The Fourth Self: Self-Theologizing or the Contextualization of Theology*
Adrian A. Helleman, Ph.D., Department of Religious Studies, University of Jos
Missionaries are a hardy lot who are willing to put up with many hardships and are not easily frightened. One thing that does make many of them a bit apprehensive, however, is the term contextualization. The evangelical Christian anthropologist Paul Hiebert bluntly exposes the issue:
Do young churches have a right to read and interpret the Scriptures in their own cultural contexts? Theoretically, most Protestant missionaries would admit that they do. But in practice most evangelical missionaries and sending churches are deeply threatened when national leaders begin to develop their own theologies. This is understandable. For evangelicals, theology lies at the heart of their being and their missionary endeavors. When truth is defined in terms of a specific theological formulation, to tamper with that formulation is to undermine the whole task. The priesthood of believers was good theology, but in practice did it not open the doors to all kinds of heresy? In the end, the priesthood of believers was confined to the missionaries and the sending churches.
Increasingly this theological hegemony is being called into question. As young churches gain organizational independence, they begin to formulate their own theologies. Severe tensions often develop between daughter and parent churches. But the younger churches can no longer turn back. If they are to make the gospel relevant to their own people, they must contextualize within their cultural settings. The attempts to export theologies developed in the West and to preserve them unchanged have, to a great extent, failed (Hiebert 1994:97).
The term contextualization has earned much critique, some of it deserved, since it was first devised, yet we should not be afraid to use it. It expresses a good idea that we ought to endorse, even if it does need improvement. In this article I want to discuss contextualization as “self-theologizing.” This is what theologians in many parts of the world are already doing. “Self-theologizing” is “the fourth self” (Hiebert 1994:97).
Towards the end of the nineteenth century Rufus Anderson of the American Board and Henry Venn of the Church Missionary Society invented a new slogan for the younger churches that were being developed: “self-governing,” “self-supporting,” and “self-propagating” (Bosch 1991:329ff). Implicit in this slogan was the idea that the Western churches that had achieved this long ago represented the standard by which younger churches could be measured (:450). This slogan has become very popular and, if one disregards this paternalism, it has much to recommend it. All churches should be self-governing, self-supporting, and self-propagating, but this should be determined by standards that they set for themselves and not those imposed on them by foreigners.
In addition to the original three “selfs,” I contend—but I hope without the same paternalism—that churches also should practice “the fourth self”: “self theologizing” or, to use the more recent term, contextualization. In spite of the difficulties that this term presents or the fears that it generates, it is a useful one that cannot easily be replaced. “Self-theologizing” would be a good candidate, except that it is somewhat awkward and seems to suggest that theology is merely the private exercise of individual believers and thus little better than navel gazing; theology is clearly more than that. Contextualization, in contrast, as a term captures effectively the two elements that are basic to the process of doing theology: the text and the context.
In this article I will first discuss the origin of the term contextualization, which is relatively recent, and some problems that are associated with it; next, examine what theology is or at least should be; then offer several suggestions on how to rehabilitate contextualization, both as a term and a method; and finally make a few proposals on the application of contextualization, especially here in Africa. This is a large agenda and thus of necessity I will be brief.
Now I can only make a few suggestions about what I think theology is. I will outline the main points; these will be expanded in the next section on contextualization:
· Theology is not a purely academic exercise; thus it is not the exclusive prerogative of professionals. An elite should not practice it alone, but ordinary believers can and must do it. There is a place for specialists in theology (and for academic theology), but there also ought to be room for others. Theology is an art and not just a science, and thus it can and should be practiced by the so-called lay people in the churches.
· Theology is different from other sciences such as physics; it starts with prayer and spirituality, and it requires a personal knowledge of God; otherwise it is religious studies, which does not require any personal commitment to the faith that is being examined. Unbelievers cannot do Christian theology, since it demands faith in God. For the same reason, Christians cannot do Muslim or similar kinds of theology.
· Theology should appeal primarily to the heart and not to the head; theology is a form of worship and should use emotive language, if possible. People express their faith through their theology, and thus they ought to be able to use poetry, art or music. Just think of some of the great hymns of the Church or the more recent praise songs. Theology should be the language of love for God and his creation, and thus it must borrow more from the Apostle Paul than from Louis Berkhof.
