Context is Everything!
Summary:
Context is everything! The importance of a contextual expression of God’s love, grace, activity, and power is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Without it, God would be the distant unknown, completely removed from our knowledge, understanding or experience. The fact that in the beginning God created and even dwelt among us compels us to wonder who God is, and what might God be saying to all peoples. To know God, understand God and experience God is the heart of God, the hallmark of Christianity, and is the rationale a theology. Toward that end, in Models of Contextual Theology, Steve Bevans asserts that all theology is contextual. In addition, he presents 6 models toward developing a contextual theology.
Beven’s core thesis is a bit of a departure from classical theology in which there are two legs on which the development of theology stand: scripture and tradition. In addition to the two classical sources, Bevan interjects a third: human experience or what he terms, “context.” This addition is a move away from the more traditional theological approaches as an objective discipline to a more dynamic, flowing “subjective” exercise in knowing God.[1] Doing contextual theology takes into account both the past and the present context in addition to individual and group experiences.[2] For the purposes of this discussion, there is no need to detail the 6 models (Transitional, Anthropological, Praxis, Synthetic and Counter Cultural ) as they are well delineated in the book. There are, however, two applicable items for which I would like to highlight. The first considers the addition of experience to the loci theologici; the second, the ability of an outsider to do theology for a context that is not their own? Both have direct application for my faith and ministry.
Application:
That Bevan’s brings experience into the process of doing theology is interesting for me from a Pentecostal point of view. As Pentecostals, experience has always been part of our faith expression and it has certainly impacted our theology and the way in which we practice our faith. Gardner describes it as “a more dynamic Trinitarian expression[s] of faith.”[3] I must admit that his definition makes me smile a bit; I’ve never heard it put quite that way before. Experience is nothing new to Pentecostal/Charismatic theology. Because of this, Pentecostals have at times been viewed as somewhat biblically and theologically naive.
I remember a missionary colleague and friend asked me about the Pentecostal experience. I don’t remember the exact words but the gist of the question was, for a Pentecostal does experience supersede the Bible. My answer then is still the same today; I do not consider the Pentecostal experience to be anything other than biblically and theologically sound. The Pentecostal experience is well within the context of both scripture and church tradition. In this respect, even though it seems that “contextual theology” is a relatively new concept,[4] Pentecostals have been adding “experience” into their theological formation equation for a long time. I do admit that it is not in the exact vein as Bevans’ purely contextual/cultural theology. For Bevans, it is the difference between a contextual theology and a cultural theology. The first acknowledges culture and builds on a biblical foundation; the second acknowledges the Bible but builds on a cultural foundation.[5] Although there are those who would disagree, I contend that the Pentecostal experience is biblical, a-cultural, historical and normative.
The second point of application is the answer to the question, can an outsider do theology for a culture that is not their own? Can an American do Czech, German, Austrian, Slovenian or Bulgarian theology? That is an important question for me and the context in which I serve, for if they cannot then the Great Commission will have been totally absent the ability to accomplish it. In this Bevan’s missiology and cross-cultural experience shines through. In his answer, he gives a theoretical “no” and a practical “yes.” There are times when an outsider can be more “in tune” with a culture than one who is a part of that culture. There are other times when a guest can give a unique perspective to a current situation or cultural perspective. According to Bevans, “a genuine contextual theology…can indeed grow out of genuine dialogue between the participants in a particular culture and the stranger, the guest, the other.”[6] Though it’s not new news—one only need look to Christ’s incarnational model—it is good news for the church. And, it is also good news for Pentecostals, for as the same colleague and friend who asked me about the Pentecostal experience also said, “you Pentecostals have a tool in your tools chest that I just don’t have.” Maybe that tool has been, all along, the addition of a third leg, the Pentecostal experience.
The importance of a contextual expression of God’s love, grace, activity, and power is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Without it, God would be a distant Unknown, completely removed from our knowledge, understanding or experience. Context is everything!
- Bevans, Stephen B. Models of Contextual Theology. Rev Exp ed. Faith and Culture, Orbis Books, 2002, l 198.
- Ibid., l 243-251.
- Garner, S. “Contextual and Public Theology: Passing Fads or Theological Imperatives.” Stimulus: The New Zealand Journal of Christian Studies (2015): 23.
- Ibid., 21.
- Bevans, l 646.
- Ibid., l 572-620.
About the Author
Jim Sabella
14 responses to “Context is Everything!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jim,
I appreciate your perspective. It is no secret that Pentecostals are often characterized as being more focused on experience than sound theology. I am sure that this issue stems from the number of faith healers, etc. who were prominent on television during the 70s, 80s, and 90s. I appreciate your commitment to sound, biblical, theology.
Thanks Stu. You are right, there have been issues with visible personalities. On the other side, there are many, many more unsung heroes, who worship, serve, preach, sacrifice, study, give and go. It’s frustrating when we see the few set the tone for the many others. In fact, it happens in Christianity as a whole. When talking with university students—in defense of Christianity—I heard Ravi Zacharias say, “never judge a philosophy by its abuses.” It’s too bad that the abuses often set the tone. I appreciate your comments Stu.
Jim, excellent point about how context makes God a relational, loving being. I never thought of it that way. When we don’t take the time to put Christianity into context, we are not properly introducing God as the relational being that He is. Thank you for this perspective.
