Approaches and Methods in Systematic Theology

Theologians construct theories based on limited evidence, this is interpreted by readers and other theologians, who then in turn create a narrative. Therefore theology is narrative based on "imaginative construction". This is an interesting point. While some theologians buy into the narrative theology position, some such as Hans Frei reject the "imaginative construction" element because the term "imaginative" makes them nervous. Thus Frei put forward 5 types of theology, with type one being from the "outside" and Type 5 being from "within" and rejecting all contemporary world views, with 3 types in the middle, filling in the range of the spectrum. Type 5 is sometimes labelled fundamentalist but isn't necessarily so. I find Frei's 5 types interesting. Surely, if post modern theology rejects objectivity as impossible, if not dangerous, then all post modern theology is type 5, and the other four should be rejected. Yet it seems to me that post modern CHRISTIAN theology is actually type 4 in that it starts from within the Christian postition and expounds on this, without actually rejecting other world views. Therefore is Frei correct in his categorisation. Surely a more fluid approach is required as often theology can be a mixture of approaches, especially theology from the more pragmatic authors.

Reflections on Panenthism

Panenthism maintains that God is in everything and everything is God, that God is immanent within the universe but also transcends it. God is viewed as creator but is also seen as an animating force within it. The term was first coined by Krause (1828) who sought to reconcile monotheism and pantheism. Neo Platonism can be seen as a panetheistic approach. For Plato, the forms contain a perfect vision of everything, and are godly. The forms are seen as dictating our values and ethics. The ideology of Panentheism can be traced to pre Socratic Greek philosophy. Heraclitus of Ephesus (known as The Obscure) had very similar ideas to Logos and saw the universe as constantly changing. Only God can change the universe therefore God must be in the universe. ..

Does evil exist in this world view? Is evil the absence of God? Can the devil (in terms of a personified evil as described in the bible) exist?

If evil is simply denial of reality rather than the absence of God, then yes, evil can exist. Evil is simply the result of humanity denying their own reality as being part of God, and thereby denying their own innate divine qualities.

As to the question of the Devil's existence, this depends on how the bible is interpreted. If the interpretation is literal, then this ideology has a real challenge to answer, for if everything is part of God then the Devil too is part of God if the Devil is the personification of evil, and this has implications for the nature and will of God. If however, the interpretation is metaphorical, then the language describing the Devil can be seen as a metaphor for the struggle of the mind and body over the soul, as well as a metaphor for the internal struggle to do what is right, what is moral, what is in line with God's Will.

In the Thomist view, humans are by their very nature fallen, and therefore there is an internal struggle to do what is moral and in line with the will of God, to affirm God's presence in our lives, versus what is immoral, in line with our own will and to deny God's presence. This internal battle of Wills is what this metaphorical language can be seen to describe. We are still part of God but we have free will, and this free will can allow us to choose to deny God, to deny the reality of our true nature. Therefore Evil is a human construct. The reality therefore becomes degrees of goodness, of being "like God", and the more we act in line with Gods will, the more moral we are, the more good we are.

Gareth Jones "Christian Theology: A Brief Introduction"

Gareth Jones discusses the relationship between History and Theology in his book Christian Theology: A Brief Introduction. He believes that "historical analysis is inherently selective". This is true, but post modern scholarship has taken this view and run with it, believing all historical reconstruction to be unnecessary. One could argue that post modern scholarship considers historical analysis dangerous to an extent. Post modern scholars argue that historical analysis is pointless because one can never know what was in the minds of the authors when they were writing, and often one can never get a true picture of the historical situation because history is ultimately the construction of the victor.

Scholarship should not concern itself with trying to prove or disprove, validate or falsify the claims made in the bible or any other text, but it is necessary to ascertain the context of the writing. If one does not ascertain the context of the situation, both historically and culturally, ones interpretations and conclusions may be clouded by misinterpretation based on one's own context. While it is obvious that one must acknowledge one's own context, because one can never be truly objective, it is dangerous to ignore the context of the writing as it can influence conclusions drawn to the same negative extent.