· Theology is involved with life. It assumes knowledge is not neutral, but it is in the process of transforming the reader and constructing a new world. In theology the material and the spiritual are closely related. Nicolas Berdyaev, for example, teaches that while the problem of my own bread is a material issue, the problem of my neighbor’s bread is a spiritual one. Theology and ethics are intrinsically linked (Bosch 1991:437). Theology must culminate in the conversion of not only the person but also his or her worldview. I discovered in the Philippines many years ago already that it is much easier to change people’s religions than their worldviews.
· Theology must always be Trinitarian. The community of love that exists in the Trinity ought to be reflected also in the way theology is done. Thus God the Father who reveals himself in the universe that he created, God the Son who died to restore the fallen creation and now rules it as King, and God the Holy Spirit who directed the writing of the Bible and aids in the interpretation of both the text and the context by a believing community, play major roles in the process of doing theology. (The Trinity also forms the content of theology, but that is not our immediate concern)
· Theology must be done communally, not individually; therefore, it requires a hermeneutical community (or communities), which functions as a control of what the theologian does. Theology should never be done in isolation from other believers, but it depends on what believers have said down through the ages and it looks to contemporary believers to correct what the theologian comes up with. Just as in the sciences, people too often ignore that theologians stand on the shoulders of their predecessors and that the community must eventually evaluate the products.
· Theology is not identical with the Bible. God’s revelation and our understanding of it as expressed in theology must be carefully distinguished. Theology is not an objective statement of biblical truth, but it is affected by the personal bias of the theologian. Theology is rooted in the Bible, but because we are human there is also a subjective element in every theology. To counteract this, theology must always be tested by the Scriptures, done in humility and submission to the Holy Spirit, and be open to correction by the Christian community (Hiebert 1994:98ff).
This is only a brief outline of my understanding of theology. There are many other items that I could mention, but I will refrain from that now. I have dealt largely with the method thus far and not much yet with the content. In this article my focus is especially on contextualization, but viewed as a process. I want to examine this process especially in the next section. Contextualization is such an enormous topic that I cannot exhaust it now, but I do at least want to dispel some of the fears that many people have about it.
Contextualization as a term and a method
For working purposes, I define contextualization as the process of relating text (the Bible) and context; it involves interpreting the text in a specific context. The latter is very wide, and can include all aspects of a culture, including religion and worldview. In this sense, this process is as old as the Church, when the apostles first translated the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the Hebrew worldview of the Old Testament, which had given birth to it, to that of the Greek-speaking world in which they found themselves, and from where increasingly the new converts to the Christian faith came. This process of contextualization has continued throughout the history of the Church. Every time the Gospel came into contact with a new culture, this process has been repeated. Similarly, as new worldviews or philosophies arose they have been adopted by the Church and were incorporated through contextualization. This process continues today as well.
In the 70’s people claimed that contextualization referred to something entirely new, but I prefer to use this term for an old and familiar process that was not always fully understood or done consciously. Bible translation is a form of contextualization, even though this has only been appreciated as such in the last few decades. My concern, however, is especially the relationship of the Gospel and culture. Must we reject everything in another culture or are there things that we can accept? That is the question that contextualization in any form addresses.
According to Hiebert, there was an era of non-contextualization that lasted from about 1850 to 1950. He refers to the tendency at the time to reject existing cultures, and he provides several reasons for this: the rise of colonialism, the theory of cultural evolution, and the triumph of science. Behind all these factors lay the belief in the West of the superiority of their own culture and, for Christians, of the Gospel. Only the missionary’s culture was considered “good,” “advanced,” and “normative,” while other cultures were dismissed as “bad,” “backward,” and “distorted.” As a result, Christianity was perceived in other cultures as a foreign religion. The old beliefs and customs of the new converts did not die out, as expected, but merely went underground. This has led to syncretism: a private “paganism” practiced beside public Christianity (1994:76-81).
The forces that led to the demise of colonialism are too complex to discuss now. But the rise of new anthropological theories and of postmodernism has contributed to a renewed appreciation for other cultures. The emphasis on contextualization, starting in the early 70s, is a product of all these developments. Contextualization, in the broad sense that I am using it, was practiced in the Church from the very beginning, but it has been given a new lease on life after lying dormant for more than a century. Clearly we cannot return to the ethnocentrism of the era of non-contextualization nor can we accept the relativism of the more extreme forms of contextualization. Therefore how should we proceed? How should we practice contextualization today, especially in theology?[1]
Building on the anthropological work of Jacob Loewen and John Geertz, Hiebert outlines a method of contextualization that is applicable especially to the customs and practices of people. I will sketch his method briefly and then introduce my own method, which is more applicable to theology. Nevertheless, we can learn much from Hiebert.
