The society in which we currently live and operate is globally the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) and locally our (unique) environment or community. Although we are still in a lag period between the 3IR and 4IR, the 4IR already has a global disruptive effect, with artificial intelligence being gradually implemented, with fluid contexts, and where nobody agrees on anything. Deep learning, unlearning and relearning must take place on a daily basis. The question could well be asked if there is any place for the Bible and Christianity in this new vibrant global community.
All theology is contextual. Although theology deals with what is most absolute in reality, citing Mellert, it is also relative in that there is never a final or last answer to most religious questions. The handbook and norm for our theology and religion is still the Bible – a compendium of books written approximately 2000 years ago with no new information added to it ever since. The challenge of the church is to make that information contextual in this ‘disruptive’ era and to bring the gospel in a new and fresh way to everybody without compromising the basic truths and normativity of the Bible.
This article argues that the Bible should still take centre stage in the academic training of our theological students, in our preaching of the gospel on a daily basis, in our engagement with people in need and in the transformation of our societies in general. As the centre of Jesus’ preaching on earth was the (coming of the) kingdom of God, he also acted as the perfect example of how to establish the kingdom of God and the flourishing life on earth.
This is a more practical article and puts the notion of the significance of the Bible within the environment of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. As this is a disruptive era, it requires from us to also present the word of God in a ‘disruptive’ way. We will have to present the ‘old’ word of God in a brand-new way so as to make sure that the people of this era will grasp it.
It’s easy to say that Christ is the answer. But what exactly is the question? (cf. Green
The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is dawning – but has not yet completely dawned – on the third decade of the 21st-century post-postmodern
Although many members of the previous generations are very
According to Volf and Croasmun (
[
They add that the purpose of Christian theology is the flourishing of all life because it stands in service of the continuation of Christ’s mission to embody and spread the good news of God’s coming to make the world into God’s home (Volf & Croasmun
The ‘desertion’ that Volf and Croasmun (
Added to this is the fact that academics write articles that are to be read by their peers and not by the congregants of churches, who were and should still be their ‘traditional audience’ (Volf & Croasmun
Already in the 19th century, (academic) theologians have detected this ‘crisis’ and tried to remedy it by doing theology from a scientific perspective, while defining themselves as scholars who primarily engage themselves with the producing of knowledge, therefore being ‘social scientists’ (Volf & Croasmun
This way of doing theology has the tendency to relativise the normativity of the Bible, mostly ending up either in a ‘nostalgia and attempts at repristination (the conservative side) [or] suspicion and unending critique (on the liberal side)’ (Volf & Croasmun
At this stage, we experience a church of great diversity, which may be described as a unity in diversity, but definitely not a universality (cf. Bevans
In most churches, we commonly find two extreme groups of congregants; a (mostly) small group of conservatives and a bigger group of liberals. The conservatives want to keep religion in the same way as their ancestors have performed it, without any change, despite the fact that, on the one hand, their circumstances and their culture have changed much through the centuries and even during their own life time and that they have gained new knowledge, and, on the other hand, that the church needs to unlearn and relearn the ancient creeds and the content of the Bible within a new world (cf. Volf & Croasmun
The liberals or ‘progressive camp’ mostly find pleasure in criticising everyone and everything (Volf & Croasmun
A logical point of criticism on both these stances is that the liberals are focussing more on Christianity than on theology, whereas the conservatives are against innovation and transformation. However, both these groups are still in and part of the church – and sometimes fighting each other. Crowds of people (especially in the West) have already left the church as they ‘seem to believe that the Church is out of touch. It does not touch their everyday lives, it does not touch their concerns, their routines, or their struggles’ (Green
Fortunately, there is a third (non-extreme not-so-large) group in the church, which we may call a new Christian community or generation. This group, still mostly being part of established churches, is scattered all over the world, trying to get the church in line with a new society, also trying not to compromise the normativity of the Bible (too much). They are not to be identified with ‘new church’ movements who are filling the world at an astonishing pace (cf. Oliver
The focal point of Jesus’ preaching on earth (according to the Gospels) was the (coming of the) kingdom of God, referring to God’s rule and realm on earth (present and future). Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God as a reality with reference to the dynamic and interactive relationship between God and his people, based on the words of the covenant, found in,
[
This also finds expression in the Great Commandment of God (cf. Mt 22:37–40) in which Jesus states that we should love God above all things and love our neighbours as we love ourselves. This implies that God stands (and wants to stand) in a relationship with his children, while he wants his children to be in relationships with each other. After all, that was the reason for his coming to earth as Jesus – to again put human race in the right relationship with God (cf., e.g. Jn 3:16), which will result in the right relationship with each other.
