Stick Your Systematic Theologies...
I write this to myself. You all are free to listen in.Is it just me, or are you seeing a lot of systematic-theology-esque fare creeping back into the Missional conversation? Statements of Faith. Theological formulations. OK, maybe not so much in areas like Atonement and Christology, but anyone else sensing a systematic comeback in areas like, say, Missiology and Ecclesiology? I can't pinpoint it, but I can smell it.
I wouldn't want to isolate any specific examples...
Well, maybe just one...
"Somebody will have a stupid, screwy idea. That's okay. The point of having creeds and confessions and traditions is to keep us in touch with the obvious errors." -Eugene Peterson, via Out of Ur.
Et tu, Eugene?
For the love of God, RESIST!!!!!!!
When it comes to ALL AND ANY theological categories...
What do I believe? Look at my life!!
What do I believe? Listen to how I tell my stories!!!
What do I believe? How can I be of service to you!!!
What do I believe? I believe in Jesus! Now go figure out what that means.
And if you wish, I will help you...
With my life.
With my stories.
With my charity.
In other words, just friggin' do it!
Speaking of Jesus, now there was a guy with some stupid, screwy ideas. And his detractors had plenty of creeds and confessions and traditions to hit Him with.
His screwy ideas won the day, though. Not by their logical coherence, but by their being shown true in His life.
Going back no further than my own generation, I didn't hear too many statements of faith from Mother Teresa. I didn't hear too many theological formulations from Dr. King.
They didn't care about telling me what they believe. In fact, I'm sure they didn't much care about showing me what they believe, either. But they did tell me what they believed. They did show me what they believed.
That's what a life lived in faith does. You don't have to try to do it. Light overcomes darkness, like a strong stench in a small room. That's just the way it is.
Come on, let's face it, already. The postmodern critique was dead-on in regards to the overwhelming roles of perspective and power in the quest for truth. Anyone who still thinks that their cognitive belief system is not riddled with sin and death is just fooling themselves. And thank God for that critique, which allowed me to see the worm in the apple of "objective reasoning," not only in myself but in every other human being who still tries to engage in it, to varying degrees.
And for goodness sake, please don't barrage me with Paul and the Early Christian Fathers! Paul had a very specific, unique job to do, and trust me, you don't have that gig!
Tell me the story of God and man and Christ and me and the world. Show me you believe in that story by the life you live and the way in which the stories you tell fit within that Big Story.
But don't insult my intelligence, don't insult the story itself, or it's Author, by trying to summarize it!!!
Just friggin' do it!
Peter Rollins gets it:
Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ. This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…
I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.
However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Dunno if you'd consider this a systematic theology... but might have helped if someone reminded the German church of the obvious mistake of forgetting that Jesus was a Jew...
Hey Raffi,
I can't go with ya on this one. It seems to me that you are only perpetuating the false dichotomy between faith and works. While I understand and agree with living into a new understanding (as Alan Hirsch talks about), we also live our of our current understanding. And the reality is that since we act out of our belief, our beliefs are important. This is precisely why voices such as N.T. Wright are so important for the missional/emerging church. Theology matters. Works may demonstrate your faith, but that doesn't mean that you don't work out your faith, understand your faith, and think through your faith.
Are you suggesting that we dispose of creeds and traditions except for the creed that we have no creeds? Or the credo of "just do it?" which we could develop into a tradition of just do it. This is, of course, the fatal flaw of postmodernity - it is a metanarrative that claims there are no metanarratives. It tries to escape the clutches of modernity, yet it is, in reality, the logical outcome of modernity. Also, just because there is no purely objective point of view does not mean that we cannot see or speak of the truth in a meaningful way or an accurate way (otherwise language would be rather pointless right). I mean, don't tell me you buy into postmodern literary theories?