Thanks Jennifer: I think if we could express more of the relational aspect of God than—for example, anger— more people would be willing to more toward a loving relationship with God. I sometimes wonder if it’s because the only emotion that many people can feel or express is anger, therefore we attribute that emotion to God more than other emotions. Now I’m really stepping across discipline lines! However, If God is rational and capable of emotion than His range of emotion would be as wide as it is deep, and yet we tend focus on one or two only. Thanks for your comment Jennifer.
Great thoughts Jim. As a fellow Pentecostal, I think the Pentecostal emphasis on experience (a theology of encounter) has been both its greatest strength and weakness. Too often, I think, Pentecostals have pursued experience and encounter (revival!) at the expense of sound doctrine and teaching. They have loved exclamation marks more than question marks. Subjective experience has sometimes trumped sound exegesis! At the same time, the vibrancy and experience of Pentecostals has been one of their defining and strongest characteristics!
Thanks Geoff. You are right—the emphasis on experience has been both strength and weakness—the exclamation points more than the question marks. It seems the golden mean between two extremes is difficult to navigate. Stu made a very good point in that the most visible abuses helped to define Pentecostalism in the 70’s – 90’s. Of course, there is a danger of abuse of both sides of the spectrum, either all experience or absolutely no experience. However, Pentecostalism has come a long way toward sound theology and expression of faith. Maybe both sides of the spectrum have moved closer to the middle. One thing of which I’m sure, we needed each other more now than ever before. Thanks for your comments Geoff.
Ahhh, as a non-Pentecostal, your conversation is delightful, Geoff & Jim. Thanks for working through this together, and allowing us to follow along; what you explore here benefits all parts of the Church!
“Bevan’s core thesis is a bit of a departure from classical theology in which there are two legs on which the development of theology stand: scripture and TRADITION.”
Jim, I was not disconcerted about that since I was raised Roman Catholic. Just between you and me, our RC brethren do have ‘traditions’ that are not biblical. And I can’t pick on them alone. The people in my own Dutch Reformed Church have some too.
But either way, as a newly converted pentecostalist I agree that experience is REAL. Of course, we compare experience to Scripture. I remember the “Toronto Blessing”!
Super thoughtful post. Thank you, Jim.
Thanks Mary. It does seem that the abuses tend to define, usually because the most egregious abuses are the ones that get the most public exposure. And yet, there are millions of faithful pastors, evangelists, missionaries, teacher and parishioners who are fine examples of faith and experience. Our experience can lead us into error even as can our intellect. It’s the grounded balance that’s important and life-giving. The fact remains, as I mentioned to Geoff—more than ever, we need each other. Thanks for your comments Mary.
Jim great post! It is so true. We Pentecostal know a lot about “experience”. I think though even within the Pentecostal tradition we do struggle to understand cultural contexts as it relates to gender, race and ethnicity. Because we are more experiential we tend to run into these issues more often as we interact with each other and the communities we are called to serve. I am hopeful that as we or those who do have a greater understanding and sensitivity can be examples to others of how to live out sound, contextual theology. It is a challenge but one we face head on.
I loved reading this part of your post:
“The fact that in the beginning God created and even dwelt among us compels us to wonder who God is, and what might God be saying to all peoples. To know God, understand God and experience God is the heart of God, the hallmark of Christianity, and is the rationale a theology. ”
Well said!!!
Thanks Christal. You make an excellent point: “Because we are more experiential we tend to run into these issues more often as we interact with each other and the communities we are called to serve.” The Pentecostal faith expression tends to be an outward expression of an inward experience. (Act 19:2) It’s the outward expression for which we are most known. However, absent the inward experience, the outward expression is empty and can be self-serving and dare I say even carnal! Agree a thousand percent Christal, may God help us to be sensitive examples of living out our faith not only in our worship but “especially” in our everyday lives. Thanks for your comments.
Well said, Jim. As a missionary, I too, had to process what the work of an outsider doing theology in a different context would look like. It was common for church leaders to ask us, “what does the American church think about [x]?” Our response was typically, “well, some think [y], while others [z], and still others, [q]. But let’s look at scripture together to figure out how to view it in this context.” Our goal was never to DO theology for the churches, but to walk alongside the leaders helping them read the text and context together. Sometimes their conclusions were different than ours; while at times that was frustrating, more often than not we felt that meant that the process was working well.
Thanks Katy. I’ve noticed as Americans—or maybe it’s just men! 🙂 —we can tend to be fixers. We see national church leaders going in a direction that we think is not completely correct and we stop it before they are able to go through the process. I think the process is as important in the development of theology. In fact, the process must be there if the church is to mature. You make and excellent point: Maybe it’s better to assist in the process than it is to give the answer. It’s something I’m still working on! Thanks for your comments.
“I do not consider the Pentecostal experience to be anything other than biblically and theologically sound.”
This statement made me want to shout and wave my hankie, Jim! My interactions with Pentecostalism are what fueled my desire for the guidance of the Spirit, for that reason to keep going in the work of holiness and justice. The experience of the Spirit is what got Paul’s attentions, changed Peter’s view of “unclean,” and what rattled the prison doors. It’s also one of the ways to bring context to theology. Everyone has had a “strange” encounter that reminded them of the importance of life. These are Pentecostal experiences that we can contextualize.
(shouts “Amen” and waves her hankie)