Thread: Theology as an academic discipline

From my limited experience in academia there is a constant desire to find something new to say. At many large schools teaching is often sidelined by the need to research and write.

Why does it seem like this has also happened in theology over the last several hundred years? As with everything else, theologians (or individuals who wrote about theological topics) are now a dime a dozen. Even in non-academic-intensive circles new books are being printed all the time. Do we really need them? If it hasn't been discovered by now, I would be willing to say that it's probably not worth the time spent reading.

Also, is there a "canon" of theology? Such canons exist in the realm of literature, although the modern era is attempting to destroy this notion by telling us that there are no classics. If there is such a canon, perhaps every pastor should just read it and spend the time he's saved doing other things, like visiting parishioners, serving the community, or otherwise participating in the public forum. This would save so much time and money. Or do you think that the information gleaned from reading the "endless number of books" (bad attempt to quote Ecclesiastes) is actually worth the opportunity cost?

books are great lol, we can never have to many books on why infant baptism is the biblical position, it is crucial to keep up with the arguments that are constantly changing. I would say that every pastor should read the classics such as the Death of the Death, Religious Affections, Calvin's institutes, and all the other ones, they are the best in my opinion, but to keep up with controversies it's important to read the new material, for instance pierre Marcel wrote a most excellent book on the proper subjects of baptism and yet Gregg Strawbridge was able to show a different side to the arguments for infant baptism so i think its great that new books on old or possibly new controversies and doctrines are coming out all the time. OH and by the way do you know the differences between the RPCNA and the OPC? I want to be ordained OPC as of now but maybe you can change my mind

Many disciplines seem to have a research/academic branch and a practitioner branch. Does this apply to Christinity too?

Originally Posted by Davidius

Or do you think that the information gleaned from reading the "endless number of books" (bad attempt to quote Ecclesiastes) is actually worth the opportunity cost?

Most of the new books, IMO, are little more than a rewrite of older material repackaged for our modern generation. It's usually drastically 'scaled' down for the modern reader and put into 30 second 'soundbites'. Such has been my experience. This is why I rarely buy any books written in the 20th century.

I guess it is a sign of the times that so often questions about "what one is doing" (not just among the clergy) serves as a definition of "who one is". Have we been reduced to pragmaticism and utilitarianism in defining what is important in life. Whatever happen to learning for the sake of learning? Maybe reading Augustine's Confessions will not make me a better "doer" but it will definitely make me a better person.

How does reading become a stewardship of time and what is the proper number of hours per week:

i.e. 20 hours per week? 30?

Is more always better?

Chronological snobbery (to use C.S. Lewis's phrase) is a problem no matter which way one goes with it. Take commentaries, for example. Modern ones get read, and some Reformation commentaries get read, and the early church fathers also get read. But 19th century works (with a few exceptions such as Keil/Delitzsch, Meyer, Ellicott, Eadie, Hodge, and Fairbairn) are almost completely ignored. I believe that no period of theologizing is unimportant. First of all, there is still more to be discovered about God's Word, since it is infinite in depth. Secondly, each period of theology can correct some problems of other periods of theology. I believe we can correct other periods. For instance, I believe that modern commentaries on Song of Solomon do better than the Puritans on that book. I disagree that we should throw out all the Puritan works on that book, since Christ and the believer is definitely an application of that book. But to ignore the literal or discount it as the Puritans did is wrong, in my opinion. And I say this out of a profound respect for Puritan commentaries. There are modern works that will become classics. For instance, Douglas Kelly is coming out with a systematic theology that will be more than one volume. That will be on the level of Hodge, in my opinion. People will still be reading that one in a hundred years, I think. The other thing to remember is that all the works of the Reformers were once new as well. My opinion is that we cannot let go of the modern era and only read older works. We should not ignore older works either. A balance is desirable here.

I made a joke someplace, that Doug Kelly was going to write the first, ever, Systematic Theology.

Was it at your blog, gb?

I don't know, but the "funny" in that is that Kelly has spent the past 50 years absorbing so much of the patristic literature that when he writes his ST, its might reference so much material from the first 5 centuries that it will qualify as the "original" ST reference work.

A lot could be said here about how theology is the "queen of the sciences," and how theology joins the theoretical and the practical to God's glory:

Martin Bucer: "True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

William Perkins: 'Theology is “the science of living blessedly forever.”'

William Ames: 'Theology is the “doctrine of living to God.”'

Herman Witsius: “He alone is a true theologian who adds the practical to the theoretical part of religion.”

Things could also be said about the "publish or perish" mindset of academia today.

More could be said about those books that formed the nucleus of ministerial studies in ages past, such as Turretin's Institutes, and so forth. Spurgeon said, for example, "Ministers who do not know [Thomas] Manton need not wonder if they are themselves unknown."

