CUATRIENIO VIGILAR Y CONTROLAR
7.3. EJE PROGRAMÁTICO DE SALUD PÚBLICA:
The Theological Education Fund (TEF)72 in 1972, led by Shoki Coe, coined the term contextualization73 to express the mission of the Euro American Church in their secular context, practically responding to the challenges posed by technology, human rights violations, militarization, socio-economic and political revolutions, and the like. The word contextualization is inseparably linked to the interdependent and interwoven
72 The TEF was founded during the Accra Assembly of the International Missionary Council (IMC)
in 1958. It became the Programme on Theological Education (PTE) in 1977 and Ecumenical Theological Education (ETE) in 1991 (See Dietrich Werner, ‘Theological Education in the Changing Context of World Christianity–an Unfinished Agenda,’ International Bulletin of Missionary Research 35 no. 2 (April 2011), 92–100: 93).
73Ministry in Context: The Third Mandate Programme of the Theological Education Fund (1970–
77) (London: New Life Press, 1972), 19–20. Despite the appearance of contextualization in the mission debates in 1972, scholars such as Alan Neely, a missiologist, Osadalor Imasogie, Darrell L. Whiteman, Max L. Stackhouse and Stephen Bevans think that the notion that the concept conveys is as old as the history of Christianity. They rooted contextualization in Jesus’ life and ministry and the subsequent experiences of the early apostles. Consequently, they viewed Christianity as an incarnational and contextual religion. Practical examples cited include the Pentecost day experience with reference to the Holy Spirit baptism and the consequent diverse tongues similar to the various languages of the audience, the New Testament contextual writings, the Bible translations, the doctrine of Christ’s incarnation and the adaptable nature of the church as it moves to the different cultures and civilisations. Bevans specifically observed that contextual theology is both new and traditional and illustrated its perennial aspect with the different theological formulations and styles of writing in the Hebrew Scriptures, citing the examples of the Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Wisdom theologies as well as the difference between Paul’s and James’ writing styles as the manifestation of contextualization ideals long before its technical usage in 1972. (See Alan Neely, ‘What is a Context and what is Contextualization?’ Christian Mission: A Case Study Approach (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995, reprinted, 1997), 3; Osadalor Imasogie, Guidelines for Christian Theology in Africa (Ibadan: University Press Limited, 1986), 14; Darrell L. Whiteman, ‘Contextualization: The Theory, the Gap, the Challenge,’ International Bulletin of Missionary Research,
21, no. 1 (January 1997), 2–7: 2; Max L. Stackhouse, ‘Contextualization, Contextuality and Contextualism,’ in One Faith, Many Cultures: Inculturation, Indigenization and Contextualization,
Annual Series, 2, ed. Ruy O. Costa, 3–13 (Cambridge, MA: Boston Theological Institute, 1988), 4–5; and Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, Rev. and Exp. ed. (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2002), 7–8). Andrew F. Walls clearly presented the evidence of cultural diversity which automatically necessitated contextualization in both the ‘Bi-cultural’ setting of New Testament Church and the ‘Multicultural’ setting of the Early Church (See Andrew F. Walls, ‘World Christianity and the Early Church,’ in A New Day: Essays on World Christianity in Honour of Lamin Sanneh, eds. Lamin Sanneh, Andrew F. Walls, Akintunde E. Akintunde, 17–30 (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2010), 18–22. Dongsun Cho succinctly defined contextualization as ‘the contemporization of the gospel for a present- day audience, especially in non-Western cultures’ (Dongsun Cho, ‘Contextualization,’ Glossary in Baptist Theology: A Four Century Study by James Leo Garret (Georgia: Mercer University Press, 2009), xv).
32
particularities of a context (derived from Latin. con-texere, ‘weaving together’).74 Max Lynn Stackhouse, a social scientist, has identified ‘regionality, nationality, cultural linguistic history, ethnicity, political system, economic class, gender identity, social status,’ and others75 as constitutive elements of a context, which in turn helps us to comprehend the complex meaning of contextualization
To convey ideas similar to that of contextualization, scholars have in the past used different terms which include transplanting the gospel, translation,76 vernacularization, accommodation,77 adaptation,78 indigenisation,79 autochthonization, Africanisation,80
74The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Vol. 3, s.v. ‘Context.’
75 Stackhouse, ‘Contextualization, Contextuality and Contextualism,’ 10.
76 Dean S. Gilliland and Stephen B. Bevans presented ‘Translation’ as one of the models of
contextualisation. Others are Anthropological, Praxis, Adaptation, Synthetic, Semiotic, Critical, Transcendental and Countercultural Models. Gilliland cited the concepts of ‘dynamic equivalent’ by Charles Kraft and ‘form and meaning’ by Paul G. Hiebert as part of the linguistic dimensions of the translation model. Gilliland highlighted the strength of the translation model as equipping Christian leaders to address ‘the problems raised in their own cultures.’ However, Gilliland expressed some criticisms of the translation model which include his feeling that ‘the bible is not taken seriously enough,’ the view that the application of the dynamic equivalence concept may become too elastic, and the difficulty of ascertaining the ‘kernel’ of the gospel so as to apply it to all cultures. (Dean S. Gilliland, ‘Contextualization models,’ appendix to The Word Among Us: Contextualizing Theology for Mission Today, ed. Dean S. Gilliland, 313–317. (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002), 314; Paul G. Hiebert, ‘Form and Meaning in Contextualization of the Gospel,’ in The Word Among Us: Contextualizing Theology for Mission Today, ed. Dean S. Gilliland, 101–120: 102–105; Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 103–137).
