Missionalia 38:2 (August 2010) 181-196 181

If everything is contextualisation, nothing is

contextualisation: Historical, methodological
and epistemological perspectives
Nico Botha*
Abstract
The article traces the historical, methodological and epistemological roots of
contextualisation. It demonstrates the process of the emergence of the notion of
contextualisation in the circles of the World Council of Churches with particular
reference to the work of the Theological Education Fund and the critical thinking of
Shoki Coe. A further issue in the article is a critical conversation with two controversies
regarding contextualisation, namely syncretism and the broad assumption that all
theology is contextual theology. The article concludes with a proposal on a new round
of contextual theologies in South Africa. The proposal feeds into a number of realities
in South Africa today such as poverty, violence against women and children, HIV/Aids,
identity and inter-religious encounter.
Keywords: Contextualisation, Contextual Theology, historical perspective, methodo-
logical perspective, epistemological perspective, syncretism, Theological
Education Fund

Introduction
The article offers cursory historical, methodological and epistemological
perspectives on contextualisation. From these perspectives, the question
regarding whether all theology is contextual theology is engaged. More
pertinently, has the appropriation of contextualisation to a multiplicity of
theological constructs, not rendered the notion meaningless? Is the conceptual
confusion between contextuality and contextualisation part of the problem? Or,
instead of having a contextualising contraction, should contextualisation be
expanded to make space for new creative ways of defining context and for a
new round of contextual theologies?
Guided by these questions the article is organised as follows. First,
contextualisation is traced historically, methodologically and epistemologically.
Second, a brief argument is developed regarding the reason that bringing various
kinds of theologies under the rubric contextualisation has become problematic. Do
these theologies truly fit the definition of contextualisation? Third, are there new
creative ways of handling contextualisation? Is an expansion of contextualisation
necessary to make space for a number of very pertinent issues in South Africa
relating to the prevailing cultural, social, political and economic realities as they
manifest as legacies of apartheid and as they threaten to derail the progressive
democratisation and transformation of society?

*
Nico Botha is Professor of Missiology at the Department of Christian Spirituality, Church
History and Missiology at the University of South Africa in Pretoria. He can be contacted
at bothana@unisa.ac.za.
182 Nico Botha

Contextualisation in historical perspective

Before tracing contextualisation as it emerged as an innovative theological
approach, let us engage the assumption that contextualisation is as old as the
Judeo-Christian faith as suggested by some (Bosch 1991:421,448; Müller,
Sundermeier, Bevans and Bliese 1997:198; Snyman 2009:13). The response to
such a suggestion here is that this is true only in very broad and general terms, but
not in specific terms. Contextualisation as referring to very particular contexts and
representing a very specific theological method is a recent development. This does
not detract from attempts at establishing the theological rationale for
contextualisation. Perhaps the discussion on the theological basis for
contextualisation should be prolonged slightly. However, before discussing some
of the theological arguments used for contextualisation, there is a need to clarify
the issue that it is precisely through contextualisation and its insistence upon a
circular relationship between text and context that theological insights were gained
on contextuality in the Bible. Bosch’s lifework hinges on the argument that “from
the very beginning, the missionary message of the Christian church incarnated
itself in the life and world of those who had embraced it” (1991:421). Hesselgrave
and Rommen (1989:27), in reflecting on the story of the creation, state that
“contextualization, culture and theology all have a simultaneous beginning”. A
further argument is based on understanding the Bible as a library more than
anything else, containing a diversity of theologies informed by different eras,
situations and interests (cf. Bevans 2002:7). Numerous other arguments could be
cited, such as the existence of different theologies in the Old Testament and the
difference between the gospels, which finds explanation in the different
circumstances in which they were written. From a missiological perspective, the
citation of the well-known biographical statement by the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 9:20)
of becoming a Jew to the Jews and like one under the law for those under the law,
is interesting (Snyman 2009:14). These few examples suffice to explain the
following broad conclusion: the contextuality of the Bible could hardly be
overlooked. What Bevans (2002:9) says with reference to the history of theology is
equally and generally true of the Bible: “there has never been a genuine theology
that was articulated in an ivory tower, with no reference to or dependence on the
events, the thought forms or the culture of its particular place and time.”
The very brief exploration should, however, not detract from the historical
perspective that contextualisation in its distinct form is a fairly recent development
if the age of the Bible and of Christian theology is considered. In attempting to
develop a proper perspective on contextualisation, the following three issues will
be reviewed, albeit briefly: first, a few notes on the auctor intellectualis of
contextualisation; second, contextualisation as the mother of diverse modes of
contextual theology; and third, tracing the emergence of contextual theology in
South Africa.
If everything is contextualisation, nothing is contextualisation 183

