Bevans & Garner: Theologies of place and time
Contextual theology as a process is something I am quite familiar with (which you’ll know, if you’ve read my previous posts). Besides working in the context of northern Kenya and walking alongside church leaders to develop a contextual Turkana theology, both my undergrad and grad studies revolved around missiology—a blend of biblical studies and anthropology. Many of the theologians Bevans references are ones I’ve read. And you’re welcome to ask for my autograph, because my own husband is a friend of Stephen Bevans.
While Bevans introduces six models for contextual theologies in his book Models of Contextual Theology, Stephen Garner utilizes only one of those—the praxis model—to compare with a relatively new form of theology, public theology in his article, “Contextual and Public Theology: Passing Fads or Theological Imperatives?”. In the first part of this post I’d like to respond to Garner’s response to Bevans. In Garner’s explanation of contextual theology, he notes that, according to Bevans, it is “an active process– a dialogue between past and present (and, I would add, also with an eye on eschatological horizons.)”[1] The addition Garner makes of “eschatological horizons,” is, I believe, an important reminder that our trajectory lies not only behind us in the past, but with an eye towards future understandings of God, the world, and our role in it. And like Bevans, he also reminds the reader that the work of theology is active, ongoing, a reflective hermeneutical spiral. As Bevans describes it, “no context is static, and even the most traditional culture is one that is growing, improving, or declining.”[2] What Garner misses here, though, is Bevans’ clarification that the dialogue is not simply diachronic, but also across contemporary contexts.[3] I’ll return to that momentarily.
First, however, a comment on the relationship between contextual theologies and the rise of national identity. While nationalistic identities arose in the age of Enlightenment and continue to provide a primary identity for many people today, a contextual theology has the possibility of forming outside the boundaries of nationalism. That is to say, our social situation is not necessarily predicated on our national identity. For example, a contextual Turkana theology may look different than a theology developed in other parts of Kenya, or even Africa. Conversely, a broad contextual African theology may be meaningful for many contexts within that continent. In other words, contextual theologies are not bound by nation-state political boundaries. But it is a particularly local theology that works together with an identity of self-worth and independence and allows the Good News of the gospel to be relevant to that place. As Bevans explains, “What African and Asian countries began to realize was that there are values in their cultures that are just as good as, if not better than, those of their colonizers, and once this had been realized, former colonies and churches in these nations began to have the confidence to work things out for themselves, on their own terms and in their own way.”[4]
Returning to the emphasis Bevans places on synchronic dialogue (together with conversations across time), we notice that Bevans suggests we can “certainly learn from others’ [theologies]… but the theology of others can never be our own.”[5] I take issue with this statement, and believe it can actually lead to serious consequences, especially in light of the current (though not new) rise of nationalism in large pockets around the world. While a theology of place is important—and I would agree with Bevans that it is imperative[6]—a faith that is based only on a contextual theology of place is not only incomplete, but, dare I say it, dangerous. We need each other. Bevans actually suggests this in his anthropological model: “The whole situation of humanity at the dawn of the twenty-first century is characterized by the need to be interdependent and globally conscious, not sealed off into neatly definable cultural groups.”[7] But I don’t believe he goes far enough with this statement. In order to truly embody a rich understanding of God, it takes understanding how other people think about and relate to God as well. What a delight, for me as a woman, to explore some feminist theology.[8] How important it can be for the people of Ghana and Africa to read the works of Kwame Bediako and explore scriptures in light of their own context. How redemptive for African Americans to read James Cone’s A Black Theology of Liberation.[9] But we cannot leave it there. Our faith is enriched, our understanding of God enlarged, when we engage with theologies of those different than us.[10] As important as it is for us to experience cultures other than our own (think of the explosion of short-term mission trips), it is equally important for us to explore and understand theologies of others. When I read Japanese theologian, Kosuke Koyama’s Waterbuffalo Theology, I discovered the paradox of an inefficient God proving to be the most Crucified Efficient One.[11] And as a white women, reading African womanist theologian Mercy Amba Odoyoye allowed me to empathize with the voiceless and powerless and recognize God as a god who suffers.[12] When churches are willing to look outside of their own contexts, their world expands and their understanding of God’s good news is enriched. When believers move across boundaries—whether physical or theological—mission happens. This takes epistemic humility, to recognize that “my” theology is not the final word; it acknowledges the work of the Holy Spirit in other contexts as well. This reflective hermeneutical community allows for the good news of Jesus to move in multiple directions.
[1] 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): 21.
[2] Stephen Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2004), 7.
[3] Ibid., 5.
[4] Ibid., 11.
[5] Ibid., 5.
[6] Ibid., 3.
[7] Ibid., 60.
[8] Jennifer M. Buck, Reframing the House: Constructive Feminist Global Ecclesiology for the Western Evangelical Church (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick, 2016).
[9] James Cone, God of the Oppressed (New York: Seabury, 1975).
[10] Reading theologies from the past would be a good example of this. Don’t contemporary scholars still read Augustine? Kierkegaard? We recognize that they are still relevant, though they also emerged from a particular context.
[11] Kosuke Koyama, Waterbuffalo Theology (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1974), 69.
[12] Mercy Amba Oduyoye, Hearing and Knowing: Theological Reflections on Christianity in Africa (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1986), 89.
