A day with google plus: ideas

Had an interesting day experimenting with Google Plus… basically I decided to post any significant thought I was having, when I remembered to post. I wanted to see what I would say if I maintained roughly a two hour posting cycle. I found that was very aware of what I was posting… and the idea that I had to choose the perspective from which I was reflecting was quite important.

I took the dialogue approach… exploring theological thinking that could generate discussion and further reflection. This allowed me to condense any thought into a conversation idea.

One thought, for instance, was about the need to be people centred while also being institution centred. The other was about cricket… and the idea of how failure of teams… affects personal feelings of failure. This lead me to further express the idea I have had for a theology of sport.

It was interesting to see the desire to create a “byte” out of the random thoughts that went through the day… and interestingly… there were so many. Each of those thoughts… if thought through and presented well… could emerge as a blogpost… and even as an article.

Hence… it showed how ideas were not the problem. And places like Google+ were great places to express burgeoning ideas.

However… what happens to the 1000s of ideas that fester. Mostly they evaporate… without trace. Other times, I have found myself wanting to start something, but not have the will to continue with it. I have, of late, become more cautious with exploring ideas for that very fear… fear of leaving things unfinished.

I am left with the feeling of “what next”… should I think about generating such ideas… or more specifically… keep publicizing them… or should i just focus on 1 or 2 ideas and develop them? 

Fact is, I remain without direction… and like many unfinished projects… this thought will remain without conclusion… and my google plus craze… will remain a phase… until I get back to experiencing, thinking, and living without formulating, articulating and communicating.

 

Contextual or Practical? More thoughts on contextual theology

Of late I’ve been thinking a lot about contextual theology; particularly in the context of the popular equation of contextual theology with practical theology (arising often from some western mission-oriented scholars). The belief (proposal) is that theology, when dealing with the practical contextual issues of our time, is contextual. Rooted in this belief is a methodological presupposition that there is a consistent gospel, known/understandable/communicable across time and cultures. What remains, from this clear/unchanging gospel, is the practical time-bound/culture-bound application of the issues. Many would admit that the gospel is and must continue to be interpreted from cultural frameworks. However, the priority of scriptures is so strongly emphasized that the actual “power” that the context has over our understanding of scripture is largely ignored. We are left with a monolithic (standard) view of God and revelation, without the cultural nuances that could theoretically significantly alter / differentiate our understanding of them.

Contextual theologians for their part (and I wish I could side more fully with this side) are those who appeal to the contextual nature of understanding and make an intentional attempt to discover the gospel within their contextual framework. These “contextual” frameworks include ethnicity and gender, but also social ethics like justice and peace. The concern here is not simply to “apply” the gospel, but to understand (even re-understand) the gospel contextually. Hence, theology, and our pet (standard) doctrines like Creation, redemption, eschatology, need to be revisited from the contextual point of view. God must be seen as being involved with the world, and thus our involvement with God’s world, and God’s activity in this world, is seen to naturally be coloured by our perceptions of this world.

This quest to understand God “from below” (as it has been called) is truly a much-needed activity, especially for younger churches who need to discover who God is and what the Bible says, for themselves, for their communities. Like the “western church” they (we) too need to be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them, grow in our theology through theological debate.

I need to say that I (personally) am averse to the anti-western flavour that a lot of contextual theology takes. Furthermore, I am also averse to the aggressive anti-biblical, anti-church rhetoric that is proposed. However, especially in view of the last paragraph, I feel the younger churches must be allowed to make such mistakes even as other “contextual” theologians from the younger churches should be allowed to disagree with our (contextual) counterparts.

I don’t mean that theological debate must take place at the exclusion of the “west”, but rather that this debate must be a real one… and must not simply be between “west and east” but also within/between “east and east” (south and south… or whatever metaphor / classification we choose to employ).

