Models of Contextual Theology

STEPHEN BEVANS

Contextual Theology

T he term “contextual theology” has become part of theological

vocabulary in the twelve years since its introduction by the Theo-
logical Education Fund in 1972. Despite being a term that people do
not always understand, it still catches people’s interest.
“Contextualization,” or notions that approximate its meaning like
“incarnation,” “indigenization,” “inculturation” or “constructing local
theology,” is a process that only relatively recently has come to full
self-consciousness among theologians. They view it as not only interesting
but also as vital and indispensable to the theological enterprise. In the West,
such consciousness has come with the gradual appropriation of what has been
termed the “turn to the subjective,” that other “Copernican Revolution”
which is so central to modem thinking. Catholicism has been late in catching
up. Although some forces in the Church would like to see it lag behind, there is
a strong conviction among most theologians that, to paraphrase Bouillard,
theology which is not contextual theology -an expression of faith in terms of
contemporary society, history and culture - is a false theology. In the
churches of the Third World, as Robert khreiter points out (Schreiter, 1977,
1%4), the need for contextualization arises not from theoretical imperatives,
but from practical ones. The theologia perennis, developed in Europe over
the centuries and canonized in theological manuals and Roman documents,
simply is incapable of answering questions that arise in Third World contexts:
Is polygamy legitimate? Are multi-national corporations moral? Do children
have to be born before a couple can marry sacramentally? Furthermore, Third
World Churches have recognized the oppressive nature of “classical

Stephen Bevans, SVD, worked as a missionary in the Philippines for seven years.
He currently is an instructor in theology at Catholic Theological Union in
Chicago.
~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~

Missiology: An International Review, Vol. X l l l , No. 2, April 1985

186 Stephen Bevans

-
theology” how it tended to support the status quo, the powerful, the rich;
how, indeed, it was the theory that made religion into an opiate; how it
perpetuated male domination of women by speaking of God in terms of
maleness, by excluding women from official and recognized ministry in the
Church community. Finally, Third World countries have experienced a surge
of nationalism and ethnic consciousness in the past several decades and want
to express Christian faith in terms of that consciousness. Third World
countries are coming - albeit slowly -to realize that what makes a person
educated is not necessarily a Western or North-Atlantic education; that what
makes a theologian a theologian is not necessarily his or her ability to
understand Karl Rahner; that what is good is not necessarily what is (as
Filipinos say) “Stateside,” or “made in Japan.”
What, then, is contextual theology? It is a way of doing theology that takes
into account four things: (1) the spirit and message of the Gospel; (2) the
tradition of the Christian people; (3) the culture of a particular nation or
region; and (4) social change in that culture, due both to technological
advances on the one hand and strugglesforjustice and liberation on the other.
Models
Depending on the emphasis placed on one, on several or on any
combination of the four elements listed above, various approaches or models
can be discerned in contemporary attempts to articulate faith in particular
contexts. In the last several years I have discerned several models actually
operative in contemporary theology, and in this article I would like to name
and describe these models. The models that I have discerned are as follows:
the “anthropological” model, which lays particular stress on listening to
culture; the “translation” model, which lays stress on the message of the
Gospel and the preservation of Church tradition; the “praxis” model which
sees as a primary locus theologicus the phenomena of social change,
particularly the change called for by a struggle for justice; the “synthetic”
model which attempts to mediate the above three by employment of an
“analogical imagination”; the “semiotic” model which attempts to listen to a
culture by means of semiotic cultural analysis; the “transcendental” model, a
meta-model which focuses not on theological content but on subjective
authenticity within theological activity.
Each of these models will be described here in four ways: a description of
the meaning of the model’s name, its basic features and/or presuppositions,
the basic way one proceeds in using the model, and the various advantages
and disadvantages of the model.
Before going into this description, however, it might be useful to say
something about the notion of models as it is used in this article. A good
definition of model is provided by Avery Dulles in his Models ofRevelation. A
model, says Dulles, is “a relatively simple, artificially constructed case which
is found to be useful and illuminating for dealing with realities that are more
complex and differentiated” (Dulles 1983:30).
187 Models of Contextual Theology

According to this definition, models are constructions, either theoretical

positions without any concrete expressions or abstractions from actual
concrete positions. As I am using the term here, models are constructions -
or perhaps more precisely, abstractions - from actual positions, actual
contextualizing efforts of theologians. As such, as Ian Barbour says, models
are to be taken, like symbols, “seriously but not literally” (Barbour 1974:7).
Models are neither literal pictures of reality, nor mere useful fictions. There
is nothing quite like a model in real life, but discerning and using a model is not
simply a futile exercise. Models are constructions; they are artificial, but they
are nevertheless useful. Though they do not capture, and do not pretend to do
so, the whole nuanced reality that they explain, they do grasp a particular
thrust which may very well be at the heart of a person’s thought or system.
Our six models focus on the methodology of contextualizing efforts. They do
not explain everything about these efforts, but they do disclose the general
direction, the basic presuppositions of the various attempts to do contextual
theology.
And models are ways of dealing with a more complex reality. They are not
the ax, so to speak, but they are the wedge which allows the logger to split the
wood. To use another metaphor, models provide a particular perspective;
they are angles of vision from which a reality can be viewed, approximated
and understood. The process of contextualization is a complex one, and must
take into account all four factors of Scripture, tradition, culture and social
change. The models described below each disclose which of the four, or
which combination of them, is more operative in such a complex process.
The notion of model can be used in an exclusive sense to point out
theological options (cf.Niebuhr 1951; Tracy 1975; Schineller 1976); or it can
be used in an inclusive sense to capture certain aspects of a reality or a
position. Implicit here is the idea that no one model can capture the whole
process of contextualizing or the whole position of a particular
contextualizingeffort. As Dulles points out, “in order to offset the defects of
individual models, the theologian, like the physicist, employs a combination
of irreducibly distinct models. Phenomena not intelligible in terms of one
model may be readily explicable when another model is used” (Dulles
1974:32). In the descriptions below, model is used in this inclusive sense.
They are constructions (abstractions) which are useful in cutting through the
complexity of the contextualization enterprise, and these constructions are
by no means to be taken in an exclusive sense. They point out various,
ultimately complementary ways of approaching and understanding the
contextualization of theology.
Models of Contextual Theology
The Anthropological Model
1. The term “anthropological model” is to be understood in two senses. In
the first place, the term “anthropological” refers to the social science of
anthropology, because the primary concern of this approach is the cultural
188 Stephen Bevans

