Child theology is initially known to have been utilized after a conference on holistic and children mission, in 2001, in Malaysia. Even though the actual context of the concept was broad, encompassing reflexive practice in the tricky and diverse arena of global ministry and mission with children and those operating in academic surroundings. Child theology refers to a specific process of relating the child together with the theology, which focused around the critical text of Mathew chapter 18 verse 1. Key to this process was taking the act of Jesus putting a child in the middle of the disciples to challenge their misunderstanding of God’s kingdom, as a reflection basis. This approach’s principal proponents, Keith White and Haddon Willmer have acknowledged that illustration on Mathew 18. In this way, ‘one means of engaging in child theology.’ Still, the method becomes methodological for two reasons-First, the text on Mathew brought with it not only what is recommended as a method for practising child theology with mental health Courses, but also great themes on which to explore in several fruitful ways. Secondly, the vital energy in the field was given by Willmer and White. As elaborated in the entry point, such themes include Jesus as a performer of theology with his disciples, humility, temptation, the kingdom of God, reception, and discipleship. The combination of technique and substantive material proposals has provided a rich vein of reflection.
Theology of child and child theology are connected, for, Karl Barth argued in The Humanity of God that if Jesus Christ was found in God, and Christ was human, you cannot mention something of God without mentioning of humanity and vice versa. Indeed, the humanity that is talked about when talking about God is Jesus Christ’s humanity. However, Jesus Christ’s humanity is determinative for every human; this means, Jesus Christ is human for us. When we talk of God in Jesus Christ, we speak about other humans, including children. This happens even though Jesus Christ is distinct from us. White and Willmer give an instance of such in their Entry Point work. This book provides biblical observations about childhood and children. However, it attains such insights accurately since it fails to focus itself around the child as its essential theological item. While other people might discover more by getting deeper into the scripture, it may be what has been a significant strength proving a limitation for moving ahead. Willmer feels that this thought has extended as far as he can take it.
Therefore, child theology stands an essential material in its history. There are many possibilities available to child theology such as; first, proponents, trying to generalize the Mathew 18 technique by treating the child Jesus put among his disciples as a hermeneutic, using the idea to broader biblical discourse. Concerning this, the child can be born as telling consideration of different theological loci-indeed the child theology methodology has tried this in global consultations several times. Another consideration is of other biblical passages or scriptural themes. Secondly, proponents continue to reflect on Mathew 18 by developing further those proposed already. Lastly, to leave any distinctive methodology on the Child theology’s portion, and enable child theology to become a cover for all that methodologically and materially brings theology and a child together. To a considerable level, this alternative is occurring in practice, in part due to the child theology’s ambiguity has imitated against a compelling and lucid consensus on what child theology is. Among the risks attending this alternative are; firstly, to paraphrase Stephen Neil that, if all involve child theology, then nothing is child theology.
The harm is that a valuable thing can be diluted or lost, like perfume diffused in the sea. Lastly, that child theology dissolves into the theology of children, and that a concern for how the child tells our God’s theology and everything related to God is minimized into a biblical discussion around children or mere children’s activism.
A further alternative can be required to provide support to a viable future for child theology. Those interested in the unique child theology need to continue exploring new techniques for indulging in child theology. This means getting rigorous and new ways of holding theology and child as one.