Post-Contextuality : Evangelism and Missions must change

by Bo Sanders
posted at Ethnic Space

Contextual theology was the subject of my Master’s thesis.*  I was, and continue to be, enthralled with the possibility that the gospel could be uniquely expressed in every culture in a manner that was both authentic and indigenous to that group’s place and time. Lamin Sanneh goes so far as to say that it is the distinguishing characteristic of the Christian religion and that unlike Judaism, Islam, Hindu and Buddhist traditions there is no language, place, culture or time that is inherently superior for expressing the gospel.  In Whose Religion Is Christianity: the Gospel Beyond the West, he has it like this:

Being that the original scripture of the Christian movement, the New Testament Gospels are translated versions of the message of Jesus, and that means Christianity is a translated religion without a revealed language. The issue is not whether Christians translated their scriptures well or willingly, but that without translation there would be no Christianity or Christians. Translation is the church’s birthmark as well as its missionary benchmark: the church would be unrecognizable or unsustainable without it…  Since Jesus did not write or dictate the Gospels, his followers had little choice but to adopt a translated form of his message. (Sanneh p. 97)

When I wrote the thesis, I had yet to really encounter liberation or post-colonial thought in depth. My interest in contextualization arose from being a church-planter in a Missionary denomination. I did not realize at the outset of the project just how strong the critique contextual theology brought to classical (traditional) approaches. Since then I have engaged de-colonial, feminist, liberation, post-modern, and pluralistic voices that have even harsher critiques.

I keep circling back, however, to a much simpler concern: the practice of the church.

It is in this concern of practice that I have stumbled onto – and now stumble over – a haunting inconsistency between our thought and our practice.

The irony is thick. In my experience, those who are most excited about missions and evangelism are quite fond of the Bible. They often reference the Bible and even say things like “In the Bible” as a validation for doing something a certain way or “that’s unbiblical” as criticism of something.

Yet, never in the Bible do you see anyone intentionally learning another language in order to present the gospel. In the Bible, God repeatedly used dual-citizens and bi-lingual folks to get the message out. In the book of Acts we see three examples:

  • a miraculous bridging of the language barrier at Pentecost
  • the Ethiopian eunuch was a bi-lingual traveler who took something back to his ‘home’ in Africa
  • Saul/Paul was a dual-citizen who took the message to the Roman Empire

That, it seems to me, is the Biblical model for missions. (This is true whether or not one translates the Great Commission as the imperative “Go” or the more passive Greek rendering of “as you are going”. The precedent of Acts is the same.) The Biblical model is very different than the Colonial model we are so familiar with.

The past 5 centuries have had their effect – but now that the whole world is ‘mapped’ and ‘spoken for’, maybe its time to move away from the colonial obsession with conversion and trust the bilingual and dual-citizens among us to translate to and for their cultures. We would need to repent of our compulsion to import ourselves into foreign peoples or countries and then impose our cultural expectations on them.

In a global era it is time to stop importing and imposing our cultural entrapments into alien environments and presuming that we know what is best for them. There is enough migration, travel, immigration and cultural exchange that we can now trust God that this will happen in the right time and in the right way – without us taking matters into our own hands any longer and asking God to bless our efforts. The era of elaborate organizations for foreign missions needs to come to an end.** They are unbiblical – and I think they always have been – but now they are also inappropriate for our age.

 The move toward contextual theology helped me see that we have to move beyond contextualization in missions and evangelism. The Colonial era was an ugly one for the church and we need to move out its methods – not just for the word’s sake but because it undermines and  discredits the very message we are trying to convey through it.  

*different groups utilize different forms of contextualization – Catholics tend to call the process ‘inculturation’ for instance, others use a similar move called ‘indigenization’.

** I know dozens of missionaries and understand that they are passionate. I mean no harm to any one of these folks that I care so much about. I have delayed putting this out for more than a year out of my concern for their feelings.

16 thoughts on “Post-Contextuality : Evangelism and Missions must change

  1. I’m actually fighting with myself about submitting this. My posts in the past have been largely ignored. The substance of my previous questions left unanswered. But I will try once more to make my points and see if you are able to respect me enough to engage with what I actually say.

    Let me see if I understand your argument. We are to simply allow Holy Spirit to train, teach and contextualize with locals or with those who are “bi-cultural.” No sharing is allowed from people of other cultures. Only Spirit filled bi-cultural people need “hear the call” if you will. Is that what you are saying?

    I have one clarifying question and then two counterpoints.

    First,the question I have is why do most other aspects of the Western culture like telecom, gaming, film, soft drinks, fashion music, etc; why in light of the fact that these aspects of culture are given virtually unfettered access to the rest of the world is it wrong for us to go and share our faith with those in other parts of the world?

    Then a counterpoint. NT Wright, in a talk about what we do until the parousia uses the analogy of colony. Colonialism, in spite of its weaknesses is not de facto bad. Like every other cultural good (see Crouch) colonialism has good points and bad points. His comments are here:

    My second counterpoint is that western missionary intervention has actually saved cultures and saved lives. When the film “The End of the Spear” was released I happened to be in the US. Many criticized Saint and Elliot and the others for their “missionizing zeal”

    But one sociologist I think from Syracuse University said in a newspaper interview that it was a good thing that the missionaries made contact and eventually “evangelized” the Waodani. He said that their culture had become so treacherous that they would have exterminated themselves within one generation.

    The amazing thing about that case is that the “bi-culturals” were so frightened of the Waodani that they would not go near them. (The Waodani were called by their tribal neighbors “Oucha,” which means “savages.”) The Americans who were naive about their treachery were the ones to make the first long-term connection with this tribe and the first to make a difference.

    In a similar case the colonizing British, who were guilty of much oppression, nonetheless were right in putting an immediate stop to the practice of burning the widows on the pyre of their late husbands when they came to rule in India. How many women would have perished waiting for an indigenous church to grow enough to influence change?

    In conclusion I would just add that I’m a little surprised that the argument of being “unbiblical” would even be important to you. But I offer that an historical reason may exist as to why evangelization by those who are not bi-cultural is not included in the NT.

    Historical evidence exists that Thomas (Didymous) spread the Gospel as far as Persia and India. No evidence exists that he was bi-cultural, but his efforts seem to have been blessed by the One he spent some years following, and later proclaiming.

    So, to borrow one of your phrases, the “trajectory” of the New Testament teaching and very early Church history seems to support the practice that evangelization by those who are not bi-cultural is a viable means to grow the Dominion (I use dominion in deference to your readers who shutter at the sexist use of the word “kingdom.”)

    Indeed, the only reason I can think that Thomas’s and other apostle’s adventures are not included and are therefore “biblical” is that they moved too far away from the rest of the early Christians to be mentioned in the extant letters that survive in the NT. Isn’t this a likely scenario? They moved beyond the communication hubs of Jerusalem and Rome.

    Please don’t interpret my response as totally disagreeing with you. I do believe your contention that those who are bi-cultural are by far the best modern day “apostles.”

    But I believe Holy Spirit is completely capable of using those who have to learn another culture. The keys to success are found in the answer to these two qualifying questions: “Are they really truly Spirit-filled” and “Are they truly learners?”

    Again, I am hitting the submit button with fear and trepidation, wondering, “Will my comments be honored in the spirit they are given or will they be easily dismissed as irrelevant?”

    • Thinking – Thank you so much for your thoughtful responses. Before I get to the particulars of this exchange, a couple of points of clarification in general:

      – I post several blogs a week. We do not always agree about them. It is how it goes and I think that we are both better for the engagement! But sometimes it just seems that we have both said what we wanted to say and it might be better to move to the next subject. I so let the last one go graciously.
      – You comments are never dismissed lightly. Quite the opposite actually. I take them very seriously and honor the time and effort any responded puts into it.
      – Where we run into trouble is when I say “We need to move on from X” and you respond by telling me X. On those occasions I don’t feel that you have engaged the material but just quoted the proof-texts to me that I already know as well as you.
      – There are times when employ devices designed to get a rise: people don’t shudder at the sexist use of the word Kingdom. You are using hyperbole. I get that. but it is really obvious when you have your hackles up and are being curt.

      Hope that clarifies some things. Now I can address the content of your comment :)

    • You had one question and two counter points:
      The reason that business and telecommunications and soft-drinks get unfettered access and the gospel doesn’t, in my mind, is because the gospel is not a product. Or at least it was not designed to be. The colonial program and the inherent message embedded in our forms are substantially different. We can judge by the world’s standards or simply adopt the world’s methods. The CONTENT of our message demands a different delivery system .