Certainly much could be said about how the wise minister does not shun books, old or new (C.S. Lewis said to read at least one old book for every three new ones read not to stay stuck in the past or to despise original thinking but to guard against the errors of one's own age and theological innovation), that shine the light of true wisdom, yet subordinates all reading to the Word of God which ought to occupy the chief place in his personal life as well as his occupational studies, and in all so doing takes care to manage his time wisely.

But being acquainted as I am with Matthew Poole, and his vision for ministerial studies, I will say a word or two about that and leave the former points for others if anyone wishes to expound on them. Matthew Poole had a vision. He wanted ministers to be able to focus on their studies without financial cares. So he proposed a model or programme for sustaining them in their educational pursuits, circa 1658, that failed to see the light of day due to the Restoration. But when he was ejected from his pulpit, he spent ten solid years on another project. Again considering the financial needs of ministerial students, not so different I think from seminary students in our day, and recognizing a need for them to be able to access a body of literature that was inaccessible to many even in the mid-17th century for financial and other reasons, compiled a synopsis of Biblical critical writings on the entire Bible, pouring through numerous works and selecting about 150 critics and their works, and then sifting through them to pinpoint those specific comments most worthy of consideration by the ministerial student. He sought help from the best theological minds of his day, an era that is not to be despised for theological brilliance and practical piety, and ultimately produced the Synopsis Criticorum, in Latin, the theological language of his day. For a long time, divinity students were expected to acquaint themselves with this Synopsis, and it was a boon to have so many ancient critical comments on the Bible in one place. But Latin is no longer understood so widely and so recognizing a 21st century need, my pastor is translating the Synopsis into English for the first time so that this treasure trove of Biblical literature is not lost. It is a canon of sorts, and worthy of study by today's theological students as it was centuries ago.

I mention this not to praise my pastor or myself, we are not worthy to the task, but because we ought not to forget that we stand on the shoulders of giants. It is not because I love the past that I think of them as giants, but because I love God's Word.

If it hasn't been discovered by now, I would be willing to say that it's probably not worth the time spent reading.

I see the situation as two separate truths. First, as Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. And second, as Our Lord said, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a tiny seed, that grow up to the largest of the garden herbs.

So we have basic principles that haven't changed from the time of Solomon, but our understanding of those principles is growing, like the mustard seed, and will continue to grow until the final day.

So new works that use the basic building blocks can be very valuable, and even inevitable. The reverse side is that teachings called "New" like the so called "New Perspective on Paul" should by it's very nature be looked at with a healthy dose of scepticism.

So Davidius, there may very well be a book or two in your future. And I'll be able to say "Hey, I knew that dude!"

Cool Andrew, I want that Synopsis!

Originally Posted by TimV

If it hasn't been discovered by now, I would be willing to say that it's probably not worth the time spent reading.

I see the situation as two separate truths. First, as Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. And second, as Our Lord said, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a tiny seed, that grow up to the largest of the garden herbs.

So we have basic principles that haven't changed from the time of Solomon, but our understanding of those principles is growing, like the mustard seed, and will continue to grow until the final day.

So new works that use the basic building blocks can be very valuable, and even inevitable. The reverse side is that teachings called "New" like the so called "New Perspective on Paul" should by it's very nature be looked at with a healthy dose of scepticism.

So Davidius, there may very well be a book or two in your future. And I'll be able to say "Hey, I knew that dude!"

Tim -- You might get a kick out of the Soli Deo Gloria reprint title of Obadiah Grew's famous work: The Lord our Righteousness: The Old Perspective on Paul.

Frankly, I like the balance reflected by the posters on the PB. If you attend a typical mainline seminary today, you would think that nothing written earlier than the last decades is worth reading. Here we register support for Turretin, Bavinck, Hodge, Warfield, Shedd, Edwards, and . . . (duh) . . . the Puritans.

Even in the current environment, there are people writing who are well-worth reading: Grudem, Beeke, Pipa, Horton, Riddlebarger, Robertson, etc.

I think that David nailed the issue. They don't hand out PhD's at places like Harvard, Chicago, or Berkeley for agreeing with what the Bible teaches. The worship of the novel and the odd assures us a steady stream of erudite error from the academy. I have interviewed some graduates of mainline seminaries who have no clue what "atonement" means, who do not have a good grasp of any aspect of Christology, and who are historically amnesic with regard to anyone writing before the 20th century. When you can graduate with your three quarters of systematic theology devoted to "Feminist Theology," "African American Theology," and "Ecological Theology," you are not guaranteed a knowledge of classical theological nomenclature, seminal issues in the history of theology, or anything of much pastoral value.

Dennis: You forgot water-buffalo theology.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Dennis: You forgot water-buffalo theology.

