theo|digital

To speak of “contextual theology” today typically calls to mind one of two possible approaches to theology and culture, distinguishable by both their roots and their intention. In fact, though they share the same label, they’re not often found in the same seminary walls.

Evangelical seminaries are likely to locate the discussion in the missiology department, where examination of culture has an evangelical impetus. With roots in the successes and failures in the nineteenth century Western missionary societies, these approaches are primarily praxilogical, discussing custom and ritual and global cultures. Anthropology and sociology are engaged for their descriptive powers, and synthesizing theologians like Paul Hiebert and Steven Bevans are referenced, in an effort to understand the incarnation and communication of the gospel especially in non-western environment.

Mainline seminaries, on the other hand, are likely visit contextual theologies as an invited critique on the Western hegemony of the academy. The approach is postmodern and plural, and builds on the foundational stones of liberation, feminist, and black theologies, citing Gustavo Gutierrez, Mary Daly, and James Cone. In intention, these voices are studied to rectify a missing voice to marginalized people groups, a segment that is destined to continue its expansion even beyond Womanist theology, minjung theology, Queer theology, Carribean theology, etc.

Each approach maintains some suspicion of the other, not least because of their perceived (and not without cause) position as liberal or evangelical approaches. But both share in common a marginalization in the standard theology classroom. The implicit assumption? The accepted stream of Western theology is neutral, generic, and context free. Of course, nobody wants to say this explicitly, but that course titles allow “Feminist theologies” or “African Christologies” but not “European Reformed Theologies” or “Germanic Pre-Modern Doctrine” underscores the point. The Frankfort school’s Herbert Marcuse helpfully speaks of “repressive tolerance” to describe a hegemonic system that allows minority views with open arms, but in treating them as such uses them as evidence to reinforce the dominant view. And Dutch Catholic Frans Wijsen reinforces that even today contextual theologies are treated like “exotic fruits to supplement their traditional Western theological dishes.”

If these two approaches were to have more than just casual interaction, one might imagine they’d band together on a protest march with slogan posters held high: “All theologies are contextual theologies!”

Shane Hipps is a Mennonite pastor who I noticed wrote a book a couple years ago entitled The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture. I borrowed it and skimmed but never really read it, and now I’m realizing I’m gonna have to catch up, since Shane is starting to get some voice on these issues in the evangelical Christian leadership world.  I’d love to meet him and chat it up some time, since this is one my primary areas of interest.

Because so much of media ecology is simply unawareness, I had hoped another a fellow watcher of communications as culture would cultivate an imaginative view on ideas like “virtual community.” But here Shane makes it clear that he views online interaction as entertainment (“enjoy it, but don’t call it community, because it isn’t”).  This was somewhat disappointing to me (and not unusual, see my first post on this )

Scot McKnight posted a response at both Our of Ur and at Jesus Creed that asked Shane to consider the Jesus Creed community, a blog that does have a remarkable level a participation (both in volume and quality) compared to (most?) other blogs that often function as more soapbox than dialogue.

Over 40 commentors have contributed some amazing thoughts to this thread: Dan (4) points out that he doesn’t know Scot McKnight, and comes because the community is useful.  Makes sense to me.  I think utility is clearly a reason we both approach and stay in offline communities as well.  Eric (9) calls Jesus Creed a better community than any church he’s been part of in 20 years.  He cites questions and disagreement as key draws.  And these are clearly crucial in offline community as well!  Show me a community without conflict and I’ll show you “shallow.”  Chris E. notes that Scot’s experience is remarkably different than others because of his central role.  As a campus pastor at the center of a vibrant church for a number of years, I eventually realized myself that my experience was also remarkably different to those who knew only a few people in our church, or hung “near the edges.”  There really are positions and vantage points in communities that vary the experience.  Matt S. (14) sets up a thought experiment that makes me hopeful for deeper thinking on this, and Pat B (38) is wise to the net when (s?)he notes that blogs don’t have a natural format for extended conversation.

All this to say:  with not too much thought, we find a great deal of similarity between “virtual” community and “physical” community.

Next post (hopefully coming soon):  more on why I think Marshall McLuhan would argue with Shane Hipps four point analysis on virtual community.

