Dear...
I'm not sure who to write this to, but I feel that it needs to be written. My question, what is the missing link or should I say "links" we find in the process of forming someone spiritually, is what I'm after. With that stated, my disclaimer is that I believe that all of life is sacred/spiritual, replacing the divide between the sacred and secular. This just means that spiritual formation involves all of life as all of life is sacred.
So what is the most important formative experience in any individual's life. I think we could agree that it is the time that each of us spent growing up in a family unit, whether it's was broken or non-existent. Families definitely have the edge on forming individuals. Most of us are marked by our family in ways that we can't even describe and in more ways that we can number. Yet, I've always believed that the family is not enough nor is the only source of helping our maturity along. I think we can all agree on that as well.
When it comes to spiritual formation, it seems that a community also has a strong influence on how one is formed. Again, I don't think we would disagree with that either. So with all the programs, family-based ministries, teaching and counseling out there, what is still missing?
Well let's list off the influences that are present to shape and form who we are. We will be limiting this list to actual people rather than alternate influences like media, historical context, etc... There are,
1. Peers
2. Extended Family
3. Authority Figures
4. Institutional & Organizational Affiliations
5. Heroes
6. Enemies & Villains
7. Governments
8. Inferiors
9. Etc...
With this list, we see that there are many people who shape and form us over the length of our life. One influencer that is not on the list are Mentors and Apprentices. I want to focus on them because they seem to be the most neglected relationship for seeing fruitful growth and maturation in our lives.
There are many kinds of mentors. We see it in popular culture between Batman and Robin, Dr. Dre and Eminen; in Scripture with Moses and Joshua or Elijah and Elisha. We also see mentor roles in the work place with vocational apprenticeships, the way most college level training used to be done or in academics with graduate assistants and professors. Many more examples could be cited, but you get the point.
So why don't we see more mentoring in faith communities? It seems that the divide between generations, that is so easily accepted has helped to created this disjunction. What is the cause of the break between intergenerational relationships? Not sure, but it could be fear, self-reliance, comfort, lack of respect (both ways), or host of other dynamics that draw people apart rather than together. Whatever the illness, the cure is a realignment with our need for intergenerational mentoring relationships. The question still stands though - how?
In my experience, research and in talking to other people with similar questions, the answer has come back. You may react to this, but nonetheless, it is what has proven to be more true than not true.
For healthy inter-generational mentoring relationships to take place three dynamics are necessary (though more are needed).
1. The Mentor needs to find the Mentee, not the opposite.
Too many times, a younger person with a thirst for learning and experience finds themselves knocking at the doors of their elders lives, only to be turned away. When they are welcomed in, there is little room for them and the limitations placed on the relationship provide little in the way of a genuine mentoring relationship. When the mentee has to ask the mentor, both are provided the ability to limit their involvement because the one asking establishes the rules of engagement which spills over into the relational dynamics that are created in that relationship. When either member has the ability to withhold themselves from what's needed in a real relationship, the walls come down much slower and trust takes a lot longer to grow, if it does at all. When the mentor approaches the mentee, those walls are much lower and trust has a much better starting point with a stronger ability to grow. This dynamic also establishes that the mentor has come to offer from his/her life that which the mentee needs instead of the mentee determining what they need and then asking for it. We all know that those older than us have a better understanding of our needs than we do for the most part and if they have our best interest in mind, we should trust them with that knowledge and the necessary steps to achieve what's best for us. This takes a lot of trust and is a very sacred connection, but nonetheless is necessary. Mentoring is something that has to be received more than asked for and that is why it is better for the mentor to invite the mentee into their life wholeheartedly rather than guardedly.
