Models of contextualization

Bevans takes into account four elements in defining a way of doing contextualization and contextual theology:

the spirit and message of the gospel, the tradition of the Christian people, the culture in which one is theologizing and social change in that culture, whether brought about by western technological process or the grass-roots struggle for equality, justice and liberation (Bevans, 1992, 1).

In other words, contextual theology recognizes that culture, history, contemporary thought forms and the like are to be considered along with scripture and tradition as valid sources of theological expression (Bevans, 1992, 2). In this respect, both content and context are significant in the contemporary world.

Bevans further proposes six models for doing contextualization (contextual theology) that bring theology (content) and culture (context) together. They are: (1) the translation model; (2) the anthropological model; (3) the praxis model; (4) the synthetic model; (5) the transcendental model and (6) the countercultural model (Bevans, 1992, 22). These models are helpful in understanding the relationship between the gospel message and culture. As a detailed analysis of each model lies beyond the scope of this study, I will summarize some of their key characteristics. For example, the anthropological model lays particular stress on listening to culture, while the translational model stresses the preservation of church tradition, but seeks to liberate the Gospel message from captivity to imposed western categories of thought through the translation of meanings as well as words. Both models listen to culture, but in different ways. It is about different starting points and also what has priority. The praxis model relates to liberation theology dealing with issues of social change, particularly the change called for by a struggle for justice. The countercultural model was developed from the work of Lesslie Newbigin who was dedicated to the problem of the West and called for a proper metanoia - a change of mind in response to the gospel message in that context (2002, 117). It may be said, and Bevans himself notes this, that there is a considerable overlap between the models. It may be said, and Bevans himself notes this, that there is a considerable overlap between the models. Hence, it is likely to place his diverse models of

162

contextual theology at their applicable place along a continuum dependent on whether they privilege gospel and culture or neither of them.

In contrast to the six models of Bevans, Schreiter, another American missiologist, suggests three models for engaging in contextualized or local theology which he refers to as the translation, adaptation and contextual models. He explains these models in the light of a relation between cultural context and theology (cultural implications in constructing local theology) as well as the relation between theology and the community in which theology takes place (the subjects of theology). Space does not allow me to discuss the three models of Schreiter further. However, it is worth stating here how Bevans and Schreiter view these different models of contextual theology. Schreiter explains the models as ‘theological approaches’ in the light of how each approach relates to its cultural context in terms of theological development. Thus, he takes contextual models as a final model ‘embodying the ideals of what local theology is to be about’ (1985, 12). Schreiter is concerned with ‘models’ that are to categorize the different methodological approaches of theology, while Bevans’ concern is to look at religious phenomena in the light of the interaction between the four factors of theology: scripture, the church, tradition, and social change. For Schreiter, ‘a model suggests not only a procedure for engaging in theological reflection, but also some specific interests or principles that help to guide the use of the procedure’ (1985, 6). For Bevans, models express an inclusive sense of certain aspects of a reality. Under these conditions of making models, each model has been clarified according to its distinctive character, cutting through the complexity of the various contextualization enterprises. In this manner, both Schreiter and Bevans agree that context influences how God is understood and the expression of faith in each contextual model. Yet, the models are not absolute of each other’s practices. Rather, each brings specific emphases that enable the Gospel to actively engage with a people and their life aspect and patterns.

While all models provide useful insights, we should enquire as to how we must choose which model to follow at any given time. The translation model is the one most usually employed, yet Bevans suggests that the choice must be made accurately on the basis of which model would work best in a specific situation:

163

Certain models can function more adequately within certain sets of circumstances. It seems to be that the praxis model might be better employed in a situation that calls for radical social change than the translation model, which might tend to be content with the status quo….In a situation of primary evangelization, translating one’s own understanding of the gospel into the language and customs of another culture may be the only option open until indigenous Christians are able to reflectively construct their own local theology (1996, 112).

As the latter approach fits the circumstances considered so far in this thesis, I will consider the translation model as the most relevant model to the immediate context of proposing contextual Church Planting strategies for the unreached Oromo people.