Theological Education Fund of the World Council of Churches

There appears to be general consensus that structurally, organisationally and
institutionally contextualisation was birthed in the World Council of Churches
(WCC) in the early 1970s. Again, commentators and critics will be able to
demonstrate numerous examples regarding the manner in which context played a
role in different modes of theology or the interpretation of the Bible long before the
1970s. That is not the issue here; what is at issue is the emergence of a very distinct
way of doing theology. Much as the technical term was not yet used, the discussion
within the Advisory Group formed by the Division for World Mission and
Evangelism of the WCC pointed quite strongly in that direction. The brief of the
Advisory Group was to determine whether the Theological Education Fund (TEF)
“should be replenished for a further phase of activity” (TEF 1966:16). Two years
of discussions with stakeholders across the world followed with a submission
made by the Advisory Group in December 1963 to the Mexico City meeting of the
Commission on World Mission and Evangelism of the WCC. The
recommendation of the Advisory Group reads (TEF 1966:2):
The essential purpose is to respond wherever evidence is found of creative
development promising the achievement of excellence in the training of the
ministry. The excellence to be sought should be defined in terms of that kind of
theological training which leads to a real encounter between the student and the
Gospel in terms of his own forms of thought and culture, and to a living
dialogue between the church and its environment. The aim should be to use
resources so as to help teachers and students to a deeper understanding of the
Gospel in the context of the particular cultural and religious setting of the
church, so that the church may come to a deeper understanding of itself as a
missionary community sent into the world, and to a more effectual encounter
with the life of the society [my italics].
Retrospectively it will be fair to say that as much as culture and cultural are the
only terms mentioned explicitly in the recommendation, the reference to “the
church and its environment” and the identification of the church as a missionary
community that is sent to “a more effectual encounter with the life of a society”
could be including social, political and economic realities. The developments
within the WCC from the mid-1960s onwards bear testimony to the fact that a
wide range of issues pertaining to culture, religion, politics and economics received
attention.
The quest for contextualisation was sharpened during a study period in the
WCC between 1970 and 1972. Once again there were strong formulations on the
need “that the Gospel be expressed and ministry undertaken in response to a) the
widespread crisis of faith, b) the issues of justice and human development [my
italics], c) the dialectic between local cultural and religious situations and a
universal technological civilization” (WCC 1972:17–18). Compared to the
previous recommendation of the Advisory Group, some new language emerged:
justice and human development. The issue is not about tangentially looking at
justice issues from the perspective of the Gospel, but to express the Gospel in a
184 Nico Botha

manner that will reveal justice issues. Such was the clarion call for
contextualisation hinted in the little statement as a dialectical relationship or
circular movement between the Gospel and the matters raised or put differently, an
interpretive circular movement between text and context. We shall return to this in
a more extensive discussion on the methodology of contextualisation.

Shoki Coe
Informed by groundbreaking discussions in the TEF on the need for a more
relevant and context-based theological education and ministerial formation, it was
Coe (1976:19–24), in his capacity as coordinator of TEF, who produced a
document on contextualising theology in which the notion of contextualisation
was coined as a new and creative way of doing theology. The understanding that
arose was that “in using the word contextualization, we try to convey all that is
implied in the familiar term indigenization, yet seek to press beyond for a more
dynamic concept which is open to change and which is also future-oriented” (p.
19). In elaborating on and substantiating the need for new vocabulary, Coe
engages missio Dei from the perspective of “the missiological discernment of the
signs of the times, required of the People of God” in order that they may be
“seeing where God is at work and calling us to participate”(p. 21). The latter
sentiment is also strongly expressed in article 4 of the Confession of Belhar.
Coe from Taiwan in Asia, together with personalities like Sapsezian from
Brazil in Latin America and Tutu from South Africa in Africa, became the
embodiment of contextualisation in the TEF in particular and the WCC in general.
These three represented countries and continents in which deep feelings of aliena-
tion from their own culture and the devastation of structural injustices were
experienced. All three emerged quite strongly as proponents of theologies from
below, protesting and struggling against forms of domination and alienation. More
concretely, Coe in his context was confronted with cultural alienation as a result of
the capitalist exploitation of working class people, Sapsezian in his Brazilian con-
text was confronted with the oppression of the poor and Tutu had to battle the
racist oppression and racial-capitalist exploitation of black people in South Africa.
In returning to the WCC, once again, in May 2008 to thank the WCC for its soli-
darity in the struggle against apartheid and in encountering his colleague of old,
Sapsezian, Tutu (2008) somewhat humorously told the audience of Sapsezian’s as-
king, when something was to be written or some statement was to be formulated, is
it radical? This very simple question in a real way captures the essence of context-
ualisation, perhaps not so much whether the words were radical, but more whether
theory will give rise to a radical praxis which in turn will inform liberative theory.