Hiebert’s first step is to exegete the local culture. Local church leaders and missionaries should lead their congregations in uncritically gathering and analysing traditional beliefs and practices. If there is any criticism, people will not talk about them openly. Second, the pastor or missionary should lead the church in a study of the Bible as related to such beliefs and practices. The leader must be able to translate the biblical message, as originally intended, into local categories without distorting it. Third, the people corporately must critically evaluate their own past customs in the light of their new biblical understandings. If they can make the final decisions on what to accept, modify or explicitly reject, these beliefs and practices will not go underground (:88ff).
For theology specifically, I describe contextualization as a dialogue between the text (the Scriptures) and the context, which includes all aspects of a culture, including religion and worldview. The text and the context are equally important in this process, although they do not have the same normative value. Hans Küng distinguishes between the Gospel as the norma normans or “norming norm” and our reading of the context as the norma normata or “normed norm,” which is also a norm, but in a derived sense (Bosch 1991:430). All of us would agree that the text is normative, but why do I say that the context is also normative, though to a lesser degree? For this reason: culture is deep seated and continues to affect people even after their conversion. The context can shape people even more profoundly than the text does. The context has normative value, even if those norms are inappropriate for the Christian. But to describe, as some do, the text as absolute and the context as relative is to fall again into the old ethnocentrism that plays down the role of culture. There is a great danger here not only of relativism but also of absolutism. As Bosch shows, this has happened in Western missionary outreach where theology, as contextualized in the West, was elevated to gospel status and then exported to other continents as a package deal (:428). Both the text and the context are normative for believers and are thus the two sources for a contextualized theology.
While text and context are both normative, they differ in terms of the degree of normativity. The process of the contextualization of theology begins with the cultural context, since the context asks the basic questions that the text must answer; not every culture will ask the same questions. A contextualized theology will draw deeply from the well of Scripture in order to answer the questions that are coming from a particular culture. Both text and context are revelations of God. The text is what is called God’s special revelation, which concerns itself especially with Jesus Christ as the means of redemption; the context is an expression of God’s general revelation. God is active in every culture; this activity ought to be viewed as a praeparatio evangelica` (preparation for the Gospel). In the middle of the era of non-contextualization, the 1910 Edinburgh World Missionary Conference concluded, not surprisingly, that African traditional religions “contained no preparation for Christianity” (Bediako 1998:58). Even today scholars are bitterly divided on the issue of African pre-missionary religious experience as a praeparatio evangelica (:60). Yet it is indisputable, as every missionary can testify, that before he or she arrived on the field, the Holy Spirit had already prepared the way.
In addition to the text and the context, there is the theologian, who functions as a bridge between the two. The theologian does not work alone, however; he or she needs a hermeneutical community, since theology is a communal activity. The theologian and the hermeneutical community together bridge the text and the context. This community is a control of what the theologian does. Theology is never done in isolation from other believers, as mentioned already, but it depends on what earlier theologians have said and it looks to contemporary believers to correct the newly contextualized theology.
Strictly speaking, the hermeneutical community consists of many communities, some of which may overlap. The widest community is the universal Church, which should not be identified with any denomination. This aspect of the Church is expressed first of all in the ancient Creeds and exemplified in the Church fathers. These are some of the Church’s oldest memories; they are rooted in history and ought to be consulted, especially on the meaning of major early doctrines, although they may reflect a Greek or Roman worldview. Newer memories, expressed in some of the later confessions of the Church, do not possess the same ecumenical character, yet they can still be valuable. One ought to be as careful as possible, however, with denominational distinctives and the personal biases of missionaries and pastors. These communities are a control or check of the newly contextualized theology. Finally, the community that has helped to produce the theology and now listens to or reads it must give its stamp of approval.
