This is a cleverly hand drawn animated video depicting Dr Robert Cialdini’s Six Weapons of Influence as popularised in his book Influence, Science and Practice. The video introduces you or reinforces, the Six Principles of Persuasion, which are:Reciprocity: People are more likely to say “yes” to those that they owe, especially in the context of a social obligation. It also matters “how” you give.Scarcity: People want more of what they have less ofAuthority: It’s important to signal to others what makes you a credible, knowledgeable authority without having to say it yourself.Consistency: Consistency is activated by looking for and asking for small commitments that can be made along the way.Liking: People prefer to say yes to people that they like! Consensus: People look to the actions and behaviors of others to determine their own.
Previously, I had done a presentation on Contextual Theology (it is on Slideshare) where I had followed Stephen Bevan’s 11 benchmarks of good contextual theology. He noted that the list was tentative and most certainly incomplete.
I like the list, but would like to add one more.
Good Contextual Theology should serve a parabolic or prophetic role in the community.
This draws upon the idea that while a theology should connect to the culture… it should also challenge it. From my book “Theo-Storying: Reflections on God, Narrative, and Culture,” chapter 9:
David Tracy (“Plurality and Ambiguity.: Hermeneutics, Religion and Hope”) notes that religion is supposed to be rebellious, in conflict with the culture it is in. The reason is that religion (personifying it for a moment) is supposed to see the culture around it with clear eyes. It is then supposed to say to that culture that there is an Ultimate Reality that is above and beyond what one experiences within the culture. A religion claims access, on some level, to that Ultimate Reality, and points out its clear superiority to the flawed and failed reality around. When a religion stops seeking to challenge that culture and instead simply encourages and maintains that culture (indeed becoming an “opiate of the masses” and a maintainer of the existing power structure) it has failed in a profound way.
Darrell Whiteman (Contextualization: The Theory, the Gap, the Challenge) has noted that contextualization seeks to offend for the right reasons, and not for the wrong reasons.
This ties to the concept in the New Testament of “Offense” or the Greek term “Skandalon. Paul uses the term both positively and negatively. One should not create an unnecessary offense. However, the Gospel will always, in every culture, be offensive on some important level.
Recall Paul in Athens. Paul used Athenian legends to express the concept of God (much like John used “Logos”) rather than drawing from Jewish writings and imagery. However, after expressing the nature of God in a way that fits in many ways with the sub-culture of the Areopagus, Paul then begins talking of Jesus in terms of bodily resurrection… a scandalous concept to Greek philosophers steeped in Platonist thought.
Jesus fit into the culture of Judea so well that Judas had to single Him out with a kiss so that the local authorities could arrest Him. He also told stories and provided ethical guidance very much in line with Jewish culture and thought. Yet, in key ways, such as describing God as Father, and Himself as the “Son of Man” were scandalous… to say nothing of a Messiah who was more a Suffering Servant than a Conquering Hero, and describing the Kingdom of God having a universal quality that may well include the enemies of the Jewish people.
Harvie Conn quotes Harvey Smit (Conn’s book “Eternal Word and Changing Worlds” p. 237, Smit’s article “An Approach to Practical Apologetics, with Specific Reference to the Japanese Scene,” in”The Christian Faith in the Modern World”, p 6.)
“Dr. Harvey Smit outlines two features of this approach to the idea of offense that have relevance for our questions. He calls them ‘two lines which are in tension”: (1) All unnecessary offense must be avoided as something that endangers another’s faith; (2) there is an essential offense that must never be avoided, for it is only be overcoming this skandalon that a person comes to faith.”
I have been reflecting on race and culture, class and caste in recent weeks. I have come to the tentative conclusion that the Bible’s message of spiritual union and communion is an “essential offense.” That does not mean, that being divisive based on these things damns a person. Rather, it means that Christian unity and communion needs to be offensive regardless of the context it is in.
Offending for the right reasons is good. Ultimately, the chief offense in Christ. When I was in Taiwan, I was visiting a church in which a visiting minister was speaking. He teaches in Taiwan and in Indonesia. He notes that when his comparative religions class gets to Christian doctrine… especially about the death, resurrection, and atonement of Christ… the most common response from Muslim and Buddhist students comes down to something like “This is the craziest thing I have ever heard.” Now, if one wanted to, these challenging concepts could be contextualized to make them more palatable to Muslim and Buddhist thought. Islam does have a role for sacrifice, and Buddhism sees a sort of redemption passing through a path of suffering. However, the offense on some level should always be there. When Christ ceases to offend on some profound level… we are following the wrong Christ.
…For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. -I Corinthians 1:21-23
but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
just as it is written,
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
The following are some items from the Address by South African Allan Boesak, cleric and anti-apartheid activist, at the 1981 World Alliance of Reformed Churches. I am just picking up a few bits and pieces of it.
