THE
PARADIGM & PRESSING ISSUES
OF INTER-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Enoch Wan
Chair, Division of Intercultural
Studies and Director, Doctor of Missiology Program,
Western
Seminary, Portland, Oregon, USA
Published in
Global Missiology, Research Methodology, January 2005, www.globalmissiology.net
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1
OBSERVATION
OF DISCIPLINARY MYOPIA AND ITS CONSEQUENCE.............................................. 2
ANTICIPATION
OF NEW CHALLENGES AT THE MILLENNIAL CROSS-ROAD.................................... 3
THE
CHALLENGES IN INTER-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................... 4
THE
ADVANTAGES OF INTER-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...................................... 4
COMPARING
THE EVANGELICAL AND NON-EVANGELICAL RESEARCH ORIENTATIONS................. 5
Figure 1 -
Evangelical and Non-evangelical Research Orientations................................................................................... 5
COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS OF EVANGELICAL AND NON-EVANGELICAL RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................. 6
Figure Q - Evangelical and Non-evangelical Research
Methodology: General................................................................. 7
EXPLANATION AND
ILLUSTRATION OF INTER-DISCIPLINARY EVANGELICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 8
Figure 3 – COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
EVANGELICAL AND NON-EVANGELICAL
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY –
CASE STUDY ON “TRUTH”............................................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 4 - EXPLANATION OF
EVANGELICAL INTER-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 5 -
Illustration of Evangelical Inter-disciplinary Methodology............................................................................. 11
Figure 6 -
Illustrations in Integrative Missiological Research......................................................................................... 13
PROPOSAL FOR COOPERATION OF EVANGELICAL SCHOLARS IN
INTER-DISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH.................................................................................................................................... 14
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................ 14
WORKS CONSULTED..................................................................................................................... 14
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The purpose of
the paper is to explain the “why” and “how” of evangelical inter‑
disciplinary
research methodology.
1.2 Proposed definition of several key terms are
listed below:
“Epistemological”:
“The
quest for rational foundations (in theory of knowledge) for theological
as well any claim to truth.” (See, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of
Modern Christian Thought, edited by Alister E. McGrath,
1993.)
“Hermeneutical”:
“From hermeneutics, (Gr. hermeneuo: to interpret).
It is the theory of interpretation.”
Recently, in the narrow sense, it has come to mean “the study of rules or principles for the
interpretation of particular texts.” In its broader sense, however, it means “the interpretation and understanding
of any act of communication, whether
written or oral, verbal or non-verbal (such
as symbols or symbolic acts).” As applied to other fields of knowledge, hermeneutics deals with nature of
language, meaning, communication and
understanding. (See, New Dictionary of Theology, 1987).
“Inter-disciplinary research”:
-“academic and systematic study
conducted by using elements (e.g. theory, methodology,
etc.) from one or more disciplines in the attempt to achieve a
high degree of coherence or unity.”
“Paradigm”:
- “the
perceptual perspective, conceptual framework or scientific model of reality.” (Wan 1998:3, cf. Bosch 1996:184-185)
There are three levels: “macro-paradigm” (paradigm
of universal acceptance and well
established in all fields of knowledge, i.e., the enlightenment would be a macro-paradigm),
“meso-paradigm”(paradigm of partial acceptance), and
“micro-paradigm”(paradigm of acceptance in a particular
context that may not be accepted in a given different context). (Bosch 1996, 185).
“Research Methodology”:
“ways and approaches employed in academic and
systematic study.”
“Theory”:
-“a set of interrelated hypotheses which
constitute a tentative explanation of
a complex phenomenon of reality.”
1.3 The plan of organization:
The
two-fold purpose of the paper is to be achieved by a brief review of the negative
consequences of the lack of inter-disciplinary integration in research methodology
(the “why”) and to propose to evangelical scholars (the “how”) an alternative
way (i.e. inter-disciplinary research methodology) which is
theologically sound,
theoretically coherent and cross-disciplinary applicable.
II. OBSERVATION OF DISCIPLINARY MYOPIA
AND ITS
CONSEQUENCE
There
are seven socio-cultural phenomena of negative nature due to the out-come
educational goal of producing “specialist” and the resultant
“disciplinary myopia”:
2.1 absence of the cultivation of the whole person
with holistic perspective and
healthy temperament (e.g. curricular problems of
the public school system);
2.2 being
succumbed to technological domination (e.g. biological engineering over
ethics; population control over human values);
2.3 cultural irrelevance of scholarship: (e.g.
training of expert instead of cultivation of
personhood and holistic learning);
2.4 disciplinary rivalry (e.g. sciences vs.
humanities);
2.5 ethical confusion: scientific accomplishment in
science and technology (such as
organ transplant, cloning, etc.) surpasses ethical
formulation;
2.6 fragmentation of knowledge (e.g. modern specialist
vs. traditional scholars,
technocrat
vs. administrator) with a distorted view of reality (i.e. compartmentalized
mind set, tunnel vision, etc.);
2.7 giving into the dehumanizing and depersonalizing
forces of contemporary society
(e.g. the critique of the Marxist, feminist,
liberation theologians, etc.).
