Abstract
Stephen Bevans is a missiologist who is well known for contending that “All theology is contextual theology” (31). In his book, Essays in Contextual Theology, Bevans argues, “That theology has to be done contextually today is hardly in dispute among theologians . . . How contextual theology is done, however, is a question of considerable debate” (4). Furthermore, Bevans asserts that “Contextual theologians understand that theology involves not so much content (although it certainly has content) as process” (35).
The 13 essays in his book provide the reader insight into Bevans’s own reflections on the process of developing an approach to contextual theology. In sum, Bevans states that theology derives from two sources: experience of the past (Scripture and church tradition) and experience of the present (personal or communal experience, secular or religious culture, social location, and social change; 2, 106). Thus, Bevans believes, “The aim of theology is not to work out a system that is enduring so much as to meet every day experiences with faith—and to express that faith in terms of everyday experience” (35).
With these quotes noted, one might not be surprised to discover that in his attempts to argue that theology cannot escape context, Bevans has been accused of being a postmodern relativist—a label he regularly rejects (39, 47, 60). In light of such accusations, the third essay is dedicated to providing some initial criteria with which to form a rubric to determine theology to be “fair” or “foul.” In this essay, Bevans provides nine criteria for determining orthodoxy, though many evangelical readers will quickly note that this section of determining orthodoxy does not include reference to the Bible (53–59).
Despite Bevans’s attempt to avoid the charge of relativism by offering these criteria as a means of determining orthodoxy, he admits at the outset of the essay that “ultimately we don’t really know” whether a theological expression or Christian practice is “fair” or “foul.” He contends that another time or situation might judge what we here and now deem “foul” to be perfectly orthodox (50–51).
While Bevans is certainly correct to consider the contextual expressions of theology, his book fails to provide a compelling foundation upon which to build a biblical Christian theology. For a reader who is not concerned to give the Bible priority over tradition or culture in determining theology, there are some fascinating essays in this book. For a reader in search of a guide to how to study and apply the Scriptures across cultures, however, the search continues.