indentity of the Christian. To the question whether one should speak about
Filipino Christians or Christian Filipinos, about African theology or
Africanized theology, a person who theologizes with the anthropological
model would opt for speaking of Christian Filipinos and African theology.
In the second place, “anthropological” refers to “anthropos,” the human
person. For one employing the anthropological model, it is the human person
and human experience -not some scriptural expression or tradition formula
- that forms the criteria of theological truth. As Robert Macafee Brown
would characterize it, in the anthropological model, context affects content
(Brown 1977).
2. The general features/presuppositions of the anthropological model are
as follows. First of all, the basic goodness of human nature and human culture
are clearly recognized and strongly affirmed. Culture is viewed as the place
where God’s revelation occurs, and one can speak of finding Christ hidden in a
culture, rather than of bringing Christ to the culture. The anthropological
model views culture and human experience as holy, and it is here that not only
does one find material with which to express the Christian message; the
message is actually discovered within the forms of the culture itself.
As a consequence, culture in the anthropological model is really taken
seriously. No mention is made about adapting or accommodating the Gospel
to culture, for the Gospel has been part of the culture all along; there is no talk
about baptizing the culture because the culture has been baptized all along.
In the anthropological model, especially in its more radical forms (e.g.
Mercado 1980), each culture is seen as unique, and the emphasis is on the
uniqueness of a cultural group rather than on what the culture has in common
with other cultures. Consequently, contextual theologians must guard
themselves and their theology against any intrusion from other cultures
outside their own.
To name a fourth feature, the anthropological model often insists that the
most genuine - and therefore the normative - form of a culture is found in
the language, behavior and experience of ordinary people. Through analysis
of language, behavior and religious (Christian folk or non-Christian) practices
of the common person, those who employ the anthropological model attempt
to thematize aspects of culture, and as they do, and relate how these things
illumine the Christian message, a genuine contextual theology emerges.
3. The fundamental procedure of the anthropological model is a movement
from culture to expression of faith in terms of culture. Culture, in other words,
sets the agenda for theology, and not, as we will see in contrast in our
description of the translation model, Scripture or tradition. To use an image
often referred to in the literature on contextual theology, the contextual
theology not in terms of putting the old, time-tested wine in new bottles, but in
terms of developing a whole new wine. U Khin Maung Din, a Burmese
practitioner of the anthropological model, uses this wine image to describe his
approach to theology:
Presentation of biblical stones in the cultural style of Burmese drama, dressing up the
189 Models of Contextual Theology
Nativity scene in Burmese costumes, use of indigenous musical instruments and
melodies for religious hymns and song, etc., were merely attempts to put the gospel
wine into Burmese cultural bottles. I accept the necessity of employing such cultural
forms for effective communication. But to me, the basic theological problem for
Burmese Christian theology is not that which is concerned with the “bottle,” but that
which concerns the “wine” itself. The gospel must not only be understood in a
Burmese way, but the Burmese and Buddhist understanding of Man, Nature and
Ultimate Reality must also become inclusive as a vital component in the overall
content of the gospel (Din 1976:88-89).
4. This anthropological model of doing contextual theology is certainly a
valid approach. In taking culture seriously, it realizes that even the
formulations in Scripture and in the documents of tradition are very much
colored by their cultural context, and that language and culture form a
worldview that is hard to separate from an “essence” or neutral content.
Incarnation, while meaning closeness, also means limitation.
The employment of the anthropological model also helps people see
Christianity in terms of their culture, and so in a new and fresh way. It is an
affirmation of people’s basic goodness and orientation to God, and this is
certainly more Christian than viewing culture as at best neutral and at worst
evil and corrupt.
However, particularly in its extreme forms, the anthropological model can
become prey to a cultural romanticism which even opposes cultural and social
change. In a report to a conference to contextual theologians in 1979
Leonard0 Mercado strongly opposed any kind of liberation theology in the
Philippines on the grounds that Filipinos are basically happy and do not need
to be liberated (Mercado, 1979). Such a position can only be received with
some skepticism.
It seems extremely important to take local culture seriously, but taking it
uncritically is quite another question. Fortunately, radical practitioners of the
anthropological model like Mercado are balanced by moderates like the
African Anglican theologian John Mbiti.

