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 (continued)
3. Is the Opposing Viewpoint Treated with Care and Respect?
We who live in a postmodern era seem to like things that are new. Contemporary theology displays the same positive attitude toward new ideas. However, there may be a high price tag attached to this inclination. That is, contemporary theology's search for new ideas leads it to take a critical stance toward historically held viewpoints and ideas. It could be that this lack of respect for historical theology generates the tendency within contemporary theology to describe the past using caricature. That is, contemporary theology tends to oversimplify the past in order to make a case for some new idea. Such shallow historical research can lead to revisionist historical theology. It seems that contemporary theology has a tendency to manipulate history in order to generate new and purportedly more attractive theological constructs. So contemporary theology seems to have a fascination with the new and a simultaneous suspicion or disrespect of the old. To be a contemporary theologian and yet champion the old viewpoints can bring a flood of criticism.
Some evangelical theologians are pointing the way back to a deeper respect for the theological positions of yesteryear. Thomas Oden is one of these.(4) Another one is Alister McGrath who believes history is important to theology. About thirty percent of his introductory theological textbook focuses on history.(5) So in our postmodern context there is a certain degree of evangelical awareness that theology is done within a particular historical and cultural context.
Nevertheless, both theological and historical caricature remain evident in published evangelical theology. Caricature serves no positive theological purpose because it is manipulative. What is needed to make theology credible and therefore helpful is careful description and nuancing of the opposing side's position(s). Millard Erickson's Christian Theology, which has become a standard introductory systematic theology text used in evangelical seminaries in the English speaking world, is a good example of theology carefully done without caricature.(6) Erickson is consistent in describing the landscape of any given theological topic. Following this, he points out what he sees to be the pluses and minuses of the possible theological options, and then gives his position. This kind of methodology is helpful for readers of theology because it displays a working knowledge of the relevant theological positions. It allows the reader to see the lay of the land so an informed decision can be made as to what theological position to hold. It treats the reader with respect rather than in a controlling manner.
When this kind of working knowledge about the diversity of opinion on any given theological subject is not forthcoming in contemporary evangelical theology, it is best to read the theology with a healthy hermeneutic of suspicion. Why has the theological context not been spelled out clearly? Is there some reason the author does not want the reader to know about alternative evangelical positions? These are healthy questions for readers of evangelical theology to bear in mind.
4. Have Both Friendly and Unfriendly Sources Been Accessed?
In the development of a theological position which uses caricature it is usually necessary for the author to rely on only friendly sources. This is because accessing unfriendly sources-sources which might count against the stated theological position-would lead the author away from a theology dependent on caricature. This in turn would make it difficult for the author to retain the theological position espoused.
Theology which does not access unfriendly sources leaves readers with the suspicion that they have not heard the rest of the story. Furthermore, readers of two differing theological views which both use caricature-which do not access unfriendly sources-are left with the question of which caricature to accept. These residual doubts in the mind of the reader would be dispelled if both friendly and unfriendly sources were accessed. Selection of only friendly sources serves no positive theological purpose.
5. Are the Key Theological Points Made Using Assertions?
Assertions which are peripheral to a theological argument cannot be avoided because any given theological publication cannot always cover all the bases. Theology builds upon what others have done. If their arguments are sound, then it is sufficient to reference those arguments rather than repeating them. However, the key points in a theological discussion loose credibility if they are asserted rather than argued for. A string of assertions related to the main argument does not make good theology. Assertions are only convincing for those who do not know the lay of the land, who believe that those in authority making the assertions are never mistaken, who have not learned how to think about theology in a healthy and critical manner, or who do not want to be convinced otherwise because they already believe the assertions.
*************
(4) Thomas C. Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy: Signs of New Life in Christianity (San Francisco: Harper, 2003). Oden is the co-editor of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, a series focusing on mining the biblical and theological resources of the ancient church.
(5) McGrath, Christian Theology.
(6) Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). This book is now available in Japanese, comprising four volumes.
*************