The theologian clearly does not work alone. As a communal exercise, theology involves all these communities. The priesthood of believers is thus not a license for a “lone wolf,” someone who believes that he or she can work independently of history and other people. Theologians need others to expose their personal and cultural biases. In addition to these communities, new philosophies or new methods developed by other sciences can also function hermeneutically by prompting new ways of doing theology and questioning the results. The influence of anthropology, for example, is only one of the factors leading to the renewal of interest in contextualization. Theology once again takes culture seriously, after being influenced extensively by the Enlightenment during the colonial period. The Church in the West has suffered especially as a result.
The influence of the Enlightenment on theology is evident in at least five ways,[2] as Bosch shows (1991:342f): the primacy of reason—it was assumed that Westerners were more rational than other peoples; the separation between subject-object—this can be seen in the objectification of the Bible and the Christian faith; the infatuation with progress—Western Christians were confident in their ability to solve every problem by planting Western churches all over the world; the distinction between facts and values—that some people emphasized the realities of this world, while others had other-worldly concerns and stressed the salvation of souls; and finally the idea of the emancipated, autonomous individual, which has led to the rise of Arminianism, especially in churches in the United States. The rise of Postmodernism has not ended this influence entirely, unfortunately, but post-modernity is breaking the Enlightenment stranglehold somewhat and is now permitting the Church to rediscover the true nature of theology.
Today we realize, for example, that the theologian, when interrogating the text, is in turn interrogated by the text, so that it changes him or her; of course, this is not a new discovery, but it is something that was ignored for a long time due to the separation of subject-object during the Enlightenment period. Scripture, as literature, is unique, and theology, as a science, is like no other; thus its method must also be different.
As contextualization is once again being practiced all over the world, there is a new appreciation of the role of culture. No longer do all missionaries denigrate other cultures as “primitive” or “backward” and more and more of them are open to the working of the Holy Spirit in these cultures even before the arrival of the Christian faith; they recognize that God has revealed himself everywhere. Theologians admit that in every age, country, and culture God does not leave himself without witnesses; and they now acknowledge that a new age has dawned: the age of contextualization.
Who should do the actual contextualization? From the method that I sketched so far, it should be clear that it is best done those who are native to the context. Only they know their own culture from the inside, since they have grown up with it. Their culture forms part of their identity. Yet the missionary, as an outsider to the culture, still has an important role to play. Through knowledge of the original languages of the Scriptures, he or she can help to shed light on what the text meant for the first recipients, although this is only for the interim until such knowledge is more widely available. Competence in both Hebrew and Greek is necessary not only for translation of the Bible into the vernacular, as is generally recognized, but also for the contextualization of theology.
Missionaries must be careful, however, not to impose their own biases, which is only too easy. Because they are bicultural, missionaries should take a “balcony view” of their own culture and the host one. Missionaries can assist especially in the process of decontextualization, by which I mean exposing the elements of their own theology that come from non-biblical sources. I have mentioned the influence that the Enlightenment has had on Western theology, but there are other equally pernicious influences that stem from the culture of the missionary. A trivial example is the box loads of tops for women that some missionaries have brought to Africa, and that African churches are imitating.
Africans can assist with this decontextualization, since they often recognize these influences better than the missionary does. Both the missionary and the local church must share their insights into each other’s culture and develop the ability to judge every culture, including their own, from the biblical perspective. Not everything in a culture is necessarily wrong; thus the local church can safely use much, after first determining from the Bible what is acceptable. But missionaries should always be very cautious: any cultural accretions to the gospel message as it is understood or expressed in their own culture ought to be left at home and not exported elsewhere. This holds equally well for theologies, so please use them with great caution and humility.
Western theology is often still equated with Scripture and regarded as absolute and universal truth. It is assumed in the systematic theology courses taught in African schools that one can use textbooks developed in Europe or North America. Yet if “self-theology” means anything, it means that Christians from every continent be allowed to develop their own textbooks. If missionaries will not permit the contextualization of theology, the African Church will condemn them again for the mentality that marked the era of non-contextualization. Contextualization is happening and will continue to happen. Let us pray that missionaries will help this process and not hinder it.
Before we examine the situation of contextualization in Africa, I want to make a remark yet about how the Bible functions in the life of Christians. Typically there exist two main attitudes, represented by those who only do what the Bible clearly commands or permits and those who do whatever the Bible does not explicitly forbid. The problem with both of these attitudes is that the Scriptures do not deal in detail with every issue that arises, whether in modern industrialized societies or contemporary traditional ones.
