
11:08
centers of North America. Or Western Europe.
11:10
The massive demographic shifts show Christianity booming in
11:13
Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe.
11:17
Ericsson shares anecdotes from his own extensive travels to
11:20
illustrate this. He shows how the cultural
11:22
wrapper of worship changes wildly while the core remains
11:25
intact. He writes about spending a month
11:28
in one particular Asian country visiting numerous local
11:31
congregations. He noted the extreme physical
11:33
reserve of the culture. In a whole month of church
11:36
services, he was hugged exactly one time.
11:39
Then he contrasts that with a trip to a Latin American
11:41
country. Yeah, at his very first Sunday
11:43
service there, he received a crash course in cultural warmth.
11:46
He was greeted with enthusiastic cheek kissing by nearly everyone
11:51
in the congregation. The theology of Christian
11:54
fellowship was identical in both places, but the cultural
11:57
expression was vastly different. He also highlights the
12:01
incredible variety of physical postures and worship around the
12:04
world. He visited churches in some
12:07
regions where the wooden pews had fold down desk pops attached
12:11
to the back of the row in front of.
12:12
Them the congregation used these desks to take rigorous,
12:16
extensive notes during the sermon.
12:18
Treating the service almost like an intense university lecture.
12:21
In stark contrast, he visited other Global Services where the
12:25
worshippers literally threw themselves face down on the dirt
12:28
floor. In absolute overwhelming
12:31
reverence during prayer. The core take away from these
12:33
global examples is that the Christian message possesses a
12:36
unique elasticity. It is fully capable of being
12:39
expressed in culturally appropriate ways across
12:42
incredibly diverse settings. In fact, believers in the global
12:45
S have adopted and highlighted dimensions of biblical practice
12:49
that Western Christians have largely ignored.
12:51
Like communal support and physical reverence.
12:54
So we are dealing with an urgent need for translation, not just
12:57
across time, but across zip codes and continents.
13:01
And since the cultural gaps in time and geography are so vast,
13:04
we are forced to ask a fundamental question.
13:07
We have to identify the actual anchor.
13:10
If the cultural rapper is constantly changing, what is the
13:13
permanent item that defines genuine Christianity?
13:16
Erickson outlines 4 distinct alternative views that various
13:21
theological camps have proposed over the last century.
13:23
Let's breakdown those 4 views. Understanding where other groups
13:27
have placed their anchor helps us see the pitfalls.
13:30
The first answer many people give is that the permanent
13:32
unchangeable element is an institution.
13:35
This is primarily the traditional Roman Catholic view.
13:38
In this view, theologians argue that while specific teachings
13:41
and moral applications might shift over centuries, the
13:44
structural continuity of the church is the constant.
13:47
They point to the concept of Apostolic succession, the
13:50
unbroken line of bishops tracing all the way back to the Apostle
13:53
Peter. For them, the physical
13:55
organization structure is the thread holding history together.
13:58
The second answer gained a lot of traction among Protestant
14:02
scholars in the 20th century. This view proposes that the
14:05
permanent element is found exclusively in the acts of God.
14:08
You will often hear this referred to by the German
14:11
theological term. It translates to salvation
14:15
history. Proponents of this school, like
14:17
G Ernest Wright, argued that the permanent elements of the faith
14:21
are the massive historical events themselves.
14:23
They focus on the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, the
14:26
conquest of Canaan, the incarnation of Christ, and the
14:29
crucifixion. The nuance here is that they
14:32
believe the actual biblical texts are just flawed human
14:35
reflections on those historical events.
14:37
Right. They think the ancient writers
14:39
were trying their best to interpret what happened, but
14:41
their interpretations are culturally bound.
14:43
And not permanently authoritative.
14:46
In this view, the sheer historical event is the only
14:48
constant. Then you have the third view,
14:51
which shifts the focus inward. This view argues that the
14:54
permanent element is human experience.
14:56
Harry Emerson Fosdick, a very famous and controversial pastor
15:00
in the 1920s, was a massive proponent of this idea.
15:03
He operated during the height of the fundamentalist modernist
15:06
controversy in America. Fosdick looked at the rapid
15:09
changes in science and society society and concluded that
15:13
specific doctrinal formulations are always transient.
15:16
He believed that the words we use to describe God are
15:19
constantly expiring. However, he believed the
15:22
underlying human feelings and the subjective experiences of
15:25
the divine remain identical across generations.
15:28
A perfect example of Fosdick's method involves the biblical
15:31
doctrine of the physical resurrection of the body.
15:33
Fosdick looked at that doctrine and decided it was a grossly
15:37
materialistic, primitive idea for educated modern people.
15:41
He felt modern congregants could not accept the idea of physical
15:45
bodies reanimating. So he just swapped it out.
15:47
He discarded the biblical doctrine of bodily resurrection
15:50
entirely. And he replaced it with the
15:51
ancient Greek philosophical concept of the immortality of
15:55
the soul. The idea that the physical body
15:57
dies, but the immaterial spirit lives on forever.
15:59
Fazda claimed that by making this swap, he was preserving the
16:03
abiding permanent experience of hope for the afterlife.
16:07
Even though he completely eradicated the actual biblical
16:10
teaching. 4th alternative view shifts the focus outward towards
16:15
society. This perspective insists that
16:18
Christianity is primarily a way of life.
16:21
It argues that moral behavior, not intellectual belief, is the
16:25
distinguishing mark of true religion.
16:28
Walter Rauschenbush was a leading voice for this
16:30
perspective in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
16:33
He spearheaded what became known as the Social Gospel Movement.
