Theology and theologies
I spent part of the morning editing journal abstracts for Missionalia, the journal of the Southern African Missiological Society. The abstracts are written by post-graduate students in mission studies, and I check them mainly for language and comprehensibility. Occasionally I have to get the journal article and rewrite the abstract from scratch, as the abstracter has missed the whole point.
One result of doing this is that I get a picture of what is going on in theology, and especially in missiology, in various parts of the world. Today's abstracts were mainly from a Palestinian journal, and, not surprisingly, most of the articles were calling for a "theology of the intifada". That's one of the features of Western theology nowadays. There is a theology of this and a theology of that, and someone is always calling for a theology of something else that doesn't yet have its own theology.
Actually the Palestinian journal was refreshingly different. Most of the journals that are abstracted seem to come from India, where, of course, an Asian theology is all the rage. But what strikes me about the abstracts is the sameness. Is it just the abstracters reducing everything to the simplest terms, or is it the writers of the articles themselves who all seem to come out of the same mould, and say exactly the same things?
They all speak of the need for a theology of pluralism and interreligious dialogue, as if this will solve every problem. Although actually, there seems to be only one problem in India at the moment - the rise of Hindutva, the Hindu nationalist ideology that wants to drive all Christians and Muslims from India, and seems to be driving the country in the direction of a nuclear war with Pakistan over Kashmir.
And all this seems to bear out Samuel Huntington's observations in his book The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. All kinds of people get the title of the book wrong, and misunderstand the content as a result of their misinterpretation of the title, just as they did 40 years ago with The ugly American. Huntington's description of the post-Cold War world as one of competing nationalisms based on religion seems to be right on the money. Certainly the rise of Hindutva seems to bear this out, as does the fact that Christian theologians and missiologists in India seem to write about virtually nothing else.
One does not have to advocate a "clash of civilizations" to observe what is happening. Perhaps in 10 years time people will be calling for a theology of the clash of civilizations.
One result of doing this is that I get a picture of what is going on in theology, and especially in missiology, in various parts of the world. Today's abstracts were mainly from a Palestinian journal, and, not surprisingly, most of the articles were calling for a "theology of the intifada". That's one of the features of Western theology nowadays. There is a theology of this and a theology of that, and someone is always calling for a theology of something else that doesn't yet have its own theology.
Actually the Palestinian journal was refreshingly different. Most of the journals that are abstracted seem to come from India, where, of course, an Asian theology is all the rage. But what strikes me about the abstracts is the sameness. Is it just the abstracters reducing everything to the simplest terms, or is it the writers of the articles themselves who all seem to come out of the same mould, and say exactly the same things?
They all speak of the need for a theology of pluralism and interreligious dialogue, as if this will solve every problem. Although actually, there seems to be only one problem in India at the moment - the rise of Hindutva, the Hindu nationalist ideology that wants to drive all Christians and Muslims from India, and seems to be driving the country in the direction of a nuclear war with Pakistan over Kashmir.
And all this seems to bear out Samuel Huntington's observations in his book The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. All kinds of people get the title of the book wrong, and misunderstand the content as a result of their misinterpretation of the title, just as they did 40 years ago with The ugly American. Huntington's description of the post-Cold War world as one of competing nationalisms based on religion seems to be right on the money. Certainly the rise of Hindutva seems to bear this out, as does the fact that Christian theologians and missiologists in India seem to write about virtually nothing else.
One does not have to advocate a "clash of civilizations" to observe what is happening. Perhaps in 10 years time people will be calling for a theology of the clash of civilizations.