MISSIONAL THEOLOGY
Tite Tiénou, PhD
Professor of Theology of Mission,
Trinity International University, IL, USA
and
Paul G. Hiebert, PhD
Distinguished Professor of
Mission and Anthropology, Trinity International University, IL, USA
Published
in Global Missiology, Featured Article, April 2005, www.globalmissiology.net
Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 1
RESEARCH TRADITIONS............................................................................................................. 2
WAYS OF DOING THEOLOGY..................................................................................................... 2
Philosophical Theology................................................................................................................... 3
Biblical Theology........................................................................................................................... 5
Missional Theology........................................................................................................................ 6
CASES............................................................................................................................................. 8
Acts Fifteen.................................................................................................................................. 8
A Case of Polygamy...................................................................................................................... 9
References Cited............................................................................................................................. 12
End Notes....................................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction
In recent years, missiologists have increasingly
drawn on the insights of the human sciences provide for their work. One key question keeps arising: how can missions
keep from becoming captive to the
sciences, and how can the findings of the sciences be integrated into missions while keeping solid theological foundations? This
problem of relating theology to science is not unique to missions. It underlies much of the discussion surrounding the
inclusion of psychology in training
ministers and Christian counselors, the integration of medical sciences and
Christian healing, and the use of modern business sciences in the
administration of churches and church institutions.
Despite these discussions, a big chasm often exists between theology and the sciences.
At a
deep level, the problem of integrating theology and the sciences is a worldview
issue. It is due, in part, to our definitions and perceptions of
what constitutes ‘theology’ and the ‘sciences.’ We
will examine these and suggests avenues for a rapprochement between these two
critical bodies of knowledge.
RESEARCH TRADITIONS
Larry Laudan (1977) classifies
the sciences as ‘research traditions’--bodies of knowledge shared by
communities of scholars seeking to understand the truth in their fields. Each
research tradition is determined by: 1) the critical questions it
seeks to answer, 2) the body of data it examines,
and 3) the methods it accepts as valid means of discovering answers (figure 1).
Each
Figure 1
Levels of
Cultural Knowledge
World Inside - p rovide ontological, affective an d
normat ive assumptions on wh ich
Worldview the culture builds its world - integrat es belief systems into a single worldview
- d etermine dom ain of examin ation - d efine questions
to be asked
Research Traditions - p rovide methods
for investigation - integrat e
theories in belief systems and worldview
-me diate between empirical realities
Theories - a nswer questions raised by belief
systems
- o rder experience into theories
Experiential
Data
World Outside
is
embedded in a worldview–the fundamental assumptions it makes about reality.
Different answers or ‘theories’ are offered to the key
questions, and competing ones are debated until one or
the other emerges as accepted doctrine until it is further questioned. For
example, physics, as a research tradition, is the study
of the building blocks of the material world, which it assumes to be real. It
examines material objects using experiments, electron microscopes, ion chambers
and other means to find answers to questions such as what are
the basic components of matter, what are the major physical forces, and how do
these interact.
Theology,
too, is a research tradition. It is a body of knowledge debated by a community
of scholars seeking to answer certain critical questions. On
the level of theories, there are debates over
Calvinism and Arminianism; pre-millennial, post-millennial and amillennial
eschatologies; and orthodoxy, liberalism and neo-orthodoxy. These are true
arguments because the different proponents are seeking to answer the same
questions using accepted methods. In other words, theology
is a research tradition not because it has arrived at one universally agreed
upon answer, but because those in the field are seeking to
answer the same questions by using accepted methods
of inquiry and examining the same data.
WAYS OF DOING THEOLOGY
If
theology is a research tradition, how does this change our perception of it as
a discipline, and its relationship to the sciences?
Before answering this, we need to clarify what we mean by theology.
We are assuming here that Scripture is divine revelation given to us by God,
not our human search for God.
Theology, then, is our
attempt to understand that revelation in our historical and cultural contexts (figure 2). As Millard Erickson notes, it is a
second level activity (1986). It is important,
therefore,
that we study Scripture carefully so that our theologies are biblically informed.
We must remember, however, that all our theologies are shaped
by our societies and cultures. We must remember, too, that there are great
gulfs between biblical times and our times, between universal theories and the
particulars of everyday life, and between synchronic theologies which examine the unchanging structure of reality and
diachronic theologies that study cosmic history. It is important in any theological reflection to work to bridges these
differences.
Theology, like the
sciences, is divided into different research traditions, each seeking to answer
specific questions, making certain
assumptions, and using different methods of research (figure 3). We will examine two of these types briefly.i
Philosophical
Theology
One
approach to the study of Scripture is to use the assumptions, questions and
methods of philosophy. This has led to Systematic Theology,
which emerged in the twelfth century with the reintroduction
of Greek logic from the universities of the Middle East and Spain (Finger 1985,
28-21).ii At first, systematic theology was
seen as the “queen of the sciences,” but over time it became
one discipline among others in theological education–alongside biblical
exegesis, hermeneutics, history, missions and other
disciplines (Young 1998, 78-79).
The
central question systematic theology seeks to answer is: “What are the
unchanging universals of reality?” It assumes that there are
basic, unchanging realities, and if these are known,
we can understand the fundamental structure of reality.iii It also
assumes that ultimate truth can be known by means of human reason, and that it
is ahistorical and acultural–it is true for
everyone everywhere. It uses the abstract, digital, algorithmic logic, and
rhetoric of Greek philosophy, which are
propositional in nature. It rejects all internal contradictions and fuzziness in categories and thought.iv
Its
goal is to construct a single systematic understanding of ultimate truth that
is comprehensive, logically consistent and
conceptually coherent.v To arrive at objective truth, it, like the
modern sciences, separates cognition from feelings and values,
because the latter are thought to introduce subjectivity
into the process.
The strength of systematic theology is its
examination of the fundamental elements and categories in Scripture. It gives us a standard to test our knowledge,
and helps us understand the biblical
worldview–the view of reality as God sees it, and as he has revealed to us in
Scripture.
Systematic theology has its limitations. Because
it focuses on a synchronic analysis of the ultimate structure of reality, it loses sight of the cosmic drama or
plot in the Scriptures, and the place of history and historical events in that
drama. It cannot adequately deal with change, and must see changes in God’s attitudes and responses
as surface phenomena, not intrinsic to God’s ultimate nature.
Because systematic theology focuses on universals
and an ascent to knowledge through contemplation
divorced from everyday life, it does not tell us how to deal with the beliefs
and practices found in different
cultures or times. Its focus on abstraction and rational coherence has often turned it into an intellectual exercise
remote from life’s everyday issues. Moreover, the Greek distinction between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’
knowledge has relegated the problems of everyday life to a position of lesser importance because they deal with
the subjective and changing messiness
of human lives.
Philosophical theology is also in danger of
becoming captive to the methods of philosophyvi. In the West, the search for a comprehensive system
based on digital sets and algorithmic logic implies that humans can grasp the
fullness of truth with clarity. It leaves little room for the ambiguities of life, the mysteries that transcend
human comprehension, and the wisdom that can deal with the contradictions and paradoxes of a rapidly changing world.
Systematic theology often has a weak sense of
mission. Thomas Finger notes, “Systematic theology arose as a branch of academic study pursued in universities and
not primarily as a task of the church
involved in the world at large (1985, 20-21).” Missiology is not a category in systematic theology, and systematic theology is not
the driving force behind missions.vii Missiology is commonly relegated to the category of practical theology.
Finally, systematic theology was itself a product
and reflection of western intellectual history. Calvin, Luther and their successors appealed not only to sole
scriptura, but logic, rhetoric and
other methods available to them to
shape their theologies. In so doing, they allowed scholasticism in at the back door. G. Ebling
notes,
What
was the relation of the systematic method here [in the post-Reformation] to the
exegetical
method? Ultimately it was the same as in the medieval scholasticism. There, too,
exegesis of holy scripture went on not only within systematic theology, but
also separately alongside of it, yet so that the possibility of a tension
between exegesis and systematic theology was a
priori excluded. Exegesis was enclosed within the
frontiers fixed by systematic theology (1963, 82-83).