16:37
To understand Rauschenbush, you have to look at his environment.
16:40
He was pastoring in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of New York
16:43
City. Right during the brutal peak of
16:45
the Industrial revolution, he saw extreme poverty, child labor
16:48
in sweatshops, and massive economic exploitation.
16:52
Looking at that intense suffering, Rauschenbusch
16:54
concluded that debating abstract theological doctrines was a
16:57
waste of time. He argued that the true core of
16:59
Jesus's teaching was building the Kingdom of God on earth
17:02
through social justice and economic equality.
17:05
And Democratic concern for the marginalized.
17:08
In his view, right action and societal reform are the only
17:11
things that truly matter. Specific doctrinal beliefs about
17:14
the Trinity or the Atonement are entirely secondary, if not
17:17
irrelevant in that view. So we have these 4 proposed
17:21
anchors, the institution, the acts of God, internal
17:25
experiences and a societal way of life.
17:28
When Erickson analyzes these 4 views, he synthesizes the data
17:31
by acknowledging that every single one of these elements
17:34
carries genuine validity. They absolutely do.
17:37
Jesus promised to build his church, ensuring an
17:40
institutional reality. The historical events of
17:42
Christ's incarnation and resurrection form the bedrock of
17:46
our faith. The personal, subjective
17:48
experience of peace and reconciliation with God is a
17:51
vital reality for the believer. And the ethical call to justice,
17:54
holiness and caring for the vulnerable runs through the
17:57
entire Old and New Testaments. But, and this is the hinge of
18:00
the entire argument, Ericsson points out that these four
18:02
things are entirely insufficient on their own to define
18:05
Christianity. If you look at the wider world,
18:08
you will notice that all major religions have institutional
18:10
organizational structures. All religions point back to
18:13
massive historical events and significant founders.
18:16
All religions cultivate deep, intense emotional experiences in
18:20
their followers. Even completely many secular
18:22
humanist organizations have these elements.
18:25
Consider a secular charity, a political action committee, or
18:29
even a local Rotary Club. They have strict organizational
18:32
structures and loyalties. They host events.
18:35
They cultivate shared emotional experiences among their members.
18:38
And they often have a massive focus on social justice,
18:41
community service, and ethical behavior.
18:43
If you strip away the specific objective doctrines of the
18:47
Bible, you are left with something that looks
18:49
suspiciously like a secular nonprofit organization with an
18:53
emotional soundtrack. This leads us directly to the
18:56
Reformed conclusion regarding the anchor.
18:58
A robust, clearly enunciated framework of doctrinal belief is
19:02
an absolute requirement. The doctrines the specific truth
19:05
claims about who God is, what Christ accomplished, and how
19:08
salvation works are the skeleton.
19:11
If you surgically remove the skeleton, the muscles and organs
19:14
of experiences, institutions and ethical behaviors simply lapse
19:18
into a formless pile on the floor.
19:20
Genuine Christianity only exists when those elements are attached
19:24
to a firm framework of objective belief.
19:27
Now that we have established that a firm framework of
19:29
doctrine is the mandatory skeleton, we face the next major
19:34
hurdle. How do we actually communicate
19:36
those specific doctrines to a modern audience living in a
19:39
secular culture? Erickson outlines 3 distinct
19:43
methods that theologians use to approach this problem of
19:46
contextualization. Before we break down those 3
19:49
methods, we should address a common piece of pushback.
19:52
Yeah, many people ask if human beings are naturally corrupted
19:56
by sin and cannot grasp spiritual things on their own,
19:59
why don't we just read the Bible word for word without any
20:01
commentary and trust the Holy Spirit to give them
20:04
understanding? That sentiment is incredibly
20:06
common, and it perfectly describes the first method
20:09
Erikson categorizes the transplanters.
20:12
Theologians in the Transplanter camp believe you should take the
20:15
biblical text exactly as it sits in its ancient setting.
20:18
And drop it directly into a modern setting without any
20:21
attempt to translate the cultural concepts.
20:23
Erikson mentions the massive Swiss theologian Karl Barth as
20:27
leaning heavily in this direction.
20:29
To understand Barth's reluctance, you have to remember
20:32
his context. He watched the German church
20:34
heavily compromised its theology by blending it with human
20:38
philosophy and state politics during the world wars.
20:41
Barth became fiercely protective of divine revelation because of
20:44
that. Transplanters argue that human
20:46
efforts to explain or modernize spiritual truths are inherently
20:51
arrogant and presumptuous. They believe we should simply
20:54
proclaim the text and let the Holy Spirit do the heavy lifting
20:56
of conviction. Erickson even notes an anecdote
20:59
about meeting a Barthean theologian who adamantly refused
21:03
use any sermon illustrations. Oh wow.
21:05
He viewed human analogies as sinful attempts to make pure
21:09
spiritual truth acceptable to unregenerate minds.
21:12
While that sounds very pious on the surface, Ericsson details
21:15
precisely why the transplanter approach collapses in practical
21:19
reality. First of all, it completely
21:20
ignores the massive historical fact that the Bible itself is
21:23
already a highly contextualized document.
21:26
The biblical writers constantly adapted their communication
21:29
style to fit their specific audiences.
21:31
Look at how Jesus taught when he spoke to the mass of crowds in
21:34
Galilee. He used analogies about planting
21:37
seeds. In baking bread with yeast and
21:39
casting dragnets into the sea. Why?
21:41
Because his audience lived in an agrarian and fishing economy.
