A Node in the Web of the Emerging Church

Kobayashi Maru and Mythical Relevance - Part 3

Posted Jan 30, 11:30 AM | 4 comments | by Editor | Link

Star Trek Movie 2009

By Virgil Vaduva:

continued from part two ...

Changing the Framework

So while we all recognize that there are differences, the problem is that modern Christians often equate cultural differences with “sin” and judge accordingly, creating un-winnable scenarios where only a loud majority is heard, shaming the others into silence and obedience, even destroying any relevant ontological sense one may develop in the process. This is where we stand as post-modern believers, submitting a new framework in which Christians should preach, write, teach and live. The problem in this framework is not with Truth itself, rather with our perception of it, and as I have said in the past, the problem is with our inability to quantify, measure and express Truth without tarnishing it in the process.

In Star Trek history, only James T. Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru scenario. He did so by hacking into the test and changing the framework and the parameters of the scenario, thus making it possible to win in an un-winnable scenario. Kirk changed the rules of the game and the commonly understood framework in such a way that his actions became relevant and allowed him to win the scenario. Christians could learn a valuable lesson from Kirk.

The reasons we should offer to Africans in justifying the wearing of clothing should therefore be presented (if at all) in a completely new framework. Rather than demanding blouse wearing because civilized people do it, we should make an effort an understand why African women do not wear blouses. Does it aid in the feeding of their infants? Are there specific reasons for doing so? Are they “sinning” by not wearing blouses? And if wearing blouses would brand them as prostitutes in the eyes of the community, do we have any right at all to even ask them to wear blouses? Would their tacit agreement to wear blouses bring about shame that was not there before? If so, would satisfying our demands cause them to sin? Just in this instance alone, without some mythical cultural insight into the lives of women from Congo, we lack the experience to make any demands of these women to adapt to what we think is right or wrong. We do not fully understand their narrative; therefore we should perhaps not attempt to bring it to an end.

What is the solution then? Could the end of the mythical meaning of labyrinth walking, or sadness-laughing be a solution? Would that be beneficial to our lives as Christians? Would it serve as a good example to those watching us, seeing us as the bare-breasted strange-looking westerners, or as the ones laughing when it is time to cry? As Christians wishing to be relevant socially and culturally we should perhaps not continue to demand shame from a society that knows little shame; it will hardly bring about the relevance we are seeking. Serving as messengers of Christ in this world has therefore little to do with enforcing western standards on other people’s lives—it has a lot more to do with creating a culturally relevant framework for Christ’s message of love and sacrifice; sacrifice and love transcending most cultural and social differences between people, sacrifice which embraces the mythical behind the communities and people we are trying to reach.

The modern framework in which “God loves the sinners but hates the sin” is in my opinion a bankrupt model. It makes too many assumptions that ignore the cultural context of “the sinner” and is in reality concerned more with the sin rather than the human being behind it. May God help us all become more relevant in an ever-changing world and help us always create the appropriate framework for a people in dire need of his presence and love! May we all find a reason to be rather than happen!

This is part three of a three-part article:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Virgil Vaduva is the Dayton, Ohio, cohort coordinator. Originally from Romania, he grew up in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Bookmark this article using Remarkable!

Welcome to the Reader's Forum

1Tim Thompson 01/31/2009 02:01 AM

Fascinating set of posts, Virgil. I’ve already ordered the Nida book and am eager to dig in!

I think Jesus actually did exactly what you describe Kirk doing (cute, BTW!) when he said in John 14:6 “I am… the truth…” That statement effectively hacks into the category of Truth and re-writes it so it simply cannot be the propositional kind of Truth we prefer to think about. (I say that in a lot more words here for those who are interested: http://feralpastor.blogspot.com/2007/09/talking-about-truth-with-evangelicals.html) I agree with you in a way that “the problem is with our inability to quantify, measure and express Truth without tarnishing it in the process.” But it looks to me that Jesus’ approach to the problem is not to solve it, but to override it by turning our attention from our propositions to his Person.

2Virgil Vaduva 01/31/2009 02:48 AM

Tim, thanks for your comment. Why do you think Christians in general are not willing to settle for “Jesus as Truth” and instead continue to dismantle him into all kinds of other propositional statements that may provide more comfort to us? I don’t think I have an answer; perhaps you or others do?

3Tim Thompson 01/31/2009 10:57 AM

I think you gave one good answer right in your question; to “provide more comfort to us.” To actually engage Jesus as a living, active, present person can be very un-comforting. He might actually do something or, goodness, say something to me. Here I’m recalling the classic line from C. S. Lewis about Aslan; “He’s not a tame lion.”

By contrast, Truth as a set of propositions, even though it make us nervous when we can’t cross all the Ts and dot all the Is, is at least something inanimate. We always get to be the subject, with Truth as the object of our inquiry. This also reminds me of a nice turn of phrase I encountered and wish I could attribute: It’s one thing to read the Bible, it’s quite another to let the Bible read you. Does that make sense?

4Virgil Vaduva 01/31/2009 11:46 PM

Well said Tim, it makes a lot of sense; it’s so simple yet so difficult at the same time. Along these same lines, there is a story I have shared with people in the past.

There is a Romanian story told by older and wiser people to the younger, the story about someone’s quest to understand the rose and its mysteries. This man spends his life studying the complex flower, taking apart each petal and studying them in details, trying to understand how the petals fit together, learning about the stem, the structure of the flower, the colors and species of roses. But his entire quest to understand the mystery of the rose ends with this man’s failure to simply admire the beautiful flower for what it truly is, smell it deeply, feel its soft and beautiful petals and share this beautiful flower with someone else.

Too often I find myself doing the same thing with Scripture.