Humankind created theology. Different situations led to different circumstances that led to the rethinking of theologians to shape their theology. In other words, certain phenomena led to the formulation of theology. In this paper, the major points of departure or difference between the so-called traditional theology and theology from the perspective of the margins will be examined stressing on the theological methodology. It is therefore necessary first of all to know what theological methodology is.
Theological methodology
Method is literally ‘following a way’, a procedure for attaining an end in view. Every discipline has method/s and engages in critical reflection on it.[1] According to Bernard Lonergan, method can be understood as “a normative pattern of recurrent and related operations yielding cumulative and progressive results”[2]. The term ‘methodology is derived from the Greek “methodos + logia” a combination of meta (before), hodos (way) and logia (science) which literally mean the science of following a particular system or pattern created in order to achieve its objective. [3]
Theology means the science or study of God derived from theos, the Greek for God, and logia, a science or investigation expressed in words (logos). Theology is the effort to describe in human words God and his actions, especially his actions in relation to the world and man.[4] Therefore, theological methodology could be described as “an understanding of where you start you theology from, and what tools you need to construct it.”[5] Further, it can be defined as a regular, orderly, proper, definite way or principle of doing theology. It is a working principle of theologians to formulate theology.
The basketball team while trying to score a basket does not simply try to score a basket into their opponent basket’s without any proper execution. When stressing at theological methodology ‘execution’ is the key word or idea. But the method of execution may vary based on the opponent defense and the team supported by a coach may follow different method of scoring a basket. The opposite defense is comparable with the phenomena of our world and based on those phenomena, the theologian follow certain procedures or orderly way to construct theology.
To supplement the above explanations for having a clear-cut idea as to what is theological method, we will look into how RosiamlianaTochhawng has defined it. According to him, ‘Theological Method is simply a working principle or system followed in a theological formulation. It has to do with theological vision, theological resources and the principle of organizing those resources to reach the theological vision. Theological method is a working principle of a theologian or theologians to reach the theological vision by organizing the theological resources’[6].
With having a clear idea as to what exactly is theological methodology, we shall now divert our attention to what were the major departures of the traditional theology with that of theology that is done from the perspective of the margins. We will attempt to look at the differences into asking the questions in these main points.
1. Who is doing theology?
Traditional theology excluded the margins as the doer or subjects of theology. It is mainly because theology has been regarded as to be able to done by only learned professional theologians and therefore there is no chance for the margins and ordinary people. Therefore, it is no wonder that theology had been done only from the perspective of this learned people and not from the standpoint of the margins.
St. Anselm defined and expressed in terms as ‘fides quarrensintellectum ‘faith seeking understanding’. This definition is self-explanatory. By theological activity, Christian faith tries to understand itself in rational terms. It was very often understood as a set of truths and doctrines revealed by God, and the task of theology was seen just to understand and explain them, examine the relationship among these truths and draw conclusions from these truths[7].
Traditional theology has been generally seen as intellectusfidei, the understanding of faith. While Sobrino calls liberation theology intellectusamoris–the understanding of love. Theology from the margins has a basis and methodology that roots it in the situation of humanity, whereas traditional theology focuses more on other worldly.[8]Therefore, as theology had been done by the learned scholars, it is a mixture of divine input (revelation) and human reasoning (philosophy). It does not put human as the subjects. But the difference or departure from the theology of the margins is that it is done by people who put importance and concentrates on human experience of those who are poor and the disadvantaged.
2. What is the goal of theology?
Dominant theology was done and constructed for the defense of Christian faith in the phase of different intellectual challenges, which has nothing to do good for the underprivileged people. It is an attempt to proof whether what they believe is rationally justifiable or not. Therefore, there is no chance for people at the margins to participate in those philosophical debates and no uses at all. Christian theology therefore has been apologetics in those crucial contexts. There is no vision for the liberation of the people at the margins. Therefore, there is deliberate exclusion of the margins on the part of the theologians. The cause of the margins is not taken into account.