I understand that there have been many misuses of theology and systematic theology. I also fully grasp the necessity of descending from the ivory towers in order to live for Christ. However, it doesn't have to be one or the other. In fact, we function from a theology, the question is whether we want it to be an informed and conscious one or an unconscious and unexamined one. I am a part of a denomination that functions with pride from our lax doctrinal standards. Instead we cling to a epistomological system, a set of social standards, and a pension. So you can tell us to "go figure out what that means," and we tend to come back with several different Jesuses that look eerily similar to each of us.
So in this sense I would absolutely agree with Peterson. There is good tradition. We don't have to be bound by tradition, but we should be informed by it. Also, what's so bad about the Nicene Creed?
Perhaps I am not understanding exactly what you are saying.
Also, about your contest. I was thinking about the fact that everyone looked at your picture, looked at the list of things and we all thought to ourselves, "yeah, that looks like a guy that would eat over 5 lbs. of steak in a sitting." It kind of made me chuckle.
LOL! Yeah, that was a little underhanded of me.
Your comment deserves more of a response that I'm gonna give here. I hear what you're saying, but I think the distinction lies somewhere in "theology" vs. "systematic theology." But like I said, let me think this one out.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Mofast,
I'm gonna kick your ass when I finally meet you. One comment and you got me scurrying to try to communicate better.
Anyway, here's what I got so far:
the·ol·o·gy
Pronunciation:
\thē-ˈä-lə-jē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural the·ol·o·gies
Etymology:
Middle English theologie, from Anglo-French, from Latin theologia, from Greek, from the- + -logia -logy
Date:
14th century
1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience ; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world.
Good...versus...
systematic theology
Function:
noun
Date:
1836
: a branch of theology concerned with summarizing the doctrinal traditions of a religion (as Christianity) especially with a view to relating the traditions convincingly to the religion's present-day setting.
Bad.
More to come. After nap. Maybe.
Damn you.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
I'm gonna kick your ass when I finally meet you.
I'm chuckling because I'm kind of a wimp so it wouldn't be that hard. My defense would be to hope your foot got sore before things got ugly.
The theology vs. systematic theology distinction is interesting and I think I get the spirit of what you are getting at.
You realize the irony of your taking a more postmodern line of thinking and then citing a dictionary. However, that particular definition of systematic theology isn't what I really had in mind. It, as you point out, states that systematic theology is summarizing the traditions of a religion. I'm not big on tradition for tradition's sake, so we agree there. I do think of tradition at its best as the voices of fellow believers speaking to us today.
I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of a theology that is systematic in approach. Again, the creeds do this when they are broken down into affirmations about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I wonder if your issue is more in regards to a modernistic use of these things and not necessarily the things in and of themselves? I don't think that an orderly account of our understanding of the revealed knowledge of God is a bad thing by itself. One of the things that theologians do is connect us with the great cloud of witnesses that spans all time. This helps me shed, or at least be aware of more of my own subjectivity in order that I could better understand what the Scriptures teach in order that I could better live it. In that sense I'm all for "just do it" because theology and faith must be lived out. It is my theology and understanding of a scriptural take on humanity that has guided me as I met with a young widow and her three boys as they grieved. And that is why theology is crucial - because some people in that same situation do not show grace in part because they don't have a theology of grace.
Alright, it's late. Have a good night and God bless. I'm enjoying the conversation and thinking.
Mo,
All right! It's bright and early.
Let's WRANGLE S'MORE!!
Actually, nah. I think I agree with everything you just said. I still hear you blending the concepts of "theology" and "systematic theology," and, while the creeds were crucial and necessary in their time/place, I think they're an exercise in laziness today, but other than that, I think we're on the same page.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
"Paul had a very specific, unique job to do, and trust me, you don't have that gig!"
But you want us to do it just like Jesus did?
Anytime you ask or answer "what is God like?" or "why did Jesus...?" you have started upon systematic theology.
That's ok. Humility is required. Solipsism is not.
Hey Chris,
You may be new 'round these parts, so you're forgiven for: "But you want us to do it just like Jesus did?"
No, actually.
Hope to hear from you again. We don't get too many comments containing words like "solipsism." Refreshing.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi