Westernization vs. Contextualization

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I am looking for thoughts about the issues that are addressed in this essay.

While I mostly applaud the essay itself, I do take issue with one idea. The author states:

"When we think of "redemption" we often think of "social uplift": e.g. poverty will be reduced, literacy will be improved, health care will be provided, etc. Looking at it objectively, these things aren't "redemptions" -- they are "improvements." They are, essentially, side effects of righteous living, of righteous principles applied..."​

The author seems to be saying two things:

1.) The conditions in which some non-Western people are living are in some ways bad.

2.) Those conditions exist solely because of the people who are living in them.


First, 1.) is debatable. Bad by whose standards?

More importantly, 2.) seems prejudicial. It seems to either ignore or deny the fact that the conditions in much of the non-West are due to the colonial and neo-colonial policies of the West. It seems oblivious to the fact that the conditions in much of the non-West may be due to the failure of the missionaries'/evangelists' home countries to apply righteous principles themselves.

 

[crazymichael]

Reminds me of the determinist/free will argument. It is easy to explain other peoples problems if you believe they came from the choices they made. It is also easier to ignore them and believe your own wealth to come from the choices you make.

 

[billwald]

Allways boggled my mind to hear Chinese or whatever people singing English hymns and trying to sing Chinese words to English tunes.

On the other hand, the Protestant work ethic produces a higher standard of living for the working class.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

First, I would argue that health, lifespan, literacy, and so on are fairly objective measures of quality of life. I have trouble believing there are culture that genuinely embrace the idea of living a short agonizing life of physical decrepitude.

Second, it is agonizingly predictable for the wealthy to blame the poor for their predicament. No one wealthy wants to believe their wealth has been unjustly earned at the expense of others. They would rather believe they have gotten what they have legitimately earned.

Of course this is rarely the case. Case in point the present time in the US of corporate profits being at record levels while salaries stagnate or decline. It doesn't take much thinking to convince yourself that much of the "record profit" is nothing more than keeping money that once went out to employees as salaries, rather than an increase in productivity.

The protestant work ethic hasn't raised anyone's standard of living, whereas unions have.

Which is all to say if Christianity is going to have a social ethic it has to start putting a spotlight on the perpetrators rather than the victims. And of course that means in many cases looking in the mirror.

 

[ACADEMIC]

The author is right on. Google for "Journal of Frontier Missions" to learn LOTS more.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Bump.

 

[ScottBot]

I am looking for thoughts about the issues that are addressed in this essay.

While I mostly applaud the essay itself, I do take issue with one idea. The author states:

"When we think of "redemption" we often think of "social uplift": e.g. poverty will be reduced, literacy will be improved, health care will be provided, etc. Looking at it objectively, these things aren't "redemptions" -- they are "improvements." They are, essentially, side effects of righteous living, of righteous principles applied..."​

The author seems to be saying two things:

1.) The conditions in which some non-Western people are living are in some ways bad.

2.) Those conditions exist solely because of the people who are living in them.


First, 1.) is debatable. Bad by whose standards?

More importantly, 2.) seems prejudicial. It seems to either ignore or deny the fact that the conditions in much of the non-West are due to the colonial and neo-colonial policies of the West. It seems oblivious to the fact that the conditions in much of the non-West may be due to the failure of the missionaries'/evangelists' home countries to apply righteous principles themselves.

Here is a great article on the power of context in understanding theology.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404bt.asp

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Here is a great article on the power of context in understanding theology.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404bt.asp

That is an interesting article.

But it is not clear to me how it helps address the problem of Westernizing vs. Not Westernizing (I am not saying that it does not help; I am simply saying that it is not clear to me how it helps).

 

[dayhiker]

I thought this was a great article.

Western life is often about things not people. Other societies can be great without being about things of they are about relationships. The societies that are really struggling seem to have one of two problems: drought or a leader that is killing and raping thru some sort of military or garilla(sp) group.

If these violent groups didn't prevent compassion ministies from serving the needy most people in the world would be getting by food wise. I also think AIDs in africa could be delt with easier.

Yes, a simplification, but to me these are the grouse problems that make life really painful.

 

[ScottBot]

That is an interesting article.

But it is not clear to me how it helps address the problem of Westernizing vs. Not Westernizing (I am not saying that it does not help; I am simply saying that it is not clear to me how it helps).

the article was meant to show that Western societies use technical language, where the context of the speech is explicitly contained within the context of the speech, whereas with Eastern societies, the context of the language is implied by the culture. I.e, you don't have to understand the cultural ramifications of someone using Western speech patterns, because the context of the speech is included in the speech. In Eastern culture, if you don't understant the cultural context of the speech, you are bound to become confused, because the context is implied to be understood.