Role of Critical Evaluation in Using Cultural Examples Theologically

Theological reflection often involves engaging with cultural examples, but this engagement necessitates critical evaluation to ensure fidelity to biblical teaching and sound doctrine. This critical approach helps distinguish between cultural expressions that may align with Christian truth and those that contradict it, preventing the adoption of ideas that are philosophically or morally unsound ^[9].

One significant area where critical evaluation is crucial is in understanding human nature and sin. The Bible consistently presents humanity as universally sinful, a condition that affects both Gentiles and Jews ^[6]. For instance, Psalm 58:3 states that all human beings are born sinners, though the godly strive against their sinful nature while the wicked indulge it ^[1]. Similarly, Proverbs 30:8 associates "vanity" with all sorts of sinful acts ^[2]. The first sin, as described in Genesis 3:13, was not merely an act of eating forbidden fruit but a profound act of self-love, dishonor to God, ingratitude, and disobedience ^[4]. This biblical understanding contrasts sharply with cultural narratives that might downplay the severity or universality of sin, or attribute human failings solely to external factors rather than an inherent disposition.

The concept of sin extends beyond individual acts to a state of being. The Apostle John distinguishes between having "no sin" (referring to the corrupt old nature) and having "not sinned" (referring to the commission of actual sins, even after regeneration) ^[7]. To deny one's sinfulness is to make God a liar ^[7]. This deep-seated understanding of sin, rooted in biblical texts, requires careful discernment when encountering cultural ideas about human perfectibility or inherent goodness. For example, deliberate sins are often characterized by an insolent or arrogant attitude, representing rebellion against God ^[5]. Cultural examples that celebrate self-sufficiency or rebellion without acknowledging their sinful nature would need to be critically assessed against these biblical standards.

The devil's role in sin also requires careful theological distinction. Augustine, in his Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John, clarifies that while one who commits sin is "of the devil," the devil does not "beget" or "create" individuals in the same way God does. Rather, imitation of the devil makes one a child of the devil ^[3]. This distinction is important when evaluating cultural narratives that might attribute evil solely to external demonic forces without acknowledging human culpability, or conversely, those that deny any spiritual dimension to evil.

Theological method itself underscores the importance of critical evaluation. Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, emphasizes that while religious consciousness and inward teachings of the Spirit are valuable, they must be authenticated by Scripture ^[12]. He warns against forming opinions based solely on philosophical principles or moral axioms that contradict the Spirit's inward teachings or even one's own religious consciousness ^[9]. This suggests that cultural examples, which often embody philosophical or moral axioms, must be rigorously tested against the revealed truth of God's Word. Hodge further notes that many theologians, when confronted with Scriptural statements, allow them to be "worth what they are worth" but do not permit them to control their own convictions, often adhering to modern theories instead ^[11]. This highlights a perennial challenge: the temptation to prioritize contemporary cultural or philosophical frameworks over biblical authority.

The necessity of contemplating God's judgment seat is another theological concept that provides a critical lens for evaluating cultural examples. John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, argues that a serious consideration of God's righteousness overturns any notion of righteousness based on human works ^[8]. This perspective challenges cultural narratives that promote self-justification or salvation through human effort, emphasizing instead the doctrine of gratuitous justification ^[8].

Historically, Christian thinkers have engaged with and critiqued prevailing cultural philosophies. John Chrysostom, for instance, is noted for his ability to avoid the errors of both allegorizing and dogmatic tendencies in exegesis, representing the Antiochian tradition which emphasized a more literal and historical interpretation of scripture ^[13]. This approach allowed him to critically engage with the "moral character of heathenism" ^[10]. His work, and that of others like him, demonstrates a historical precedent for engaging with cultural ideas while maintaining theological integrity. Chrysostom's use of irony against the priests of Baal, as mentioned in 1 Kings 18:27, serves as an example of how biblical figures themselves critically evaluated and challenged the religious practices of their surrounding culture ^[10].

