A Systematic Theology for Today

I like theology. A lot. I dislike reading more recent systematic theology texts. They are terrible. They are written in a bubble. They are theologies for theologians, not for the church. The are theologies that neglect culture by and large. They are theologies that do not allow us to wrestle with the most difficult questions of our time.

But what would a systematic theology for our day and time look like? Stanley Grenz and his book Theology for the Community of God is probably the best recent attempt in my opinion (and that was in 2000). But that was before 9/11. And before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And before we elected a black president. What would a present-day systematic theology cover? Would it rehash the most pertinent doctrines of the 3rd and 4th centuries? Or would it seek to interact with the questions and challenges of our time and place here? I am not suggesting we neglect former doctrines and theologians. But, we do need to engage our culture at the same level that theologians of the past have.

What are things we should address in this 21st century theology from an American perspective (I am thinking about my particular context as an American citizen and a product of conservative evangelicalism)? The problem of evil would be near the top of the list. And postmodernism, consumerism, civil religion, environmentalism, terrorism (and warfare in general) must be addressed with more than a paragraph or two. Maybe the trustworthiness of the Bible. An eschatology that leaves behind Left Behind eschatology. I think it must even address the roots of the country and its manifest destiny. And the ideals of freedom and liberty. And capitalism. What else would a present-day systematic theology book need to address in order to be mindful of our time and place?

Evaluating Theologians

I have been off the blogosphere for too long. This is my welcome back party.

I currently am in a theology survey class. One observation I have made: People at Denver Seminary do NOT like Karl Barth. This is disheartening for me, as many of you know of my man-crush towards Barth. And I have been trying to narrow down the reasons for the dislike. Here is my list: 1) Karl Barth does not believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God and 2) Karl Barth opposes natural theology. That’s it. It seems as if nobody can get past those two points. They are so fixated on these that even if Barth says something profound that we all need to hear and we can all benefit from, they will refuse to entertain the thought. Thus, I am pondering how we should evaluate theologians. It seems as if the criteria we use is centered around specific doctrinal positions. This is fine and dandy until we realize that Barth’s situation or Gregory the Great’s situation or Anselm’s situation is greatly different from 21st century America (or more specifically, evangelicalism). We can criticize Barth all we want, but we must not discount that Barth was trying to ward of the state church’s support of the Nazi regime. The Nazi party was using natural theology and the Bible to support their plot to exterminate the Jews and create the utopian Aryan state. OF COURSE Barth would deny these things in light of this situation. But why do we judge him so harshly? I think that theologians should not be judged by specific doctrinal stances but rather their engagement with theology, the Bible, church history, the church, and the culture in which he/she resides. Our views of certain theologians may shift dramatically or maybe just a bit. Regardless, I think theological methodology more accurately portrays theologians rather than their stances.

Hiding Behind the Bible

Jon Birch posts short cartoons on his blog. The one shown above was posted recently and I very much resonated with it. I have come across a number of people in my seminary experience who cling to one or two specific verses of Scripture (at one point, I was tallying up the number of times I heard John 14:6 quoted in all of my classes combined . . . after week 2, my count was at 36 . . . I have since stopped because it was getting far too depressing). Also, there are those who quote Scripture as an alternative to actually thinking about a topic. We use the Bible as an excuse for not thinking critically or faithfully because we are able to quote a verse here and a verse there without even understanding the context in which it was said.