Schriter on Contextualisation

Schriter talks about “local theologies” and offers three models: Translation, Adaption and Contextual. He justifies the use of a model as the means by which one may engage with theological reflection with some specific principles to help the individual approach the subject. Although he avoids using the terms contextual until the final model, all three are attempts to contextualise the message. The translation model of local theology is prevalent in most pastoral situations. He identifies a two stage process by referring to the kernel and the husk. The theologian will read the scriptures to identify the underlying principle in the scriptures. This is done by separating the original message from its original culture. These principles become the kernel and the original context the husk:

Translation models are generally the first kind to be used in pastoral settings, because pastoral urgency demands some kind of adaptation to local circumstances in ritual, in catechesis, and in the rendering of significant texts in local languages (Schriter 1985:7).

He observes that such translation is often helpful in the short term, it has two specific weaknesses. Firstly the cultural exegete is in danger of interpreting the culture too rapidly and making assumptions, missing deeper cultural undercurrents. Secondly the kernel approach to the original The Adaption model is an attempt to engage thoroughly with the local culture. He identifies three ways in which western theology is adapted into a different culture:

• Expatriate missionaries do the work of using their (western) theological framework that relates to the local world view (Schrieter 1985:9).
• Local theologians use a western framework to describe their cultures world view or perspective (Schrieter 1985:9-10).
• The expatriate missionary enables the individuals within the culture to use their own language and expression to explain their understanding of their belief. He describes this as a new “flowering of the Christian faith” after the “seed of faith” has interacted with the new culture (Schrieter 1985: 11).

He observes that the basic thought form that underlies the first two types of adaptation is one that has it roots in an entirely different culture. It is also a theology that is born out of western academic thought forms and one that is addressed to the academy. His criticism of the third form of adaption rests in the need for the individuals working through the process of adaption to have had no contact with Christianity. The final “Contextual Model” moves away from the pre-defined theological categories and allows the theology to come from the local culture. He presents two approaches to this process which are different because of the way in which they read the needs of the social context:

• Ethnographic approaches, concentrating principally on the cultural identity of the context.
• Liberation approaches, concentrating on any oppression and social ills in the context.

The difference between these concerns and those of the adaptation approaches is that a local theology begins with the needs of a people in a concrete place, and from there moves to the traditions of faith (Schriter 1985:13).