Contextual Theology

In the seminar on Pastoral Theology, Dr. Victoria Yeung touched upon contextual theology. She gave us an introductory chapter from the book "Models of Contextual Theology" by Stephen Bevans. The author maintained that all theology must be contextual. There is no 'pure' universal theology per se. His arguments are persuasive, but I still have some reservation about it.

Contextual theology arose from a dissatisfaction of Classical Theology which is a kind of abstract and universal truth, an objective science of faith. The author proves that such a conception of theology is inadequate. The recognition of this inadequacy is the result of Enlightenment's discovery of subjectivity and the nineteenth century discovery of historical consciousness. These discoveries force us to recognize the importance of the history of theology. Classical theology is a production, an accumulation of historical efforts in response to the contemporary problems. Therefore, classical theology is also a product of historical context. The theologies in the Old and New Testaments are pluralistic. Many diverse and even contradictory theologies exist side by side in the Bible. At the time of the Church Fathers, they made use of Greek philosophy to explain Christian beliefs to the people. Nowadays, we understand that Greek philosophy is only one of the many pieces of jigsaw puzzle that make up the human civilizations. Therefore, Classical Theology has always been contextualized.

Asian civilizations think along different lines. They do not speak Greek philosophy. Therefore, there is a need to contextualize Christianity, put away its Greek way of reasoning and make it relevant to the local peoples. I agree. Theology, like Christ, must "incarnate" into the local culture. Furthermore, the Church is Catholic. She should embrace diversity and different expressions of the same truth which we have not been able to understand completely. The truth we proclaim is not yet the complete truth because God is a mystery that is beyond our ability to fathom.
I agree with all these. I accept the need of diverse theologies to voice the different aspirations of different peoples on earth. Together, our effort will not produce a one-dimensional theology.

Now, my reservations.
I still believe that there is an absolute, objective and universal truth which applies at all times and everywhere. Take the history of physics as an example. Currently, physical truths are approaching absolute truths. Our understanding is getting better and better through efforts in history. Can you imagine the existence of such contextualized physics as feminist physics, black physics, Asian physics etc.? Surely we have Aristotelian physics, Copernicus physics, Newtonian physics etc. to mark the historical development of physics. They are approximations to the objective physical truths. You may argue that there are Western and Chinese medicines. They are two different systems of healing and are clear and strong examples of contextualization. I would say that they are technologies and not sciences. Diversity and contextualization are most welcomed here.
Looking at theology. It is difficult to imagine theology being inferior to physics. If physics can be absolute, objective and universal, why not theology? It must be, though at the moment, we are nowhere near the complete truth.
On the other hand, if we advocate contextual theology too much, these theologies: feminist, black, Asian and African etc., will become another Babel tragedy. They will not be able to talk to each other because they do not share the same vocabulary. We still need a Classical Theology to provide the contextualized theologies with a common vocabulary.
In conclusion, we recognize the contribution of contextual theology, but their contribution is not absolute. There should still be room for Classical Theology.

Dear Lord, through Incarnation, You pitch Your tent among us to reveal Yourself to us. I pray that we don't impose our will onto our neighbour. Allow us to approach You at our pace. Amen.