Is Systematic Theology modern?
One question has to do with Neo’s discussion of being post-basically everything. In that section he (or you) seem to imply that systematic theology was an advent of modernity and that as such we can move beyond it in much the same way as we have moved beyond building cathedrals.
My only concern is that systematic theology was not a product of modernity. Perhaps a case could be made that systematic theology as we now know it was, but I’m not sure that that is the best direction to head given details I don’t want to go into here, but would be more than willing to discuss later.
Back to my main point, Origen wrote his “First Principles” in the third century which is widely recognized as the first work of Christian systematic theology (See Quasten, Patrology, v.2, 57ff.). While even Quasten acknowledges that this work is not palpable for modern tastes because of his overuse of Greek philosophy, it was nonetheless a systematic work. Furthermore, there have been many systematic works throughout history…for a brief overview see Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics v.1, 1ff. published by Baker Books…leading up to the Reformation and modern times, including but not limited to Thomas’ Summa. Given the vast amount of systematic work done prior to the advent of modernism, how can it be so easily dismissed? That it needs reapplication I do not dispute…but that itself is the task of any worthwhile systematic theology.
Thanks for this question. If by “systematic” you mean thoughtful, orderly, organized, coherent, comprehensive, and the like – I fully agree with you. This is not only not bad, but desperately needed. My concern centers less on serious scholarly work and more on how it is perceived on the street: that systematic theologies give us THE Christian world-view, a timeless set of abstract propositions that exempt us from the work of contextualization, rethinking, etc. There is a kind of absolutism implicit in at least some people’s minds when it comes to their system. They end up becoming more certain (and less conscious) of the systematic lens through which they read Scripture, and less able to see and respond to Scripture itself. I’m sure you’ve seen this too. Also – my concern is with our modern systematic theologies, which inevitably capture a good bit of modernity along with theology, just as the Summa captures late medieval thought, or Origen’s work captures patristic Hellenism. To some degree, this capturing the spirit of the age is inevitable – there’s no such thing as a disembodied gospel floating around somewhere, at least not one that is accessible to us. That’s what keeps theology – including systematic theology – alive: the constant need to sift through received theologies and see where they’re trying to capture the ever-new wine in stiff wineskins. May God bless you in the good work of what you call “reapplication” above.
