Summary Of Bevans Models Of Contextual Theology

The first model in Bevans' book 'models of contextual theology' is the translation model. Bevans claims that this model is both the most historic and widely used as a form of evangelism, going right back to biblical times as Paul spoke and wrote letters to many different cultures and communities. The basic principle of the translation model is not that of a a word-for-word translation which allows for misinterpretation; but that the basic, unchanging message of the bible is understood in any culture and by any person. The translation model seeks that it remains 'supracultural' and 'supracontextual'; this means that there is a constant gospel core which is above the culture or context but is readily able to be applied to it.
There are two theological
assumptions of the translation model that stand out, the first one being accessibility. This way of evangelising ensures that everybody who hears receives the same gospel and the same message of love and salvation through Jesus Christ. This also assures that the gospel remains anti-hierarchical and accessible to all. However, by simplifying the message down to its core, it allows space for adaptation to specific cultures or contexts, assuming that the listener has no previous knowledge of Christianity. Bevans uses the illustration of a kernel and a husk; the kernel being the core which is solid (the gospel) and the husk being, as he puts it ' disposable and non-essential' (the culture). This shows a bias and favour that the person putting 'translation' into practise would have to show in regards to Christianity over culture. This bias may not translate so well into, for example, some African cultures where they know nothing else but the culture they have grown up in and the presupposition that every culture holds the same values could be proved wrong, and so although the message may be adapted to the community, there is a risk of ostracising oneself in the process of evangelising with the translation model.
The second theological assumption, and probably most predominant, is that the gospel is the core. This means that evangelism is done in a purposeful way to preserve the unadulterated message and build up a sense of Christian identity. By claiming that cultures all over the world hold the same structure and similar meaning and communication methods, it enables the model to put the gospel first and the values and practises of the culture second.

The second model to describe and evaluate is the anthropological model. The first theological assumption is that, in this model, the human race comes before ‘faith’. Bevans states that this model is the opposite to the previous model the translation model because of the way that it intends to preserve the cultural identity as opposed to the christian identity. The method of evangelising using the anthropological model is to be within the culture and studying it, not trying to ‘bring God into situations’ but recognising that He is already within them and so bringing the message of the gospel in a way that is culturally relevant. Bevans says ‘Christianity may challenge but not radically change a culture’. Anthropological theologians hold the belief that humans are made up of the highest values and goodness and disregards the statement of the translation model that all cultures have the same structure and morals. They instead insist that human experience and cultures should be held with the utmost importance because it is within these that God is experienced. The role of evangelists is not to preach the gospel but to live it out and explain it clearly enough that the people is able to develop a theology that works for them within their culture.
The second theological assumption, and probably most prominent is that of experience; that we find God within culture. It assumes that God fits into and we apply God to different cultures through experiences such as relationships or healings etc. However one may question that if we are taking this approach are we putting an omnipotent God into a ‘box’ and just making him relevant for when it is suitable for us? Many would say that God is beyond our human experience and is capable of more than we could comprehend.
Nevertheless, the anthropological model is effective in evangelising to an eclectic range of cultures by integration and the realisation that their context affects the content and the way the gospel is articulated.

Praxis is the name of the third model.
This model is a newer one and so there is less knowledge or critique of it’s effectiveness that has taken place around it. The basic principle that it represents is that Theology is a verb, a doing word. It states that theology should be practical and that we should be living out ‘church’. Praxis means that we should be seeking to do actions of faith within our daily lives and particular situations rather than seeking to create new expressions of church; these fresh expressions are popular in bringing people into the church but not necessarily productive in how they address the situations that people are in or prejudices faced. Examples of praxis models in use often consist of people standing up for their beliefs and questioning issues of social injustice such as
sexism.
Practitioners of this model believe that everyone is called and invited to work alongside God after experience of His revelation in history, daily life but predominantly in oppression. The way in which praxis is carried out is by action and then reflection, using scripture and tradition, upon that action.
A way to sum this up is explained by Leonardo Boff in ‘What are third world theologies?’ ‘for the theologian who takes praxis seriously, the first word is spoken by what is done, that is, by a conscious act, aimed at changing social relationships. It is therefore an inductive theology. It does not start with words (those of the bible or the magisterium) and end in words (new theological formations) but stems from actions and struggles and works out of a theoretical structure to throw light on an examine these actions’.
Many would agree that actions are important in terms of evangelism and living out the gospel, however, the strategic method used means that actions happen before reflection on scripture. This idea of putting the bible second could be criticised. Another criticism I can see is that the model works on a ‘trial and error’ basis and becomes more refined the more it is done. However, the definition of culture it gives out is that it is always changing both socially and culturally. This means that although this practise may develop a sound theology for one culture, it is specific for only that and so not applicable anywhere else. It also means that as an ever-changing culture, the method and reflection is constantly having to be reviewed and altered.

