Comments for Theology Forum

Comment on Truth as “Coherence” » Pannenberg on Science and Theology by OmilkCiglisse

OmilkCiglisse — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:24:14 +0000

Are there any acai berry side effects? Find out here!

Comment on Theology Is Not about Argumentation, but Sanctification: Or Why Rowan Williams is the Only Real Theologian by James Merrick

James Merrick — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:58:11 +0000

Marika, thanks for pushing me on this. Had I been less reckless, I wouldn’t have left the impression that I think academic theologians could not be pious. What I really wanted to suggest is that theology should reflect that piety. What my concern was was the way in which one can read a piece of theology w/o really being challenged to learn its truth, if you will, where technical points not ways of life are the end of theologising. So yes, I would say every theologian I have come into contact has been, in one way or another, devotional (for lack of a better term), but I would like the genre and form of theologising to be more transparent to that, rather than merely academic.

Comment on Theology Is Not about Argumentation, but Sanctification: Or Why Rowan Williams is the Only Real Theologian by Marika

Marika — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:04:33 +0000

What about all those other academic theologians who do “pray, meditate upon Scripture, participate in the life of the church, serve the poor, counsel the downtrodden or just repent of one’s selfishness and become more loving”? Am I really the only one who feels like most of the academic theologians I’ve encountered have been committed and serious Christians, concerned to pursue God as well as have interesting ideas? What about Sarah Coakley, who argues that the practice of contemplation is inseparable from the practice of theology? What about the hundreds of academic theologians who are also priests, pastors, chaplains and bishops? I just attended a colloquium on the future of trinitarian theology with some of the leading Catholic theologians in Britain, and plenty of Anglican/other Christian theologians in attendance, and we talked about prayer and contemplation throughout the day; we talked about the social and political implications of theology. Is my experience really so unusual?

Comment on The Fruit of Doctrine by Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:09:20 +0000

Part 1: http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/divine-teaching/

Part 2: http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/divine-teaching-part-two/

Part 3: http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/divine-teaching-part-3/

Comment on The Fruit of Doctrine by Rich

Rich — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:53:18 +0000

Kyle, where’s the review of McIntosh’s Divine Teaching? I’d love to read it.

Comment on Systematic Theology as Retrieval: finding the church’s future in her past by Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:51:08 +0000

Its a fair question, and we are (hopefully) arguing for something more interesting than “theology that is informed by tradition” (and we interact some with Webster’s six “resemblances”). I will send you a copy, and I would be grateful for your feedback.

Comment on Systematic Theology as Retrieval: finding the church’s future in her past by James Merrick

James Merrick — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:45:54 +0000

Kent, interesting paper – I’d like to read the whole thing. I wonder, though, if retrieval is construed here as a rather bare interest in the past. As I understood Webster’s essay in the ST Handbook, retrieval is bound up with a certain worry about how the modern context is hostile to theology. Retrieval, then, is not just improving our thoughts by looking at what dead people said, if you will, but is an attempt to recover a certain doctrinal achievement that was lost from the church’s mind when her theologians conformed to modernity (hence, Webster treats a number of thinkers who have critiques of modernity – Ressourcement theologians like de Lubac and Congar, Radical Orthodox thinkers like Milbank, and so on). In other words, there is positive doctrinal content to retrieval and therefore retrieval is more than a method or nostalgia. I don’t know, I was trying to recall Webster’s essay when I read your post. I should probably go back and read it again. But I guess I had a question about whether or not this was too bald a description of retrieval, whether retrieval must be thought of as more than just “theology that is informed by tradition.” I’m curious as to whether I’ve misread you or whether you’re following Webster or why you’re thinking of retrieval in this way… In any event, I hope the project is coming along nicely.

Comment on Theology Is Not about Argumentation, but Sanctification: Or Why Rowan Williams is the Only Real Theologian by øyvind

øyvind — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:47:59 +0000

I do understand what the post says (I can read) and I wasn’t commenting on it directly. My point was very limited, I just wanted to understand if Stan really thought that the point of theology or of life for that matter is to become “more righteous”, which is a very alien thought to me, and sounds downright legalistic (oops I did theology again, but maybe the acceptable an not so difficult sort).
But I also think that it is quite unfair to theologians to reduce their work to intellectual posing, and I really would like to ask what the criteria would be to assess if there is sanctification going on. The more complex, the less holy? The more Derrida, the less Spirit of God? And vice versa: The more “plain and simple”, the more godly? Who’s to decide what is important and what is not? Shouldn’t you know someone’s life and not just someone’s work to judge their sanctity (or shouldn’t you really be God to do that)? I’d say that the clarification and discussion about what Christian faith means, is important both in an (at least where I live) confused church, and in our encounter with culture and the academic world.

I agree that the knowledge of self and the knowledge of God are closely related, and that knowing God is not really about learning “true sentences” about God (dry facts about the Holy Spirit, which is my mother’s favoured expression). But I can hardly see any other reason than desire to know the truth about God driving anyone into theological enterprise. And the truth about God always comes close to our real lives and challenges us to love our neighbours and those far away. To me, it seems risky.
Actually, I believe that theological work might even have that sort of impact: living close to the Word of God makes a difference in terms of sanctification.

Well, I might be on the naive side. But at least there’s a balance.

Comment on Systematic Theology as Retrieval: finding the church’s future in her past by Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:35:54 +0000

Yes, that is part of what David and I are trying to argue – though I am sure O’Donavan does it with greater acumen. I have not read much O’Donavan so thanks for the heads up. Is there a particular place in his work to see this “working his way forward by keeping his gaze fixed firmly backward”?

Comment on Theology Is Not about Argumentation, but Sanctification: Or Why Rowan Williams is the Only Real Theologian by stan

stan — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:32:08 +0000

Yes I do think that’s the point, which is why I agreed with this post with nearly that exact title. What’s going on in the artful dodge/false humility about “God’s grace” in your reply (no offense intended, it’s part of our training, I know) is pretty much the problem distilled.

I think theology (in the usual sense) is indeed a “privilege” (better, word association game) exercised by a few that is nearly entirely useless. Unlike plumbing with its own secular ends to pursue, theology has one thing as its task: sanctification (or the knowledge of God if you prefer that wording). And, as I said, theology must account for my argumentum ad grandmamum, namely, why my grandma who is unaware of the in-house disputes and indeed would reject the bulk of its verities is not only more righteous but more useful to her congregation even in a spiritual sense than a theology professor. What I am saying is it appears she got the fruit the theologians should be pursuing, and yet the dialogue of theologians is generally disconnected and downright dismissive of a more “common” theology. I suppose I am arguing for theology as a less elite, less doctrinally abstract, worship and pastorally driven practice. Good God I’ve become a charismatic!

Imagine it this way, if everyone quit doing theology(in the usual sense) no one (beyond the participants) would notice….not even God I’d imagine. (We’d miss the plumbers!) Yet sanctification would go on at the same pace, but with greater clarity for the newly unemployed. Expertise would be judged immediately by a different standard to all of our benefit. (In this way academic theology prevents theology’s true experts from being noticed.) Would we even call up the unemployed academics? I don’t think so. I think we would mainly be embarrassed that their services weren’t missed.

As I said, I am a cynic (in these matters) greater than which can not be conceived.