      Your first counterpoint was about colonial benefits. All I can say is that if you listen to de-colonial voices you get a very different picture than what you said. I don’t know Crouch – but if I look into it and he is a ‘western’ voice … then quoting that perspective is … the opposite of self-validating.

      Lastly, lets talk ‘Biblical’. A) you don’t know me very well if you think that I am not concerned about it. It illustrates what you have missed in my posts B) My point is that those who are most concerned with Biblical precedent have a missions approach (learning a foreign language) that you see nowhere in Scripture – what they would call ‘unbiblical’. that is ironic. C) then you quote the speculation about Thomas (which I believe by the way and reference often) and prove my point. It is not biblical. non sciptora – one might say :)

      So no, we are not in 100% disagreement. You make some good points. But your approach to colonialism is textbook – attempt to recover the good parts OF the project while condemning the bad parts … without criticizing the project as a whole. It’s call post-rationality (just wanting to excise the irrational parts like genocide). While not saying that it was irrational to invade another culture and land to import and impose our way of life upon them.

      and lets me honest here: you have a lot at stake in this one. You do this for a living and have gone to language school for this. So it is no surprise that this touched a nerve. Hope to hear back from ya.

  2. Hello old friend!
    I happened on your blog as I was doing some good ol’ google “research”:-) It’s wonderful to see a young theologian like yourself continue to seek a more authentic Christianity and ask the hard questions. 

    Great post. I, too, Believe that the bible is contextual and resently came across harsh and  confused opposition regarding this belief. Evangelism certainly does present a bit of a “challenge” from our classical forms. I agree that it is clearer what it cannot be (indigenization, etc) but it is more difficult to clarify how it “should” be. Perhaps it all comes back to relationships (sounds so simple)–like our conversations regarding Process theo have lead us to conclude–maybe if the paradigm fueling our evangelism was one of promoting authentic relationships to each other and to God, then we would perhaps see a radical change in our desire to make everyone believe and act as we do. Unlike our previous evangelical forms of sharing our faith, within the context of relationships there is a mutual transformation that takes place where each is impacted by the other–as equals. The problem with this is that not everyone really wants to let go of power, authority and even wealth to have authentic faith relationships. I could go on but just wanted to say hi!

    Good to happen on this and read your stuff!
    Veruschka Zarate

    • Veruschka! SOOO good to hear from you. I inherited a little Yorkie that makes me think of your little dogs :)

      I also really appreciate your perspective on this. We come from very different backgrounds and so the fact that your story is so similar to mine tells me something…

      Thanks again for dropping by and for taking the time to respond! It is much appreciated. -Bo

      (I will give ya a call soon so we can catch up)

      • Hi Bo! It made me smile to get your reply!

        Aren’t yorkies the best! Mine are my babies! ;-)

        Yes–it is interesting that even though our backgrounds are so different, culturally and denominationally, that we find ourselves searching for clarity and transformation regarding social and theological issues. There is much to be said.

        I would love to catch up and I look forward to your call.

        Grace and peace to you!

  3. A very interesting post very close to my heart.

    The church I grew up in in France (which is a hard place for the Gospel) has been on the whole led by foreign missionaries, and it has seen a LOT of different leaders over the years. I was equally blessed and hurt by it and I think the reason for this is that there has been a lack of understanding of not only the national culture and history but also the local city and specific culture and history of the local church. In my experience I have found that this lack of in-depth understanding has hindered growth and caused a lot of hurt for both the leaders and the congregation. One of the biggest problems is that whenever there is a problem, the congregation can always say of the leader ‘well they can’t really understand, they’re not French’ and that’s a valid point!

    As a bilingual and bi-cultural (I have lived in the UK for the last 14 years) I can see more clearly how culture and history affects an area and find this invaluable in understanding people; it changes how you relate to them. But the problem is that even the locals don’t recognise the issues they are facing. There is not a lot of training available that looks at this, but how can you hope to redeem and bring light into a fallen culture if you don’t know what the problems are and what is at their root?

    I was actually really encouraged a few years ago when I went to a focus day on France in the UK with a church group called New Frontiers who addressed these very issues and identified by name a lot of the specific French difficulties that missionaries would come across and how to work in such a different context from the UK one. It has definitely led me to believe that I am in a unique position of being able to speak into the French context from my new perspective.