2. The Mentor, when possible, should rarely just sign up.
Successful matches for mentoring relationships operate a lot like hiring a possible tenured employee combined with the way a couple that want to date operate. This sounds weird but when done right, it is much more delicate and requires more patience that would be expected. The match should represent a desire to be mentored and to mentor for both parties. They both should also understand that the relationship is not a peer relationship and will require some sort of situational hierarchy. To just sign up and get a mentee or mentor without any effort to see if the fit actually works or could work can actually be more detrimental to the relationship than helpful. All of this depends upon the kind of mentoring relationship, but here we are talking mostly about mentoring for maturation and spiritual growth. A quote from the story of Zoro and the master who trained him summarizes what I am trying to say here, "When the pupil is ready, the master will find him." A truly beneficial mentoring relationship will have a certain serendipity to it, an element that needs to be looked for, though not always adhered to.
3. While waiting to be mentored, mentor.
Many times we are the object of our own desire when it comes to mentoring. To be mentored is a great privilege, which is why we should do it for others. So many of us believe that we don't have much to offer. we don't have time or we don't know where to start or who would actually want us in their lives. The opportunities for our lives to impact someone who needs our life to be part of theirs are numerous. The problem with why it doesn't happen more often is both historical as well as contextual. Historically, we needed more mentoring and inter-generational relationships, but the more independent our culture becomes, the more we require less of other people, especially the ones that we need the most. The apprenticing model is a dying breed and living life solo has become more and more possible and primary. This is something we must act against by our sheer will. To do so, we must place ourselves in contexts where mentoring relationships are more possible and even expected. We can also look for organizations that need mentors and foster mentoring relationships. Either way, we have found ourselves less and less in contexts that require and encourage mentoring. We need to find these contexts and place ourselves there again and again and the mentoring will come. Throughout this process, we may be surprised by someone who may end up mentoring us, upon an invitation of course.
Does what I'm suggesting mean that we should not seek out mentors - not at all. The point is simply that the most ideal way to be involved in a mentoring relationship is what I've suggested above and the process begins with us seeking to give a piece of our lives away to someone who really does need it.
Lastly, the desire for a mentor and the need for a mentor increases as children reach their teenage years. They begin to look outside of the home for models and influences. This isn't something parents should fight but instead should foster and expect. This expectation can allow us as parents to already be preparing our home to be a place where mentoring is encouraged by modeling it for our children as well as showing them what a good mentor looks like by being one for other children, teens and young adults. Eventually though, the desire for a mentor has a shelf life. Though it is important to continue to be mentored throughout one's life, the era between the teen years and young adulthood are the most pertinent for this need. This is where the desire is the strongest and when the the need for good mentors is the greatest. As with parenting, at some point an individual moves on from this need for mentoring and begins to form a stronger self-identity that is less reliant on learning form a model moving to becoming a model for others.
Therefore, models and mentors are best for a transitional stage of life, and should therefore not be permanent. In fact, it is best to have a start and end date to an official mentoring relationship. This doesn't mean that the relationship ends altogether, just that the mentor/mentee relationship is re-configured to be more of a peer relationship once it is dissolved. This is also true of parenting as a parent discontinues their parenting for the most part, so a mentor discontinues their mentoring for the most part. The impact a mentor has on their mentee will always be present but it doesn't need to be accounted for and is best when it grows into a peer relationship. Once that happens, then the former mentee can carry on the legacy of mentoring that their mentor began with them and from that point on, the former mentee becomes a partner with their former mentor in this all too-often missing link to spiritual growth and formation.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
How Far is Too Far? Rob Bell and Contextualization
Rob Bell has been described as many things, but one that I agree with is that he is a contextualizer.
Contextualization is a term that sprung to life in this past century in mostly Western countries but within the last 30-40 years was introduced to other cultures and countries where it is taking off like wildfire. The history of the contextualization movement is a fascinating read and leaves many reeling as to what it is and why it's important.
Very simply, contextualization describes the effort to transmit, embed or implant a message from a culture foreign to the culture that is receiving the message by using mediums and cultural cues that will allow the receiving culture to understand and appropriate the foreign message. This message is seen as a necessary element to the receiving culture's health or a survey of need's assessment. For Christians, that message ends up being the Gospel, another term very difficult to agree upon among the historic orthodox Christian traditions.
