Profilo di Josh and Vivien...The Snyder Family SpaceFotoBlogElenchiAltro  |  Strumenti Guida |
|
|
11 settembre Opening the Liberal Mind - The Moral Theory of the AtonementSherman made a good point in affirming aspects of the moral theory of the atonement, a point that I agree with. Though he did not use these words, he encouraged evangelicals to not throw out the baby with the bath water. That the atonement of Christ was an example for us is easily seen in Paul's encouragement towards husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church, dying for her. So, it would seem that we need to adjust our thinking a bit... Because there is a problem with how we think. We tend to think in rigid categories, and because we do so, and in some ways because we need to do so in order to have a cohesive worldview, we vilify those points of an argument which may be good, but which are part of a larger ideology that is not good. In this case, it is the moral theory of the atonement as used by liberal theologians. There are aspects of it which are rooted in humanism. The error of the theory is not that Christ's death was an example, but that that was all that it was. I've always found it ironic that the term "liberal" means free, but in people's quest for freedom, they restrict it. In this case, they put a set of shackles around the atonement of Christ, saying that it can ONLY be an example. This is reductionist thinking at its worse. For our part, we need to embrace the ransom or satisfaction that the atonement was, as well as the example that it portrayed. The reason that we must behold it and accept it as an example is that the kind of sacrifice that Christ offered on the cross is the only kind of sacrifice that will help to win this world to Christ. I just hope we don't turn people off with our narrow-mindedness first... The Satisfaction Theory - Saving God's FaceIn reflecting on Anselm's satisfaction theory, which is based on the feudal culture in which when the serf dishonors the honor of the master, a satisfaction price is required, I realize that it does provide a valid redemptive analogy for the Gospel. The simple reality is that, while imperfect, cultures provide analogies that explain the Gospel. I agree with Sherman that it does not have to be either this theory or that theory, but that we can look at the different theories of atonement and see those elements that reflect the glory of God.
For starters, I see the satisfaction theory as reflecting the truth of God in that it is true: we have dishonored the name of God. "For all have fallen short of the glory of God..." His glory is the standard. His glory is his name. His name has been defiled by our acts of sin. There is a very real dishonor that has occurred to the Father's name.
Now, I realize I still lack depth of understanding of Asian culture, but I do realize that "face" is about honor. In some ways, it may be more applicable in the Asian context to speak of how God has been dishonored, or "lost face" because of us. It is not that God is or ever can be dishonorable in any way; rather, that he loses that honor among men. Men were created to be vessels of praise and honor who reflect the honor of God. But we have caused God to "lose face" among men. The question, then, is: how do we help God to regain face? Actually, that is a good question. The weakness here, I realize as I write, is that if the quest becomes our seeking to save God's face or restore his face, then it would carry the implication that he is weak and in need of our restoration of face for him. God is not like man in that. But, the fact is that the offense remains: we have caused him to lose face among the nations. Forgiveness is the only key. But followed by forgiveness is the necessity to restore God's face among the nations and peoples. And that means living a godly life and proclaiming the honor of God in contextually appropriate ways.
09 agosto Christology Blog - More on StoryThis blog is on one of the lectures that I missed, which was the first lecture on the unity of Christ. However, the subject matter on which I want to blog is not on that unity, but on the discourse given at the beginning of that lecture. The discourse had to do with story and theology. Story is a means of conveying theology. And, furthermore, there is an overall story of the church and of theology.
My reflections here are more on the nature of story. Story is, I believe, in part a manifestation of cultural tastes. Stories have functions and purposes. In reflecting, again, on theology and the movies, a movie is a story, but the movie tells the story that it wants to tell. Movies, novels, etc. - these all have biases that they want to express. There is a certain message that the movie maker wants to convey. Sometimes these messages are unconscious. Different cultures have different messages.
There is thus a certain function that stories have in different cultures. These are often unconsciously accepted. In the realm of contextualization, therefore, it is necessary to understand the purpose and nature of stories of a given culture. But what of global culture? Movies are a medium for those who participate in the global culture, an accepted medium. The question is: what are the contours of that medium?
