{"id":11167,"date":"2017-01-25T15:05:16","date_gmt":"2017-01-25T23:05:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dminlgp.com\/?p=11167"},"modified":"2017-01-25T15:05:16","modified_gmt":"2017-01-25T23:05:16","slug":"bevans-garner-theologies-of-place-and-time","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/bevans-garner-theologies-of-place-and-time\/","title":{"rendered":"Bevans & Garner: Theologies of place and time"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Contextual theology as a process is something I am quite familiar with (which you\u2019ll know, if you\u2019ve 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\u2014a blend of biblical studies and anthropology. Many of the theologians Bevans references are ones I\u2019ve read. And you\u2019re welcome to ask for my autograph, because my own husband is a friend of Stephen Bevans.<\/p>\n

While Bevans introduces six models for contextual theologies in his book Models of Contextual Theology<\/em>, Stephen Garner utilizes only one of those\u2014the praxis model\u2014to compare with a relatively new form of theology, public theology <\/em>in his article, “Contextual and Public Theology: Passing Fads or Theological Imperatives?”. In the first part of this post I\u2019d like to respond to Garner\u2019s response to Bevans. In Garner\u2019s explanation of contextual theology, he notes that, according to Bevans, it is \u201can active process– a dialogue between past and present (and, I would add, also with an eye on eschatological horizons.)\u201d[1]<\/a> The addition Garner makes of \u201ceschatological horizons,\u201d 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<\/em>, ongoing, a reflective hermeneutical spiral. As Bevans describes it, \u201cno context is static, and even the most traditional culture is one that is growing, improving, or declining.\u201d[2]<\/a> What Garner misses here, though, is Bevans\u2019 clarification that the dialogue is not simply diachronic, but also across contemporary contexts.[3]<\/a> I\u2019ll return to that momentarily.<\/p>\n

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, \u201cWhat 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.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Returning to the emphasis Bevans places on synchronic dialogue (together with conversations across time), we notice that Bevans suggests we can \u201ccertainly learn from others\u2019 [theologies]\u2026 but the theology of others can never be our own.\u201d[5]<\/a> 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\u2014and I would agree with Bevans that it is imperative\u00ad[6]<\/strong><\/a>\u2014<\/em>a faith that is based only<\/em> on a contextual theology of place is not only incomplete, but, dare I say it, dangerous. We need each other<\/em>. Bevans actually suggests this in his anthropological model: \u201cThe 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.\u201d[7]<\/a> But I don\u2019t 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.\u00a0 What a delight, for me as a woman, to explore some feminist theology.[8]<\/a> 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\u2019s A Black Theology of Liberation<\/em>.[9]<\/a> 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]<\/a> 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\u2019s Waterbuffalo Theology<\/em>, I discovered the paradox of an inefficient God proving to be the most Crucified Efficient One.[11]<\/a> 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]<\/a> When churches are willing to look outside of their own contexts, their world expands and their understanding of God\u2019s good news is enriched. When believers move across boundaries\u2014whether physical or theological\u2014mission happens. This takes epistemic humility, to recognize that \u201cmy\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Stephen Garner, \u201cContextual and Public Theology: Passing Fads or Theological Imperatives?\u201d Stimulus: The New Zealand Journal of Christian Thought and Practice<\/em> 22, no. 1 (2015): 21.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Stephen Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology<\/em> (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2004), 7.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Ibid., 5.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Ibid., 11.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Ibid., 5.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Ibid., 3.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Ibid., 60.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Jennifer M. Buck, Reframing the House: Constructive Feminist Global Ecclesiology for the Western Evangelical Church<\/em> (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick, 2016).<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> James Cone, God of the Oppressed<\/em> (New York: Seabury, 1975).<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Reading theologies from the past would be a good example of this. Don\u2019t contemporary scholars still read Augustine? Kierkegaard? We recognize that they are still relevant, though they also emerged from a particular context.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Kosuke Koyama, Waterbuffalo Theology<\/em> (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1974), 69.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Mercy Amba Oduyoye, Hearing and Knowing: Theological Reflections on Christianity in Africa<\/em> (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1986), 89.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Contextual theology as a process is something I am quite familiar with (which you\u2019ll know, if you\u2019ve 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\u2014a blend of biblical studies and anthropology. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":85,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[15,788,13],"class_list":["post-11167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-bevans","tag-context","tag-garner","cohort-lgp7"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/85"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}