Contextualisation and Mission Training

John Ingleby

• Publisher: Regnum
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781908355409
• eBook ISBN: 9781912343508
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Ministry

Contextualisation & Mission Training, offers "contextual frameworks" and "explorations" in order to enhance deeper engagement with the complexity of Asian social, cultural and religious systems. When we take contextualisation theories seriously, how does it change the way we prepare and train cross cultural workers? This book seeks to raise pertinent and controversial issues to do with some of the challenges facing the Asian church in engaging with the religious contexts of Asia.

WHAT IS SO THEOLOGICAL ABOUT
CONTEXTUAL MISSION TRAINING?

TAN KANG SAN¹

Tan Kang San is Executive Director of Asia CMS. Formerly he was Head of Mission Studies at Redcliffe College, with doctoral work in Islam and Buddhism, and is international consultant on Interfaith issues for the World Evangelical Alliance and the Lausanne Movement.

It helps, now and then, to step back and take the long view.

The kingdom is not beyond our efforts, it is beyond our vision.²

(Archbishop Oscar Romero)

Given the rapid growth of Asian missions, what kind of training approaches and models could best prepare Asian workers, especially those crossing traditional, cultural, economic and political boundaries, and how can concerned Christians globally contribute toward the goals and tasks of mission training in Asia?³ The background for this chapter is my interests and study relating to challenges facing indigenous Christian communities in Asia and the role theological institutions play toward developing contextualised theologies. Asia is incredibly varied and complex. With regard to broad missiological agendas, the Asian church needs to engage in a fourfold dialogue with: Asia’s poor, Asia’s cultures, Asia’s religions, and Asia’s cities. None of these complex frontiers could be understood and engaged properly without sustained and substantive theological resources, especially by representative theological communities in each country. Over the last thirty years, there has been a growth of theological discourses with regard to the aims, nature and purpose of theological education in the contexts of intellectual, social, and historical changes, particularly in relation to the crisis of theological education in the West. Firstly, the paper will survey debates on the aims and nature of theological education in the West and highlight key ideas for mission integration. Secondly, we will consider implications for mission training among formal and non formal models of mission training in Asia. Finally, the chapter will explore some programmatic proposals toward a contextual mission training which seeks to grow movements of ‘missiologists-in-residence’ skilful in reflecting theologically, and critically engaging with Asian mission contexts for the purpose of serving the whole church in their role of prophetic dialogue partners with Asian societies.

The term ‘seminary’ comes from the old Latin word meaning ‘a protected plot of ground for the growth of seedlings’ (Stackhouse 1998, 68). For me, the ancient Chinese proverb adds further insight, ‘If you are planting for a year, plant grain. If you are planting for a decade, plant trees. If you are planting for a century, plant people.’ Mission is about people, and theological training is essentially about helping God’s people think clearly about God in order to follow Him in His love for the world. Specifically, good contextual and missional theologies by Asian representative theologians would help the church to think clearly about God’s intention for the world, in order to serve alongside God’s people and to follow Jesus in his mission in the world. For purposes of this chapter, ‘contextual mission’ is best expressed through the ‘five marks of mission’: proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, disciple new believers, respond to human needs by loving service, transform unjust structures of society, and care for the renewal of creation (Bosch 1991, 519). Missiology is the interdisciplinary study of the salvation activities of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit throughout the world geared toward bringing the kingdom of God into existence; its task is to investigate biblically and critically the motives and methods of mission to see if it fits the criteria of God’s kingdom.⁴