“The fact that early believers followed a “crucified Messiah” (the ultimate oxymoron for both Jew and Greek) meant they aligned themselves with a religious sect whose founder had experienced ultimate shame (hence Paul’s saying to the basically Gentile congregations at the heart of the empire that the gospel is not a matter of shame for him [Rom 1.16]).

To follow Christ and thus experience cultural shame and isolation were not negotiables for Paul; this is the way God had chosen…”

Page 181, Gordon Fee writing on Gal 3 in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy

When I was originally on my grad school and then seminary search, I was hugely attracted to Mars Hill Graduate School in Seattle. Already familiar with their President Dan Allender, the way MGHS framed their approach to theological education through a Deep Beauty view of the world called to me like family I hadn’t yet known.

But in the end, though I struggled, I wound up dismissing them because they did not yet have the accreditation I needed to keep the door open for PhD work. But I still like to keep tabs on them now and then.  Check out this great promo video on loving your neighbor.

mhgs what no. 2 from blaine hogan on Vimeo.
(I don’t know who Blaine Hogan is, but I have noticed that it looks like he just recently moved over to my neck of the woods to work for Willow)

I still have this funny hope that’ll I’ll find some connection with MHGS people. It’s been a rather different experience here at NPTS… as an artist I sense I’ve shelved an entire side of me.  The social tone and space is warm, but encourages a traditionalism more akin to the Thanksgiving silk flowers on your parents table than the open mic, silver and expectant in the upstairs part of the gallery. The portraits in the halls are of elderly Swedes (none of whom I know about).  Culture is recognized here, but as something “other?”—something to be studied (vs. created). Sometimes it is perhaps presented in contradictory ways. My communicating the faith class made attempts, but at the end of the day had a superficial, contrived approach (to its defense–it’s focus was personal evangelism). My theology class and others have had a incredibly dim view of beauty in the face of sin. I haven’t had a class with missiologist Paul DeNeui (I typically find the missiologists the most insightful on culture in general). But I suspect that none of our classes embody expression that is detailed, creative, playful, and revelatory. I haven’t seen professors here that think this way. (Nor at TEDS, where I’ve taken some additional courses).  Honestly, I think there are only a few classmates here that would naturally fit in a MHGS-lensed world.  Only a few of us who want to talk about life as art, indie music, and discover truth while tracing a twilight skyline.

Which again is hardly to discount the things I like very much at North Park. Just to wonder again at how I’m a “different person” here than I might be elsewhere.

Fundamentalist Christian Bob Jones University recently published a formal apology for their long-standing policies of disallowing inter-racial dating, and not admitting blacks until the 1970s.

BJU’s history has been chiefly characterized by striving to achieve those goals; but like any human institution, we have failures as well. For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it.  Read the entire statement.

A BeliefNet blogger has a great perspective on this, I think:  accept genuine repentance.

For me the interesting part is the language “ethos of American culture” and “counterpoint.”  It’s odd to think that as far apart as I’d naturally want to feel from BJU’s stance on things… this language in reference to culture isn’t that objectionable.  The difficulty would be if BJU would understand Christian counterpoint as wholy “other”—counterculture that is labeled only Christian—or if they allow for the reality that we’re natural born into a pluralistic American culture, and Christianity must modify and challenge that, but cannot replace.

It’s interesting to find “culture” used twice in BJU’s mission statement.  It begins, “Within the cultural and academic soil of liberal arts education…” and ends with “Bob Jones University seeks to maintain high academic standards, an emphasis on culture, and a practical Christian philosophy that is both orthodox and fervent…”  The former is really interesting: the context of a format for education as culture. The latter is curious in relationship to the race statement. Is the emphasis on “American culture” (and how to understand that? Christian culture as distinct from non-Christian cultures? American Christian culture? Culture as a neutral anthropological condition/construct?

Linford Detweiler, one half of the folk-jazz-pop- bluegrass-acoustic duo Over the Rhine, spoke last week at North Park University.  OtR usually comes up on my “top 3″ favorite bands list for a long list of reasons, but the not the least that they project a view of the world that sees doubt as part of faith, winter as warm, and back-roads as essential to human experience.