Contextualisation as mother of different modes of contextual

theology
That contextualisation was around in the early 1970s is borne out by a number of
smaller and bigger developments during the time. A few examples of such
developments are mentioned here. At a consultation in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia
If everything is contextualisation, nothing is contextualisation 185

in early 1971, Nacpil (1971:78, cited by Bosch 1991:518), in depicting mission as

the symbol of Western imperialism amongst the rising generations of the Third
World and in suggesting that in the missionary the people of Asia do not see the
face of the suffering Christ but a benevolent monster, concludes: “The present
structure of modern mission is dead. And the first thing we ought to is to eulogise it
and then bury it”. This was of course also the year in which Gatu sounded the
moratorium call in New York first and then at a meeting of the American
Reformed Church in Milwaukee. Technically the moratorium call was about the
withdrawal of missionaries, personnel and funding. The essence of the call was
spelt out by Gatu at the 1973 conference of the Commission on World Mission and
Evangelism of the WCC in Bangkok. For Gatu, the main issues were the selfhood
and self-reliance of the African church. At the same conference, Third World
participants drew strong attention to the emerging contextual theologies in the form
of Black Theology, Feminist Theology and Liberation Theology. The 1970s indeed
saw the emergence of diverse modes of contextual theology, culminating in the
formation of the Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians in 1976.
This association became what Chikane (1994:149) terms a “combustion chamber”
in which proponents of these diverse modes of contextual theology engaged in
critical discourse with one another.

Doing contextual theology in South Africa

The Institute for Contextual Theology (ICT) was founded in 1980. Nolan
(1991:235), in motivating the coming into being of ICT, puts it in rather simple
terms: “to develop a truly South African theology, a theology not imported either
from Europe or the USA or Latin America, a theology which starts from our
situation of oppression and conflict”. In elaborating on the kind of work ICT was
doing, Nolan is quick to point out that ICT was not a teaching institute, but
facilitated the doing of their own theology by various groups – theologians, priests
and ministers, youth, women, trade unionists, development workers. In the 1980s,
ICT assisted particular denominations amongst the African Initiated Churches to
produce a document in which they spoke for themselves. The kinds of theologies
emerging in South Africa through the facilitation of the ICT were of various kinds:
Black Theology, Feminist Theology, youth theology, a worker’s theology, a
prophetic theology and a Kairos theology (p .235). Perhaps the statements issued
by the Evangelicals on Evangelical witness in South Africa and the Pentecostals
on Relevant Pentecostal witness in the late 1980s, as well as the Confession of
Belhar (1986), could also be regarded as profound expression of contextualisation.
For now, some reflection is required on the issue of timing. A rather telling
issue is that Nolan contributed his piece on Doing theology in the South African
context to the SEDOS publication hardly three years before the first ever
democratic elections in South Africa to mark the end of legalised apartheid and the
ascendancy of Nelson Mandela to power. But is the end of apartheid the same as
the end of the legacy of apartheid? Were the struggles of the people of South Africa
over and done? And therefore, has contextual theology become completely
186 Nico Botha

redundant? The developments in South Africa over the past sixteen years seem to
suggest differently, and we shall return to this question when a proposal for a new,
creative round of contextual theologies is offered.

Contextualisation in methodological perspective

The rather cursory investigation into the roots of contextualisation was meant to
demonstrate two things: first, that in the Bible and in Christian theology, one way
or another, context has played an important role in the kind of theology that has
emerged – sometimes people might not have been even aware of the contextual
nature of their theology; and second, that this kind of contextuality, and perhaps the
contextuality–contextualisation controversy should be settled here, is to be
distinguished from contextualisation as it emerged in the early 1970s as a distinct
“referential term” (Snyman 2009:23). What then is the difference between
contextuality and contextualisation? Contextuality is the more generic term to
indicate awareness of a context or a situation in speaking about God, Christ, the
Holy Spirit, faith and church without necessarily demonstrating the interplay
between context and these. According to Nicholls (1979:21) contextuality is
concerned with “the capacity to respond meaningfully to the Gospel within the
framework of one’s own situation”. Is it possible to arrive at this without using a
specific theological method? The answer should simply be, yes. Contextualisation
on the other hand is a conscious and deliberate attempt at bringing context and the
text of the Bible into discourse with one another. It is about a distinct theological
method. In retrospect, I realise that it was more correct to invoke the term
contextuality rather than contextualisation in looking at the world mission
conferences from Edinburgh 1910 to San Antonio 1989 (Botha 1995). What is the
issue? One of the examiners of my doctoral thesis wondered whether I did not
mean contextualisation rather than contextuality in analysing the conferences.
Looking back now, I see more clearly why the use of the more generic term fitted
better than the more specific term, since I was merely trying to investigate whether
there was some awareness of context in the mission conferences. The use of
contextualisation would have been an imposition and anachronistic as far as the
mission conferences before the 1970s are concerned. It needs to be said, however,
that there has been great awareness of cultural context, in particular, amongst
participants from the Asian context ever since Edinburgh 1910.
The distinction drawn between contextuality and contextualisation in the
example given ties in with how Coe (1976:22) sees the relationship, much as he
deals with it from the perspective of the creative or dialectical tension between the
two. For him contextuality and contextualisation cannot be separated, distinct as
they should be. He goes on to argue that by keeping the two in dialectical tension,
the dichotomy between “theory and practice, action and reflection, the classroom
and the street should be overcome” (p. 22).
How do we proceed? In light of the proliferation of contextual theologies
between 1970 and 1990, not forgetting that the genesis of Cone’s Black Theology
dates back to 1969 with the appearance of his epoch-making Black Theology and
If everything is contextualisation, nothing is contextualisation 187