21:46
He used the daily realities of their lives as the vehicle for
21:49
his message. And look at the Apostle Paul
21:52
strategy. When Paul walked into a Jewish
21:54
synagogue to preach, he opened the scrolls of the Old Testament
21:58
and argued fiercely from the Hebrew prophets.
22:00
He used their established religious framework, but read
22:04
Acts chapter 17. When Paul stood before the Greek
22:07
philosophers at the Areopagus in Athens, he did not start quoting
22:11
Isaiah. No, he actually quoted their own
22:13
Pagan Greek poets like Eredis to establish a cultural point of
22:16
contact before introducing the reality of the resurrection.
22:19
He altered his framing based on who was standing in front of
22:22
him. Furthermore, the transplanter
22:23
approach ignores the basic linguistic reality that language
22:27
is not static. It constantly shifts and evolves
22:30
over time. Erickson points out a brilliant
22:33
example using the 1611 King James Version of the Bible.
22:37
If you read First Thessalonians 4.15 in that translation it says
22:41
We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord
22:44
shall not prevent them which are asleep.
22:46
In the year 1611, the English word prevent meant to precede or
22:52
to go before. But Fast forward to the 21st
22:55
century. Today the word prevent means to
22:57
hinder, stop, or block something from happening.
23:00
If a transplanter reads the 1611 text to a modern congregation
23:04
without explaining that massive linguistic shift, they are
23:07
actually teaching the listeners the complete opposite of what
23:10
the Apostle Paul originally meant.
23:12
Erickson provides another fascinating example regarding
23:14
the word gift. If a speaker stands in front of
23:16
an English speaking audience and uses the word gift, the audience
23:20
immediately pictures a present wrapped in a box.
23:22
But if that speaker travels to Germany and uses the same
23:25
phonetic word gift, it means poison.
23:28
If they go to Sweden and say gift it means married.
23:31
Words only possess meaning within a specific context.
23:35
Transplanting ancient metaphors without explanation leaves
23:39
modern people completely stranded in the dark.
23:42
If you are speaking to someone who has lived their entire life
23:45
in a massive concrete urban center.
23:47
Someone who has never seen a live sheep or a pasture, using
23:51
the imagery of a shepherd and a flock to explain God's care,
23:55
might fail to communicate the intended comfort.
23:57
So the transplanters fail because they refuse to
24:00
acknowledge cultural shifts. This brings us to the second
24:02
category, which swings the pendulum to the absolute
24:05
opposite extreme. These are the Transformers.
24:08
This category represents the liberal theological approach.
24:12
The Transformers look at the massive technological,
24:15
scientific and sociological advancements of the modern world
24:19
and conclude that humanity has fundamentally changed.
24:22
Because society has shifted so drastically, they believe the
24:25
actual structural doctrines of the Bible must be altered to
24:28
keep pace. For the transformer, the
24:30
intellectual climate of the modern world is the independent
24:33
variable. Biblical doctrine is relegated
24:35
to the status of a dependent variable.
24:37
In clear terms, society sets the supreme standard, and the Bible
24:41
must bend, flex or break to meet it.
24:44
The underlying premise of the transformer method is that truth
24:48
is relative. They reject the concept of
24:50
divine revelation acting as an absolute, eternal judge over
24:53
human ideas. Instead, modern human experience
24:57
and contemporary sensibilities become the ultimate judge of
25:00
Scripture. If a historical biblical
25:01
doctrine offends the modern mind, the transformer simply
25:04
edits or deletes the doctrine. Erickson highlights the work of
25:08
Mary Daley to illustrate how the transformer approach functions
25:11
in real time. Daley was a prominent figure in
25:14
radical feminist theology, and to understand her logic you have
25:17
to look at the societal shifts of the mid to late 20th century.
25:20
Right where traditional structural hierarchies were
25:23
being fiercely challenged. Daley looked at the traditional
25:25
Christian view of a supreme, transcendent God who rules the
25:30
universe according to his sovereign.
25:31
Will She analyzed history and argued that this specific
25:34
concept of a sovereign, patriarchal God had been
25:38
weaponized by human institutions to oppress women for centuries.
25:41
From a sociological standpoint, she viewed the traditional
25:45
language of God the Father as a tool that reinforced harmful
25:48
human hierarchies. Because that traditional
25:51
doctrine directly contradicted her modern standard, which was
25:55
the contemporary experience of women's liberation, she rejected
25:59
the doctrine of a sovereign personal God entirely.
26:03
She proposed A radical linguistic and theological
26:05
shift. She suggested replacing the
26:07
concept of God as a noun, a supreme being sitting on a
26:11
throne, with the concept of God as a verb.
26:14
Drawing on philosophers like Paul, Tillich Daily redefined
26:17
God as the ultimate transcendence in which women
26:20
participate in a surge of self affirmation and breaking of
26:23
boundaries. Deeley's approach is a textbook
26:25
demonstration of the transformer category.
26:27
For listeners who adhere to the Westminster Confession,
26:30
discarding the personal sovereignty and transcendence of
26:32
God is a total departure from Christian orthodoxy.
26:35
However, observing her method mechanically shows precisely
26:38
what happens when society becomes the unyielding standard.
26:41
The actual content of the theology is hollowed out and
26:44
replaced to a appease the modern blind.
26:46
This leaves us needing a middle ground between the rigid
26:48
transplanters and the compromising Transformers.
26:51
That brings us to the third category, the translators.
