Its interesting how Bosch answers this second question, is theology without mission possible? I will include his answer in whole below;

“The reverse, however, is possible: theologizing without mission…The question, then, is to what extent this can be called genuine theology. Authentic theology, after all, does not develop where the Church is preoccupied with herself or where she is desperately erecting defensive barricades on her own soil.

…Authentic theology, however, only develops where the Church moves in a dialectical relationship to the world, in other words, where the Church is engaged in mission, in the widest sense of the word. Internal renewal of the Church and missionary awakening belong together.”

I wasn’t entirely happy with Bosch’s answer to this second part, particularly because he tends to make a distinction between theology and ‘authentic’ or ‘genuine’ theology that I wouldn’t make due to how I understand theology’s character (borrowing a term from Franke here). Theology isn’t just a lesson in historical dictation or creedal repetition, nor is it merely a polemical defence against the other within the body of Christ. Theology is these things to be sure but its inclusive to a missional character as well, theology as Bosch points out, should be in a dialectical relationship to the world. 

Let me add another adjective to clear things up here, systematic theology; systematic theology without missiology is not theology. I choose systematic theology over other architectural approaches like historical theology, biblical theology, exegetical theology, and practical or pastoral theology because systematic theology tends to be the framework that holds the most authority in the life of the Church though of course it shares that with pastoral theology since orthodoxy and orthopraxy are never that far apart from other in the believing community.

Why does the Church tend to focus more on the polemical and historic sides of questions than the contemporary ones caused by the expansion of the Kingdom of God? Why is mission often an after tought of systematics? What are the implications of this in other architecture’s of theology like historical or biblical or exegetical?