Context 2

So, I'm wrapping up Bosch right now. I've got 70 pages left, and if I don't get my thoughts down now they'll disappear completely in a few weeks. So, sorry if you're a Bosch-hater, but that all you're gonna get for the next few weeks.

Characteristic to modernism is the tendency to blindly choose sides. My denomination is right, yours is wrong, that settles it. My political party is good, yours is bad, that settles that. I am reasonable, therefore all who don't believe what I believe are misguided or stupid. On and on.

Ideally, postmodern thought rejects this (often more in theory than in practice), and seeks to take the best of both worlds . . . whatever those worlds may be. This is partially what Bosch seeks to do as he tries to guide the reader to a postmodern theology of missions. He calls all of these opposing views dialectics. And, dialectics give us the opportunity for his favorite concept: creative tension. The idea is, if you don't pick sides, but respectully seek out the truth in each camp, you will move creatively beyond the stalemate that has blocked people previously. An example of this would be Brian McLaren's book A Generous Orthodoxy. McLaren writes 250+ pages on what he sees that is good in most denominations and opposing dialectical situations that divide Christianity today. It's an ok book; I'd give it a 4.5 of 10.

I think the point is that postmodern thought sees the world holistically and refuses to reject other viewpoints solely because they are "different". It seeks truth with complete openness and humility. It values sight over blindness, even when sight results in confusion and despair. "We see only in part, but we do see."

So as for context . . . the point that struck me today was the affirmation that many we contact every day hold to theology that is foreign and may even seem heretical to us. Yet, even each of us individually, have doubts and conflicting beliefs with the Christianity that we claim as our own. There are doctrines that the church body as a whole believes and proclaims, yet I don't know if I have enough faith in them to proclaim them. In this there is a tension going on. There is a dialectic between my faith and belief as an individual, and the doctrines of the body of faith I am a part of. In some ways, I am trying to fit faith into my context, and more often than not when I do attempt this, I eventually end up changing. In contextualizing, faith finally connect to my worldview and makes sense, and as it does, it challenges me. It may seem I am playing the pluralist, changing faith for my convenience. And, this is a risk. More often than not though, it was a necessary step for it to become my faith, and not the faith of my parents or grandparents. Also, this often results in change at the church level too. The truths remain the same, but as faith comes to fit my context the resulting religious practice changes.

So, on the level of missions, this dialectic between personal theology and community theology can be applicable. If we demand that the church we are planting adhere to the good ol' theology from back home, chances are they will be filled with unspoken doubts and an awkward faith that never truly becomes there own. In contextualizing the gospel we realize that we as missionaries will be uncomfortable in the church we plant, and likely the people we work with will be uncomfortable as the gospel message challenges them.

The cool thing is seeing the creative work of the Holy Spirit move among people. As I wrestle with doctrines I disagree with, I eventually arrive at those moments when I see beyond stale formulas and beyond my own selfish desires and get a glimpse of truth. In one moment I am convicted and relieved. Convicted of what I must now do differently, and relieved of the fact that my questions and doubts were not unwarranted. When others cannot accept the message we bring them, it is often similar. They must hear the gospel as a message that convicts and relieves.

True contextualization is perilous because it relies heavily on human judgement. On the one hand it is a hopeful venture. It respects free will, and allows the chance for deep conversion that thoroughly transforms all who believe it. On the other hand it poses a significant threat of syncretism, and gives room for mediocre pluralism/relativism to overwhelm vibrant faith. It is not a way of answers. Which leads me to my quote of the week,

Even if we are not equipped to decide between absolute right and absolute wrong, we should be able to distinguish between shades of gray and to choose for the light gray and against the darker gray.