Global Missiology

The problem of integration across disciplines of inquiry is certainly not new to Christian thinkers, it has been with us since the New Testament. But this particular conversation, I take it, is being pursued on the assumption that new resources and possibilities have become available lately that might help Christians, especially missiologists and evangelists, do their work more effectively. I agree with this assessment, though it may turn out for different reasons than other partners in the discussion. But I am grateful to be a part of the conversation because I too have struggled to understand how the disciplines of art history and criticism, and more recently, the social sciences, can be used by Christian thinkers. And I wholeheartedly support the underlying missiological thrust of the conversation, since I have approached my work on theology and culture from the perspective of one whose first teaching experience was on the mission field-though I understand this work in its broadest sense, that of bringing all to the feet of Jesus and doing all to the glory of God. My own contribution here will be divided into three parts. First I want to make some historical observations about the traditional approach to integration, which has been shaped, almost exclusively, by discussions between philosophy and theology. I want to argue that our problem has been largely created by the shape these conversations have taken-a shape primarily determined by their rootage in the Greek philosophical heritage. Secondly I want to signal the important shift in emphasis that is represented by the contribution of non-western theology in the last generation, especially Liberation Theology, which I believe suggests a new way of thinking about these things. Finally I will make some constructive suggestions about the implications of this which appear particularly relevant to Christian witness in the post-modern context. I Let me begin by briefly making a methodological point. Often discussions of this kind speak as if the basic issue was: "How do we reconcile different sources of truth, or different methods of determining truth?" Now it is true that for us, since the epistemological turn of the enlightenment, this is a very important question. But I do not believe it is the most important question for most of Christian history, nor, incidentally for most people outside the West today. In fact I believe if we had put the question in this way to the Apostle Paul he would have been puzzled. Though it is hard to put this in a transhistorical and transcultural way, I think earlier thinkers were far more interested in conflicting notions about what is the final goal (or good) that one seeks in life. To use Charles Taylor's phrase they sought that for which one will literally live or die? And the struggle over what we are calling integration was between conflicting notions of this goal. Already in the New Testament Paul called attention to the problem of differing understandings of the goal of life. Jews, he wrote, demand signs, presumably of the coming messianic kingdom; Greeks desire wisdom; but we announce Christ crucified (I Cor. 1:22). While the Jews long for the coming messianic rule and seek to live their lives in anticipation of this rule, Greeks find their end in a particular kind of wisdom, and in living a life controlled by this wisdom. Christians meanwhile find their life all wrapped up in an historical figure, Jesus Christ who was crucified and resurrected. Notice that these divisions are not in the first instance over different notions of truth, but over different conceptions about what is really important, and how one should go about living life in the light of this. Notice further that both Jews and Christians interpreted this as having to do with events; it was the Greeks who spoke of particular knowledge as the goal of life. Global Missiolog