Dan ([info]poserorprophet) wrote,

Six Propositions on What Makes Good (Christian) Theology

I was cruising some theology blogs last week and I stumbled upon an entry written by Shane Wilkins, entitled "Six Propositions on What Makes Good Theology" (this post was written on Dec 3rd, and can be found here: http://shanewilkins.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html). Now, it seems to me that Shane's entry aptly describes the elements that should be present so that a theological paper can attain a good grade... but I got to wondering if these six things were really the key elements of a good (Christian) theology. After some reflection upon these things, I have decided to post an alternate list. Without further ado:

1. Good theology is a transformative, embodied proclamation.

Contra Shane, I would like to argue that the goal of the theologian is not to persuade me that his or her theological theory is true. The goal of the theologian is to proclaim God. This proclamation is not simply (nor even primarily) a propositional proclamation; rather, it is one that is embodied in our day to day activities, priorities, choices, and relationships. Good theology is a lifestyle.

Furthermore, and in part because this is an embodied proclamation, this is also a transformative proclamation. To proclaim God is to be transformed into the image of God and to see the Spirit of God's cruciform power bursting into the world. Thus, this proclamation transforms (a) the people making the proclamation, (b) the people to whom the proclamation is made, and (c) the place in which the proclamation is made. This means that good theology will be missional. It also means that good theology will be doxological -- it will be an act of worship and of faithfulness to the God who is hidden within the proclamation.

Finally, because good theology is a transformative, embodied lifestyle, it must always be seen as incomplete, as pressing ever onwards towards its goal, as moving into ever deeper intimacy with one's God and one's neighbour. Until the day when God is "all in all," good theology will remain unfinished.

2. Good theology is a communal activity.

Despite the Academy's (and Modernity's) love of rugged individual experts, good theology is never something done by a solitary individual. Good theology occurs in the community of faith. It does not simply heed the opinions of "experts" and "theologians;" it is also aware of the voice of Spirit speaking through the single mother who comes to the Monday night prayer gathering, or through the voice of the alcoholic who comes in for a free meal on Wednesday night. Good theology is done in community and as community. Or, to employ a slightly different metaphor, the theologian is to be viewed simply as the mouth speaking on behalf of the united members of the body of Christ.

3. Good theology is contextual.

All theology is, inevitably, contextual. Good theology is aware of this and engages both implicitly and explicitly with issues of context. This has at least three major implications: (a) it means that good theology calls this community to act this way at this time; (b) it means that good theology takes especial care to address the particularly insidious blindspots of the time and place in which it discovers itself; and (c) it means that it enters into dialogue with other contemporary voices. Good theology should not, and cannot, attempt to formulate "timeless" propositions, or "universal" truths based upon claims of detached objectivity -- in part because there is no such thing as "detached objectivity"!

4. Good theology is biblical.

Despite the importance of being aware of one's contemporary context, an awareness of the biblical narrative is even more foundational. Contemporary dialogue partners are important but dialogue with scripture is more important still because this dialogue is more fundamental to the creation of good Christian theology. This is so because, within the Christian tradition, the bible is the primary authoritative witness to the Word of God. It is the bible that provides the Christian with the story of God's activities (and incarnation!) within the world God has created. Therefore, good theology is theology that lives within the trajectory of the biblical narrative.

5. Good theology is historical and ecumenical.

I could, perhaps, restate this point another way and say that good theology is traditional. By using the terms "historical" and "ecumenical" I want to stress two things. First, I use the term "historical" because all good theology is born out of the traditions of the Church -- it does not simply appear out of nowhere. Therefore, it is essential that those who engage in theology are aware of what has been taught and believed by the saints who have gone before (in part because this is an especially useful way of becoming aware of contemporary blindspots, and in part because the Spirit has been active and present in the words and deeds of the Church from Pentecost until the present day, and one would be a fool to ignore that witness).

Second, I use "ecumenical" because good theology must enter into dialogue with the various Christian traditions. Good theology will listen to Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and Anabaptist voices. It will dialogue with contemplative and spiritual voices and with practical and political voices.

It is the recognition of the authority found in these traditions that also prevents good theology from simply blown here and there by whatever contemporary issues happen to be "hot" or urgent or whatever. Furthermore, it is this dialogue with the traditions of the Church that is continues to mark Christian theology as Christian theology.

6. Good theology is trinitarian.

As stated previously, good theology proclaims God. However, the God of Christianity is uniquely revealed as a Tri-unity, as Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Therefore, theology must consistently be faced with the question of what it means to proclaim a God who is known in this way.

However, to say that God is known in this way is slightly deceptive. For any notion of three-in-one, leads, inevitably, to the admission of mystery and God's transcendence. Thus, the fact that good theology is trinitarian, also leads us to the admission that good theology is also humble and proclaimed in utter reliance upon the One who is the subject of that proclamation.

