I have been working to expand two of the best theological tools that my web site has to offer: Clay Bible and the Quick Language Reference.

The first program allows you to grab a Bible verse from numerous translations simply by entering the citation. For copyright reasons, only Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate are available to the public in full, but if you hover a citation in one of my blog entires it will pop-up that verse in the RSV-CE. Check out Clay Bible here.

The second program has seen considerable expansion recently. Originally conceived as a downloable HTML Latin Reference chart, I've upgraded it to JavaScript DHTML. It's still downloadable, but now even faster and more versatile. It has charts for multiple languages, including Latin, Greek, German, and Spanish. Plus I'm adding other tools and links for language study. Check it out.

Lately I have been reading a lot of material arguing for a contextual theology. The basic point, which is valid, is that theology is always done in and through a specific historical context surrounding the theologian. The temptation should be avoided to take one person’s experience and universalize it, claiming that this theology is valid for everyone. An example I have encountered recently is using modern literature as a source for theology. Yes, many valid points may be made, but ultimately that literature belongs to a specific context—generally white and western—and the conclusions reached may not be universally valid.

At the same time, I have noticed a sad tendency to exaggerate this contextualization. It seems that this is based on the assumption that it is not possible to say something universally valid. A sharp and cruel distinction is made between the modern contextually-conscious mindset and the “classical” mindset. At the same time, this contextualization is justified by reference to historical “unconscious” contextualizations of Doctors and Fathers.

However, the question must be asked whether this contextual—consciousness is even complete. Just because a person is Hispanic and theologizes based on that experience, does not mean that that theology is valid for all Hispanics. In reality, experience is not a group phenomenon, but a personal one. The question is yet to be asked how group experience is to be reached from personal experience. It cannot be a mere amalgamation, because a single group will contain personal experiences that are completely contradictory. Neither is it properly a democratic process, where if 51% of Hispanics have felt marginalized and only 49% have not, then marginalization is part of Hispanic experience, and not the opposite. I do not have a solid answer as yet to this question, but the question itself shows the complexity of a better contextualization.

In other words, if it is possible to abstract from one person’s experience to a group’s experience, then it must logically be possible to abstract to the experience of a universal group. If there is common experience among Hispanics, or at least some kind of commonality that justifies speaking of group experience, then it cannot be impossible for there to be common experience among all humans. Now if we leave behind our academic pride for a moment, we see that common sense tells us that there is something common to all humans—humanity.

In other words, if we overcome a silly fear of speaking of human nature, then we start to see the common ground that belongs to all humans. Of course, not all humans can walk upright, because of various impairments, but walking upright still belongs to human nature. Even where this experience fails to manifest, it still exists in potentiality, and everyone still bears some experience of that potentiality at least in the concrete circumstances of their lives.

Thus, contextualization is important precisely because it can reflect upon experience that is common to all humans. There seems to be an assumption that a particular theology of a particular group is specifically valid for that group. At the same time, those who theologize for these groups wish to assert a universal importance of such theology, in order not to be seen as a fringe group of theologians. This may result in some recognition of usefulness for other groups, but this is not seen purely as validity. It is seen rather to be analogous to the benefit of two people in disagreement discussing with one another. Ultimately, they cannot assert that there is a single, universal theology. One cannot argue the other to agreement.

A better understanding of contextual theology and pluralistic knowledge is to see that ultimately, no matter what a person’s experience says, some things are true and others are not. Any denial of absolute truth is not only false relativism but an implicit recognition of absolute truth. The goal of contextual theology is not to come up with alternate truths that cannot and will not agree, but to develop different perspectives on the same truth. When these perspectives are shared, then both parties gain a clearer view of the truth. It is true that the poor will have a better appreciation of the Gospel message of concern for the poor, but this does not mean that they cannot share that message with the rich. The rich are not incapable of understanding the message and adjusting their lives accordingly. There are not multiple Gospels, but one Gospel which is equally valid for all people.

In addition, there is a tendency to think that contextualization must mean a radical reinterpretation of the Gospel message, a reinterpretation that tends ultimately to be a piecemeal reading of the Scriptures. If the poor prefer Jesus’ public ministry, specifically the parts where he preaches against injustice, then that is their Scripture, not the rest of it. The rest, if read at all, if eisegetically read to fall in line with this central reading. Anything that does not fit the thesis is either ignored, thrown out, or reduced to something alien to the text in order not to challenge this reading.

