little

Dale Little is a lecturer in theology at Japan Bible Seminary in Hamura-shi, Tokyo, and at Tokyo Christian University in Inzai-shi, Chiba-ken, Japan. He serves in church planting, church strengthening, and theological education in Japan with the Evangelical Free Church of Canada Mission.

Download as ms word file: theomethod.doc (55 K).

Download as acrobat pdf file: theomethod.pdf (180.05 K).

Link to pages: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ]

The article was written as an initial response of the Japan Evangelical Missionary Association to the Japan Evangelical Association's Theological Commission Pamphlet No.6, May 2006.

Missionary Primer on Contemporary Evangelical Theological Methodology

Introductory Comments

Missionaries can find themselves reading evangelical theology which espouses positions we suspect are different than our own. For example, it may be that we notice an evangelical author does not hold to the inerrancy of Scriptures as evangelicals have traditionally understood that doctrine. We sense that the author might be trying to reconstruct that doctrine for his or her own purposes. Or it might be that a millennial view expressed in a published article differs from our position. These kind of differences are theological in nature. Other types of differences are also possible. For example, it could be that an author in the country we have adopted as missionaries describes the situation of the church in our home country in such a way that we do not recognize our homeland church in the author's description. We sense that perhaps misrepresentation is happening. These kind of differences may be due to cultural or historical factors.

How should we personally evaluate and, if called upon, respond to these discrepant understandings of theology and history? This question is particularly relevant in light of the recently published theological pamphlet of the Japan Evangelical Association entitled, “Fundamentalism.”(1) Several of the articles in the pamphlet seem to espouse or imply theological and historical/cultural understandings that probably lie outside the comfort zone of most evangelical missionaries in Japan.

One answer would be to do nothing by way of personal evaluation or public response. This is an easy solution for those who accept the postmodern idea that these kind of theological and historical differences simply reflect culturally determined understandings and local truths. Those who hold to this solution could reason that particular authors hold certain theological or historical viewpoints because of their cultural settings. Their understandings are determined by their personal context. Trying to argue for the soundness of a viewpoint not normally considered natural to that context is considered suspicious because such a move is seen as an imposition of a foreign, and therefore inappropriate, way of thinking. So the easy way out would be to choose not to engage in such argumentation. In our postmodern world this passive response to published theological and historical differences can be a comfortable response.

But for those of us who resist the relativism at the heart of postmodern thinking, our response is not so easy. 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. For example, what is inerrancy? What kinds of positions can one hold on inerrancy and still be considered evangelical? How many nuanced levels of inerrancy are there? These kind of questions thrust us directly into discussion about specific theological content.

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. Before “doing theology” participants would benefit from reflecting on how to do it. Theological methodology is a topic at the forefront of contemporary evangelical theology. Entire books are written on “prolegomena,” literally, the “word before.” For example, before diving into a discussion about inerrancy, it is helpful first to clarify the theological methodology used in the discussion. If both sides can agree on some basic methodological guidelines the actual ensuing theological discussion stands a good chance of shedding light, not just heat, on the subject at hand.

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.

*************

(1) 原理主義：JEA 神学委員会パンフレットNo. 6. (Fundamentalism: JEA Theological Commission Pamphlet No. 6.) Tokyo: Japan Evangelical Association, May 2006. As they become available, English translations of the Japanese articles within this pamphlet can be found at http://www.jtheo.net.

*************

next page >>