The Translation Model

Of all the models I am describing in this article, the translation model is
perhaps the most common, the one that people think of most often when they
think of attempts at contextualization, and the model that is perhaps the oldest
form of contextual theology. Practitioners of the translation model, for
example, Charles H. Kraft and Daniel von Allmen, speak of St. Paul as using
this model (cf. Acts 7). For people IikeKraft, the translation model is the
recovery of the original spirit of Christian theology which somehow, with the
official approval by and absorption into the Roman Empire, was frozen into
expression in Greek categories.
It is through Charles Kraft in his book Christianity in Culture (Kraft, 1979)
that the translation model has reached its most creative expression. Using the
approach taken in the translation of the Good News Bible, Kraft speaks in his
book about the need of translation of the Gospel message, or gospel core, by
190 Stephen Bevans
“dynamic” or “functional” equivalence, and this application of Bible
translation to the enterprise of theology constitutes the genius of his
approach.
1. It is clear, therefore, that by the term “translation model” we do not
mean a literal or “word for word” translation of Christianity (e.g: what would
be the exact Swahili word or words for hypostatic union?). Such literal
attempts Kraft calls “formal correspondence,” and says that this notion is
based on the outdated idea that there is a word for word correspondence from
language to language all over the world.
Word for word correspondence may be a fantasy, but we do find a kind of
ideational or conceptual equivalence: anything in one language can be
translated into another, though perhaps by the use of other words or even
other ideas. This more idiomatic translation is what Kraft means by the term
“functional” or “dynamic” equivalence. At one point in his book, Kraft
provides a table of various ways that the Good News Bible translates the
Greek word sarx (cf. 267). This word appears many times in the Christian
Scriptures, but a dynamic equivalence approach would translate it in various
ways, according to how the context dictates. Thus sarx, which literally means
“flesh,” can be translated in several ways: “body,” ‘‘self.” “sinful self,”
“lower nature,” “frail humanity.” The essence of Kraft’s approach is to
explain the value of dynamic equivalence translation, and then demonstrate
how such a translation principle can and should be applied to theology. For
Kraft, contextual theology is the dynamic equivalence translation of the
Christian message -the Gospel core -into the various cultures of the world.
2. The general featuredpresuppositions of the translation model begin
from the notion that the essence of Christianity is supra-cultural, in the sense
that there is a certain content that must be held even if its preservation goes
against and is destructive of a particular culture. Donald McGavran, Kraft’s
colleague at Pasadena’s Fuller Theological Seminary, speaks of this
supra-cultural content as consisting of (1) belief and allegiance to the Triune
God; (2) belief in the Bible as the only inspired Word of God; (3) belief in
those great central facts, commands, ordinances and doctrines so clearly set
forth in the Bible (Haleblian 1983:101). Secondly, the translation model holds
that this supra-cultural message can, with some effort, be separated from the
language and culturally-conditioned concepts in which it is presented. The
basic metaphor used here is that of kernel (message) and husk (expression).
In the third place, although culture is acknowledged as important and taken
somewhat seriously, ultimately it is the supra-cultural message that really
counts. If the anthropological model holds that “content includes context,”
the translation model holds that “content comes within a context.” Context is
important, but only as a means, a way of expressing the message. Byang
K ato, an evangelical theologian from Nigeria, says that contextualization is
“an effort to express the never-changing word of God in ever-changing modes
for relevance. Since the Gospel message is inspired but the mode of its
expression is not, contextualization of the modes of expression is not only
191 Models of Contextual Theology
right but necessary” (quoted in Fleming 1980:62). Kato is, to my mind, a
rather radical (i.e. conservative) practitioner of the translation model.
However, Roman Catholic theologians might be familiar with a famous
statement of Pope John XXIII that sounds quite similar: “The content of
doctrines are one thing, but their expression is quite another.” The 1973
magisterial statement Mysreriurn Ecclesiae says basically the same thing, and
Pope Paul VI’s 1975 Evangelii Nuntiandi speaks of the “evangelization of
cultures.” Were the question put to a practitioner of the translation model
whether he or she would prefer to speak of the Filipino Christian or the
Christian Filipino, of African theology or Africanized theology, the answer
inevitably would be Filipino Christian on the one hand and Africanized
theology on the other.
Finally, the translation model presupposes that cultures all basically have
corresponding structures. Though they are expressed and acted out
differently, all cultures have corresponding ideas and corresponding behavior
patterns, and any concept can be translated into terms of another culture -if
not exactly, at least equivalently.
3. The fundamental procedure this model uses is to go from message to
culture. One first separates the gospel from its cultural trappings or husk
(Hebrew, Greek, American, etc.), then one translates what Vincent Donovan
calls the “naked gospel” into the terms, ideas and language of the context.
Bruce Fleming sums up the procedure of the translation model quite simply
when he speaks of contextualization as “putting the gospel into” (Fleming
1980:66).
4. More than any model, this translation model is the one that takes the
message of Christianity most seriously. For Evangelicals this means the
Gospel message; for Roman Catholics this means the Gospel message as well
as Church teaching. The emphasis is more on Christian identity rather than on
cultural identity. The insight here is that Christianity indeed has something to
say, and the message must be put in a way that people can hear it -and decide
for or against it. A second advantage is that the model is aware of the
ambivalence of culture, and so points to the transformative power of
Christianity. This point is attended to by the anthropological model as well,
but not quite as clearly. The translation model has this cultural suspicion built
into its fundamental methodology. Thirdly, use of the model is relatively
accessible to the interested observer of the culture, and can be refined by
experts. As such, it is usually one of the first models to be used when
Christianity encounters another culture; and people like Daniel von Allmen
and the Ghanaean John S. Pobee can take it quite a bit farther.
The great disadvantage of the translation model is that, while it takes
account of culture it does not take it all that seriously. The reason for this
might be due to a too positivistic notion of culture, and it seems that in the face
of questions without parallel in Western culture - like trial marriages in
Papua-New Guinea or Sunday Mass attendance in Latin America - that the
model breaks down. One might also ask about the supra-cultural message, a
192 Stephen Bevans

