my contemplations

I just found which must be a very near to complete list of David Bosch’s works. Tiina Ahonen didi a study on “Transformation through Compassionate Mission. David J. Bosch’s Theology of Contextualization” which was published in 2003 by the Luther-Agricola-Society. I can’t seem to find a place where you can but the book, from page 228-242 you will find a list of both published and unpublished works from Bosch. Including everything from some speaches given to study guides to monographs and books.

I’ll add more and more works of Bosch on the wiki I’m working on while working on my mini-dissertation. You can find my Attempt at a comprehensive Bosch reading list here. I don’t think adding Ahonen’s whole list would be helpfull though, it’s simply too much.

On my “to-read” list I have Tom Sine’s The New Conspirators. Haven’t heard about the book before 5 minutes ago, and the name Tom Sine has no meaning whatsoever. What immediately convinced me to read the book was the BLURP found on Andrew Jones’ blog:

God is doing something fresh through a new generation of “conspirators”. This new work can be seen in at least four different streams:
1. the emerging,
2. the missional,
3. the mosaic (multicultural church plants)
4. the monastic.
In this book Tom Sine present some of the innovative new models that are being created by those ministering within these diverse streams.

Talking of differing streams seem interesting. I’ve been uncomfortable with the equating of emerging with missional or monastic for quite some time. I’ve seen the renewed interest in missional churches in places which won’t easily fit the emerging conversation, which got me into the difficult question, is the missional church then the emerging church? Thus I would have to call people emerging that won’t like to be called emerging? Don’t know if anyone can follow that paragraph, but that was my thoughts.

You can find a review on the book here as well.

I’ve been reading Patrick Keifert’s Welcoming the Stranger over the past few days. I have to preach on Worship as Public Ministry on Sunday, and the themes come from a process largely influenced by Keifert, so I thought I might get some ideas. This was largely because because I found the guidelines for the theme difficult, after all this time being influenced by the emerging conversation. The broad theme is becoming a sent congregation, a missional congregation sent to the world, and in this I struggled to see that our church services is part of this, it felt a bit like the seeker movement (not a bad movement, but not quite how I would think about things).

Keifert’s book is about the myth of intimate societies, the idea that church should be intimate. This can happen either through our complex liturgies of which the outsider has no knowledge, and cannot follow, or through a family-like church service which depends on everybody taking part spontaniously. Rather he propose a service which is welcoming, but not “in-the-face” of the stranger, for example that strangers should put up their hands when they attend for the first time.

The book pose a challenge to the emerging conversation (although some might think that Keifert’s work form part of the emerging conversation) by challenging small non-growing intimate congregation, exactly what I understood form Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt’s descriptions of Solomon’s Porch. It reminds me of the seeker sensitive movement, although I believe Keifert won’t like being identified with this, although I might be wrong in my believe, I don’t know the guy at all.

But then again, within the context I currently find myself, his approach might still be a good idea. We still have many people who find their first contact with the church in church services, who come to a service to check out the church, and if we have to take them into account, I like the approach set out by Keifert.

One question I have, however, it Keifert’s use of the term “public theology” in his subtitle, since this term rarely occurs in the book, and I never found a definition of this. I guess the reason why I noticed this is because I have to write a chapter of my upcoming dissertation on what we understand when using this term, Keifert didn’t help with this.

I found this quote from Chrysostom in a chapter by Amy Oden in Ancient and Postmodern Christianity, and it kind of struck me. Seems to be linking up with the passage in Matthew 25. Chrysostom is a well known church father, well-known for his “golden mouth”, the fact that he was an amazing preacher, less well known is the fact that he also preached a lot on social and economic justice, made a lot of rich people mad in the process.

Do you want to put us to shame? Then do this. Surpass us in generosity. Have a room, to which Christ may come. Say, “This is Christ’s space. This building is set apart for Him.” Even if it is just a basement and tiny. He won’t refuse it. Christ goes about “naked and a stranger.” It is only a shelter He wants…. Abraham received the strangers in the place where he himself lived. His wife stood in the place of a servant, the guest in the place of masters. He didn’t know that he was receiving Christ, didn’t know that he was receiving Angels. Had he known it, he would have lavished his whole substance. But we, who know that we receive Christ, don’t show even so much enthusiasm as he did who thought that he was receiving humans. “But many of them are imposters and ungrateful,” you would say. And for this the greater your reward when you receive for the sake of Christ’s name. For if you know indeed that they are imposters, don’t receive them into your house. But if you don’t know this, why do you accuse them lightly? “Therefore I tell them to go to the receiving house.” But what kind of excuse is there for us, when we do not even receive those whom we know, but shut our doors against all? Let our house be Christ’s general receiving place. Let us demand of them as a reward, not money, but that they make our house the receiving place for Christ. Let us run about everywhere, let us drag them in, let us seize our prize. Greater are the benefits we receive then what we confer. He does not require you to kill a calf, but only you give bread to the hungry, raiment to the naked, shelter to the stranger.

It’s amazing how the same issues is being addressed 1700 years later. How many of us won’t say that we’d be willing to house the stranger, but we don’t know who is imposters, who is only using our generosity, so we’d rather not go down that road. Crime and violence is further complicating things.

