PIULA THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE

COURSE: TH 611: Contextual Theology in

Oceania

TASK: Presentation: Anthropological Model

LECTURER: Rev. Dr. Uesele Tupu

STUDENT: Ioane Tuupo

George Simati Fiu

Piula Matasavaii Leifi

Due Date: 24th October, 2023

0
Introduction

In this paper we aim to address a model of contextual theology called the “anthropological
model.” After giving a brief overview of this model, we will discuss the model’s basic
principles and demonstrate how it contributes to the contextualization of theology. The model
is heavily based on Stephen B. Bevans’ “Models of Contextual Theology.” After that, we will
highlight the advantages and a few disadvantages of the model in order to reach our
conclusion.

What is anthropological?

The term “anthropological model” originates from the Greek word anthropos, which means
human or person. This particular model centres on the sociological approach, which examines
how individuals relate to one another and how their social engagement is viewed. It aims to
promote connections between people in order to bring about complete transformation and
renewal. Anthropology then explores this human connectivity in more details because it is a
social science matter. This model can also be called indigenization model, because it focuses
on Christian Identity within a specific context.

Propositions, strength, and weakness.

Among other models, this model addresses a Christian’s “establishment or preservation of

cultural identity.” Or, more precisely, how a Christian might adapt the Christian faith to the
culture of his or her own society. The model’s supporters maintain that there are treasures of
the gospel and truth that God has “distributed among the nations of the earth.”1 They base
their argument on the gospel account found in Matthew 15:21–28 and Mark 7:24–30, which
describes a Syrophoenician woman who, although does not belong to the covenant people,
yet she demonstrated her knowledge of Yahweh and sought his assistance through his prophet
or messenger, Jesus Christ.

Additionally, this is in line with the widely accepted claim made by Justin Martyr, which
Bevans also cited, that “seeds of the Word” dwell in all people and is the reason that
everyone, regardless of culture or ethnicity, holds some degree of truth.2

As noted by Bevans, this model is presented in two senses: first, it emphasizes the “value and
goodness of the anthropos, the human person,” and second, it applies the “insights of the
1
Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology. (Maryknoll. NY: Orbits Books,
2014), 54.
2
Ibid 54.

1
social science of anthropology.3 In the first sense, human experience is “regarded as the
fundamental standard by which one judges whether a given contextual expression is authentic
or not.” The second meaning is that “the practitioner of this model tries to understand more
clearly the web of human relationship and meanings that constitutes human culture and in
which God is present.” According to Bevans, this “points to the fact that this method of
contextual theology has a mean emphasis on culture.”4

This is why Bevans prefers this model to be called indigenization model, it is because of the
richness of the double sided as mentioned above. And this model more than any other model,
focuses on the validity of the human as the place of divine revelation and as a source for
theology that is equal to the other two sources scripture and tradition.

To put it briefly, the people who support this model offer the following assumptions, which
form the basis of their proposal.

i) As God is present in everything, the categories of human existence ought to serve as a

criteria.

ii) According to Max Warren, “take off our shoes” when approaching another man’s culture
because God is here before us.

iii) Theologians are treasure hunters; (scripture and Christian tradition serves as a map). The
treasure is God’s grace in Christ, and the redeeming presence is hidden in every culture.
Believe Creation is good because it reflects the glory of God.

(iv) One can encounter God in the midst of cultures through focused listening and meditation;
thus, avoid imposing your beliefs.5

Therefore, their argument is that local culture must be taken seriously when contextualizing
theology. This can be best understood as “seeing culture as the means through which God
reveals himself to people,” which is a good way to sum up the anthropological model.

Advantage

A noteworthy aspect of this model is its emphasis on the significance and attraction of culture
in theological interpretation. It all began with the actual concerns that people had in their
3
Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 55.
4
Ibid, 55.
5
Ibid, 55.

2
minds. It is beneficial because it focused on “how to live one’s life even more faithfully in
terms of who one is as a cultural and historical subject,” to be a Christian insisting this model
is to be fully human.6

However, the question that emerges is, how much of this God-given revelation is there in
culture? Donovan’s recommendation that the evangelist “approach another culture with the
conviction that God is already present within it.”7 Donovan defines the gospel as the person
of Jesus Christ. This seems to imply that Donovan is saying that revelation as found in the
Bible and human culture are related, neither of which overrides the other. This implies that
revelation is best understood as God’s “personal presence.” The method of this model is that
one must understand the culture in order to “pull the gospel out of it.”8 This, in our opinion,
could be the reason why those who support this model seem to romanticize culture to the
point where they consider it to be on equal with scripture.

In the book that serves as the foundation for this work, Bevans seems to suggest that all
theologies are first local before adopting a universal perspective. Thus, the implication is that
it is not free from cultural influence of any kind because it is first local, suggesting that it
originates within a specific culture. This is accurate, though, in that Pauline theology is based
on letters and epistles he wrote to churches and individuals in specific cultures to address
issues. These letters and epistles now carry a lot of weight in the Catholic world because they
address situations where the same issues arise in other cultures.

Weakness

Universalism of salvation, nonetheless, biblical teaching does not support universalism of

salvation. The Bible teaches that some members of the fallen human race will be saved, but
not that everyone will be saved. This implies a flaw in the model. Bevans warned against
romanticizing culture, which was the real issue with this model.

Conclusion

The role of the anthropological model in contextualizing theology has been discussed in this
brief paper. We gave a brief introduction to this work, outlining the model’s propositions
which is heavily based on Stephen B. Bevans Models of Contextual Theology and
demonstrated how it contributes to the contextualization of theology. After achieving this, we

6
Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 60.
7
Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 65.
8
Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 61.

3
also identified this models’ strengths and a few weaknesses. We conclude by stating that
theology should be done using both natural and biblical revelation as a source and safeguard,
with both of them surpassing the former. Additionally, theology should be relevant to all
cultural groups.

The anthropological model gives us the foundation to answer questions within that
framework, some of which may not have an answer. It also serves as a starting point from
which real engagement can be employed, since the true focus is on culture and God in the
community not some impersonal, abstract entity, but a real, living member of the community.
The anthropological model actually considers itself to be God in the community.

Bibliography

Bevans, Stephen B. Models of Contextual Theology. Maryknoll. NY: Orbits Books,

2014.

4
5