So positively, drawn from the first paragraph, I want to affirm that contextual theology must have (and the must is a norm that I propose, and in view of the needed debate between contextual theologians) a missional flavour. It is true that theology for theology sake is beautiful and good, but the challenge to be practical may indeed give greater focus and direction, even urgency, to our contextual ramblings. It is the crisis of the present that can govern/shape our theology, and that crisis… like the challenges of society, of church, of ethics etc… must also be the focus of our theological engagement.

Similarly, I am now less averse to the equation of practical theology with contextual theology, though I do still disagree with its equation that contextual theology equals practical theology. However, I am certainly inclined to think that the practical focus of contextual theology, may in fact be its strength.

Modern Trends in Theology

A thought paper

The goal of this thought paper is to put down, as honestly and quickly as possibly, what I already know about the topic “Modern trends in theology”. Partly this is motivated by the need to get clarity about this subject. Thus, I seek to draw out what I know and possibly expose the gaps of what I do not know. I also, more importantly, want to move out of the “knowing about” paradigm and see whether there is a “doing” that exists, something that suggests that I am relevant within the modern trends in theology, whether I am doing theology or still just talking about it. I’m hoping that as I do this I will make some progress.

To answer these questions and proceed accordingly, I guess the first thing I typically do is to define (or redefine) what I mean by theology. I remember answering what theology was by saying that it was an answer to a question that relates to God. I would add that it is an answer to a question/concern that arises from God, and yet arises out of seeing God in that context, and also in search of God in/through that issue, and answered with the help of God, informed by his witness in scriptures and the tradition that holds scriptures together. The reason I put so much God into the focus, is because I feel the true nature of theology will always be God. The moment God goes out of focus, theology becomes anthropology or something else. These somethings elses are not bad in themselves, but theology as a discipline must be concerned with its central concern, which is God.

In the past few years, I have gained a clearer understanding of the relevance of history and church to do theology, and thus I know that this “God-talk” is not an individual discussion, or an experiential expression, but is a dialogue with other voices. The use of other voices, traditions, is not simply one method of theology, it is the very nature of theology. Thus, the contextual motivations/concerns, the dialogical nature, are all parts of the very fabric of theology which is done for the purpose of “knowing God” and making Him known.

This last sentence, clearer shows a bias towards the evangelical tradition, particularly in the communication of God. The bias is still a “knowing” which I think is a big problem in evangelical thought. I think we mean it as something more, more than cognitive, I personally think of a relation “knowing” in the sense that God “knows” us, or even Adam “knew” Eve. Still, the word knowledge is so coloured with cognitive post-enlightenment thinking that it is too difficult to avoid.

And perhaps here I am ready to state what I think is a contemporary trend in theology. It is the moving away from the cognitive knowledge of God as paramount, to a more fuller relation with God through actions/life. This non-cognitive aspect of our relation with God is expressed through a rejection of purely propositional accounts of God and theology, towards narrative discourses or even relational methods that aims to better approach towards a truer/richer/fuller picture of who God is and who God is for creation.

Relatedly, there is a diversification of our approach to God, where especially seen through Trinitarian, Pneumatological, and other “models” our access to God is shown to be better/fuller by filling the missing gaps that previously limited (Christological, or ecclesiocentric) models failed to do.

The goal is to get a better, more complete picture of God and God’s relation with humanity and creation. And that certainly is a very popular trend in contemporary Christian scholarship.

The other trend is contextualisation of theology, by which I want to emphasise the subjective element of theology. There is a movement away from objective understandings of God, to the recognition that knowledge of God is shaped by our perceptions, by our cultures, by our environment etc. This recovery of subjectivity, is both a recovery of faith in theology (so Christians doing Christian theology), but also is the rise of confidence in narrower theological positions that distinguish and highlight key differences. So we have evangelical, orthodox, catholic theologies. We also have reformed, Pentecostal theologies. We have further the more obvious contextual theologies like liberation, feminist and dalit, as well as postmodern/postcolonial theologies. Each of these theologies aims to highlight both the significance of particularist understandings of the Christian gospel, but also points to the lack (intentionally or unintentionally) in others. At best, the goal is to work together to come up with a more wholistic understanding of the Christian gospel.