So there you have it, two vastly important terms that are both difficult to understand, difficult to define and are claimed and ratified by insiders who disagree sharply with each other regarding the words, their practice and their definitions.
The reason, it seems, that so many insiders to Christianity within the West are bothered by Bell, isn't as much that he is a false teacher or a heretic, but that he has redefined the message through the past decade of preaching a successfully contextualized message. His contextualization competency for Western culture is through the roof. He took the Gospel and reshaped it's delivery in such a way that many have come to understand its depth and reality in ways that very few had been able to do for this generation prior to him. Whether we agree on his conclusions or not, I believe we can agree at least upon his uncanny ability to communicate effectively through contextualization to a new generation of thinkers, churchgoers, skeptics and newly converted.
With that said, this video ends with this question, "how far is too far?" That is the million dollar question when it comes to contextualization and the Gospel. Many don't doubt the need for contextualization but there is definite disagreement on how far is too far.
When does the contextualization become too accommodating to the culture? Who gets to determine when too far is too far? Who determines whether we have gone far enough? What does Scripture say directly to this issue? How how did the church fathers, the early church, the disciples, Jesus and Yahweh practice contextualization or did they?
In my opinion the best place to look for these guidelines is in Scripture and there we find that contextualization was taking place. That's not disputed as much as the parameters for contextualization is.
The questions that surround good contextualization are as follows;
1. How was contextualization practiced in the N.T. and by whom?
2. How was contextualization practiced in the O.T. and by whom?
3. What parameters for contextualization are directly addressed and which ones are implicit to the methods used but not described?
4. Is the Medium the Message and if so, how far is that taken in either Testament?
5. Does the Message of the Gospel change/transform/mature in any way based upon the methods of contextualization used to communicate it?
6. If there is change/transformation/maturation to the Gospel, how does that contribute to the definition and communication of the Gospel and the definition and practice of contextualization?
7. If there isn't change/transformation/maturation to the Gospel, how does that contribute to the definition and communication of the Gospel and the definition and practice of contextualization?
8. How far is too far?
9. How do we measure if we've not gone far enough?
Kenton Sparks and Peter Enns are two writers who have addressed these questions as they relate to Scripture, specifically within the Old Testament.
Peter Enns addresses these issues at his website, www.biologos.org and his newly created website for the book that got him "uninvited" to the Education Institution that he was teaching at, at this website, www.iandibook.com.
Kenton Sparks' book God's Words in Human Words is summarized in four very good lectures here. He also has a great article explaining his position here.
Kenton and Peter write and speak about the issue of God accommodating himself to humanity thereby practicing a form of contextualization that seems to be a good starting point for discovering these parameters. There has been controversy surrounding both of these authors and their work for sure, but as far as I know, only from the conservative evangelical camp, the one with the most to lose if Sparks and Enns are right. If I am wrong about that, then I apologize but as far as I have researched that is the case. Those that offer their critiques may be valid at some points, but anytime a contender defends that which they have a vested interest in, their discernment is that much more suspect. That is true of any discipline, denomination, camp, arena of thought or special interest group, and thereby true of me and what I write. That doesn't completely undermine the process of discernment but it is a qualifier that can't be ignored when discerning truth and the bearers of it.
Contextualization - how far is too far and has Bell gone too far or have others not gone far enough? Only time will tell. I for one echo my father's thoughts - I would rather make the mistake of going to far than not going far enough. At some point, the swing of orthodoxy does push you off, but from which side do we find it easier to remount from? I guess that depends on how far you have or haven't gone.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slowwitted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid beforehim." - Leo Tolstoy in The Kingdom of God is Within You: Christianity not as a Mystic Religion but as a New Theory of Life
Contextualization is a term that sprung to life in this past century in mostly Western countries but within the last 30-40 years was introduced to other cultures and countries where it is taking off like wildfire. The history of the contextualization movement is a fascinating read and leaves many reeling as to what it is and why it's important.