Christology and The Person of Christ

I would consider myself to have an adoptionist view of Christ. I see Christ as a Man, called upon to do the work of God. To me he is more than a prophet, as using divine powers when he worked miracles, but is he God incarnate? To this I have to reply that my understanding is that while he had access to power, that somehow the logos, (that is the Greek understanding of the wisdom/creative power of God described and attested by Jewish literature and the Old Testament), was given in a limited way to the person Jesus, he is not God. That is not so say that I do not believe him to have divine nature, but that I do not hold Jesus to be God.

The transfiguration story, to me is not a story attesting the return of God incarnate to divine; I have a more eastern, perhaps even Buddist view of this story. My understanding of the text is that Jesus, having achieved perfection as a man, through his work and by submitting to the will of God, ascended to a higher form of existence, that brought him closer to the divine. Therefore I do not believe Jesus to be pre existent, in that he existed with God and God created through him, I believe that the power of the logos pre existed and was transferred to the Man Jesus in order for him to carry out the work that God intended for him to do.

Salvation, Atonement and Deification

The nature of salvation and atonement directly relates to your understanding of Evil, the Fall, and the story of Genesis.

I believe that the "problem" of evil is caused by misunderstanding of evil caused by the term itself. Therefore I believe that actions should not be considered as Good or Evil, but instead should be viewed as neutral with either postive or negative effects. It is not usually the action itself that is "good" or "evil" but it is the outcome of the action which is seen as "good" or "evil".
The problem of evil is further complicated by the interpretation of evil as a "thing", a tangible substance that must have been created, rather than as a concept or human notion. This problem is, in my opinion, further complicated by a literal reading of the Genesis story of the Fall. If one believes in the literal reading, then this leads to one of three conclusions:
God is evil
There is more than one power (ie God and Satan)
God is not all loving

In terms of atonement therefore, if God is evil, there can be no atonement. If there is more than one power (and ransom is paid to the devil) then the evil power has more power than God, and therefore God is not omnipotent.
If God is not all loving, can there really be any atonement?

Therefore, if actions are seen as postive or negative, then this removes the dilema, because evil and sin are not creations of God, or creations of another power, they simply are. Just like we have matter and anti matter, we have postive and negative. These humanistic labels are given to actions dependant upon the majority concensus.

But where is God on this scale? Does he have a light and a dark nature? Positive and negative? I believe, that for God to be GOD, he has to be outside of this scale in the same way that he is outside of time and space.

If actions range from White (positive) to Black (negative), human actions can be seen as ranging through a spectrum of Grey. Only God can be completely neutral because he is God. Therefore nothing God created is Postive or Negative.

Reflections on Pneumatology

While the Church maintains that the Godhead exists in the form of the Holy Trinity, three co equal natures in one existence, it has been argued that the Church places a greater emphasis on Christ as Son of God, to the determent of the other natures; that of God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. It is felt by some that this emphasis has had the most negative affect on the Holy Spirit, to the extent that it may be considered a neglect of the importance of this nature. I am not sure that I agree with this argument, but if this is the case, has this neglect of Spirit by the Church been to the advantage of secular society and those outside of Christianity? It seems clear to me, that there is something inherent in human nature that causes us to search for something that explains our existence; anything that will provide answers. This search can lead to many things, but one thing they all have in common is Spirituality. Many people in secular society are comfortable with the label "spiritual" even if they are uncomfortable with the term "religious". While the Church may seem to be neglecting the Spirit, the Spirit has been welcomed with open arms by our contemporary society which has become so disenchanted with religion. We, unfortunately, live in a society that has become so anti religion because society today is so intertwined with the struggle between religion and politics, and Spirituality is being seen as an alternative. This is not surprising really, when you consider that during the reformation, when the Catholic and Protestant churches were fighting for control of the Church of England, New Magic was seen as an alternative form of Spirituality. Church may be neglecting the Spirit, but society in general is thriving in its warmth. Is this a bad thing? No. It is hard to discuss this without crossing into the religious pluralism debate, but even if you still hold fast to a belief in inclusivism or even exclusivism, surely you will see that exploration of any spirituality is a good thing, after all, at the end of days all will be given the choice to accept Christ. Maybe it is by exploring other spiritualities that certain people will come to a more mature spiritual life; one that can accept Christianity.