Page 4 - Demo

By THE REV. CANON DR. ANDREW SHELDON
4
the CIRCLE | SEPTEMBER 2017
The Challenge of Context: Part II
Godly Play in South Africa.
This past May I supported a Core Training in Cuba, and some of the circumstances started my mind percolating on issues around Godly Play and contextualisation. I have written before on this topic—in the rst issue of The Circle in July 2019, where I wrote about ‘Godly Play and the Challenge of Context’. At that time I concentrated on the ways that Godly Play appropriately bends toward the context it is being practised within and gave many examples of what that could look like. What occurred to me in Cuba, however, were the ways in which culture may need to bend towards Godly Play. Bending at least in the way in which we train or present Godly Play in a new context.
What do I mean by bend towards? What I mean is what are those, dare I say, non-negotiables that we adhere to when we introduce Godly Play into a new context? The new context may be ecclesiastical—denominations or churches that may not have previously embraced Godly Play. They may be linguistic—Godly Play translated into new languages. They may be ethnic—new countries or regions, or indeed, new ethnic communities within established countries or regions. I would argue that as Godly Play expands into these
new contexts that we need to be a both/ and people. It is not that either Godly Play bends toward the context or the context bends toward Godly Play, but that Godly Play bends toward the context and the context bends toward Godly Play.
As I wrote above, I have addressed the ways Godly Play is appropriately contextualised. But what are those ways in which we encourage, perhaps insist, that the context does the hard work of contextualisation in order to truly practice Godly Play with integrity? In other words, what are those aspects of Godly Play that a consensus may agree are to be adhered to whatever the context? This discernment is, in part, the work of the Godly Play International Council and is re ected in the Godly Play International Covenant of Agreement. As I wrote in the third issue of The Circle this
past February, the Covenant of Agreement focusses on issues that have universal application. Its conclusions are directed towards country/region associations for implementation. Within each subject area, there are two categories of adherence: minimum requirements and best practices. But the Covenant primarily emphasises practices and protocols as opposed to principles and philosophy.
Thus I return to my original question: What philosophies and principles undergirding the practice of Godly Play do we consider in exible—philosophies and principles that we would expect any Godly Play context to ‘bend towards’? In considering this question, there may be those who would say that conviction without compromise is not a Godly Play value. But I would argue that conviction without compromise is actually what makes Godly Play such an e ective method. That strict adherence to the practices and principles of Godly Play is at the heart of its e ectiveness. And so when it comes to those areas in which it may be important to be in exible, I would suggest the following:
Belgian Storytellers