Statement of Purpose
I am a United Methodist minister. One of the great problems of the Methodist heritage is that it has not, in general, produced outstanding systematic theologians. We have produced outstanding Biblical scholars (especially in the UK), we have produced excellent practical theologians and ethicists, but we have not done well at training and encouraging the systematic study of theology. When we look back through the history of American Methodism, we do find some significant theologians, but they often either content themselves with restating basic themes from Wesley and other predecessors or depart rather radically from traditional Christian faith (such as Borden Parker Bowne with Boston Personalism and John Cobb Jr. with Process Theology).
In light of this, combined with the fact that Wesley himself was driven by the needs of an ever expanding revival and had neither the desire nor the time to really develop a distinctly Methodist systematic theology (he even claimed he had no time to write his Notes on the Old and New Testaments), there are simply not very many models of outstanding theology within the Methodist tradition to draw influence from. Because of this, I have often found myself looking outside of the Methodist tradition for theological resources. These resources have mostly been the ancient, ecumenical theologians of the Nicene period and the more recent Reformed theologians (primarily the Barthian tradition as mediated by T. F. Torrance). Indeed, as a Methodist, I see this appropriation of non-Methodist theological traditions to be fully in line with Wesley’s own practice as study has shown that Wesley drew from all kinds of non-Anglican sources, particularly Nicene-era theology and the Reformed tradition of his own time.
Some might question the very existence of this systematic theology. I am in my mid twenties and still in seminary. What can I possibly add to the theological conversation? The answer is, not very much. John Calvin wrote his Instruction in Faith, which outlined the major themes of Christian faith, when he was in his mid to late twenties, which formed the framework for his Institutes. T. F. Torrance was forced to organize his thoughts on the entirety of Christian theology just after completing his doctoral studies with Karl Barth in his mid twenties as he taught for a year at Auburn Seminary in New York. For both of these men, this first statement was not indicative of their fully mature theology but it was an important stepping-stone. This is all I hope to achieve. If a single lay person or pastor can read this and be encouraged and learn something, my effort will be repaid many times over.
In order to fulfill this end, this systematic theology is intended to be primarily constructive in nature. There are theologians and other Christians who establish their position, not necessarily by articulating what they believe, but by stating quite clearly what they do not believe. It must be granted that some of this is unavoidable, but my goal is to articulate a particular position on its own merits and not primarily as it stands against others. Additionally, I hope that, when such a critique of opposing views is included, the fundamental reasons why they are opposed will also be included. I have found in my personal experience that knowing why a view was declared heretical is very important, not only for knowing what really makes up the core of Christian faith, but also by showing how our unspoken methodological presuppositions can color our interpretation.
It is a presupposed conviction of mine (for which I am indebted to T. F. Torrance, especially as first mediated to me through Dr. Elmer Colyer at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary) that good theology is never anything more than a deepening, broadening, clarifying and bringing to explicit articulation what the faithful, who have lived long in the scriptures and in the worshipping life of the church, have implicitly always known because of their sustained encounter with God. Throughout these chapters, challenges will be made to aspects of the intellectual tradition that are more shaped by Greco-Roman philosophy than the Judeo-Christian tradition, but it is hoped that the core content will resonate, even with lay people who have had no formal theological training.
No comments:
Post a Comment