sk,

I can see how a contextual thinker can be threatening to a "static universal core" thinker.

Two thoughts come to mind.

First, do all contextual thinkers have such a wide view of ecclesial history or are they more limited in their thinking.

Second, how does contextual thinkers interact with Richard Niebuhr and his book, Christ and Culture?

Hi Sherman,

Thanks for your comment. I'm trying hard to follow what you're saying, so apologies in advance if I get it completely wrong!

When I was an undergraduate, I was involved in both the Christian Union which was predominantly made up of Brits, and an international Bible study group, of which there were a substantial number of Asians. Both stressed witness to non-believers.

I noticed that in presentations of the gospel to each group, a non-Christian would have fundamentally different questions. So a Brit would ask: Is there really a God? Do miracles really happen? Could Jesus have really risen from the dead?Whereas a typical Asian would have asked: Why should I follow this God? Are other religions really wrong? And so on.

But although the gospel might have been presented differently, it was the story that "Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4) My understanding is that the above is a (not fully formed) example of what you mean by the "static universal core".

On the other hand, my understanding of the "dynamic universal core" is that there is no escaping our context so much that our gospel articulations have to be called into question, and potentially be modified, although not necessarily. Our historical situatedness is such that to talk about universal truths is not plausible. As such, this is where the Christian traditions come into play, which might help us from suffering tunnel vision. The good news is actually "different" to different people at different times.

I hope I'm not just putting words in your mouth!

I was wondering, if contextualisation has to go that far. Certainly we are all historically situated and all wear cultural lens of some sort. But can we not retain a humble confidence in the objective realities of Christ's death and resurrection that Paul mentioned? The event itself is rooted in history, but has ramifications across all of time. The gospel is inexhaustibly rich, I'm sure, and has many layers; and each of our brother and sisters in Christ from different parts of the world might have an insight that is missed by us and vice versa. Paul himself seemed certain that the gospel could be defined in his letter to the Galatians, when he scolded them for turning to a "different gospel".

This is turning into a long-winded reply, so I better stop!

Hi Dr Tang,

1. I don't think all contextual thinkers necessarily have such a wide view of ecclesial history. Many whom I've observed don't. But I'd say that those who are serious about engaging culture without necessarily compromising the Christian Story would need to have an awareness of ecclesial historical depth. I've met a couple of emerging thinkers who do exhibit such awareness through their keenness in Patristic studies and such. Hence, in my descriptions of contextual engagements throughout the post, I'd say that I'm describing the best representations of the emerging people.

2. Any answer that I offer to this question would at best be rather presumptuous. But my suspicion is that the ONE view the contextual thinker would outrightly reject is the "Christ Against Culture" view. As far as the rest of the views are concerned, they can be placed systematically on a continuum and different contextual thinkers would probably be found standing in different spots of that continuum, embracing positions that are akin to either "Christ of Culture", "Christ Above Culture", "Christ and Culture in Paradox", or "Christ Transforming Culture".

Hi BK,

Thanks for dropping by. Since you've already given an example to illustrate what might distinguish the static universal core from the dynamic universal core, I'll just go along with it and try to respond through the same example...

"Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

The above is a passage from scripture which is held to be perennially true by all Christians who trust the authority of scripture. But there is probably a tangential difference between how it would be treated by those who hold strictly to the static universal core as opposed to those who stand more with the view of the dynamic universal core.

Those who hold to the static universal core would hold one fixed interpretation of the verse and probably insist that the verse must mean exactly the same thing to all people at all times and in all places because one fixed interpretation has already been assigned to it by, say, the evangelicals. Anything that sounds remotely different from the jargon they're familiar with in terms of explaining this verse would induce suspicion on their part.

Whereas for those who hold the dynamic universal core would see that this verse posited by Paul is itself a very culturally-embedded verse (as is all of scripture). Not that the verse itself is untrue. But this verse, when presented to people of different cultures at different times, would mean different things and probably carry rather variant implications to them. If "Christ died for our sins", then what does "sin" actually mean? In India, for example, it's a "sin" for a Brahmin to drink alcohol, but it's not a "sin" for a Dalit to get drunk on alcohol every night. The contextual thinker realises that he is now faced with a whole range of possibilities in defining sin. So what does he do? He goes into ecclesial history to find out what theological thinkers have said about "sin", not just at the Reformation (which is often a very fossilised period in Protestant history), but also beyond that. Whilst for the one who holds on to the static universal core, "sin" is probably squarely "rebellion against God", the contextual thinker explores the possible ways of looking at sin for people of different cultures and different Christian traditions at different periods of human history. And then from this pool of wisdom, he attemps to present a view of sin which speaks most clearly to a particular culture with which he's deliberately engaging.

So using your example, this is what I'd say the difference of approach might look like. The second of the two approaches is certainly more tedious. And at the end of the day, I think we all have to reckon with this question: which of the two approaches is actually truer to the spirit of the Christian gospel?

looks like some lively conversations going on.

I'm reading something on "Canonical Theism" and the proper limits of epistemological discussions and especially the fact that esp. before 1054 the Church undivided was happily theologizing without settling on any particular epistemological theory. Am I correct to say that? Does this relate to the "dynamic core" idea you are exploring? (cf. William J. Abraham, Crossing the Threshold of Divine Revelation)

Hi Sivin dai kor,

Well yes, I think I'm essentially referring to such an ethos. The church before 1054 had no particular epistemological theory per se because their epistemological position did not necessitate for epistemology to become epistemologised into a formal epistemological theory, if you catch my drift. :)

wow, sk

Your last statement was so zen. My head is still spinning as I try to catch your drift.

The church's problem started when they epistemologise their epistemological position into a formal theological stand. It is still very Greek in its basis, isn't it?

Hi Dr Tang,

Hahahaha... that was quite a tongue-twister, wasn't it? It's fun to play with these thing sometimes. :)

Yes, I think the pre-1054 struggle wasn't so much with "what we can know", but rather with what we can understand about what we've chosen to believe. That puts epistemology in a rather different light.

Great. I like the way this discussion is flowing.

Now I hope you will enlighten me on the Eastern Orthodox's understanding of contextualisation esp. about the static and dynamic universal cores.

Hi Dr Tang,

Sorry for this late reply... there's been a slight problem with my blog's comment mechanism. It's just been sorted out yesterday, so here I am now.

As far as Eastern Orthodoxy is concerned, I don't think the issue of a "core" even exists. They see their tradition as dynamic and growing.

Their theology is responsive, which has two implications that I know of:

1. The focus of their theology is saying things to God as he reveals himself in their midst rather than saying things about God. This is why their theology is best observed in their liturgy rather than in conversations.

2. They do not see a need for a "systematic core" the way Westerners do. They recognise that different things have needed to be said about different aspects of theology in different seasons of the church. And theology is about responding appropriately to that which needs to be articulated at any point in time. There's no pressure for them to emerge with systematic holistic explanations with terminal categories.

So this is as far as the "core" issue is concerned in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Regarding contextualisation, I'd say that Eastern Orthodoxy has never really had to grapple with this issue until recently. All these centuries, it has existed in very insulated environments of oppressive political protectionism. So Eastern Orthodoxy has never been able to go very far in its missiological thought. I think they have much to learn from us about contextualisation; and if I may say so (in as humble a way as I know how), I hope they realise it.

thanks, sk.
That is very enlightening.

shalom