Summary

If we were to boil all of this down to one sentence we could define good (Christian) theology as follows:

Good (Christian) theology is the embodied communal proclamation of the Christian God within the contemporary context, founded upon the biblical narrative and the traditions of the Christian Church.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

  • 14 comments

Anonymous

December 29 2006, 14:20:45 UTC 5 years ago

Everybody is selling something, even your pastor. I do not deny the miraculous nature of conversion, but I do deny that when a pastor stands at a lectern that suddenly pure unadulterated truth pours out of his mouth. Just because your pastor 'proclaims' something about God doesn't make it true. (Those churches where 'proclamation' = 'truth' are called cults.)

While I wouldn't deny any of the particular claims you make, I don't think your list is sufficient. The point of my original post was not to focus on what makes christian theology good in the sense of christian, but rather with what makes theology good in the sense of understandable, intelligible, intellectually honest. Being a communal, contextual ecumenical proclaimer isn't enough to keep one from spouting bullshit every time one opens one's mouth. The answer to this dilemma is not to be found in pondering the mystery of the trinity. Rather, what is needed is a little critical reflection and some basic logical and rhetorical education. This does not replace properly theological study, rather it is the foundation theology presupposes.

Just because something is cogently or eloquently expressed does not guarantee that it is true, of course. But as a layperson I am much more likely to believe someone who has thought deeply enough about a claim to present it well and argue for it's truth rather than merely asserting with no justification or argument. If you want to be contextual and relevant, then you have to make arguments to persuade people, you cannot merely dogmatically assert some theological claim and expect them to bow to your pastoral authority.

Anonymous

December 29 2006, 14:21:24 UTC 5 years ago

that comment was by me, by the way.

shane

Anonymous

December 29 2006, 17:27:26 UTC 5 years ago

Contextual, biblical, historica....

I wonder how "understandable, intelligible, intellectually honest" christian theology can be without addressing contextual, historical, and biblical material? There is plenty of room for critical reflexion and logic within and alongside a study of the aforementioned. There is ample room for christian theology to be good theology in the sense of "understandable, intelligible, intellectually honest" - but to do so requires a sound understanding and study of context, history, and biblical studies. Those are the roots of christian theology, and without them there could not be good christian theology, only philosophy. There are endless well-argued theories that convince the masses of their claims - neither eloquence nor logic alone can convince, and neither can provide good christian theology without an awareness of the roots of christian theology.
While I agree that persuasive arguments go a long way, theology (not just christian theology) is about life transformation - and a theology that is logically sound but empty of transformative power is at its heart empty.
A proclamation rooted in contextual, historical, biblical, and ecumenical studies, among things, can be very persuasive. I am curious to know what else you would suggest to make a theological argument/theory more persuasive - you seem to advocate a method (logic, critical reflection etc), but in light of your short post I am at a loss as to know what you would include as content.

"Rather, what is needed is a little critical reflection and some basic logical and rhetorical education. This does not replace properly theological study, rather it is the foundation theology presupposes." I think that you have confused theology with methodology - theology presupposes content, not method. Logic and rhetoric are methods, systems of thought and communication - they are used to present content in a persuasive way, and that in a culturaly defined context. They are not the foundation, but A delivery system (and only A delivery system).

Skeptic

Anonymous

December 29 2006, 19:29:07 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Contextual, biblical, historica....

A 'foundation' is something up which something else depends. Logic is the foundation of theology (and philosophy and all of the other sciences), but logic is not theology, philosophy, etc. and I don't claim that it is.

I'm at a loss as to how to understand your claim that theology is about life transformation. I cannot agree with this claim simply because there is no requirement that something be true in order to change your life. Becoming a yogi is a life-transformation, but it implies a false set of beliefs. I agree that a good theologian ought to be a good christian, but it doesn't always happen that way. There are lots of good orthodox theologians who were complete bastards, to wit, Cyril of Alexandria. There is something wrong with that situation, but that's how it goes.

My point is that your response is implicitly pragmatic: the true theology is the one that works best for you. To the contrary, I maintain that truth, not 'life-transformation', is the hard core of theological inquiry. This implies that there is an ineliminable dogmatic content to theology. (Being a Christian is also a matter of believing the right things about God, not just acting the right way). What matters is the truth about God, not how that makes me feel. In this sense you are surely right to say that theology presupposes some content, which is accepted on the basis of revelation, etc. What puzzles me is why you think I would believe something different? At any rate



Anonymous

December 29 2006, 19:29:34 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Contextual, biblical, historica....

dammit, forgot my name again.

shane

Anonymous

December 29 2006, 22:41:32 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Contextual, biblical, historica....