26:54
This is the conservative, reformed approach to
26:57
contextualization, and it is the specific method Ericsson
27:01
strongly advocates. The translators maintain an
27:04
ironclad grip on the exact original content of the biblical
27:08
doctrine. The core truth is non
27:10
negotiable. However, they're entirely
27:13
willing and even eager to change the form of expression to ensure
27:17
the modern listener actually understands the concept.
27:19
For the translator, the dynamic is completely flipped from the
27:22
transformer model. God is the eternal judge, and
27:25
human culture is on trial. We never change the core message
27:29
to make it culturally acceptable.
27:31
We only change the vocabulary to make it intelligible.
27:34
The gospel inherently contains a dimension of offense.
27:38
The Apostle Paul writes in First Corinthians that the cross is a
27:40
stumbling block and foolishness to the world.
27:43
The biblical teaching that humans are heavily sinful and
27:46
incapable of self salvation is profoundly offensive to human
27:50
pride. The translator ensures that the
27:52
natural friction of the cross remains completely intact.
27:55
We want the modern person to encounter the true, offensive,
27:59
glorious gospel. We just want to make sure they
28:02
are offended by the actual claims of Christ, not
28:05
accidentally offended because they misunderstood an ancient
28:08
farming metaphor or a confusing 1611 English word.
28:12
We can observe the massive practical success of the
28:16
translator approach when we look at paraphrased versions of the
28:19
Bible. Consider the Living Bible or the
28:22
JB Phillips New Testament. JB Phillips was a pastor in
28:25
London during the massive bombing campaigns of World War
28:27
2. He was trying to teach the
28:29
epistles to his youth group, but the archaic language was not
28:32
connecting. So Phillips started translating
28:34
the Greek text into the contemporary idioms of 1940s
28:38
British youth. These paraphrases were never
28:40
intended to be literal, word for word scholarly translations for
28:44
academic study. But lay people find them
28:46
incredibly helpful because they take ancient, dense concepts and
28:49
clothe them in a familiar, everyday language.
28:52
The impact of the message hits home, however.
28:55
Ericsson is quick to point out that the translator approach
28:58
requires intense intellectual labor.
29:00
Scripture does not provide a neat alphabetized index
29:03
addressing every single issue we face today.
29:06
Think about the doctrine of the Trinity.
29:08
You can search the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation and
29:11
you will never find the specific word Trinity.
29:14
You also will not find a fully formulated systematic defense of
29:18
the concept in a single chapter like you find with Paul's
29:21
defense of justification by faith in Romans.
29:23
The biblical writers clearly possessed the concept.
29:26
They baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
29:29
But the formal, highly specific articulation of the Trinity took
29:33
the Church centuries of theological reflection at
29:36
councils like Nicaea. We are tasked with translating
29:38
concepts that were sometimes only present in the text in seed
29:42
form. We also face the challenge of
29:43
translating ancient theology into a world overflowing with
29:47
advanced general revelation. The Apostle Paul taught clearly
29:50
that all humans are sinners, attributing our corrupted nature
29:54
to the fall of Adam. Today, however, we are
29:56
confronted with incredibly complex questions originating
29:59
from modern biology, genetic sequencing and developmental
30:03
psychology. Paul did not address his letters
30:06
using the categories of modern neuroscience.
30:09
If we were going to faithfully relate biblical revelation to
30:12
our culture, we have to do the rigorous work of translation.
30:16
This raises a massive mechanical question.
30:18
If being a translator is the correct path, how do we
30:21
physically execute this? How do we translate theological
30:25
concepts without accidentally losing the truth in the process?
30:29
Erickson provides a brilliant, highly effective metaphor about
30:33
language learning to explain this mechanism.
30:35
He compares theological translation to two vastly
30:38
different methods of teaching a student a foreign language.
30:41
In the first method, the instructor teaches the student
30:43
that a word in one language is the exact rigid equivalent of a
30:46
word in another language. The student memorizes A
30:49
mathematical formula. They learn that the German word
30:52
dershtul equals the English words the chair.
30:55
They memorize the dictionary, swap and move on.
30:57
But Erickson points out a massive vulnerable in that rigid
31:00
method. The true underlying meaning of
31:03
the German word derstool is not the string of English letters
31:07
CHAIR. The actual meaning is a physical
31:10
object sitting in the room, an object with a flat seat, a
31:13
backrest and four legs used for sitting.
31:16
If the student only memorizes the word for word equivalent,
31:19
their understanding completely collapses the second they travel
31:22
to Mexico or France. The rigid formula only works for
31:25
two specific languages. Because of this flaw, the
31:29
superior method of language instruction is concept based.
31:32
Often called ostensive definition.
31:34
The teacher does not say Darshtool equals the chair.
31:37
Instead, the teacher walks over, points directly to the physical
31:41
object in the room, the thing with four legs and a backrest,
31:43
and says out loud. Darshtool.
31:45
Then the teacher points to a solid vertical surface and says
31:48
Daiwand. The student's brain learns to
31:51
associate the spoken word directly with the universal
31:54
concept, completely bypassing the rigid dictionary formula.
31:58
When we apply this conceptual mechanism to theology, it
32:00
changes our entire approach to the text.
32:03
If we read a biblical passage declaring God is high above the
32:06
earth, we do not rigidly translate the spatial
32:09
coordinates of altitude. We do not assume God is
32:12
physically located a few miles up in the stratosphere.
32:15
Instead, we look at the passage and point to the universal
32:19
underlying concept. God is transcendent.
32:23
He is not limited by physical nature, gravity, or space.
