Category: Theology

The Power of Paradox

Posted on

So come lose your life for a carpenter’s son
For a madman who died for a dream
And you’ll have the faith His first followers had
And you’ll feel the weight of the beam
So surrender the hunger to say you must know
Have the courage to say I believe
For the power of paradox opens your eyes
And blinds those who say they can see
So we follow God’s own Fool
For only the foolish can tell
Believe the unbelievable,
And come be a fool as well 

from Michael Card’s God’s Own Fool

I listened to that song a lot back in college when I was going through the whole postmodern crisis of faith thing. Before that I think I would have scoffed at the whole idea just like I’ve had people scoff at me when I have voiced similar ideas. Be a fool? Follow a fool? Choose to be stupid? Why would anyone do that?

The audacity of claiming the label “fool” when so many are quick to use it in derision confuses those that harp on truth and evidence. In a world where scientific certainty reigns and forensics has replaced mystery, to assert the power of paradox and affirm the foolishness of belief just doesn’t make sense. It isn’t the cultural norm, it doesn’t fit the dominant paradigm, it leads to ridicule and dismissal. You know the list. It’s what causes the atheists to point their fingers and laugh and the Christians to burn you at the stake as a heretic.

But all of that misses the point. I’ve been down this road of modern vs. postmodern epistemology before here on this blog and as fascinating as arguments about truth and certainty are they are often a red herring that distracts from the real issues. I’ve also admitted to not being afraid of postmodernism and do so for just this reason. I like the shift in postmodern philosophy (especially in Levinas) toward Ethics (as opposed to Epistemology) as first philosophy. So people can get their panties all in a bunch in their rush to call me postmodern relativist for not thinking that how we know things is of primary importance, but they are really missing the whole point – that of justice and how we interact with the Other as being more basic and central than any theory of knowledge. And it is that emphasis on interaction with the Other that has me proudly accepting the label of fool.

Faith is not about knowledge – what we know or how we know it, it is about following in the footsteps of a fool. Jesus was a fool in the eyes of the world. He has been accredited with ushering in an upside-down kingdom – where the first shall be last and the last shall be first. He cared for those whom society cast aside, he instructed us to love our enemies, he called the underdogs blessed. By anyone’s standards he was a fool. And he called us to follow him. As many have stated recently, this isn’t about affirming a secret set of knowledge but about entering into a way of life. It is about following the fool, being content in mystery, affirm the power of paradox, and turning the world upside-down.

Following the fool and choosing the foolish way isn’t about stupidity vs. knowledge. Those things don’t matter, or at least matter much less than the values of the Kingdom. Loving others and living subversively are foolish in the eyes of the world and so we follow God’s own fool and choose to be fools as well.

Find more contributions to this month’s Synchroblog on God’s use of fools at –

Phil Wyman at Square No More
Fools Rush In by Sonja Andrews
That Darn Ego by Jonathan Brink
Won’t Get Fooled Again by Alan Knox
Strength on the Margins by Igneous Quill
Foolish Heart by Erin Word
A Fool’s Choice by Cindy Harvey
Quiet Now, God’s Calling by Jenelle D’Alessandro
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right… By Mike Bursell
Ship of Fools by David Fisher
Hut Burning for God by Father Gregory
God Used This Fool by Cobus van Wyngaard
Fool if you think its over by Paul Walker
Blessed are the foolish — foolish are the blessed by Steve Hayes
What A Fool I’ve Been by Reba Baskett
The foolishness of God and the foolishness of Christians. by KW
My Foolish Calling by Lisa Borden
What a Fool Believes by Sue at Discombobula
God Uses Foolish Things by Sally

Read more

Talents and Stewardship

Posted on

The tension between using one’s God given talent and being a good steward of God given resources is an issue I keep returning to. I do believe that God gives people gifts that should be used – He sent the Spirit to the craftsmen of the Tabernacle as they used their skills. I also believe that the resources we have are blessings from God (not in the health and wealth sort of way), and we should use them wisely and unselfishly. But sometimes those two ideas collide.