Systematic theologians
need to examine the cultural and historical contexts in which they formulate their theologies to discern the biases
that these might introduce in their understanding of Scripture. All theologies are human creations
seeking to understand divine revelation, and all theologies are embedded in worldviews that shape the way they see
things. There are no culture-free and
history-free theologies. We all read Scripture from the perspectives of our
particular context. This does not mean
we can know no truth. It does mean that we must never equate our theology with Scripture, and that we need to work
in hermeneutical communities to check our personal and cultural biases.
Philosophical theologies are now being done by
committed evangelical theologians around the world. But different human contexts raise different questions that
require theological reflection. Donald
Shultz writes,
The
time is also past when Western theologians had all the “definitive answers”..
Asian theologians
now bear the responsibility and willingly accept it. The latter have
discovered
that Western definitive answers do not automatically fit the Asian situation and often answer questions
not asked in Asia (Stultz 1989, 23).
Biblical Theology
A second theological research tradition that
emerged in the West was Biblical Theology. Reacting to the scholasticism of post-Reformation theologians, Johann
Gabler advocated a new way of doing
theology. He saw theology as a practical science, and stressed experience and
the illumination of the Spirit
(Evans, McGrath and Gallway 1986, 170-71). His central question was, “What did the biblical passages mean at the
time of those writing them, and what lessons can we learn from them today?” In so doing he advocated a return to the
Bible as history, and an emphasis on
the unfolding of the cosmic story.
Biblical theology examines the narrative nature of
Scripture. It assumed that the heart of revelation is historical in character--that there is a real world with a
real history of change over time which
is ‘going somewhere’, and which has meaning because it has a plot and
culminates in God’s eternal reign.viii
Biblical theology argues that this view of truth as cosmic story is fundamental to the Hebrew worldview, and to an
understanding of Scripture. To describe ultimate reality, the Jews told and reenacted in rituals the acts of God
in their lives. Wolfhart Pannenberg
reminds us that God is not only the ground of all existence, but all of history
is a revelation of his existence and
reign (1968).
Biblical theology uses the questions, methods and
assumptions of modern historiography.ix It uses the temporal logic
of antecedent and consequent causality, and accepts teleological explanations in which God and humans act on the
basis of intentions. Biblical theology is important because it gives us the diachronic dimension of a biblical
worldview. It gives meaning to life by
helping us see the cosmic story in which human history and our biographies are embedded.
Biblical
theology also has its limits. It focuses on diachronic meaning, leaving the
unchanging structure of reality in our peripheral vision. It
focuses on past biblical history, not on present events.
It looks at the universal story, not the particular lives of individual and
communities
outside
the biblical narrative. It does not directly help us apply biblical truth to
the problems we face in specific cultures and
persons today. If we are not careful, it can become a study unto itself with
little relevance to us today. We must focus on the cosmic story, but we need to
remember that God speaks to us through Scripture in the
context of concrete settings of human and
personal history, and that our stories as individuals and as the church are
part of that cosmic story.
Biblical theology is essential to
our understanding of Scripture, but like systematic theology, God’s mission in the
world, particularly as that relates to us today, is not a central theme in its analysis. It has not been a strong motivating
force driving people and churches into missions.
Missional Theology
To
communicate the Gospel in human contexts, we need a third way of doing
theology–a way of thinking biblically about God’s
mission in the world here and now.
Missionaries,
by the very nature of their task, must become theologians. Mission, Martin
Khler wrote almost a century ago, “is the mother of theology.”
Theology began as an accompanying manifestation of Christian missions, and not
as a luxury of the world-dominating church. David Bosch notes, “Paul was the
first Christian theologian precisely because he was the first Christian missionary (1991, 124).” Elwood points out (1980,
75), “Asian theology cannot afford to be purely academic and philosophical, but rather it is valid only if it is
produced not primarily in between piles of books, but in the “field” where it
is put to the test every day.”