Very simply, contextualization describes the effort to transmit, embed or implant a message from a culture foreign to the culture that is receiving the message by using mediums and cultural cues that will allow the receiving culture to understand and appropriate the foreign message. This message is seen as a necessary element to the receiving culture's health or a survey of need's assessment. For Christians, that message ends up being the Gospel, another term very difficult to agree upon among the historic orthodox Christian traditions.
So there you have it, two vastly important terms that are both difficult to understand, difficult to define and are claimed and ratified by insiders who disagree sharply with each other regarding the words, their practice and their definitions.
The reason, it seems, that so many insiders to Christianity within the West are bothered by Bell, isn't as much that he is a false teacher or a heretic, but that he has redefined the message through the past decade of preaching a successfully contextualized message. His contextualization competency for Western culture is through the roof. He took the Gospel and reshaped it's delivery in such a way that many have come to understand its depth and reality in ways that very few had been able to do for this generation prior to him. Whether we agree on his conclusions or not, I believe we can agree at least upon his uncanny ability to communicate effectively through contextualization to a new generation of thinkers, churchgoers, skeptics and newly converted.
With that said, this video ends with this question, "how far is too far?" That is the million dollar question when it comes to contextualization and the Gospel. Many don't doubt the need for contextualization but there is definite disagreement on how far is too far.
When does the contextualization become too accommodating to the culture? Who gets to determine when too far is too far? Who determines whether we have gone far enough? What does Scripture say directly to this issue? How how did the church fathers, the early church, the disciples, Jesus and Yahweh practice contextualization or did they?
In my opinion the best place to look for these guidelines is in Scripture and there we find that contextualization was taking place. That's not disputed as much as the parameters for contextualization is.
The questions that surround good contextualization are as follows;
1. How was contextualization practiced in the N.T. and by whom?
2. How was contextualization practiced in the O.T. and by whom?
3. What parameters for contextualization are directly addressed and which ones are implicit to the methods used but not described?
4. Is the Medium the Message and if so, how far is that taken in either Testament?
5. Does the Message of the Gospel change/transform/mature in any way based upon the methods of contextualization used to communicate it?
6. If there is change/transformation/maturation to the Gospel, how does that contribute to the definition and communication of the Gospel and the definition and practice of contextualization?
7. If there isn't change/transformation/maturation to the Gospel, how does that contribute to the definition and communication of the Gospel and the definition and practice of contextualization?
8. How far is too far?
9. How do we measure if we've not gone far enough?
Kenton Sparks and Peter Enns are two writers who have addressed these questions as they relate to Scripture, specifically within the Old Testament.
Peter Enns addresses these issues at his website, www.biologos.org and his newly created website for the book that got him "uninvited" to the Education Institution that he was teaching at, at this website, www.iandibook.com.
Kenton Sparks' book God's Words in Human Words is summarized in four very good lectures here. He also has a great article explaining his position here.
Kenton and Peter write and speak about the issue of God accommodating himself to humanity thereby practicing a form of contextualization that seems to be a good starting point for discovering these parameters. There has been controversy surrounding both of these authors and their work for sure, but as far as I know, only from the conservative evangelical camp, the one with the most to lose if Sparks and Enns are right. If I am wrong about that, then I apologize but as far as I have researched that is the case. Those that offer their critiques may be valid at some points, but anytime a contender defends that which they have a vested interest in, their discernment is that much more suspect. That is true of any discipline, denomination, camp, arena of thought or special interest group, and thereby true of me and what I write. That doesn't completely undermine the process of discernment but it is a qualifier that can't be ignored when discerning truth and the bearers of it.
Contextualization - how far is too far and has Bell gone too far or have others not gone far enough? Only time will tell. I for one echo my father's thoughts - I would rather make the mistake of going to far than not going far enough. At some point, the swing of orthodoxy does push you off, but from which side do we find it easier to remount from? I guess that depends on how far you have or haven't gone.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slowwitted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)