The fourth model is called the Synthetic model. It is called this because it synthesises the former three models and so uses them in accordance with one another. For example, there is a huge emphasis on the unity of the church and preserving the gospel message (translation) but this intertwines with the belief that everybody has something to give (praxis) and also the way scripture is translated is modified dependent on the culture and context. Therefore on a scale between experience and scripture/tradition the synthetic model would be placed roughly halfway due to the emphasis it places on both the gospel translation and the importance of context. By doing this, theologians of this model are able to utilise the positives of the other models but also create a certain uniqueness by the combination.
Another assumption is that dialogue is key in theologising. The use of dialogue enables both the culture to be identified and also to establish a consciousness of one another’s cultural ideologies through conversation - however, problems may arise if there is a language barrier which could result in misunderstandings and cultural offence, it also assumes that communities are similar enough to be able to communicate.
This model acknowledges that we are living in a postmodern world and ‘contextual theology’ must be always changing and progressing. Consequently the procedure to Synthesis is a complex one, on that applies a different practise to each situation. This is a procedure that could potentially be fruitful but with the need for an ‘expert’ on hand it makes it impenetrable for many to use even though synthetic theologians bill it as something which all are called to do. From what I can tell, it requires people to use intuition, creativity and discernment.
The theory of God’s revelation is rather confusing; it is believed that it is restricted to the past and scriptural contexts but simultaneously at work within your own context. From an outsider’s perspective this is not a solid foundation of revelation.
A negative of this model is that when the models that have been combined are so clearly juxtaposed it is always going to be difficult to get a true balance of the former models to harmonise together perfectly and not to treat one aspect with bias.

The fifth model is the Transcendental model, the main assumption of this is simplified in the words ‘subjectivity not objectivity’. This means that the focus lies in the experience of the individual and not substantially influenced by tradition or scripture. It takes the stance that rather than looking out for something more, it is looking in at personal experience and revelation. However the point is also made that it is not totally inward looking and rather, there is a recognition of context and a sense that one experience could applied to a whole community. Lonergan writes in his paper ‘A third collection.’ that ‘the only way to true objectivity is through radical and authentic subjectivity’. It’s belief is that by one person’s experience of culture, upbringing and the holy spirit they are able to authentically develop their own theology which will be relevant for others to sympathise with.
Experiences and dialogues with other cultures, contexts and experiences are held in high regard in order to shape one’s own theology by either agreeing or disagreeing.
Another assumption of this model is that it is a fresh expression/development of theology; that when you make the decision to go ‘all in’ for God, you develop a theology that is truly ‘you’ and expresses your genuine feelings towards faith, and so anyone who has experienced the holy spirit can practise it.
This means that theology is not about knowing all the answers but instead pursuing your relationship in Christ. As a consequence it needs a drastic altering in thinking patterns to that which the church is used to.The method is basic as it needs no procedure or grasp of scripture; however one may then question the definition, meaning and practise of theology especially if the study of and being rooted in scripture is not a priority. Complexity arises due to the reliance on authenticity of an individual’s experience. How do you validate or define authenticity? and what’s more, is it our place to judge somebody’s experience of
God?
In my opinion, to practise this model, one must have spent a lot of time in prayer in order to be able to say that they wholly know and aware of oneself, so much so that they are able to share personal experience and theology.
The sharing of theology must also take a different form which may contradict the principals of ‘contextual’ theology as the best way is if the worldview’s or similarities in upbringing are shared and so predominantly by people within the same culture.