In the thread on Systematic Theology, I mentioned my study of Paul Tillich and James William McClendon, Jr. So, I thought I would give you a statement from each of them on their understanding of theology.
First, here are the opening sentences of Tillich's
Systematic Theology:
Theology, as a function of the Christian church, must serve the needs of the church. A theological system is supposed to satisfy two basic needs: the statement of the truth of the Christian message and the interpretation of this truth for every new generation. Theology moves back and forth between two poles, the eternal truth of its foundation and the temporal situation in which the eternal truth must be received.
Second, here is McClendon's definition from his
Systematic Theology: Ethics:
Theology. The discovery, understanding, and transformation of the convictions of a convictional community, including the discovery and critical revision of their relation to one another and to whatever else there is. [p. 23]
Later, he says:
. . . this definition . . . emphasizes the pluralistic character of theology (it is necessarily done in many rival camps), its narrative and historical functions (discovering the actual convictions of a given community in their setting in the ongoing community story), its rational or perhaps even scientific nature (concern with logical relations and the relation of convictions to what there is), and its praxis-related or self-involving character . . . . Yet the definition does not say whether theology must be biblical, or Christ-centered, or have an organizing principle -- all elements I will with appropriate qualifications affirm, but no part of the definition, any more than by definition theology, must be Christian. [p. 24] [italics McClendon's]
My mention of Tillich in the other thread drew some critical comments. No one mentioned McClendon because, I suspect, no one was familiar with him. I realize that some of you may have exploded by this time and won't be able to read this. I make no apologies for McClendon's position. His next section describes a baptist vision. By this he means
. . . the guiding stimulus by which a people (or as here, a combination of peoples) shape their life and thought as that people or that combination; I mean by it the continually emerging theme and tonic structure of their common life. [pp. 27-28]
The elements of this vision include Biblicism, Mission (or evangelism), Liberty, Discipleship, and Community. Regardless of whether you see anything valuable in McClendon's thought, he is important because his theology is intentionally baptist (he uses a small "b").
Tillich speaks of the difficulty of maintaining balance between the eternal message and the contemporary situation in which the message is proclaimed and heard. McClendon describes theology, in generic terms, as being pervasive of every activity that the community is involved in. Between them they provide an organizing principle for
beginning to do theology.
Tim Reynolds
