Given the contemporary variety of traditions and models in operation, the writer, Prof. Turaki, stressed the need for international cooperation in theological education. He argued that each approach has a time limit and is therefore subject to becoming outdated, archaic and irrelevant.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 for various approaches, we need to exchange views and share experiences, we need to understand and learn from each other” (Turaki 1991). ).
Turaki identifies various 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 amidst the multiplicity of models and approaches, and developing an adequate theological foundation for intercontinental cooperation in theological education.
Theological renewal and relevance have increasingly become normative goals in theological education today, whether among older or newer traditions. For newer traditions, contextualization becomes the focus of attention as a means of achieving relevance, a theme challenged by older traditions.
Three tasks are identified to face the search for renewal and theological relevance. These include: re-evaluating theological traditions, methods, models, and philosophies in light of modern challenges, adjusting various traditions to adequately address the needs of both the 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 and observed 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 the differentiation of roles and the dichotomy between church and theological school), assess areas of strength and weakness in 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 theology. theological education.
The writer noted that contemporary theological education has a regional perspective and emphasized the need to examine the implications of these patterns. It evaluated three regions, the Third World Region (represented mainly by Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean), the North American-British Region (represented by English-speaking North America, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand) and the Continental Europe 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 making theology relevant 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 the renewal of 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, Great Britain corrupted theology, America corrupted theology, and Africa copied theology. The writer’s statement about the need for international cooperation underscores 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 the lack of cooperation, but rather the biases, assumptions and claims of superiority. The writer identified several practical approaches to building cooperation. He emphasized cooperative inquiry into 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 there is no universal principle that allows regional and traditional theologies to be judged, it is likely that theology will be doomed to relativism, traditionalism and contextualism, and our theologies will become parochial expressions. All Christians who want cooperation, renewal, and relevance in theological education should read this article.