I have been following the discussion between Pete and Richard and in the process Pete suggests he would rather be “critiqued for not going far enough!”. For some time I have been thinking that actually he does not go far enough. (but having said that I am struggling to articulate why but hear goes)
I really enjoy Pete and Kesters stuff but the way they seem to construct their arguments reinforces and appears to be rooted in a dualist way of being. It has been great how Pete has brought new dialogical partners to the conversation, and particularly voices outside the church, but often could be seen as reconciling a sacred secular divide. (How not to speak of God is an important contribution and the reason it is needed is because it highlights how our language and approach reinforces dualism)
In response to Andys comment on the previous post i think another facet that is missing is about the difference between contextualisation and inculturation. This was a key issue for church on the edge. Robert Schreiter sees inculturation as “the dynamic relation between the Christian message and culture or cultures; an insertion of the Christian life into a culture; an ongoing process of reciprocal and critical insertion and assimilation between them”. The emphasis being the reciprocal nature that allows the process to question our current assumptions (answers) about what church and mission is.
So rather than seeing the community we interact with as another dialogical partner, we value the anti-thesis of the local community and adopt such a powerless position that we allow both messages (truths) to change. When we dialogue in a more abstract or theoretical way the process seems more about contextualisation to me that itself is rooted in a false dualist distinction. Dialogue outside of the missional community approach is Global and so will often be about reconciling the sacred/secular. However if we accept that the moment we engage with the other locally g-d is there then we have the potential for a non dualist glocal conversation that may help us really move on.
When I read that back I think it wont make sense to many people but when I asked James how progress he suggested we need to feel our way forward in the non dualist landscape so pulling together a nice logical argument has been hard sorry ????????? ??? ??????? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ????????? ?????
Richard, you are really grappling with this stuff and to be honest I’m not sure if I follow where you are going with this. Like you say it is difficult to put into a a rational and coherant way… maybe the rational and logical mind sets up the very dualism that you are seeking to explore. Before words, there was sound or viberations that we felt, there was ritual that we acted and become part of and now we are often left with words adn more words. I like words, but also find them extremely boring… maybe to move beyond the dualism the word needs to become flesh… to move beyond dualism we need to reconnect with the lost senses… the very things that make us human and grounded and sacred.