32:27
His knowledge, authority, and presence infinitely exceed human
32:31
limitations. Once we extract that permanent
32:33
underlying concept of transcendence, we can give it a
32:36
brand new concrete expression. We can explain it in a way that
32:39
resonates with a person living in a high rise apartment in
32:42
Tokyo, a rural village in Kenya, or a suburb in Chicago today.
32:46
We identify the permanent thrust of the doctrine.
32:49
We're not just creating a dynamic equivalent of an ancient
32:52
sentence. We are grasping the lasting
32:54
truth and giving it a fresh cultural body to inhabit.
32:57
But doing this introduces a very real risk.
33:00
The supreme danger of translating concepts is the
33:02
possibility of accidentally throwing away an actual binding
33:06
doctrine. Because you mistakenly assumed
33:08
it was just a temporary cultural wrapper.
33:10
How do we know the difference? How do we separate a permanent
33:13
rule given by God from a localized 1st century Middle
33:17
Eastern custom? This is where Ericsson's
33:19
methodology shines. He provides 5 specific criteria
33:23
for permanence. These act as diagnostic tools to
33:26
help us separate the eternal essence from the temporary form.
33:30
We should examine each of these rules using the specific
33:33
biblical examples he provides to see how they function in
33:35
practice. The first diagnostic criterion
33:38
is constancy across cultures. We look at the massive timeline
33:43
of the Bible, which spans thousands of years and crosses
33:46
vastly different geographical and linguistic boundaries.
33:49
We move from the ancient Near Eastern culture of nomadic
33:52
Hebrews to the pastoral setting of ancient Palestine.
33:55
All the way to the sophisticated urban centers of the Greek and
33:58
Roman empires. If a theological principle shows
34:01
up consistently across all of those massive cultural shifts,
34:04
we can confidently identify it as a permanent constant.
34:07
A supreme example of this constancy is the principle of
34:09
sacrificial atonement. You see this principle embedded
34:12
deeply in the earliest pages of the Old Testament.
34:15
The Hebrew sacrificial system in Leviticus centers entirely on
34:18
the blood of bulls and goats being offered to cover the sins
34:21
of the people. It is a distinctly Hebrew
34:23
agrarian practice. But then you cross the massive
34:27
cultural and linguistic divide into the New Testament, writing
34:31
in Greek to an audience scattered across the Roman
34:33
Empire. The physical animal sacrifices
34:35
are gone, but the underlying principle remains identical.
34:39
The apostles continually teach that the atoning death and shed
34:43
blood of Jesus Christ pays the penalty for human sin.
34:47
Because that core necessity of blood atonement remains constant
34:50
across those immense cultural boundaries, we know it is a
34:54
permanent essence of the Christian faith.
34:55
Not just a localized Hebrew custom.
34:58
The second criterion is universal setting.
35:01
When we evaluate A biblical practice, we have to ask if the
35:04
text presents it in a limited, localized context or if it
35:08
attaches it to a massive universal mandate.
35:10
Erickson contrasts 2 physical acts involving water to
35:14
demonstrate this baptism and foot washing.
35:16
Let us examine baptism first. It is presented in the Great
35:19
Commission in Matthew chapter 28.
35:21
Jesus declares that all authority in heaven and on earth
35:25
has been given to Him. Based on that supreme authority,
35:28
he commands the disciples to go and make disciples of all
35:32
nations and to baptize them. Promising to be with them until
35:36
the end of the age. Notice the scope of those words.
35:39
All Nations covers every geographical location and every
35:43
culture on the planet. The end of the age covers the
35:45
entire span of human history until Christ returns.
35:49
Because the command is explicitly tied to universal
35:52
language, baptism is a permanent, ongoing practice for
35:55
the global church. Now contrast that massive scope
35:58
with the foot washing incident recorded in John chapter 13.
36:01
Jesus washes the dirt off the disciples feet and explicitly
36:04
tells them they should wash one another's feet.
36:07
However, look closely at the surrounding context.
36:09
You will not find any mention of all nations or the end of the
36:12
age. Jesus states the underlying
36:14
reason for the ACT. A servant is not greater than
36:17
his master. We have to understand the 1st
36:19
century Palestinian context. People wore open sandals and
36:23
walked miles on dusty, unpaved roads shared with animals.
36:27
Washing feet upon entering a home was a basic, required act
36:30
of hospitality and hygiene. Usually relegated to the lowest
36:34
servant of the household. Jesus intercepted that common
36:37
daily cultural custom to teach a staggering lesson about
36:41
humility. Because the rest of the New
36:43
Testament repeatedly demands the attitude of humility without
36:46
ever demanding the literal act of foot washing as a church
36:49
ordinance, we rightly conclude that the attitude of mutual
36:53
service is the permanent component.
36:55
While the physical act of watching feet with a basin was
36:58
the temporary cultural form. The third criterion is a
37:02
recognized permanent factor as a base.
37:05
We have to look at the foundation the biblical writer
37:07
uses to support their argument. If a biblical teaching is built
37:10
on top of an unchangeable historical fact or a permanent
37:14
ordinance, then the teaching itself is permanent.
37:16
For instance, when the Pharisees questioned Jesus about the
37:19
permanence of marriage in Matthew 19, Jesus does not
37:22
appeal to the current Roman legal codes.
37:24
And he bypasses the temporary concessions found in the Mosaic
37:27
Law. Instead, he reaches all the way
37:29
back to the dawn of history in Genesis.