The first, or regulative, view is common among evangelicals today, and can be found in every country where there are Christians. This attitude has handicapped many new believers, since it does allow them to address adequately in their own theology the myriad questions that their context poses. Polygamy is an example of this. Instead, I propose a directional approach by which the Bible sets the direction for believers, without spelling out in detail what they may or may not do. It is not a guidebook filled with thousands of rules and regulations. If it were, then we would all be Pharisees. Jesus strongly condemns such an attitude; Paul is equally critical of the Judaizers, who held similar views and who, unfortunately, still exist. The Bible is a torch that provides light for Christians—no matter where they live—who are groping around in this dark world, and it always gives direction, though it does not always spell out a specific behavior.
With all this as background, let us turn now to Africa.
Why Africa? This article grew out of a masters level course that I was asked to teach at the Theological College of Northern Nigeria. The catalogue describes it as an “interdisciplinary colloquium in African theology.” As a newcomer to Africa, I felt I was poorly qualified to teach about African theology, so I turned the course into one on “method of contextualization,” for which ten years experience in the Philippines, seven in Russia, and now here have prepared me a bit. Only after largely completing the course did I discover Kwame Bediako, who provides what is probably the best survey of African theology, as viewed from the perspective of theological method.
In his major study, Theology and Identity, Bediako argues, “the ethnocentrism of a large part of the missionary enterprise not only prevented sufficient understanding of African religious tradition but also led to a theological misapprehension of the Christian Gospel itself.” African theology is a response both to this missionary underestimation of the African pre-Christian religious tradition and to the more enduring issue of how the Christian Gospel relates to African culture (1992:xvii). For him, “theology is called to deal always with culturally-rooted questions.” Many modern African theologians are struggling with the question of “Christian identity,” he adds” (:xv) and cites four of them: Bolaji Idowu, John Mbiti, Vincent Mulago, and Byang Kato. I do not have time to deal adequately with each of them now, but I want to signal a few of the themes they raise and show their relevance for the contextualization of theology in Africa. I am using these theologians because of the importance of these themes and not because I agree with everything that they have written. One does not have to agree totally with a particular theologian in order to learn from him (or her).
Of these four African theologians, Idowu expresses most clearly, according to Bediako, “the affirmation of the continuity of God in African experience from the pre-Christian heritage into Christian confession.” This continuity is evident especially in Idowu’s spirited defence of the underlying monotheism that he discerns in the African pre-Christian religious tradition (1992:xvii); not everyone agrees with his assessment.
Whether Idowu’s vindication of monotheism is successful or not, he highlights a feature of religion that has not been recognized sufficiently by students of religion: the role of monotheism. The original biblical religion was monotheistic and polytheism is a corruption of it, most of us would agree. Yet is this theory any more fanciful than the other theories that have been proposed for the origin of religion? Some scholars point to the restoration of monotheism in India and the Middle East during the sixth century BC. Might this not have spread to Africa as well? Even if he does not address this question, Idowu produces evidence for monotheism in African traditional religion that we should not immediately dismiss. The Christian faith means more, of course, than an acceptance of monotheism; Judaism and Islam are also monotheistic. Nevertheless, we can learn from Idowu that Christianity is not as foreign to Africa as many non-Christians believe.
Mbiti presents a sustained argument that the pre-Christian heritage constitutes a praeparatio evangelica. He bases this not so much on the pre-Christian religion as on the universality of Christ. Mbiti’s “elevated Christological perspective,” adds Bediako, approaches that of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria during the second century (1992:xvii). In addition, “the Christian Gospel, for Mbiti, far from being opposed to African religious ideas, is the crowning fulfilment of African religiosity” (:310). To use his own words: “In missiological jargon, these Traditional Religions will have been a ‘real praeparatio evangelica’ (preparation for the Gospel); and it is now up to African theologians to interpret the meaning of that preparation for the Gospel, in the African context of not only the past but today and tomorrow” (quoted in Bediako 1992:315f).
Mbiti discerns four areas as fundamental in the production of African theology. First, for him, is Biblical theology, which must be the basis for all theological reflection. Second, he lists the role of the major Christian traditions, which should be understood and translated into the African milieu and thus made relevant to the Church in Africa. Third, he mentions the study of African religions and philosophy. To this he later adds as a fourth area, African culture and history. The third and the fourth areas, according to him, can make “a uniquely African contribution to Christian theology at large” (:313).