The
question arises, how do mission theologians do theology, and how is this
different from other ways of doing theology? Their central question is: “What
is God’s Word to humans in their particular situations?” Mission theologians
assume that God is a missionary God, that mission
is the central theme in God’s acts on earth, and that all Christians are to be
a part of this mission. They also assume that
all humans live in different historical and sociocultural settings, and
that the Gospel must be made known to them in the particularity of these contexts.
Eugene Peterson writes,
This is the gospel focus: you are
the man; you are the woman. The gospel is
never about everybody else; it is always about you, about me.
The gospel is never truth in general; it’s
always a truth in specific. The gospel is never a commentary on ideas or
culture or conditions; it’s always about actual persons,
actual pains, actual troubles, actual sin; you, me; who you are and what
you’ve done; whom I am and what I’ve done (1997, 185).
The task of the mission theologian
is to translate and communicate the Gospel in the language and culture of real people
in the particularity of their lives so that it may transform them, their societies and their cultures into what God intends
for them to be. Missional theology seeks to build the bridge between Biblical revelation and human contexts. It seeks
to bridge the gap between orthodoxy and orthoparxy–between truth, love and
obedience.
The logic of missional theology
can use is that of modern common law. For a preliminary model we
will look at the methods of common law as it has been developed in the United
States.x In the United States there are three
levels of law: constitutional law, statutory law, and case law (Figure
5. Romantz, and Vinson, 1998). The Constitution is the unchanging foundation on
which the legal system
is built. Constitutional law examines statutory and case laws to see if any
violate the Constitution. If they do, they are declared invalid. Statutory laws
are laws passed by legitimate
government bodies such as Congress, state governments and government agencies. They seek to interpret constitutional principles in
a changing world. For example, federal agencies
determine what is private property with the introduction of new technologies
and information. Case laws are the
legal guidelines that emerge out of legal rulings in precedent cases on specific instances. Judges are bound by
the principle of stare decisis which calls for them to make their judgments in
accord with the legal findings by judges in the past on similar cases, except where such precedents can be shown
to be unconstitutional.
In missional theology, Systematic Theology plays
the role of constitutional law. It helps us understand the ultimate realities in which all reflections regarding
human contexts and specific human
cases must take place. It is important to remember that systematic theology is
our understanding of unchanging
universals based on our study of Scripture, and does not carry the authority of Biblical revelation. Consequently, we
must constantly test it against Scripture as we deal with the realities of
life.
Biblical Theology and church creeds and confessions
play the role of statutory law. They show how the universal principles revealed
in Scripture have been manifest in history and interpreted by God’s people in an ever changing world. Both
systematic and biblical theology are the reflections of the Church in its attempt to understand divine
revelation.
Missional theology also
draws on precedent cases in the life of the church–on how other Christians have reflected and ruled in similar
situations.
Like common law, missional
theology begins by a careful study of the specific case at hand–the participants, the events, and the sociocultural
and historical context. We must study the participants, events and socicultural and historical context using
empirical analysis and reason to organize
our findings. In doing so, we must seek to understand the situation as the
people involved see it. This involves
studying their beliefs and practices, because these inform their behavior. This emic analysis, however, does not
provide us a full understanding of situation, nor a bridge for deciding on a biblical solution. We must compare
different perspectives, including our
own, and develop a metacultural ‘etic’ that enables us to understand more fully
the realities of the case. In this
step the human sciences and history can help us develop generalizations and theories that help us
understand the case.
Having
studied the case, missional theologians, like judges in modern law, examine
systematic theology (i. e. constitutional law), biblical
theology and church history (i. e. statutory law), and precent
cases (i.e. case law) as these apply to the case at hand. We examine Scripture
to throw light on the problems we face using our questions, theories and
methods, but we must also
examine the questions, theories and methods we
bring with us in the light of biblical revelation.
We must then evaluate the human situation in the
light of biblical truth and the history of how the church has understood and applied that truth in specific situations,
and pass judgment on the issues at
hand, prescribe a course of action and determine a course of action based on
our reflections.xi
The analogy to common law is not perfect. Missional
theologians must go beyond the role of modern
judges. We are part of the church, the community of people we judge. Moreover,
we have a mission. We are seeking to
help the church and the people move from where they are to where God wants them to be. This is a process of
transformation that includes individuals, and corporate social and cultural systems. We cannot expect people simply to
abandon their old ways and adopt new
ones. They can only move from where they are by an ongoing process of transformation.
