A Systematic Theology for the Emerging Church?
In short, no.
Jonathan and Brad have thrown in their two cents in response to Brother Maynard's question. Brother Maynard's (provisional) answer is:
...I think there may be an emerging theology, but it will of necessity be of a generous nature, with room for other positions and not as deeply committed to dogmatic certainty on all points. I don’t know if it will ever be “gathered” up as a systematic treatment (or if it could be), but it seems to me that many more of the classical areas of systematic theology...are being explored, at least a little.
Jonathan's conclusion:
I believe the answer is yes, but I would use the term “coherent” or “sound”. With time it will likely be those asking the questions who will then seek out and find the answers. Some will get it wrong, but others will get it right. And like any revolution, it is only those who stand unwilling to move in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary who will suffer.
And Brad's:
“Emerging systematic theology” is an irony, which I define as the opposite of a paradox. If a paradox is two things which actually co-exist, but look like they shouldn’t, then an irony is two things that shouldn’t co-exist, but they actually do.
So, to resolve the irony, what needs to happen is: “emerged systems theologies.” Maybe some of those reading this will be moved to invest themselves in what I think may be some of the hardest work required to shift us into more preferable futures - figuring out the full paradigm that accompanies a particular logic approach, and then developing a comprehensive, consistent, coherent theological system within their chosen paradigm - conducting a radical repatterning of the biblical evidence, themes, and frameworks while still covering all the bases.
I think Brad's on the right track. But let's have some cojones here and tell it like it is. An emerging systematic theology?
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The very question shows a misunderstanding of the very question.
It's not about having true beliefs, but with not as much certainty, leaving room for others.
It's not about replacing terms like "true" with less in-your-face terms like "coherent" or "sound."
It's not about finding a new, radical paradigm and then developing a new system which fits within it.
It's about Jesus, people.
Does that sound to shrill? Too certain? Too true?
Too bad.
It's about Jesus. A person. A person as complex and irreducible to true statements as you and I, except a thousand times more.
"I am the Truth."
Get it?
Did Jesus communicate the Truth? Of course He did. Did He do so using propositional statements and systematic theologies? Of course He didn't. He utilized those things, yes. But to communicate the Truth, Himself, He used stories. He used symbols. He used a life. He used a death.
The Kingdom of God is like....
This is my body....This is my blood...
Temples cleansed. Crosses died upon.
The people wanted answers. He gave them riddles.
The people wanted proof. He gave them life.
The people wanted a king. They got one.
Get it?
Are we going to utilize systematic theologies, proposition statements, value judgment, truth claims? Of course we are! Those are all part of God's good creation, His gifts to us.
But should we consider those things sufficient for the task? Of course not! Jesus didn't. He communicated Himself by His life!! The whole of it, within the context of the life of the Jewish people. The whole of it, within the context of the story of God and the world. The whole of it. All the music, all the dance, all the art, all the food, all the pain, all the love, all the work, all the play, all the talk, all the logic, all the words, all the dreams. All of it.
He came not to abolish, but to fulfill.
He came to give not answers, but life. LIFE!
Get it?
True life.
Comprehensible life.
Communicable life.
New life.
Spread the word.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Jonathan and Brad have thrown in their two cents in response to Brother Maynard's question. Brother Maynard's (provisional) answer is:
...I think there may be an emerging theology, but it will of necessity be of a generous nature, with room for other positions and not as deeply committed to dogmatic certainty on all points. I don’t know if it will ever be “gathered” up as a systematic treatment (or if it could be), but it seems to me that many more of the classical areas of systematic theology...are being explored, at least a little.
Jonathan's conclusion:
I believe the answer is yes, but I would use the term “coherent” or “sound”. With time it will likely be those asking the questions who will then seek out and find the answers. Some will get it wrong, but others will get it right. And like any revolution, it is only those who stand unwilling to move in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary who will suffer.
And Brad's:
“Emerging systematic theology” is an irony, which I define as the opposite of a paradox. If a paradox is two things which actually co-exist, but look like they shouldn’t, then an irony is two things that shouldn’t co-exist, but they actually do.
So, to resolve the irony, what needs to happen is: “emerged systems theologies.” Maybe some of those reading this will be moved to invest themselves in what I think may be some of the hardest work required to shift us into more preferable futures - figuring out the full paradigm that accompanies a particular logic approach, and then developing a comprehensive, consistent, coherent theological system within their chosen paradigm - conducting a radical repatterning of the biblical evidence, themes, and frameworks while still covering all the bases.
I think Brad's on the right track. But let's have some cojones here and tell it like it is. An emerging systematic theology?
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The very question shows a misunderstanding of the very question.
It's not about having true beliefs, but with not as much certainty, leaving room for others.
It's not about replacing terms like "true" with less in-your-face terms like "coherent" or "sound."
It's not about finding a new, radical paradigm and then developing a new system which fits within it.
It's about Jesus, people.
Does that sound to shrill? Too certain? Too true?
Too bad.
It's about Jesus. A person. A person as complex and irreducible to true statements as you and I, except a thousand times more.
"I am the Truth."
Get it?
Did Jesus communicate the Truth? Of course He did. Did He do so using propositional statements and systematic theologies? Of course He didn't. He utilized those things, yes. But to communicate the Truth, Himself, He used stories. He used symbols. He used a life. He used a death.
The Kingdom of God is like....
This is my body....This is my blood...