37:32
He bases his teaching on the biological and historical fact
37:36
that God created humanity, male and female, from the very
37:39
beginning. Because the foundation of his
37:41
argument is a permanent creation ordinance, the resulting
37:45
teaching on marriage is permanent.
37:47
You see the same logic regarding the priesthood of all believers.
37:50
The book of Hebrews argues passionately that all Christians
37:54
can approach the throne of grace with boldness and confidence.
37:57
The writer does not base this access on human emotion or
38:01
temporary temple rituals. The access is granted because
38:04
Jesus is our great High Priest who has passed through the
38:07
heavens and lives forever to intercede for us.
38:10
The ongoing permanent practice of believers drawing near to God
38:14
is based entirely on the permanent, unchanging priesthood
38:17
of Christ. The 4th criterion is an
38:20
indissoluble link with an experience regarded as
38:23
essential. This loops back perfectly to our
38:25
earlier discussion regarding Boltman and Fosdick, who tried
38:28
to preserve experiences while discarding facts.
38:31
Let's look at the Apostle Paul's argument in First Corinthians
38:34
15. Paul writes extensively about
38:36
the subjective experience of Christian hope and the promise
38:39
of future life. But he refuses to let that hope
38:42
float in the air as a vague sentiment.
38:44
He ties that subjective feeling directly and indissolubly to the
38:48
objective historical fact of Christ's physical resurrection.
38:53
Paul uses incredibly blunt language.
38:55
He states if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile.
38:59
You are still in your sins. He argues that the internal
39:02
experience completely depends on the external historical reality.
39:06
If you change or remove the historical fact, the
39:08
corresponding experience instantly fails.
39:11
Fazik tried to manufacture a sense of hope by tossing out the
39:14
bodily resurrection and relying on the modern idea of inevitable
39:18
human progress. But human progress is incredibly
39:21
fragile, constantly interrupted by wars and atrocities.
39:24
The biblical experience of hope is permanent precisely because
39:27
it is linked to the permanent supernatural victory of God over
39:30
death. If the biblical text portrays an
39:32
experience as essential to the faith, the specific doctrine
39:36
causing that experience must be permanent.
39:38
The 5th and final criterion for prominence is final position
39:42
within progressive revelation. We must recognize that God
39:45
revealed His massive plan of redemption gradually over
39:49
centuries. He did not drop a completed
39:51
theology textbook on Adam and Eve.
39:54
The later developments in the biblical timeline carries
39:56
supreme weight because they represent the final perfected
40:00
form which fulfills and replaces the earlier transient shadows.
40:04
The Book of Hebrews provides the ultimate case study for this
40:07
concept. In the Old Testament economy,
40:09
the Levitical priests were locked in an endless cycle of
40:12
offerings. They offered sacrifices daily in
40:15
the outer courts, and the high priest entered the Holy of
40:18
Holies annually on the Day of Atonement.
40:20
It was repetitive anticipatory process that could never fully
40:23
clear the human conscience. But the New Testament declares
40:26
that Christ brought that entire centuries long process to a
40:30
definitive halt by fulfilling its ultimate purpose.
40:32
He offered his own blood once for all time.
40:35
His supreme sacrifice represents the final position in the
40:38
progressive revelation of God, completely replacing all the
40:42
earlier approximations. We do not build stone altars
40:45
today because the final reality has already arrived.
40:47
These five criteria provide an excellent diagnostic toolkit,
40:52
but I want to throw a curveball into the discussion to test the
40:55
system. OK, let's hear it.
40:56
What are we supposed to do with the passages of Scripture that
40:59
seem completely irrelevant to modern life?
41:02
Like what? Well, if my goal as a translator
41:06
is to find the permanent essence, what do I do with the
41:10
massive multi chapter genealogies in the Old
41:13
Testament, or the incredibly specific sanitation and
41:17
quarantine laws in the book of Leviticus?
41:19
No one uses those chapters for their morning devotional
41:22
reading. It is a valid challenge, and
41:24
Ericsson addresses it head on. If you try to jump directly from
41:28
what a genealogy meant to an ancient Hebrew to what it means
41:32
to me sitting in traffic today, you will hit a wall of
41:34
frustration. You have to utilize the
41:36
translation mechanism to look for the underlying truths.
41:39
Ancient Hebrew genealogies functioned as legal documents,
41:43
land deeds, and proof of tribal belonging.
41:45
But the underlying theological principle they reveal is that
41:48
God is actively, providentially at work through the messy
41:51
details of human history. And through long, unbroken lines
41:55
of descent to accomplish his redemptive goals.
41:58
That core principle of divine Providence, working through
42:01
generations, is highly relevant to a believer today.
42:04
And regarding the sanitation loss, the extensive rules about
42:07
handling waste, inspecting mildew and stone houses, and
42:11
washing clothing. Those laws reveal God's intense,
42:14
meticulous concern for human health, physical well-being and
42:17
the safety of the wider community.
42:20
They were the height of medical practice for a nomadic camp in
42:23
the ancient Near East. Spot on.
42:25
If you extract that core principle of caring for communal
42:28
health, the modern application looks vastly different than
42:31
expecting stone for mildew. Applying that principle today
42:35
might involve advocating for wise dietary practices or
42:37
supporting clean water initiatives in developing
42:39
nations. Or backing rigorous pollution
42:42
control measures in major cities.
42:44
You find the genuine reason the rule is written, extract the
42:47
permanent spiritual truth, and apply it with full force to
42:50
modern life. This brings us to a massive
42:52
point of friction in the theological world.