gospel core, a naked gospel. Do such things really exist? Such a notion cannot
account for the fact that every expression is culturally conditioned. Perhaps
the notion of a supra-cultural message comes from the model’s being too
much geared to a propositional notion of revelation, rather than a notion that
understands revelation as an experience of a Person.
The Praxis Model
If the anthropological model focuses on the cultural identity of the
Christian, and if the translation model focuses on Christian identity within a
culture, the praxis model focuses on Christian identity within a culture, from
the point of view of social change. Virginia Fabella, writing in the introduction
to the Proceedings of the Asian Theological Conference held in Sri Lanka in
1979, uses different terminology but also speaks of the difference of the praxis
model from the two models described so far:
Though theologians continue to employ adaptation, which seeks to reinterpret
Western thought from an Asian perspective [what I have described as the translation
model], or indigenization, which takes the native culture and religion as its basis [my
anthropological model], there is the newer thrust to contextualize theology. . . . As a
dynamic process, it combines words and action, it is open to change, and looks to the
future [what I call here the praxis model] (Fabella 1980:4).
1. The term “praxis” refers to the methodology that this model employs.
Rather than beginning by listening to a culture, or by extracting the gospel
kernel from its cultural husk, this model begins with an analysis of the social
reality within a context or culture, then acts on the basis of this analysis, and
finally comes full circle to analyse again, only to act again, etc. Most, if not all
theologians who use this model, are theologians interested in the liberation of
their people from oppression, be it political, social or economic. Some have
called this a “liberation model,” but it seems advisable to use the more
neutral term “praxis model” since, conceivably, the model would be useful
even if after analysis of a situation no oppression or injustice would be found.
2. A key feature of the praxis model is its notion of revelation. If the
anthropological model understands revelation as hidden within cultural
contexts, and if the translation model understands revelation as a
supra-cultural, propositional message, the praxis model understands
revelation as God’s ongoing action in history, manifested in situations and
events. Theology, therefore, consists in discerning, through analysis, where
God is acting, and then attempting through reflective action, to act in that
same situation as God’s partner.
A second feature of the praxis model is that it understands culture as
exceedingly complex. Not only human values, language and behavior are
involved in aculture; culture is a political and economic system as well. As the
report of the Conference of Third World Theologians said at Dares Salaam in
1976, no theology is neutral; any theological statement is a political and
economic statement as well.
193 Models of Contextual Theology

Thirdly, as I mentioned before, a prominent feature of this model is that

theology is conceived of as including and as shaped by action. The praxis
model understands the object of theology not so much as the development of
the right formulas or of “right thinking” (orthodoxy). Rather, it sees as the
ultimate goal of theology “right doing” or orthopoxis. As the theologians at
Dar es Salaam put it, “we reject as irrelevant an academic type of theology
that is divorced from action. We are prepared for a radical break in
epistemology which makes commitment the first act of theology and engages
in cultural reflection on praxis of the reality of the Third World” (1977, No.
31).
Finally, in some ways similar to the anthropological model’s concern for
the ordinary person in the culture, the role of the theologian is understood to
be that of a midwife -an organizer and a reflector of the people’s experience.
Revelation is not in the ivory towers and think books of the academy; it
happens in the midst of people’s lives. And so it is there that the theologian
looks, and brings his or her expertise to bear on helping the people recognize
and reflect on God’s action in the midst of history.
3. Whereas the anthropological and translation models might be
characterized as linear -from culture to faith expression or from message to
culture -the praxis model proceeds in a circular or even a spiral (circular, but
moving forward) movement. One begins with a reflection that has two
moments: an analysis of social reality and a reflection on this analysis in the
light of Bible and tradition (at every step employing a “hermeneutics of
suspicion”). Then one moves to action, incarnating in one’s life the
imperatives perceived in one’s previous analy sisheflection. In a third
moment, the circle is closed or the spiral winds forward with a reflection on
one’s action, which begins the process over again.
4. This praxis model has the great advantage of showing the dynamic
relationship between knowledge and action in Christianity. Karl Barth puts it
well when he says that “only the doer of the word is its real hearer” (CD, Y2,
792). The praxis model presents a powerful expression of Christianity which
is immune to the Marxist critique of religion being an opiate. Among several
other advantages, it has provided a powerful challenge to other theologies
around the world. In Juan Luis Segundo’s words, the method has been the
“liberation of theology” (Segundo 1976); and Gutierrez says that the method
of praxis has provided a whole new way of doing theology (Gutierrez 1973).
Unfortunately, the practitioners of the model are generally better attending
to the politicaYeconomic situation than at listening to the Gospel. Those who
use the praxis model to construct a theology (read praxis) of liberation are
often bitter from the struggle, and hardly examples of men and women who, as
Chesterton described Christians, walk “gaily in the dark.” One can also ask
what criteria such liberation theologians use for “liberation. *’ Are not their
criteria often Western imports - like financial security and economic
well-being and personal freedom? Perhaps Mercado, who resists liberation
194 Stephen Bevans
~

