Systematic theology usually has a controlling principle ever since Schliermacher used “feeling.” Intersectionality could be a controlling principle. From an intersectional perspective what is God like? Christ? Holy Spirit? Creation? Humanity? etc. When Paul Tillich finished his Systematic Theology he said he should have begun with the Holy Spirit (according to my professor and Tillich’s student, Carl Braaten.) Braaten his own little dogmatics, “The Dynamics of Hope,” in which he covered all the usual dogmatic topics from an eschatological perspective. Geoffrey Wainwright wrote a systematic theology using worship as a controlling principle. I wrote a systematic liturgical theology, “New Creation: A Liturgical Worldview” (Fortress Press, 2000). Its chapters covered Liturgy and Theology, God, Christ, Church, Creation, World, Hospitality, Culture, Evangelism, Prayer, and Christian Life amidst the world, the flesh, and evil—-all within 200 pages. (Most of the chapters originated as lectures but they hang together as a worldview that is projected by the historic liturgy.) As Clint said, a desire for coherence. Like Thomas Aquino’s’ Summa Theological, a desire to make sense of the world. Who doesn’t have such a desire? Philosophy and theology must do this. Fides quaerens intellectum.
Sounds like you would love, I mean *love*, Hanna Reichel's *After Method: Queer Grace, Conceptual Design, and the Possibility of Theology,* where she somehow manages the feat of holding Karl Barth and Marcella Althaus-Reid together.
Given that classic systemic theology seeks to articulate Christian faith as a coherent whole I’m reminded of the Parable of the Blind Men & the Elephant. Each only had access to one part & based their description on it. Who is God; what is Christ’s saving work; how is the church to be ordered; the nature of sin, grace & redemption; how to live toward God’s future will be individually interpreted. If one focuses on Jesus as presented in the gospels, he advocates introspection. He tells his listeners to look to themselves, don’t worry about other’s salvation but to take care of others, your neighbors. Like the Pirate’s Code it’s more guidelines than rules.
That said, how can one not “speak from within the intertwining realities of race, class, gender, sexuality, colonial histories, and power” from one’s own experience?
The exploration of a systemic theology seems to be idiosyncratic to the individual. It might be enlightening to another but not necessarily in its entirety.
I see it as an individual’s articulation, not universal; useful for them but not necessarily applicable to everyone else.
Hey Clint! You spoke in a Zoom call this Fall to a class of mine at Luther with Dr. Hess. Been following you since then and appreciate your work.
Two observations/questions:
1. I wonder in what ways a Lutheran Systematic Theology is already being "written" by worshipping communities in their liturgical practice and communal life together? (And I suppose the question underneath this question is could one write a "Systematic Theology" that is borne out of an ethnography of worshipping communities where members, pastors, deacons, chaplains, etc. are doing this dance between attending to the moment using intersectional tools and swimming in the stream of the Tradition?) *this is the Pietist stream in me talking haha
2. The questions you are asking sound like "Metamodern" questions. In summary I hear you asking "after the post-modern critical tools are used, what is left and how do we move forward?"
Are you familiar with the work of Brendan Graham Dempsey? I've read and watched just a little bit of his stuff the past couple years. Perhaps his work would be a useful resource, jumping off point, or conversation partner for you. Take it or leave it as you wish. Peace.
Just a lay person here, so I was not initially familiar with the terms and concepts you mentioned, but your explanation of them helped me to understand them and to find your argument persuasive. Thanks for educating me.
I graduated from Calvin Theological Seminary in 1993 so I did have Barth and the rest and I am glad I did not having grown up in the Reformed tradition. Even after having been for so long I do find exploring the new areas of theology. I do not want to throw out the old but add new areas of thought and study. Even though I was in the MA program I loved learning about Barth and others.
Systematic theology usually has a controlling principle ever since Schliermacher used “feeling.” Intersectionality could be a controlling principle. From an intersectional perspective what is God like? Christ? Holy Spirit? Creation? Humanity? etc. When Paul Tillich finished his Systematic Theology he said he should have begun with the Holy Spirit (according to my professor and Tillich’s student, Carl Braaten.) Braaten his own little dogmatics, “The Dynamics of Hope,” in which he covered all the usual dogmatic topics from an eschatological perspective. Geoffrey Wainwright wrote a systematic theology using worship as a controlling principle. I wrote a systematic liturgical theology, “New Creation: A Liturgical Worldview” (Fortress Press, 2000). Its chapters covered Liturgy and Theology, God, Christ, Church, Creation, World, Hospitality, Culture, Evangelism, Prayer, and Christian Life amidst the world, the flesh, and evil—-all within 200 pages. (Most of the chapters originated as lectures but they hang together as a worldview that is projected by the historic liturgy.) As Clint said, a desire for coherence. Like Thomas Aquino’s’ Summa Theological, a desire to make sense of the world. Who doesn’t have such a desire? Philosophy and theology must do this. Fides quaerens intellectum.
Sounds like you would love, I mean *love*, Hanna Reichel's *After Method: Queer Grace, Conceptual Design, and the Possibility of Theology,* where she somehow manages the feat of holding Karl Barth and Marcella Althaus-Reid together.
Thanks for this tip I was unfamiliar with it!
Given that classic systemic theology seeks to articulate Christian faith as a coherent whole I’m reminded of the Parable of the Blind Men & the Elephant. Each only had access to one part & based their description on it. Who is God; what is Christ’s saving work; how is the church to be ordered; the nature of sin, grace & redemption; how to live toward God’s future will be individually interpreted. If one focuses on Jesus as presented in the gospels, he advocates introspection. He tells his listeners to look to themselves, don’t worry about other’s salvation but to take care of others, your neighbors. Like the Pirate’s Code it’s more guidelines than rules.
That said, how can one not “speak from within the intertwining realities of race, class, gender, sexuality, colonial histories, and power” from one’s own experience?
The exploration of a systemic theology seems to be idiosyncratic to the individual. It might be enlightening to another but not necessarily in its entirety.
I see it as an individual’s articulation, not universal; useful for them but not necessarily applicable to everyone else.
Hey Clint! You spoke in a Zoom call this Fall to a class of mine at Luther with Dr. Hess. Been following you since then and appreciate your work.
Two observations/questions:
1. I wonder in what ways a Lutheran Systematic Theology is already being "written" by worshipping communities in their liturgical practice and communal life together? (And I suppose the question underneath this question is could one write a "Systematic Theology" that is borne out of an ethnography of worshipping communities where members, pastors, deacons, chaplains, etc. are doing this dance between attending to the moment using intersectional tools and swimming in the stream of the Tradition?) *this is the Pietist stream in me talking haha
2. The questions you are asking sound like "Metamodern" questions. In summary I hear you asking "after the post-modern critical tools are used, what is left and how do we move forward?"
Are you familiar with the work of Brendan Graham Dempsey? I've read and watched just a little bit of his stuff the past couple years. Perhaps his work would be a useful resource, jumping off point, or conversation partner for you. Take it or leave it as you wish. Peace.
Thank you, Clint.
Just a lay person here, so I was not initially familiar with the terms and concepts you mentioned, but your explanation of them helped me to understand them and to find your argument persuasive. Thanks for educating me.
I graduated from Calvin Theological Seminary in 1993 so I did have Barth and the rest and I am glad I did not having grown up in the Reformed tradition. Even after having been for so long I do find exploring the new areas of theology. I do not want to throw out the old but add new areas of thought and study. Even though I was in the MA program I loved learning about Barth and others.