One strength of missional theology is its focus on
mission. It takes humans seriously, in the particularity of their histories,
societies and cultures. It integrates cognition, affectivity, and evaluation in its response to biblical truth, and
defines faith not simply as mental affirmations of truth, nor as positive experiences of God, but as
beliefs and feelings that lead to response and obedience to the word of God. It rejects the division between pure and
applied theology, and sees ministry
both as a way of doing theology and as a form of worship.
This approach also recognizes that
as human we all live in and are shaped by particular cultural and
historical contexts. We can only begin with our existing systems of thought.
Recognizing this, we must consciously reflect on and alter our questions,
assumptions, methods and theories in the light of revelation. This reflection
needs to be done by the community of theologians--
including systematic, biblical and missional
theologians, because each can help correct our biases. This hermeneutical community should involve theologians from
different cultures and from the past to correct cultural and historical biases.
CASES
Two cases can help us understand missional
theology and the methods it uses. The first is from Scripture, the second a hypothetical case from
modern missions, but one that draws on thousands of real cases.
Acts Fifteen
The
first major case in the early church is recorded in Acts 15. The problem of
neglecting the Hellenist widows was handled by an
administrative decision made by council of the twelve
apostles (Acts 6:1-2).
Now a new problem arose that called into question the very identity of the church, and threatened to split it apart. The
crisis arose in Antioch, and the church sent Barnabas, Paul and others to present the case to the apostles and elders,
who met together to consider the
matter (15:6). The question was clear: did Gentiles have to be circumcised and become practicing Jews before they were admitted
into the church?
First the council gathered information from
different witnesses on the events leading up to the crisis. The facts were clear. After persecution
set in at Jerusalem, Philip went to preach to the Samaritans (8:4-25), and many were healed and
believed. When the apostles heard about this they sent Peter and John to investigate. They reported back that the
Holy Spirit had indeed come and that
these could legitimately be seen as new believers. Some may have argued that
the Samaritans were half Jews, and that God was gracious in letting them back
into the fold. But Philip, claiming to
be led by the Holy Spirit, baptized an Ethiopian (8:26-40). Some may have argued that he was a “God Seeker” who had come from
Jerusalem where he was probably looking
into becoming a Jew through the prescribed process. But he was a eunuch, and
eunuchs were not allowed into the temple. However, he had resolved the problem
himself by leaving the scene and not
disturbing the status quo in the church. Then Peter witnessed to Cornelius
(10:), a godly man, but fully a Gentile. This raised the anger of circumcised
believers who criticized him when he
came to Jerusalem, and he explained himself to them. What could they say? Peter
was one of the apostles, and who were
they to challenge him? But then some unnamed people began to witness to the Hellenists in Antioch, and many
of them and of Gentiles turned to the Lord and began to meet in fellowship
together (11:19-21). The elders sent Barnabas to investigate, and he decided on
the spot that God indeed was bringing Gentiles into the church. In fact,
Barnabas and Paul had gone out on a mission journey and openly invited Gentiles
to follow Christ and join the church.
Now the matter had come to a head, and a decisive decision was needed to
resolve the problem.
There was little disagreement about the facts of
the case. There was much disagreement on what should be done. All the parties involved argued their briefs before the
council, seeking to persuade the
elders that they were right (15:7). After Peter gave his closing statement, the
assembly asked Barnabas and Paul to
retell the central facts surrounding the issue. Then James announced the verdict. After citing Scripture to
lay the foundation for theological reflections on the matter, he decided that a Scriptural
interpretation of the facts justified the admission of Gentiles into the church, and that without becoming
Jews by circumcision and keeping the law. He then issued instructions on implementing the findings, and urged
Gentile converts, for the sake of
maintaining unity, to abstain from behavior that was an unnecessary offense to
the Jewish Christians. This was not a
new law, but an exercise of their freedom in Christ to show love to their fellow Christians.
