Church Mouse Posted June 5, 2010 Share Posted June 5, 2010 Okay, here's another question for y'all. Either I'm really green or the industry's a-changin'. I have begun to see the term "constructive theology" crop up in my travels across school websites. Wikipedia, our *trusted* source of all generalized knowledge, has this to say about it, "A potential problem underlying such study is that in constructing a system of theology, certain elements may be left out, or "forced" in order to maintain the coherence of the overall system... While not a proponent of the language of 'constructive theology,' Karl Barth frequently criticized the practice of systematizing theology or structuring a coherent system upon a philosophical foundation external to theology's own internal commitments." While I acknowledge the inherant inability of systematic theology to put the mystery of God into neat, little boxes, I alway thought a good systematic theologian would be flexible enough to allow for mystery in his/her working systematic theology and that rooting out logical fallacies and deviations from biblical theology was a necessary part of the work of systematic theology. So, is Wikipedia off it's rocker (offering an incomplete or slanted definition) or is the shift from systematic to constructive theology part of a larger movement, say toward a post-modern approach to theology? I know this question is less about getting into academia as it is about the movements within theological academia, but it is important to know which schools espouse which philosophy of theology if indeed we are not talking about two equivolent terms here. I would appreciate your thoughts and experience on this. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now