black power, they cannot all be reviewed in demonstrating the method of

contextualisation. Indeed, the twenty years referred to saw the emergence of Black
Theology (in the United States and South Africa, and forms of it in the South
Pacific and Latin America), Latin American Liberation Theology, Feminist
Theology, Peasant theology (in the Philippines, for example), Prophetic Theology
(in South Africa), Dalit Theology (in India), Minjung Theology (in Korea),
Palestinian Liberation Theology, Jewish Liberation Theology and more.
In answering the question whether there is a universal theology, Nolan
(1991:236–237) demonstrates the reason that, for example, Black Theology and
Feminist Theology are contextual theologies and then goes on to explain the reason
that contextual theology is contextual theology. “Black Theology” he contends, “is
contextual because it is conscious of the fact that it is an attempt to do theology
from a context of a black experience of oppression”. “Feminist Theology”, he says,
“is contextual, starting from the experience of women in a world dominated by
men”. In debunking any notion of a universal theology, he posits that “Contextual
Theology is one in which the theologian is fully aware that he or she is facing faith
questions out of a particular context”. Interpretively, the terms black experience,
experience of women and particular context are paramount. In contextualisation,
these particular contexts, to which could be added the oppression of the poor, the
suffering of the Dalit under the Indian caste system and so on, are brought into a
circular relationship with the text of the Bible.
In the Missiology unit at the University of South Africa (UNISA), we still find
that diagrammatically the pastoral or praxis cycle as constructed by Holland and
Henriot is the best explanation of the method in contextualisation with its four
steps of insertion, social or context analysis, theological reflection and planning.
The cycle has been used consistently in Missiology at UNISA and features in one
of the Bachelor of Theology Honours courses on Mission Praxis. Also, the cycle is
presented as a challenge to students enrolling for a Master’s degree in Theology
with specialisation in Urban Ministry. This postgraduate degree is offered in
collaboration with the Pretoria-based
Institute for Urban Ministry, at which
there is a very strong emphasis on the
good integration of theory and
practice. It has to be said that in
Missiology at UNISA the cycle has
been adapted and has undergone
some change. Arguably one of the
clearest, most logical and coherent
expositions of the cycle is found in
Kritzinger (2001). The original
construction is shown in Figure 1
below, followed by a brief discussion
on each of the four steps of the cycle.
188 Nico Botha

Contextualisation as insertion
For the past year or so, I have been deeply challenged by a Doctoral candidate in
Missiology at UNISA on whether we in Missiology have understood the insertion
part of the cycle well. In New Zealand, he was a mission justice educator in the
Catholic Church for twelve years, during which time he had deep immersion
experiences amongst poor peasants in the Philippines, amongst others. His twelve
years of experience as a justice educator convinced him that if the insertion part is
not done well, the other steps will fall flat. His thesis therefore will be strongly
informed by this problem, focusing strategically on the way white Christians in
particular who have made some commitment to justice issues could be assisted to
go deeper. It must be admitted that we have thus been exposed as using the cycle in
an academic fashion as a technical instrument to examine the situation of
oppressed and marginalised categories of people without clear evidence of our own
insertion into their situation.
It seems as if a spirituality of insertion on its own is needed for a proper
working of the cycle. Such spirituality is well illustrated by the stories of insertion
recounted by Rodriguez (1991:216–220) and Da Cunha (1991:220–225). The
stories are about leaving the relative comfort of the convent to live amongst the
poor as “poor Sisters amongst the poor”. This is their praxis through which they
listen to and learn from the poor by respecting their culture and the reality of their
situation. “We learn to discover their language, resistance, potentialities, customs,
organization, and leadership. More profoundly we discover the ‘seeds of the word’
present in them” (Rodriguez 1991:217–219).
But the insertion is not only about listening and learning, but also about a
prophetic mission. Announcing the reign of God, the reign of justice, equality, truth
and fellowship. Not only is the prophetic mission about annunciation, but also
about denouncing the evil of sin, injustice, oppression, lies, marginalisation, hunger
and ignorance. In her story of insertion, Da Cunha focuses particularly on the land
issue, which is identified as the fundamental cause of poverty and oppression. In a
moving way she relates the story of the struggle of landless peasants, men, women
and children, suffering repression by being struck and beaten to the ground and
even killed.
The challenge for theology in South Africa and for the church is the following:
Is there any theologian or pastor, minister or priest anywhere in the land who
identifies with categories of struggling poor, unemployed, illiterate, landless,
marginalised people in this fashion?

Contextualisation as analysis
In what Rodriguez (1991:219) considers “effects of the insertion”, she alludes to
the kind of analytical sense that emerges when there is good, solid insertion:
We have become open to the world in its historical, social, political, and
economic dimensions; there is a constant dialogue with the people in all
dimensions of their lives. Our manner of seeing the world has changed radically;
If everything is contextualisation, nothing is contextualisation 189

where before we saw it through the eyes of the rich, today we see it from the
perspective of the oppressed.
In the ICT in South Africa, there has always been the idea of a commonsense
analysis based on the fundamental understanding that life itself is the most potent
analytical tool in general. Poor people do not need sophisticated tools of analysis to
tell them the reason that some are rich while they are poor, the reason that some
own the land and others are landless.