  4. I would just say that I do not consider myself “bi-cultural” though I’m learning my host’s culture more and more. But, I am amazed at the blinders that bi-cultural people have.

    I see that I, as an outsider, am more open to change forms, styles, etc. to be more “Balkan” while my “bi-cultural” friends are stuck, not even seeing a need for change. How does that fit into your paradigm? Is HS allowed to use me this way or is it just an “accident?”

  5. I would disagree in one other way with your idea that the “biblical” model for missions is exclusively by those who are “bi-cultural.” And that is, it seems to me. that you assume that examples we have in the Book of Acts are prescriptive, that they are their to tell us how we must do mission.

    I would submit to you that they are merely descriptive, that they describe how the Gospel moved from Jerusalem to Judea and to other parts of the Roman empire.

    You really need didactic portions of the New Testament to agree with you if you assume that this is the way that it should be done. The examples in Acts only show us the way that it was done.

    The first listeners of Jesus, those who heard his didactic talks about mission went far beyond the Roman realm, even those who who may not have been bi-cultural. So it appears that they didn’t understand from Jesus’ instructions that there was a problem going to parts unknown.

    I think your motivation that characterizes everything “colonial” as evil is overstating the point. After all, isn’t the advance of a foreign kingdom, even Jesus’ kingdom, always in some respects colonial? Isn’t the invitation to “repent for the kingdom of God has arrived” always in some ways an indictment of the current local culture?

    Wouldn’t in that case evangelism itself be “evil?”

    • You’re doing it again bud.:( When you are upset you start off good but then quickly move to being a boxer swinging wildly and become erratic.

      Have you read any de-colonial work? It’s an honest question. In the field there are anti-colonial, de-colonial, neo-colonial and post-colonial projects. All are quite different. I am asking you “Have you read any de-colonial work?”

      So then you start with the erratic wild swings:
      All colonial is evil: strike 1
      Jesus kingdom is like the kingdoms of this world: strike 2
      wouldn’t evangelism then be evil: strike 3

      Look “thinkingoutloud”, this thing is hugely complex and necessarily nuanced. Listen to the decolonial and hear what she is saying. Don’t react. Don’t get defensive or try to justify the project.

      If you are looking for someone to reinforce the status quo – I am not your guy. If you just want people to restate what we already do (and have always done) – that is not my game. I am calling for a christian expression that has been revisited, renovated where needed, and re-imagined as necessary.
      I use phrases like restore the broken, replace the lacking and re-present the good.

      Part of the repentance of Christendom’s hangover is listening to the decolonial voice. I can only imagine that this sounds threatening to a paid, professional missionary. You have a lot at stake. I didn’t expect my missionary friends to like this one… but please slow down and don’t take such huge leaps skip a serious discussion that is needed between each of your 3 wild swings.

  6. Setting aside my “unnuanced” remarks about colonialism for a moment, you still haven’t even responded to my basic charge that your description of “unbiblical” is flawed.

    You seem to be understanding the book of Acts as prescriptive. That is a basic, controlling underlying assumption of some but hardly the final word on how to read Acts. I implied before, you really need didactic portions of Scripture to prove your “shoulds and shouldn’ts.”

    One example of an interpretation like yours is the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Acts 15 and their insistence that we must never eat blood or even receive atransfusion. The writer of the gospel of Mark in chapter 7, reflecting on what Jesus said about clean and unclean inserts, “Result: all food is clean.” (That is NT Wright’s translation.) If we do theology today solely based upon Acts, we would get a warped understanding of what food laws are required, about what is biblical and unbiblical about eating blood. To do our hermeneutics justice we must include what Jesus said and look at how Paul interacted with the same issue in his letters.

    I am surprised that my “trajectory” comment didn’t at least elicit some sort of comment. I think this is how you have been encouraging us to interpret scripture for quite some time. That is why I said that the terms “biblical ” and “unbiblical” do not seem to be as important to you. Often, if you detect a glimmer of a precedent you go in that direction, leaving behind the more didactic portions of Scripture. This is true in the case of women in ministry and other issues. I’m not disagreeing with you here, I am identifying a pattern.

