nature and task of theology (systematic theology I)

my intro to system theology course has started. i have been given the option to keep an ongoing critical log of the readings as opposed taking a 3 hr final exam. i will be posting my critical log entries here as well as keeping them in a separate ms word doc. these entries may or may not mean anything to reader because they are based on the following readings:

Paul Tillich - Systematic Theology Vol 1
John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion Vol 1
James Cone - God of the Oppressed
Rosemary Radford Ruether - Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology
Gustavo Gutierrez - A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation
various other readings...

my approach will be to record my initial thoughts on the topic before doing the readings and then write up my reaction to the readings.

here we go:

The Nature and Task of Theology – 1/28/05

Initial Thoughts
This first log entry will most likely be longer than others because I am recording my first impression and questions from the set of readings. My initial sets of questions will serve as reminders of where I began my journey through this semester’s interactions with Calvin, Tillich, Gutierrez, Ruether, and Cone. I plan to write an “Initial Thoughts� section before I embark on the readings in order to capture my current set of ideas and beliefs. This will allow for a “flow within the flow� view of my thinking. I will conclude each entry with a “Final Thoughts� section that summarizes my interactions with the texts. I will randomize my consideration of the texts each week in order to show that I am not predisposed to one or the other.
I was uninterested in and intimidated by theology for the majority of my life. I was raised in a Reformed, evangelical faith environment where I often scoffed at philosophy and theology because I focused mostly on what I viewed as practical applications of God and the Bible. Theology, as defined as a rational discourse about God, and philosophy, as defined as a cognitive approach to reality, both began to interest me when I arrived at these definitions. I then saw clearly how both theology and philosophy (the intersection of the two) impacted all aspects of life.

The criteria for good theology of faithfulness/appropriateness, intelligibility/credibility, and transformative practice complement the criteria I encountered in Paradigms and Progress (PH 330) with Dr. van Huyssteen last semester. In light of these criteria I still have questions such as: What is the aim and/or purpose of theology? Who judges how the theology meets the given criteria? In other words, should I be more skeptical about tradition or the existential questions/answers? Why do ‘new’ theologies seem to completely discount any view that has been the majority? Is the life of the creator of a new theology also a criteria? In other words, what role does a person’s theology play in rationalizing his/her sin? Can reconciliation, especially racial, ever occur if every person has his/her own contextual theology?

Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (35-43)
My initial impression of Calvin’s theology, as a rational discourse on God, focuses heavily God’s revelation and the resulting changes. Wisdom, for Calvin, is embodied in the knowledge of God and ourselves where “knowledge� emphasizes the centrality of revelation in the structure and content of his theology. Calvin states that we cannot seriously aspire to God until we know ourselves and, subsequently, become displeased with ourselves. On the other hand, we cannot know ourselves unless we look to the Lord, who is the sole standard.

He states clearly that our knowledge should serve first to teach us fear and reverence with the results being that we should seek every good from him. Piety is defined as reverence joined with love of God that the knowledge of his benefits induces.
Calvin also states that humanity’s depravity seduces the mind from rightly seeking him. Furthermore, he asserts that the pious mind does not attach to it whatever it pleases, but is content to hold him (God) to be as he manifests himself.

Questions:
(1) How does Calvin reconcile self-knowledge and depravity in terms of seeking God? (2) How does Calvin’s theology account for specific social and political contexts? Will Calvin’s theology (to be determined over the next few months) provide answers to real problems? (3) Would Calvin ascribe the human mind attaching itself to whatever it pleases to Tillich’s correlation method, Gutierrez’ liberation theology, Cone’s black liberation theology and/or Ruether’s feminist theology? In other words, are these other theologies too human-driven for Calvin?

Tillich: Systematic Theology Volume One (xi-xii, 3-34, 59-66)
My initial impression of Tillich’s theology is that he rightly includes the existential questions of humanity in his method of correlation but he leaves the door open for humanity to dictate the theological content without any boundaries.
Tillich provides two criteria for every theology – the object of theology is the ultimate concern and statements must deal with objects as a matter of being or not-being. In terms of Christianity, he asserts that theology is the methodical interpretation of the contents of the Chrsitian faith. He proposes the method of correlation where existential questions and theological answers are in mutual interdependence. Tillich’s distinction between apologetic theology and kerygmatic theology challenged my notion of the Bible’s message to all humanity for all time apart from context. The context of the theology of a theologian impacts the theology. Tillich’s method makes an analysis of the human situation out of which the existential questions arise, and it demonstrates that the symbols used in the Christian message are the answers to these questions. I do not see whether Tillich thinks that the human situation or Christian message should drive the method. Overall, I am skeptical of theologians who use Christian as a vehicle for their personal problems or agendas.
Questions:
Tillich says that God in his self-manifestation to man is dependent on the way man receives his manifestation. If this is true, then is God limited or does God limit his manifestation to humanity?
In light of Tillich’s method, what happens if the symbols do not answer the existential question? Does that mean the Christian message should be changed to fit the existential question?
Does Tillich agree that Christianity is the theology based on his description of the Logos becoming flesh as something which is absolutely concrete and absolutely universal?