theology in the Philippines, has a point when he says that Filipinos are happy
the way they are. As much as I personally doubt Mercado on this, I think his
critique should be attended to carefully.
The Synthetic Model
1. The t e r n “synthetic model” is not to be understood here in the sense of
“artificial,’ ’ like “synthetic rubber.” In a certain sense, however, this model,
like all the models described here are synthetic in this sense, since all are
hybrid cases constructed or abstracted from efforts of contextual theologizing
that sometimes employ a variety of models to articulate their positions.
Nevertheless, by “synthetic,” in this case, I mean to describe the rather
often-employed model that (1) synthesizes the insights of the three models
already presented, and (2) is open as well to the thought, values and
philosophies of other contexts. In this sense, the term “synthetic model” can
be understood in a Hegelian sense and perhaps the model could even be called
“dialectical.” In any case, what the synthetic model tries to achieve is
genuine dialogue or conversation between various positions which are true in
themselves, but which become falsified if understood in isolation or taken too
far alone. A true articulation of faith, for those who use the synthetic model, is
one forged in real dialogue with several insights, positions and ideas. One
employs the synthetic model by using what David Tracy has called the
“Analogical Imagination” (Tracy 1981).
2. Central to the synthetic model is its understanding that a particular
context or culture consists of elements that are unique to it and elements that
it shares with others. Practitioners of other models realize this also, but what
the synthetic model emphasizes is the fact that what makes up cultural
identity is not just cultural uniqueness.
Because of this emphasis, the synthetic model would say that one develops
a cultural identity both by emphasizing what is unique to a culture and by
drawing on what is common to cultures and contexts. For example, an
Indonesian theology will be developed when one emphasizes certain aspects
of Indonesian culture which is unique to Indonesia, and then draws both from
the surrounding Malayan culture and from the more general Asian culture.
Furthermore, one might also draw from Western philosophy -e.g. from the
philosophy of personalism -to get an even deeper understanding of how one
could articulate one’s faith in the Indonesian cultural context.
A third feature of the synthetic model is its realization that not only are
cultures and contexts complementary; they are, by themselves, incomplete.
On the one hand, Western thought and technology is not an enemy to Third
World identity and development, but, if used judiciously, it can help create a
more human and humane society. In the same way, Eastern values such as
considering oneself part of rather than dominating over nature can add real
insight to Western issues of conservation and ecology. On the other hand,
without Western technology, the Third World will continue in poverty, with
higher and higher population growth; and the Western world will continue on
195 Models of Contextual Theology

in its exploitation of nature and flirtation with global thermo-nuclear

destruction.
Together with the realization of the complementarity and incompleteness
of culture, the synthetic model recognizes as well its ambivalence. Some
features of a culture - clothing, style of music, etc. - are basically neutral;
some values and practices are clearly bad - head-hunting, racism, ritual
suicide, contraceptive mentality. But most features of a culture are
ambivalent, and can be good or bad, depending on how they are used. What
makes, for example, the Filipino so easy to get along with is his or her great
need for harmony in interpersonal relations. But this need for smooth
interpersonal relationships can lead to dishonesty and two-facedness. One of
the great values in the West is the respect for the individual person, but this
can be carried too far, to the detriment of whole groups and communities.
What the synthetic model points to is the opportunity for a culture to be
transformed by its content and dialogue with other cultures, thought forms,
etc., including its encounter with Christianity.
All of this leads to an operative notion of revelation within a particular
culture that sees God present in the totality of human experience. In
articulating Christian faith, says the synthetic model, one must account for
God’s presence in one’s own and other cultures, in human history right now,
and in past understandings as preserved in the “classics” of sacred Scripture,
doctrines, historical figures, etc.
3. If the fundamental procedure of the anthropological and translation
models can be imaged as linear, and the procedure of the praxis model can be
imaged as circular or spiral, the fundamental procedure of the synthetic model
can be imaged as multi-directional,and so allowing€or dialectic and dialogue.
All four elements necessary for contextual theology - Gospel, tradition,
culture and social change - have to be taken equally seriously. For the
synthetic model, it is from the skillful, even artistic blend of all four elements,
according to the situation, that there will emerge a genuine theology that is
relevant to a particular culture or context, reflecting the richness yet
challenging it to become richer yet.
4. Perhaps the most significant thing about the synthetic model is method
of dialogue. In the present search for criteria to ground theological expression
and theological inquiry, it seems to me that one of the richest areas to explore
is that of conversation and dialogue. Truth is attained not when it matches
some external, other-worldly criterion, but when it is the result of genuine
conversation, when the subject matter has taken over, and both parties in the
dialogue have opened up to the truth that the otherpossesses. Such aprocess,
while rather intangible, is nevertheless real, and it seems as if the synthetic
model is best equipped to capture the dynamics involved in this process.
Robert Schreiter speaks about another advantage of this model being that,
when employed in a Third World setting, it can help achieve both fidelity to
the local culture on the one hand and respectability in the more established
Churches on the other. Such Third World theology might “look like”
1% Stephen Bevans

