RELATIONAL REFLECTION ON “THE
PARADOX OF CHANGE AND RELEVANCE”
-– PART 1 --
HO Lee-chow (Pseudonym – Missionary in
Asia) -
Published
in “Relational Research” section of www.GlobalMissiology.org
Jan. 2009
(Editor’s note: this is the first of a 2-part series)
“Jesus looked at him and
said, You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas.” (which,
when translated, is Peter). (John 1:42)
“All
of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point
you think differently that too God will make clear to
you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.”
(Philippians 3:15-16)
“...the
paradox surrounding change and relevance. On the one hand, no one and nothing
stays the same unless they are
willing to change. On the other hand, no one and nothing becomes truly timely unless they are in touch with the
eternal.”
(Os
Guinness, Dining with the
Devil, Baker Book House, 1993, p.89)
When
Jesus looked at Simon the Greek phrase used “looked at”
(penetrating gaze) is the same one used
by Luke when Peter denied Jesus three times. “The Lord turned and looked
straight at Peter. (Luke 22:61).
Our first relational reflection is as follows: that we need to
understand both Jesus and his statement to Simon “You are Simon. You will be called Peter in Trinitarian
terms.
If we are to come to
grips with the paradox of change and relevance, we too need to be in touch with
the Eternal Son of God. The
significance of this in a rapidly changing world where there is not only competition from a plurality of religious views,
but also a plethora of spiritualities within the Christian worldviews. Therefore, a greater measure of spiritual
discernment is required if we are to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. (2
Corinthians 10:5).
Thus with an external
challenge of alternative religious worldviews and internal threat of
multifaceted Christian spiritualities
it seems as Dr. Carl F.H. Henry aptly puts it
“if
in an earlier generation people were said to be so heavenly minded that they
were of no earthly use, in our day
the very opposite is more apt to be the case; they are so earthbound, it is said, that they are now alien to the spiritual
world.”
(Alive to God – studies in Spirituality
presented to James Houston IVP, 1992, p.8)
Dr. Henry is not suggesting that
there is an absence of spiritualities, but the present climate of spiritualities
is so human-centered that it lacks reverence and a distinct transcendence. This
leads us to our second relational reflection
that is closely tied in with Jesus’ view of man. We are not to soft pedal
Jesus’ humanness nor are we to undermine his divinity. He is
the God-man. A failure on either or both these truths could
lead to a Unitarianist doctrine at best or loss of Christ’s uniqueness at
worst.
Our third relational reflection is as follows: If
we are to live with the tough tensions of the paradox of
change and relevance then our view of truth needs to be re-evaluated and
measured against the full stature of Christ who is the way, the truth (Alethia)
and the life. To assert that all truth is God’s truth requires great caution
and discerning thinking.
No truth, however clearly
stated, is the whole truth. No single principle, however well applied, is
the all-sufficient answer. All our truths, principles, and emphases need
balancing. Only so will the church demonstrate the fullness of the truth that
sets us free.
(Os Guinness, Dining with the
Devil, Baker Book House. p.86).
In our experience on the mission
field, Western colleagues generally do not like ambivalence and discrepancies.
Westerners like a clear black-&-white approach. The opposite of truth is a
lie. On the other hand our Asian counterparts are
accustomed to living with ambivalence and so called “gray-areas.” Truth
therefore is viewed differently. It is as if the corollary to truth being a lie
is actually the failure to take truth to the next level of truth. For example
Jesus’ statement to Simon is “You are Simon” – one level of truth.
Jesus´ next statement “You
will be called Peter” – taken to the next level of truth. In other words
the same truth through Asian eyes is seen cyclically rather than
linearly. (e.g. already... but not yet; “You are... You will
be”). Our final relational reflection is as follows: The significance of this
is the implication for our understanding of sin – substantively or
relationally or both.
In the life of Peter
it is clear that he wrestled with this issue of sin as he viewed it time and
again through the grid of his own
cultural relevance. It was only at the climax of Pentecost (Acts 10) that he came
to a fuller understanding through the vision to go to Cornelius home that what
he considered unclean was clean in
God’s sight. Peter had to take one truth to the level of total truth, rather
than abort the truth at the level of culturally relevant application. Sometimes
we can preach Christ and lose the kingdom!!!- an oxymoron.