Jurgen Moltmann’s Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology totally online!
A group of us were asked whether we looked towards the future with a sense of hope. Let me pick out some sentences from a famous chapter from the book to help me sleep with more confidence tonight 🙂 On second thoughts, it’s more of a challenge!
“… we cannot speak simply of the ‘Church’ and mean by this the orgnized institution with all its public functions. Nor can we speak merely of the ‘congregation’ and thereby mean the company that gathers around the word and sacrament in divine service. We must follow the Reformation, and especially Luther, in speaking of ‘Christianity’ as represented in ‘church’ and ‘congregation’ and in Christians at their worldly callings. According to the Schmalkald Articles of 1537 ‘by the grace of God alone our churches are thus illumined and nurtured by the pure word and the right use of the sacrament and the knowledge of all kinds of stations and right works (cognitione vocationum et verorum operum)’. This means, however, that Christianity must also continually present itself, and does de facto always present itself, in the weekday obedience and the worldly callings of Christians and in their social roles. This third insight on the part of the Reformation has receded unduly into the background in the movements of the modern evangelical church towards reform. From the standpoint of sociology this is understandable, for modern, emancipated society seems to offer no chance for peculiarly Christian obedience. But from the standpoint of theology it is unintelligible, for it is precisely at this point, at which it is a question of the Christian’s call in our social callings, that the decision falls as to whether Christians can become an accommodating group, or whether their existence within the horizon of eschatological hope makes them resist accommodation and their presence has something peculiar to say to the world.”
it is a question of the Christian’s call in our social callings, that the decision falls as to whether Christians can become an accommodating group, or whether their existence within the horizon of eschatological hope makes them resist accommodation and their presence has something peculiar to say to the world.”
One problem we seem to have is the fear of the word “accomodation” – it has unfortunately taken on too many unfair negative connotations – as if to think that to be “accommodating” is to betray what it means to be a Christian … to “compromise” (which also shouldn’t always be taken as somethng negative). “Contextualization” sometiems seems to me to have become a negative and suspicious term.
One of many reasons why I think it is so important to have more conversations so that the context of what is discussed is understood and appreciated … but then I suppose if we are not willing to to even start with trying to make clear and agree first on what we mean by church
“… we cannot speak simply of the ‘Church’ and mean by this the organized institution with all its public functions
how can we even begin to talk about waht we mean by “accommodation”?
sorry if I am rambling … had 5 hous sleep last night and I am still tired 🙂
Paul – in the light of the three terms you mentioned “accommodation”, “compromise” and “contextualization”, I think the key word behind the concerns lurking in the background or shouting in the forefront is “FEAR”. Fear of the unknown, fear of experimentation, or I think the legitimate fear of being unfaithful to … “something” or I prefer to say “Someone.” (which I think helps reframe the discussion better.
This is where I think we Christians need to remind ourselves the well used ethos for our journey here on earth – “we walk by faith, not by sight”. Faith as in trust needs to be at the center energizing our response to God’s grace. This is not only personal but for our communal experience as well (i.e. congregation, Church and Christianity).
entering into conversations with those who are secure in the above reality allows us to deal with our fears while seeking to allow our Faith response to extend into a long term endeavor of faithfulness. Now, in this context, we explore various ways in which the words we use e.g. compromise or contextualize has concrete meaning. I admit, I don’t like the word “compromise” at first glance but then maybe the negative baggage on the word is too much after years of hearing it in that light. This may be the same for “contextualize” for some people. I was surprise how the term carried a negative connotation to someone in an apologetic ministry where for me it was a way forward in missional thinking. Having that conversation with this person helped me to be aware of that, I still think people over-react without truly understanding the terms and context in which the terms arise. But the conversation first established some level of space for interaction (even tension?).
well .. this is my morning ramble.
Didn’t the Pax-Britannica brought some form of “contextualized christianity” to our shores ?
My fear is not a “contextualized” faith, but a syncretized one. The line between the two runs thin. Our education policy is one example. Tyring to assimilate too much “religion” and losing its direction now.
“Indigenization”, “Localization” or DPM’s “Glocalization” as alternative ?