Speaking in Context
As someone who coordinates cross-cultural partnerships for our church, including the leading of mission trips and providing support to missionaries, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the practical ramifications of contextual theology, especially as it relates to evangelism. This week’s readings by Stephen Garner and Stephen Bevans have given me great insight into this subject:
Stephen Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2004).
Stephen Garner, “Contextual and Public Theology: Passing Fads or Theological Imperatives?” Stimulus: The New Zealand Journal of Christian Thought and Practice 22, no. 1 (2015).
Garner’s brief but meaty article is a good introduction to the idea of contextual theology. In it, he states “All theology is inherently contextual in that it has been shaped by the historical, social, and cultural contexts of the individuals and communities doing theology.“1 Garner goes on to bring up the concept of “public theology,” which is theology which seeks the welfare of the city before protecting the interests of the Church…”2
This reminded me of a conference that I attended at Granger Community Church in Granger, Indiana. At the time, the church was considering a radical rebranding of their large facilities. They were making plans to take down the “church” signs and label their building something like “Granger Community Center.” Instead of a church that had ministries, they wanted to provide a place for local organizations (support groups, social service providers, community education, etc) to meet. They would then say “by the way, our church meets at the Community Center on Sundays.” I don’t’ think that they ever pulled this off, but it seemed to me to be a practical application of “public theology.”
I found Bevans’ book well written and well organized. As a Baptist, I was surprised how applicable this book was, being written by a Catholic theologian. Bevans sequentially lists the varying models of Contextual Theology, from most conservative to most radical. They are:
- Countercultural Model
- Translation Model
- Synthetic Model
- Praxis Model
- Transcendental Model
- Anthropological Model
I enjoyed the explanations and illustrations about each model. To be honest, when I first hear the term “Contextualization,” I think of the problems with syncretism that have plagued missions in past centuries. For example, Jesuit missionaries to the Oglala Sioux Indians in America “Christianized” their pagan Sundance ritual, which involves a great deal of torture and self mutilation (has anyone seen the film “A Man Called Horse?”).
The same thing happened in the Philippines, where Catholic missionaries combined the Easter narrative with mutilation rituals of their native animism. This resulted in the gory, Passion Week rituals that performed to this day, complete with devotees being cut with razor blades and nailed to crosses.
A Filipina is Crucified at Easter
One of the most pronounced examples of syncretism can be found in the religion of Santeria in Haiti. Santeria is essentially voodoo, with pagan deities being substituted with Christian saints.
As you can see, I have some negative opinions about extreme models of contextualization being applied on the mission field. With this perspective, both of these works do a good job of making the case that all ministry is contextualized, whether it is intentional or subconscious.
For example, when talking with someone about Baptism, I have sometimes showed a person my wedding ring. I unpack the analogy that my ring is a symbol of my commitment to my wife, it means that my wife and I are family. It is a symbol, but is not JUST a symbol. It has a deep meaning for me. I then talk about the meaning of baptism. This explanation would mean very little in a culture that do not utilize wedding rings, or worse, a culture where rings took on a negative connotation.
One of the greatest challenges that any pastor, missionary, or Christian leader face is knowing how to make an ancient book relevant to the contemporary hearer. For example, passages about women covering their heads, or God’s commands for armies to slaughter entire families is simply left out of modern teaching.
Missionaries in Muslim contexts constantly wrestle with the extent that they can contextualize the gospel with a people who love God and love Jesus, but have a prophet and holy book that we do not accept. Something that is currently being debated is the “C1-C8 Spectrum” developed by John Travis. It is a classic example of an attempt to do contextual theology for a people (Muslims). A lot of the criticism is focused on believers who still call themselves “Muslim,” follow dietary and dress codes, and/or go to the mosque.
The models that Bevans provides are refreshing. Instead of condemning all contextualization as “syncretism,” or ignoring difficult teachings of the Bible, Bevans provides options for Christian leaders to consider. Each one is treated with respect and both advantages and critiques are outlined for each one.
