Dr Kirsteen Kim, Tutor & Mission Programme Coordinator, United
College of the Ascension, Selly Oak, Birmingham, UK
E-mail: k.kim@bham.ac.uk
Read full paper
in PDF-format
Abstract
Missiology as Global Conversation of (Contextual) Theologies
Missiology and contextual theology are related but not
equivalent. Missiology arose from the study of mission activity in the former
mission fields of Africa, Asia and Latin America but has come to be understood
as the study of the mission of God in the whole world in which the church
participates. Missiology therefore occupies a central place in theological
reflection. Global and cross-cultural perspectives are essential to missiology
and these challenge all parochialism in theology.
David Bosch has shown that all that mission should be contextually defined and
therefore challenges Western theologians to interact with theologies from other
contexts. Theologies of inculturation and liberation emerging from Asia, Africa
and Latin America are often termed “contextual theologies”, whereas “classical
theologies” claim a universal validity rooted in a long tradition. Contextual
theology derives from mission experience but its justification in terms of
Western theology presupposes postmodernism in philosophy (though this rarely
acknowledges the post-colonial challenge that contributed to its rise) and the
development of incarnational theology, in particular a theology of the Holy
Spirit in the world – as illustrated by the Canberra Assembly of the World
Council of Churches in 1991 and its aftermath.
There is a danger that contextual theology degenerates into relativism. In
mission all theologies are challenged to recognise their own contextuality and
at the same time their common Christian confession. Grounded in an understanding
of missio Dei that includes a creation theology of the Holy Spirit, missiology
can and should affirm contextual theologising and at the same time encourage and
facilitate theologians from different contexts to pursue a global conversation.
“Conversation” is preferred over “dialogue” because there are many partners from
around the world, various means of conversing, and widely varying access to
social power among the participants.