Temples cleansed. Crosses died upon.
The people wanted answers. He gave them riddles.
The people wanted proof. He gave them life.
The people wanted a king. They got one.
Get it?
Are we going to utilize systematic theologies, proposition statements, value judgment, truth claims? Of course we are! Those are all part of God's good creation, His gifts to us.
But should we consider those things sufficient for the task? Of course not! Jesus didn't. He communicated Himself by His life!! The whole of it, within the context of the life of the Jewish people. The whole of it, within the context of the story of God and the world. The whole of it. All the music, all the dance, all the art, all the food, all the pain, all the love, all the work, all the play, all the talk, all the logic, all the words, all the dreams. All of it.
He came not to abolish, but to fulfill.
He came to give not answers, but life. LIFE!
Get it?
True life.
Comprehensible life.
Communicable life.
New life.
Spread the word.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Raffi, while I get what I think you are trying to say, which is that our understanding of God is found in Jesus, (and I completely agree with that) our understanding of who he was, why he came, and what exactly he did on the cross has been in question and debate for ages. Human beings are cognitive beings with limited capacity to judge effectively. We live in logical frameworks that requires piecing things together and making a theology or God image. We seek this to understand not only God but to understand ourselves. This is what was lost in the Garden and we've been trying to find it ever since.
What I meant by coherent or sound is a reasonable understanding of that image, which can be communicated. And when we try and communicate it effectively we run into the same problem. We're all different cognitive beings with different filters. Yes we can say Jesus but we still have to understand who Jesus is and why he came, filtered through our broken self.
When you say "Jesus" are you talking about the Jewish Jesus or the Greek Jesus, or the mystic Jesus. We inherit information about him that we have to sift through. I'm seeking a coherent understanding of him that has as much of "me" removed from it as possible.
As a lawyer you would know that a lawyer can't just say "Jesus" and win a case. He has to sift through and present a logical, and reasoned case for how he/she sees it.
Jonathan:
I hear what you're saying, brother. And this is a little hard to communicate...here we go again. OK, let me try iy like this.
Take this post. There's a purposeful non-structural, non-to-the-point feel to it. It's not a legal argument by any stretch. If it were, I'd be out a job a long time ago.
But you got it, right? You heard what I was saying. And that's kind of what I'm getting at. The thing is, I think we could all get at "the truth" much easier if we stop handicapping ourselves by also requiring that we be able to reduce it to a linguistic formula. Some might be able to, but others might just as coherently dance the truth, or sing the truth, or paint the truth, or tell stories that ring of the truth.
Yes, we need to know the real Jesus. And that'll take history, story, symbol, liturgy, theology, song, and wisdom. But all that boils down to the one, irrdeucible fact that the bottom-line truth is not a proposition. It's not a theory. It's a person. When Pilate asked Jesus "What is truth?," I think the real reason Jesus didn't answer is because there was no answer He could give above and beyond simply standing there. Pilate was looking at the Truth. What more could be said.
Huge issue, brother. Book-length issue. Let's keep up the dialogue, though. I think we're getting somewhere. And if we don't get there, maybe our children...
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
I will say that even Jesus is still a solution looking for a problem. The story about why Jesus came, the purpose of who He is and why He died is a theology. Even the Pharisees missed it.
And again I'm not disagreeing that Jesus and the entire story is communicated not as a systematic theology but as story, parable, song, poetry, etc. It's that as human beings we naturally want and in some respects need to make some sense of it all.
And I will say this. The aspect of understanding/wisdom is a role of the Holy Spirit but even Paul wrote letters to explain it.
i'm new to your blog and wanted to share an awesome tool.
it's called the truth project put on by focus on the family.
www.thetruthproject.org- it's extremely powerful and life-changing.
i encourage all believers to check this out!
i'd love to know what you think.
blessings to you!
Thanks for the link, Kari.
Sounds like an ambitious project...Communicating the truth of Jesus Christ in 12 lessons / 7 DVD's. I wish Dr. Dobson and the gang the best of luck.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
ambitious, yes! however, it's only a taste of what we as believers need to be doing. and that's seeking God's truth and applying that to our lives.
it's done in a small group format- where you watch the dvd and then discuss. it brings about great discussion and lots to mediate on during the week.
in our culture now, it's hard to find a biblical worldview thats grounded in His Truth and not one that sounds/feels good at the time.
they touch on who is God, what is Truth, who is Man,Design, the American Experiment {as an attorney, i'm sure you'd find this very interesting}, the state, the family,media, community,etc. i think as a body of believers we've bought into the lies of the world {maybe unintentionally, maybe not}, but, there's no better time to be grounded in the Truth of who He is and why He came, and why WE {his body} need to come back to the basics of our faith.
i meet a lot of christians who are walking a fine line - they can't even give an account of their faith.. it's sad.
anyway, just a few ramblings,but to me.. important! {thanks for listening}
all the best to you-
I'm in awe at these posts.
As my contribution I would like to say that there is a coherent theology out there which turns certain beliefs on their heads. It's been around for over 130 years now and has transformed many lives.
Read Chapter 2 of "Science and Health" for a taste of how Christian Scientists view Jesus' "Atonement and Eucharist".
Those who study this book and practice what it teaches have no difficulty giving "an account of their faith".
Love
David K
felaalrl glen saka sciencee sanco council drums multiplicity poses subsection constantly
lolikneri havaqatsu