III.
ANTICIPATION OF NEW CHALLENGES AT THE MILLENNIAL CROSS-ROAD
There
are seven kinds of challenge at the closing of the 20th Century that
would call for evangelical cooperative
inter-disciplinary research (i.e. 5 external + 2 internal):
3.1 postmodernist
orientation & the tyranny of the "tolerance principle;”
3.2 pluralistic landscape & anti-Christian /
anti-establishment sentiment;
3.3 popularity of "hard sciences" at the
expense of the traditional studies, e.g.
humanities, theological studies, etc.)
3.4 promising bio-medical engineering, run-away
technological advancement, and
rapid socio-cultural changes;
3.5 powerful and pervasive forces such as New Age
Movement, gay & lesbian
movement,
environmental activist groups, Easternization (e.g. the increasing popularity
of homeopathic medicine and acupuncture), etc.;
3.6 polarization of evangelical scholars: the great
divide of liberal vs. conservative
(e.g. the "wider mercy of God") /
charismatic vs. "frozen chosen," the inerrancy debate, the "millenarian fever,” “the third
wave,” (including debates on “spiritual
warfare” mentality, the merits of “territorial
spirits” approach),etc.;
3.7 power struggle among the intellectual elites of
evangelical scholarship that are
polarized by disciplinary
differences, denominational division, etc. that would prevent genuine cooperation and collaboration of the best scholarship
from various disciplines.
Organizations
such as ETS/EMS/EPS are the ideal venues for inter-disciplinary cooperative efforts
of evangelical scholars/researchers to demonstrate the spirit of unity and to
make significant contributions in the “kairos” moment of human history.
IV.
THE CHALLENGES
IN INTER-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
As
much as one is committed to inter-disciplinary research methodology, if not
done properly it will cause the following problems:
4.1 theoretical incoherence
When
not well integrated it could lead to eclectic staggering of elements that are not
dynamically connected and synthetically interacting.
4.2 methodological imbalance:
The discipline with better
development and more powerful approaches may
absorb the others without true dynamic interaction and
coherent integration.
4.3 practical difficulty:
In the long path towards genuine
inter-disciplinary research, practical problems such as mutual suspicions,
disciplinary rivalry, methodological contention, etc. will prevent true
integration.
Unless hindrances (e.g.
barriers and divisions) are removed and problems solved; practical difficulty will hinder the process and pursuit of
cooperative inter-disciplinary research.
V.
THE ADVANTAGES
OF INTER-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
There can be three advantages to the use of
inter-disciplinary research methodology:
5.1 disciplinary synergism:
It
integrates into a macro-paradigm what otherwise is a set of independent disciplines
of study. The researcher is enabled to widen the scope of knowledge and
is opened to see the whole in which the parts interact together for a more
holistic understanding of
reality and better theoretical formulations about that reality.
5.2 mutual enrichment:
There is potential for a
mutual enrichment among the disciplines which enter in a dynamic interaction. This enrichment would
eventually mean a mutual borrowing,
questioning, and reformulating of what constituted an individual discipline=s method before entering into dynamic interaction.
This process sharpens the precision of a research undertaking,
thus securing results that are more systematic and closer to the
reality of the subject matter under research.
5.3 research advancement:
This
integrated inter-disciplinary approach in research processes, would also secure
the right adjustments to problem solving and theoretical proposals for the explanation
of phenomena under research. This in turn will increase the acuteness of implementing
new paradigms into particular fields of practice or knowledge.
In addition, the reality
of the vastness of the created order, the diversity of human culture, the complexity of life, etc. requires that
comprehensive and coherent understanding
be informed by the findings of multiple disciplines and various fields.
VI.
COMPARING THE EVANGELICAL AND NON-EVANGELICAL RESEARCH ORIENTATIONS
The research orientations of evangelical and
non-evangelical can be compared in terms of hermeneutical,
theological and methodological features as shown in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1 - Evangelical and Non-evangelical
Research Orientations
|
TYPE
|
NON-EVANGELICAL
|
EVANGELICAL
|
|
FEATURE
|
|
|
|
Hermeneutical
|
The context (reality) determines the meaning and
|
The biblical text interpreted by the analogy of
Scripture must
|
|
|
application
of truth
|
be applied to the reality to which it addresses.
|
|
|
The biblical text has different layers of meaning and
|
The biblical text has only one meaning, and that
meaning is
|
|
|
the reader /interpreter plays a decisive role.
|
the one intended by the biblical author inspired by
the Holy
|
|
|
|
Spirit.
|
|
|
Biblical interpretation, and also the text itself are
|
Though given through human agency, the Scriptures is
the
|
|
|
relative.