Robert McAfee Brown rightly observed that “Liberation theology is a theology of the people, by-productsof the ongoing struggle of the poor to overcome oppression, rather than a theology of the experts crafted in quiet libraries and then offered to the masses”[9]. Therefore, the basic difference here is that in the history of the Christian thought, theological construction has become the task of few intellectuals working for the people without the participation of the people. Therefore, traditional theology has become too abstract, esoteric and irrelevant from the eyes of the margins while the theology of the margins has a lot to do with the sufferings and plight of the people.The main concentration in the goal of theology in classical theology is understanding while in the Third World Liberation theology, it departed to transformation of society.
In Liberation philosophy and theology, the point of departure is not Scripture, dogma or transcendent metaphysics, but the lived situation of the people. All must be understood in terms of the lived reality.[10]Therefore, liberation theology concentrates on the experiences of those who are poor, outcaste, underprivileged or disadvantaged. The reason is simple. A majority of world’s population lives in a situation of suffering.[11].
In the method of theology from the margins, praxis comes first. It is out of praxis, or the real struggle for human freedom and justice in the world, that the pertinent questions of theology are raised. A new way of reading and interpreting Scripture results when praxis is taken as the point of departure from critical theological reflection. Theology promotes justice rather than serving as an ideology that justifies a given social or ecclesial order[12], while originally theology was thought to be a spiritual cum intellectual exercise in order to defend the Christian message against critics and heretics.[13]
3. What are the sources of theology?
We will look into the different sources keeping in mind how the margins are often excluded in these sources.
1. Bible: The Bible is the primary sources, witness to the revelation of God in Christ. The Scriptures, both the OT and NT are the record of God’s revelation and of the faith experience of the people of Israel and the apostolic church. The Bible is the original document about the events on which Christianity is based. Therefore, it is the basic source. A special problem arises from the fact that no one is actually able to handle all these materials. It needs a history of Christian thought written from a point of view which is radically critical and, at the same time, existentially concerned.[14] Therefore, even if the Bible is the basic source, the problem from the perspective of the margins is that they could not gripped hold of the Bible for a very long time. If that is the case, if the source is not available, there is a problem that the margins cannot constructtheology. The point of departure from the traditional theology is that people can grip hold of the Bible and thereby creating theology from their own context.
2. Experience: Theology implies participation in a religious faith, so that some experience of the life of faith precedes theology and may indeed be said to motivate it.[15] Experience is the medium through which the sources ‘speak to us, through which we can receive them. The question of experience, therefore, has been a central question whenever the nature and method of theology have been discussed.[16] Richard Lennan wraps up the interaction of experience within theology nicely when he says, ‘theology is concerned with our experience of God, particularly on experience of God as a community of faith. It is the effort to understand and interpret the faith experience of a community, to bring it to expression in language and symbol.[17] But, when traditional theology is constructed, experience of the margins is not taken care of; rather the experience in classical theology always refers to the experience of those who are at the power, not the experience of the people at the margin. Therefore, another point of departure is that in theology that is done from the margins, the experience of the poor, the needy and the marginalized were put into the centers.
3. Reason: Reason could be described as logical, rational and analytical thought. It is a power of the mind that can be used to reflect upon, understand, and express experience; in an attempt to sort out nonsense and put down truths.[18] It is the natural human capacity to know truth. The way how a person interprets and understands Scripture, Tradition and Experience.[19]Traditional theology is created by human beings who have more time to think and reason and in turn became wise. Since there is no time and chance for the general people to think since they were engaged in different handiwork. It is apparent in this case that the interest of the latter will be neglected which however is not the case in the third world liberation theology, which is another point of departure.
4. Tradition:Anothersource of theology is the historical faith – experience of the disciples of Jesus Christ of the definitive divine self-communication in Jesus Christ. This faith-experience is expressed, reenacted and mediated through the Christian tradition or apostolic tradition, which had been mediated and communicated by the various and numerous elements or components or traditions of that one tradition.[20]
It is the ways of thinking and living that are ‘handed over’ from one generation to the next; an ongoing conversation across the ages about our most important questions. Also the body of theological reflection and the ways of putting this reflection into practice that are handed over from one generation to next[21]. But, tradition in dominant theology refers to official tradition and the traditions of people at the margins were not and had not been regarded as the source of theology.