Contextualisation as theological reflection

In her account, Rodriguez (p. 217) demonstrates that identification with the poor
and insertion into their context results in a new interpretation of well-known texts
from the Bible, such as Luke 4:18 that speaks about the anointing to preach good
news to the poor and Exodus 3:9 that tells us about the cry of the people reaching
the ears of God. She concludes: “In the context of this ecclesial, evangelical, and
situational appeal, we are leaving the convent lifestyle to live in the midst of the
poor.” The steps of insertion and analysis inform the reading of the Bible in such a
way that new interpretive avenues open up, a new language arises, a new
hermeneutic of struggle and hope comes to the fore.

Contextualisation as planning
In the accounts of Rodriguez and Da Cunha, it is astonishing to observe the
amount of continuous planning, not so much planning in the strategic, technical
sense of the word, but planning for action, planning for praxis. The planning
includes forming groups for dialogue, bringing together children, the youth and
adults in basic ecclesial communities to celebrate their faith and their life, and
addressing the social needs of the community. In contextualisation, such planning
does not occur haphazardly, but is informed by insertion or the faith commitment,
social analysis to assist the poor in understanding their situation and its root causes
and the reading of the Bible in the light of their situation.

Contextualisation in epistemological perspective

How is the question on the reason for our knowledge answered in
contextualisation? To prolong the reference to the stories of Rodriguez and Da
Cunha somewhat, it is clear that there is a different manner of knowing in
contextualisation than merely knowing rationally as propounded by the
Enlightenment paradigm. Through their experience amongst the poor and by being
converted and evangelised by the poor, those evangelical values such as solidarity,
sharing and hospitality that were previously only theoretical find new meaning in
the real-life situation of the poor (Rodriguez 1991:219). The accounts of Rodriguez
and Da Cunha corroborate the distinction drawn between the traditional way of
knowing and the epistemology suggested by contextualisation. In the former,
knowledge is regarded as the conformity of the mind to what is, to the given,
whereas in the latter knowledge is experienced as an immersion in the process of
transformation and construction of a new world (Appiah-Kubi and Torres 1979:5,
190 Nico Botha

cited by Bosch 1991:424). Again, the epistemological shift effected by

contextualisation is that only once an ongoing praxis of struggle has been
constituted can we really know. This is the first step in theology. Reflection or the
construction of theory follows as a second step. In Bosch’s (1991:425)
understanding, “the traditional sequence, in which theoria is elevated over praxis,
is here turned upside down” He rushes to clarify: “This does not, of course, imply
a rejection of theoria. Ideally, there should be a dialectic relationship between
theory and praxis”.

Controversies regarding contextualisation

Now that some clarity has been reached regarding the origins of contextualisation
as the forerunner of various forms of Third World theologies, the method that
undergirds contextualisation and the understanding of knowledge in
contextualisation, controversies regarding contextualisation are discussed. Two
such controversies will be reviewed.

Contextualisation and syncretism

On visiting UNISA in November 2009, Vähäkangas (2009), from the University of
Lund in Sweden, posed the challenging question regarding whether
contextualisation is being projected as a pure, unadulterated theology when in fact
it cannot escape the danger of syncretism. Nolan (1991:237), one of the foremost
proponents of contextual theology in South Africa, does not shy away from the
issue in asking: “To what extent is contextual theology syncretistic, that is, mixing
the gospel with local cultural elements ... ?”
Are there checks against syncretism as suggested by Hiebert (1994:91–92)?
For him there are indeed checks: contextualised theology should be biblically
based, the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of all believers must be recognised,
the church should act as a hermeneutical community and there should be
increasing discussion amongst evangelical theologians from different cultures and
a growing consensus on essential theological points.
Is it so that generally there is an underlying assumption with those who raise
the issue of syncretism as something others must be wary of, that their own
theology is pure? Indeed as Nolan (p. 237) contends: “It presupposes that it is
possible to have the ‘pure gospel’ without cultural elements”. Such a gospel is,
however, non-existent. The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the whole of the Bible for
that matter, does not come to us in an unintelligible heavenly or godly language or
warp that we would anyway not have understood. It is transmitted or
communicated to us in cultural forms and in a language that is quite human. But
precisely herein lies the wonder, the beauty and the exceeding grace of God in
Christ: loving us so much that he became flesh and pitched his tent right here in the
neighbourhood. Nolan is right in asserting that it is an illusion to think we can deal
with Christian ideas free from any context. Indeed, “all ideas originate in some
cultural context, and all words used to express ideas are similarly products of a
culture which determines their meaning” (p. 237).
If everything is contextualisation, nothing is contextualisation 191

In contextualisation, it is acknowledged that the reading or interpretation of the

text of the Bible is not only a literary exercise, but also a social, economic and
political exercise. Our entire context comes into play, which makes of all theology
by its very nature contextual theology (Bosch 1991:423).
Let us assume that, indeed, there is a pitfall of some strange cultural, economic,
social and political elements becoming part of the contextual theological construct,
how could this be avoided or at least kept to a minimum? An important safeguard is
the proper working of the pastoral or praxis cycle. In the circular movement
between the different steps of the cycle, it is expected that the context of different
categories of people, the poor, for example, will shed light on the text of the Bible
and assist in a better interpretation of the text, and that, conversely, the text of the
Bible will illuminate the context of people, correcting and redeeming it. If the
counter-cultural effect of the Gospel is prayerfully accepted and better still, if it
leads to conversion, the pitfall of elevating context over text is avoided. For this
reason, Hiebert’s (1994:64, 75–92) concept of “critical contextualization”, though
well clarified, is somewhat tautological. Proper contextualisation (or is this yet
another tautology) is the critical mechanism in itself.

