![\"\"](\"http:\/\/dminlgp.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Content-and-Context-300x225.jpg\")
So this week I finally figured out my problem (okay, ONE of my problems)! In theological discussions, I have been expecting others to view theology contextually and, more to the point, to contextualize theology along the same model or lens which I use.<\/p>\n
I have to be honest, the idea that theology must always be contextual is kind of a \u201cduh\u201d statement to me. The problem with that is that I forget that there are many people who follow what Stephen Bevans calls \u201cclassical theology,\u201d expecting all theology to be somehow objective and scientific.[1]<\/a> In truth, there is no such thing as objective theology that is experienced by humans. It just isn\u2019t possible. Human beings view everything through the lenses created by their context. Place, time, social community, experiences, and people of influence all make up facets through which we filter Scripture, ideas about God, and our view of how we should respond. The closest we can get to some form of objectivity is by finding others who have vaguely similar lenses to sharpen the focus. Stephen Garner notes, \u201cAll theology is inherently contextual, in that it has been shaped by the historical, social, and cultural contexts of the individuals and communities doing theology.\u201d[2]<\/a> Not only is it impossible to do theology objectively, it is impossible to do it alone.<\/p>\n In his book, Models of Contextual Theology<\/em>, Bevans lays out six different models of contextual theology. He does a masterful job of explaining the varying models, as well as helping the reader to understand both the value and the critiques of each model. It was easy for me to find my \u201cplace\u201d in these models. I lean toward the Praxis Model, with just a dash of the Transcendent Model. For those who haven\u2019t read the book, that means I tend to contextualize theology in a way that demands reflective action. It is not enough to know<\/em>, I believe we must do.[3]<\/strong><\/a><\/em> I also believe that there are some things we cannot understand or put into words until we transcend into a place where those things become real, so that follows the Transcendent Model.[4]<\/a> That sounds pretty \u201cout there\u201d until it is understood that this transcendence comes through the disciplines and formation that moves us closer and closer to the likeness of Christ. It is no different than me saying that my understanding of love has dramatically shifted from the first crushes of my teen years to the steadfast love of 30 years of marriage. Sometimes you just can\u2019t know until you get there.<\/p>\n So, recognizing the models or lenses through which I do theology is crucial to my continued growth, but it is equally as important that I be able to recognize and understand the lenses through which others do theology. What feels like a never-ending argument, may simply be two people or communities viewing the exact same Scriptures and ideologies through different lenses. Understanding this may not solve disagreements or bring about theological unity, but recognizing different contextualizations in each other may allow us to ease out of our mutually defensive poses long enough to listen to each other, and then go about the work of the Kingdom with much less \u201cus versus them\u201d in the process.<\/p>\n With that idea in mind, let me shift back to the original thought, that there is simply no such thing as a pure, objective theology without context. It is my sincere belief that people come closer together and closer to God\u2019s vision of community when we take the time to listen to each other\u2019s stories. I also believe that we cannot possibly share the love of God with people in a way that matters to them without understanding their contexts. Good theology that draws people to Christ is not a long-distance endeavor; it requires relationship. I would also submit that the best way for us as the church to \u201cpractice\u201d this sharing\/listening\/understanding thing is with each other first. Maybe this would lead to fewer gatekeepers and heresy hunters, and more partners and companions in faith.<\/p>\n