I’d never seen Linford speak more than a few words (he doesn’t talk a lot at concerts, usually letting his partner Karin Bergquist hold down center stage).  His topic was on faith and art, which he approached mostly by storytelling through parts of his childhood.

Some quotes (not quite verbatim, cause I was sketching them with my thumbs on my Treo keyboard—which can also be thanked for the blurry picture—but pretty accurate).

All good art involves getting caught up in a story that’s bigger than you.

My father grew up in Amish community.  No tv, no radio, no electricity.  He was restless.  The first thing he did that was unusual was sketch faces along the whitewashed barn.  People from the community came by and recognized themselves.

At one point [my father] discovered the reel to reel tape recorder.  He’d take it out to the woods and point that microphone at the swamp, the insect symphony, that extravagant useless beauty that’s all around us.

At breakfast he take these recordings and play them for us as we leaned over our hot cereal.

Linford explained that in the religious tradition he grew up in, instruments were not allowed (with the exception of a harmonica, which he didn’t understand. Was portability a criterion?). The piano, Linford’s home instrument, was considered a sin, and he didn’t know immediately what one was.

The first time I heard a piano:  My mother took me to visit an adopted boy. He was sitting at a small wooden house with pedals like a car…

The first time I heard the trumpet: ” It pierced me.  It was like I was thinking my first thoughts.  And one of them was: I’m out here. That sound is coming from up there. I need to be where the sound is coming from

On advice to young song writers:

“Are there powerful early memories that you have that you need to take care of?”

“Write the song that someone would listen to on the next to last day of their life. Maybe that’s the song you’re called to write.”

I’ve never posted on abortion, once I’m finished here, I still won’t have. The issue itself is remarkably painful and deserves compassionate, biblical, and thoughtful care.

This post is about Christian political reasoning.

As much as some pro-life voters want to say it’s not, nuance matters on the issue of legal abortion as well as US political office.  I think for me to say this is not to cave or be weak, it is to think carefully.  I say it again:  all-or-nothing arguments are not accurate when it comes to these issues.

Recently, I was forwarded a blog post by a Christian friend who is voting on the abortion issue. The post he cited is by Randy Alcorn, and it began helpfully concerning Alcorn’s interest in Obama as a pro-racial-equality, pro-environment candidate.  And the end of the day Mr. Alcorn says he will not vote for Obama because of the abortion issue.  While I definitely respect his position, I can’t agree with all his rhetoric. Here’s some comments:

Then the sad day came. I checked out Obama’s actual position on abortion and I was demoralized. I found that in every single vote related to the issue he’s favored abortion, its legality and even the killing of children who survive abortion.

Obama is definitely “pro-choice.” This is the Democratic party platform and he’s supported it. I can’t agree with him (or the party) on this issue.

But some facts should be clarified here. The most atrocious: that Barack Obama would allow a baby just born of a failed abortion to die (actually, Randy is stronger and says “kill”). If this is true, Obama is a monster!

Over-strong claims should be questioned from either side, and this one is awfully untrue. It defies common sense that it’s repeated.

Obama did vote “present” (not “no”) on the Born Alive Infants Protection act in the Illinois Senate. It’s also true that he was the only senator to speak against the bill on the floor. Opponents want to frame this to make him look almost evil, or without a conscience. But better put: he was the only senator to take the time to explain his vote. And if you read his explanation on the floor, his concerns aren’t anti-life. They are that he was pretty sure the way the current bill was worded, it would be ruled unconstitutional by the 7th Circuit Court.

We forget that Obama was a constitutional law professor. He has some useful opinions on these things.

In one of many later interviews on the section, Obama further explains that the law was redundant. The current Illinois State law, and explicitly federal law finally signed into law in 2002 already require doctors to give life-saving treatment to babies born viable of botched abortions. Not to mention the hippocratic oath of the Illinois Medical Association. The statue was more a political move than a real piece of legislation.

I’ll stop my argument and agree that I think Obama could have voted better here.  But baby-killing kind of insinuations are powerful images that stick even when they’re more the result of bright paint than underlying substance.  In short:  it’s unfair to demonize this too much.