Is all theology contextual theology?

The answer to this question is a small yes and a big NO. The affirmative answer
relates to what has been alluded to already; that is, in a broad and general sense all
theologies everywhere will to a lesser or greater extent reflect something of the
context in which they operate. Even theologies in which virtually no trace of
context could be found are contextual, albeit merely in terms of implicitly
legitimising the status quo by not engaging it critically. There is of course a danger
to the notion that all theology is contextual theology. Perhaps it is safer to capture
the issue at stake here in the form of a question rather than an over-generalisation.
Is there a danger of unintentionally subverting or diluting contextualisation by
regarding all theology as contextual theology? Analogous to the slogan “if
everything is mission, nothing is mission”, coined by Neill (1959:81) fifty years
ago in response to a definition of mission that has become too broad and therefore
rendered meaningless (Blauw 1962:109), a new slogan is perhaps necessary in
reacting to the tendency of broadening contextualisation too much: if everything is
contextualisation, nothing is contextualisation.
Bevans (2002), Hesselgrave and Rommen (1989), Nicholls (1979) and
Ukpong (1987) have identified seventeen models of contextualisation (cf. Snyman
2009:25–54): Existential, Dogmatic, Translation, Inculturation, Evolutionary,
Revolutionary, Political Theology, Dynamic-Equivalence Transculturation,
Syncretistic, Accommodation, Liberation, Conservative, Anthropological, Praxis,
Synthetic, Transcendental and Countercultural. Indeed as Bosch (1991:421) does,
the question is to be asked whether contextualisation has not become a blanket
term for a variety of theological models. All of the models mentioned here cannot
truly withstand the methodological and epistemological test of contextualisation.
One has to concur with Bosch (p. 421), who in following Waldenfels (1987:224–
192 Nico Botha

230) identifies two major types of contextual theology, that is indigenisation and
the socio-economic model. The notion of indigenisation has been thoroughly
deconstructed over the years and has mainly been substituted by enculturation.
However, the classification is quite helpful in minimising a situation in which
everything becomes contextualisation. For Bosch (p. 421), only the enculturation
model and the socio-economic model as manifested in Liberation Theology, Black
Theology and Feminist Theology, for example, qualify as contextual theologies
proper. One could add theologies such as Dalit and Minjung.
In what sense is a theology a contextual theology? The issue could also be put
differently by asking; why is not all theology dialectical theology or political
theology or correlation theology or missional theology, to mention just a few?
What is so distinctive about these theologies that makes it virtually impossible to
subsume other theologies under them?
Concretely, therefore, what in contextualisation makes it so different and so
new that it brings Whiteman (1999:42), only ten years back, to the following little
statement: “Contextualization may be one of the most important issues in mission
today … contextualization is no mere missiological fad that will fade when another
‘hot topic’ catches our attention”. Since the inception of contextualisation in the
1970s, different proponents of contextual theology of various kinds have pointed
out that the method is about the most important issue in contextualisation.
The tendency to feed into a proliferation of models of contextual theology has
resulted in a number of problems in the contextualisation project. Before
proceeding to two such problems an important disclaimer should be made, which
is simply to say that the charge here is not that anybody has intentionally created
the problems; it is more a question of unintentional implications. First, the models
enumerated above predominantly engage culture, one way or another. Is there an
unintentional hijacking of the contextualisation project by theological constructs on
culture at the expense of socio-economic and socio-political issues? Or does the
question here create an unnecessary dichotomy? Without stretching it too far, it
remains quite significant that towards the conclusion of his classical article Coe
(1976:24) draws pertinent attention to the emergence of Black Theology and
Liberation Theology. Second, by turning everything into contextual theology, the
danger of a double subversion will be difficult to avoid. A definition of
contextualisation that is too broad will of necessity always subvert or dilute
contextual theologies proper. Conversely, theological models that are theologies in
their own right but are subsumed under contextual theology will also be subverted
or diluted.

