Liberation Theology

6. “Contextual Theology”


In an article titled, “Contextuality and Missions, (The Seminary Today, Spring 1991), Professor Douglas E. Welch of Anderson School of Theology explained his version of contextual theology. He imposed Marx’s philosophy of history upon Paul’s Christian theology, in an attempt to determine what Paul’s writing means to us. He, being a progressive, wouldn’t have thought of interpreting Marx in the light of Pail’s theology. What Paul meant when he wrote his letters is irrelevant to progressives because they believe history is progressive, having no fixed meaning. This means that each individual has the right to interpret the Bible for himself, according to his own subjective understanding and in his own context. The personalized theology resulting from this process is called “contextual theology.”
“Paul’s theology, then,” writes Welch, “becomes our model par excellence of the genuinely contextual theology—or, perhaps more correctly, set of theologies. In each new contingent situation, we reflect afresh on the gospel, from the perspective afforded by the context itself. And thus we have contextual theology. It is this we mean when we talk about contextual theology…an indigenous or contextual theology therefore, is one that arises in a specific context…Translators may become contextual outsiders; interpreters are insiders. They are indispensable in the communication of the gospel and their interpretation is the only way a contextual theology can result. Perhaps it is on this that our missionary strategy should concentrate.
“To the struggle for justice we must be committed. And who knows? In so doing, we may even ourselves become a word of the Lord for others.” (This “struggle for justice” is a Marxist term for the conflict between a thesis and its antithesis). The “old” traditional meaning of a text is the thesis, which is challenged by a new progressive meaning as its antithesis, out of which struggle a new meaning, perhaps a composite meaning, will emerge as a new thesis. This process is cyclical, and will continue until universal communism or the kingdom of God or absolute truth or whatever a cult is expecting emerges. This is Karl Marx’s philosophy of history, the liberationist’s theology and Prof. Welch’s contextual theology that blows in the wind and conforms to every economic, political and social context it encounters. Every line of Welch’s quote above is contrary to all we have learned from the Bible by the long-established discipline of biblical hermeneutics (“interpretation, especially of the Bible”).
First, when we speak of “context” we mean the surrounding verses or chapters that give us a larger picture and a greater insight into the verses we are trying to understand. To Welch the context is the total circumstances and conditions in which the interpreter lives. One’s context might be poverty or a minority race or women or homosexual. Each person is free to interpret the Bible for himself, in his context. Whatever it says to him in that context is what it means, since it has no meaning apart from the individual interpreter’s subjective understanding of it. This approach is tantamount to saying that the Bible can be used—as it is being used—to justify any individual’s view of Scripture in whatever context he is.
Second, an interpretation that “arises in a specific context” is superior to one that’s brought in from without; no matter if the indigenous interpreter is illiterate and the visiting missionary is a brilliant biblical scholar. The same Scripture can be interpreted in as many different ways as there are interpreters and contexts—and they can all be right! Therefore, indigenous peoples can surpass the scholars because their interpretation of the Bible is their own.
Third, there is no established truth. That which is “truth” to one interpreter may not be “truth” to another; that which is called truth in one context may not be considered truth in another context; and that which is called truth at one time may not be called truth at another time. The Bible was believed to have been the truth by those who wrote it and at the time it was written but it is to be reinterpreted now in the light of changing contingencies.
Fourth, it seems very wrong to assume that Paul’s theology “becomes a model par excellence of the genuinely contextual theology,” because his theology was not flexible, adaptable and “contextual.” He knew what he was to preach and he preached it everywhere he went. He didn’t, like modern theologians, study the “context” first and then alter his message to suit it. People were to be convinced, convicted and converted; how could this happen if they are told only what they want to hear and not the truth about sin and their Savior who had died for them.
Modern theology is like a chameleon; it changes colors with changing contexts. Schleiermacher and Marx taught that history, like everything else in the universe, is progressing and that meanings change with time and place. Professor Welch and his comrades in the School of Theology have taught the very same thing for years.

Contextual Theology Illustrated
A missionary gets his Bible and heads for the mission field. He has a splendid biblical education and is well trained in hermeneutics. He also has a burden for lost souls. But he must not have a preconceived interpretation of Scripture since he cannot know what the text may mean to the people until he arrives and understands their social, political, economical and philosophical context. Assuming that he becomes familiar with all of these, his interpretation will still be his own; each indigenous person will have a better interpretation than his because he will also have his own. Hence, the “insider” is a better interpreter than the “outsider.” Upon learning this, the missionary understands that the Bible has a different meaning “in the place where we live” than it does in the place where we don’t live.
This flexible concept totally destroys the belief that the Bible is the established Word of God. Has the Church of God as a whole accept this modernism or is it just for professors, pastors and other leaders? Inasmuch as it is blatantly taught in the School of Theology and sent out to pastors and alumni but not to the congregations, one might suppose that it is meant for leaders only. But of course, it is assumed that these leaders will “enlighten” their congregations.