FRAGMENTATION OF THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

This section frames our discussion on appropriate training models within the broader debates on the aims of theological schools by scholars such as Edward Farley, Max Stackhouse and Robert Banks.⁵ The future of formal theological education in the West is under threat, as reflected in various literature critiques highlighted in this chapter, the decline of student numbers and the lack of financial support from local churches. The reasons for this decline are complex and are related to the general changes in the intellectual, social and religious developments of theological education. Within Protestant communities, a number of studies on problems associated with theological education in the West have been undertaken. Among others, the following are key factors said to have contributed toward the decline of formal theological training in the West: 1) a lack of value for theological education in the postmodern church (McGrath 1993); 2) professionalisation of theological schools, resulting in a growing gap from the church (Cheesman 2009); 3) fragmentation and loss of integrated purpose in theological education (Farley 1994; Ott 2001); and 4) a lack of missional engagement with society (Stackhouse 1998). ‘A missionless church saw no necessity for the inclusion of missiology in the theological curriculum’ (Laing 2009, 41-42).

Since the middle of the 1980s, discussions on theological education have moved to a new level, from operational and strategic concerns (how to be more effective) to theological enquiries (why do we do theological education, what are the telos and integrative end goals for theological education). Although these studies relate to the situation in the West, some of the findings and conclusions could be of relevance to Asian contexts.

Farley’s critiques could be summarised as follow: there has been a shift of understanding theology as habitus, practical wisdom directed to God, to theology as a cluster of disciplines of study (Farley 1994, 80-81; 99-117). By the twentieth century, each field had developed its own specialism and whatever unity between disciplines existed, happened by accident. Subsequently, the emphasis of theological education shifted to a teaching of skills for the professional ministry of clergy (preaching, counselling, pastoral leadership). What is the telos, or end of theological education, and what is so theological about theological education or mission training are hardly addressed. Farley criticises this fragmented model by questioning its lack of theological unity, and questions its effectiveness in preparing students for ministry. Farley argues that the aim of all theological education should be theologia, or theological understanding (wisdom).⁶ According to Farley, integration in theological education can only be achieved through a renewed understanding of theological enquiry as a practical wisdom directed toward God (Farley 1994, 151-171).

It is generally claimed that theological education in Asia inherited the ethos and approach of theological study based on the University model from the West, defined in the fourfold model of theological disciplines: biblical, historical, theological and practical theology as basic disciplines for all theological enquiries (Farley 1994, 110-116; Kelsey 1992, 86-92). In addition to the loss of the internal unity of theological education, and the lack of curriculum coherence, some Asian theologians who received their training in Western schools are influenced by enlightenment thinking: dualism, rationalism, secularism and pluralism (Hwa 2008, 68-70). Bernhard Ott identified the Enlightenment university model of theological education in terms of the following features: ‘lack of missionary orientation, academic work in an ivory tower, detachment from the reality of the church in mission, separation of theory and practice, and fragmentation of the curriculum’ (Ott 2001, 290). David Bosch found efforts to incorporate missiology as part of theological training unsatisfactory:

If mission was studied at all, it was usually as part of practical theology, as if it were largely a matter of technique or practical application; or it was offered as a totally separate subject, as if it had little to do with the other streams, or it is an optional subject, competing with preaching, pastoral counselling, or liturgics for the learners attention (Bosch 1982, 17-19).

MISSION INTEGRATION IN THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

Responding to Farley’s seminal work, subsequent debates have both challenged and further developed his devastating critique regarding the telos of theological education. Bold proposals from Max Stackhouse, Robert Banks, and Bernhard Ott potentially provided theological clarity and impetus for charting new vision and models for contextual mission training in Asia. Due to space limitation, I will highlight their key proposals, those useful for our discussion on developing contextual mission training. Contending with North America’s scepticism and pluralism, Stackhouse and his conversation partners were concerned to see theological education as preparing leaders for apologia (new cosmopolitan apologetics).

(This) can be understood to entail several things: (1) a willingness to enter into the thought forms of those who do not always share the faith assumptions or worldviews that we hold when we enter into dialogue, (2) a willingness to attempt an account of that which we hold most dear in the face of scepticism, doubt and suspicion, (3) a willingness to hear and evaluate on their merits any alternative perspectives that are opposed to our own, and (4) a willingness to refute unsound objections to a defensible theological perspective (Stackhouse 1988, 9).