About the Author
Katy Drage Lines
In God’s good Kingdom, some minister like trees, long-standing, rooted in a community. They embody words of Wendell Berry, “stay years if you would know the genius of the place.” Others, however, are called to go. Katy is one of those pilgrims. A global nomad, Katy grew up as a fifth generation Colorado native, attended college & seminary and was ordained in Tennessee, married a guy from Pennsylvania, ministered for ten years in Kenya, worked as a children’s pastor in a small church in Kentucky, and served college students in a university library in Orange County, California. She recently moved to the heart of America, Indianapolis, and has joined the Englewood Christian Church community, serving with them as Pastor of Spiritual Formation. She & her husband Kip, have two delightful boys, a college junior and high school junior.10 responses to “Bevans & Garner: Theologies of place and time”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great line Katy….”When churches are willing to look outside of their own contexts, their world expands and their understanding of God’s good news is enriched.” It makes me wonder how many people are missing God’s good news because churches aren’t looking outside of their own context? Moving into the context of others, I believe is a loving and humble act.
Katy, I expected that you would have a quality analysis of these two works… and I was not disappointed.
I still have unresolved thoughts about pushing the limits of contextualization.
For me, like our reading last week, it would be valuable to list the “non-negotiables” in contextualizing the gospel message. For example, I am not concerned with whether we call our Lord Jesus or Yesu (Chinese). I would be concerned if Jesus was portrayed in the form of one of the Hindu gods. Liberation theology, can come across more of political viewpoint than “the gospel.” So can capitalist theology. I think that we can all agree that contextualization has it limits, the big question relates to identifying these limits.
Thanks for the kind words, Stu.
It seems that my argument in the post would be one way to counter the “limits” of contextualization. That is, “we need each other.” That as a particular context attempts to study scripture in light of their context, the church in other places/times is present to offer a balance to prevent heresy or syncretism. It is this global hermeneutical community extended throughout time that can help balance or reflect on syncretistic tendencies. This is just as imperative in a Turkana context (or Asian or ….) as it is in an American or British context. Our brothers & sisters from other parts of the world/time need to be able to call us into account for our theologies as they may go astray, as well as encouraging us to stretch out of the boxes we place ourselves and God in. And vv.
I find I always have to concentrate hard when I read your posts Katy! Always very thought-provoking and thorough. And good name-dropping!!
I agree with your thoughts on the need for “epistemic humility” and the safety and importance of a global hermeneutical community extended through time. The church has floundered and gotten into trouble when it has discounted this community.
Ha! If you ever came to the ASM with me, Steve would be your friend too. I like the themes you focused on in this post, and I guess that it’s more than coincidence that we have some of the same thoughts on these things. I often find the “social imaginaries” of public theologians too myopic in a globalized world… a potential problem with any contextual theology. At their worst, they stop engaging with the theology of the “other.” While theology demands relevance to the context, it must somehow remain connected to Christian faith outside of the context. The big question for me is, where are those points of intersection where the hermeneutical spiral can spin outside of an academic setting?
I agree that we need to do a better job of moving the hermeneutical spiral into the pastoral context as well; that, I believe is one role we, as church leaders working on practical ministry doctorates, can serve as bridges. Listening to and communicating the voices of Christians in other contexts to our congregations, and inviting others in to speak to our churches directly.
Katy, well I am not in your league, but I too have read the stories of many women from across geographical, historical, and cultural lines. You said that “And as a white women, reading African womanist theologian Mercy Amba Odoyoye allowed me to empathize with the voiceless and powerless and recognize God as a god who suffers.”
That was one of the pieces in Bevans’ book I really resonated with. While I won’t know what it’s like to live under slavery, for example, that doesn’t mean I can’t understand it and feel strong empathy with those who are.
I thought Stephen Bevans did a very fair, balanced presentation of the different models and I’m not just saying that because he’s your friend! This book is going on my permanent reference shelf to be read again.
Thanks for your, as usual, mind stretching post!!!
What an excellent post as usual Katy. You synthesized the reading well!
“As important as it is for us to experience cultures other than our own (think of the explosion of short-term mission trips), it is equally important for us to explore and understand theologies of others.”
I agree. It is so easy for us to build silos around ourselves and consequently our theology. Kristen speaks of the lens of context. We can be quite myopic when it comes to our “theology” because after all we are hearing from God and it’s hard to argue with God. But as you suggest, if we can recognize that our theology is not the final word, then we allow room for the Holy Spirit to work across borders, silos, and theologies. Great post!
Great post Katy! Very insightful! This quote from your post is the best summary of purpose for applying contextual theology :
“In other words, contextual theologies are not bound by nation-state political boundaries. But it is a particularly local theology that works together with an identity of self-worth and independence and allows the Good News of the gospel to be relevant to that place.”
This is absolutely true and well said!!!
You raise an excellent point about nationalism and making assumptions about theology based on national identity, Katy. We need only look at our own country to understand how wrong those assumptions would be. Even American evangelical theology varies widely depending on place, culture, upbringing, etc.
I also agree with you that we need to access other theologies in order to have a fuller picture of who God is. The Kingdom is multi-faceted, and we become so myopic in our theological viewpoints. Your statement, ‘This takes epistemic humility, to recognize that “my” theology is not the final word,’ reminds me that this is an attitude we all need to adopt as we move forward. Thank you for that!