Contextualization of Theology

Theological Contextualization by Robert H. Munson www.munsonmissions.org 2022 Version

All Theology is contextual All theology is meant to serve as a bridge between God's revelation and humans in their cultural setting. As such, theology can generally be lumped into two groups: well-contextualized theology, and poorly-contextualized theology

“Contextualization attempts to communicate the Gospel in word and deed to establish the church in ways that make sense to people within their local cultural context, presenting Christianity in such a way that it meets people’s deepest needs and penetrates their world-view, thus allowing them to follow Christ and remain within their own Culture.” -Darrell Whiteman The following are Whiteman's 3 Functions of Contextualization:

Function #1 “To see the Gospel communicated in a culturally relevant, but Biblically appropriate manner.”

Function #2 In Mission, “to offend for the right reasons” ... and not for the wrong reasons.

Function #3 To develop contextualized expressions of the Gospel so that the Gospel itself will be understood in ways the universal church has neither experienced nor understood before, thus expanding our understanding of the Kingdom of God.

Four Self Church David Bosch (1929-1992) added to the Henry Venn/Rufus Anderson model of the 3-self Indigenous Church, to suggest the 4-self church: Self-sustaining Self-governing Self-propagating (Self-theologizing)‏

So... a vibrant local church doesn't simply regurgitate the theology from a different place, or a different time. It's theology needs to be TRUE--- but also RELEVANT to its context.

Models of Developing Contextualized Theology according to Stephen Bevans • Translation • Anthropological • Praxis • Synthetic • Transcendental • Countercultural

Translation Model “Putting the Gospel Into” the Culture Greater focus on the fidelity of the tradition. One is seeking to put the message of Christ into the language and culture of the respondents. The process is quite similar the process of translating a book. Recall Paul in Athens

Anthropological Model Similar to Translation Model but with greater focus on, and respect for, the respondent culture. Open to learn and grow from the insight of the respondent culture. Preparatio Evangelica Jesus with the Syro-Phoenician Woman Justin Martyr's belief that the 'seeds of the word” exist in other religions and cultures.

Praxis Model Start with Action, and Reflect on it in light of Scripture, Tradition, and Social Science. The process is intentionally iterative. Action leads to reflection, which in turn leads to action. Gustavo Gutierrez and Liberation Theology.

Synthetic Model Mixing of Translation, Anthropological, and Praxis methods... synthesizing them. Seen as especially appropriate of “synthesized” cultures, or cultures of mixed traditions, such as the Philippines. (Inter-traditionality) Jose M. de Mesa / Horacio de la Costa

Transcendental Model Looks to the power of faith to transcend culture. More focused on process than the resulting content. In a new culture as a person of faith, one experiences feelings of antipathy and sympathy. One seeks to learn, dynamically, through reflection-- trying to understand the WHY of these feelings.

Countercultural Model Does not seek to be Cultural or Anti-cultural... but sees Jesus and prophets as counter-cultural. Understand the symbols of the culture. → Analyze the culture through the eyes of Scripture. → Utilize the symbols of the culture to challenge it. “Subversive Fulfilment” of Culture

Each Method has Some Value and Should not Necessarily be Seen as Competing with Each OtherNote: Scott Moreau's book, “Contextualization in World Missions” takes Bevan's models and relates them to Evangelical theology and mission praxis.

Critical Contextualization By Paul Hiebert Foreign Gospel Reject Old Ways “old culture is evil” noncontextualization Old Goes Underground Old Ways Deal with Old Ways “old culture is both good and evil” critical contextualization Four-Step Process • Analyze the old ways emphathically • Study the Bible on the subject • Judge old ways in light of biblical teaching • Create new contextualized ways Accept Old Ways “old culture is good” uncritical contextualization Syncretism Cultural Anthropology for Christian Mission: A Lecture Series developed by Dr. Flint James Miller; Based on the lectures of Dr. Darrell Whiteman; Using many of the concepts of Paul Hiebert, Charles Kraft, and Eugene Nida

So How Does One Know When a Local Theology is Contextually Sound and When is it Unsound. Or When does one drift from Orthodoxy to Heterodoxy/Syncretism?

The goal is not to PROVE what is good or bad, but to have a compelling set of evidences supporting or contradicting a local theology. We need to be humble and open in our analysis.

Evidences of Good Contextual Theology • The following Evidences are loosely based on Bevans, Schreiter, de Mesa and others. • However, they are organized differently here.

Start from the Bottom Guideliness and Work up.

Bottom Tier: Divinity These tests have to do with God... the character of God as revealed... the truth of his spoken (special) revelation... the insight from His general revelation.

Evidence #1. Revelation • Is the Theology COHERENT with Revelation. (Revelation within the Christian context is primarily referring to God's Word.) Does it fit with revelation or not? • Is the Theology HARMONIOUS with Revelation, or disonant?

Evidence #1. Revelation • A BAD test involves “proof texting.” Almost any strange belief can be justified through a concerted effort to rip certain verses out of their contexts. You cannot create a good contextual theology based on “cherry-picking” decontextualized verses. • This test assumes the Unity and Canonicity of the Holy Bible.

