Introductory Comments Missionaries can find themselves reading evangelical theology which espouses positions we suspect are different than our own. How should we personally evaluate and, if called upon, respond to these discrepant understandings of theology and history? Responding wisely to differing theological understandings is a complicated task. One necessary element of the task is to debate the actual content of the differences. However, as if discussing theological content is not enough of a challenge, there is also the equally important task of trying to identify the theological methodology used in any given theological discussion. The purpose of this article is to identify some aspects of an evangelical theological methodology which might inject a degree of health into theological discussions we as missionaries encounter. To try to accomplish this task in the short space of this article, ten methodological points are touched upon, and those only in an introductory manner. This, then, is but a primer on the important subject of methodology in contemporary theology. Healthy Methodological Framework for Reading Evangelical Theology A healthy but critical methodological approach to reading theology helps us keep our theological balance in the possibly confusing world of contemporary theology. Assuming that most missionaries find themselves in the position of responding at the personal level to published theological positions rather than in the position of actually writing theology, the methodological factors below are placed in the interrogative form in order to help us read theology in a somewhat critical manner. 1. Has the Theology Been Published Hastily? 2. Does the Publication Display a Working Knowledge of the Diversity of Opinion on the Subject? 3. Is the Opposing Viewpoint Treated with Care and Respect? 4. Have Both Friendly and Unfriendly Sources Been Accessed? 5. Are the Key Theological Points Made Using Assertions? 6. What is the Theological Agenda? 7. Are the Key Terms in the Discussion Clearly Defined? 8. Is a Significant Amount of the Discussion Carried by Emotive Language? 9. Is the Published Work Available in English? 10. What is the Cultural Context for the Theology in Question? Concluding Comments It is not unusual for missionaries to encounter a piece of published theology that is bothersome to them. If at that time they are able to apply only a few of the methodological suggestions above, then the purpose of this article will have been achieved. Of course, it is entirely possible that this very article employs at points a methodology which runs counter to what the article itself espouses! If such is the case, the author will need to work further on aligning his own theological methodology with what he expressed here! Dale Little, PhD
Tokyo, December 2006 |