Once we can understand the contours of the story medium of global culture and of the cultures in which we minister, we can speak to the heart, because story reaches to the heart. I used to be so perplexed why the Chinese I knew thought novels were a waste of time, when they evidently possessed great truth potential. I believe I better understand now: it is largely because the purpose of novels is largely a Western purpose. Novels lack the contours that fit the Asian mind. Contextualization demands critical thought on this matter. Christology Blog - Story Means...Theology in the movies. Of course, I agree with the concept, being a man who himself loves stories, a man who loves movies, and a man who loves the idea of a redemptive analogy that can be used to bridge the truth of God to the heart of man. God has spoken to me many a truth through movies, as well as through novels. Granted, one inherent problem is that the interpretation of the event depicted in the film is a subjective event and is in danger of not being open to dissection by the Word of God.
But that is not really what I want to explore here. What I want to explore is the nature of truth embedded in story, and I first want to look at the reality that story is formed in a cultural context (these are hypotheses that I am forming as I write. In the West there is a form of narrative called the novel. This has, I suppose, grown up over the last couple hundred years, beginning with Robinson Caruso, Frankenstein, and the like. Today, in the West, it has a definite form. This form is something that has become culturally embedded and now lives in the realm of the unconscious, whereas once, I assume, it was a novelty, a new wineskin in the medium of story. There are certain, perhaps even emotional, values attached to the novel and to the form that the novel takes. I would venture to say that there is an element of the meaningless in the form of the novel. But when I say "meaningless", I do not mean that it is useless, but that it does not necessarily have specific truth attached to it. Much of the dialogue that is found in these stories would fit the realm of the meaningless. That there is a realm of the meaningless does not mean that it is not a vehicle of truth - the Lord knows I don't intend to say that! What I am saying is that the realm of the meaningless in the novel is more part of the cultural form of the novel.
How, then, is truth conveyed through a novel? Truth is often, in practice, conveyed through propositions. Take The DaVinci Code. Now, granted, this book is not a book of truth, but it, and Dan Brown's other novels, illustrates how ideas are generally conveyed through a novel: they are often conveyed through propositions made during the dialogue, but the story itself is not truth - I refer not to whether or not his propositions are true, but to the fact that the story itself is not a truth.
In contrast, parables are stories of truth. Truth is united with the story. It is interwoven with it, so that the story cannot be a story and the truth cannot be a truth separate from one another. I've noticed that in Asian culture, stories are rooted in experience. I've noticed that Asians, from my church to my family, rely on stories based in actual experience, and often personal experience, as a means of conveying truth. They rely very much on story. But, ironically, novels as stories are not popular and are viewed as impractical. The reason for this is that Asians, in particular Chinese, value practical life experience. Novels are not real the way that life experience is real. Novels are a waste of time. It could be that the meaningless aspect of novels is what turns Asians off to novels in general. For Asians, I would assert that there is a disconnect between the understanding of practical truth and how that can be worked out or conveyed through a novel.
At the same time, I believe there is an Asian literary tradition. I am making pure assumptions here, but based on what I've read of Asian literature - not just Westernized forms of Asian literature -, but truth in Asian fiction is often conveyed through indirect means. Parallel stories are created. It is explicitly implicit. I've noticed that this is often the way that people are rebuked out here: a story is told that parallels the "sinners" story so that he knows his sin clearly enough without being directly confronted with it.
So, what is the purpose of all these ramblings on story and truth? And how do they related to Christology? The point is this: cultures have different means of communicating messages, in particular stories. And they are valid means. One of the implications of this is simply that expressions of Christian discipleship through story will appear differently from one culture to another. The job is not to eliminate one form of story as impractical. Rather, the job of the Christian is to perfect that form of story to the highest use for God. I personally think that the Chinese use of story is not utilized enough as a means of Christian discipleship here in Southeast Asia. The truth is that novels as a means of discipleship will never take off. But there are different means and methods that can and should take off.
In sum: creativity should be given the freedom of expression in each culture. I have more thoughts on the matter, but will reserve those for...another time and another place... 03 agosto Christology Blog - Communication of the NaturesThe communication of the natures. The divine and the human. The proposition set forth in class was that the natures of Christ united through hypostatic union communicate with one another. Now, forgive me, but I'm going to make a huge leap into my working hypothesis on the nature of the incarnation of the cross cultural missionary in another culture.
