Method
There is no one way to think theologically.
But throughout history, many faith traditions have created theological frameworks to facilitate theological thought. These frameworks vary as much in their constitution as they do in their application. Some frameworks, for example, will only look at (what they perceive to be) the words of scripture as their "constitution" - and will then generalize these words to nearly everything one could possibly ever encounter in this life as their "application." I am not so much concerned with proving this approach to be "wrong" (though I do believe it to be highly irresponsible) as I am placing this approach at one extreme.
On the other side of the continuum might sit a theology that is constituted on scripture, on cultural context, on history, on church tradition, on ethics, and on reason, creating a veritable theological stew. They might then argue that such a complex theology only applies to matters within the church - and has no bearing for daily life, let alone in the world of politics. This would be another extreme theological method.
In reality, few theological thinkers practice such extremes of constitution and application. Most frameworks emphasize a few constituent parts, while allowing those constituent parts to speak to issues both within the church and outside the institutional walls.
A very brief paraphrase of the Catholic theological method, for example, would show that the Catholics are often focused on the scriptures, the doctrines of the Catholic church, and the church's traditions. Such a method can and often will be applied broadly, to everything from Communist rule in Poland to abortion in the United States. Because of the Catholic emphasis on the traditions of the church (ie, what have we done lately), many might view this as a somewhat conservative method for theological inquiry.
Protestant Christian theology would emphasize the scriptures, and to some extent the doctrines of the church, but would be less concerned with traditions and institutional history. By removing institutional oversight, the Protestant method becomes a wide swinging pendulum, cutting across a wide swathe of territory from religious fundamentalists who would apply scripture in very strict ways with little regard to doctrine, to religious liberals who would apply a critical lens to the scriptures, parsing it through the lens of doctrine in an approach that quickly adepts to the pace of the times. Other Protestants might even bring tradition back into the fold, adjoining it to scripture, reason, and experience (a framework known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral)!
This website is not the property of any denominational entity, so our method is really up to us. While the above-listed frameworks take some sort of spatial shape, our framework will be more of a three-dimensional Rubik's Cube, in the sense that we will shift the blocks around as necessitated by the questions of the day. Some days, our Rubik's cube might show a uniform, monochrome side. On others, our reflection might necessitate the polychromatic.
Some questions might necessitate an emphasis on the scriptures and the church tradition, particularly if we are taking up matters of the church's place in a secular world.
Other questions might necessitate an emphasis on the scriptures, on ethics, and on cultural context. If we are discussing Race in America, for example, it would be outrageous to read the Bible's often-troubling statements on slavery without setting them against ethical norms and cultural constructs.
Still other questions might demand that we do without scripture all together - it is possible that the Bible does not hold an answer to every contentious issue in this world. While this blog intends to work with Biblical texts, we will not idolize the words of scripture in the same way that they have been somindlessly venerated in certain fundamentalist traditions.
All this is to say that our methods will be sufficiently flexible to meet our shared goal: of finding some common ground and understanding in a fractured, divided world.
Our theological method needs to be as diverse and expansive as the issues and questions we will address. We will take some common shapes (scripture, tradition, reason, culture, experience), along with some new ones (art, sports, current events, social media, others?) that we come up with along the way, moving each of these blocks into myriad patterns, in order to shape the most meaningful dialogue. Just as we include many different patterns, there are some we will reject: the patterns of reaction, accusation, and shallow or superficial thought. The arrangement of our Rubik's Cube is therefore counter-cultural, the arrangements into which we shape it representing a deeper, more inquisitive mode than the one that seems so operative in our world.
There are over 43 quintillion combinations that can be arranged from a Rubik's Cube. Just like in the Rubik's Cube, our methods for theological thinking are seemingly limitless, so long as we are willing to remain still, contemplative, and discerning enough to explore them all.
With that said, the time has come to start the cubing.
But throughout history, many faith traditions have created theological frameworks to facilitate theological thought. These frameworks vary as much in their constitution as they do in their application. Some frameworks, for example, will only look at (what they perceive to be) the words of scripture as their "constitution" - and will then generalize these words to nearly everything one could possibly ever encounter in this life as their "application." I am not so much concerned with proving this approach to be "wrong" (though I do believe it to be highly irresponsible) as I am placing this approach at one extreme.
On the other side of the continuum might sit a theology that is constituted on scripture, on cultural context, on history, on church tradition, on ethics, and on reason, creating a veritable theological stew. They might then argue that such a complex theology only applies to matters within the church - and has no bearing for daily life, let alone in the world of politics. This would be another extreme theological method.
In reality, few theological thinkers practice such extremes of constitution and application. Most frameworks emphasize a few constituent parts, while allowing those constituent parts to speak to issues both within the church and outside the institutional walls.
A very brief paraphrase of the Catholic theological method, for example, would show that the Catholics are often focused on the scriptures, the doctrines of the Catholic church, and the church's traditions. Such a method can and often will be applied broadly, to everything from Communist rule in Poland to abortion in the United States. Because of the Catholic emphasis on the traditions of the church (ie, what have we done lately), many might view this as a somewhat conservative method for theological inquiry.
 |
| A possible Roman Catholic Theological Framework, emphasizing Scripture, Doctrine, and Tradition as its constituent parts. Many Catholic theologians would also add Reason alongside Scripture, Doctrine, and Tradition. |
 |
| One possible Protestant theological frameworks, taking into account scripture (and a very literal reading, at that), with a minor emphasis on doctrine, no emphasis on tradition, and a detachment from "reason.") |
 |
| The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: A Protestant Theological Framework, constituted by scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. I particularly appreciate the inclusion of experience. How can one think about God's action in the world if the world is not actively considered? |
This website is not the property of any denominational entity, so our method is really up to us. While the above-listed frameworks take some sort of spatial shape, our framework will be more of a three-dimensional Rubik's Cube, in the sense that we will shift the blocks around as necessitated by the questions of the day. Some days, our Rubik's cube might show a uniform, monochrome side. On others, our reflection might necessitate the polychromatic.
Other questions might necessitate an emphasis on the scriptures, on ethics, and on cultural context. If we are discussing Race in America, for example, it would be outrageous to read the Bible's often-troubling statements on slavery without setting them against ethical norms and cultural constructs.
Still other questions might demand that we do without scripture all together - it is possible that the Bible does not hold an answer to every contentious issue in this world. While this blog intends to work with Biblical texts, we will not idolize the words of scripture in the same way that they have been so
All this is to say that our methods will be sufficiently flexible to meet our shared goal: of finding some common ground and understanding in a fractured, divided world.
 |
There are over 43 quintillion combinations that can be arranged from a Rubik's Cube. Just like in the Rubik's Cube, our methods for theological thinking are seemingly limitless, so long as we are willing to remain still, contemplative, and discerning enough to explore them all.
With that said, the time has come to start the cubing.
Comments
Post a Comment