First of all, racism is an ideology of racial domination that incorporates beliefs in a particular race’s cultural and/or inherent biological inferiority. It uses such beliefs to justify and prescribe unequal treatment of that group. In other words, racism is not merely attitudinal, it is structural. It is not merely a vague feeling of racial superiority, it is a system of domination, with structures of domination– social, political, and economic. …
Secondly, racism has not always been with us. It is a fairly recent phenomenon that has become an essential part of an historical process of cultural, economic, political and psychological domination. … I note this to make the point that racism cannot be understood in individual, personal terms only. It must be understood in its historical perspective and in its structural manifestations.
But, thirdly, however important these observations may be, the Christian must say more. Racism is sin. It denies the creatureliness of others. It denies the truth that all human beings are made in the image of the Father of Jesus Christ. As a result, it not only denies the unity of all humankind, it also refuses to acknowledge that being in the image of God means having ‘dominion over all the earth.’ … The whole story of Genesis I and II is an attempt to give expression to this creaturely relatedness to God. …
Racism is a form of idolatry in which the dominant group assumes for itself a status higher than the other, and through its political, military, and economic power seeks to play God in the lives of others.
…Racism has brought dehumanization, … destroyed the human-beingness of those who are called to be the children of God. …
Most of all, racism denies the liberating, humanizing, reconciling work of Christ, the Promised One who has taken on human form, thereby reaffirming human worth in the sight of God. Through his life as a human being he has given flesh and blood to the words of the psalmist concerning the life of God’s weak and needy people: “From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight.” (Ps. 72:14)
…Racism has not only contaminated human society, it has also defiled the body of Christ. And Christians and the Church have provided the moral and theological justification for racism and human degradation.
As noted before, this is but a small section of the address by Allan Boesak. Not only did I quote only parts of it, but I removed all references to “white,” “black,” apartheid, and South Africa. This is not to hide its context, but recognize on a larger scale the fact that the concern is supracultural.
I presently live in the Philippines, a nation in which racism is not huge (compared to some places) but its effects are still felt indirectly. Much of the problems show itself in post-colonial mindset where the prejudices of the colonizers are still embedded deep even after independence. Looking further afield, one sees it more strongly. Just across the water is Malaysia, a country whose tourist board pumps out commercials emphasizing its multicultural peace and harmony, while the government maintains laws to ensure the power of the Malay to the detriment of the other “minority” groups. And of course, Malaysia is not alone… Myanmar has a similar situation with the Burmese as compared to the minority groups. And they are not the worst examples in the world. In the United States, systematic racism is officially opposed (sometimes successfully and sometimes not) but classism is actively promoted. If you doubt this, check the rhetoric of politicians who will freely admit that they intend to make decisions or promote laws to help “the middle class.”
But there is a difference between class (as well as caste) and race. Class and Caste exist, while race really does not. Now you might be tempted to suggest the opposite. After all, class and caste are human constructs that have not objective reality… but since they are, normally, recognized as human constructs, they exist to the level they are recognized to exist. But what about race? We often think of race as being objective, based on appearance. As such, it seems objective… real. But it is not.
Race draws from the “racial science” of the colonial and enslaving ages. It draws from the theory of biological evolution. A race is a sub-group within a species that has sizable differences from others within the species, and is, in fact, believed probably enroute to being a whole new species. In the 1800s and early 1900s a lot of effort was made to link intelligence, moral intelligence, and behavioral characteristics to this thing called race. The move has ultimately been a failure. There are reasons for this:
- There is no real agreement on how many races there are. At one time, people spoke of Caucasoid (“white”), Negroid (“black”), and Mongoloid (“yellow”). In the early 1900s there were five races commonly, “white, black, yellow, brown, and red.” Of course, the color designations made no real sense (except maybe brown). In Germany, of course, Jews were identified as a separate race, as well as the “Aryans.” In more recent times, some have created a very different list of five races based on the “out of Africa” theory of human development and dispersal.
- The differences between so called races are less than skin deep. Race has classically been determined by color of skin, color of eyes, and color and texture of hair. However, ultimately, color relates primarily to melanin… and melanin is distributed across mankind over a spectral range, not distinct groupings. Below the skin, the differences are very slight and only of statistical value. Race (from an evolutionary viewpoint) exists due to partial genetic incompatibility across races or a lack of interest in breeding across race. However, no such situation exists with humans. There is no genetic incompatibility, and any issues regarding “interracial” interest appears to be culturally driven, rather than innate.
Ultimately, racism should not exist in the church.
“For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body— whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free– and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many.” -I Cor. 12:12-14
“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” -Gal. 3:26-28
The church should not perpetuate, support, or allow divisiveness or power structures based on “race”, class/caste, or gender. It should model unity, and act subversively within the broader society to challenge its biased power structures.