42:54
This entire process, this rigorous method of
42:58
principalizing the text by extracting the core essence and
43:02
finding a new cultural form, faces incredibly harsh pushback
43:06
from other theological camps. How does Ericsson defend this
43:09
translation model against the critics who think it tampers
43:12
with the text? The text outlines several major
43:14
objections, starting with an argument based on a modification
43:18
of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of Authority.
43:20
To understand the subjection, we need to quickly explain the
43:23
quadrilateral. The term itself was coined in
43:25
the mid 20th century by a scholar named Albert Outler, who
43:28
was analyzing the methodology of John Wesley, the founder of
43:31
Methodism. Outler observed that Wesley
43:33
built his theology on 4 pillars, Scripture as the primary source,
43:37
Tradition as the historical reading of the church, Reason as
43:40
the tool for logical coherence and experience as the inward
43:43
subjective witness of the Holy Spirit.
43:45
Historically, Orthodox theologians maintain that
43:48
Scripture is the supreme authority, while tradition,
43:51
reason and experience are helpful but subordinate tools.
43:54
However, some modern theologians attempt to modify this
43:57
quadrilateral. They elevate human experience
44:01
and contemporary culture to be Co equal with scripture.
44:05
They argue that human culture should do more than simply shape
44:08
the form of our theology. They argue that our modern
44:11
cultural experiences should actually contribute to the
44:13
content of our doctrines. They operate on the assumption
44:16
that the body of Christian doctrine is not fixed, but
44:19
rather an ongoing open-ended project that every generation
44:23
gets to add to. The Reformed defense against
44:26
that idea is fierce, and it relies directly on the writings
44:29
of the early Church. Consider Jude verse 3, where
44:32
believers are fiercely commanded to contend.
44:35
Infer the faith that was once for all entrusted to the Saints.
44:38
Notice the finality of that phrase once for all.
44:41
Or look at Galatians chapter 1, where the Apostle Paul tells the
44:44
churches in Galatia that if anyone, even an Angel from
44:47
heaven, preaches a gospel other than the specific message they
44:51
already received, let them be under God's curse.
44:54
The biblical witness allows zero room for negotiation on this
44:57
point. There's an absolute finality to
44:59
the core faith the early church received.
45:01
There is not a single hint in the New Testament suggesting
45:05
that later cultures with advanced technology would get
45:07
the privilege of adding new chapters or revising the core
45:11
doctrines. Throughout the two millennia of
45:13
Church history, whenever secular culture meant it a challenge
45:16
against the Church, the faithful Orthodox response was never to
45:20
adapt the content to appease the culture.
45:22
The response was always to turn back to the fixed scriptures to
45:25
vindicate their beliefs. Culture is never permitted to
45:28
augment scripture. Scripture eternally sits in
45:32
judgment over culture. The second major piece of
45:35
pushback against our translation method comes from the prominent
45:38
scholar Kevin Vanhooser. He levels a strong critique
45:42
against this principalizing method we have been discussing.
45:45
Vanhooser's concern is primarily literary and practical.
45:48
He argues that if you are constantly digging behind the
45:51
words of the text to find an abstract universal principle,
45:55
you run a massive risk. You risk making those abstract
45:58
philosophical ideas superior to the Bible itself.
46:01
He argues that if you just extract the principle, you start
46:04
ignoring the actual diverse genres of scripture, the raw
46:09
emotion of the poetry, the specific arguments in the
46:12
epistles, the historical grit of the narratives.
46:15
Vanhooser prefers an alternative model.
46:18
He views theology as a theodrama where the church is essentially
46:22
engaging in an ongoing, faithful improvisation based on the
46:27
original biblical script. It is an elegant concept, but
46:30
Erickson defends the principalizing method by
46:32
pointing out the glaring practical flaw in Vanhooser's
46:35
critique. If you stick strictly to
46:37
repeating the ancient texts and refuse to extract universal
46:40
principles, you are left with absolutely zero specific
46:43
guidance for the unprecedented ethical dilemmas we face today.
46:47
That is the crucial problem. The Bible does not contain a
46:50
single verse mentioning global warming.
46:52
It does not address the bioethics of CRISPR gene editing
46:55
or the morality of utilizing life support machines for
46:58
euthanasia. Or the threat of global nuclear
47:00
warfare. Or the appropriate use of
47:02
artificial intelligence and the Internet in evangelism.
47:05
If you refuse to extract underlying universal principles
47:09
from the text, you render the Church completely speechless on
47:13
the most pressing, terrifying issues of the 21st century.
47:17
We absolutely must use principles to apply biblical
47:20
ethics to situations the ancient biblical writers could never
47:24
have possible imagined. Principleising does not replace
47:27
the authority of the Bible. It is the only functional way to
47:30
faithfully apply its authority to a rapidly changing world.
47:34
Erickson also brings in some heavy philosophical support to
47:37
validate his method, specifically mentioning the
47:40
field of phenomenology. He points to the work of Edmund
47:42
Hustle, an early 20th century philosopher.
47:45
Hustle was reacting against the rigid scientific positivism of
47:48
his day. He wanted to understand how
47:50
human consciousness actually perceives the essence of things.
47:54
He develops A rigorous intellectual method known as
47:57
epoche, a Greek term often translated as bracketing.
48:00
Let's explain bracketing with a visual analogy.
48:03
Imagine you are holding a coffee cup.
48:05
If you want to understand the pure essence of a cup, Hustler
48:09
would tell you to bracket out or temporarily suspend all the
48:13
specific details of the one in your hand.
48:15
Ignore the fact that it is painted blue.
