Given the contemporary variety of traditions and models at work, the writer, Prof. Turaki, stressed the need for international cooperation in theological education. He argued that each approach is time limited and therefore subject to becoming outdated, archaic, and irrelevant. It is a truism, according to him, that in seeking cooperation, therefore, it is not enough that we address the different models and approaches to theological education, but also the underlying principles, assumptions, and biases. This call for cooperation is clearly reflected in his following statement: “instead of competing or claiming superiority over various approaches, we need to exchange views and share experiences, we need to understand and learn from each other” (Turaki 1991). ).
Turaki identifies several tasks as the challenges of cooperation in theological education are met. These include: addressing the proliferation of theological traditions, models, approaches, and philosophies in theological education, defining our common task and purpose amid the multiplicity of models and approaches, and developing a suitable theological foundation for intercontinental cooperation in theological education.
Renewal and theological relevance have increasingly become normative goals in theological education today, be it among the older traditions or among the newer ones. For the newer traditions, contextualization comes into focus as a means of achieving relevance, an issue contested by the older traditions.
Three tasks are identified to face the search for renewal and theological relevance. These include: reassessing theological traditions, methods, models, and philosophies in light of modern challenges, adjusting various traditions to adequately address the needs of both church and society, and evaluating the differences and relevance of given traditions and methods. in theological education with each one. given context.
The writer assessed the acrimony between the church and the theological school, noting that “the position between the two has almost become that of the church versus the theological school” (Turaki 1991, 31). Several tasks are identified as a panacea for the dichotomy between church and theological school: examine the historical development of theological education (especially role differentiation and the dichotomy between church and theological school), assess areas of strength and weakness on the roles assumed by each, and the theological implications of the dichotomy, along with the resulting competition, isolationism, and claims of autonomy to do theology and work to integrate the roles of church and theological school in the field of theological education.
The writer noted that contemporary theological education has a regional perspective and stressed the need to examine the implications of these patterns. It assessed three regions, the Third World Region (represented mainly by Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean), the British-North America Region (represented by English-speaking North America, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand) and the Continental European Region. Region (represented by continental Europe and, to some extent, the Afrikaaner society of South Africa). The primary factor for doing theology in the first region is identified as theological contextualization. The art of doing relevant theology requires training in theological skills and development of theological resources. In the second region, the writer noted that there has been a growing emphasis on renewing old theological traditions and institutions. The main contributions of the third region are in its search for a new identity, status, and theological freedom, and in reinterpretations of classical theological traditions.
REFLECTION
There is an erroneous saying that Germany created theology, Britain corrupted theology, America corrupted theology, and Africa copied theology. The writer’s statement on the need for international cooperation underlines the fact that Africa not only copies, but also has something to offer. He was right in stating categorically that “we need each other” (Turaki 1991, 28). It is sad to realize that instead of complementing and supporting each other, the church and theological institutions are becoming belligerent.
A critical analysis of the article and the contemporary situation reveals that the use of different methods and approaches in theological education is not necessarily the cause of lack of cooperation, but rather biases, assumptions, and claims of superiority. The writer identified several practical approaches to forging cooperation. He emphasized cooperative inquiry on the whole question of resources and how they can be acquired, developed, and used effectively in theological education. He praised the great strides made in curriculum development in Africa, particularly where the emphasis is on self-help and contextualization. If you do not have a universal principle that allows you to judge regional and traditional theologies, it is likely that theology is condemned to relativism, traditionalism and contextualism, and our theologies become parochial expressions. All Christians who desire cooperation, renewal, and relevance in theological education should read this article.