Dave's bio
My name is David Shedden, but for the purposes of this blog you can call me Dave or Shed. (The other David got in first!) I am 30 years old. I am neither a professional theologian nor a professional anything else. I worked in an office shuffling paper for a few years in my 20s. I am now, however, preparing for Christian ministry in the Church of Scotland. Next academic year I will be doing a ThM at Princeton Theological Seminary. I will also be on placement at this church in Princeton. If you need to know anything else about me just ask.
I have been intrigued by the discussions so far. Alas, I will not begin reading our set text until September. However, I do like being provocative, and I tend to ask questions rather than answer them. As I see it two themes have stood out so far in the posts - the purpose or definition of systematic theology, and the role of Scripture or a doctrine of Scripture in systematic theology.
Here's my provocative opening blast: systematic theology is dead, and has been dead for at least 50 years, probably more like 150 years. This is not to say that reading or writing books with the title Systematic Theology is wrong or silly. It just means we need to be aware that there is no entity or body of knowledge or discipline rightly called systematic theology. Christian theology is Christian theology - whether it is biblical or systematic seems fairly meaningless to me - and the current patterns in evangelical scholarship seem to support this. For example, the current discussions about how to interpret Paul's teaching on justification demonstrate the massive shift towards biblical theology as the dominant form of Christian expressions of doctrinal belief.
Every Christian has their own working theology. As such, I hope that reading through Culvert will help me to refine and correct my understanding of God in Christ. Theology is about knowing God, and knowing God, as far as I understand the New Testament, is about knowing Christ. If I was going to write a theology it would be Christological from start to finish. I think recent conservative ST's have been far too concerned with method and epistemology. As a result they have been weak on developing Christian theological ideas that can speak into the 21stC world. What does the incarnation mean for the genetic revolution that we are living through? More to the point, what does the genetic revolution mean for our doctrine of Jesus Christ, the God Man? These are just two of a number of questions that I rarely find addressed in my reading of theology, especially evangelical theology.
posted by David Shedden | 11:51 AM
3 Comments:
So, ministerial students aren't professionals, eh? ;)
Could you please answer the following questions?
1. Could you substantiate the following assertion: "[S]ystematic theology is dead, and has been dead for at least 50 years, probably more like 150 years."
2. What did you mean by "I'd love to read through Barth - Systematic Theology died with big Karl" in the discussion on ST on Crawford's blog?
3. Why study a "dead" ST like Culver?
4. "What does the incarnation mean for the genetic revolution that we are living through?"
5. "What does the genetic revolution mean for our doctrine of Jesus Christ, the God Man?"
6. Why Princeton?
It seems like your post has been edited since I wrote my first comment, so I'll add these questions:
7. You say, "[T]here is no entity or body of knowledge or discipline rightly called systematic theology." Could you please substantiate this? It seems to me that you are begging the question.
The meaning of this phrase has been around for a long time now, and in the past 50 to 150 years there have been quite a few books that meet the criteria to be justly entitled "systematic theology".
8. You say that "[W]hether it is biblical or systematic seems fairly meaningless to me". Another radical assertion and yet no substantiation. Could you please provide some?
Biblical theologies and systematic theologies take a different tack, which is clear from examining them. Both enlighten our understanding of Scripture in different ways.
Can I ask you to ponder this question? Is being provocative (and especially delighting in it) following the example of the saints in the Scriptures? There is a difference between necessary controversy and being provocative.
Tim, thanks for your posts. I may have corrected a spelling mistake in my bio post, but other than that no substantial changes.
You ask lots of questions, so I'll deal with the simple ones first.
Yes, I do not think ministerial students or ministers are professionals in any meaningful sense. I get embarrassed when I try to explain to people what I actually do - sometimes I'm not sure I really do anything.
I will be studying at Princeton through a scholarship offered to me by Trinity College, Glasgow University. No-one else was able and willing to take the opportunity!
I think your other questions can be taken together, and they really return us to the question of defining systematic theology. Some of my comments were sweeping, but they were not meant to undermine our enthusiasm for constructive thought about our Christian faith.
I'm not sure it would be helpful for me to write too much - you ask good questions that have forced me to re-think much of what I wrote. I think I am in danger of confusing myself if not other bloggers. Perhaps I am getting muddled between systematic theology as a discipline and systematic theologies as texts reflecting that discipline. There are plenty of such texts - i just wonder if there is really a discipline that we can call systematic theology anymore.
Is (a) systematic theology merely a summary of received Christian wisdom? Or should it be constructive and creative thought increasing Christian wisdom? If the former, then systematic theology is alive and well. If the latter, then systematic theology is perhaps still living, but seriously unwell.
I would love to answer questions 4 and 5, but I raised them because I don't know the answers! If systematic theology can't tackle these and similar issues, what is it for?
As for being provocative, I think every genre in the Scriptures, especially the prophetic literature, is full of provocative material. I would rather be provocative than controversial.
Post a Comment
<< Home