In contrast to the scenario depicted under the previous heading, Volf and Croasmun (
[
Theologians and congregants alike interpret God’s word according to the tradition that they have and respect, according to the context in which they live, generally through the eyes of their church and specifically through the interpretation of their congregation as a hermeneutical community (cf. Smit
One would love to refer to the interpretation – in fact, the contextualisation – of the Bible as a unanimous decision and fact, where everybody agrees on the perfect and exact judgement of the Bible in every situation and context. This would consequently end up in one general Christian church with a clear vision of the Scriptures, leading to congruent contextual theologies emanating from local congregations. However, from the earliest Christian times, people interpreted and communicated the gospel of God in different ways, emanating from and leading to different interpretations. Firstly, there were those who did not know much about Jesus and his gospel but were so passionate about the gospel that they could not be silenced. A good example is Apollos who preached the gospel in Alexandria and elsewhere. However,
Currently, we still have Christians all around the world who identify with the three groups being discussed above. We still have people or preachers who passionately proclaim the word of God, but with very little knowledge thereof, ending up in naive explanations and interpretations of the Bible. When these ‘lay’ preachers are asked something that they do not have an answer for, they mostly regard it as a mystery, or they give a twisted answer. However, it is a challenge to convince people living in the 4IR, to believe in a ‘mystery’.
People who nowadays identify with the second group of people mostly emphasise certain parts of the Bible more than others in proclaiming the gospel. With the dawn of the 4IR, these people are indispensable in and for the church, as long as they do not overemphasise one part of the Bible above the rest or make a dogma of it.
Unfortunately, there are still many people (‘churches’) who can currently be identified with the third group. For these people, their dogma – their personal interpretation of the Scriptures – comes firstly, sometimes to such an extent that, if one does not comply with it, one is destined to go to hell (according to them).
Time, place, culture and tradition mark the life of the church and the way in which the gospel is interpreted. Jesus, for one, lived in a certain time, in a specific place and country, with a definite culture and tradition, which obviously differs from ours. This also applies to the contexts within which all the books of the Bible were written. If we look at the theologians and Christians who operated through the centuries, we realise that they lived in different circumstances – time, space, culture and tradition – and to live life to its fullest, they had to live according to this ‘old’ theology, reinterpreted and applied to their current circumstances (cf. Volf & Croasmun
This makes all theology contextual. Bevans (
[
Theology in the 21st century is therefore a contextual dialogue with the Bible as the word of God, being the foundation of our belief systems, and between the children of God within their circumstances and the people around them, with the practices and dialogues of the church through the centuries as guidelines. It is very important to understand the Bible as a compilation of books originating mostly from the ancient Near East, and not presenting it, as many preachers do, through a Western lens (cf. Bevans
The church should therefore constitute a dialogue between the ‘ways, themes and methods of theology’ in the Bible, and our ‘culture, ethnic identities and social locations’ (Bevans
The Bible should be regarded as the norm of our Christian living and our outreach to ‘the others’. However, is this word of God normative in itself, and therefore ‘independent of its actual relevance’ or does this ‘actual relevance’ regulate its normativity? (Kaufmann
In the South African context, we need to get back to these fundamentals, to have a balanced view on the normativity of the Bible. However, currently, the ‘normativity’ of the Bible is mostly captured within the stern dogma of most of the mainstream churches; most Reformed churches are very strict on singing 16th-century hymns, which are for them the norm of praise and worship. The charismatic and Pentecostal churches are strict on adult baptism and glossolalia, according to their interpretation of the Bible. The Seventh-Day Adventists are strict on keeping the old Sabbath and to avoid eating meat, holding it as a norm for Christian living. The Roman Catholic Church mostly accords a very special position to Mary, the mother of Jesus, in their worship, while the African indigenous churches (AICs) put their customs and traditions firstly and adopting from Scripture what and how thesy think fit.
This kind of dogma is a soldier and a killer. A soldier fights everyone that does not agree with her or his ideology – a soldier fights to kill. Instead of fighting the real enemy, that is, the devil, instead of bringing the good news to people who do not know (enough about) Jesus, the dogma soldier fights her or his own people who do not share their narrow-minded ideology. With futile allegations used as sword, the dogma soldier ‘kills’ her or his fellow soldiers, which she or he regards to be the enemies. However, if we go back to the words of Jesus in John 3:16 (
To my mind, the normativity of the Bible is all about presenting the Bible with all its truths, soaked with the will of God and with Jesus who came to earth; also including the so-called grey areas where people differ on the understanding thereof, presenting the people on earth with what
With reference to the relativity of the Bible – already in the 5th century CE, Augustine has detected the relativity of the Scriptures when he made the following remarks in his
[
It is impossible to read Scripture without interpreting it from one’s ‘own frame of reference’ (Garrison
The relativity of the Scriptures is a given, which should be addressed with much caution. In the back of our mind, we must remember that every book in the Bible was written by men of God who
The relativity of the Scriptures does not take away what God intended to convey to his children through specific people who wrote the books of the Bible.
Despite its authority and normativity, no one on earth can ever discover the final or ‘whole truth’ in the Bible (cf. Garrison
As a church, we need to admit that we must apply both a kataphatic theology (using positive terminology to describe or refer to God, i.e. terminology that describes or refers to what God is believed to be) and an apophatic theology (more negative terminology), as both these approaches are (Volf & Croasmun
[
As we do not know God in full, and therefore we speculate about him in some way, also because he is much more and greater than we are (cf. Is 55:8–9, ‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways’, declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’). Within this scenario, God creates the context for a flourishing life for his children on earth.