traditional theology (in contrast, say, to products of the anthropological

model), but it would be an effort to come to grips with local contexts as well
(Schreiter 1984).
Finally, the synthetic modelpoints to the true universality of Christianity in
a way that expresses the universal applicability of the Christian message to
every culture, and the message’s adaptability in learning and profiting and
being transformed by every culture. Indication of such rich universality is a
true advantage of using this model.
But the openness which presents such an advantage presents disadvantages
as well. The Third World in particular might look upon theology developed by
the synthetic model as remaining too Western, and so not really useful in the
local context. And such openness t o everything can give the impression of
wishy-washiness, of not wanting to take a stand on anything.
The Semiotic Model
1. The semiotic model has been developed by Robert Schreiter of
Chicago’s Catholic Theological Union, and is, with the possible exception of
Charles Kraft’s version of the translation model, the most elaborately and
self-consciously developed of the six models described in this article.
Schreiter’s long-awaited book on contextualization, Constructing Local
Theologies, should appear in print this year. In the meantime, the 1977
manuscript version of the book has been widely circulated and commented on
(cf. Spae 1979; Boberg 1980; Luzbetak 1981; Haleblian 1983).
Although Schreiter speaks in general terms of “local theology” and of his
particular approach as a “contextual model,” Krikor Haleblian has (I believe
accurately for our purposes) named Schreiter’s model the “semiotic model. ”
This model might be characterized as a synthetic model, but it makes a
distinct contribution to the contextualization enterprise in that it “listens to
culture” by means of semiological analysis. Such a semiological approach to
cultural analysis is one pioneered in Europe by Roland Barthes in France and
a host of others in Eastern European countries, but it comes to Schreiter
principally via the American anthropologist Clifford Geertz, for whom
cultures are “systems of significant symbols’’ (Lieberson 1984:39). Geertz’s
approach to cultural analysis is not to codify modes of behavior, but to
identify the culture’s key symbols (symbol = sign = semeion in Greek =
semiotic). As Geertz himself says, “man is an animal suspended in webs of
significance that he himself has spun,” and he understands culture “to be
those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science
in search of law but an interpretative one in search of meaning” (Geertz
1973:5). Thus, in a famous essay on the Balinese cockfight, Geertz delineates
the basic features of Balinese values, maintaining that the cockfight functions
as a primary symbol of Balinese culture.
Through a similar semiotically sensitive listening to culture, Schreiter
believes that one can discover the main symbols around which a contextual
theology will develop. This theology will come to full stature, however, only
197 Models of Contextual Theology

