Good Theology
I'm all over the map lately. I'm working on yet another book that's prompted a few thoughts. This one is Clemens Sedmak's book Doing Local Theology, which is a nice little volume talking about how this contextual theology stuff actually works in practice. (Anyone getting sick of this yet? My class is over in only four more weeks... ;) Anyway, Sedmak proposes three criteria for "good theology" that I thought were just fascinating. He writes this:
What is "good theology" according to Jesus? As we have seen, theology is not exclusively an academic endeavor. It is about personal and communal transformation, based on a relationship with God....Jesus emphasizes the practical consequences, the fruits. He emphasizes the spirit with which theology is done. He emphasizes the need to care for the people and to be with the people.He goes on to discuss his three criteria for good theology:
- Realness - Realness means that the theology is true to life. Reality also serves as a check to our own thinking, to constructing systems that are intellectually coherent but practically unworkable.
- Fidelity to the founder - In his own words, this means being "faithful and honest to the mission and message and person of Jesus".
- Practical consequences - What is the fruit? What are the practices that naturally flow from the theology? Again, in Sedmak's words, "Theology is a way of following Jesus."
Technorati Tags: books, contextual theology, Sedmak
Email this post | Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
(Anyone getting sick of this yet? My class is over in only four more weeks... ;)
not sick of it ...just not quite getting it yet. A bit out of my league I'm afraid and I'd have to do more background reading which isn't on the books (lol) at this time.
struggling with my own assignments - trivial in comparison but where I am.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on what you read and study. I think you stretch many of us - yours truly at least.
be blessed
Posted by Lorna on February 28, 2006 03:43 PMGood theology, Scott. The Reality test is one I often applied to philosophies I studied (and which were in vogue) and often found them wanting - they worked fine theoretically, but fizzled the moment one walked out of the building and onto the sidewalk.
Posted by Scott Lyons on March 1, 2006 09:11 AMThe fruit test is very helpfull. Most bad theology don't pass that test.
Posted by Nuno Barreto on March 1, 2006 10:38 AMI'm still trying to sort some of this out myself - I've long thought that the power to craft meaning is a powerful thing that lies at the heart of a lot of the disputes that we have involving ideology of any kind, be it theology, politics, or what have you. I'm starting to get a sense for why that is - I'm not sure if it's coming through at all but that's sort of where I'm headed with this. That's part of why that set of criteria is really beautiful in my book - it circumvents a lot of the concerns I have with what I perceive to be power games at the heart of a lot of approaches to theology.
Man, that's a whole new post right there. ;)
Posted by ScottB on March 2, 2006 12:53 AMWhat a great simplification. Not that the post was simplistic, but a lot has been written on what you whittled down in three points. It's important to hold them up together, all three at the same time, holistically. Keep reading...
Posted by chris on March 4, 2006 03:30 PMsuccessful indeed.. wise words written here.
thanks, scott.
Posted by so i go on March 4, 2006 07:27 PMChris -
t's important to hold them up together, all three at the same time, holistically.That's what I find most intriguing about this definition - I can't think of a single flawed theology (from my viewpoint) that doesn't fail in one of these areas. It's a great book overall.
SIG - thanks, my friend!
Flawed theology will be a constant until the day of the Lord, perhaps. Maybe that's another wonderful look forward into heaven...those three things breathing the same air in the same space. We are doomed, I'm afraid, to keep reaching...but reaching is a noble effort for those who can get beyond the continuous flaws.
Did I just say anything at all???
Posted by chris on March 6, 2006 12:15 PM