Evidence #2. God • Is the Theology in line with the NATURE of God... particularly as being Transcendant, Immanent, and Personal? • Does the Theology tend to lead to behavior that is in line with the CHARACTER of God?

Evidence #2. God • Bad theology revisualizes God/god as less than worthy of worship, or relational in prayer. • Bad theology supports, justifies, or reinforces bad behavior... not in line with the character of God. • This is based on the idea that God is the object of theology, and that we are to worship God in spirit AND in truth.

Evidence #3. Creation • Does the theology recognize the Created world as God's good handiwork? • Does the theology see all human beings as created in God's image? • Bad theology identifies the created world as lacking value and undeserving of our concern. • Bad theology justifies demeaning a person or a group of people.

Middle Tier: Community The Community of Faith also challenges a theology. This challenge comes from both the local church (in which theology is supposed to be relevant), and the universal church (in which the theology and local church exist)

Evidence #4. Local Church • Does the Theology eventually find traction, or ACCEPTANCE within the body of believers it exists for? • Did it come from the COMMUNITY? • Is it INTELLIGIBLE to members of the community in simple language?

Evidence #4. Local Church • Bad contextual theology more commonly comes from the outside (an outsider in the community, or a single “prophetic” voice in the community). • Bad contextual theology tends to use big words or heavy concepts that cannot be understood by many members of the context. • This assumes the “priesthood of believers” and God working in the community.

Evidence #5. Universal Church Is the Theology (or more correctly, the community of faith that embraces this theology) open to challenge from those outside of the group. Can the Theology, also, challenge those outside of the group and even inspire new thought and theologies?

Evidence #5. Universal Church • Bad Contextual Theology says “We are not open to challenge because outsiders are simply wrong” or “Outsiders can never understand us.” • This evidence presupposes the universality (catholicity) and spiritual unity of the church... not just its diversity.

Evidence #6. Spiritual Fruit • Does the community, living out its theology, act in ethical, Christlike, behavior. • Is the fruit of the spirit evidenced in attitudes, motivations, and actions of members?

Evidence #6. Spiritual Fruit • Bad contextual theology justifies bad behavior, or ignores problems that Jesus said should not be ignored. • This evidence presupposes the link between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, as well as the spiritual nature of the church.

Top Tier: Culture If God's revelation to man is a call to repentance and transformation of all people in all cultures, an appropriately contextualized theology must also relate appropriately to its related culture.

Evidence #7. Resonance Theology should “resonate” with the culture it is linked to. That is, it must address questions the culture has, and puts into words, stories, images or ideas that members of the community can use within their culture and relating to their culture.

Evidence #7. Resonance • Bad contextual theology “scratches where it doesn't itch,” addressing concerns that the culture does not have. • Or it may utilize cultural references to make the theology “relevant” but fails to connect the theology to the underlying thoughts, beliefs, and concerns of the people. • This evidence is based on the belief that God redeems culture--- fulfilling it, and that the unity of the church is enhanced by its diversity.

Evidence #8. Tension David Tracy notes that religion (and thus theology) challenges the status quo with ultimate reality that sharply contrasts the observable reality. Therefore, theology should challenge all institutions: such as government, education, community, family... and the church. In essence, a “state religion” is an oxymoron.

Evidence #8. Tension • Bad theology simply blesses or justifies the culture, and the power structures in place. • Bad theology supports the status quo-- rejecting the need for transformation. • This tension presupposes the thought that we, and all that is in the world are to some extent “fallen.” As such, our prayer and aim is that God's Kingdom come, and His will be done on earth, as it is (already) done in Heaven.

These guidelines don't prove a theology is good or bad, but they give us some basis for tentative conclusions. Probably no good theology passes these criteria 100%, and probably no bad theology fails all of them either.

Or, in other words: • Good theologies may be questionable in one or more evidences. • Bad theologies may seem sound based on one or more evidences. • The weight of the evidences ultimately provide good insight on whether a contextual theology is sound or not.

Remember • We have a Universal God and Universal Revelation... but it comes to us in and through our Context. • All Theology is Contextual... either contextualized well or contextualized poorly.

References • Robert Schreiter, “Constructing Local Theologies” (1985)‏ • Stephen Bevans, “Models of Contextual Theology” (2002)‏ • Darrell L. Whiteman, “Contextualization: The Theory, the Gap, the Challenge” (IBMR, 1997)‏ • Paul G. Hiebert, “Critical Contextualization” (IBMR, 1987)‏ • David J. Bosch, “Transforming Mission” (1991)‏ • David J. Hesselgrave & Edward Rommen, “Contextualization, Meaning, Methods, and Models” (1989) • David Tracy, "Plurality and Ambiguity.: Hermeneutics, Religion and Hope" (1985) • A. Scott Moreau “Contextualization in World Mission” (2012) • Robert H. Munson, “Theo-Storying: Reflections on God, Narrative, and Culture” (2015)

Contextualization of Theology