"In using this term (contextualization) we start with the notion that every man is in a context which is not static but subject to movement. The culture which he shares is itself something changing and he has a part in directing the change. To speak of contextualisation in this connection means that each man has to seek to understand the way in which Christ is leading his own people towards the fulness of the New Man, and to try to follow and help others to follow. This means that his relation to his culture is a double one: there is both an identification and a separation. A man should love and care for his own people, his own culture, his own traditions. A man who has lost that love is less than human. But it has to be a critical and discriminating love. His participation in the New Humanity through Christ makes him aware of the fact that his own culture cannot be absolutised. It has to grow and change in the direction that the Gospel points out. Every Christian, in his relation to his own culture, must live in this tension - the tension that is always involved in true leadership, for a leader must both be one with those whom he leads and also be more and see more than they."
He finishes his essay with these words:
"In one of his poems written in prison, Dietrich Bonhoeffer asks the question ‘Who am I?’ and confesses in the end that he cannot answer the question except by confessing ‘Whoever I am, thou knowest O God, I am thine’. The more ready we are to leave the securities of our small cultural solidarities and to launch out in the quest for the new humanity, the more we shall find that our human-ness depends upon our being able to confess to the one who alone is utterly faithful: I am thine."
- Salvation, the New Humanity and Cultural-Communal Solidarity
4 comments:
Hey bud,
Can you elaborate a bit on Newbigin's point here:
"A man should love and care for his own people, his own culture, his own traditions. A man who has lost that love is less than human."
I agree to an extent, but I'd like to understand his thoughts a bit more to know exactly what that extent is! ;)
In Christ
Hey, also thought I'd throw this question in. I noticed that you have N.T. Wright's page linked here. What are your thoughts on the current debate over imputed righteousness (i.e. the current "leaders": Wright vs. Piper)?
I'm not going to get Piper's new book, simply because I think that this is getting into corners of theology that are just too great for my crab-shack of a skull to comprehend, but the dialogue does interest me....
Yeah, the man thing that caught my attention in this essay was the part that I italisized (The culture which he shares is itself something changing and he has a part in directing the change.) Culture is, as he says, never static. That is, it's goign to change. That's a given. What's not a given is whether the church is going to influence that change.
I think that this is needed insight in the discussion of missional and contextual theology. Because the push is for the church to love and embrace culture - something I would endorse, but would want to qualify. Yes, be contextual. I mean, you should know really well how communication only takes place within shared language, but shared language is only a part of communication. The relationship between language and culture and the two together and communication is rightfully getting a say in how we do church, how we do missions, how we communicate the good news to people. With all of that said. The church is the church. A community with its own culture that has the ability to be the city within the city influencing the arts, academics, architecture, anything and everything (hopefully) that everyone else cares about.
Anyway, what he is saying in the sentence that you quote is that it is part of being human to love particularity, to love tradition, to love culture, and to love the one in which you have been placed. Of course, as he says in that last paragraph that I included, you can love your own culture but the gospel calls you beyond that.
Basically he saying struggly with the tension of identification and seperation. Too often the church has pushed seperation. We are being called back to identification, but I think that he helpfully says that in identifying keep in mind that you want to help direct that non-static culture that you are a part of to conform it as you conform yourself to the image of Christ.
I don't know if that is helpful. I think that he's right. Identification is good. I think that the young and upcomming parts of the church may need to hear more about their role to play in cruciform culture formation.
About Piper and Wright. The two of them have probably influenced me, well, along with Newbigin, more than any other theologians in the past couple years. I'm totally up on the discussion right now, and what I do know would probably need to be said more in person, which, I understand, you may be comming to the Lou in a few weeks time. Sorry, we can talk about this stuff, but it would take more time and space than I have and this blog allows me.
I don't think any of this was helpful.
The struggle of holding both identification and seperation is the main thing in Newbigin.
Uh, I meant with regards to Piper and Wright that I'm NOT totally up on the discussion.
Post a Comment