Sources

Psalms (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Psalms 58:3: 58:3 All human beings are born sinners (see 51:5); however, whereas the wicked indulge their sinful nature, the godly fight against it (Rom 7:19-23; Jas 4:1-10).”
Proverbs (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Proverbs 30:8: vanity--all sorts of sinful acts (Job 11:11; Isa 5:18).”
1 John (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on 1 John 3:8: He that committeth sin is of the devil--in contrast to "He that doeth righteousness," Jo1 3:7. He is a son of the devil (Jo1 3:10; Joh 8:44). John does not, however, say, "born of the devil." as he does "born of God," for "the devil begets none, nor does he create any; but whoever imitates the devil becomes a child of the devil by imitating him, not by proper birth" [AUGUSTINE, Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 4.10]. From the devil there is not generation, but corruption [BENGEL]. sinneth from the beginning--from the time that any beg”
Genesis (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Genesis 3:13: beguiled--cajoled by flattering lies. This sin of the first pair was heinous and aggravated--it was not simply eating an apple, but a love of self, dishonor to God, ingratitude to a benefactor, disobedience to the best of Masters--a preference of the creature to the Creator.”
Psalms (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Psalms 19:13: 19:13 An individual who commits deliberate sins does so with an insolent (86:14) or arrogant (119:21, 69) attitude. • The great sin is rebellion (see 32:1).”
Romans (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Romans 1:18: 1:18–3:20 Paul delays exploring the theme of righteousness through faith (see 3:21) until after he first teaches about universal sinfulness. Gentiles (1:18-32) and Jews (2:1–3:8) are equally under sin’s power and cannot find favor with God by any action of their own (3:9-20). 1:18 God’s anger is not a spontaneous emotional outburst, but the holy God’s necessary response to sin. The Old Testament often depicts God’s anger (Exod 32:10-12; Num 11:1; Jer 21:3-7) and predicts a decisive outpouring of God’s wrath on human sin at the end of history. While Paul usually de”
1 John (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on 1 John 1:10: Parallel to Jo1 1:8. we have not sinned--referring to the commission of actual sins, even after regeneration and conversion; whereas in Jo1 1:8, "we have no sin," refers to the present GUILT remaining (until cleansed) from the actual sins committed, and to the SIN of our corrupt old nature still adhering to us. The perfect "have . . . sinned" brings down the commission of sins to the present time, not merely sins committed before, but since, conversion. we make him a liar--a gradation; Jo1 1:6, "we lie"; Jo1 1:8, "we deceive ourselves"; worst of al”
CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 67: 2060 CHAPTER 12. NECESSITY OF CONTEMPLATING THE JUDGMENT-SEAT OF GOD, IN ORDER TO BE SERIOUSLY CONVINCED OF THE DOCTRINE OF GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION. The divisions of this chapter are,—I. A consideration of the righteousness of God overturns the righteousness of works, as is plain from passages of Scripture, and the confession and example of the saints, sec. 1-3. II. The same effect produced by a serious examination of the conscience, and a constant citation to the divine tribunal, sec. 4 and 5. III. Hence arises, in the hearts of ”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 103: guide to the knowledge of the truth. It has an authority second only to that of the Word of God. One great source of error in theology has always been the neglect of this inward guide. Men have formed their opinions, or framed their doctrines on philosophical principles, or moral axioms, and thus have been led to adopt conclusions which contradict the inward teachings of the Spirit, and even their own religious consciousness. The only question is, How can we distinguish the human from the divine? How can we determine what in our experien”
CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians–Colossians–Thessalonians: moral character of heathenism.”—Meyer.—G.A.] 309 [Compare 1 Kings xviii. 27 , the locus classicus where Elijah uses his scathing irony against the priests of Baal.—G.A.] 310 [See Schaff’s History of the Christian Church , Vol. I., pp. 72–74, with Literature there noted.—G.A.] 311 [On Democritus and Leucippus, founders of the Atomistic philosophy, see Ueberweg’s Hist. of Philosophy (Amer. ed.), Vol. I., pp. 67–71; on Epicurus, Vol. I., pp. 205–207.—G.A.] 312 This was the instance in the Schools. Vid. Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. Hypot”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 104: and afterwards by the Reformers; how the Rationalists and Supernaturalists of the last generation dealt with it; and how the modern speculative theologians have philosophized about it; and end, generally, by giving in their adhesion to some one of these modern theories more or less modified. All the while there stand the Scriptural statements untouched and unrefuted. They are allowed to go for what they are worth; but they are not permitted to control the writers own convictions. This course is adopted by different men on different princ”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 9: the doctrine of the Bible, and such is the teaching of our religious consciousness when under the influence of the Spirit of God. The true method in theology requires that the facts of religious experience should be accepted as facts, and when duly authenticated by Scripture, be allowed to interpret the doctrinal statements of the Word of God. So legitimate and powerful is this inward teaching of the Spirit, that it is no uncommon thing to find men having two theologies, — one of the intellect, and another of the heart. The one may find ex”
CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew: I. The Place of Chrysostom in the History of Exegesis. The position held by Chrysostom in the history of exegesis is remarkable. Owing to a peculiar combination of circumstances he, more than any of the Fathers, was enabled to avoid the errors alike of the allegorizing and dogmatic tendencies. The former tendency was the prevalent one in the Christian Church in the Ante-Nicene period; the latter, especially in the West, became dominant during the Post-Nicene period, using for its own ends the earlier erroneous theory. Chrysostom represents the Antiochian r”

Ask Your Own Question