Week 2- Bevans, Chapter 2

In reading this week and last week’s chapters, I have found myself wondering how we can do contextualized theology without syncretism, without losing the “essence” of the gospel. While much of the time contextualization actually translates the gospel more fully into contemporary cultures, I have found myself wondering if sometimes it might take away from or blur the message of the gospel. How can we guard against this? Thus I appreciated Bevans discussion of what criterions for orthodoxy in doing contextual theology. I don’t know how you can create criterions, though. I am so completely stuck in my cultural interpretation of Christianity, that sometimes it is difficult for me to step out of my experience in order to grasp that what someone else might say is  just as valid an experience of Jesus as mine is. Thus I don’t know how we actually could create criterions; I am so stuck in my culture that it is sometimes hard to determine what is TRUTH and what is conditioned by my culture. I know it needs to be done, and I am uber weary of doing contextualized theology without a criterion for orthodoxy, but I don’t know how we do it. The methods in the book seemed a bit vague and general. But does it need to be general in order to be able to be contextualized in every culture? But is that missing out on some of the gospel? I am confused in what I think.

Advertisement