|
|
Nozomu Miyahira's
Towards a Theology of the Concord of God
A Review by
Rev. Ralph Allan Smith
Two Major Problems
Contextualization
But linguistics is not the only major problem. Miyahira follows Charles
Kraft's approach to what is called "contextualization."[7] The idea is
that Tertullian and Augustine, together with the early Church in general
"contextualized" theology in their construction of the doctrine of the
Trinity. Barth with his Hegelian method is presented as a modern example
of contextualization. Since, Miyahira argues, every one else is "contextualizing"
according to the time and culture in which they live, Japanese theologians
should, too.
There are numerous problems with this whole approach. To begin with,
the notion of "contextualization" itself is controversial. One would think
that a doctoral dissertation that relies so heavily on the assertion that
the ancient Church Fathers "contextualized" would have a great deal more
to say about the whole subject. What, for example, does "contextualization"
mean? Since there are significant differences in the answer to this question,
we would expect some discussion of the different answers and justification
for the usage that Miyahira prefers. We would also expect some serious
attempt to demonstrate, not simply presuppose, that the notion is legitimately
applicable to the ancient Church.
If Miyahira had adequately considered those questions, I think he might
have dropped his whole project. Perhaps not. At least it would have been
greatly modified. For the fact is that what is called contextualization
is not some easily identifiable, invariable, or simple procedure. Which
is to say, not all the Church Fathers have done the same kind of "contextualization."
Moreover, what Augustine and Tertullian did in the formulation of the
doctrine of the Trinity is arguably very different from what Barth did
in his reformulation.
It seems to me that Miyahira has missed the very heart of the development
of the doctrine of the Trinity. I am not saying that he is a poor scholar.
I am saying that I think he has specialized in depth on a few issues while
missing the larger picture of development, especially as that relates
to a matter of central concern to his theses. What I am asserting is that
in connection with the complex notion of "contextualization," Miyahira
has missed the general flow of the development of the doctrine of the
Trinity. What I believe we see in the early Church is that in the earlier
fathers there is a great deal of cultural and philosophical compromise
with Greek ideas of the "logos." Origen is the perfect example here. But
the Nicene trinitarianism is very different from Origen's ideas and may
be described as what Harvey Conn called "decontextualization," the elimination
of foreign cultural elements from theology.
To be brief, scholars like R. P. C. Hanson, T. F. Torrance, and J. N.
D. Kelly, though they disagree with one another on various details, certainly
do not describe the growth and development of the doctrine of the Trinity
in terms of the "contextualization" model. Where they make comments that
are relevant, they seem to point in the opposite direction, a doctrine
that borrows terms, but radically changes the fundamental meaning of the
words as compared with the general or philosophical usage. Above all,
the last thing we find in the Church Fathers is an attempt to accommodate
their theology to the language of the surrounding culture. Rather, men
like Athanasius directed their energy entirely to finding means to express
the Biblical truth as accurately as possible in the language available.
If Kraft's notion of "contextualization" does not apply to what the early
Fathers did — even if it may be appropriate to describe Barth's theology
— then Miyahira's own suggestions for revising the doctrine cannot
be justified as an imitation of their sort of theologizing. Indeed the
very legitimacy of "contextualizing" as an attempt to conform doctrinal
statements to a particular culture is thrown into doubt. It is one thing
to observe that we are inescapably creatures of context who can only communicate
with words that make sense in particular cultures. It is something altogether
different, however, to claim that the fact of man's inescapable contextuality
legitimizes a self-conscious effort to mold theological expression into
the forms of a particular culture.
Is it not clear that the basic question is whether or not the Biblical
worldview offers a sufficiently complex and comprehensive framework for
a theological reconstruction of culture according to the standards of
Christian teaching? Why, for example, should Christians be forced to cull
through cultural resources for theological language, when experts in the
computer world make up new words in order to communicate the precise technical
meaning they wish to convey? If the Bible gives Christians a distinct
metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, should not Christians attempt to
become ever more faithful to the teaching of the Scriptures, molding culture
in the direction of the Biblical worldview, rather than the other way
around?
There is another question of fundamental import. Does Miyahira's proposed
terminology actually help Japanese people understand the Biblical doctrine
of the Trinity? Even if the foundations of his approach were considered
theologically weak, if Miyahira suggested an approach to the doctrine
of the Trinity that enabled Japanese people to obtain a deeper grasp of
Biblical truth, there may be significant merit in it.
The problem, however, is that Miyahira attempts to communicate truth
about the totally personal God by multiplying impersonal and abstract
terms. In a land in which Buddhists believe that the ultimate reality
cannot possibly be personal and Shintoists tend to erase or minimize fundamental
distinctions between non-personal and personal reality, one might think
that the most important issue on the agenda of trinitarian theology would
be the development of an approach that emphasizes that God is totally
personal. Why, under the cultural circumstances in which Miyahira labors,
should one probe the tenebrous recesses of the Japanese mentality to extract
terms even more esoteric than those of the Middle Ages? How can such supererogatory
labors really enable Japanese Christians to better understand the personal
God?
Social trinitarians, by highlighting the reality of interpersonal relationships
in God, opened the way for a deeper appreciation for God's love —
though their approach is not altogether historically new. Already Richard
of St. Victor in the 12th century argued for a relational view of the
Trinity in his doctrine of God as three Persons devoted to one another
in love. In the Reformed tradition, Abraham Kuyper recognized the importance
of the Reformed idea of a pactum salutis, but, unlike most Reformed theologians,
did not limit the idea to soteriology. Kuyper argued that the only way
to truly take into account the full personhood of Father, Son, and Spirit,
while at the same time, avoiding any tendency toward tritheism is to acknowledge
the covenantal relationship of the Persons as an eternal aspect of God's
being. The concord of God is the covenant oneness of three Persons who
mutually indwell one another and share a fullness of covenantal life and
love.
If Evangelical trinitarianism is going to make a serious contribution
to trinitarian discussion, it must, like its ancient Fathers, apply itself
to serious exegesis and creative effort to escape the limits of non-Christian
thought. Miyahira rather than offering a helpful approach to understanding
the Trinity instead accosts the Japanese believer with the kind of befuddling
words and concepts that may delight scholars by their abstruseness, but
will hardly lead the man or woman in the pew to bow down before God with
a deeper appreciation of who He is or what it means to worship and serve
Him.
That, at least, is my own non-Japanese opinion of the practical value
of his approach. Perhaps Japanese Christians will find Miyahira's doctrine
more helpful than foreign speakers of the language. However that may be,
the problem of impersonal language remains. Add to this other fundamental
questions about his whole approach, and I can only conclude that Miyahira
is heading in the wrong direction. That he intends to express the doctrine
of the Trinity so that Japanese people can understand it is commendable.
I hope that he will be open to the possibility that he needs to fundamentally
rethink his work.
[7] See page 136 ff. and the notes on p. 159. Kraft's
approach is presupposed throughout the discussion.
Table of Contents
|
 |