Gutierrez: A Theology of Liberation (1-12, 13.25)
My initial impression of Gutierrez’ theology is that the global issue of oppression is addressed by the Christ’s mission of justice for the oppressed. I am uncertain to what extent he sees any other aspects of theology apart from his main concern.
Gutierrez offers his own criteria for good theology as theology must serve as wisdom (spiritual function), rational knowledge, critical reflection on humankind, an up-to-date view, and a political hermeneutic of the Gospel. His goal is to apply this theology to the oppression of the poor and demonstrates how Christ as liberator from sin addresses injustice and oppression. Gutierrez contrasts liberation from development and sees liberation as the expression of aspirations of oppressed people and social classes, an application to an understanding of history where humandind is responsible for its own destiny, and led by Christ as Savior from sin.
My theology is always interrupted by liberation theology because I admittedly am ignorant of suffering and oppression. At the same time, I am weary of theologians using Christianity as a means to achieve their social or political agendas. I anticipate having my worldview impacted by this tension.
Questions:
Is humanity responsible for the outcome of the world? If so, then how much? In other words, are humans trying to correct God in liberation theology or trying to correct the world using Christ as its vehicle? Did Jesus intend to correct the world?
Overall, (continued theme), should theology start with humanity or God? Is Guterrez’ discourse theology or anthropology (a different use of the discourse on humanity)?

Ruether: Sexism and God-Talk (1-46)
My initial impression of Ruether’s theology is that she exposes the patriarchal nature of all theologies (and everything else) and seeks to utilize the Christian message of equality before God as a means of refuting this while also promoting the full humanity of women. She appears to be using Christianity and everything else to provide an answer to her specific issue while disregarding other aspects of theology.
Ruether summarizes her critical principle of feminist theology as the promotion of the full humanity of women and states that “whatever diminishes or denies the full humanity of women must be presumed not to reflect the divine or an authentic relation to the divine, or to reflect the authentic nature of things, or to be the message or work of an authentic redeemer or a community of redemption.�
I admit that I have not reflected on the overall patriarchal nature of the Bible or all earthly institutions. I can see how Ruether’s argument for the application of God’s removal of power structures (in the present? upon Christ’s return?) relates to women’s issues. However, I do not agree with her vitriolic attack on, what appears to me, every aspect of everything that agrees with a majority view or tradition.
Questions:
Ruether states that no group should ever be marginalized (p. 20). Is there any situation where a group should be marginalized? Is there a notion of the greater good of society? How does Ruether account for a conflict between one group who would be marginalized if the other group was not marginalized? Classic question, should a group who practices cannibalism be marginalized?
Why does Ruether use the predictable “majority card� when she states that we should reject all norms of humanity to date?
Ruether states (p. 23) that “to the extend to which Biblical texts reflect this normative principle, they are regarded as authoritative.� Is the Bible only authoritative when it serves an individual’s agenda? Ruether also states that all power relationships (p. 30) should be removed, does this include God as well?
Overall, is Ruether capable of conceding any ground on her perspective? If not, she will continue to be lack any elements of persuasion in her theology with me.

Cone: God of the Oppressed (1-38)
My first impression of Cone’s theology is provides a heartfelt understanding of the problem the universal and particular in theology, especially in terms of black theology. My first encounter with some of Cone’s concerns came in college when a black friend on my InterVarsity Christian Fellowship leadership team shared that white worship music was viewd as “folk music� to the black community and that we could not expect racial reconciliation if the white groups thought that the worship music would be this type.
Cone states (p. 7) that the book “deals with the social basis of theology and is concerned with, among other related matters, the problem of the particular and universal in theological discourse.� His example of bad theology as embodied in the following quote opened my eyes: “The quote that unless black people learn to think like us white folks, using our rules, then we will not listen to you.� The black theology presented by Cone accounts for the black experience of truth and how that is manifested in theology.
Questions:
I struggle with the notion of racial reconcilation “working� in the church. How can groups with different contextual theologies worship together? Does “together� have to mean being in the same building on Sunday morning (or any other time)? Should Christians be aiming, as many have attempted, to bring together all Christians in order to be a stronger witness or are Christians fooling themselves by not accounting for the reality of different contextual theologies?

Final Thoughts (for this week)
The initial set of readings opened my eyes to the wide variety of approaches to theology. These approaches come from different angles that appear to be irreconcilable. The tensions present in the relationship of tradition vs. the sitution of humanity are clearly displayed. My suspicion of theologians using Christianity as a vehicle to promote an agenda or to solve a personal problem has both been emboldened as well as challenged. I do not know where Tillich’s method of correlation will lead in terms of God or humanity dictating which issues should be addressed. I do not know if I will still view Ruether as only using Christianity as a piece of her argument for the full humanity of women. I do not know if Cone’s description of the black experience will answer my questions about racial reconciliation in the church. I do know if my comfort with Calvin’s theology will continue or not. I do not know if I will move understand moreso the real oppression in this world based on the insights from Gutierrez.
My two main, related questions at this point is who drives theology (God or humanity) and how do we judge whether the driver is serving themselves (personal problems, agendas) or truly serving God and, subsequently, humanity?