An African woman spoke in one of my classes about the need for contextualization in Africa, noting that the idea of a good man suffering and dying for the forgiveness of sins is not acceptable in her culture. Thus, the implication is that such an idea cannot be introduced. Rather, the texts must be reinterpreted in order not to offend African culture. Jesus must be sanded down to remove the pointy edges, rubbed, polished, and mass produced for the African market. If this model is not acceptable in Asia, we will have to concoct a more oblong but still rounded version to fit their consumer needs. If the demand is down, we adjust the supply to elicit demand and continue the economy of contextualized truth.

I objected, politely, however, that contextualization is not that simple. The Jews did not like the idea of a good man suffering and dying to save them either. Contemporary Biblical scholarship has asserted that although the ideas of Messiah and Suffering Servant were present in Judaism, there was no clear connection between the two. As far as the Jews of the time understood, Jesus could not be the Messiah precisely because he was suffering and dying like a criminal. And yet the Gospel spread. The Gospel did not spread because it respected their traditions and culture and did not have any sharp edges. True, the Gospel did emerge out of a context of Judaism and it depended on that context. But it also challenged that context, shocked and startled it, and forced it to reevaluate itself. Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and Prophets but to fulfill them—but that fulfillment also entailed a radical reinterpretation of the culture.

In truth, I am willing to posit that no culture naturally likes the idea of a just man suffering and dying for redemption. The only reason that western culture is OK with that is because it has been molded by Christianity for so long. Even now, however, many secular westerners cannot stand the idea, and thus continue to attempt to throw it out. But if all people dislike this idea, then it is part of a basic human culture, a culture that underlies particular cultures and may either be overshadowed by a more particular culture or shining through for examination. And if part of that culture, then the Gospel is already adapted to that culture as an antidote. The Gospel preemptively attacks our sensitivity to the suffering Savior, and teaches us how death itself was conquered through the death of the Son.

A faulty emphasis on contextualization has left many people with the vain notion that it is our job to speak for the Gospel, lest it be lost for inability to speak for itself. The only way that the Gospel can spread, we think, is to force modern culture on it and make it acceptable to modern people. In truth, although the Gospel must be accepted in light of modern culture, and although particular cultures can lend a clearer view of particular aspects of the Gospel, the primary work of inculturation has already taken place. Jesus Christ is the inculturation of the Gospel. When God became man, the Word reached down to humanity in a form that it could understand and accept. The Gospel is not simply an add-on to culture, but it contains within it a blueprint of a deified culture. The Gospel thus challenges our cultures, critiques them, and passes judgment on elements that must fade away. Thus, this new inculturation of the Gospel in our times is a painful, but positive process. The Gospel does not replace all modern culture, but some may be replaced.

Nevertheless, as a culture is conformed to the Gospel, the particularities of different cultures will still shine through. These particularities can lend a beneficial view of the Gospel to other cultures with their own particularities. Still, the elements of culture that must pass away must not be confused with these positive viewpoints. If a culture dualistically views the body as evil, this is not to be seen as “their Gospel,” valid for them. Rather, the Gospel breaks down that part of culture by proclaiming the Resurrection of the body. If a culture cannot understand a just man dying, it is challenged by the historical fact of that death. If the death is written off as necessary but not effecting salvation, this is not a view of the culture to be preserved, but something that the Gospel refutes. The view may be whittled down to something beneficial—for example, a better appreciation of Jesus’ public ministry—but to contradict the salvific power of Christ’s death is not a valid sort of inculturation, but a selfish and self-loving placement of culture above the Gospel of Christ.

~Michael Anthony Abril

top - No comments, yet.  

2009-01-14: Recognizing Predilection

A lot of stuff that I have been reading lately has been attacking the American system of immigration that labels many people who cross the border as "illegal". While it is true that labels are at heart dehumanizing, the sheer necessity of using labels in day-to-day life (the attendant, the teller, the mail carrier, the janitor, the vendor, etc.) ... Read more...

2008-10-12: Providence by Necessity

While reading St. Thomas' Summa Theologica on the topic of God's providence, I found an interesting little argument that I think bears a special significance today. In Part I, question 22, article 2, which asks whether everything is subject to God's providence, objection 3 is phrased thus: Further, whatever happens of necessity ... Read more...

2008-10-09: Human Distortion?

Many statements that I have encountered recently have led me to a stark and sad realization: when taken out of the context of the whole of Catholic teaching, Dei Verbum's emphasis on the human authorship of scripture can be greatly misinterpreted. The first argument that I heard that led me to this understanding was that God could not ... Read more...

2007-11-29: Baptism and Grace

I recently read some works from the fathers, especially some of Augustine's writings against Pelagius, and they greatly expanded my understanding of grace. The key point that shocked me was Augustine's insistence thatgrace not only gives us the capacity to do good, but it also necessarily moves us to will the good, and aids in actually carrying it ... Read more...

top - More Blog Entries...