If one is to sell all one has and give it to the poor, or even just live a modest lifestyle, it become fairly difficult to develop and use certain talents, even for the greater good. If one has the gift of music like David, the acquisition and upkeep of musical equipment costs a lot of money. Much time must be spent on practice which much be subsidized in some way. The same is true of any of the performing arts or sports – dance, skating, drama, skiing, cycling… A great deal of money is required to develop one’s talent in any of those areas. Generally only those who have money already and spend that money on themselves can develop that talent. Is that good stewardship?

It could be easy to just deny that certain things even qualify as “God-given talents.” The guitar player that leads our church band with his $1000 guitar can have talent from God, but the privileged white figure skater doesn’t count. Michaelangelo’s in, but the ballerina is out. And then what about the talents that are often scoffed at by Christians – especially emerging missional Christians? What about the fashion designer or the interior designer? Are their talent’s a gift if they feed lifestyles of greed and consumption? What about the person who is really really good at preaching? Are such skills meaningless? Or are they gifts from God?

The tension bothers me. There is the part of me that wants to affirm who people are and say that God gave them the skills to do certain things. And many of those skills can and have been used to serve God. But it is hard to reconcile how privileged one has to be in order to develop those talents. Even if one gives glory to God and blesses others with their talent are the vast amount of resources spent justified?

I have no answers, but this question returns to me every so often. I personally have spent lots of money developing who God made me to be (college comes to mind). I want to affirm developing talent, but I just can’t always justify it as good stewardship. Any thoughts?

Read more

Disability – The Bible and Perfection

Posted on

To conclude my reflections on disability I want to focus on the issue that has been the biggest ongoing struggle for me to deal with, especially within the church. It is the concept of perfection – the idea of needing to be flawless before God. For most of my life, I thought that referred to spirituality, but I have recently been exposed to those who promote physical perfection as necessary for truly serving God.

To back up a bit, in our culture perfection (or at least the absence of any visible physical flaws) is worshipped. We all hear about the millions of dollars spent on cosmetic procedures and the obsession with having a sexy body. But beyond that such obvious flaws like missing a limb are becoming less and less tolerated. This of course ties in with the whole abortion issue. Parents are now bringing “wrongful life” lawsuits against doctors if the doctor doesn’t inform them with enough time to abort that their child will have a defect. Apparently giving a child with a defect a chance at life is just wrong in their eyes. I’ve had people argue to my face that abortion is needed in the case of birth defects. To one such person, I asked, “so are you saying I should have been aborted because I am missing my arm?” Her reply – “I wasn’t talking about you, you’re smart.” But the assumption by many in our society is that unless you are perfect you don’t even deserve to be born. I find it easy to disagree and fight that assumption in culture, but then I find it in scriptures and the church as well.

I had always heard the language of “pure and holy sacrifice” referring to the lambs led to slaughter. Then one day I read the stipulations for Priests making offerings to God –

Leviticus 21:16-23 “The LORD said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.”

Having been taught my whole life that “God made me this way” reading those words was hard. Missing a limb, being the way God intended a person to be, disqualified them from serving God. We weren’t perfect enough to for God. (granted women were automatically disqualified too, but that’s a different issue). Not only were we not perfect enough, we desecrate the sanctuary by our presence. Sure it could be assumed that after Christ came as a “perfect sacrifice for all” that such restrictions are lifted, but what really got to me was discovering that there are branches in the church that still promote these stipulations. In the Orthodox church you cannot be in church leadership if you have a physical defect (well except for the eye thing, they waive that one for people with glasses).

I honestly don’t get it. How does not being physically perfect disqualify a person from serving God? How does this make me any less holy than others? Sure there were tons of purity laws in the OT, all of which could be forgiven. But this was impurity for life. Reading passages like this and hearing about the policies of the Orthodox Church seem to me to fit more within the mindset of the Communists who sequester away the deformed children in Latvia or the parents who sue doctors for the “wrongful life” of their defected child. But while my worldview allowed me to accept such opinions from Communists and abortionists, I can’t seem to wrap my mind around how it fits in the Bible and the church. And so far I have yet to hear any interpretation of this passage that really makes sense. At best it just gets lumped in with all those other “Ancient Near-Eastern worldview” passages (like bashing babies’ heads against rocks) that basically just don’t make sense either.

So where does that leave me? I want my theology of disability to be that God made me to be me and uses me as I am. But the Bible seems to contradict that and tells me that I am unwanted and incapable of serving God because of my arm. I have chosen to just go ahead and serve God (as a disabled woman that obviously isn’t in the Orthodox church), but some days that choice can be hard to align with scripture.

Read more

Join the Revolution

Posted on

As we ended our nearly two year study on the book of Luke this morning in church, we took a look at how Jesus open the eyes of his disciples to see how the whole of scripture points to him. While on one level it would have been nice if Luke had included that sermon in his Gospel, one can also interpret the entire book of Luke as being that sermon. The whole book echoes the themes of the Old Testament fulfilled in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Part of the discussion included looking at the categories N.T. Wright presents in Simply Christian. In summing up the main themes of scripture, that represent as well the deepest longings of human existence, Wright creates four categories. These include – The Torah which defines our relationships, The Temple which represents our spiritually, The Kingdom which demonstrates justice, and New Creation which demonstrates our longing for beauty. These themes show up over and over again in the Old Testament and in the teaching of Jesus. He is calling us to live lives that tap into those longings and can be fulfilled through them. By developing right relationships, discovering true spirituality, seeking justice, and pursuing beauty we live in the ways we were meant to live.

But those are often the very things that are ridiculed by the world and discarded in favor of power and success. It is often the countercultural revolutionaries who uphold those biblical values while the mainstream promotes contrary values. I found it amusing last night that I saw that cultural struggle represented in one of my favorite movies. Moulin Rouge tells the story of the fin de siècle Bohemian revolutionaries in Paris who are seeking a new way of living out their values of Freedom, Beauty, Truth, and Love. They are of course despised and condemned as silly and impractical and told to cure themselves of “this ridiculous obsession with love.” I find the movie brilliant on many levels, but it was a good reminder that pursuing the values of the Kingdom is strange and challenges the dominant paradigm of culture.

To promote right relationships and to seek justice is to love others. To discover true spirituality and beauty is to love God and his creation. To actually live out these great commandments as it were goes against the messages of selfish ambition, greed, isolation, and power that the world promotes as primary. To follow Jesus one has to be revolutionary. Being ridiculously obsessed with love is impractical but it’s the way we are supposed to live. If it takes changing the way we approach everything in order to live the life we were meant to live, are we willing to do it? Is our faith real enough for us to leave everything and follow Jesus? To stop caring about ourselves and start caring for others? To join the revolution?

Read more

Book Review – Inspiration and Incarnation

Posted on

I just finished reading a book that I highly recommend for others to read. Not because I agreed with everything in it or because it is necessarily spiritually transformative, but because it presents a constructive, faith affirming approach to a topic that is generally written about in destructive ways.

A few months ago Scot McKnight recommended to me Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. This book explores some of the difficult questions regarding cultural influences on the Bible, the diversity of theological views present in it, and whether or not it is necessarily unique. These are not new questions and have been bantered around the academic world for some time now, but most lay accessible books on these ideas take one of two negative approaches. They either present these cultural and historical facts in order to prove that the Bible is not to be trusted and that therefore Christian faith is misguided. Or the books are written from a defensive standpoint in order to generally deny the validity of the historical facts so as to prove the Bible trustworthy. These agendas on both extreme are lacking for the reader who is not persuaded to give up either her faith or her intellect.

Peter Enns’ book takes a third way in its approach to the conversation. It apologetically assumes an evangelical faith in scripture from the outset and then sets out to explore the historical details in light of that faith. On this approach, the author writes –

The way we can begin to address this issue is to confess at the outset, along with the historic Christian church, that the Bible is the word of God. That is our starting point, a confession of faith, not creating a standard of what the Bible should look like and then assessing the Bible on the basis of that standard. If we begin with the confession that the Bible is God’s word, that it ultimately comes from him, that it is what the Spirit of God wanted it to be, that there is no place in all the messiness of the Old Testament where God says, “Oops, I didn’t really mean to put it that way – I’d like to try again, please” – if we begin there, we have the freedom to look honestly and deeply at what God is doing in the Bible.” p108

I appreciate that perspective. Instead of pretending to be objective in trying to prove one’s agenda, I appreciate knowing the author admits the particular lens he is using to view the Bible. It isn’t the only approach out there, but I found it refreshing as it led to an exploration of scripture that didn’t create a false hierarchy between scripture and history. It is that acceptance of an interpretive tradition and embracing of one’s cultural context that I’ve found lacking in most evangelical treatments of this subject.

Enns places the Bible and modern evangelicals firmly in their historical settings. About the Bible he writes, “It was not an abstract, otherworldly book, dropped out of heaven. It was connected to and therefore spoke to those ancient cultures.” p.17 and “That the Bible, at every turn, shows how ‘connected’ it is to its own world is a necessary consequence of God incarnating himself”p20. The issues arise when both conservatives and liberals approach the Bible expecting it to be something it is not. When we desire for the Bible to speak only to the issues of a modern scientific society we display our arrogance in assuming that we are the only one’s God has ever cared about conveying his word to.

The book then presents three issues that have generally not been handled well in evangelical theology. First it explores why the Bible looks so much like other Ancient Near East literature. Then it looks at the theological diversity present within the Bible itself. And finally it looks the sometimes weird (and generally out of context) ways in which the New Testament authors make use of the interpretive traditions of their day to interpret the Old Testament. Basically, is the Bible really unique, does it have integrity, and how should it be interpreted? Each discussion is fascinating and is helpful in that it is very open about the difficult parts of scripture. The result is a unique perspective that sees the Bible as the inspired word of God, but that embraces its very human and cultural elements as God’s incarnation to us. We can therefore appreciate its diversity instead of deny it and allow the Bible to be what it is instead of what we wish it would be. So if these are issues you have ever struggled with or are just mildly curious about, I highly recommend this book as an easy, informed, and faith-affirming approach to the subject.

Read more

[Grid::Blog::Horizon2107]

Posted on


I wanted add my thoughts to the Gridblog started by Bob Carlton on “what does the year 2107 look like from your vantage point.” What to imagine? Should I be cynical or utopian? Will we be suffering from the environmental devastation of our planet or will we be on the road to sustainable living? What about war? Poverty? Religion? It was in looking back at what the world was like 100 years ago that helped me determine what to speculate about for the future.

Apparently, 100 years ago tomorrow New Zealand and Newfoundland became dominions of the British Empire (the step between being a colony and a Commonwealth). The word dominion dates back to at least the 17th century within the British Empire, referring generically to any British overseas possession. A country populated with indigenous people that another country has taken possession of and imposed their government, morals, and religion on. That’s the exposure that other cultures were having to Christianity 100 years ago – a belief system forced upon them generally in ways that made them easy to control. It was the old mantra of “colonize, Christianize, and civilize.” To be a Christian in those settings meant aligning oneself with the empire of oppression.

Not a whole lot has change in the past 100 years, but the past decade or so has seen the emergence of voices of those oppressed peoples. Voices that attempt to affirm the truth of Christianity apart from its marriage to colonial powers. And this Christianity in its attempts to set itself up as a countercultural alternative to Empire (gee, does that sound familiar?) is flourishing. So I wonder how this will play out 100 years from now. As Christianity assumes a local flavor in these autonomous countries briefly held as colonies and dominions, how will that change the global face of Christianity? Will the Western philosophies and theologies so central to our debates and arguments (Calvin anyone?) be usurped by local ethnic theologies? Will the numbers game naturally shift the power of Christianity from the Global North to the Global South?

For all the talk the emerging church does about rediscovering the fuller Gospel of the Kingdom (a good thing imho), I wonder if it is just setting the stage for the rise of the (soon to be?) formally marginalized voices. In this imagined future, the Church might actually have the potential to be a truly communal gathering of every tongue, tribe, and nation. A gathering that isn’t built on patronizing attempts at domination, but mutual respect and love. That is the optimistic view of the future I want to see.

Read more

Rejection, Redemption, and Roots

Posted on

The topic for this month’s SynchroBlog is Christianity and Paganism. I had a hard time narrowing down what I wanted to say about the topic because I’ve been struggling recently with the paradigms for how one interacts with other belief systems. So I decided to just write about that struggle and give my opinion of three of the most common approaches Christians have in interacting with Paganism. There are of course various other approaches and this is not at all an in depth (or coherent) look at any of these, just what has been floating through my head recently.

1. Rejection – This is the approach I grew up with and which I see displayed most commonly in Christian circles. The idea is that since the other cultures are not explicitly Christian, they cannot contain truth or that which is good and therefore must be rejected. Other cultures are devoid of God and are places of darkness. If we interact with those cultures we could be tainted or wooed into the darkness. This approach leads to such common cultural practices as banning books like Harry Potter, not participating in Halloween (and sometimes even Christmas), and freaking out about stuff like yoga. Growing up I wasn’t allowed to read fantasy books (other than Narnia) and while we were allowed to go trick-or-treating, Halloween was downplayed and we often attended church Harvest Fests dressed as Bible characters. The yoga issue has recently come up once again in the conversation in the recent Pagitt/MacArthur interview on the subject. MacArthur summed up the whole rejection mindset with his statement, “Why would Christians want to borrow an expression from a false religion?” If there is nothing good there, no truth there – why bother interacting? They say the Christian response should be rejection and not embrace.

My issue with the rejection mentality is the limits it places on God. It claims that God can only work in a very small segment of the population and is not big enough to be found in other cultures and religions. But even the Bible shows that Christians can engage with other cultures and find truth there. Just take the Acts 17 account of Paul at Mars Hill to see that he quotes “pagan” philosophers as containing truth about God. So obviously if the Bible displays engagement as opposed to rejection, it cannot be the best approach to the issue. As C.S.Lewis wrote, “if you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all other religions are simply wrong all through … you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of truth.” This isn’t about all religions being equally true, its about letting truth be truth wherever it is found. Which leads us to…

2. Redemption – For Christians who choose to see God’s truth all around us, a common approach to interacting with other cultures and religions is to redeem the good that is in them. One lays claim to truth (or beauty or the good) in other cultures and “baptizes” it for Christian usage. This is a process that St. Augustine referred to as the Egyptian Gold principle. When the Israelites fled Egypt the Bible tells us they “plundered the Egyptians,” taking much gold (in the form of idols) with them into the wilderness. The gold eventually came to be used in the Tabernacle – the very dwelling place of God. Its pagan associations were erased and it was redeemed for usage in worshiping God. This principle has been used by Christians throughout the ages to justify our involvement in pagan practices. Our holidays with pagan roots (Christmas, Easter, and occasionally Halloween) were all, over time, shaped into celebrations central to the Christian belief system. These holidays are now so Christian that many people are unaware of the pagan connections at all. This approached has also been applied (with lesser degrees of success) to practices like yoga. The idea is to take something you like from another culture, change some aspects of it to give it a Christian feel, and then feel complete freedom to engage with it. (and before you go there I am not in any way talking about cultural practices that are sins).

My issue with this approach is how oppressive and imperialistic it is. Essentially it chooses to steal what it likes from other cultures and write the rest of it off as worthless. The things that get “redeemed” are warped into mere shadows of what they were originally intended to be. There has been enough imperialism and rape of other cultures associated with Christianity, that to continue to discuss the interaction with other cultures in this language is generally demeaning and offensive. But the voices from the margins – those who have been oppressed and demeaned – is generally not heard or respected in Western Christian circles. With our imperialistic cultural values we really don’t care about how we are perceived by others or what damage we do along the way. We often think that Jesus being the end justifies whatever means we employ to get to him. That said, I don’t think the answer is then to resort back to rejection or cultural isolation.

3. Roots – I am currently exploring this approach not as the best answer out there but to understand a different way of interacting. This method seeks to understand the origins, or roots, of various cultural beliefs and practices. By seeing the history of something, one can see how it can evolve and grow. This is not about changing something through forms of violence, but learning to love and appreciate that which is other. I am all for admitting and discovering the pagan roots for things like Christmas and Easter. For all that Christians talk about getting back to the “true meaning” of those holidays, we forget the long history they represent. I want to affirm that history and respect that something I hold as dear to my beliefs has roots in the beliefs of others. I want to explore how the theology I hold to has been shaped by interactions with other cultures. How the Jews were influenced by the Zoroastrians in Persia or how prevailing political agendas influenced the popularity of various theories of the atonement. Everything has a history, everything is connected. Theology, culture, religion – they all grew out of something and fed off of each other as they grew. So as a Christian interacting with other cultures and beliefs, I want to learn from what they are offering to teach me and enter into a dialogue with them. I want to help give those on the margins a voice – the voice that has often been denied them in the name of Christianity. In being with dialogue with them I will of course take away parts of their culture and who they are. But I hope that I will be accepting a gift instead of violently acquiring. And I know that that dialogue will change the culture and change me – that is how cultures and people grow.

The issue with this – it’s hard. It’s hard to be invited to interact and learn. It’s hard to dig through the layers of history to reclaim roots and celebrate growth. It is hard to convince most Christians that others deserve to have a voice and that they have something to offer. It’s hard to remain in a church that cries “heretic” at those of us that seek the truth in these ways. It’s really hard to love that which I don’t yet understand.

Others offering reflections on Christianity and Paganism in this SynchroBlog –
Matthew Stone at Journeys in Between
Christianity, Paganism, and Literature at Notes from the Underground
John Smulo at JohnSmulo.com
Heathens and Pagans and Witches … oh my! at Calacirian
Sam Norton at Elizaphanian
Erin Word at Decompressing Faith
Chasing the Wild Goose at Eternal Echoes
Visigoths Ahoy! at Mike’s Musings
Belief and Being: The difficulty of communicating faith at Phil Wyman’s Square No More
Steve Hollinghurst at On Earth as in Heaven
Undefined Desire at Igneous Quill
A Walk on the Wild Side at Out of the Cocoon
Observations on Magic in Western Religion at My Contemplations
Tim Abbott at Tim Abbott
Spirituality and the Zodiac: Stories in the Cosmos at Be the Revolution

Read more

Up/Rooted Panel Discussion – Emergent Freedom to Question

Posted on

At the up/rooted panel discussion the other night Scot McKnight spoke on the questions that are important to people in the emerging church. These are questions that were (still are) taboo in the evangelical church but which shape the faith journey of emergents. The point isn’t so much the answers they land on, but that they feel like they can wrestle with (as opposed to suppress) these questions. Scot listed six main issues of discussion (and yes, this is a horrible paraphrase)-

    1. Scripture & Inerrancy. e.g. Can Genesis contain mythic elements?

 

    1. Science & Evolution. Instead of giving up the faith when finally exposed to science, can we actually be believers in light of science?

 

    1. Hypocrisy. Can Christians be genuinely consistent?

 

    1. Hell. Where did our views of hell even come from?

 

    1. God. Do we really believe everything the Bible says about God?

 

  1. Social location. Are most of us Christians because of the happenstance of where we were born?

When issues such as these are seen as beyond the realm of discussion, it forces believers to generally either deny their intellect or walk away from the faith. The emerging church gives people the freedom to ask the honest and hard questions about these things. Instead of being told that “good Christians” don’t question the evangelical assumptions about hell or inerrancy, it has become almost the mark of a growing Christian in the EC that you explore those issues for yourself. Of course, I’ve learned from experience that taking advantage of that freedom to question is not looked upon favorably in many circles. For many just asking a question and thinking for oneself get one labeled as a heretic and results in a quick dismissal from one’s job.

But, I think Scot’s list is accurate in the issues he sees as central to the emerging conversation. The list could in many ways be the summation of my faith journey this past decade. Those were the question I wrestled with and am still exploring. I’m sure I’ve gone in different directions than some in the EC, but I’ve found resonance and a theological home with others. The only big thing I would add to the list is the whole gender question (women in ministry, gender roles…). That is really the issue that sent me down this road to begin with and has remained a central part of my experience of the emerging world. From what I have heard it is also the entry point for others (mostly women) into this conversation as well. I guess I could fit it under one of Scot’s categories (scripture, God) and I know that it isn’t as taboo of a topic in evangelical churches as others on the list, but I still see it as a vital and in many ways separate category.

What do others think? Are these categories accurate? What would you add?

Read more

Cultural Imperialism, Contextualization, and Postcolonial Missions

Posted on

I have my Master’s in Intercultural Studies and Missions from Wheaton College – a very Evangelical institution. I was a bit of an oddball in the program as I went through it and would most likely not even begin to fit in now. I appreciate what I learned there and the paths of inquiry and questioning it led me down, but in many ways it didn’t seem to go far enough. I studied cultural anthropology, intercultural communication, linguistics and the like all within the framework of contextualizing the Gospel into other cultures. For many students in the program the whole concept of contextualization in the first place was “liberal and heretical.” For them the ends justified the means. Getting converts was worth whatever cultural cost had to be paid. (granted most of them actually thought that the way evangelicals did church was the way it had always been, so why syncretize the Gospel through such dubious means as contextualization?). But it wasn’t until later that I saw firsthand that the vestiges of cultural imperialism in the guise of Christian missionary work are alive and well in many areas of Christianity.

During my stint as a Children’s Ministries Director at a small Baptist church, I had the horrific experience of encountering one of the worst examples of Christian missionary cultural imperialism that I have ever seen. There was a family from another local area church (the super conservative and filthy rich one) that was doing the rounds of local churches to raise support to go be missionaries in Africa. They came to our church to do a special presentation during the Sunday school hour. That meant that somehow I got stuck with them coming to do a mini-presentation for the kids during the children’s church I led during the main service. The wife who was wearing a dress straight out of Little House on the Prairie didn’t say a word the entire morning, so we got to listen to the husband give the most racist missionary talk ever.

To give a bit of background, this family was white, very white and most of the kids in the children’s church were black. After giving a report on Africa straight from the World Book Encyclopedia, the “missionary” guy launched into the whole “white man’s burden” to go help the savages in Africa sort of thing. It was the whole “go convert the heathen” sort of missions work, but that wasn’t the worst of it. He talked about the Africans as if they were less than human. At one point he even said that the Africans do nothing but sit alongside the rode all day being lazy, but they like it if you give them peanuts. I am so not kidding, he actually said give them peanuts like they were some sort of animal at a zoo. I was so appalled and shocked I didn’t even know how to respond. I could tell that the kids were uncomfortable, but didn’t think that they could disagree with the adult missionary. So when they finished their talk about what they would be doing in Africa, I just asked them to leave and then I started in on damage control with the kids. I officially begged that our church not support them and was seriously stunned that missionaries like that were still being sent out as representatives of Christianity. I have no clue if they ended up actually making it to Africa and I hope to God they did not.

I react in horror to stories like those, but of course there are those who react in horror to any sort of missionary work no matter how culturally sensitive or contextual it is. But I am realizing that most of my perspectives for or against contextualization or missionary work in general have come from Western sources. I rarely hear indigenous perspectives on cultural encounters with Christianity. I instead hear selected reports from converts who have bought the Western Christian package in its entirety and I hear missionary reports that include only the success stories spun in such a way to keep the money coming (and yes I’ve written such reports). But encountering the whole postcolonial theological perspective is new to me. Not only are the methods of church and missions questioned, but the whole Western theological paradigm is deconstructed. I’m exploring how the pieces all fit together for me. Where does the line of imperialism lie? When is compassion and dialogue and contextual expressions of faith domineering and condescending, and when are they appropriate? How do I not place my cultural heritage at the center of my beliefs? I’m just beginning to struggle with how these questions play out in my life.

Read more

Struggle to Know

Posted on

I recently started reading Postcolonial Imagination & Feminist Theology by Kwok Pui-lan. The book is stretching me in many ways as it forces me to view my faith through an utterly foreign lens. It’s a good thing, but it can be a tad overwhelming at points. More on all that later. I just wanted to share tonight the words the author uses to open the first chapter. She writes –

I have been reflecting on my long intellectual journey to “struggle to know.” Why is knowing a struggle? It is a struggle because you have to spend years learning what others told you is important to know, before you acquire the credentials and qualifications to say something about yourself. It is a struggle because you have to affirm first that you have something important to say and that your experience counts.

I have no clue if this is something that white western men can understand experientially (if it is my apologies for negating your journey), but this is the story I have lived and that I have heard told to me by others. It’s the struggle women face when they attempt to have a voice or be a leader. When the world that is constructed for us looks one way, but our experiences and our self awareness reveal something else entirely, it is more than just difficult to find our place in that world. When all that we know about life, history, religion is slanted in a certain direction, to step up and use our voice is not such as easy thing. When to just be ourselves challenges all that is accepted, holy and dear in the world, it becomes all that much harder to speak out and attempt to make a difference. When we are mocked, labeled, and dismissed for believing that our experience counts, it truly is an ongoing struggle.

Read more