Yet Mbiti, in spite of his emphasis on African religion, admits that it cannot be made a substitute for the eternal Gospel, which has come to fulfil and complete African religiosity. He concludes: “African Religion has taught us the basic religious vocabulary by means of which we may stammer, but we nevertheless say something behind that stammering; the Gospel teaches us how to speak with maturity and confidence. For both we thank God” (quoted in Bediako 1992:334). His thesis that the African pre-Christian heritage constituted a praeparatio evangelica is, as Bediako recognizes, Mbiti’s most enduring contribution to the theology of the Church in twentieth-century Africa (:333).
Mbiti’s emphasis on the Gospel is significant and we must not overlook it. The Gospel is the fulfilment of African religion or, to state it differently, yet with a similar meaning, African religion prepares the way for the Gospel. This idea is a very important contribution toward the contextualization of theology in Africa. We must be careful not to accuse Mbiti too quickly of syncretism, as Byang Kato and some evangelicals tend to do. Mbiti, like Idowu, is a churchman, and we need to respect their intentions and not to be too judgmental of them. But before we look at Kato, I want to introduce Mulago.
Mulago, a francophone and Roman Catholic, is motivated by the conviction that there is a deep harmony between the authentic religious aspirations of Africans, in his case the Bantu, and the Christian message that the Catholic Church proclaims (Bediako 1992:351). His major achievement, claims Bediako, “has been to show consistently that African pre-Christian tradition does possess a coherent body of beliefs and symbols and interpretations of life which alone can provide the foundation for an authentic African Christianity” (:xviii). In his theology, which is rooted in the Catholica, Mulago argues that in the African tradition there is a natural theology, a product of natural revelation. He explains the contribution Africa can make to the Catholica in the conclusion of his Un visage africain du Christianisme: “At this point black Africa has made its entry into the history of the Church, and nothing more can be done in the new Jerusalem without the participation and contribution of the black world” (quoted in Bediako 1992:375).
Mulago’s stress on the Catholica and the contribution that Africans can make is important for the development of a truly universal theology. Unlike the universalism that the West assumes for its theology, a truly universal theology will only be possible when every continent has made its own contribution. Until then, we can speak only of an American or a European theology. Only when all the themes that have been raised by different cultures are on the table and have been discussed by theologians from all over the world will a universal theology exist. And even then, it will be never be a finished product, since cultures are always in transition and theology will always remain in flux. Yet there already exists a Catholica, by which I mean something more than the Roman Catholic version thereof, but I use this term to describe the tradition of the universal Church as that has been shaped throughout the centuries. This true Catholica will need to be constantly enriched by new Church fathers (dare I add mothers?), who are coming from every country of the world and bearing their treasures into the New Jerusalem.
Kato, the avowed evangelical in this quartet, has an important contribution to make as well. This consists in his persistent affirmation of the centrality of the Bible in the theological enterprise (Bediako 1992:xviii). Kato is noted for his opposition to the type of ecumenism represented by the World Council of Churches. He vividly describes the evangelical-ecumenical divide as “tying together the feet of a cat and a pig” (:391ff). His major concern was the defence of basic Christian doctrines, especially the inerrancy of the Bible and the uniqueness of Christianity; and he attacks Mbiti, in particular, for his low view of Christ, suggesting that Mbiti has an “errant Bible.” Kato admits that Africans have a contribution to make to theological debates, but insists that the Bible must remain the basic source of Christian theology. “Evangelical Christians,” he adds, “know of only one theology—Biblical theology—though it may be expressed in the context of each cultural milieu” (quoted in Bediako 1992:399). Because of the strong emphasis on special revelation, it is not surprising that Kato had only a weak view of general revelation and not enough appreciation for the role of culture in doing theology.
Yet Kato’s stress on the Bible is crucial for the process of contextualization. He correctly emphasizes that every Christian must examine his or her life-style and culture by the Bible: “The Bible is the final judge of every culture” (quoted in Bediako 1992: 412). All of us agree with Kato on this, but then he goes on and steps into the trap of biblicism. I too have a high view of the Scriptures, but I question his insistence on the use of the term “inerrancy.” My preference is for the term “infallibility,” which while still very strong does not carry the same philosophical baggage that “inerrancy” does.