Above all these sources, in the theology that comes up from the perspective of the margins included social science as its sources which have never been taken into consideration before.
4. What are the norm/norms or criteria?
What is the yardstick which you said this is wrong or right in the main idea of question here. Traditionally, the sources are the norms itself. But, the interpretation of the Bible itself has no space or place for the margins. While the church had access to the Bible, it did not have access to the special way of reading and interpreting the Bible which was required if its true meaning was to be understood. Scripture could not be allowed to be interpreted in any arbitrary or random way: it had to be interpreted within the context of the historical continuity of the Christian church.[22] Therefore, when taking Bible as an example, scripture does not have any place for margins as highlighted.
The norms or criterion is a principle or standard whereby a thing is judged. But herein lays the problem. Most criteria presuppose or imply a choice of values on the basis of which the particular principle or standard has been selected. Hence, if one stands committed to a given understanding, it is relative easy to establish criteria whereby that given approach is preferred to others.[23]The rhetorical question posed by R. Pannikar: What is the criterion of criterion?[24], can be answered like this. The margins were excluded in the criterion of the criterion which is not the case in liberation theology.The criteria endorsed one’s own preferred option which is the option of the dominant class.
5. What is the form of theology?
This is another area where theology has witnessed another departure from traditional theology. In this paragraph, we shall take example from the language which is used for expressing theology in the usage of Hebrew and Greek. The hard working do not have chance to express themselves since there is no time for them to learnt classical language. Even if the same language were used, there had been quite a long time that Roman Catholic used Latin. Therefore, there is no chance to use local language rather than Latin. As a result, it is an exclusion of the language of people at the margins.
This might be perhaps the reason why scholar by the name of Kosuke Koyama in his Water buffalo Theology had often used the sentence like ‘Can the Monsoon Rain Make God Wet?’, ‘Aristotelian Pepper and Buddhist Salt’,etc. in order to make the Thai’s to understand theology in their own capacity to understand[25].
6. What is the best friend of theology?
Another point of departure is that the best friend in traditional theology is philosophy but now it shifted to social science. Traditionally, if one wants to undergo theological training, he/she must learn philosophy for at least three or four years. Metaphysicalquestion was dealt without necessarily asking what can be practiced. But now, theology and social science are like two sides of the same coin where social science cannot be neglected, rather occupies an important place.
Liberation theologians insist that theology and action are inextricably linked. In the past many theologians believed that timeless truths could be applied to a finished universe. In contrast to this traditional view, both the world and human comprehension are viewed as incomplete; each requires refinement and development. Gutierrez said that ‘knowledge is not the conformity of the mind to the given, but an immersion in the process of transformation and construction of a new world’ this process involves a constant interaction of practice and theory. For the Christian, praxis is a means by which the new world of the kingdom of God can be formed. It is transforming action in tension with theory. Praxis therefore grows out of and response to historical circumstance. Further, it is subversive engagement: ‘since it is praxis committed to the poor and to the transformation of the world, undertaken from the ‘view below, we can describe it, in the precise technical meaning of the word, as subversive action. Unlike traditional theology which was concerned with eternal realities, liberation theology is oriented to action.[26] No wonder Tertullian’s well-known rhetorical question, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem” is so popular. Philosophies have not been shown that philosophical knowledge enables one to appreciate more deeply the meaning of virtually every major doctrinal formulation and every major theologian. They feel they have tried philosophy and found it of little help; so they go their way, forfeiting the opportunity for a more fruitful engagement with theology[27].
The above discussion clearly shows that there are certain points of departures of theological methodology from the margins to that of traditional theology.Liberation theology as a collective name for theology from the margins is a radical new approach for the theological task that begins with the poor, especially the poor classes of the world, and recognizes God’s presence in their struggle to throw off oppression.[28] While the theology constructed in the classical times were mainly for seeking rational knowledge. In contrast to traditional theological methods, which were deductive,dogmatic and genetic – beginning with doctrinal principles andbiblical data to arrive at logical applications. Liberation theology proposesan inductive, contextual and hermeneutic theology.