Caring for the stranger has been central throughout the Bible, and has been talked about ever since in church, however the practice seems to be difficult (also illustrated by this quote). I keep on struggling with what this would look like in practice in South Africa…

What?

Someone at School

Called you

A bastard…

Illegit…?

Is that all?

Tut-tut-tut-tut

Is that why you cry?

Come and sit

On my lap.

Now tell me

Who was the greatest Man

That ever lived?

The Saviour

Redeemer

The Light…

King of Kings

The Prince of Peace…

My big boy,

Tell Mommy.

What was his father’s name?

Was the carpenter

Really his father?

Stop crying

My love.

            “Pearls of Crying,” from O. P’Bitek’s Song of Malaya (1971)

I’ve been reading Fatherless in Galilee by Andries van Aarde the past few days. Prof van Aarde was one of my lecturers, but in all honesty, most of us were scared to death of the guy. I don’t really know why, but I’m pretty sure he was one of the most-feared lecturers our faculty had seen in the past few days. Nontheless, the guy was absolutely brilliant!

This book has seen a lot of critique, negative critique, supposedly because it would be denying core doctrines, also in the little war going on within the Dutch Reformed Church, together with our little DVD (see for example this or this), the name has been mentioned. But as someone I know once said, you’ll never be able to preach about Jesus in the same way as before after reading the book. This I have found to be true.

Pointing to the role of the fatherless, those who didn’t know who their father was, in ancient Jewish society, van Aarde show that Jesus, being fatherless, would have been considered an outsider, similar to the Samaritans, not been allowed in the temple for example. But whatever society might have said, Jesus considered God to be his father, in spite of the fact that this was not supposed to be “possible” for the fatherless.

Thus, the fatherless Jesus was an outsider, and sides with the outsiders. He didn’t take the role of the traditional “saviour” figure of Jewish society, that would come as a noble, as someone of high status, and bring salvation to the suffering, those of little status. He came as an equal, as an outsider himself, and brought salvation for those that were considered outsiders.

We tend to forget this baby Jesus, this man Jesus. Focusing on an exalted post-Easter, or post-resurrection, Jesus, we tend to think of Jesus as a wise man, a glorious religious leader, a king. But the earthly Jesus was the friend of the poor, an outcast, a brother to the fatherless, but a child of God.

I was reading Blue Like Jazz the past few days, it’s by Donald Miller, and he basically tells his life-story. Well, at least up to this point, since he is only 36. But it’s really beautifully written.

The sub-title is non-religious thoughts on Christian spirituality. Whether Miller really achieve this is debatable, in the end, whether he want to admit it or not, Miller is still busy with some religion, although then in the wider sense of the word, definitely different from what you’d find in Christian religion generally. Like many others he came from an American fundamentalist backgrounds, and then turned into some kind of emerging thing.

What really strikes me is the amazing honesty with which he writes. I want to use this in our gap-year program, not so much to teach anyone anything, but more to help people in looking at their own stories with honesty. He struggles, but learn through this. He’s not always the nice guy, actually, sometimes he does some pretty stupid stuff, but then tell you about it (OK, maybe this just made him a good-seller, but I still liked it).

Theologically? Well, don’t expect this amazing insights, or this new systematic theological treatise on God, but I don’t think this is what Miller intended. Rather, read it for what it is, one man’s story of spirituality (that which happen between our understanding and experiencing of faith, or, how faith becomes practical in our day to day life). And it’s really inspiring, and very funny. Or else, just read it for being a fine piece of literature (for the Afrikaans reader, he reminded me of Seks, Drugs en Rock & Roll by Koos Kombuis).

Something else. It’s holiday, and although I am working, I also have a lot or spare time. So yesterday I watched Mozart and the Whale, the story of two autistic people falling in love, struggling in relationship, but fulfilling each other in this struggle. It’s a REALLY amazing story. Truly inspiring!!!

Believing in the Future. One of the best books to read! I just finished it. Prof Piet Meiring pointed me to this book in a conversation we had on David Bosch and postmodernism a couple of months ago. Prof Meiring were close friends with Bosch, so it is really insightful to hear his thoughts on David Bosch. However, I started reading the book, but never finished it. This is a problem I have, looking around my room, I’ve quickly spotted 20 books which I’ve started reading, am planning on finishing, but haven’t done it yet (there is also a number of others which I’m not planning on finishing).

But the book is prescribed at the moment, and I have to hand in an assignment on it in a weeks time, so I read it the last two days. And was I stunned! Bosch wrote this in 1991 (although it was only published in 1995, because of his death early in 1992), but it is so relevant. He point out the possible way for mission in a postmodern society, and do that in his usual thorough way. Working his way through postmodern philosophy as well as theology, and taking good account of history, he give some thoughts on a missional theology for western society.

That which many today are trying to make practical, Bosch put into perspective, with a huge bibliography, and every word weighed. I believe this is a must read for anyone interested in church today. Many know Transforming Mission (although I doubt the amount of people actually knowing the contents, since it’s a really tough book, very compact, and many pages), but few know this little book. And this book is much more accessible than Transforming Mission, coming in at only 64 pages, you’ll be able to read it in a few hours max (however, a couple of reads is recommended).

I might be blogging on some of the contents, since I’ll be working intensively with it over the next few days.