Theology in the making (Part 1)
Posted on 22. Mar, 2009 by Henrik Korslind in Church, Featured Articles, Theology, contextual theology
Emergent and missional church are two of many new names or definitions, all trying to describe “new” ways of church life and organisation. At the core it’s basically all about creating a definition of the ecclesiology (the study of doctrine pertaining to the Church itself as a community or organic entity and with the understanding of what the “church” is — ie., its role in salvation, its origin, its relationship to the historical Christ, its discipline, its destiny).
This definition can be done in a numerous of ways. One way to define what this theology (read ecclesiology) is all about, could be to put in a model and compare it with other parameters. Stephen B. Bevans has tried to explain this in his book Models of Contextual Theology. Bevans shares some really interesting thoughts concerning how we do this translation and how we shape different theologies. Bevans’ main thesis and starting point is that “There is no such thing as “theology”; there is only contextual theology. Contextual theology is an imperative, according to Bevans.
Bevans means that we create theology by adjusting two basic parameters; the experience of the past and the present. The past has to do with the Bible and with the tradition. Experiences from the present has to do with values such as culture, social status and social change and both personal and collective experiences (see my illustration below; in Swedish).
In his book Bevans shares a few different models that he has discovered in his studies. These are the Translation, Anthropological, Praxis, Synthetic, Transcendental and the Counter-cultural model. More about these in my next posting.
Blair
Mar 23rd, 2009
The Holy Scriptures ARE the context–for life! Everything else is a by-product of sinful man.
Henrik Korslind
Apr 9th, 2009
Blair, I’m afraid that that I don’t understand what you mean in regards to the article.
Yes, I totally agree; the Scripture contains the very essence of life. I’m not saying that context is king, but that content is. What we fill the context with is the big question.
However, we read the Scriptures through the glasses of our context. People within a certain context tends to read the Bible with their mindset, which also colors their perception. That is why some have created theological views that has one or a few major questions/themes in mind (black, eco, feminist and liberation theology; just to mention a few).
And by the way – the dilemma is; who gets to decide what is a “by-product” and what is pure and without blemish? How much should we let the current context of our culture and society decide the content of our theology or the message being preached? I’m getting worried as I see an increased number of thinkers and theologians who seems to emphasis culture and context (social status, culture, personal and collective experiences from the present) instead of putting a major emphasis on the experiences from the past (i.e Scripture and tradition).