There is another way theology is moving, and that is to address contemporary issues. While the goal of theology is at best to be relevant to the context, nevertheless, this trend, to address the burning issues of society today is especially unique. Perhaps it is the proliferation of global awareness through mass media, however, more than ever, theology has been seeking to address issues of economics, politics, sexuality, ethics, social justice, environment and so forth. More specific issues are also addressed, like human rights and child theology.

There is a similar comfort with theology to be interdisciplinary. So there is a much more inter-mingling of disciplines, with anthropology, philosophy, natural science all mixing with the theological space.

The goal, through this above trend, is to broaden the scope of theology to address living issues, and also in ways that are living methods and disciplines today.

Methodologically, theology has moved towards theories of language, interest in hermeneutics, interest in cultures/contexts, user of inter-disciplinary tools. All, once again, showing that theology is not simply static and propositional or institutional, but is willing to try out new ideas, explore its own content from multiple perspectives.

So here we have it, a short thought paper on the modern trends in theology. How this all fits with “doing” I’m still not sure. And there is obviously more left to say, but at least I have gotten started by doing some theological reflection at least!

Testing, mike testing: updating my blog using Word

I just noticed the other day that there was a publish to blog function in Word. I wouldn’t want to support MS Word too much, but I find that logging on to my Blog site is the one of the biggest deterrents to updating it. So I am testing whether writing in Word and publishing to my WordPress site works. If this does work, it will make it so much easier to publish.

Instructions: What I have been directed to do is…

1. Write what I want to write.

2. Choose “Publish” to Blog in the main menu

3. Then, in manage accounts, again in menu, choose WordPress.

4. Type name of blog with the space they provide. ie. http://%5Bnameofyourblog%5D.wordpress.com/somecodewhichyoushouldnotchange

5. Type username/password (remember if you need to) (though I am concerned about security of remembering passwords on MS Word).

6. What I typed will now have a blog interface. I am directed to put a heading to the post. There is an option to use categories, but I haven’t tested it. I wonder if it can remember the categories I have used, or do I have to use fresh categories everytime.

Now to see if this works. Click… publish.

(from wordpress: yes it does work. Pretty cool)

I still haven’t tested putting photos etc. But text for now is enough.

Losing focus

It’s so easy to lose focus. Spends hours in meaningless activities… without realising that I am wasting my life. And then, suddenly, sometimes, I wake up. Oftentimes, strangely… when I close my eyes to prayer. Or at least, that’s what I suddenly did right now. I was in the middle of mindless browsing. No, not the negative kind… just the generic kind… news reports… entertainment news, sports, design… all seemingly harmless and even educational. But after a long time… I was confronted by my distance from God. And as I returned to my theme this year… prayer… I sought out a book on prayer … and read a few phrases…

(from Richard Foster’s Prayer (16):
Dear Jesus, how desperately I need to learn to pray. And yet when
I am honest, I know that I often do not even want to pray.
I am distracted!
I am stubborn!
I am self-centered!
In your mercy, Jesus, bring my “want-er” more in line with my
“need-er” so that I can come to want what I need.
In your name and for your sake, I pray. —Amen.)

I wasn’t sure that my struggle was between wants and needs… it was more within focus and non-focus… keeping my eyes on God/Jesus and forgetting that I am his child, called to his purpose. Nevertheless that prayer helped me wake up… and turn back to God.

Now I know that “blogging” about it is counterproductive… because to get out of the grip of losing focus… to go more into computers… (ie. writing about it)… is a “synthetic” lifestyle… not always real. But within my current limitations… I felt trapped enough by the machine to express my feeling of being trapped within the machine.

