Comments on: Systematic theology, writing and the emerging church http://teusner.org/2009/04/22/systematic-theology-writing-and-the-emerging-church/ ... exploring religion and culture in an online world Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:32:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: paul http://teusner.org/2009/04/22/systematic-theology-writing-and-the-emerging-church/comment-page-1/#comment-17081 paul Sun, 26 Apr 2009 04:57:18 +0000 http://teusner.org/2009/04/22/systematic-theology-writing-and-the-emerging-church/#comment-17081 Hi Fernando, Please forgive my tardiness in replying. I'm totally with you on the thought that it's not just the emerging church doing this. I remember it was an ongoing battle at my theological school, and it's still debated in the synod and assembly offices of my church. Is it lazy, though, to choose not to do things modernist-intellectual? Hi Fernando,

Please forgive my tardiness in replying. I’m totally with you on the thought that it’s not just the emerging church doing this. I remember it was an ongoing battle at my theological school, and it’s still debated in the synod and assembly offices of my church.

Is it lazy, though, to choose not to do things modernist-intellectual?

]]> By: fernando http://teusner.org/2009/04/22/systematic-theology-writing-and-the-emerging-church/comment-page-1/#comment-16935 fernando Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:32:37 +0000 http://teusner.org/2009/04/22/systematic-theology-writing-and-the-emerging-church/#comment-16935 This feels like a very fruitful set of questions. I wonder if part of the "problem" is that the emerging church doesn't really have a consensus on what education (at every level) might look like. Systematic theologians traditionally functioned within a discourse that had fairly fixed parameters (Theology=Systematics+History+Exegesis) and long evolved institutional patterns. The emerging church in it's best moments (rightly in my view) questions a lot of that - both in terms of overly narrow definitions of what theology is, as well as the professionalisation of theological/ministry education. Of course, it's not just the emerging church doing this. Some theology departments (those influenced by cultural studies and sociology) and theological colleges (those more vocationally oriented are also in there. In terms of specifically emerging writing, yes, I can think of some examples that are very "anti-systematics" while still trying to do theology. These writers/speakers really play both sides of the game, they quote sytematicians when it suits them, then they trash the whole enterprise. Maybe it's because they really do want to re-imagine the process of doing theology without the modernist intellectual architecture. Or maybe they are just lazy. This feels like a very fruitful set of questions. I wonder if part of the “problem” is that the emerging church doesn’t really have a consensus on what education (at every level) might look like. Systematic theologians traditionally functioned within a discourse that had fairly fixed parameters (Theology=Systematics+History+Exegesis) and long evolved institutional patterns.

The emerging church in it’s best moments (rightly in my view) questions a lot of that – both in terms of overly narrow definitions of what theology is, as well as the professionalisation of theological/ministry education.

Of course, it’s not just the emerging church doing this. Some theology departments (those influenced by cultural studies and sociology) and theological colleges (those more vocationally oriented are also in there.

In terms of specifically emerging writing, yes, I can think of some examples that are very “anti-systematics” while still trying to do theology. These writers/speakers really play both sides of the game, they quote sytematicians when it suits them, then they trash the whole enterprise.

Maybe it’s because they really do want to re-imagine the process of doing theology without the modernist intellectual architecture. Or maybe they are just lazy.

]]>