|
absolute authority.
|
|
Theological
|
Science and reason (not the biblical truth alone) provide
sure basis of epistemology
|
High view of Scripture (over
tradition) High view of grace (over human efforts) High
view of faith (over human reason)
|
|
Methodological
|
The scientific method is the only method that is conducive to truth.
|
Spiritual reality and Christian presuppositions are
relevant to methodology
|
VII. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EVANGELICAL AND NON-EVANGELICAL
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The
description (see figure 2 below) of the epistemological, theological, and
hermeneutical aspects of non-evangelical research is based on
the official documents of the World Council of churches
(“WCC”) after the Sixth Assembly (24 July-10 August 1983, Theme: “Jesus Christ
the life of the world” in Vancouver) and Seventh Assembly
(February 7-20 1991, Theme: “Come Holy Spirit- Renew the whole
creation” in Canberra).
Three
documents have been used to identify the epistemological, theological, and
hermeneutical method of evangelical research, respectively they
are: the Willowbank Report, the Lausanne Covenant and the Chicago Statement as
shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2 - Evangelical and
Non-evangelical Research Methodology: General
|
TYPE
FEATURE
|
NON-EVANGELICAL
|
EVANGELICAL
|
|
epistemo- logical difference
|
-Truth is plurality,
diversity, and dialogical (The Ecumenical Review
|
-Truth begins with the work of the inspiration and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit reveals the application of God's truth to personal and church life (The Willwobank Report, parag. 8, e).
-Gaining truth is to understand (The Willowbank
Report, parag. 8), to interpret (The Willowbank Report,
parag. 4), to communicate (The
Willowbank Report, parag. 6) the personal and self-disclosure of God in the bible.
-Affirms the
finality and permanent normativeness of Scripture. (The Willowbank Report,
parag. 8, c & d), The continuing work of illumination and the closed work of inspiration of the Holy Spirit
influence on both in every conversion and in the life of the Christian and the church (The Willowbank Report, parag. 8, e).
-Affirms that the communication of gospel leads to the transformation
of life in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities ( The Willowbank Report parag. 8, d).
|
|
vol. 47, No.4, October 1996, pp. 490-602).
It begins with the practice of dialogue (The
Ecumenical Review vol. 47,
|
|
No.4, p.
498)
-Knowledge of
reality (the world) influence on being the church: a house of living stones. This is the foundation of WCC. See AReport of the General Secretary (RGS)@ Philip Potter. In Gathered
for life: Official
|
|
report VI. General Assembly World Council of
Churches, edited by
|
|
David Gill, 1988. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans (Vancouver 24 July-10 August 1988 (sixth Assembly).
Theme: AJesus Christ the life of the world@)
-Knowledge
of the reality and the Bible must lead to public action, i.e., Sharing justice
and peace, (RGS Philip Potter 1988). See also Report of
|
|
the General Secretary of WCC, Konrad Raiser
September 1977. The
|
|
Ecumenical Review, vol 48 (1996), pp. 494-614.
|
|
(Canberra, February 7 - 20 1991, seventh Assembly.
Theme: ACome Holy Spirit-Renew the whole creation@)
|
|
theological distinctive- ness
|
-Doing theology is
an ecumenic activity. Jacques Nicole. 1996. "Unlearning in order to learn: Towards an Ecumenical
theological formation." The Ecumenical
Review, vol. 48, No.4., October 1996, pp.
|
-Found on the faith
that God's will and plan for human is that A has been calling out from the world a people
for himself, and sending his people back into
the world to be his servant and his witnesses, for the
extension of this kingdom, the building up of Christ's body, and the glory of his name.@ (The Lausanne Covenant, parag.
8)
-Social responsibility is the result of
transformation of life by the good news (The Lausanne Covenant,
parag. 6).
-Affirm that evangelism and social-political
involvement are both part of our Christianity (The Lausanne Covenant, parag.6).
-Christian presence in the world is indispensable to
evangelism (The
Lausanne Covanent, parag.4).
-To evangelize is to spread the good
news that Jesus Christ died for our sin and was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures, and that as the reigning Lord he now offers
the forgiveness of sins and the
liberating gift of the Spirit to all who repent and believe (The Lausanne
Covenant, parag. 4). -Affirm the
visibility of church in truth, and evangelism of the gospel of reconciliation summons us in unity. (The Lausanne Covenant ,parag. 7).
|
|
476-606. (See RGS, Emilio Castro. See RGS, Emiulio Castro. 1991. In
Signs of the
Spirit, official report seventh assembly, edited by Michael
|
|
Kinnamon. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.)
-The call to the unity of the church under Ecumenical
formation and to fulfill the cosmic vision of the new heaven and the new earth. The
|
|
Ecumenical Review, vol. 48, No.4 ., October
1996, p. 448.
|
|
-Reflection
and political action in the face of new global ideological projects.
