INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY
Before moving on to discuss the various components and elements of theological thought, we must first start with defining what theology is. Theology has been defined as "the study of God." I find this definition as being somewhat superflous and weak. I say that because God is not an entity that we can study as we do with other entities. God is beyond our comprehension. We cannot define God or put God within the confines of our contructed boxes.
Therefore, I offfer a more simplistic, but yet more realistic definition of what theology is all about. Theology is a discussion or talk about God. Putting it in very simple terms, it is "God-talk.
Precisely because theology is "God-talk," the discussion will involve a variety of theological perspectives. There is no one theological paradigm or system that we can define as exclusive or being the "correct one." Theology varies from group to group and from person to person. Each individual theologian submits her/his own perspective. Each faith group presents its own theological perspective.
So we begin with examining theology in terms of what its task is. We ask "What are the intentions, and tasks of the theological enterprise?"
We might able to answer the above questions by examining where we are in terms the state of of theology. In other words, we might want to inquire as to what is the condition of the theological enterprise in our time.
WHERE WE ARE
Some would say tha theology is in a state of disarray. There are no commanding figures on the order of Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, or Rheinhold or Richard Niebuhr. No major system of thought elicits widespread supports in the way that liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, and existentialism did in past generations. What theological writing there is, tends to be fragmentary, occasional, and somewhat idiosyncratic, but that is not true in every case. Some recent work, most notably the theologies of liberation, gives evidence of systematic intent, if not full systematic development and may in time become the nucleous of a new theological consensus. At the present, however, there is no general agreement as to what theology is, much less how to get on with the task of (Robert H. King in "Introduction: The Task of of Theology" in Christian Theology: An Introduction to Its Traditions and Tasks. Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King, eds. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 1)
Because theology is in a state of disarray, or as some would say "messed up," I can't help but wonder if it is worth our while pursuing the theological task of continuing to construct a system of thought that clearly defines what Christians believe or are expect to believe. Is theology, then, a joke? Is it a waste of time? Is it nothing more than exercise in semantics? Is it mental gymnastics. Is it what the late Dr. James Cone referred to as "intellectual masturbation?"
We might also ask "What's in it for me or for us?" Is theology something that leads to a well-paid career for those who have academic degrees in the field which they have specialized in? Is it a question of becoming theological "celebrities?" Is it ecclesiastical ventriloquism? Do theologians, both lay and ordained, engage in it because they love to hear themselves talk?
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY IN ITS CLASSIC FORMULATION
We will look in vain for anything in the first century of the Church remotely like a fully articulated theological system. The literature of this period takes the form of letters and occasional treatises answering the critics of Christianity. It does not includ any major work of a comprehensive or systemic sort. Still, there is to be found within these "confessional" and "apologetic" writings the beginnings of systemic reflection upon the central content of the Christian faith (King, p. 3).
The early Church did not have the luxury of engaging in extensive theological polemic. They had to contend with persecution by both the Jewish community and the Roman Empire. They also had to contend with corruption within its ranks, i.e. those who used the faith to their personal advantage. In essence, it was a church "on the run." There was no time for theological "razzle dazzle."
THE AUGISTINIAN SYNTHESIS
The premier systematic theologian of the early period of Church History, and perhaps all time, was Augustine (354-430). More than any of his predecessors, he succeeded in weaving together the various strands of Christian doctrine developed up to that point into a comprehensive and unified synthesis which could serve as the basis for future theological development (King, p. 5)
While Augustine, in the minds of some, might be linked with Western theology, it is important to note that he was not a European. He was an African. In this respect, his work could be considered as the beginning of systematic Christian theology emerging from Africa. That a black man building somewhat, on the theology of Paul, a first century theologian, and laying the foundation for the theology of John Calvin, a French/Swiss theologian in the sixteenth century, can be mind-boggling and unnerving to those who think that black and other people "of color" are incapable of generating philosophical and theological systems like European scholars have done.
THE SUMMA AND THE INSTITUTES
The great medieval syntheist was Thomas Aquinas (1225-74). In a far more ambitious way than anyone before him, he undertook to give a systematic account of the totality of Christian teaching. There were already compilations of the teachings of the Fathers organized under major doctrinal headings such ,as Trinity, creation, incarnation, and sacraments. But he sought to go beyond mere compilation and to present a unified and rational way the sum of knowledge pertaining to God. His Summa Theologica (1267-72) was the first real attempt to present theology as a "science," i.e., to investigate rationality what faith professes on the basis of authority. In terms of sheer elegance of conception and economy of execution, it is probably unsurpassed (King, p. 7).
The efforts of Aquinas in systematizing theology, raise the question of whether putting theological thought into a system runs the riskl of enclosing an understanding of God and related matters into a matrix that excludes other perspectives. Does systematizing ward off the possibility of thinking of God in a variety of ways, and therefore amounts to a rigid definition of who and what is God and what are the "correct" ways of conceiving about God and the attendant teachings? It's anyone's guess!
Readings on other theologians and theological systems that developled in subsequent centuries is highly recommended. It might be overwhelming at some point, but it does make clear that theology did not develop in "a vacuum." There will be continued efforts to define theology, its task, its content, and the approaches and methods to study it. Paradigms will continue to emerge. The quest continues.
Long live theology,
Dr. Juan A. Carmona,
Past Professor of Theology,
Tainan Theological College/Seminary
