What about “Contextual Theologies?”

Last updated on: September 16, 2014 at 7:49 am by Roger E. Olson

What about “Contextual Theologies?” 2014-09-16T07:49:33-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The term “contextual theologies” has come to be used in several ways. Here, by it, I mean theologies, accounts of God and matters related to God, that claim to be Christian but 1) fairly radically diverge from so-called “Western theologies,” and 2) propose alternatives to traditional “Western” orthodoxy based on cultural contextualization that goes beyond style to substance.

Many contemporary Christian theologians are supportive of each people group, usually ones that have experienced oppression at the hands of dominant people (colonialists, insensitive missionaries, patriarchal ecclesiastical hierarchies, etc.), developing their own doctrines without correction or criticism from outsiders.
“Syncretism” is an epithet almost completely dropped from contemporary theology—except by ultra-conservatives. Especially European and North American theologians trained in academic settings have accepted the common anthropological view that one cannot judge another people group’s culture; one can only study it without hoping ever to understand it as insiders understand it.

Appeal is often made to Wittgenstein’s theory of incommensurable “language games” to justify this near total lack of evaluation of non-Western, non-male, contextual theologies developed by people groups who have suffered oppression. Although they should not be equated, the anthropological theories of Clifford Geertz and Peter Winch support this approach to contextual theologies. (Both are often rightly or wrong associated with the Wittgensteinian perspective as it is commonly understood.)

The point is that a person outside a religious “form of life” cannot judge it—especially if that form of life is non-Western and being developed and worked out theologically “from the underside of history.”

I think there is a wrong general assumption that all of Christian orthodoxy has been developed and articulated by privileged, powerful, “Western” people. Let’s take Athanasius as an example. He was called by his enemies “the black dwarf” which indicates a non-European ethnic heritage—possibly Nubian or even Abyssinian. He was anything but part of the “ruling elite” of the Constantinian and post-Constantinian Roman Empire. He was exiled by Roman emperors five times including one exile among the “desert fathers.” And yet he was crucial in the development and preservation of Nicene orthodoxy.

One could come up with numerous examples of great defenders of basic Christian orthodoxy who do not fit the profile of “privileged, Western (viz., European), white people.”

Admittedly most of them have been male. That raises a very important question. To what extent did maleness influence the course of Christian orthodoxy? Many feminist theologians would say, of course, “very much.” But my question is always where and exactly how would basic Christian orthodoxy have developed differently if done by women? Many contemporary Christian women fully agree with basic Christian orthodoxy. What if all the church fathers and reformers had been church mothers and female reformers? Would we have a different Christianity in terms of doctrines and beliefs? When I read some feminist theologians the answer I discern is “yes.” Others seem to say “no,” but…. The “but” leads into pointers toward differences of emphasis, style and polity, not doctrine per se.

One common (not universal) theme in contemporary contextual theologies is the “immanence of transcendence.” There is a strong tendency to emphasize God’s, especially the Holy Spirit’s, presence in nature, culture and history—especially movements for liberation from colonialisms and political-economic-gender oppressions. While I can appreciate and support such movements, at least up to a point, I worry when I discern the immanence of the Holy Spirit is being used to support them. The same worry arises when some Global South theologies appeal to the Holy Spirit as the supporter of semi-animistic, shaman-like beliefs and practices. Some African Independent Churches include an emphasis on living prophets who, under the alleged influence of the Holy Spirit, act like traditional shamans. One African Independent Church (denomination) considers its founding prophet the incarnation of the Holy Spirit (just as Jesus was the incarnation of the Logos). Some African Independent Churches tolerate, if not baptize, what looks very much like ancestor worship.

By no means am I advocating that theologians in Berlin, Rome or New York (or anywhere else) sit in judgment on contextual theologies. I prefer dialogue, but dialogue that is genuinely two-way. Just as theologies developed in non-Western contexts can and often do criticize European- and American-based theologies, so Christians of Europe and North America have the right and duty to ask questions of non-Western contextual theologies. But when Jürgen Moltmann, for example, dared to challenge some aspects of Latin American liberation theologies, especially the propriety of violent revolutions, he was criticized for speaking into their context from the perspective of a “privileged person.”

The two great “guardrails,” as it were, must be pantheism and polytheism. Anything, in any cultural context, that claims to be Christian must avoid those. The great center, as it were, must remain the unique incarnation of God in Jesus Christ and his atoning death and resurrection. And any contextual theology that legitimately claims to be “Christian” must be based on Scripture, not equally a people group’s distinctive experiences. A people group’s distinctive experiences can and should point everyone toward lost, forgotten or neglected dimensions of Scripture, but they should not over ride or add to Scripture or, I would say, the basic orthodoxy of the first centuries of Christianity.

All that is to say, anywhere I go in the world I should be able to ask of a person or group that claims to be “Christian” “Do you believe Jesus Christ is the perfect and unsurpassable revelation and incarnation of God who is one God and Lord over all?” and “Do you believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit who are not dimensions of nature but, together one God, creator and redeemer?” and “Do you believe the Holy Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God, the unique written source and norm of Christian belief?” And I should expect the answer to be “yes,” “yes,” and “yes.” If it is not, then, even as a privileged, white, North American male, I have a right to doubt the person’s or group’s claim to be authentically Christian.

Addendum One: By deciding that a person or group is not “authentically Christian,” I am not judging his, her or their salvation. Whether a person is saved is solely God’s business to decide. But whether a person or group deserves to be considered “Christian” is a theologian’s business—best made tentatively and then finally (if it must be decided) together with an ecumenical group.

Addendum Two: Obviously I am not a cultural relativist and obviously I do believe, contrary to many even Christian anthropologists, in a trans-cultural gospel and core theology. American Christians must adjust to that, against our own culture, as much (if not more) than Christians in any other part of the world. If there is no trans-cultural gospel and core Christian theology (beliefs as stated above) then “Christianity” is compatible with anything and everything which means nothing. To be sure, all “Christianities” are culturally influenced, but part of the “job” of Christian theologians is to point out where that cultural influence is appropriate and where it is inappropriate—in the sense of conflicting with the gospel and basic Christian orthodoxy and needing correction.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

September 14, 2014

Should Pastors Be Trained in Mental Health Care-giving?

Next Post

September 18, 2014 A Question to Calvinists

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who did Joseph eventually forgive and provide for in Egypt?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Potiphar His brothers His captors Pharaoh