I would not suggest that christianity is true, or truer than any other faith theory. Nor would I say that theology depends upon logic. Theology, I suggest, depends upon faith. Logic is used to defend/explain/or proclaim a theology: it is the method of communication/systematization, not the foundation.

Theology is about life transformation because of the content of theology. I agree that there is no requirement that something be true to be transformative, but that does not take away from the requirement that good theology be life transforming. Who is to say that the yogi is holding a false set of beliefs, or that he is a poor theologian at that? It may disagree with christian belief, but it could be that the yogi is very skilled at proclaiming and arguing logically for what he considers true. Would he not then be a good theologian? A good theologian must be true to his/her understanding of truth, not someone else's. A good christian theologian must be true to christianity, or that person would fail to be a christian theologian at all. Yes, I do take a pragmatic approach - the results do matter. I don't think it is simply what works best, but what do you understand? Where are you at? I agree that "the truth" is the hard core of theology, but I disagree that any one faith or theology has demonstrable evidence to substantiate its claim to holding "the truth". If the "truth" fails to be life transforming I would question that version of the truth, or at least question whether that truth mattered at all.
To be clear, I do not believe that you neglect a sense of content, simply that your post did not address it (that's why I asked you what you would consider to be the content). Not trying to offend, just responding to the material at hand.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I think theology (christian, buddhist, hindu - whatever) is intended to impact peoples lives because its content/subject is supposed to have direct impact on humanity. It is not intended to be knowledge for knowledge sake.

Skeptic

Anonymous

December 30 2006, 00:22:07 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Contextual, biblical, historica....

It has just occurred to me (while doing dishes!) that I am still caught in an in-between state in my thinking. There is the perspective/opinion/assumptions that I worked from as a christian, and there is my still forming post-christian thoughts. I apologize for any inconsistencies in my previous posts in light of this.

Skeptic

Anonymous

December 30 2006, 04:43:06 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Contextual, biblical, historica....

i see now more clearly the context of your question. I am saying that all good theology is christian theology. i.e. biblican, trinitarian, etc. because I believe that this one is true (in the sense of stating what actually is the case) and that other theologies (hindu, buddhist, muslim, jewish) are false. I do not deny that there are many people whose lives are transformed by their religious experiences in these different traditions. (and i'm not saying they are bad people). But I do think they believe something that isn't true (there is more than one deity) or that they fail to believe things that they ought to (Jesus is the messiah). So I do think that good theology must have a basic doctrinal content, my original post presupposes that we are talking about Christian theology and I am trying to make an impassioned plea for theologians to be better writers and communicators. Logic, rhetoric, etc. help accomplish this goal; they do not replace the need for basic theological convictions.

hope this explains my view somewhat more.

sw

Anonymous

December 29 2006, 19:34:43 UTC 5 years ago

Having spent some time recently reading Dan's blog, I am inclined to think that he is capable enough of critical reflection to be able to distinguish between the embodied proclamation of the the Christian tradition and what some pastor spouts forth! I don't hear him denying the need for critical reflection and intellectual honesty but it seems to me to be a question of priority. Is the primary location of the theologian the Church or the academy? I don't disagree with any of the points on your blog - indeed I find them necessary in their proper context - but I find the spirit of Dan's post more in keeping with the priorities of the Church Fathers.

Macrina

Anonymous

December 29 2006, 16:49:03 UTC 5 years ago

Orthodox minded

Good post, Dan. It seems to me that you are very near in attitude to Eastern Orthodoxy. If the theory doesn't translate to experience (not implying merely mystical, put practical day to day transformation) than regardless of how air-tight or persuasive an argument may be, it is empty of substance.

Skeptic

Anonymous

December 29 2006, 19:14:33 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Orthodox minded

@Skeptic,

Are you sure it is the eastern orthodox you mean and not the American pragmatists?

shane

Anonymous

December 29 2006, 22:47:45 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Orthodox minded

No, I mean the orthodox. His points line up quite nicely with eastern orthodox understanding of good theology. I'm sure his doctrinal content may be different, mabye not, but then, christianity presents so many versions of "the truth" it doesn't really matter. Religious theories that don't interact with life are, practically speaking, meaningless.

Skeptic

Anonymous

December 29 2006, 19:40:28 UTC 5 years ago

Dan,

I wrote a response to this earlier and then managed to delete it! I don't have time to repeat it now, but I wanted to say that I liked it - although I think that I would also have said something about being rooted in the Eucharist. And also maybe something about the "other". But no time now!

Thanks for your email - I do plan to reply but probably won't get to it before next week.

Macrina

Anonymous

January 27 2011, 13:14:40 UTC 1 year ago

I'm a lawyer, and I'm new here....

Hey guys,

I'm new here.
Btw, I happen to be a [url=http://www.iaf-forum.org/member.php?u=2220 ]lawyer[/url], too. :D
Hopefully I can contribute here!
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…