James and the elders, in fact, were doing missional
theology. They began by studying the facts in the case, and hearing arguments from various factions in the church.
Then James used theological
reflection to reach a decision and pass judgment based on the situation at
hand.
A Case of
Polygamy
A second case can help us
understand the methods of Missional Theology. It comes from Africa (Hiebert and Hiebert 1987, 62-65), but the same
questions it raises are found around the world.
What
should the church do with polygamy, whether one husband and many wives, or one woman
and many husbands?
The
facts of this case are clear. Amadu is the chief of the village. When the
missionaries came, they asked him for permission to
stay, and, out of hospitality, he allowed them to do so. After three years
ministry, a small church of believers was formed made up of two singles and
five young couples, all monogamous. Having heard the Gospel and
seen its effects on new believers, Amadu came and wanted to be
baptized into the church, along with his five wives. What should the church and
missionaries do?
If we
turn first to systematic theology for an answer, we are in danger of passing
judgment on situations we do not understand, and, therefore,
to fall into a blind legalism. If, on the other hand,
we turn to biblical theology, the answer is more ambiguous. All the heros of
the Old Testament were polygamists, and there is no divine
sanction of their actions. If we start with a careful study of the culture and
the real life issues involved, we can come to an answer that is biblically
based and culturally sensitive.
First,
we need to examine the reasons for Amadu having five wives. The first was
arranged by his family, because as the to-be chief the matter
is a political and social matter. The first wife had no
children, so Amadu took a second wife. It is imperative that a chief have an
heir, and a man’s greatness is measured, in part, by having
many descendants who remember and honor him.
Amadu inherited two wives when his brother died. Each society must make
provision for widows and orphans, and the traditional ## custom
is for a man to take care of his deceased brother’s
wives and children. This gives him the right to cohabit with them, but, more
important, it provides them with food, shelter, companionship, offspring,
parenting and role models. In his old age, as a renoun chief, Amadu
took a young wife to help at home, and to add to his prestige.
Second,
we need to look at the theological and sociocultural issues involved in the
case. A few of these are:
·
are traditional marriages true
marriages, or should Christians be remarried with Christian rites?
·
is polygamy [in this case
polygyny] sin?
·
is divorce sin?
·
which is the greater
sin–polygamy or divorce [if traditional marriages are true marriages and we ask Amadu to ‘put away’
all but one wife, we teach monogamy but also divorce]?
·
if we ask Amadu to put away all
but one wife, which one should he keep–his first, the mother of his children, one of those
he inherited, the youngest]?
·
if we ask Amadu to put away some
wives and children, which will become of them [often they become prostitutes or are
sold into slavery]?
·
can the church baptize the wives
of a polygamist [they are all monogamous, but if we do so the church will be made up
largely of women]?
·
how should the church deal with
the sins people commit before they become Christians?
·
what are the evangelistic
consequences of our decision [forcing men to put away wives has been a great hindrance to the
growth of the church]?
·
if Amadu is baptized with his
wives, can he be a leader in the church [1 Tim. 3:2, 12]?
·
can a leader who is widowed
remarry [Paul’s instructions are that a leader is to be “a one woman man.”
This can interpreted as a prohibition of digamy–remarriage of a widower–as well
as polygamy].
·
who should make the decision [the
missionary, the young church, the mission board]?
• what should the
missionaries do if their mission board has given them specific instructions not
to baptize polygamists [they may be fired if they disobey]?
The next step is to study Scripture for principles
that determine our judgments. Here we should begin by studying how the character of God himself informs our judgment.
God is a covenant keeper, so Amadu should honor the covenants he made, even
though he made these before he became
a Christian. God is compassionate, so the decision must take into account the
wives and children who are the real
victims if they must be sent away. God is concerned that none should perish, so
the judgment must be such that the door to forgiveness and salvation is open to
all.
We should then examine specific issues that arise
in this case. There is no question that monogamy is God’s ideal, but is polygamy a sin, and, if so, what do we do
with non-Christians who come with
several wives? Is divorce a sin, and, if so, how do we avoid making Amadu sin
by divorcing wives to whom he is legitimately married so that he can be
monogamous? After extended biblical
studies, theologians such as Karl Barth find no compelling certainty that polygamy is a sin. The Old Testament makes no issue
of it, and the instructions in the New Testament
are for leaders in the church. On the other hand, divorce is condemned in both
the Old and New Testaments.
