But first, a fable
Blueprints
Sometime in the mid 20th century, a document, lost for more than four centuries, was discovered in a museum archive in Florence. To the amazement of the world, it was found to be an architectural description of a building designed by Leonardo da Vinci. Historians and architects from more than 20 cities scrambled from their firms and universities to translate and study this priceless, peculiar document. Unlike blueprints, this document was a mere description. For all their effort they were unable to uncover blueprints or drawings of any kind to accompany the design, and the more they searched, and the more they studied, the more it became evident no such drawing had survived. Perhaps none had been made.
A translation committee was quickly commissioned to examine the document and produce an official translation. The beauty of the structure, described in detail, so captured the imaginations of every reader, that it was a mere week before drawings began to be drafted around the world. Teams formed, grants were awarded, and the historical art and architecture puzzle of the century was underway.
Teams around the world were drafting blueprints, creating models, and those who had the funding hired contractors who would be the first to introduce the world to a wonder that til now had only existed in the mind of da Vinci.
In order to conserve energy and funding, many teams grouped together, forming larger teams under shared vision, but within a few days conflict usually emerged. For example, the designs the Roman team produced to fit da Vinci’s text didn’t quite match what the Berlin team had drawn. See, there was this odd phrase in the writing that the groups couldn’t quite decipher. Rome decided the line in question meant that the roof should have three peaks, and Berlin thought rather that the roof should have three levels. How were they to decide who was right?
Rome and Berlin split and began working on their own vision of the da Vinci. Roman designs of various parts of the structure then began to incorporate more peaks, and Berlin’s drafts thereafter included more levels.
In every part of the world where large da Vinci teams gathered, similar splits occurred, to the point that every city had their own team, and some as many as 5 or 10. As disagreements on details increased, the more teams divided over those details, and thus the more varied the designs became.
Within 8 months these visionary teams began construction. Buildings were built. Beautiful, soaring buildings. The structures were quite varied, but most held the major design elements in common. Some had blue and green stained glass, and others were covered in clear crystal. Some included archways and breezeways, and others tall gables and trellised vines. The world was stunned at the majesty and vision of the great Leonardo da Vinci, and the world was now more beautiful.
Once the buildings were erected, a member of the Berlin team decided to go and see, for the first time, another da Vinci structure in a neighboring town. He picked up his copy of the original design written by da Vinci, and his team’s blueprints, and headed out the door.
As he walked up to a towering, majestic palace wrapped in gold-leafed medallions and beautifully stained cedar, he put da Vinci in his pocket, held up his blueprint, pointed up at the façade and said,
“That window is in the wrong place.”
The End
I was reminded recently that at one time or another “all of us have treasured distortions of reality” (Andy Patton). Whether we are speaking with skeptics, atheists, or fellow Christians, that high, humble call to keep one foot planted in this truth is essential if what we think we have to say is to realize its intent.
While the history of the Church is marred by episodes of ugliness that denied in practice the truth it proclaimed, it is nonetheless true that Christianity is the most transcultural, trans-local, inclusive religion to ever exist. Richard Bauckham, in his book, The Bible and Mission, reminds us that, “When Paul states that in Christ there is no longer Jew, Greek, barbarian, or Scythian (Colossians 3:11), what he denies is cultural privilege, not cultural diversity.” The Christian story revealed in the Bible denies and forbids cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic privilege, and includes the best elements of other religious ideas as all truth finds itself under the umbrella of God’s reality.
What we also see is that as the Christian story finds a place in those who have embraced it, it first meets people where they are due to its transcultural, trans-ethnic nature, and then as it is taken in and processed toward an outward expression, it is processed culturally. In this sense, personally and culturally are synonymous. Christianity changes culture precisely because it disallows cultural privilege, meaning every culture can and should be critiqued, beginning with our own. Moreover, while Christianity changes culture, its local expression is always colored by culture as well. This is to be expected, and is exactly what we find in the Old Testament as God reveals Himself to a people in and through their ancient Near Eastern cultural norms, both using and subverting those norms in the process.
Considering the historical development of Christianity we see clearly that differences in culture, experience, and even personality and temperament, are a major source of the many divergences of theological systems, denominations, and expressions of Christian faith, many of which are pendulum swings too far in reaction to other systems and expressions.
Could it be, though, that room for divergence in interpretation and expression is by design? Could it be that God, wishing not to be domesticated, chose not to clarify His self-revelation beyond a certain point? Perhaps that is because finding certainty in the places God left mystery gives us a God we can put our finger on, and an overabundance of certainty is dangerous. I think that is the reason the more certain and simplifying a theology or expression is about God and the world, the more privileged a person or group comes to feel about what they “know” that they know, and the more that certainty grows into arrogance, separatism, and the demeaning of fellow image-bearers. In other words, the higher the degree of simplistic certainty regarding Christian truth, especially accompanied by disparaging divergent perspectives, the higher the likelihood of practicing a denial of that truth.
Some takeaways:
- Christianity denies and forbids cultural, ethnic, and societal privilege, therefore our own expressions of faith are never privileged over others’.
- The multitude of theological systems and expressions of Christianity does not deny the reality of a central deposit of divinely revealed truth.
- Theological beliefs and faith expressions can be judged as more or less accurate, while keeping in mind….
- One’s own theological system, expression, or denomination, itself a product of both divine truth and cultural influences, containing both truth and error, is not the best grid for evaluating ideas of different theological systems. In other words, like putting away da Vinci and using one’s own blueprint to judge the construction, it is disingenuous to evaluate an element of a differing theological system from the assumptions and foundations of another.
- Personal discomfort or offense in response to a theological idea or faith expression that differs from our own is our own problem, and therefore an opportunity for growth, keeping in mind #3 and then #4.
Michael Durso Blog 