Sorry, Pergy, I haven't heard about that one . . . yet!

It does seem, however, that the "designer" theologies are theological cotton candy.

The following titles ACTUALLY come from the Spring 2009 schedule at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. The schools allow cross registration privileges, so any American Baptist, United Methodist, or Presbyterian student would have access to the following classes. Now, don't you wish you could have 144 units of these courses in your M.Div??? Isn't this basically the WTS, RTS, PRTS, or GPTS curriculum???

Indigenous Knowing
Experiencing Kabbalah
Christian Roots of Queer Liberation
Buddhist Seminar on Postmodernity
Ghostly Encounters
Pop Goes Religion
Dance as Living Scriptures
Queer Religious Leadership and Sexual Ethics
Asian Feminist Theology and Pedagogy
Ain't Misbehavin'
Art and Magic of Ancient Healing
Photography as Ecological Meditation
Buddhism and Modern American Art
Aboriginal Sacred Art and Music
Pluralism in Islam
Topics and Buddhist Traditions in Japan

Here are the rules on inclusive language from another mainline school:

Inclusive language is strongly encouraged of all members of the School community and is considered
the standard for written work, classroom discussion, worship, and common discourse.
Inclusive language refers to language that refers to God and humanity in terms that are not solely
male, language that deals with color in ways that does not foster racism (i.e. equating “black” with
“evil”, “white” with “purity or goodness”), and sensory language (“paralyzed,” “deaf,” “blind”) in
ways that does not equate persons with disabilities and sin.

Here are some classes from a well respected mainline school:
EC305 Moral Agency of Women
EC308 Introduction to African-American Social Thought
EC316 Feminist Ethics
EC382 Womanist Theology and Ethics
EC443 Critical Theory and Deconstruction
HC339/439 Women and the Reformation
IS315 Pedagogies for Justice and Conflict Transformation (a how-to and becoming a "community organizer")
IS340 Queer Explorations for Pastoral, Theological, and Ethical Issues

Surveys Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgendered, Queer, and Intersexed sexualities and gender variances
as theological and ethical issues for Christians. Attention will be paid to biblical, historical,
and theological resources. Emphasis will be on contemporary discussions and debates. Our goal is
to discover traces of graces within our erotic experience, the historical and theological traditions,
and work towards an integrated erotic theology of liberation.

So, David, once you have discovered the "traces of graces within our erotic experience" and moved towards an "integrated erotic theology of liberation," you might be ready for PhD work where you come up with something totally "new" under the sun.

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.

By the way, Theology is the study of God. The application and how to live a Christian life is the Pastors job.

I came across this quote from Richard Baxter in his commendatory epistle to William Whately's The Redemption of Time (1606, 1671) and thought that this was apropos to this thread:

The usual vice of humane nature, to be weary of good things, when they grow old and common, and to call for novelties, is especially discernable [sic] in mens esteem and use of Books. Abundance of old ones are left neglected to the worms and dust, whilest new ones of far less worth are most of the Book-sellers trade and gain. It is not easie to give a reason of it, but it is not to be denyed, that this age hath few such Writers as the last, either controversial or Practical. Even among the Papists there are now few such as [Francisco] Suarez, [Gabriel] Vasquez, [Gregorius de] Valentia, [Francisco de] Victoria, [Gabriel] Penottus, [Diego] Ruiz [de Montoya], [Diego] Alvarez, [Robert] Bellarmine &c. And among us, too few such as [John] Jewel, [William] Whittaker [John] Reignolds, [Richard] Field, [James] Usher, [John] White, [Edward] Challoner, [William] Chillingworth, &c. which the Papists understanding, would fain have the monuments of these worthies forgotten...The solid, grave, and pious labours of Rich. Rogers, [William] Perkins, [Richard] Greenham, [Edward] Deering, [Arthur] Dent, [Henry] Smith, [John] Dod, [Arthur] Hildersham, [George] Downame, Sam. Ward, [Joseph] Hall, [Robert] Bolton, [Daniel] Dyke, [Richard] Stocke, [Edward] Elton, [Thomas] Tailor, [Robert] Harris, [John] Presto, [Richard] Sibs, [John] Ball and many more much such, are by the most neglected, as if we were quite above their parts...I must needs say that the reprinting of many of our Fathers writings, might have saved the labour of writing many later Books to the greater commodity of the Church.

Among the rest, I well remember that even in my youth (and since much more) the writings of Mr. Whately were very savoury to me: especially his New-Birth (1618), his Care-cloth: Or A Treatise of the Cumbers and Troubles of Marriage (1624), and his Sermon of Redeeming the Time. And find this last now hardly to be got, when yet the necessity of it is increased...I have desired the Printer to vindicate it from oblivion.

very apropos indeed!!