    It’s just funny to me that when I use an argument from your “tool box” about mission, that the trajectory of Jesus’ teaching opens the door for cross-cultural and not exclusively bi-cultural mission, all I hear from you is crickets.

    Now the more difficult part of the conversation. “Everyday,” please don’t “go off” because I haven’t read volumes about different types of colonialism. I am responding to your temper about it. I am responding to what you have revealed in your posts about colonies.

    What I said wasn’t a swing or a swipe. It’s a sincere question that I hoped would create a pause to consider the question “Is ‘colony’ always evil?” I feel like I held up a poster of a Venn Diagram and you grabbed it out of my hands, rolled it up and began to beat me with it! Whenever the word colony it is brought up you always respond negatively. How is that “nuanced?”

    Let me give you one positive example. In his book “The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity Can Reach the West…Again” George G. Hunter describes how the missionaries to Ireland purposely set up their monasteries (read colonies) alongside the Celtic settlements. (I think this is what NT wright was getting at in his use of the word colony in the video I mentioned.)

    The main difference between the Irish monasteries and those that existed before them in the rest of Europe? These monasteries had an open-door, open table policy. The missionaries invited the Celts to glimpse their (foreign) culture and way of life. They also purposely moved among the Celts serving them and praying for them. Their prayers were Spirit-directed, and totally different from anything the Celts were used to. It was something completely out of their culture. But God used them to transform Ireland. (I include this anecdote also because we witnessed how sincere Spirit-driven prayer can change animosity into openness to the Christian faith.)

    Now I grant that Patrick was to some extent bi-cultural. At least he learned about agriculture as a slave there for six years. Patrick’s fellow monastics, however, were not bi-cultural and they transformed the island in a relatively short time by using an adapted Continental cultural form, the monastery.

    Everyday, or should I say “Apollo” I was going to throw in the towel, but my trainer told me to go this one more round, ding. “Cut me Pauley, cut me!

    • Thank you for writing back. I wish that every reader had the tenacity that you do :) I respect your stick-to-it-ness !

      Unfortunately, you have a sloppy use of words and jump around in your definitions. It is an ongoing problem and the reason that our simple exchanges expand into longer and longer posts. I suspect it is because you have something you are trying to protect – which is fine, seriously, I get that. But it does cause some offshoot problems.

      I will keep this short and try to address three simple things.
      1) why are you calling me “everyday” and putting it in quotes? I post as Bo Sanders. Right at the top of the page it says It is right in the title. I put your screen name in to honor your anonymity. You don’t post using your real name and I honor that. It is this kind of thing that you do that muddies the water and comes across as snarky. If you want to talk about my use of ‘biblical’ just ask. No cleverness is needed. My name is Bo Sanders and I am attempting to navigating between the everyday and theology. I am not “everyday” – the everyday is a part of my project.

      2) I love trajectory. It is my go-to tool for examining the relationship between scripture and church history. Learning another language to preach the gospel is unbiblical. We agree on this a while ago. Now, if you can just say ‘no its not in the Bible but …” that would be great. I am fine with later developments of history. I am all for innovation. But there is an irony for those who are most prone to use the phrase ‘biblical’ to validate things do this thing that is un-biblical. My point is that it is ironic.

      3) You are making a jump with ‘colony’. Patrick in the 4th century is not colonial-ISM. What happened in the 16th to 19th century … I am surprised A) that you even want to defend colonialism B) that you jump from a 4th century monastery to 21st century to justify modern missions? That is a leap too far my friend. This is not the 4th century. Colonialism has radically altered the human landscape of the planet – you can’t pretend that didn’t happen by point to one monastery so long ago.

      Oh, and it helped to know figure out that ‘no’ indeed you haven’t read de-colonial voices. I wasn’t asking for ‘volumes’. Your examples of the ‘good’ that colonialism did were clearly from Western minds at the power ‘center’ not the periphery.

      Here are two definitions of colonialism that might bring clarity to why I think it was “bad”.

      Colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a process whereby the metropole claims sovereignty over the colony, and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonizers from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony and between the colonists and the indigenous population.

      In the book, Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview, Jurgen Osterhammel asks, “How can ‘colonialism’ be defined independently from ‘colony?’” Here is the three-sentence definition:
      Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonised people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonised population, the colonisers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.