But Obama is savvy. He wants to attract young voters, including young evangelical Christians who are sort-of-prolife. He knows to say that he favors reducing or limiting abortions.

Can we point out that this is loaded language? By that to mean, the real argument of the sentences lies “under” the actual statement. “He knows to say” implies strong that Barack Obama is lying.

If this is the charge (and this is rather serious), this one must be supported instead of insinuated.

Which is like limiting rather than criminalizing murder and rape and kidnapping and slavery. A candidate could say “I’m personally opposed to rape,” while he has a 100% voting record favoring the legality of rape. And he could say he favors limiting or reducing the number of rapes. But if he actually supports the legality of the hideous crime of rape, discerning people would see through his rhetoric of rape-reduction.

This argument is a logical fallacy. Abortion cannot be = to rape, kidnapping, slavery, etc, because there is no wide-spread controversy on any of these issues. Therefore they must be approached differently. I believe abortion is morally wrong (as with rape of course), but over 50% of the country doesn’t.

Please read me carefully. I’m not saying actual morality is really determined by majority opinion. God only determines (and reveals) the beautiful and awful in his Creation. What I’m saying that it’s a fatally flawed analogy for democratically elected politicians in a pluralistic society.

John McCain wasn’t my first choice for president. But at least McCain’s a hero, he suffered for his country and fellow soldiers. And at least he thinks innocent children shouldn’t be slaughtered, and has consistently voted that way.

The hero language just doesn’t relate. :-7 I agree McCain’s a Vietnam hero. I also am not sure it relates to being a Christian and voting for Obama when it comes to abortion.

McCain has voted consistently pro-life in the Sentate.

Too bad Presidents don’t vote on legislation.

In fact, the President has little or no direct control on abortion in the United States. About the only thing they can directly control whether abortions on military bases overseas are federally funded. More on this in a second.

I am deeply concerned about the one, two or possibly three Supreme Court justices to be appointed in the next presidential term

The best link here would to any site showing George W. Bush as the presidential candidate in the 2000 election that was pro-life, would probably have to pick several judges, and if elected, would overturn Roe v Wade (like a debate transcript).

Let me say more directly: we’ve had a pro-life President for eight years. Has appointed two supreme court justices, one of them (wait for it…) … the Chief Justice!  But has the legality of abortion changed?

My implication is this: the President of the United States doesn’t have the power to end abortion in America. My conclusion is this: this is not what the thinking Christian votes on as a primary issue (an issue? Yes. The issue? Contradicts both logical sense and real life experience).  (Maybe this Doonsbury says it better than I am…)

Again, I’m not saying abortion is not a serious moral issue. I’m suggesting that a political vote for federal executive isn’t the key way to affect it.

If you listen to the candidates, it’s obvious that McCain/Palin would make a concerted effort to choose justices likely to reverse Roe v. Wade and it is equally obvious that Obama/Biden would choose justices most likely to uphold Roe v. Wade.

Here’s where it gets real hard to keep a straight face. McCain in 2000 ran in the presidential race on a platform where he would not seek to overturn Roe v Wade. (example: Guardian article 15 Feb 2000) It’s why National Right to Life was running radio ads against him.  Do we forget quickly? Mr. Alcorn worries that the younger evangelicals might be vulnerable to smooth talk, but I’m not sure if he’s the one being a little hoodwinked. This is Donald Miller’s concern. I agree with him.

Again, I don’t need to disagree with Mr. Alcorn on the moral issue of abortion… just questioning his clarity on the politics of it.

ps – Don doesn’t think Obama is the Messiah.  Neither do I.  Check out him poking fun of his campaign e-mails.

I’m already long, so I won’t go further into the ways that Obama has pledged to work towards the reduction of the number of abortions, or even his thoughts on variety of other essential life-issues that I believe Christians should care about like poverty and war.

My final disagreement isn’t on the topic of abortion. It’s the insinuation that those who vote for Obama are trying to be “cool” or be in the majority crowd. Maybe that’s the case for some. For me, I’m voting for Obama because of his fundamentally intelligent approach to a wide variety of complicated issues both at home and abroad. Especially abroad, because the President’s role has the most direct impact over military and diplomatic issues off our shores.  And I follow church planter Alan Hirsch when he mentions that the world opinion is quite toward Obama, and this really does mean something.