when it enters into sustained dialogue with other local theologies, present and
past.
2. Like the anthropological model and the praxis model, revelation is
understood as something discovered in the context itself, not brought from
outside. Thus the practitioner of the semiotic model believes that Christ can
be found in the values, symbols and behavior patterns of a culture, and in
situations and events which are affecting the culture. And so one begins to do
contextual theology by listening to the local culture, by attending to the
context. Unless theology starts here, warns Schreiter, Christianity will
always be looked upon as a foreign element, as a stranger to the culture, and
“dual systems” will develop. This listening which starts off the
contextualizing process is constant. It is not a once-for-all affair, since
cultures, and their main symbols - their “points of semiotic density” -
change with them.
But one must listen just as intently to the spirit and message of the Gospel
and the tradition of the whole Christian people. One of the important points
Schreiter makes, however, is that Gospel and tradition are to be listened to
not because they possess some kind of supernatural authority that one must
accept apriori, but because the documents of the Christian Scriptures and the
documents of tradition have stood the test of time as successful local
theologies. They are, to use David Tracy’s term, “classics” (Tracy 1981).
Schreiter does not foresee the construction of comprehensive local or
contextual theologies for some time. The process of listening to the culture,
isolating what Geertz calls the “cultural texts,” and discovering how these
texts might be the framework on which to build a local theology - these
things demand patience, creativity and kairos. For Schreiter, kairos is
important. In more than one place he stresses the occasional nature of
contextual theology. As he sees it, one of the strengths of the contextual
approach to theology is its ability to provide theology when the community
needs it. Contextual theology is not interested in purely system-generated
questions and answers.
3. The procedure of the semiotic model as proposed by Schreiter is
complex. One begins with culture, but then, as Scripture and tradition are
discovered to be successful local theologies, one must attend to them too, and
bring them to bear on one’s cultural analysis and budding local theology. This
encounter between the local theology and Gospel and tradition shapes the
local theology, and the local theology in turn challenges and shapes the
ongoing tradition of the Christian faith. Finally, local theology should have
some transforming impact on the local culture. If the anthropological and
transcendental models can be imaged as linear, the praxis model as circular or
spiral and the synthetic model as the interaction of the four sides of a
rectangle, the semiotic model might be imaged as two parallel columns -one
headed “GospeVTradition” and the other headed “Culture” - which
interact with one another.
4. Schreiter’s semiotic model has received high praise from several
19% Stephen Bevans
quarters. Louis Luzbetak, for one, praises the deeply incarnational character
of the model. He agrees that Christ must be discovered within the culture or
context, not imported into it (Luzbetak 198151).
The model has the advantage of taking both culture and tradition seriously.
It recognizes the relativity of tradition to the context, and yet insists on
tapping its wisdom. It recognizes that Christianity, if it is to be true, has to be
homegrown and not transplanted. And it uses the methods of semiotic or
symbolic anthropology, which many anthropologists agree is the best way to
analyze culture. And while social change does not figure as prominently in the
model as it does in the praxis model, it is certainly taken into account.
The model, however, presents a real disadvantage in its complexity. It
would seem that one would have to train oneself very carefully in semiotic
analysis if one were to be at home with the model’s basic procedure. The
reaction of many readers of Schreiter’s work is bewilderment at the difficulty
of the contextualization process. And one wonders whether it is ever good
that any model be so dependent on what is really a Western method of
analysis. These disadvantages are not debilitating, but they certainly are
serious. What will probably help will be theologians like Wendy Flannery,
who has studied under Schreiter and has published several studies of possible
theologizing in the context of Papua-New Guinea. Worth studying too in this
regard are several practioners of Korean Minjung Theology, and the works of
the English White Father, Aylward Shorter.
The Transcendental Model
1. The term “transcendental” is meant to refer to the “transcendental
method” pioneered by Jmmanuel Kant and developed as an approach to
theology in this century by Karl Rahner and B.J.F. Lonergan, both of whom
followed the earlier philosophical efforts of Joseph Marechal. What the
transcendental method boils down to is the shifting of attention in philosophy
and theology from the world of objects already-out-there-now to the world of
the subject, the interior world of the person. In other words, the
transcendental method begins with a philosophicaYtheologica1 reflection on
the experience of the self of the human person. For the transcendental model
of contextual theology this means more specifically that, in the
contextualization enterprise, one begins not with Scripture, tradition or
culture, but with one’s own experience as a culturalheligious subject.
In this way, the transcendental model functions as a “meta-model.” It lays
down the conditions, without which any attempt at contextualization will be
at best shallow and at worst futile, for what concerns the transcendental
model is not so much the correct production of a theological statement or
treatise, but the authentic attending of the theologian to himselfor herself as a
cultural and religious subject.
For the transcendental model, therefore, the starting point of the
contextualization process is not something objective: the values of culture,
the message of the Gospel, the doctrines of the Church. Rather, the starting
199 Models of Contextual Theology
point is attending to one’s experience as a Christian and as a subject within a
particular culture. What theology is in this model is the articulation or bringing
to speech of this experience, and if one has been authentic in attending to his
or her experience of the Lord in his or her life, and to one’s inevitably
culturally and historically conditioned way of experiencing and articulating,
one cannot but produce a truly contextual theology. Rather than proceeding
by asking whether a certain expression or understanding coincides with a
particular expression “out there” in culture, Scripture or tradition, the
practitioner of the transcendental model proceeds by asking questions like:
How well do I know myself? How genuine is this religious experience that I
am trying to interpret? How free of bias am I? Do I feel comfortable with a
particular expression of my religious experience? Do I really understand what
I am saying?
Basic to the transcendental model are two presuppositions. In the first
place, revelation is found only in one’s personal experience, which might be
stimulated by Scripture, tradition or cultural values, but which is not some
objective deposit within them. A key phrase in Lonergan’s later writing is
Rom. 5:5 - “the love of God has been poured into our hearts by the Holy
Spirit.” For Lonergan, one does theology only when one has been touched by
God’s revelation in one’s life. Theology, he says, is the enterprise of the
“converted subject” (Lonergan 1968).
Secondly, the working of the human mind is understood as transcultural.
Lonergan speaks about the universal way of coming to truth -by attending to
the exigencies of one’s mind: experience, understanding, judgment and
decision. The way one experiences, the concepts that one uses in
understanding, the criteria for judgment, the action taken as a result of
decision may differ from culture to culture, or from historical period to
historical period, but the basic operations remain the same. If one attempts an
articulation of God’s love as poured into one’s heart, one will do it best by
being faithful to the “transcendental imperatives”: “be attentive, be
intelligent, be rational, be responsible, develop and, if necessary, change”
(Lonergan 197253-55; 23 1-32).
As a consequence the transcendental model seems to insist on the fact that
the only true practitioner of contextual theology is the one who participates in
a context. This is because only participants in a context can be genuine
subjects, religiously and culturally, in that context. Others can assist in the
development of a theology in a particular context by providing an example of
authenticity in their own context - this is the point of reading classics like
Augustine, Aquinas, Schleiermacher or Rahner -or acting as counterpoints
which will provoke a reaction-in-context. But non-participants in a context
(e.g. expatriate missionaries)cannot be the prime movers, the main architects
of a contextual theology.
3. Lonergan speaks of the process of interpretation as a kind of scissors
action, and the image, I believe, can be applied as well to the fundamental
procedure proposed by the transcendental model. Working the scissors is the
200 Stephen Bevans
authentic subject. The upper blade is the subject’s culture; the lower blade is
the subject’s religious experience. Theology happens when the two blades are
brought together. Rightness or wrongness does not depend so much on right
or wrong content, but on the authentic or inauthentic subjectivity of the
theologian.
4. The transcendental model points to a new way of doing theology. It
maintains that theology does not consist in discovering a set of right answers
which pre-exist “out there” somewhere, but in expressing the presence of
God’s love in one’s life in a way that is always and everywhere culturally
conditioned. This brings out a new way of understanding universality not -
as a universally valid expression but as a universally valid process. What is
constant and universally valid is the attempt to attend to one’s subjectivity,
not the discovery of a supra-cultural context.
But many find the transcendental model too abstract, too hard to grasp. It is
accused of being too individualistic, not sufficiently communal (although it
seems that a true attending to oneself will lead one necessarily to the human
persdn’s essential social nature). A stronger objection would be in regard to
its presupposition about the universality of the human structure of
understanding. Is this just another Western imposition? Do all peoples really
understand in the same way, or is this process also culturally conditioned?
Finally, if subjective authenticity is the criterion for authentic theology, what
is the criterion of subjective authenticity? Who decides, especially when one
knows how easily one can be deceived? Though the transcendental model is
important, especially as a meta-model, it has some questionable features as
well.