A new round of contextual theologies in South Africa

In concluding this article, a brief proposal on the need for a new round of
contextual theologies in South Africa is offered. Few such proposals have emerged
in the past decade or so – Speckman (2001) for a developmental dimension in
contextual theology and Van der Water (2001) for drawing from the legacy of
Prophetic Theology as expounded in the Kairos Document. Others have thought
If everything is contextualisation, nothing is contextualisation 193

that the quest for reconciliation and healing in South Africa was a good source of
contextual theology. In a situation in which church and theology were deeply
unnerved and out of their depth in responding to the new situation in South Africa,
any follow-up on these proposals was rendered difficult. Most recently Snyman
(2009:95–103) proposed what he terms a missional diaconate as a contextual
theology. Such proposals should not be treated as mutually exclusive, but should
be brought into dialogue with one another in an attempt to advance a new round of
contextual theologies.
The proposal here feeds into one of the indispensable tenets of contextualisation or
contextual theology, namely that the reading or identifying of the signs of the times
(discerning what it is that should be done; Snyman 2009:22) is necessary. This
reading includes both “intellectual analysis” and “pastoral activity” (Segundo
1993:129). The proposal also feeds into the last few words of the “Ministry in
Context statement” “the struggle for human justice” (WCC 1972:20). The proposal
does not feed into the rather cynical notion that nothing has changed in South
Africa. Nor does it feed into the equally cynical idea that the more things change,
the more they remain the same. In brief, a country such as South Africa has indeed
seen quite dramatic changes since 1994, which may prompt some to describe these
changes in revolutionary terms.
The very basic concern of the proposal is that it appears that these changes
have not touched the lives of millions of South Africans in terms of qualitatively
improving their lives. Why does it appear as if some are worse off and as if the
social and economic inequalities are an ever-widening gap? Why are the poor still
poor? Who are the poor?
There is a need for a contextual theology emerging from the poor, speaking to
their miserable situation of destitution, but also unearthing their new and creative
forms of solidarity, joy and hope. Not only rigorous social analysis, but also
historical analysis is necessary. The poor need to understand the reason that after
apartheid and almost two decades of democratic rule, they are still poor. For the
poor, bygones cannot simply be bygones. One of the strengths of Dalit Theology
and arguably the reason for its resilience appears to be the constant re-reading of
history with specific reference to caste history (Massey 1994:14–22, 35–68;
Amaladoss 1997:22–24). Historical analysis in the form of poor people recounting
their own stories will counteract a weird form of amnesia amongst the poor that
will only prolong their suffering and postpone their liberation.
Another source of contextual theology is the ongoing campaign against
violence against women and children. Where are the churches and theology in this
campaign that has been ongoing for more than a decade? Does contextual theology
have the creative potential to turn an ad-hoc campaign, which is largely controlled
by politicians, into a sustainable theological project?
Closely related to poverty and the abuse of women and children is the
devastation caused by HIV/Aids. There is a need to have a contextual theology on
HIV/Aids that is strongly informed by the stories of those living with HIV/Aids,
caregivers and, in South Africa particularly, also the praxis of the Treatment Action
194 Nico Botha

Campaign, a civil society formation that has had to operate from the margins most
of the time. Culture will be paramount in a contextual theology on HIV/Aids
because the disease is increasingly seen to be feeding into cultural patterns relating
to patriarchy and the domination of women by men.
Identity remains a rather volatile issue in South Africa. I suggest that there is a
need for a contextual theology on identity that might set people free to search for
identity in a manner that will keep particularity and universality in creative tension;
in more concrete terms, working for an own identity while working for a South
African identity that is informed by ubuntu. The quest for identity is of course a
very complex issue in the light of fragmented and divided South African reality,
based on ethnicity and race, and being rendered more complex by globalisation.
There is also the issue of South Africans relating to their neighbours in the
continent of Africa. The horrific xenophobic attacks of May 2008 sent shockwaves
through Africa and the world. With ever more people flocking to South Africa
from across the continent, in particular Zimbabwe, there is a real need for a
contextual theology of stranger.
Overall, there is a need for a contextual theology of voices. Marginalised,
fragmented and excluded voices must find amplification in a contextual theology
of voices. Creative ways are to be found to make these voices heard because a
symptom of their silence is lack of access to the media or negative publicity in the
media. Blacklisting in South Africa, overtly or covertly, explicitly or implicitly
should be identified as a new site of struggle for an open, democratic, tolerant and
argumentative society in which the fundamental human right of freedom of speech
is respected.
The proposal could hardly be concluded without mentioning inter-religious
encounter. The refusal of a visa to the Dalai Lama in 2009 to participate in a peace
conference by the South African government inadvertently highlighted the need for
inter-religious solidarity in South Africa. A contextual theology of inter-religious
encounter must be informed by historical analysis relating to the question: where
did things gone wrong? Why were religious communities not able to consolidate
the gains of the encounter in struggle and the cooperation in the South African
chapter of the World Conference on Religion and Peace? What are the new issues?
How does religion in South Africa arrive at a position of harmonising potential and
transformative capability?

Conclusion
Is this not turning everything into contextualisation anyway? The test will be
whether these contextual theologies could be sustained in terms of method and
epistemology. The very first step for the Church and theology is a faith
commitment to the struggles of the categories of people alluded to. The rigorous
social, cultural, historical, economic and political analysis will follow as a second
step, theological reflection as a third and more and better action as a fourth.
These contextual theologies can potentially facilitate and build a new
ecumenism in South Africa. Is there a common sensitivity between Evangelicals
If everything is contextualisation, nothing is contextualisation 195

and mainline Christians to the issues raised by contextual theology? (Ellingsen

1986:713–714). This is not to suggest that such sensitivity will now overcome all
the divisions, but simply that this may provide a new basis for serious theological
discourse.

