Written by: Julie Dodge on February 14, 2014

There’s a new pope in town and he’s making a splash. Time magazine named him Person of the Year for 2013. So did The Advocate, a magazine focused on lesbian and gay issues. What’s the big deal about Pope Francis II? Perhaps it is the fact that he ditched the red shoes, the papal mansion, and the papal limousine, preferring instead to live as “regular people.” Perhaps it is the rumors that he sneaks out at night, dressed as a regular priest, to minister to the homeless. Perhaps it his lack of condemnation of lesbian and gay lifestyles, which was seen by many as contrary to Christian thought and practice. Or perhaps it is his stance on poverty.  Pope Francis II writes:

“Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.”[i]

Whether it is a single reason or many, it seems that to popular society, the pope has become relevant. In so doing, he is generating hope that the church might become relevant.

Has the pope changed the message or the theology of the church? It doesn’t appear so (though some might question his stance on homosexuality). What does seem apparent is that he is communicating the message of the gospel through action. He is making the gospel relevant to people who live in a world divided by income inequality and acting it out through refusing to participate in the privileges afforded him as pope. He considers poverty a theological category [ii] and a matter of justice upon which the church must act.

This week we had the opportunity to read a collection of articles that are concerned about some of the very issues represented by this new, relevant pope. The articles considered different approaches to theology in order to engage more fully with society. Specific models include:

• Public Theology – “… the attempt to address matters of common or public concern in the community in light of the special truth claims and insights of Christian belief.”[iii]
• Correlation Theology – an approach which emphasizes theology’s need to engage with contemporary culture through correlation with other fields of study, such as philosophy, economics, political science and science.
• Contextual Theology – “…a way of doing theology in which one takes into account: the spirit and message of the gospel; the tradition of the Christian people; the culture in which one is theologizing; and social change in that culture, whether brought about by western technological process or the grass-roots struggle for equality, justice, and liberation.”[iv]

Relevance seems to be a driving force behind the development of each of these models of theology. How can the church communicate the gospel in a matter that makes sense to non-western cultures when the practices recorded in the Bible make no sense in these other cultures or contexts? How can we engage with the public on matters of truth and justice when we have been viewed as perpetrators of injustice? How can we learn from other disciplines without compromising the truth of the gospel? These ideas and questions resonated with me as I read our assigned articles. I was actually hungry to read more! These questions crossed the lines into my field of practice and instruction – social work – while challenging me to assure that the truth of God is not compromised.

I liked the notions of each of these models of theology and their derivations. The first articles I read were about contextual theology, which may have been providential, but I won’t say for certain. You see, I had just finished teaching a class on high and low context culture and communication. I had hypothesized that many of our cross cultural conflicts start with the fact that we fail to understand the other. And that the older the culture, the higher the context, the harder it is for each to understand the other. We wind up rejecting each other completely, rather than trying to engage in meaningful dialogue. I used an example from post World War II Japan, in which the Americans were still occupying the country and assisting with reconstruction. A tragedy occurred in which an elderly Japanese woman had been killed due to reckless and negligent actions of an American soldier. The Americans had agreed that the situation would be tried in Japanese court. The young soldier acted with bravado in front of the growing media storm, hoping to gain public support back home, fearing that he would be severely punished under Japanese law. The Japanese court, seeing how the young man failed to act with the due respect and honor of the court, felt that they could not teach this young man anything through their legal system. The court dismissed the case with the condition that the soldier be removed from Japanese soil immediately and never allowed to return.

It seems to me that western Christians had made the same error with so many other cultures. We behave badly in their eyes, while foisting a notion of the gospel upon them using communication methods that are culturally inappropriate, even rude or entirely offensive. So we are dismissed altogether. Not because the gospel is not true. No. Because we are irreverent. Because we are irrelevant. Because we fail to recognize the other and because we speak a language that makes no sense.

I teach my student skills and practices that are intended to increase our awareness and ability to understand the other. It seems only logical and practical that we might do the same with theology. The great challenge is, how do we do this without compromising the message? How do we engage, but not conform? How can we be informed of other cultures and fields of study, without losing the heart of the truth? Perhaps this is the art of theology which Veling described when he wrote, “Rather, what is required to hear the poetic word is a deeply felt movement of the heart – a resonance that responds rather than simply a method that controls.” I am left with more questions than answers, but I am inspired to learn more so that we may better engage with our world.

I close with a passage from I Corinthians, in which the apostle Paul discusses how he worked to be relevant; to communicate across cultures so that the gospel might be known and embraced. It sounds a little bit like this contextual theology thing.

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.  To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some (I Corinthians 9:19-22)

About the Author

Julie Dodge

Julie loves coffee and warm summer days. She is an Assistant Professor of Social Work at Concordia University, Portland, a consultant for non-profit organizations, and a leader at The Trinity Project.