In Asia, the challenge of witnessing and encountering people of other faiths (as a minority community rather than from a position of power) requires a different theological posture and orientation, including acquiring a certain depth of understanding of other religions in order to dialogue with people of other faiths. Unfortunately, at times, our attitudes and evangelistic approaches have been deeply influenced more by Western triumphalistic perspectives than shaped by biblical thinking and accurate understanding of other religions.⁷ Stackhouse proposes a bold vision of theological education that advances Christian mission in the context of pluralism and globalisation:

Theological education must also claim that the specifically Christian vision of metaphysical-moral reality is normative, can be learned and taught in a disciplined fashion, and is decisive for how other fields of knowledge may be organised, for how every sector of life must be best lived, and for dialogue with other philosophies and religions of the world (Stackhouse 1988, 167).

For Banks, theological education is a dimension of the mission of the church, supported by Martin Kahler’s dictum, that ‘missiology is the mother of theology’. It is mission that has the church, not the church that has mission. If it is mission first, then all expressions of specialised ministries, including theological education, exist to serve the mission of God, not merely to train clergy for the church. Therefore, theological education is an aspect of the church’s missionary dimension and expression, and its goal is the transformation of the world. Without suggesting that we adopt his model fully, Banks’ missional model could potentially provide a better paradigm for contextual theological education in Asia:

The missional model of theological education places the main emphasis on theological mission, on hands-on partnership in ministry based on interpreting the tradition and reflecting on practice with a strong spiritual and communal dimension (Banks 1999, 144).⁸

The missional model, Banks argues, not only yields a richer integration between theory and practice, moving theological conversations beyond the confines of ecclesiastical concerns, but it also offers different (mission) approaches, methodologies, and attitudes. Such a theology, however, must take the role of the church as God’s instrument for mission seriously, and theological education should not be separated from the life and mission of the church (Laing 2009, 41-72). This is not merely a curriculum issue, but a more fundamental structural problem relating to the whole ideology and presuppositions of theological education. Therefore, theological schools offering mission degrees and programmes will need to dialogue with, and respond to, these important critiques, especially if they are serious about training students for effective ministry in mission contexts.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FORMAL AND NON-FORMAL MODELS

Thus far, our survey of debates on theological aims has highlighted potential problems with delivering mission training, especially in academic settings. Within the limited scope of this chapter, we will reflect on the challenges of integrating mission training in the context of formal and non formal educational settings. Formal programmes are highly structured, largely classroom based, mostly theoretical, and tend towards accreditation. Non formal programmes of training tend towards personal or group study, internship, in-service learning in context, and field-based learning. The faculty’s primary role is in mentoring, with graduation not necessarily in passing academic grades (Taylor 1991, 2-12). Each model has its strengths and limitations, and complementary roles for training. Between these two models, there are many other mediating and creative models such as theological education by extension, internet based cohorts, apprenticeship in the mission community, field base training, which combine academic research with practice.

Having taught in a formal educational setting in Britain, I recognise that there are many advantages offered by mission training centres in Western countries and believe there is a continuing role for such centres for training, especially for those engaging in postgraduate research. Among key advantages offered are: 1) established theories of teaching and learning 2) training fo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Introduction and Acknowledgements
• 1. What is so Theological about Contextual Mission Training?
• 2. The Hermeneutical Principle in Relation to Contextual Mission Training
• 3. Here be Dragons – Some Guidelines for Explorers in Contextual Mission and Theology in Asia
• 4. The Training of Asian Missionaries
• 5. Not Under Lore: Reviewing Assumptions that
• 6. Lessons from the Life of Karl Reichelt
• 7. The ‘Middle Way Model?’ – Training with Chinese Characteristics
• 8. Being in Mission in the Indian Context
• Notes
• Select Bibliography
• Back Cover