[1] Paul Avis, “Theology in the Digmatic Mode,” in Companion Encyclopedia of Theology, edited by Peter Byrne and Leslie Houlden (London: Routledge, 1995), 985.
[2] John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1966), 33.Hereafter cited as John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology…
[3] K Thanzauva, Transforming Theology; Asocial Basis for Social Transformation(Bangalore:Asian Trading Corporation, 2002), 67. Hereafter cited as K Thanzauva, Transforming Theology; A social Basis for Social Transformation…
[4]KuncheriaPathiland Dominic Veliath. An Introduction to Theology(Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 2007),Hereafter cited as KuncheriaPathil and Dominic Veliath. An Introduction to Theology…
[5]AlisterE.McGrath.Historical Theology; An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), 333. Hereafter cited as AlisterE.McGrath. Historical Theology; An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought …
[6]RosiamlianaTochhawng, “Methodological Reflection on Theologizing Tribal Heritage in North East India” in Theologizing Tribal Heritage: A Critical Re-Look, edited by HrangthanChhungi (Delhi: CWM/ISET-ECC/PCI/ISPCK,2008), 19-20.
[7]KuncheriaPathil and Dominic Veliath.An Introduction to Theology …11.
[8]http://alexnvv.axspace.com/documents/LibPaperNvV.pdf (Classical Theology of liberation – Alex C.J Neroth)(Accessed on 11 Feb 2013)
[9] K Thanzauva, Transforming Theology; A social Basis for Social Transformation…78.
[10]http://www.crvp.org/book/Series05/V-2/discussion-6.htm (Accessed on 11 Feb 2013)
[11]http://alexnvv.axspace.com/documents/LibPaperNvV.pdf (Classical Theology of liberation – Alex C.J Neroth)
[12] Daniel L.MiglioreFaith Seeking Understanding (Grand Rapids Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 16.
[13] Israel Selvanayagam ed. Moving Forms of Theology, (Delhi:ISPCK, 2002), 8.
[14] Paul TilichSystematic Theology Vol. I (DigswellPlace:James Nisbet&Co.Ltd, 1953), 39. Hereafter cited as Paul TilichSystematic Theology Vol. I…
[15] John MacquarriePrinciples of Christian Theology Second Edition(New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1966), 5.Hereafter cited as John MacquarriePrinciples of Christian Theology Second Edition…
[16] Paul TilichSystematic Theology Vol. I…,46
[17] http://scott.brisbane.id.an/theology/sources-of-theology.html.(Accessed on 11 Feb 2013)
[18]http://scott.brisbane.id.an/theology/sources-of-theology.html. (Accessed on 11 Feb 2013)
[19]academia.regis.edu/tleining/…/Four%20Sources%20of%20CST.doc. (Accessed on 11 Feb 2013)
[20]KuncheriaPathil and Dominic Veliath. An Introduction to Theology….56.
[21] academia.regis.edu/tleining/…/Four%20Sources%20of%20CST.doc (Accessed on 11 Feb 2013)
[22]AlisterE.McGrath.Historical Theology; An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought…,40.
[23]KuncheriaPathiland Dominic Veliath. An Introduction to Theology….167.
[24] Paul TilichSystematic Theology Vol. I…59.
[25]Kosuke Koyama, Waterbuffalo Theology(New York : Orbis Books,1974)
[26]Dan Cohn-Sherbok, “Theology as Praxis” in Companion Encyclopedia of Theology, edited by Peter Byrne and Leslie Houlden (London: Routledge, 1995), 1004.
[27]Diogenes Allen Philosophy for Understanding Theology(Atlanta:John Knox Press, 1985), iv.
[28] Stanley J.Grenz& Roger E.Olson, 20th Century Theology, God and the World in A Transitional Stage (Downers Grove, USA:Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 211.
An Old Soul stuffs 
Leave a comment