Inerrancy has its roots in Scottish “Common Sense” philosophy. Unfortunately, this term within the last few decades has become a shibboleth, a means of distinguishing true evangelicals from those who claim to be such. The concept of inerrancy can be a theological blinder, as it is for Kato, who uses it to critique other African theologians, often unfairly. Yet we must be thankful for his emphasis on the authority of the Bible, which alone can prevent theology from falling into the trap of syncretism. African theology must steer carefully between the Scylla of relativism and syncretism and the Charybdis of biblicism. Only by pursuing such a middle course will African theology, or any other theology, become a worthwhile contributor to a truly universal theology.
Bediako elsewhere stresses the importance of the vernacular languages for doing African theology. He mentions John Pobee, who regards the construction of an African theology in the English language as “second best.” Bediako also cites Engelbert Mveng in this regard: “When the objection is made that this theology is not written in native languages, we reply that it is lived in native languages, in the villages and in the neighbourhoods, before being translated into foreign languages by its own rightful heirs, the African theologians” (quoted in Bediako 1998:66). Immediately after this, Bediako examines the relevance of African theology for the present task of theology in the West. African theologians understand the essential character of theology as communicative, evangelistic and missionary. And he quotes with approval Johannes Verkuyl, the Dutch missiologist, who asks with reference to African theology: “How can we best do our theology so that the Gospel will touch Africans most deeply?” (1998:68). Each of these three terms expresses an important aspect of theology. Thus when any are missing, contextualization, whether conceived of as a term or a method, becomes useless. Theology must ultimately lead to conversion and affect every part of a person’s life.
Bediako adds that African theology, with its vindication of the significance of African traditional religions, may prove to be a blessing to Western Christian theology as it seeks to be communicative, evangelistic and missionary in its own context. Europe shares a pre-Christian primal religious heritage with Africa, but the old European primal religions are not entirely a spent force. He cites the resurgence of the phenomenon of the occult and other quests for spiritual experiences and wholeness, which are aspects of a post-modernist rejection of the Enlightenment in the West. And he concludes: “all bear the marks of elements of a primal worldview, suppressed rather than encountered, redeemed and integrated, rises to haunt the future.” Thus the African contribution may yet be an important one for the future of the Christian theological enterprise (1998:67ff).
The contextualization of theology is happening, and it will continue to happen, whether we like it or not. We can pretend, ostrich-like, that it is not or we can hinder it, as some conservative theologians do. But there is a third alternative, which is becoming increasingly common, of support for the process of contextualization. Each of us must help to give shape to contextualization. I pray that it might be in the form that I have described. We must assure that the accent remains on the text, where it belongs, and not shift to the context, as has happened in some other forms of contextualization. Yet, at the same time, we must be open to the role of culture in the process of contextualizing theology. If we denigrate other cultures, even in subtle ways, we will thwart the advocates of contextualization. Then we will deny to other believers something that is very important to each of us: the opportunity to do “self-theology.” God reveals himself not only in the Scriptures but also in human cultures. Do you support contextualization or not? That is the question all of us must answer. We must choose. We know the answer that Prof. G.O.M. Tasie would give. Let us honor him in this way. May God richly bless the Church in Africa as she engages in the “fourth self”: “self-theologizing” or the contextualization of theology.
Bediako, Kwame
1992 Theology and Identity: The Impact of Culture upon Christian Thought in the Second Century and in Modern Africa. Oxford: Regnum Books.
1998 “Understanding African Theology in the 20th Century.” In Issues in African Christian Theology. Samuel Ngewa, Mark Shaw, and Tite Tienou, eds. Pp. 56-72. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers.
Bosch, David J.
1991 Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Hesselgrave, D.J.
2001 “Contextualization of Theology” in Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (2nd ed.).
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Hiebert, Paul G.
1994 Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
* An earlier version of this article was presented in May 2003 to the Jos-Bukuru Theological Society, a group of missionaries and Nigerians, of whom many are lecturers in theology in Jos and surrounding area.
[1] The focus of this article is on the contextualization of theology and not other forms of contextualization, such as that of the gospel.
[2] For the purpose of this article, I am ignoring the public-private distinction, because Bosch does not mention it; unfortunately, too many Christians, including evangelicals, have accepted in an uncritical way this distinction that has contributed substantially to the secularisation of contemporary Western society.