Resisting globalization as an ideological project. Report of the General
Secretary of WCC, Konrad Raiser September 1977. The Ecumenical
Review, vol 48 (1996), pp. 494-614.
-Common witness to the whole
Christian faith, stop proselytism. The challenge of proselytism and the call into to common
Christian witness. The Ecumenical Review, vol. 48, No.2. pp. 212-221.
|
|
|
|
hermeneu- tical
principle
|
Focus on ethnicity with an existential and contextual
approach. Konrad Raiser. 1996. WCC Central Committee,
Report of the general secretary. The Ecumenical Review, vol 49 (1997):
86-107
Focus on justice,
peace and integrity of creation for the next millennium (idem).
|
Scripture is true (The Chicago
Statement, parag. XI), should always be interpreted on the basis
that it is infallible and inerrant (The Chicago Statement, parag. XII).
Focus on
"Grammatico-historical exegesis" and "Scripture is to interpret Scripture" (The Chicago Statement, parag. XVIII).
Focus on the authority of the Bible, deny the authority of Aindependent reason@ over the authority of the Bible
(The Chicago Statement, inerrancy and
authority).
Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of
authority. The
Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one.
|
VIII.
EXPLANATION AND ILLUSTRATION OF INTERDISCIPLINARY
EVANGELICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Figure 3 – COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EVANGELICAL
AND NON-EVANGELICAL RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY – CASE STUDY ON “TRUTH”
|
Layer
|
Level
|
LOCATION
IN THE CONTINUUM
|
|
|
A. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B
|
|
|
Center: "what?"
|
epistem- ological
assump- tion:
What is
“truth”?
|
-propositional.......................................
Packer, J.I. 1988. The
substance of truth in the present age. Crux, vol.34, No. 1.
March. Propositional: There is a
|
VS ........................................................ . . . existential
(personal/relational)
Treschow, Micahel. 1988. The
comfort of truth Crux 34, No. 2.
|
|
|
“public universal truth.” Truth is revealed
reality (p.8) Leffel, Jim. 1996.
Our old challenge: Modernism. In The death of truth. Ed. By Dennis Maccallum.
MN: Bethany House Publisher.
|
March
|
|
|
--conceptual.............................................................
Lindbeck, Beorge A.
1984. The nature of Doctrine: religion
|
VS......................................................................... concrete
Bloesch, I. Donald.
1971. The ground of certainty; Toward an
|
|
|
and theology in a postliberal age. PA: The
Westminster
|
Evangelical Theology of Revelation. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
|
|
|
Press pp63-69. Truth is propositional, symbolic and categorical.
|
|
|
|
-absolute.................................................................
Henry, Carl.
1976-83. God, Revelation and authority. Vol.
|
VS..................................................................... relative
Tracy, David. 1978.
Blessed rage for order, NY: The Seabury
|
|
|
1-6. Waco: Work.
|
Press.
|
|
|
Schaeffer, Francis A. 1982. The complete works
of Francis
|
|
|
A. Schaeffer, Vol. 1`-5. Westchester: Crossway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
core: "how?"
|
hermene- utical assump- tion:
How to ApproPriate“truth”?
|
-literal
.............................................................
(a) Jewish
Peshat. (Abraham ben Meir ibn Exra, b 1069, d.1164.
Commentary on the Pentateuch. 1988. Translated
|
VS.................................................................. allegorical
Allegorical: Philo. of Alexandria
|
|
|
by H. Norma Strickman. NY: Menorah Publishing Company,
Inc.
(b) Protestant
reformed tradition (specially Calvin Commentaries
and the Institutes)
|
|
|
-historical............................................................
Julius Welshausen.
1957. Prolegomena to the history of
|
VS................................................................. contextual
Thiselton, Anthony.
1984. The two horizons: new Testament
|
|
|
ancient Israel. NY: Merdian Books.
|
hermeneutics and philosophical description.
Grand Rapids:
|
|
|
|
Eerdmans.
|
|
|
-Critical....................................................................
Childs, Brevard.
1970. Biblical theology in
crisis. Philadelphia: Westminster.
|
VS.............................................................
epistemological
Van Til, E.
Cornelius
1975. A Christian
theory of knowledge. Philadelphia:
|
|
|
1979. Introduction to the Old Testament as
Scripture.
|
Presbyterian and Reformed.
1977. A survey of
Christian Epistemology: A survey of Christian
|
|
|
Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
|
|
|
Epistemology. Nutley, NJ.: Presbyterian and
Reformed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
corr
elat
|
thematic circle /
methodo
|
-focus .................................................................
B.B. Warfield “Biblical and theological
studies”
|
VS.................................................................. peripheral
Barr, James. 1987. Comparative philology and the text
of the Old
|
|
|
Testament. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbraus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-stem..................................................................
Lewis, Gordon R., Demarest
Bruce A. Integrative theology.
|
VS ....................................................................... cluster
Erickson, Millard. 1986.