In missions circles, for the sake of contextualization and pragmatism with regard to evangelism methodology, there has been a greater focus on separating people based on culture, class, caste, and social setting. It can be argued whether this focus on diversity has a negative effect on the unity of the church or not. But I hope that pragmatism and contextualization has not reached a point that division based on “race” can be used to justified. Frankly, I hope that culture, class, caste and social setting take on a less theologized role. Culture should be respected and uniformity is not a Christian virtue… but we also need to be trained for the Kingdom of God where diversity NEVER negates the true unity that all have in Christ.
A new evangelism, expressed in terms of contemporary experience, must begin with finding a new motive for mission. The imperatives of earlier centuries, particularly of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century, are no longer valid or compelling.
Dr. Michael Green states (“Evangelism in the Early Church”, 1970) there was a three-fold motive for mission in the early church. First, there was a sense of gratitude for what Christ had done. Second, early Christians were conscious of their responsibility to God to communicate the message they had received. Third, there was a concern, a passion for people.
… Over the years since the first century, the motive for mission has varied. Let us look for a moment at the evangelism of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries. … The driving motive of Christians in these years was a passion for souls. With the vivid belief in the reality of heaven and hell, Christians sought to rescue people from eternal punishment and to open the door to heaven for them before it was too late.
Perhaps the most vivid expression of this type of motive can be heard throbbing in the ministry of Dr. Jonathan Edwards. It is powerfully expressed in his famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Dr. Edwards apparently produced a tremendous impact on the eastern coast of America as he thundered: “God holds you over the pit of hell. You hang by a slender thread with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it. Now harken to the loud call of God’s word and providence. Therefore let everyone who is out of Christ now awake and fly from the wrath to come.”
Nineteenth century motives for mission are no longer viable or credible. Enticement of heaven or the dread of hell no longer possess the power they once did. There are several reasons for this decline. (Alan Walker, “The New Evangelism” (Abingdon Press, 1975), 8-11)
Alan Walker suggest a few reasons:
-Reduction of early morality rates makes death seem less real or pressing. While this feeling is essentially inaccurate (death is still inevitable), death and post-death experience doesn’t connect as viscerally as it may have in the past. I have heard a study that 3% of Americans are afraid of hell. Some perhaps lack fear because they are convinced that they are heaven-bound. Others lack fear because they don’t believe in hell. However, others may be uncertain about the future, and believe in hell… but they don’t feel the fear because there is a perception of “distance” between now and death. This would be pretty similar to a 20 year old eating junk food and being asked to think about its effect on his heart… possibly, eventually, a long time from now.
-Hope of Reward and Fear of Punishment seem like inadequate motives for salvation. Many are uncomfortable with using this methodology to inspire conversion. James Fowler’s faith development stages does point out that doing right because of fear of punishment is a much lower (and not wholly desirable) stage of faith growth. Those who use only fear of hell as their argument to convert can come off more as fire insurance salesmen… rather than bearer’s of good news and Christ’s kingdom.
-Focusing on hell does tend to portray God poorly. The God portrayed by Jonathan Edward seems to have made cultural sense in the time of Jonathan Edward, as well as John Tetzel, but today such a God does not appear to be worthy of worship. Frankly, the God of the Bible generally seems much more compassionate than many more recent evangelistic portrayals.
I would probably add at least one more. Modernism brought doubt about old answers, a faith in certain new answers, and a pluralism based on greater interaction of people of different cultural viewpoints. It also inspired Post-modernism which has doubts regarding modernism, as well as the new answers, but without necessarily embracing the older answers.
Of course, not believing in hell does not make it go away. But over reliance on it as an evangelism strategy seems out of sorts with many modern or post-modern cultures. I have mentioned before the controversy as to whether accepting the Lordship of Christ is necessary for salvation. We often say that we accept Jesus as Savior and Lord… but some suggest that only one is necessary. I am not competent necessarily to determine if both are necessary, but the bigger question, I believe, is on the other side. It seems pretty obvious from Scripture that calling on the name of the Lord implies a decision to follow Christ… as Lord. The bigger question is whether salvation necessitates recognizing Jesus as Savior. Can a person be saved who accepts Jesus as Lord… before understanding that He is also Savior? Or if a person accepts Jesus as Savior, must he be absolutely aware of what exactly he has been saved from?
I think the note in the quote about the three motivations of the early church for evangelizing is important. The three motivations:
- Gratitude for the work of Christ in their lives
- Responsibility before God to share the Good News.