77 An example of the principle of accommodation is found in the letter of Pope Gregory in 601 C.E.
to the abbot Mellitus in which the Pope counselled Augustine of Canterbury to destroy only the Saxon idols, but to adapt their temples and festivals ‘for the worship of the true God’ hoping that the retention of the people’s ‘outward joy’ might lead them to ‘the true inner joy.’ Roman Catholic Jesuit missionaries like Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) and Roberto de Nobili 1577–1656) supported accommodation model among the Chinese and the Indian Christians respectively but the Franciscans did not. (See Neely, ‘What is a Context and what is Contextualization?’ 5–6; Paul G. Hiebert, ‘Critical Contextualization,’ International Bulletin of Missionary Research 11, no. 3 (July, 1987), 104–112: 104). For the ministry of Matteo Ricci in China and the ‘Rites Controversy’ that followed in the Eighteenth century, see Chen, ‘A Christian Response to Chinese Ancestor Practices in Taiwan, 38–45).
78 Gilliland underscored that adaptation model fits ‘the historical foci of systematic theology into
[…] particular cultural situations,’ thereby demanding the ‘local theologian’ to ‘first be trained in Western theology.’ Thus adaptation model’s idea that all cultures are bound to interact within a singular ‘philosophical framework’ becomes a weakness because it calls the legitimacy of other forms of knowledge into question. (See Gilliland, ‘Contextualization models,’ 315).
79Indigenisation and autochthtonization are synonymous as the art of making a thing, an action, an
idea, or a value from one culture to become native to another. However, autochthtonization has different meaning among the Spanish and the Portuguese, where it refers particularly to the American Indians. (See Neely, ‘What is a Context and what is Contextualization?’ 6).
33
inculturation, and enculturation81 before contextualization. There is now a call to go beyond contextualization into what is called ‘missional perspective.’82 In support of the view of the similarity of ideas despite change in terminologies, Simon Shui-man Kwan83 did not perceive the shift from indigenization to contextualisation as paradigm shift, but as a shift as of only ‘time’ and ‘space-discursive site’ from the ‘local’ to ‘the third world’ peculiarities.84
Meanwhile, scholars are not unanimous about the appropriateness of the term contextualization. Sarpong preferred inculturation as the most appropriate term on the premises that contextualization may dwell so much on the present context as to neglect the past which forms the historical background to that context.85 He however was not explicit on how his understanding of inculturation addressed what he regarded as the shortfall of contextualization. Charles H. Kraft also thought that contextualization
80 The concept of Africanisation did not help much, comments Sarpong, because of its ‘racial
overtone,’ complexity and presumptuousness due to the variety of cultures within Africa. (See Kopetzky, ‘Inculturation of Liturgy: The Ghanian Experience,’ talk delivered by Peter K. Sarpong, 3).
81 The Roman Catholic ‘inculturation’ and the Reformed Churches ‘enculturation’ mean the same.
Catalino G. Arévalo, an Asian theologian defines inculturation as ‘the process of letting the local Church be [itself], assuming responsibility, within the koinonia of all the churches in the catholica, to ‘realize itself’ in its own life and mission. (See James H. Kroeger, ‘Local Church, Dialogue and Conversion,’
Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) Papers, No. 107, 7, available from http://www.ucanews.com/html/fabc-papers/fabc-107.htm, Internet, accessed 9 June 2011); Michael Paul Gallagher, Clashing Symbols: An Introduction to Faith and Culture, New & Rev. Ed. (London: Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd., 2003), 115–117. ‘The incarnation of Jesus Christ is the theological basis for inculturation’ (Ibid., 122).
82 R. Daniel Shaw, ‘Beyond Contextualization: Toward a Twenty-first-Century Model for Enabling
Mission,’ International Bulletin of Missionary Research 34, no. 4 (October 2010), 208–215: 212. Shaw called for a re-examination of the understanding of contextualisation to give room to incarnational principles of allowing the Christians ‘to contemplate the implications of God-in-their-midst’ rather than ‘reconfiguring local cultural forms to fit the shape of Christianity’ (Ibid., 211). He argued that the end product will be ‘biblical theology in context’ instead of ‘contextual theology’ (Ibid., 212). Shaw’s analysis appears to be some sort of play on words because ‘contextual theology’ could as well mean ‘biblical theology in a context.’ Of course, it is obvious that the emphasis of the contextual theologians is on the biblical theology in their contexts.
83 Simon Shui-man Kwan
is Assistant Professor, Divinity School of Chung Chi College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong and Programme Coordinator/Director of the Programme For Theology And Cultures In Asia. His main research interest is Asian theologies and contextual theologies.
84 Simon Shui-man Kwan, ‘From Indigenization to Contextualization: a Change in Discursive
Practice rather than a Paradigm Shift,’ Studies in World Christianity, 11, no. 2 (October 2005), 236–250: 247.
85 Kopetzky, ‘Inculturation of Liturgy: The Ghanaian Experience,’ talk delivered by Peter K.
34
carries ‘less historical baggage than other words’ like indigenisation or inculturation.86 Thus, the lack of concentrated attention to the historical past which Sarpong perceived as the weakness of the concept of contextualization is what Kraft understood to be its strength. For Stephen B. Bevans, contextualization is all-embracing, including the cultural, secular, socio-economic, political and technological contexts.87