Christian theology. Grand Rapids:
|
|
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Corduan, Winfried. 1997. No
doubt about it: The case for
|
Zondervan.
|
|
Christianity. Nashville: Broadman and Holman
Publishers.
|
|
|
|
-uni-directional/
unidimensional..............................
Louis Berkhof..1946. Systematic
theology . Grand Rapids:
|
VS........................... multi-directional / multi-dimensional
Carson, D.A. 1996. The gaging of God. Grand Rapids;
|
|
Eerdmans.
|
Zondervan.
Poythress, Vern, 1987.
Sumphonic theology: the validity of
|
|
multiple perspectives in theology. Grand Rapids.
Zondervan.
|
|
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 1998. Is there a meaning in this
text? The
|
|
Bible, the reader and the morality of literary
knowledge. Grand
|
|
Rapids:
Zondervan.
|
The
following is a case study on “truth” to explain and illustrate evangelical
inter-disciplinary research methodology. There can
be three “layers” to the matter: the center, the core and the correlate. As
shown in Figure 3 below at each level, there is a different method of
assumption, e.g., epistemological (“what is truth?”),
hermeneutical (“How to appropriate “truth?”) and thematic circle/methodological
complexity (“what is the scope of ‘truth claim’ and how to support
one’s ‘truth claim’?”).
Each level of research can be subdivided into three
categories and each category can be diagramed
in the form of a bipolar continuum (i.e., “A” and “B” at the right column in
Figure 3). Researchers and
publications are selected to represent the two opposite ends of the continuum. Due to the limitation of the present study, only a
small number of evangelical authors are chosen to illustrate the broad scope and the diverse approaches in this case
study on “truth.”
In the Bible, there are several dimensions of
“truth” including: quality of proposition (2 Chr. 18:15, Ps 15:2, Prov. 8:7; 22:21; John 16:7, Rom.
9:1), quality of persons and things in general, “truth” can be classified into
“ultimate truth” and “other truth.” Since “God is” is true and this
truth is neither created nor finite. It is therefore the “ultimate truth” which
is inseparable from the Triune God
Himself. It is the very essence of His being, of His self-consciousness and of His loving action. For there is but one God who
exists in three persons, sharing the same in essence. Of the Triune God, the
Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. His self consciousness
derives from His being, and the loving action depends on his being and self consciousness. Thus, the “ultimate
truth” is both a matter of reality, of proposition, and of action as found in
the incarnate and inscripturate Word of God (i.e. special revelation).
In addition to the “ultimate truth,” there is also
“other truth”
which is derived from the “ultimate
truth” by fallen man based on his interpretation of the “ultimate truth,” his
perception and conception of the
creator and the created order. Since the understanding of reality should be holistic and comprehensive; neither an individual
nor researcher of one discipline can claim to have the final, complete and absolute appropriation of “truth.” A
unified and coherent understanding of
any chosen focus or research requires information and input from multiple number of fields of knowledge (or disciplines)
obtained through the use of multiple number of methodology.
Using
the matter of “truth” as a case in point, as shown in Figure 3, there are three
layers and three levels. In answering the question, “What is
truth?” there are three types of continuum. First,
the continuum of “propositional” vs. “existential.” This denotes the
understanding of truth either as an “objective and
rational reality: or a “subjective, personal and relational reality.” Second,
the continuum of conceptual vs. concrete. In this continuum, truth is
understood as either “propositional, symbolic and categorical”
or as “concrete as in the cases of the Incarnate Christ
and the Inscripturated Word. Third, there is a continuum of “absolute” vs.
“relative.” In this continuum, truth is
understood as either “revealed, absolute and objective: or as “relative, subjective
and cultural.”
As to the question: “How to appropriate truth?”
there are three types of continuum in the hermeneutical efforts of
appropriating truth. The first continuum represents two different hermeneutical
assumptions: the “literal” vs. “allegorical.” The second continuum is
“historical” vs. “contextual” which
begins from focusing on the historical understanding of truth and ends with the emphasis on the contextual understanding
of the truth. The third continuum is “critical” vs. “epistemological”, i.e., either by “critical method” or by “faith.”
What is the scope of truth claim? There are three
types of thematic continuum. First, the continuum of “focus” vs. “peripheral,” i.e., either by studying one
“focus of theme” or by a “multiplicity of themes or narrative” due to the
“polymorphous character of truth.” (See Lewis and Demarest 1987:45-58, listing “truth: essential to spirituality,”
“truth: the criterion of authentic
spiritual experiences,” “truth: indispensable to distinctively Christian
service.”)
The second continuum is “stem” vs. “cluster” in
terms of methodological complexity. In this continuum, the scope of related disciplines can be in the pattern of
“stem” or “cluster.” The third continuum
is from “uni-directional / uni-dimensional” to “multi-directional/multi-dimensional”
in terms of methodological
complexity. In this continuum, the research is conducted either “unidirectionally” or “multi-directionally” so that
either a “single discipline” or “multiple numbers of related disciplines” is/are employed to support
one’s “truth claim.”
