SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN ITS HISTORICAL FORMATION 

It is very easy to assume that Christian doctrine and theology have come down to us "prepackaged" from Heaven in all its neats forms and nuances.  Christians may find it hard to believe that there was a time that there was no such thing as "theology" or "doctrine" in the Church.

I contend that the Early Church did not have the luxury of constructing theology as we know it today. The Early Church was a community "on the run," if you will. In addition to its internal battles with heresy, the Church had to contend with persecution by the Roman Empire.  Though it has been said that there was "religious toleration" in the Empire similar to what we have today in the U.S.A. and other Western European countries, as soon as the Church began to proclaim that "Christ is Lord," that was, in essence, the end of religious liberty.  The notion was, you can believe and practice anything you want, but don't put the authority of Ceasar into question."  

Even with its battle with heresy, there was the possibility of physical injury and even death. As the second and third centuries dawned, and the Church became more numerous and more powerful, the doctrinal and theological "status quo" was not looked at kindly. Being banned or excommunicated from the Church was not the only punishment for deviation from the "faith that was once delivered to the saints."  As the Church became more powerful, the death penalty, just like in the times of ancient Israel, became an option for castigating those who tampered with its theology.  

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 primarily takes the form of letters and occasional treatises answering the critics of Christianity.  It does not include any major work of a comprehensive or systematic sort.  Still there is to be found within these "confessional" and "apologetic" writings, the beginning of systematic reflection upon the central content of the Christian faith (Robert H. King, "Introduction: The Task of Theology," in Christian Theology: An Introduction to its Traditions and Tasks. Peter C. Hodgson, Robert H. King, eds. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 3). 

Systematic theology, as we have come to know it did not spring forth full-blown at the beginning of the Christian era.  It was built up gradually over time. Only with Augustine in the fifth century did the key elements come together to form what with justification can be called the "classic paradigm."  Its most distinctive feature was its historical framework: the attempt to view the whole of Christian doctrine from a "history of salvation" perspective. The result was a powerful teleology, one which has penetrated deeply into the Western consciousness, yet which in the modern period has been met with severe criticism (Ibid, p. 24). a

The Enlightenment challenged the feasibility of any kind of teleology.  In particular, it exposed the mythic character of the history of salvation teleology.  The creation story might be symbolic of God's relationship to the world; it could not be taken as a literal account of the actual formation of the world.  Likewise the fall could be regarded as expressive of the human predicament, but not as an actual historical occurrence. Even the Gospel accounts of Jesus came to be seen as having "mythic" elements, so that there was no longer one sure point on which to fix the history of salvation. The disintegration of this long-established framework is clearly one of the major factors in the present theological crisis, though not the only one (Ibid.). 

Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics, on which Thomas Aquinas relied for much of his systematization of Christian belief, has also been largely discredited. The hierarchy of being, the pattern of emanation and return, and the ideal of perfection implicit in his system would be challenged by most of not all contemporary philosophers. Indeed, even the possibility of metaphysics has been questioned, so that looking to any metaphysical scheme to provide backing for a theological system would seem to be a dubious undertaking.  If Christian theology is to achieve coherence and comprehensiveness, it must be on some basis other than metaphysics or history (Ibid.).  

The early nineteenth century was a major turning point for theology not only because most of the critical issues had emerged by then, but also because the construction of an alternative paradigm was well under way. The distinguishing features of this "new paradigm" included: the prominence given to subjectivity, the acceptance of historical criticism, a developmental view of human nature, and the presumption of a close alliance between religion and ethics. The key figure in the transition was in the transition was undoubtedly Friedrich Schleiermacher, for he both accepted the challenge of the Enlightenment and sought a constructive reformulation of Christian theology that would be faithful to tradition. Along with G.W. Hegel, he recognized the need for a unifying principle that would hold together the disparate assortment of beliefs held by encompassed by traditional theology: beliefs about God, the human condition, Christ, the Church, the ultimate end of life. He found that principle in the religious self-consciousness. Because the Christian self-consciousness, as he understood it, was profoundly shaped by the community and its history, he was able to incorporate into his new paradigm many elements of the old paradigm, including the teleology of redemption. In light of the massive shifts in assumptions, came the question of what was to provide Christian theology with its overall unity, coherence and meaning (Ibid., p. 25)?  

A century and a half after Schleiermacher, is still with us. The major theological systems of the modern period all address it in one way or the other. The Christocentricism of Karl Barth, with its elevation of of one of the traditional items of belief to the status of chief organizing principle for the system as a whole, offers one kind of solution. Paul Tillich's method of correlation,with its appeal to the exisential situation of the believer as a constitutive element in the structuring of theology, provides a different kind of solution. Yet important and influential as these proposals have been, none has prevailed. If there can be said to be a single overriding task for theology at the present time, it is to recover a sense of wholeness, the unity, and integrity of the Christian witness. The factors that mitigate against this effort are probably as powerful now as they ever were.  In some respects, they may now be even more powerful for they have penetrated more deeply into our thinking. In addition, there are new factors present that challenge not only the classic paradigm, but also its modern successors (Ibid.).

One of these new factors is the encounter with other religions on a global scale. Traditions that were only theoretical alternatives at one time, are live options for many present-day Christians-even traditions as far removed from Western experience as Hare Krishna and Zen Buddhism. These religious traditions challenge some of our most firmly held beliefs and assumptions. Traditions with their origins in India, for instance, are singularly indifferent to all issues relating to history. Their "theological systems," if we may speak of such, bear no trace of a historical framework-cosmological perhaps, but not historical.  Zen, in particular, is very radical by our standards, challenging any sort of teleology and even calling into question the substantiality of the self. We have scarcely begun to respond to this challenge (pp. 26-27). 

Closer to home there have been a number of events in this century that have served to undermine confidence in the Christian interpretation of history and the teleological framework on which it is centered. The Holocaust is one of them, the ecological crisis another. Can we assume divine sovereignty over history when history issues in the mass extermination of innocent men and women? Can we assume that all things are ordered to human good when the relentless pursuit of human goods leads to the destruction of the environment and disruption of the ecological balance in nature? Even the theologies of liberation offer no real answers to this challenge, for though they are critical of fall forms of social oppression-and of the complicity of the theological establishment in that oppression-they rely for their criticism to a large extent upon a theology of history that is itself problematical (Ibid., p. 26).

So we may after all be in the midst of another paradigm shift. If so, the task of systematic theology will be more than a constructive task. The responsibility of the theologian will be to help us discern what is essential to our faith and to express it in ways that are both comprehensive and comprehensible (Ibid.).

En fin, as my theology mentor and professor, the late Dr. Paul Fries would always say, "Theology is tentative."  We can never claim to have it "all together."  Since it is a human endeavor and construction, we can never claim that theology is "infallible" or "God-given."  Indeed, we seek to comprehend God's self-disclosure in history, but given the human condition, and what Fries would call the "noetic effects of sin," we can never pretend that we have God "in our pockets."

I close by reiterating what I said at the beginning, i.e. that we cannot treat theology as if it were something that came pre-packaged from Heaven and given to the Church "for once and for all."  Theology is a human construct, reflective of our condition, including our arrogance, flaws, quirks, and propensity to sabotage God's self-disclosure to suit our own ends.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen. 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary