 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Critical Contextualization Frost and Hirsch write:Hold fast to [1] the core but experiment like wild with [2] the expression. The missional-incarnational church is entirely open to innovation, experimentation, and creativity...As a missional community it is careful not to abandon [3] the truth of the gospel nor to water down its [4] implications. This is called the process of critical contextualization... (81; numbers in brackets added)Let's unpack this for a while. First, what do Frost and Hirsch mean by "contextualization?" "Contextualization can then be defined as the dynamic process whereby the constant message of the gospel interacts with specific, relative human situations. It involves an examination of the gospel in the light of the respondent's worldview and then adapting the message, encoding it in such a way that it can become meaningful to the respondent." (83)This is a good definition of contextualization. Hans Frei's work is a contextualization of the gospel for his (post)liberal audience, and he differentiates between meaning, on the one hand, and meaningfulness, on the other. This distinction is important. But Frost and Hirsch do little to contribute to a contextualization of the gospel. 1. What is the "core of the gospel?" Who gets to decide what is inside and outside of the core? I'm assuming that they follow Jonathan Campbell's paradigm (80) whereby, the "core" is constituted by Christ's commands. Interesting, we are back to a rule-based system. Hmmm. Are "commands" good news? 2. What do they mean "experiment like wild with the expression?" How can Frost and Hirsch bifurcate "the core" from "the expression" if, as they contend elsewhere, "the medium is the message" (69)? Is this a bait and switch? Or is it another genuflection to consumer Christianity, whereby the same old product is packaged in a new, shiny box so that people feel that they are getting something new? 3. What is the "truth of the gospel?" Is truth the same thing as meaning for Frost and Hirsch? Can we locate any gospel truth apart from the language we use to conceptualize it or from the culture that shapes a) the original dispensation of said "truth" in culture; b) the transmittal from oral to textual delineation of said "truth"; c) the 2000-year tradition of reforming and reshaping the "truth"; and d) our appropriation of the meaning of "truth" for our own contemporary contexts? 4. How might we "waterdown its implications?" I assume that by implications Frost and Hirsch are thinking of meaningfulness. The very notion of "wateringdown" smacks of the same colonial hegemony that Frost and Hirsch pooh on earlier in this chapter (p. 81-2). In other words, it seems to me that Frost and Hirsch don't really want to advocate a "critical contextuality" at all. Rather, they want to co-opt indigenous cultures to form their "incarnational-missional communities" that perpetuate oppressive, hermeneutical imperialism. If the kind of critical contextualization that Frost and Hirsch advocate prospers, the gospel will never be contextualized at all. It will retain the evangelical, colonial dominance that has perpetuated the fall of authentic Christianity in the first place. To rework a line from a very thought-provoking movie: "Missionaries shouldn't be afraid of their hermeneuts, hermeneuts should be afraid of their missionaries." posted by Jake at 3/17/2006 02:41:00 PM  
2 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts Who's Feeding the Fishdog? ------------ Hmmmm... ------------ Being and Bearing Witness not Witnessing ------------ People and Programs ------------ Happy Birthday Abby! ------------ Bilinguality ------------ Look no Further ------------ The Incarnational Approach ------------ Fides Quaerens Intellectum? ------------ Frogs in a Pot ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
right on the money, Jake. Great questions.
really good thoughts here Jake.
the "hold fast to the core but experiment like wild with expression" reminds me of the kernel-husk notions of 19th-early 20th century mission work. Bosch notes that the missionaries were willing to adjust the "husk" portions of the gospel, but the "kernel" (as interpreted by the West) must remain the same. Bosch notes that this scientific ideal that the content can be seperated from the form is of course flawed as you pointed out. Bosch proposes that instead of kernel and husk, the image should be that of a seed planted in soil. The gospel grows into a life of its own within that culture.
I wonder if Forst/Hirsch would consider it watering down the gospel to develop an "experimental theology in which an ongoing dialouge is taking place between text and context, a theology which, in the nature of the case, remains provisional and hypothetical" (Bosch, 427)..
Through any communication/translation, the message itself changes. Is this abandoning the truth of the gospel?
As you point out, it seems they are a little too confident in methods of communication...
--
This weekend at s/o, a youth leader came up to me and thanked me. He said that I was able to get the message on the student's level (im not sure what exactly that means)..he said "the message is the same but the way you tell it is different."..I said thanks and smiled while inside I was screaming, "the message IS different!"..
peace
mark