Summary Of Bevans Models Of Contextual Theology

The first model in Bevans' book 'models of contextual theology' is the translation model. Bevans claims that this model is both the most historic and widely used as a form of evangelism, going right back to biblical times as Paul spoke and wrote letters to many different cultures and communities. The basic principle of the translation model is not that of a a word-for-word translation which allows for misinterpretation; but that the basic, unchanging message of the bible is understood in any culture and by any person. The translation model seeks that it remains 'supracultural' and 'supracontextual'; this means that there is a constant gospel core which is above the culture or context but is readily able to be applied to it.
There are two theological
This model is a newer one and so there is less knowledge or critique of it’s effectiveness that has taken place around it. The basic principle that it represents is that Theology is a verb, a doing word. It states that theology should be practical and that we should be living out ‘church’. Praxis means that we should be seeking to do actions of faith within our daily lives and particular situations rather than seeking to create new expressions of church; these fresh expressions are popular in bringing people into the church but not necessarily productive in how they address the situations that people are in or prejudices faced. Examples of praxis models in use often consist of people standing up for their beliefs and questioning issues of social injustice such as
This means that theology is not about knowing all the answers but instead pursuing your relationship in Christ. As a consequence it needs a drastic altering in thinking patterns to that which the church is used to.The method is basic as it needs no procedure or grasp of scripture; however one may then question the definition, meaning and practise of theology especially if the study of and being rooted in scripture is not a priority. Complexity arises due to the reliance on authenticity of an individual’s experience. How do you validate or define authenticity? and what’s more, is it our place to judge somebody’s experience of