48:17
Ignore the fact that it is made of ceramic.
48:20
Ignore the fact that it holds hot liquid.
48:22
You strip away all the particular localized details
48:25
until you are left with the pure irreducible essence of the
48:28
concept, a vessel designed to contain something.
48:32
Hustler taught this as an intellectual discipline of
48:35
setting aside your own assumptions and biases to see
48:38
the thing itself. Erickson points out that this
48:41
philosophical tool beautifully validates the exact process the
48:45
theological translator is using. We bracket out the 1st century
48:48
sandals, the ancient agricultural tools and the Roman
48:51
political structures to isolate the pure eternal essence of the
48:55
theological truth. Then we take that pure essence
48:58
and clothe it in the realities of our current world.
49:00
This robust defense leads us directly to the combination of
49:03
Erikson's thought on the matter, the Erikson Matrix.
49:06
He creates a visual framework with four distinct quadrants to
49:10
categorize every single type of theologian based on how they
49:14
handled the two vital components.
49:16
The content of the doctrine and the form of expression.
49:18
Let's construct this matrix in our minds.
49:21
Imagine a graph with an X&Y axis creating 4 distinct boxes.
49:26
The first category he labels are the conformers.
49:30
These are theologians who insist on keeping the traditional
49:32
content of the doctrine entirely fixed.
49:35
But they also insist on keeping the traditional historical form
49:38
of expression entirely fixed. They refuse to budget on either
49:42
axis. They want the truth, but they
49:44
demand it be spoken using 17th century vocabulary.
49:47
In the second quadrant you have the Transformers like Mary
49:49
Daley, whom we analyzed earlier. They alter the actual content of
49:53
the doctrine to match modern sensibilities, and they alter
49:56
the form of expression. Everything changes to meet the
49:58
demands of contemporary society. The core is lost.
50:01
The third quadrant introduces a fascinating, often deceptive
50:05
group, the deformers. These individuals alter the
50:09
actual historical content of the doctrine, but they strategically
50:12
maintain the traditional form of expression.
50:14
They use the old Orthodox vocabulary words like
50:17
resurrection, salvation, or atonement, but they have
50:21
completely hollowed out the historical meaning.
50:23
And quietly replaced it with something entirely new, usually
50:26
a psychological or sociological concept.
50:30
They sound orthodox to the untrained ear, but the substance
50:33
is completely different. And finally, we arrive at the
50:36
4th quadrant, the Reformers. This is the category Ericsson
50:39
Champions and it represents the methodology we strongly
50:42
advocate. Reformers fight fiercely, using
50:45
every intellectual tool available to keep the
50:47
traditional orthodox content of the doctrine absolutely fixed
50:51
and pure. But simultaneously, they are
50:53
entirely willing and highly motivated to use brand new,
50:57
modern forms of expression to communicate it.
50:59
They recognize that the cultural wrapper must change so that the
51:02
eternal core could be understood.
51:04
They change the form. They fiercely guard the content.
51:06
And Ericsson adds one final, highly practical dimension to
51:09
this matrix delivery systems. As long as the theological
51:13
content remains fixed and unchanged, we have total freedom
51:17
to utilize entirely new technological methods to reach
51:20
the listener. The medium is not the message.
51:23
Which is precisely what we are doing at this very moment.
51:25
We are not limited to delivering truth via a spoken sermon from a
51:29
wooden pulp in a stone building or through the pages of a
51:32
printed book. We can use Global Radio
51:34
broadcast television networks, streaming video, web casts and
51:38
audio analysis like this one. The delivery system adapts to
51:41
the technological era, but the gospel remains identical to what
51:44
was preached in the 1st century. It is the ultimate practical
51:48
expression of the translator approach.
51:51
We are utilizing digital microphones, fiber optic cables
51:54
and global Internet servers to transmit the faith that was once
51:58
for all delivered to the Saints. To summarize our mission today,
52:01
our overriding goal is protecting the unchangeable
52:04
truths of Reformed theology while translating them so
52:07
clearly that modern secular culture is forced to reckon with
52:10
the actual offensive, glorious gospel.
52:13
We want our culture engaging with the raw truth of Christ,
52:17
not tripping over an accidental misunderstanding of ancient
52:20
customs or outdated vocabulary. We must strive to be reformers
52:25
in the truest, most robust sense of Ericsson's matrix.
52:29
As we bring this analysis to a close, I want to leave you, the
52:32
listener, with a final thought to Mull over in the coming days.
52:35
We have spent an hour discussing culture, linguistic translation
52:39
and the massive shift between ancient and modern worldviews.
52:42
I want you to apply this directly to your own private
52:45
prayer life. Think about the quiet
52:48
theological assumptions you make every single day when you
52:50
approach God. If you applied Hussos
52:53
philosophical bracketing to your own mind right now, if you
52:56
intentionally stripped away your modern consumer habits, your
52:59
specific political leanings, your economic status, and your
53:02
national identity, what would be left?
53:04
How much of your personal view of God is actually drawn from
53:07
internal biblical doctrine, and how much of it is simply a
53:11
reflection of the specific cultural zip code you happen to
53:13
inhabit? It is a highly challenging
53:15
question, but it is one we all need to answer if we want to
53:18
hold fast to the genuine faith. Thank you for joining us on this
53:22
deep dive into the massive challenge of contextualizing
53:25
theology. We hope this has equipped you to
53:27
think more critically about your own assumptions and to
53:30
communicate the truth more clearly to the world around you.
53:33
Until next time, keep your theology grounded and your
53:36
translation sharp.