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)
6. What is the Theological Agenda?
The evangelical camp now includes theologians who hold theological viewpoints outside the parameters of what might be called the traditionally accepted evangelical norm. According to Millard Erickson, evangelical theologians can now be divided between the left and the right.(7) The term “evangelical” is no longer understood in the same way by all theologians who claim it. There seems to be an identity crisis in some contemporary evangelical theology. As a result, evangelical theological writings can have an agenda which pushes a particular version of evangelical theology. It is possible the agenda might be hidden. However, hidden agendas are not conducive to healthy theological discussions. They work against the clarity being sought in the theological discussion. For the sake of clarity it is usually helpful for a theologian to clearly state a position and then argue for it. If such clear statement of intent is not readily available, the reader might want to read with care.
7. Are the Key Terms in the Discussion Clearly Defined?
Appropriate explanation and definition of the key terms used in the discussion makes for helpful theology. If the author does not do so, readers might supply their own definitions which might not match the thinking of the author. The result of such a mismatch is equivocation (same word, different meaning). Readers would be advised to discern the meaning of key words from what the author writes rather than reading their own meanings into the words. If those definitions are not available in the publication, the clarity of the theology is reduced.
This issue is particularly important for theological topics which are inherently controversial. For example, the reader of any theological position related to the issue of fundamentalism should ask whether the author has clarified the meaning of the word. If fundamentalism is confused with evangelicalism or if Christian fundamentalism is placed in the same category as radical Muslim fundamentalism, all without any clear definition of the terms used, the theological discussion bogs down in confusion before it has hardly begun. Heat may be shed on the issues at hand, but little light.
8. Is a Significant Amount of the Discussion Carried by Emotive Language?
In the English language emotions are often expressed in adjectives and adverbs. This is especially pronounced in the case of negative emotions. Extensive use of emotive language in theology tends to obscure the actual theological points under discussion, leaving the reader to sense the author's feelings but not necessarily understand the author's theological argument. Reliance on emotive language serves no positive theological purpose.
Culture influences the writing style used in theological publications. For example, theology written in Japanese makes frequent use of what we would call adjectives and adverbs in English. This tends to give theology written in Japanese an emotional tone. This tendency is also evident in oral discussions of theology. I have been present at theological discussions with Japanese colleagues who at the outset of the discussion decided to carry on the dialogue in English rather than Japanese so that the Japanese participants would be better able to understand one another. So it seems that in the Japanese context care needs to be taken to reduce the emotive elements of theological expression. Translating Japanese theology into English helps to reveal the emotive language so that decisions can be made as to whether to keep or modify those emotional elements.
*************
(7) Millard Erickson, The Evangelical Left: Encountering Postconservative Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997).
*************