Well, I reach the end of one of my longest posts hoping I’ve been gracious, thoughtful, accurate, and loving.  We’ll see (I’m hope my friends will point out where I haven’t).  But this is honest to my thoughts right now.  I’m a Christian, I believe abortion is part of the moral despair of our society, yet I believe I can consistently vote for Barack Obama.

Iowa on 11 Oct:

Before McCain spoke, a Christian pastor offered a prayer that seemed to ask for divine intervention on his behalf. “There are millions of people around this world praying to their God — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that [McCain's] opponent wins for a variety of reasons,” Pastor Arnold Conrad said. “And, Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens.”

The McCain campaign said it did not condone the prayer.

Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 CE) writing a letter to Abbot Mellitus, speaking of the missionary work of Augustine of Canterbury:

After mature deliberation on the condition of the English, [I have] decided upon, namely, that the temples of the idols in that nation should not be destroyed but the idols which are in them should be destroyed. Let holy water be prepared and sprinkled in said temples; then let altars be erected and relics set in place. For if those temples are well built, it is right that they be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God, that the nation, seeing that their temples are not destroyed may abandon the error in their hearts and know and adore the true God, while still resorting familiarly to the places to which they are accustomed.

And since they have been used to slaughtering many oxen in sacrifices to devils; some solemnity should be substituted for that On the day of dedication, for example, or on the nativities of the holy martyrs whose relics are there deposited,[6] they may build them selves huts of branches of trees around the churches which have been converted to Christian use out of temples, and celebrate the solemnity with religious feasting, offering no more beasts to the devil but killing cattle for eating to the praise of God and returning thanks for their food to the Giver of all things, to the end that while some outward pleasures are permitted them they may more readily accept the inward consolations of the grace of God.

 Comments:

• Interesting example in the history of theology (more missiology) and culture.
• Assumes English native religion is of Satan
• But is remarkably accomodating to allowing the architecture and sacrifice practices to remain, but “re-purposed” toward a Christian worldview.
• Issue:  can existing systems of meaning be changed?

Seeking to study the intersection of theology with communications and culture has been a deeper sea than I imagined. I’m starting to realize that only two years of formal study can barely scratch the surface, and the overwhelming nature (plus my insatiable curiosity), means that I sometimes find myself out of intellectual oxygen and gasping for shore. It’s been helpful to understand that part of the dilemma is the number of academic approaches that can be taken. It’s this interdisciplinary synthesis that I’m sure is so attractive to me, but also makes me feel like I need to be an expert in all of these areas: which of course is impossible?

I know that I’ve pushed myself toward Communication Studies—and possibly more specifically media studies—as an approach, but this is interdisciplinary as well. Phew.

So approaching my thesis… argh! I’m so wrapped up in grasping an approach, that a specific topic still feels miles away.

From a missiological article:

Comprehensive contextualization is interdisciplinary in its approach to culture. While contextualization is anchored in the Bible, it brings to bear a number of disciplines, each of which has a distinct contribution to make. For example, history enables us to see how faithful Christian communities (and perhaps unfaithful ones as well) have dealt with similar or parallel issues that we face today. Theology helps us to think in biblical ways about a variety of issues being faced. Anthropology offers insights into societies and cultural values, symbols and artifacts that need to be brought into focus through the lens of Scripture. Sociology enables insight into social networks and associations and helps us understand church structures and polity. Linguistics gives insight into the word forms and language issues that are so crucial to communication of the faith. Communication studies offer tools for analysis of persuasion and methods of communication. Psychology helps us understand human dynamics — especially such things as motivations and decision-making — as they are played out in faith settings. Economics helps us understand exchange processes that are essential to the survival of institutionalized faith structures, and politics helps us understand political and legal processes both in and out of the church.
~ Scott Moreau

Sigh. Oh good, I’m not crazy when my brain flips between these things as quickly as changing lanes.

And the most helpful:

Culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language. ~ Raymond Williams