      Is that helpful? Are things more clear now? I hope so. Look forward to hearing back from ya -Bo

  7. Dear brother Bo,

    Sorry about the address as “Everyday.” In the past you have had different Facebook pages, blogs, etc. It’s wasn’t meant to be a slight, it’s just an oversight.

    But I’m getting the idea that you think I’m trying to be disrespectful. Just so you know, I’m not trying to be snarky, sarcastic or mean-spirited.

    I think that I have identified a trend in your writings that in questions of power and of colony you only seem to see in black and white, you don’t see gray. And this surprises me because you have proven to be very flexible and open-minded in the past.

    Your early podcasts introduced many to the Venn diagram where you encourage us not to fall into the polarizing traps that others would try to set for us. So, when I see you setting just such a trap, it makes me wonder.

    My view of power is that power is ethically neutral, period. Colonies, I think also are neutral ethically.

    Now about your definitions. Those first monasteries (not just one) that were founded in Ireland were situated only where they received permission from the local clan leadership, they never “took” land and turned it into a monastery. So in that way they were not “colonizing” according to the gist of the two definitions above.

    But those monks did believe that their religion and their way of life was better, even superior to that of the Celts, so in that way they were “colonizers.” The reason I emphasize this is because I believe that every time someone “evangelizes” or proclaims “good news” they do so out of the belief that they have found a “better way.” In that way, whether I like it or not, my attitude is like that of a colonizer (See definition 2 above).

    You know that if you ask pagans today they vilify those first pilgrims to Ireland and even try to deny that their initial expansion was indeed quite peaceful. I’m simply trying to demonstrate that a gray areas exist.

    You, too, are “vested” in the conclusions of your master’s thesis. You worked hard on it. Your doctoral work has probably confirmed many of your original conclusions. This is probably why you defend yourself so vehemently.

    But I consider you as one who handles disagreement graciously, so I’m a little surprised by the tone of your responses. And again, I may stop my replies altogether. I don’t want to do damage your peace or sanctification.

    By nature I am one who enters a discussion before I know all of the facts, I get that, and I’m sorry if my observations appear juvenile or unlearned. But I hope you know me well enough to know that I wouldn’t make them if I didn’t think they were somehow pertinent to the discussion.

    Please understand that I’m not trying to make you angry. And please understand that my comments are not solely for your benefit. Others are reading this blog who perhaps have made the same observations as I, are wondering the same things and are curious about how you got to the conclusions you made.

    If you really don’t want me to respond anymore, just say so. I won’t judge you.

    Though, with sadness and regret, I suspect that my desire to speak my piece has caused me to lose a friend.

    • Why would we not be friends? You jump to the oddest conclusions. This has become a strange pattern you have fallen into.
      I don’t want you to stop commenting. I don’t know why you would introduce that. I didn’t say that.
      My suggestion is that you ask about what you want to follow up on and stop trying to A) anticipate where I am going B) guess as to my motive. Look, I put my ideas out there 3-4 times a week and if you want to pursue something – just ask… but you get into the weird melodramatic thing of anticipating me or leapfrogging from conclusion to conclusion that I have never asserted (ie. 4th century monastery, Colonialism, evangelism).

      From now on let’s just keep it simple. Just ask what you want to know about or say your alternative perspective. That would be great! But this rut you’ve gotten into of these overly-elaborate assertions about what I must be doing or feeling or how other people must be thinking … it muddies the water. It’s just not helpful. especially with your admission about typing even when you haven’t necessarily looked into the matter. And – while we are on the subject – I would stop worrying about how others are reading this. I’m not sure that works for you. just worry about you – speak for you. You don’t need to buffer people or protect other readers (or something). Don’t stop posting. From now on, just keep it simple and clear.

      OK – enough about style – a quick word on content.
      Just because there are 2 categories does not make it a dualism. You can say mind & body without it necessarily being dualistic. The categories are neither exclusive nor adversarial. Likewise taking a stand on something is NOT a betrayal of Venn. One can recognize the elaborate nature of an issue and still take a position. By saying that Colonialism has a horrible legacy does not undo my past (and present) approach. -Bo

  8. Pingback: My 200th post is to thank my International Readers! « navigating between the everyday and theology

  9. Pingback: K is for Kenosis (and the Kingdom) | navigating between the everyday and theology

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s