Conclusion
One of the most important things to be discovered about theology in our day
is its inevitable contextual nature. Pluralism in theology is not somethingto be
tolerated, to be viewed as an interim stage on the way to a new synthesis
comparable to the one achieved in the thirteenth century. Pluralism is a fact
and is to be desired. Contextualization is not a luxury, a notion about theology
that can be left at its fringes, to be dealt with in missiology courses. It is at the
heart of what it means to do theology, and the theologian who does not take
the process seriously only contextualizes unconsciously.
Like the notion of the basic Christian community, the models of
contextualization described here come out of the experience and life of the
churches of the Third World, but it is clear that their implications go far
beyond Third World problems, and that they cast new light on old
ecclesiological and theological problems which have plagued the Church
since the dawn of modern times. The importance of a notion like
contextualization is one more indication that missiology is more than a
discipline concerned with “The Missions,” but is a way of thinking about
Church and theology that just might inspire Christianity with new life.
201 Models of Contextual Theology
References Cited
Boberg, John T.
1980 “Contextual Theology at Catholic Theological Union” Verbum SVD: 373-83
Brown, Robert Macaffee
1977 “The Rootedness of All Theology: Context Affects Content” Christianify in Crisis 37
July 18: 170-74
Din. U Khin Maung
1976 “Some Problems and Possibilities for Burmese Christian Theology Today” D.J.
Elwood (ed) What Asian Christians Are Thinking Manila: New Day Publishers 87-104
Dulles, Avery
1983 Models of Revelation New York: Doubleday
1974 Models ofthe Church New York: Doubleday
Elwood, Douglas J.
1976 What Asian Christians Are Thinking Manila: New Day Publishers
Fabella, Virginia (ed)
1980 Asia’s Struggle for Full Humanity Maryknoll, NY:Orbis
Fleming, Btuce C.E.
1980 Contextualizafion of Theology: An Evangelical Assessment Pasadena: William Carey
Library
Geertz, Clifford
1973 The lnterpretation of Cultures New York: Basic Books
Gutierrez, Gustavo
1973 A Theology ofLiberation Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Haleblian, Krikor
1983 “The Problem of Contextualization” Missiology XI. 1. January: 95-11 1
Kato, Byang H.
1975 Theological Pitfalls in Africa Kisumu, Kenya: Evangelical Publishing House 77-128,
172-84
Kraft, Charles H.
1979 Christianity in Culture Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Kraft, Charles H. and Tom M.Wisley
1979 Readings in Dynamic lndigeneity Pasadena: William Carey Library
Lieberson, Jonathan
1984 “Interpreting the Interpreter” (Review of C. Gee&, Local Knowledge: Further
Essays in Interpretive Anthropology) The New Yo& Review of Books XXX I 4. March
15: 39-46
Lonergan, B.J.F.
1968 “Theology in its New Context” L.K. Shook (ed) Theology of Renewal New York
Herder and Herder 3446
1972 Method in Theology New York: Herder and Herder
Luzbetak, Louis J.
1%1 “Signs of Progress in Contextual Methodology” Verbum SVD: 39-57
Mercado, Leonard0 N.
1979 ”Contextual Theology in the Philippines. A Preliminary Report” Philippiniana Sacra
SIV 40 April: 36-58
1% “Notes on Christ and Local Community in Philippine Context” VerburnSVD:303-15
202 Stepben&vun

Niebuhr. H.R.
1951 Christ a d Culture New York: Harper and Row
Schinelkr. J. R t e r
1976 "Christ and the Church: A Spectrum of Views" ThedogicalStudies 37.4. December.
545-566
Schrciter. Robert
1977 Constructing Local Thedogies Chicago: Catholic Theobgical Union. Unpublished
1984 Manuscript
Scgundo. Juan Luis
1976 Liberation of Thedogy John Drury (tram.) Maryknoll. NY: Ohis
Spae. Joseph T.
1979 "Missiobgy as Local Thedogy and Interreligious Encounter" Missiology VII. 4.
October: 479-500
Third World Theologians
I978 "The Church in the World" Ecumenical Dialogue ofThird World Thedogians Church
and Society 68 January-February: 60-78
Tracy, David
1975 Blessed Rage for Order New York: Seabury
1981 The Analogical Imagination New Yo&: Crossroads

Anclboptism andMlsslon
by Wilbert R. Shenk
Essays that present a variety of
porspecthres o n Anabaptism and
mission. Through the book, one
dixoven that the R a d M Reformers of
the 16th century had insights into the
nature of the church and its mlssion to
the world which will shed hght o n
today's issues. Authorr of the esays
include: Franklin H. Littell, Cornelius J.
Dyck John H.Yoder.Hans Kadorf.
Paper, $11.95
Available through
your local bookstore or':
Hcraldh
Dept. MISS
Scottdak. PA 15683
Kitchener. ON N2G 4M5
'pluh*b lo$farSh@plng
to Shalom
by
James E.
Mettlel
A missionary explores "ChrWhn
mission" in the context of the Vietnam
encounter. Metzler pinpoints some of
the crucial issues facing ~ ntoday s
and discusses them with respect to the
biblical vision of shalom.He condudes
with suggestions for making pmctkal
application ofJesus' shalom model to
present-day missions. Number 11in the
Missionarystudy Series.
Paper. $7.95