As a trained social worker, I saw the value of the Praxis and Synthetic models listed in the book, but the Transcendental and Anthropological models reminded me too much of a Unitarian theology (or humanist philosophy).
As you might guess, I was inspired by the Countercultural model. I firmly believe that God’s word, interpreted correctly with a grammatical / historical hermeneutic, can have a life-changing effect on a person and a culture. Simply put, I want to interpret my experience via God’s Word, not the other way around.
Yet, as someone who has studied (and experienced) missiology, I see the value of the Translation model. I know that there are more than just language differences between people groups. Concepts of time, money, family, marriage, forgiveness, etc. vary in different cultures. It is a challenge to communicate the Bible clearly to a people whose worldview is so different than mine.
In conclusion, I would highly recommend these works to anyone in ministry. While they are only an introduction to Contextual Theology, they do a good job of making the reader thirsty for more.
1 Garner, p. 21
2 Garner, p. 25
About the Author
Stu Cocanougher
9 responses to “Speaking in Context”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Very interesting post Stu! I really appreciated the examples of contextual theology taken to extreme and your global perspective on it. Also, as your fellow social worker, I also resonated with the models in my therapy work. I found much of my social work training resonating with contextual theology principles.
“I want to interpret my experience via God’s Word, not the other way around.”
Some great insights, Stu, from your missions and pastoral work.
I strongly agree with the above statement. In discussing the countercultural model, Bevans states the danger of becoming anti-cultural. I don’t think the vast majority of the church is in danger of this – I think we are too culturally compliant, and are in danger of interpreting God’s word by our experience, rather than the other way around as you say.
Stu, I really love your stories! They are to the point and I value them because you are involved in real-life contextualization every day. Many of the rest of us are just talking about it.
I agree with Geoff. London has a Muslim mayor. The English know about cultural compliance. Here is the US we think of ourselves as a “melting pot”. Our vineyard workers are mostly Hispanic. We can’t escape dealing with other cultures. I think the churches are doing a good job generally.
I hope we get to talk philosophy sometime. The problem of the “one and the many”. There are so many levels we could talk on. One God 3 Persons. One kind of human made in His image but no two really completely alike. I think somehow it would fit with 1 Word of God, many applications to different cultures. That’s where all of the interesting discussion could take place for me.
Thanks for your great (somewhat sad) illustrations. They help us not be “culturally romantic”.
On the topic of contextual theology, I ordered this book today.
https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B003TFE8TW&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_xxqJyb3HP44C0
Looks interesting.
Stu I liked how you connected your ministry experience with contextualization. I was horrified seeing the Filipina woman on the cross and reading about the negative impacts of contextualization. However, your wedding ring example is a really great one. There is no one way fits all approach to ministry in any context. I do believe that we must hold Scripture, tradition and context in tandem as we practice theology. It definitely takes the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit to help us to serve those we are called to serve.
I don’t know if anyone noticed the link above the picture from the Philippines, while graphic, this video is a modern example of syncretism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NItfxWdweBQ&feature=youtu.be
Your comment on Bevans’ Catholicism reminded me that his perspective is actually quite groundbreaking for a Catholic theologian: “The time is past when we can speak of one, right, unchanging theology, a THEOLOGIA PERENNIS” (4).
You are quite right about the wedding ring analogy. In children’s ministry, I also used that analogy as one image about baptism, but would not consider using it with the Turkana. For them, only the woman wears a metal ring– around her neck(!)– to show that her husband has paid her father fully for her (and thus, she now “belongs” to her husband instead of father).
Great post, Stu. It is so neat to get to have some insight into everyone’s context (and, of course, to see how that context shapes you and your views).
I liked the thought about Granger Community – and I am very intrigued by public theology. I wonder though, in the Granger example if it is really public theology (or missional theology) if you are still simply inviting everyone to come to you (regardless of what you call the buildings) rather than going out into the world…. just a thought
You bring up a good point. Can missional theology lead to public theology?
As far as Granger, I don’t think it ever happened, but what they were talking about seemed pretty radical for a large, established church.