Excerpt from my Chapter on Localization of Theology
The following is an excerpt of a chapter that I am writing for a compilation of works that relate the Filipino theology. Along with writing one chapter, I am co-editor. Hopefully it will be available by the end of the year. It is a bit unusual in that close to half of the book is in Pilipino while the other is in English. Will give more information on it as it nears publishing…
“…good theology comes from a “friendly conflict” between the theologies that are contextual and inter-contextual. This can be described as a dialectic, or utilization of the dialectical method. It utilizes a conflict or debate between two opposing viewpoints. However, it differs considerably from typical debate. Firstly, the goals of debate and dialectics are different. In debate the goal is to win, while in dialectics the goal is discover truth. In a debate between viewpoints “A” and “C” the ideal ending is an agreement that one wins and the other loses. In dialectics, the presumption is that neither side has full grasp of truth, so the ideal result is “B,” a synthesis of “A” and “C” (or perhaps two groups still holding to their positions, but modified through the interaction). Secondly, debate uses a broader arsenal of tools to win the argument. Debate places more value on emotional arguments (“pulling at the heartstrings”) and rhetorical skills than does Dialectics. Dialectics values these to the extent that they are used not to manipulate or confuse, but to lead to truth.1 This is not implying that emotions are unimportant, but their role is to support values and meaning rather than to manipulate. Thirdly, as implied by the first point, the people who are proponents of viewpoints “A” and “C” should not see themselves as enemies or even at cross-purposes. Ideally, they should see each other as being on the same team— seeking truth. However, an overemphasis on the focus on commonality can lead to its own problem— which will be discussed next.
Debate versus Dialectics can be seen as relating to Interreligious Dialogue (IRD). Proponents of two different Christian theologies is far different from conversations between adherents to two different religions. Still, the strategies involved in IRD should make sense between two theological perspectives as well. In IRD, three strategies generally considered are didactic, dialectic, and dialogic.2 Didactic strategies are those that focus on one side teaching the other side. As such, the presumption of each side is they have the truth and must impart their truth to the other side. Implied in this is that the other side has nothing to offer back. Preaching, lecturing, and debate all fall into this category since the focus is on changing the other side while remaining essentially unchanged. Emphasis is given to differences between the two positions, while similarities are often glossed over.
Dialogic strategies are those that focus excessively on belongingness or social connectedness. It is in some ways the opposite of didactic strategies in that it seeks to avoid conflict by suggesting that the two groups are essentially one. Emphasis is placed on the similarities of the groups (“common ground”), while differences are given little attention. While the ideal of the didactic strategies is that one admits defeat and joins the other side, in dialogic the ideal is that the two groups have little effect on each other. Beliefs tend to be relativized.
Dialectic strategies are a mix of the two previous strategies. Dialects values both the similarities and differences between the two groups. As such, much of the activity involves clarification of views. Dialectic strategies see both sides as having a commonality of goal, seeking what is true, but does not assume either side has full grasp of it. One might be reminded of the interaction between the Apostle Peter and the Roman centurion, Cornelius.3 While one may assume a disciple of Peter would have nothing to learn from a Gentile, the truth is that both of them learned and gained from the interaction. It could be argued that what Peter learned was no more than what he already had been told by Jesus or by a vision previously. However, God used Cornelius to drive that point home. The openness of both Peter and Cornelius to learn from each other meant that both were humble enough to recognize that they had something important to learn from God, through the other person.
1 I will make no attempt here to explore the question of whether emotions explore a form of truth. It is, however, worth exploration.
2 More discussion of this is in Robert H. Munson, Dialogue in Diversity: Christians in Conversation with a Multi-faith World, Rev. A. (Baguio City, Philippines: MM-Musings, 2019), ch. 11.
3Read about this in Acts Chapter 10. Try to look at it from the standpoint of two people with different beliefs, that God brought together to learn something important from each other.