As shown in Figure 1, evangelical research is to
be biblically based, hermeneutically sound and methodologically inter-disciplinary, Figure 4 outlines the procedures
and process.
Figure 4 - EXPLANATION OF EVANGELICAL INTER-DISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
|
LAYER
|
LEVEL
& FOCUS
|
DISCIPLINE
|
|
CENTER
|
Textual:
morphology
word study
|
critical study: literary
Criticism
form criticism
historical criticism
|
|
CORE
|
Contextual:
-immediate
-individual book: e.g. Genesis,
I Kings, Matthew, Acts, etc.
|
-history, literary,
linguistics, etc.
-history, literary, linguistics, theology, history, archeology, anthropology, psychology, critical theory, sociology, communication, political
science, philosophy, etc.
|
|
|
\
-same author: e.g. Johannine,
Lukan, Pauline, etc
|
history, literary, linguistic, theoplogy, social, scientific
disciplines, critical theory, etc.
|
|
|
- genre: wisdom literature,
prophetic books, etc.
|
history, literal, linguistic,
theology, etc.
|
|
|
|
-apologetics, archeology,
literary, history, biblical
|
|
|
-canonical
|
theology, etc.
|
|
CORRELATION
|
Interdisciplinary:
critical theory + theology
|
biblical Exegesis + theological
systematization
|
|
|
scientific paradigms + biblical hermeneutics history +
theology
|
ethnohermeneutics +
Inter-cultural hermeneutics
|
|
|
bible and anthropology
|
social sciences + theology
|
Of the published works selected to
illustrate evangelical inter-disciplinary methodology, the authors of Integrative
Theology (Lewise & Demarest 1987:7-58) are more
articulate in the necessity and methodology of
inter-disciplinary approach. They proposed a six-step approach which has been closely
followed in each chapter: the problem; historical hypothoses; biblical teaching; systematic formulation; apologetic
interaction; and relevance for life and ministry.
In
addition to the works cited in Figure 5, selected works are listed below in
accordance to three categories: primary research (i.e.
inter-disciplinary with integration), secondary research (i.e. integrative
but not multidimensional enough) and peripheral research (i.e. prevalent single
focus):
Figure 5 - Illustration of Evangelical
Inter-disciplinary Methodology
|
 Primary
|
1. God
has created an orderly universe and controls it according to
a coherent plan
2. True
scientific research cannot contradict God’s truth but
confirm it.
|
Research proceeds by these three
sets
of assumptions
Research methodology (including the
scientific method) proceeds by using systematic procedure & coherent thinking
|
D.F. Kelly
Poythress,
Lewis
& Demarest
|
Creation and change, 1997
|
|
Science and Hermeneutics,
|
|
1996.
Integrative theology, 1987.
|
|
|
|
Secondary
|
1. God
has created also the secondary cause which is in operation.
2. Supernatural
phenomena cannot be subjected to the scientific
method
|
through research process the second causes are established in nature & society.
|
John Frame
|
The doctrine of the
|
|
knowledge of God, 1987
|
|
|
|
Peripheral
|
1. Scientific
observation about natural phenomena must not become the
rule for interpreting special revelation.
2. Evangelical
scholarship is an attempt to relate biblically revealed
truth to various fields of knowledge.
|
Research methods are used as tools and not the norm
for interpretation of special revelation.
|
Poythress
|
Science and Hermeneutics,
|
|
1996.
|
8.1 PRIMARY
RESEARCH:
Barbour, Ian G. 1974.
Myths, models and paradigms: A comparative study in science and religion.
New York: Harper & Row.1
Exum, J. Cheryl and
Clines, D.J.A., eds. 1993. The new literary criticism and the Hebrew Bible.
Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International.
Gill, Robin. 1977. Theology and social
structure. London: Nowbrays.
Poythress, Ver, 1987.
Symphonic theology: the validity of multiple perspectives in theology.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Silva, Moisés. God, language and Scripture, reading the
Bible in the light of general linguistics. The history of interpretation in the light of current issues. 1996. In Foundations of contemporary
interpretation, pp. 1-89. Ed. By Mosies
Silva. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
8.2 SECONDARY RESEARCH:
.
Kelly, Douglas F.
1997. Creation and change, genesis 1.1-2:4 in the light of changing
scientific paradigms. Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications.
See pp. 15-30.
Torrance, Tomas Forsyth. 1981. Christian
theology and scientific culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
. 1981b. Divine and contingent order.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
'This work is post Khunian which
endeavous to spell out the connections between sicience and religion at the methodological level.
. 1982. Reality and
evangelical theology. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Longman, Tremper III.
1996. Literary approaches to biblical interpretation. In Foundations of
contemporary interpretation, pp. 192. ed. By Mosies Silva.
