Thursday, February 27, 2014

“CITO” vs. “Socio-religious Insider”

Is the term “Cultural Insider, Theological Outsider” a better phrase than “Socio-religious Insider”? You be the judge: Bridging the "Socio-Religious" Divide: A Conversation between Two Missiologists Gene Daniels and L. D. Waterman.

image

I’m still wondering if we can define “religion” so neatly… but maybe the ““Religious” Practice” circle captures this complexity?

Related: Essentialist vs. Cultural Interpretation of Religion

3 comments:

duanemiller said...

This whole system of nomenclature presupposes that culture and religion and theology are easily separable. This is a conviction that is birthed from so-called Enlightenment which itself could not have emerged without Luther's priesthood of all believers and the Protestant concept of 'clear meaning of Scripture'. Anyway, I share your suspicion. I am tired of theology-for. Let us talk with the new believers and ask them how they want to approach these issues.

Dave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave said...

Don’t overlook the fact that Abu Jaz, who coined the term “Cultural Insider, Theological Outsider” is an African believer (and leader) from a Muslim Background. Perhaps even better than talking “with the new believers and ask them how they want to approach these issues” would be talking with mature believers from these backgrounds and learning from them, as this article tries to do. CITO is not the final answer to the question, but it seems like a substantial and brilliantly simple start in a healthy direction.