Dennis and Pergamum, Don't forget Barthian theology!
I guess that I could be a chronological snob. Not really, but I first learn from the older stuff. Augustine's The City of God was great because of the historical/philosophical relations in the early church. The same for Eusebius's Church History.
Since I was converted by reading the Bible from cover to cover, systematic theology book are about useless to me. If you know your Bible, what can they offer? Most of the books just relate what the bible teaches about certain subjects. As they are used in seminaries to make sure that people know what the Bible says about certain subjects, because most people don't read the Bible as a whole, but read a little here, and a little there. Now, it is good (Very Good and Necessary!!) to know the categories and what the Bible says about them. But I think that the 'Old' theologians do a great job. Like for Soteriology, Death of Death does it best, as an example.
This is where I think the modern academic discipline of theology has gone off the rails. I pick on Barth alot, but tracing his impact on theology is a great study of what has happened to modern theologies in 'mainstream' seminaries.
Theology is more than a study of the Bible. It involves a study of doctrine (past, modern, and what has the church taught through the years), philosophy (ie, how has the worldviews of the common man changed through the years, and what has been the theological and worldly views that have impacted what he thinks), and even science. Theology IS the queen of the sciences, and philosophy its handmaiden!! The other sciences derive from these. Today, it is the other way around, even in theology. (One of Barth's big problems.) A real systematic theology book should include all of this. Presented in the correct way.
Once the foundations are learned, then the modern stuff is useful. You want to know where the 'pop' church trends are going. Like Martin Luther said, you need to know the current attacks on theology and defend the faith at that point. (Hence my Barthian rants. He's big in my immediate circle of people. I've had to read him to be able to converse with them. Yuck, I know, but necessary)
I read primary sources and not secondary sources too. Another big part of theology as an academic discipline.
Finally, Most 'theologians' think newer is better, as Dennis said in his great post, and that is what Lewis meant by 'chronological snobbery'. My use of the words above is kind of reversed it to reflect the older ones, ie primary and not secondary sources.
Anyway, I've gone on quite long enough. These are just my thoughts on what Theology as an academic discipline should be, and where it has gone astray.