8.3 PERIPHERAL
RESEARCH:
Plaster, David R. 1989. The theological method
of the early Princetonians. Th.D. dissertation:
Dallas Theological Seminary. See esp. chapters II,
III and VI.
Note: The author analyzes the theological method of A.A.
Hodge and Charles Hodge.
Barr, James. 1987. Comparative philology and
the text of the Old Testament. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Conn, Harvie M.. 1984. Eternal Word and changing
worlds: Theology, anthropology and mission in trialogue. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
Corduan, Winfried.
1984. Philosophical Presuppositions affecting biblical hermeneutics. In
Hemrneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert
D. Preus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
By
nature and history, missiological research is realitvely more
inter-disciplinary than other fields of evangelical enquiry thus several works
are chosen in Figure 6 as illustrations.
Figure 6 -
Illustrations in Integrative Missiological Research
|
AUTHOR
|
INTEGRATION
|
PUBLICATION
|
YEAR
|
MAIN FEATURES/AIMS
|
|
1.
CHARLES KRAFT
|
communication theory
and social Sciences with theology
|
Christianity in Culture
|
1984
|
*He attempts at multi
disciplinary integration.
*Conceptually coherent with
simplicity
* Betrays the Chicago Statement
on Biblical Inerrancy.
|
|
|
|
2.
CARSON
|
theology and philosophical pluralism and postmodernism
|
The Gaging of Go d:
|
1996
|
* Describes the main truths of
postmodernism
*Describes the changes in
Western culture
* Describes how Christian
thought can interact with postmodernism
|
|
Christianity confronts
|
|
Pluralism
|
|
|
|
3.
DAVID
BOSCH
|
philosophy
of science, mission theology and
missions History
|
Transforming Mission:
|
1991
|
*
Draws from philosophy of science: by applying Kuhn=s Progress of
|
|
Scientific
Revolutions. And from Kung=s application of paradigm
|
|
Paradigm Shifts in Missions
|
shifts in Church History.
* Identifies the main six
paradigms shifts in the history of theology of
Mission (see Appendix 1)
* Identifies the main
influences of the Enlightenment in Christian
thinking (see Appendix 2)
|
|
Theology
|
|
|
|
4. MARK.
B
WOOD- HOUSE
|
Social Sciences, Philosophy,
and Religion
|
Paradigm Wars: World
|
1996
|
*Proposes
Aa larger integration vision@ through analyzing
paradigm clusters into a dynamic
interaction between complementary opposites@ *Identifies
the ten most significant Atransforming
challenges@ and
the different responses by society, including religion
(spiritual realm).
* Develops the concept of convergences of the different
paradigms in Athe rising culture@ which is holistic.
|
|
Views for a New Age
|
|
|
|
5.
ENOCH
WAN
|
Trinitarian theology and Anthropology
|
AA
Critique of CHARLES Kraft=s Use/Misuse of Communication Theory and Social Sciences in Biblical Interpretation
and
Missiological Formulation@
|
1996
|
* Purposes a symphonic approach to inter-disciplinary
integration: a vari dynamic model.
* The
Dynamic interaction is between the theo-culture/
homino-culture / angel-culture.
* This interaction has relevance for missiological
research, theology and strategy.
|
IX.
PROPOSAL FOR
COOPERATION OF EVANGELICAL SCHOLARS IN INTER-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
There
are three types of basis for the cooperation and collaboration of evangelical
scholars in inter-disciplinary research, i.e. motivation,
means and motto: (3 + 3 +3)
In
terms of motivation,
evangelical scholars share in common: “the cultural mandate (general),” the
Great Commission (specific), and “the cultural war” (as illustrated by the works
of Dockery 1995, Huntington 1996, Woodhouse 1996).
There are three means for cooperation and
collaboration: inter-disciplinary exploration, inter-institutional cooperation, and long-term research project and
publication.
There are three mottoes for
cooperation and collaboration: to the glory of the Father, in the
name
of the Son and by the empowerment of the H.S., and on the foundation of God’s Word -
the Bible.
X.
CONCLUSION
Evangelical
researchers have been reminded in this brief study the necessity (the “why?”)
of interdisciplinary research methodology and have been
introduced to ways (the “how?”) of doing it in terms
of illustrations and explanation. This session being the first of a “three-year
series” is a good start in this direction.
WORKS CONSULTED
Avis, Paul. 1986. The
methods of modern theology. Besingstoke: Marshall Pickering.
Carnap, Rudolf. 1937
[reprint 1971]. The logical syntax of language. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul Ltd. See especially pp 1B52.
Barbour, Ian G. 1974.
Myths, models and paradigms: A comparative study in science and religion.
New York: Harper & Row.2
Barr, James. 1987. Comparative philology and
the text of the Old Testament. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The
social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
The New Dictionary of Theology. Komonchak Joseph
A, Collins Mary; Lane Dermot A. Michael Glazier Inc: Washington, 1987.
