03.04.2013 Views

a contextual missiology of the spirit - eTheses Repository ...

a contextual missiology of the spirit - eTheses Repository ...

a contextual missiology of the spirit - eTheses Repository ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>the</strong> need for and responsibility <strong>of</strong> Christians to make <strong>the</strong>ir response to <strong>the</strong> gospel<br />

as concrete and lively as possible.’ 17 He evaluates <strong>the</strong> appropriateness <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong>se<br />

four terms in contemporary <strong>the</strong>ology. 18 As Schreiter observes, ‘not all attempts in<br />

<strong>the</strong>ology are equally sensitive to <strong>the</strong> context,’ and so ‘<strong>the</strong>y can take quite different<br />

approaches to it.’ Therefore, he uses <strong>the</strong> term ‘local <strong>the</strong>ologies’ in an inclusive<br />

way to develop a broader approach. 19 The history <strong>of</strong> mission has witnessed a<br />

number <strong>of</strong> mission models in various contexts, and several attempts have been<br />

made to analyze <strong>the</strong>se models. 20 In his study <strong>of</strong> new perspectives in missiological<br />

anthropology, Louis Luzbetak discusses diverse mission models. He classifies<br />

<strong>the</strong>m into three <strong>the</strong>oretical models: ethnocentric (including paternalism,<br />

triumphalism and racism), accommodational and <strong>contextual</strong> (including<br />

incarnational as well as inculturational). 21 On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, Bevans identifies six<br />

models <strong>of</strong> <strong>contextual</strong> <strong>the</strong>ology: ‘translation model,’ ‘anthropological model,’<br />

‘praxis model,’ ‘syn<strong>the</strong>tic model,’ ‘transcendental model’ and ‘countercultural<br />

model.’ 22 While discussing <strong>the</strong> varieties <strong>of</strong> local <strong>the</strong>ology, Schreiter categorizes<br />

<strong>the</strong>m into three major models: ‘translation models,’ ‘accommodation models’ and<br />

‘<strong>contextual</strong> models.’ 23<br />

17 Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies, 1. In his discussion on inculturation, Peter C. Phan<br />

also views that despite <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘terminological confusion’ different ‘terms <strong>of</strong> varying degrees <strong>of</strong><br />

appropriateness’ describe <strong>the</strong> process to make <strong>the</strong> Christian message more meaningful to <strong>the</strong> local<br />

context. See Peter C. Phan, In Our Own Tongues: Perspectives from Asia on Mission and<br />

Inculturation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2003), 4.<br />

18 For more discussion, see Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies, 5-6.<br />

19 Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies, 6.<br />

20 It is significant that most <strong>of</strong> this is done by Catholic <strong>the</strong>ologians. See, for example, Louis J<br />

Luzbetak, The Church and Cultures: New Perspectives in Missiological Anthropology (New York:<br />

Orbis, 1988); Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies; Bevans, Models <strong>of</strong> Contextual Theology.<br />

21 For more details <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> discussion, see Luzbetak, Church and Cultures, 64-84.<br />

22 For fur<strong>the</strong>r discussion, see Bevans, Models <strong>of</strong> Contextual Theology, 37-137.<br />

23 For more details <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> discussion, see Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies, 6-16.<br />

267

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!