This heading has in mind to cursory investigate some ideas and opinions about the viability, as well as the nature and appreciation of the flourishing life in Christ. The flourishing life is the ‘kingdom of God in its fullness, the realized hope of Israel’s prophets’ (Volf & Croasmun
When looking at texts like Revelation 21:3, as well as those already mentioned, it can be suggested that the ‘home of God’ is the ‘overarching metaphor for developing a theology of flourishing life’ (Volf & Croasmun
As Christians, we should seek to have a
According to Volf and Croasmun (
The answer to the question about the viability of the flourishing life is a very subjective one. Once a Christian, someone will immediately have a positive answer to it, having experienced it in their religious life. However, the non-Christian, atheist or agnostic will frown at it and have a myriad of excuses and counter-arguments, based on,
In line with Bevans (
What we need is a (Volf & Croasmun
[
It should be descriptive like a science, instrumental like a technology and normative as mere advocacy (public support for a cause or policy) (cf. Volf & Croasmun
Every individual can be understood and defined by her or his dialogical character (Taylor
Within the 4IR, theologians (in the wide sense of the word – therefore not only academics) should think twice before just presenting the word of God to a post-postmodern society. In the 4IR, all knowledge is fluid, and people are not keen to agree with others without good reasoning. Nothing remains the same for too long. We must implement that into theology. Although the ‘facts’ of theology will never change, we must innovate constantly, without distorting the biblical truths. We will have to make sure that we present the word of God as normative, and as true to the Bible as possible (according to our interpretation of the Bible – cf. Smit
In her or his dialogue with congregants – be it during a church service while preaching, or in a (Bible study) group, or face-to-face – the preacher must always take care to act as the ‘significant other’, making such an impression on the individual as to assure that the Holy Spirit will help this person to adopt a new or better set of ideas, leading to a flourishing life. Preachers must stop presenting theology as if it has nothing new to offer and nothing compared with the other sciences which discover new things almost on a daily basis. Before conveying the word of God to others, preachers should ask themselves: ‘What
Theology should be put in the hands of ordinary (and well-informed) Christians to actively put our faith back ‘in touch’ with life (Green
[
Presenting the word of God in this way, with enthusiasm and conviction, could touch the heart of the independent and self-serving 4IR individual to such an extent that it might lead to a change of heart.
People living in the dawn(ing) of the 4IR are very critical, regarding themselves as ‘masterminds’, knowing ‘everything’ as they have all the information they need at their disposal (mostly on the Internet) and being emancipated – free from the ‘shackles’ that bind them to a dependent life. With reference to religion, they are no more dependent on a preacher to tell them what the Bible says, dependent on faith
In this article, the aim was to show the dialectical as well as the dialogical way of reasoning about the normativity and relativity of the Bible, finding itself presented within a 21st-century contextual theology, offered to students (academia), congregants (the church) and the world ‘out there’. The Bible, being filled with ‘old knowledge’, should be presented in the present-day context of the congregants or people ‘out there’, in a fresh and innovative way – talking passionately about old knowledge and facts in a brand new and interesting way. Amidst a visible moral decline in society, we should keep a positive vision and attitude about God and Christianity in general.
With all that has been said here, we must admit that it is easy to criticise and to point out everything that is and that went wrong. However, to come up with a viable solution is less easy.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this research article.
W.H.O. is the sole author of this research article.
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.
Already in 2012, Jeffrey Nealon started to refer to a post-postmodern society (Nealon
Artificial intelligence, also called machine intelligence, is the development of a computer system or systems that would have the capacity to execute tasks that normally requires human intelligence, such as decision-making, doing translations and speech recognition and having a visual perception.
Internet of things is a system created to inter-relate computing devices with each other in which they can automatically identify each other and transfer data from and to each other without the interaction of a human being.
Big Data analyses very large and complex data sets on computers and extracts information from these large data sets.
Deep learning ‘takes place through interaction and participation’ (Brown
There is a cynical reason for the latter: if they supply a positive alternative, then
Also look at Wikipedia for a list of new Christian movements (Wikipedia
For an informative article about this history of interpretation, cf. Smit (
This excludes the gullible groups all over the world who will still believe ‘everything’ their preachers tell them, which needs discussion in a separate article.
Though space does not allow to elaborate on it, it is very important to take note that the contextualisation of the Bible is done based on its fourfold weight, that is, its historical, cultural, canonical and theological (cf. Welker
This correlates with the perspective of practical theology, as explicated by Swinton and Mowat (
Eisegesis is a (sometimes very) subjective and non-analytical reading of a Bible verse.
In the original Latin: ‘
This refers to the inspiration by the Holy Spirit that the men of God experienced when they wrote the books.
For the interpreter, it is very important, when doing exegesis of a specific pericope, to also stay within the rules of semantics, especially with reference to illegitimate totality transfer (cf. Barr
Many scholars wrongly assume that St. Francis told his followers, ‘Preach the gospel to all you meet. Use words only if necessary’, which he never did (cf. Milton n.d.; Stanton