Burtt, Edwin A. 1974. The problem of theological
method. Journal of Religion, 27/1: 1-15.
Cohen, Morris and Ernest Nagel. 1934. An
introduction to Logic and scientific method. New York: Harcourt, Brace
& World, Inc. See esp. Chapters I-XI.
Conn, Harvie
M.. 1984. Eternal Word and changing worlds: Theology, anthropology and
mission in trialogue. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Dilenberger, John. 1977. Protestant thought and
Natural science: A historical interpretation. Wesport, Conn.: Greenwood.
Exum, J. Cheryl and Clines, D.J.A., eds. 1993. The
new literary criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Pennsylvania: Trinity
Press International.
Gill, Robin. 1977. Theology and social
structure. London: Nowbrays.
Hekman, Susan J. 1983. Hermeneutics and
sociology of knowledge. Notre dame: Notre Dame University Press.
Jones, Adam
Leroy. 1909. Logic, Inductive and deductive: An introduction to scientific
method. New York: Hendry Holt and Company. See esp. part I, pp. 13-186.
Kasper, Walter. 1969. The methods of dogmatic
theology. New York: Paulist Press.
Kelly, Douglas F. 1997. Creation and change,
genesis 1.1-2:4 in the light of changing scientific paradigms. Great Britain:
Christian Focus Publications. See pp. 15-30.
Kuhn, thomas S. 1996[third edition]. The
structure of scientific revolutions. The university of Chicago Press: Chicago
and London. See especially pp. 1-23.
Lakeland,
Paul. 1990. Theology and critical theory: The discourse of the church.
Nashville: Abingdon Press. See
QThis work is post Khunian which
endeavous to spell out the connections between sicience and religion at the methodological level.
especially pp. 1-36
Longman, Tremper III.
1996. Literary approaches to biblical interpretation. In Foundations of
contemporary interpretation, pp. 192.
ed. By Mosies Silva.
Plaster, David R. 1989. The theological method
of the early Princetonians. Th.D. dissertation: Dallas Theological Seminary. See esp. chapters II, III and VI.
Note: Te author analyzes the theological method of A.A.
Hodge and Charles Hodge.
Popper, Karl R. 1963. Conjectures and
refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York, Hagerstown, San
Francisco, London: Harper & Row, Publishers. See esp. pp. 33-119.
Poythress, Ver, 1987.
Symphonic theology: the validity of multiple perspectives in theology.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Quine,
W.V. 1950. Methods of logic. New York: Holt, Reinnhart and Winston, Inc.
Schwartz, Thomas. 1980. The art of
logical reasoning. New York: random House.
Silva, Moisés. Has the church misread the bible? The
history of interpretation in the light of current issues. 1996. In
Foundations of contemporary interpretation, pp. 1-89. Ed. By Mosies Silva.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Feinberg, John S. 1984. Truth: Relationship of
theories of truth and hermeneutics. In Hemrneutics, Inerrancy and the
Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Corduan, Winfried. 1984. Philosophical
Presuppositions affecting biblical hermeneutics. In Hemrneutics, Inerrancy and
the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Erickson,
Millard J. 1984. Presuppositions of non-evangelical hermeneutics. In
Hemeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D.
Preus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Ramm,
Bernard. 1964. The Christian view of science and Scripture. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans. Rescher, Nicholas.
1977. Methodological pragmatism. New York: New York University Press.
Silva,
Moisés. God, language and Scripture, reading the Bible in the light of general
linguistics. The history of interpretation
in the light of current issues.
1996. In Foundations of contemporary interpretation, pp. 1-89. Ed. By Mosies Silva. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Torrance, Tomas Forsyth. 1981. Christian
theology and scientific culture. New York: Oxford University Press. . 1981b. Divine and contingent order.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 1982. Reality and evangelical theology.
Philadelphia: Westminster.
. 1984. Transformation
and convergence in the frame of knowledge. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Wan, Enoch. 1996. A critique of Charles Kraft’s
use/misuse of communication theory and social sciences in Biblical interpretation
and missiological formulation. In Missiology and the social sciences.
Edited by Edward Rommen and
Gray Corwin, pp. 121-164. Pasadena: William Carey
Library.
WCC Joint Working
Group. 1996. The challenge of Proselytism and the calling to common witness: A
study document of the joint working group. The Ecumenical Review
48, No.2: 212-221.
White,
James. 1994. What is truth? A comparative study. Nashville, Tennessee:
Broadman & Holman Pub. Woodhouse, Mark. 1996. Paradigm wars:
Worldviews for a new age. Berkely, CA: Frog Ltd.
Editors Note: Republished with
permission. Originally published through The Inter-disciplinary Evangelical
Research Methodology Study Group for The 50th Anniversary of ETS @ Radisson Twin Towers, Orlando,
Florida, Nov. 19-21, 1998.