A Review of “Global Humility”

I think this book sees the Bible primarily through a man-centric perspective, and does so under an attempt to be humble. This effort involves not having an arrogant ethnocentrism, or judgmental attitude (page 10). The core idea in the book is that reading the Bible (i.e. proper hermeneutics) involves putting on different “cultural lenses” to see different perspectives of the text. This has led to what is, as far as I am concerned, an absolute travesty of exegesis which happens when the Bible is not at the center. It is a demonstration of how radically one can go astray once the biblical foundation of their belief becomes shiftable and man-reliant, rather than firmly Christ-centered and God-reliant. It is a demonstration of what happens when the idea of Scripture interpreting Scripture, and Scripture determining in what ways it is proper to interpret itself (as historical-grammatical primarily) is lost. I think this can be most clearly seen in the interpretation of Galatians in the third chapter. Andy McCullough (the author) sees the “Men from James” as people who sought to “impose, or at least commend, Jerusalem Christianity to non-Jerusalem Christianity” (page 35). There is no mention of the fact that what was really going on with those who claimed to be Christian and yet said that Christ was actually not enough, and you still had to work to secure your salvation, was according to Paul not a Gospel at all, and in fact “another gospel” (Galatians 1:6-7).

Throughout the book Mr. McCullough reduces Christianity to a mere intellectual philosophy that can be determined by human context rather than as God’s Self-Revelation and only way of salvation, even though he writes that he does believe Jesus is the only way.  It comes, rather, in expressions such as these: (still speaking of the matters in Galatia, even in the same paragraph cited above) “They had not understood that all expressions of Christianity are contextual, including their own.  That the Pauline apostolic sphere of churches was parallel to, not contingent upon of subservient to the Yacoban sphere.  In short, that Christianity was becoming multi-centric” (page 35).

Andy also seems to do away with the harmonization of Scripture, and suggests theological pluralism of the Scripture (that there is more than one theology “contained” in Scripture).  “James’ context was different to Paul’s.  He was in a different place, writing to different people, answering different questions, dealing with different concerns, in a different style.  A study of the theology of James in its own right yields fruit.  A comparison of James with Paul brings us, as it did Luther, unfortunately to have to relegate one to semi-canonical status” (page 234).  He also conflates knowledge of God with idolatry of knowledge (page 50).  While it is right to acknowledge that of course we have uncertainty, we are, for no wisdom nor knowledge of our own (1 Corinthians 2), certain of the existence, character, nature and working of God insomuch as He has revealed.  In this he seems to reduce theology to be something outside of Scripture which can then be added to and molded by Scripture, rather than something derived from Scripture, reliant on Scripture, and changed by Scripture (pages 214-216). 

Now, before I give you the next chunk of Mr. McCullough’s theology, let me just say at least what I appreciate about this book. The book seeks to meet people where they are. It gives good thought to translating the Bible to other people in their circumstances, not just transliterating it (page 190). The author also gives some good insight into church planting and leadership in doing so. Andy seems to want to be contentious on the cultures and normal day to day life of other people. That desire, however, even though good insights are throughout the book, is demolished in the fact that that desire stems from a form of what I can only call critical theology theory. And, ultimately, this brings theology into the realm of subjectivity and therefore molds Christ to conform to man. Now, I must add, that he dances often on the line between going far too far, and seeking to give biblical and very valid insight (I think this can be seen in chapter 15, pages 151-158). However, there are other passages like the following which make me far more uneasy with treating the content lightly, and more comfortable with the critical theology understanding of the book than any other.

“…we accept that there are many millions across the world reading the same Scriptures and arriving at different conclusions.  We desire to engage in robust theological debate (like Paul and James did), but are happy to conclude that different apostolic spheres require different approaches.  We are humble towards scholarship, towards historic interpretation.  But we are also aware that culture plays a role in interpretation.  That no one theology is truly objective.  That Christianity is multi-centric.  That local elderships and not external hierarchies are responsible for doctrine in local churches.  That different people’s thought processes work in different ways” (page 235).

He then continues on to quote another, writing,

“Newbigin, writing about the plurality of Christology in the New Testament, can answer this more densely and eloquently than I. ‘It is important for a faithful doing of Christian theology that we should affirm and insist that the New Testament contains not one Christology but several. This is not an unfortunate defect to be regretted or concealed. It is, on the contrary, of the essence of the matter because it will make clear the fact that Christology is always to be done in via, at the interface between the gospel and the cultures that it meets on its missionary journey … The variety of Christologies actually to be found in the New Testament is part of the fundamental witness to the nature of the gospel; it points to the destination of the gospel in all the cultures of mankind’” (page 235).

This means, as the author admits on the next page, that new contexts can mean “new theology.”

Some will ask me why I couldn’t list the author’s desire for missions and his insights to missions as something I admire in the book. I can answer simply: I cannot join in any mission the goal of which I haven’t the foggiest idea of! If Christ is not truly known He cannot be truly loved or actually followed. And this book suggests that Christ not only is subject to different interpretations, but that actually there are, as far as I am concerned from the nature of the wording, different Christs to be found in Scripture! If God is not the commissioner, energizer, and goal of all mission work than I want no part of that mission. Again, whatever insights are to be found in the book, I count them as irrevocably lost because of this. Find a better book on missions. You would be better served by it. I cannot suggest you drink from a cup which has even one drop of deadly poison in it. This is one of those cups.

As for the author my compassion goes out to him. He writes that his intention is not that people should think that what he writes opens the door to relativism, or as denying that there is one truth or one orthodoxy, or as taking away from the universal need for salvation in Christ (Page 190). I don’t mean to demean him—he seems well thought out and is well cited throughout the book. But there is theological confusion spread throughout the book, even at the most core issues of the gospel and the centrality of the Person of Christ. I don’t hold his feet to the fire alone—if I had read only from those he quoted, I’d likely wind up in a similar theological position. But it is sufficient to say that until and unless the theological issues are resolved, I cannot in the slightest indorse this book. If you read it for the insights which the author has in other directions, such as conducting missions, I don’t deny that you’ll find helpful insights. But I pray this will help you steer clear of the more problematic, foundation level theological errors therein if you do read it.

Find Global Humility: Attitudes for Mission, here.

“The reality is that the Bible is not subject to us; we are subject to it.  We are the moveable ones in the diagram.  Swayed by every wind of fashionable thinking, we don’t know as much as we might think we do.  So wherever we live in the world, or whenever we live in history, we are subject to evaluation by the Bible.  The Word of God comes against our assumptions.  It speaks against the spirit of the age.  It opposes the arrogance of our minuscule knowledge. 

“On a horizontal level, our tone toward others may be humble.  But vertically, our subjective approach to God’s Word is the height of arrogance” (Peter Mead, Handling God’s Word with Genuine Humility).