There are other issues that must be decided. If we
ask Amadu to put away all but one of his wives, what should Amadu or the church do for them? Is it realistic for
Amadu to continue to support them–including his own children, and not to treat
them as wives? They will be looked down
upon, and gossiped about. The young ones can have no children and will be
condemned by a society in which women
are honored for their children. And what will the church do with widows when the traditional solution has been
rejected? Each of these, and many more issues, need extended theological reflections.
We need also to look at how polygamy has been
viewed throughout history. In the Old Testament
little is said about it. In the New Testament Paul makes reference to it with
regard to elders. The church in the
West followed Greek morality and condemned polygamy outright. In modern mission history, missionaries from the west
have traditionally required polygamists to put away all but one of their wives.
The Lambath Conference decreed:
After we evaluate the case in the
light of the findings of systematic theology, biblical theology and
church history, and of the ways other mission agencies have handled such cases
in that and other parts of the world, we need to formulate principles that
inform the case, make a decision, and provide ways in which to
carry out the judgment and deal with its consequences.
We
will not pass a final judgment on the case here. Our purpose is to illustrate
the methods of missional theology. What is clear
is that a careful study of both Scripture and specific cases can help us apply
biblical teachings to the realities of everyday life. It makes theology live
for us, because theology is no longer an abstract understanding of truth, but a
map for living our lives.
References Cited
Adams, Nicholas and Charles Elliott. 2000. Ethnography is
dogmatics: making description central to systematic theology. Scottish
Journal of Theology. ##:339-364.
Bevans,
Stephen, 1992. Models of Contextual Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis Books
Bosch, David J. 1991. Transforming Mission:
Paradigm ‘Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Ebling, G. 1963. The meaning of
biblical theology. Word and Faith. London: SCM Press. Erickson,
Millard. 1986.
Evans, G. R., A. E.
McGrath and A. D. Gallway. 1986. The Science of Theology.. ####
Finger, Thomas N. 1985. Christian Theology: An
Eschatological Approach. Vol. 1. Scottdale, PN: Herald Press.
Fuller,
Daniel P. 1997. Biblical theology and the analogy of faith. International
Journal of Frontier Missions. 14:65-74.
Hiebert, Paul
G. and Frances F. 1987. Case Studies in Missions. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House. pp. 62-65.
Hiebert,
Paul G. 1994. Critical contextualization. In Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House. pp. 75-92.
Hiebert,
Paul G., R. Daniel Shaw, and Tite Tinou. 1999. Understanding Folk Religion:
A Christian
Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House.
Laudan, Larry. 1977. Progress and Its Problems:
Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Lee,
Moonjang. 19##. A post critical reading of the Bible as a religious text.
Asia Journal of Theology.
272-285.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ed. 1968. Revelation as
History. New York: The Macmillian Company.
Peterson, Eugene. 1997. Leap Over a Wall:
Earthy Spirituality for Everyday Christians. San Francisco: Harper
San Francisco.
Romantz, David S. and Kathleen Elliott Vinson. 1998.
Legal Analysis: The Fundamental Skill. Durham, N.C.: Carolina
Academic Press.
Schreiter,
Robert J. 1985. Constructing Local Theologies. N.Y.: Orbis.
Schults,
Donald L. 1989. Developing an Asian Evangelical Theology. Mandalujyong,
Metro Manila.
Tabor, Charles R. 1978. Is there
more than one way to do theology: anthropological comments on
the doing of theology. Gospel in Context. 1:4-10.
Wainwright,
Geoffrey. 1980. Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine and Life: A
Systematic Theology. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Zadeh,
Lofti Asker. 1965 Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 8:338-353.
End Notes
i We will not examine the doxological or
tropological theology of Eastern Orthodoxy which is done in the context of worship, and stresses the mystical, sacramental
and iconic nature of truth. The key question it addresses is, “How can we
comprehend complex, transcendent truths about God and reality that lie beyond
words, logic and human reason?” It uses nondiscursive signs and tropes such as
icons, metaphors, types and parables to communicate transcendent truth.
