Stephen B. Bevans Models Of Contextual Theology

In Models of Contextual Theology, Catholic theologian Stephen B. Bevans seeks to underscore that contextual theology is a theological imperative. What he means by this that all theological exercise is contextual. Though in the surface is seems a simple statement, Bevans unfolds this statement and take us into the deep complexities and dynamics between the gospel and culture. The first part of the book, chapter 1 through 3, deals with themes such as the imperativeness of contextual theology; the issues of contextual theology and also gives the reader framework of the methodology used throughout the book. The second part of the book, chapters 4 through 9, is dedicated to the analysis of the six models of contextualizing theology presented in
chapter 3. Bevans frame his analysis in a four-fold form. First, he defines the terminology used to describe each model. Second, he presents what are the central presuppositions of each model. Third, he critiques (pros and cons) each model. Finally, Bevans offers examples of theologians or movements that are representative of the model in discussion.

Evaluative Interaction

Imperative, Issue and Methods

Though the bulk of the book is found in the second part, the firs part lays a foundation that undergirds the whole conversation. First, it is interesting that for Bevans, contextual theology has become to be understood as something that is intrinsically connected to the theological enterprise. Hence, there is no such thing as a cultureless theology. Second, as a product of previous point there is a paradigm shift or movement: from a classical understanding of theology towards a contextual theology. This paradigm shift is informed by the merging of Scripture and Tradition with the present human experience. In other words, the human condition – which is informed by history, culture and social concern – become a key component in theologizing. Third, Bevans also holds a healthy tension between the ‘newness’ and the ‘oldness’ of contextualization. On one hand, it is new because theology is being grounded in a particular place; it is deformed, formed and transformed as is rooted in context. On the other hand, the Bible itself is a testimony of contextualization. This is through the multiplicity of writers that where used and through stories that we read in scripture.
Although Bevans in advocating for a contextual imperative, he is not oblivious to certain issues within the topic. First, Bevans recognizes that the present theological method is not the only way people have theologized and is not the way to keep theologizing. Bevans is capable of seeing the cultural influence of west in the present for of theologizing. Also, Bevans underscores, as we saw with Schreiter, the importance of communal aspect of the theological task. Theology cannot be done by experts alone and trickle down to the people for their consumption. If theology is truly to take culture and cultural change seriously, it must take into consideration the subjects and the agents of culture and cultural change. Third, Bevans questions if a non-participant (foreigner) can truly develop a contextual theology. For him the non-participant can contribute in the process (it is limited contribution), however s/he is not capable of developing a contextual theology as a foreigner. This is a task that falls in the hands of the local people. A final element, which plays major role in this discussion, is the issue of orientation. Bevans concentrates in two orientations: creation-centered and redemption-centered. The former emphasizes the conviction that human experience and so context is generally good. The latter is characterized by the conviction that culture and human experience are either in need of a radical transformation or in need of total replacement. Hence, depending from which orientation a person may see the world; it will inform what model they would choose and the goal of contextualization.

Six Models of Contextual Theology

Before discussing and analyzing what each model proposes, it is important to understand what Bevans meant by the terminology such as contextualization and models. Contextualization points to the fact that theology need to interact and dialogue no only with traditional cultural values, but with social change, new ethnics identities, and the conflicts that are present as the contemporary phenomenon of globalization encounters the various people of the world. In short, it is the term that takes human experience, social location, culture and cultural change seriously. Through the use of models Bevans’ is not presenting six realities, but what he is doing is constructing ideal theoretical positions. These theoretical positions are not to be adopted uncritically, but on the contrary, they ought to be critiqued. Furthermore, though the models do not convey the full realty of what they represent, they give us some form working knowledge.

Translation Model

As we saw with Schreiter, Bevans holds this model as the most common model within contextualization efforts. This model holds a high view of Scripture and Tradition: to certain extent both are unchanging. What the practitioners of this model try to do is to keep the essentials of the gospel and Tradition as they adapt the non-essential elements of local custom. In other words, cultural aspects are not seen as something good in themselves, but as conduits and channels that transmit the unchanging truth of the gospel. Translation is not synonymous of repeating the gospel word for word. On the contrary is act of using language and symbols, that even though they ‘sound different’, they can evoke the same reaction that the gospel has created to the original hearers. The contributions of this model is that, first, it takes seriously Scripture and Tradition.
Moreover, according to Bevans, the translation model recognizes the ambivalence and the need of redemption of culture. And finally, this model works well with people that have certain knowledge of a culture, being participant or non-participant. However, the flip side of these positive elements is that they can produce some pitfalls. First, the translation model has a low view of culture, hence this models has a unified view of all cultures. Second, this model high sense of Scripture and Tradition can give the false expectancy of such thing as a ‘cultureless gospel’. Finally, the gospel, rather that a revelation of God, may seem as pre-fixed set of
rules.

The Anthropological Model

This model takes the human experience as the central motif for theologizing. Contrary to the translation model, the anthropological model begins with the questions and values of the culture, once these are identified, then the gospel in brought into the conversation. To certain extent, this high understanding of the cultural identity, does not mean the denial of the gospel, what it means is that cultural values are the central axle within this conversation. In other words, while the translation model seem to prefer the pilgrim principle; this model gravitates toward the indigenous. The strengths of the model are various. In first place, they attest to the goodness of creation. Thus, their orientation is creation-centered. Also, this model opens the way for ‘fresh’ or new expression of Christianity. The gospel in not something imported, but something that grows from the grassroots of culture. Moreover, the model takes seriously the questions that the local people are asking. Yet, there are certain drawbacks in this model. The first is the problem of cultural romanticism. This is what Hiebert called uncritical contextualization. Where the local culture is not analyzed and critiqued. Also, though Bevans does not mention it, this model can develop ill-forms of syncretism.

The Praxis Model

This model, though guided by the human experience, it is closer to a middle ground between the translation and the anthropological models.
Though rooted in a particular context, the uniqueness of this model is that it affected by social change. What is unique of this model is that is ‘on the move’. There is a continual dance between action and reflection; hence, this model is open to change. Due to this cyclical movement of action and reflection, the praxis model is aware of the present realities of the people and their future expectations. This model is the heart and soul of what came to be known as Liberation theology. A movement that is in continual dialogue, reflection and
action. This model has various areas of strengths. Its method is deeply rooted in context. Thus, gospel will be grounded in the people’s realities. Second, the continual movement from dialogue, to reflection and to action, creates an opportunity for developing a solid and local Christian expression. As this movement keeps happening the Christianity identity surfaces. In terms of drawbacks, it seem that Bevans shies away and dispatch the matter subtly. However, though this a model that is so close to me as a Latino, I believe that it fails to speak to the particular or the inner situation of the person and concentrates too much in the external and corporate needs of the people. Moreover, this model uses the gospel to call out the structural injustices, but it overshadows the individual sinfulness of humanity.

The Synthetic Model

The model finds itself the center of the spectrum among all models. Rather than being an either/or like the translation and the anthropological model, the synthetic model is a both/and. This model seeks to keep the integrity of the gospel and Tradition in conjunction with the goods of culture. For Bevans this model feeds itself from the rest of the models, by utilizing the best of them. Thus, local theology is the product of a healthy tension between gospel and culture. One of the central assets of this model is that it is dialogical in nature. It is open to listen to what both; gospel and culture have to offer. This dialogical aspect does not mean