- Concern or passion for people
These seem like appropriate motives. When I interviewed medical evangelistic ministry workers/organizers, I asked what are their motives for doing the ministry. The top three were:
- Love of God
- Love/concern for people
- Obedience to the Great Commission
These three are about the same. Unfortunately the motive, “a passion for souls,” has proven inadequate. One might surmise that passion for souls would necessitate love or concern for people. But that has not proven true. We find many who tirelessly share the word of God seeking conversion, who show little to no concern for the social, economic, psycho-emotional, plights of the people they share with. To ignore these other areas may be consistent with a passion for souls, but outrageously dissonant with genuine love or concern for people.
All Theology is Contextual. So when I speak of the “foul lines” of contextual theology, I mean the “foul lines” of ALL theology. The use of the term “foul lines” as it pertains to contextual theology, comes from Stephen Bevans, who in turn draws it from Justo Gonzales. I will be returning to Bevans later. It implies that there is a wide range of theologies that may be acceptable, or fair, or orthodox. But there are also some that are not. All theology is either well-contextualized or poorly contextualized. However, that also means that both orthodox theology and heterodox theology can be well-contextualized or poorly contextualized.
Ultimately, this means that there are two challenges.
- The test of contextualization.
- The test of orthodoxy
The two tests are muddy and inter-related. They are muddy in that it is hard to determine definitively the lines (the “foul lines”) between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. and between well-or-poorly contextualized. Additionally, contextualization has an effect on orthodoxy. In fact, being too well contextualized leads to heterodoxy. This is because good theology ALWAYS challenges, in some way, the culture it is in.
Ignoring the question of contextualization in this post, how does one test orthodoxy? In the past, the answer was often answered in terms of alignment of the theology to creeds. Even for non-creedal groups, (such as I am part of) statements or articles of faith tend to be seen as orthodox (good doctrine) and divergence from such statements evidence heterodoxy (or bad doctrine).
But as soon as one acknowledges that all theology, along with all creeds and articles of faith are culturally embedded, things get more complicated. Divergence from a creed may not really mean that it is heterodox, but it could be orthodox in a different context. It is hard to be sure. So how does one test a contextualized theology for orthodoxy?
Stephen Bevans has given some tests for this. He draws from Schreiter, de Mesa, and some others, along with his own reflection. A quick summary of some of these tests is found in a presentation he gave a Boston University, seen in THIS VIDEO.
He notes the inadequacy of each individual test (he gives 11 tests) but suggests a principle of “converging probabilities.” In fact, it is the reasoning associated with historical or legal analysis, where the focus is not on PROOF, but on how the preponderance of the evidence becomes COMPELLING, leading to CONSENSUS.
I would like to keep these 11 tests, but reorganize them, grouping them into five (5) general tests.
Test #1. The Test of Revelation. Christianity is founded on Divine Revelation, in the form of the words of the apostles, prophets, and the incarnation of Jesus Christ. As such a theology is challenged to be both coherent and harmonious with that revelation. Coherent, means that it does not contradict the word or essence of that revelation. But a caution here, since, one can always find “contradictions” if one goes in lacking grace or humility. Harmony means that it aligns with revelation in a way that may be novel, yet appears to go well with the revelation as a harmonic line in music works with the melody.
Test #2. Test of God. Any contextual theology is tested by God’s uniqueness and transcendance. Therefore, any theology should be consistent in its prayer and worship. (For example, any theology that makes Jesus less worthy of prayer and worship than God, places itself out of line with orthodox faith). Additionally, any theology that encourages or justifies behavior of believers that is inconsistent with God’s character (love, justice, holiness, for example) is highly suspect.
Test #3. Test of the Universal Church. The church is founded on Christ and the apostles and maintains a spiritual unity regardless of how often the church drifts from diversity (a good thing) to divisiveness (not such a good thing). A contextual theology should be open to critique from groups and theologies outside of its context. It should also have the value and robustness to challenge and inspire those both inside and outside of its context. To fail to do those things suggests that it lacks that unity with the universal body of Christ. <Note: The universal church does not simply exist in place, it also exists in time. So the challenge of church includes the church throughout history. For example, restorationist theologies that presume that historic church was totally apostate for centuries or millenia, must be suspect.>
Test #4. Test of the Local Community. A contextualized theology is for a certain context or faith community. Therefore, it should, ideally, come from the community (rather than an outsider or from one specific person). It should be intelligible to people in the community in simple language, and should, over time, be valued and accepted by the community.
Test #5. Creation. A contextualized theology should honor creation, as the good design and handiwork of God. A theology that lessens or devalues God’s creation is suspect. This also includes mankind. A theology that treats humans, or any subset of humans, as less than God’s creation, Imago Dei, or less worthy of honor than other humans, is less than orthodox.
These tests will not eradicate all disagreements, but they, hopefully, will provide a starting point for a potential future consensus.