References
Amaladoss, M. 1997. Life in freedom: Liberation theologies from Asia. Maryknoll: Orbis
Books.
Bevans, S.B. 2002. Models of contextual theologies. Revised and expanded edition.
Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
Blauw, J. 1962. The missionary nature of the Church. A survey of the biblical theology of
mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Bosch, D.J. 1991. Transforming mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission. Maryknoll:
Orbis Books.
Botha, N.A. 1995. Mission as prophecy. In dialogue with the World Mission Conference,
Edinburgh 1910 to San Antonio 1989. D.Th. thesis, University of South Africa,
Pretoria.
Chikane, F. 1994. EATWOT and Third World theologies: An evaluation of the past and the
present, in Third World theologies: Commonalities and divergences, edited K.C.
Abraham. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
Coe, S. 1976. Contextualizing theology, in Mission Trends, Volume 3, Third World
Theologies, edited G.H. Anderson and T.F. Stransky. New York: Paulist Press: 19–24.
Cone, J. 1969. Black Theology and black power. New York.
Confession of Belhar. 1986. Cape Town.
Da Cunha, H. 1991. Ministering in Situations of Injustice, in Jenkinson, W and O’ Sullivan,
H eds. Trends in Mission toward the 3rd millennium. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
Ellingsen, M. 13–20 August 1986. Building a new ecumenism through contextual theology.
Christian Century: 713–714.
Evangelical witness in South Africa. 1986. Johannesburg.
Gatu, J. 1973. Churches renewed in mission, in Minutes and report of the Assembly of the
Commission on World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches
December 31, 1972 and January 9-12, 1973, edited by Geneva: World Council of
Churches:111–113
Hesselgrave, D.J. and Rommen, E. 1989. Contextualization. Meanings, methods, models.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company.
Hiebert, P.G. 1994. Anthropological reflections on missiological issues. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House Company.
Holland, J and Henriot, PJ.1983. Social analysis: Linking faith and justice. Maryknoll, New
York: Orbis Books.
Kairos Document. 1986. Johannesburg.
Kritzinger, J.N.J. 2001. A question of mission: A mission of questions.
http://www.cwmnote.org/klippies.php Date of access: 13 March 2010.
Massey, J. 1994. Towards Dalit hermeneutics. Rereading the text, the history and the
literature. Delhi: ISPCK.
196 Nico Botha

Müller, K. Sundermeier, T., Bevans, S.B. and Bliese, R.H. (eds). 1997. Dictionary of
mission: Theology, history, perspectives. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
Neill, S. 1959. Creative tension. London: Edinburgh House Press.
Nicholls, B. 1979. Contextualization: A theology of Gospel and culture. Downers Cove:
Intervarsity Press.
Nolan, A. 1991. Doing theology in the South African context, in Trends in mission toward
the third millennium, edited by W. Jenkinson and H. O’Sullivan. Maryknoll: Orbis
Books.
Rodriguez, M.A. 1991. ‘Insertion’: A new way of being a religious missionary, in Trends in
Mission toward the third millennium, edited by W. Jenkinson and H. O’Sullivan.
Maryknoll: Orbis Books:216–220.
Segundo, J.L. 1993. Signs of the times. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
Snyman, H. 2009. Contextualization: History, models and South African perspectives. M.Th,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria. (Unpublished study material).
Speckman, M.T. 2001. For Nolan’s sake, let’s move on: A plea for a developmental
dimension in contextual theology, in Towards an agenda for contextual theology:
Essays in honour of Albert Nolan, edited by M.T. Speckman and L.T. Kaufman.
Pietermaritzburg: Cluster Publications: 390-406.
TEF (Theological Education Fund). 1966. Issues in theological education: Asia, Africa,
Latin America, 1964–1965. New York: Theological Education Fund.
Tutu, D.M. 2008. (Ad-hoc presentation at the World Council of Churches on 11 May,
Geneva, Switzerland in 2008). (Unpublished study material).
Ukpong, J. 1987. What is contextualisation? Neue Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft
43:161–168.
Vähäkangas, M. 2009. Mission studies, syncretism and the limits of Christianity during the
time of the heretical imperative. (Lecture presented at the Department of Christian
Spirituality, Church History and Missiology at the University of South Africa on 2
November 2009). (Unpublished study material).
Van der Water, D. 2001. A legacy for contextual theology: Prophetic Theology and the
challenge of the Kairos, in Towards an agenda for contextual theology: Essays in
honour of Albert Nolan, edited by M.T. Speckman and L.T. Kaufman. Pietermaritzburg:
Cluster Publications: 33-64.
WALDENFELS, B. 1987. Ordnung im Zwielicht. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
Whiteman, D.L. 1999. Contextualization: The theory, the gap, the challenge, in New
directions in mission and evangelization, Volume 3, edited by J.A. Scherer and S.B.
Bevans Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
WCC (World Council of Churches). 1972. Ministry in context: The Third Mandate
Programme of the Theological Education Fund (1970–1977). Bromley: WCC.