My working hypothesis is this: two natures can dwell inside the missionary in a way that is not the result of a separated, split personality. Both of those natures are fully that person. It is always better to try to explain such a concept. First, every missionary grows up in a culture and is enculturated. He (or she) grows up, putting on and interacting with the three levels of culture (as stated by Hall in The Silent Language), and feeling comfortable with that culture. That culture with all its cultural systems is an intimate part of him.
However, when he enters a new culture, he (ideally) begins to put on that new culture as a learner. I am not referring to the process of "going native", rather I am referring to the process of putting on the valid aspects of the new culture. In other words, he starts the process of enculturation...again.
Now that he is putting on that new culture, does he despise his culture of origin? Does he despise the worldview he grew up with? No. Only the person who "goes native" does this. He is someone who despises himself and has a neurotic complex. But the missionary who puts on a new culture in the image of Christ and his incarnation is someone who puts on the new culture and develops an authentic, integrated self with no contradiction of the "natures". He is one person with a fully integrated self consisting of two completely, synthesized cultures.
Make sense? Maybe not yet, but it will. 17 luglio Christology Blog - Week 3John the Apostle contextualized the term "logos". This was contextualized in first century Greek culture. There was a definite understanding that the people of the time had of the Logos. This actually would make for an interesting study in contextualization. The reason for this is that his contextualization takes place on the level of worldview. First, the people of the time had a certain understanding of the Logos, so when John mentioned the Logos, that particular understanding would come to mind. There was a deep philosophical connection with the Logos. Second, he redefined that word, centering it around Christ. I see two possible conclusions based on a cursory examination of this proclamation: first, John affirmed elements of truth in the thinking of the day; second, he redefined those in a Christian manner. Likewise this teaches us something of the work of contextualization. First, it does affirm the use of "emic" terms. In other words, terms used in religious and philosophical spheres are not 100% polluted. We can thus utilize those terms, affirming their truly Christian elements. Second, we must redefine them in the person of Christ, making a new locus for the term, and that locus being the person of Christ. So we affirm, bridge, and transform. That is the true work of contextualization. 05 luglio Christology Blog - Week 2Being a culture-monger, I naturally gravitate towards issues in culture that are alluded to during the classroom lecture. That said, what struck me was the discussion on the culturally connected aspects of the study of Christ. In sum, the truth is that Christ was a culturally-bound human being. His culture was first-century Hebrew culture. Not only was he culturally-bound, but also he was historically-bound. By this I do not mean that he was a slave either to culture or to history. What I mean is that in his humanity he carried within his personal worldview certain assumptions about life that guided his behavior in certain culturally relevant (and at time irreverent - that is, irreverent to the culture) ways. In the parlance of intercultural communication, he was most likely the product of a society that utilized indirect communication, valued stories as a means of communication, high power distance oriented, collectivist, and masculine. And yet, he was not bound to these.
In terms of the hermeneutical task, the student will come to the Scripture with cultural and worldview-based biases. This means that the personal worldview of the student will come to Scripture and place on the Scriptures his perspective on the events and propositions laid out in Scripture. This fact is a reality.
However, once the student recognizes the fully human Christ whose actions often reflect cultural and historical realities, the student is then able to lay aside his own worldview perspectives in order that he might examine the Christ of Scripture from a culturally-smart perspective. Theology done mono-culturally is a bit easier than when done cross-culturally.
What I say next is not new to anyone: missiologically, it gets a bit more complicated, as the missionary theologian has three cultures with which to contend: home, host, and Biblical. Each one represents cultures and worldviews that get in the way of "objective" Biblical analysis. What this means for the missionary is that the missionary must "exegete" all three cultures and allow the truth of Scripture to take on a life of its own in the new culture.
So what does this mean in the end? 1) Acknowledge worldview biases from all three cultures; 2) Discern Biblical cultures; 3) Exegete with a mind to acquiring supra-cultural truth statements; 4) Apply those supra-cultural statements, minus cultural baggage from either the cultures of the Bible or of the missionary, to the new culture. It's that simple:) |
|
|