For an analysis of doxological theology see Wainwright (1980).
ii It is based on the resurgence of Platonic
realism that gave rise to scholasticism and later the humanistic school of Erasmus
and culminating in the Enlightenment school. For a historical summary of its
emergence see Fuller 1997). See also G. R. Evans, A. E. McGrath and A.D.
Gallway (1986, particularly pp. 62-173).
iii This is rooted in the Newtonian assumption
that everything is composed of basic building blocks and put together as a machine. This view leads to determinism and a
engineering approach to reality based on technological solutions. It
also leads to the division of the sciences into disconnected disciplines which
creates a division of labor and a gap between experts and laity.
iv An algorithm is a formal logical process which,
if carried out correctly, produces the right answer. Algorithmic logic is
sometimes called ‘machine’ logic because it is the basis on which calculators
and computers work, and can be done faster and more accurately by these than by
humans. For an introduction to fuzzy categories and fuzzy logic see
Hiebert 1994, 107-136).
v Peter Lombard founded systematic theology when he
sought to disengage key theological questions from their original biblical contexts and to arrange them in a
logical sequence of their own that would provide a comprehensive,
coherent and synthetically consistent account of all the major issues of
Christian faith, and demonstrate the
rational credibility of Christian faith (Finger 1985, 19) . Lombard’s Scentences,
written in the 1140's, provided the form of much of later Medieval and
Reformation Theology (Evans, McGrath and Gallway 1986, 71, 132).
vi For
discussions about doing theology from non-western perspectives see Tabor
(1978), Schreiter (1985), Schults (1989), and Lee (1978). One issue
philosophical theology must wrestle with is the fact that different cultures
use different logics–each of which is
perfectly logical and internally consistent, but differs from the others in the
assumptions it makes. For example,
much of modern logic is based on digital sets, all things can be sorted into different discrete, non-overlapping categories. In
number theory, this sees numbers as intervals. This is true of Euclidian geometry and Cantorian algebra. Other
logics, such as Indian logic and calculus, see numbers as ratios–as infinite
continua from one point to another (Zadeh 1965). Greek logic is abstract and
analytical. Other logics are concrete and
function. Can we do philosophical theology using different logics, and, if so,
what are the strengths
and weaknesses of each of these logics?
vii Few trained as theologians go into missions, and many schools with
strong departments of theology have no department
or vision of missions. On the other hand, all missionaries, of necessity, must
become theologians.
viii We use the term ‘plot’ here in the way Paul speaks of the ‘mystery’ now
revealed to us (Rom. 16:25, Eph. 1:9, 3:3,
6:19, Col. 1:26). This is to say that there is real history, that it is moving
in a direction and not changing randomly,
and that behind it is a ‘plot’ or drama--a cosmic story that gives it meaning
because it is ‘going somewhere.’ For
us it is the story of God creating a perfect world, redeeming the lost who turn
in faith to him, and restoring creation to perfection in which all will
bow before Christ the Lord.
ix For G. Vos, Biblical Theology is the “History of
Special Revelation (1948, 23). Biblical Theology is Historical, Systematic
Theology is logical.
x The use of common law as a model draws
on a Western paradigm. Like all human models, including those of philosophy and history, this has its limitations
and weaknesses. In other cultures, there are other ways of handling the problems of everyday life, such as panchayats
and India, and palavers in West Africa. All these seek to apply moral
principles to specific situations using different logics embedded in the
broader method of ‘wisdom.’ The relevance of these methods for doing missional
theology needs to be studied. Most of them lack a set of eternal absolutes that
determine ultimate truth and morality. Consequently these are determined by
social consensus, not divine revelation that shows us Truth and Morality as God
sees these, and has revealed them to us.
xi For a
full discussion of this process see “Critical Contextualization” (Hiebert
19##). For an application of it to issues raised in folk religions see Understanding
Folk Religion (Hiebert, Shaw and Tinou, 1999).