Publications
Little, Dale W. "Missionary Primer on Contemporary Evangelical Theological Methodology." Japan Harvest, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Winter 2007): 16-20. Dale W. Little, Copyright 2007.
Link to pages: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ]
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.
Note that the following methodological list is not exhaustive. Much more could be written. Also bear in mind that the following discussion of methodology is not only applicable to the theological discipline of systematic theology. The methodological stance outlined below is also applicable to reading theological studies of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and church history.
1. Has the Theology Been Published Hastily?
Contemporary theology, including the evangelical variety, is being written and published at a fast rate. For the one who wants to keep up to date with contemporary theology this speed of production means there is always another publication to read or another theological website to check. The task of reading theology can be endless. For the one who writes contemporary theology, this speed of production means that most theological works published with the word “contemporary” in the title will likely be irrelevant within a few short years. Only the outstanding contributions will have a long life span. This judgment applies to this article as well!
Sometimes this fast publication speed allows the authors to write their good ideas at a faster pace. However, in our hurried society the thoughtfulness, thoroughness, and care of a theological work can easily be undermined by hasty publication. If there is evidence that the theological work in question was hastily assembled, there is good reason to think that its quality has been negatively affected.
2. Does the Publication Display a Working Knowledge of the Diversity of Opinion on the Subject?
The speed with which theology is now published might also reflect the diversity of viewpoints within Christian evangelical theology. Due to technological advances all these viewpoints can quite easily be published, not only on paper but also on the internet. For instance, Alister McGrath's introductory textbook on Christian theology includes a list of theological websites.(2) The result is a veritable smorgasbord of published theological works. Some of the current hotspots of evangelical theology display this diversity of opinion: God (theology proper, Christology, pneumatology, Trinitarian theology, open theism, etc.), salvation (soteriology, theology of religions, etc.), and theological anthropology (gender roles in Christian homes and churches, evangelism and social action, etc.). Reputable evangelical scholars do not necessarily take the same positions on these kinds of theological subjects.
Diversity is also evident in theological methodology. One such example is the foundational issue of theological sources and their relative degrees of authority. That is, how are the Bible, Christian tradition, the church, and culture weighted in their authoritative importance for “doing theology”? Historically, one major difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic theology was that Protestants insisted on the priority of the authority of the Bible (rightly interpreted in its original autographs) whereas Roman Catholics understood the church to be the authoritative interpreter of both Christian tradition and the Bible itself. However, many contemporary Protestant, even evangelical, theologians seem to argue that more authority should be attributed to the church as a source for doing theology. These writers see the church as the community for which theology is written and therefore seem to imply that theology should primarily be accountable to the church. The community known as the church thus becomes authoritative over theology itself. It is no accident that the title of the late Stanley Grenz' introductory theological textbook is Theology for the Community of God.(3) Some contemporary evangelical theologians seem happy to attribute more theological authority to the church than evangelicals of yesteryear would have done. Diversity in theological methodology seems as prevalent as diversity in theological content.
So contemporary theological material is readily available. Christians who do not have an awareness of the breadth of options available, and who themselves have not read much theology, will quite easily be impressed with the first theological viewpoint they happen to read. If what they read happens to be well balanced, showing awareness of diversity on the subject, their faith will be enriched. But if what they read argues for a debatable point of view, with no awareness of diversity, readers likely will be unable to evaluate the position taken by the author. Even if missionaries cannot keep up with the publication speed of contemporary theology, it is helpful for them to know the basics of theology, including at least an introductory awareness of some of the issues in contemporary theology, in order to keep their theological balance.
*************
(2) Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 589-92. This book is available in Japanese.
(3) Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994).
*************