I’m not able to escape my desire (want) for distraction… but I know that focus is what I need. Hmm… perhaps Foster’s first prayer is my prayer after all… Lord, let my focus on my own desire… become a focus on what I truly need. And I know, I truly need you right now. Lord I pray that I will meet you. Now. Right now. Full stop.

The Year of Prayer

As cheesy as it sounds, 2012, for me, is the year of prayer. Last year was The Year of Hardwork, and, in my attempt to finish my PhD dissertation, it was quite appropriate. This year, I really felt compelled to focus on prayer.

The main reason for this is that I am actually uncertain about my future. I am not exactly sure why God wanted me to go through a PhD, and I feel as I reflect on the answer, I need to spend time in prayer… thanking God for the journey I have been through, and praying that God will clarify my future.

Another reason why prayer is so important for me this year is because, completing my dissertation, I am tempted to get “straight to work”. The feeling that I should act, do things, and even the expectation for me to be involved in so many things, is overwhelming. But also needs to be tempered by prayer… understanding God’s perspective in these matters… getting God’s guidance for any new proposal or project I am involved in. This is a dire need, and I need to pray.

A third reason why I am focussing on prayer is the simple reason that I don’t quite understand it.  Why should we prayer, remains a mystery. I still do it, knowing that outside my understanding there is truth that I need to obey: “pray”! But honestly, I do struggle to understand why, an allknowing God, wants us to pray. I am also unsure whether we can affect any course of event through the prayer (ie. I know God cannot be controlled by external forces, so is prayer a force that we think exerts God?). I would love some clarity… and so this year is a hope to gain clarity in this.

So anyway… so far I have done some praying. But lately, not enough. Here’s to the hope that I will pray more, much more, this year.

God, my father, teach me to pray.

What is Contextual Theology? More questions than answers

Few days ago I was reading an academic paper written intentionally from a Kenyan contextual perspective. The paper critiqued the state of the Kenyan church and called for a transformation of the content and method of education in the Kenya. What struck me was that the author talked about the Kenyan church in almost the exact manner we talk about the Indian church. The Kenyan church, also the recipient of Colonial Christianity, had almost the exact concerns as those facing India.

I asked the author (it was a presentation), what was distinctively “contextual” in his approach since there was such similarity. What was uniquely Kenyan in his theological formulation, his methodology, or even his solution? The author’s defense was that the history of the Kenyan Church, as well as the issues facing the Kenyan church, were unique. While the author was probably right to clarify it like this, in the paper I did not see enough evidence of a theology that arose from the awareness of the history of Kenya or even the unique issues affecting Kenya. In effect, the generic “theological solution” was simply that generic.

This reminded me about how difficult “contextual theology” really is. What we usually see in attempts of “contextual theology” is theology that has implications to a particular region… hence a “practical theology”. This kind of theology seeks to address a particular issue facing a particular context. The generic nature of the “solution” is therefore not a problem because similar issues will have similar solutions.

However, we rarely see good “contextual theology” that actually uniquely emerges out of the context.This kind of theology, that is truly contextual, is mostly unique to the context within which it emerges from. In fact, it may not make sense to those outside that context, but it certainly rings a visceral bell in those within that context. This kind of theology is not simply about the issues facing the context (culture), like poverty, pluralism, lack of education etc. Rather, theology itself is made the issue. Do we understand the Bible correctly? Have we been brain-washed into thinking in a particular way? How should we (from our context) understand God, his word, that helps us to rightly understand and rightly communicate God here, today.

There have been contextual theologians in the past who have done this intentionally or unintentionally. However, good examples of “contextual theology” today are rare. It requires the theologian to be completely honest, even to the point of being willing to question age-old beliefs and traditions.

Keeping in mind the controversial nature of “contextual theology” I’m not sure whether it is a challenge worth fighting for.  But my gut-feeling is that contextual theology, the honest and compelling kind, is still needed today.