Queer Systems: The Benefits of a More Systematic Approach to Queer Theology

Abstract

Queer Systems: The Benefits of a More Systematic Approach to Queer Theology Ivy Helman Queer theology often struggles to convince many Christians of its message of acceptance.1 This occurs in spite of the fact that queer theology hopes to bring about a more just, humane and liberating manifestation of Christianity for all humanity, queers and non‐queers alike. Queer theology, it seems, needs to strengthen and develop itself as a theological discipline in order to have a greater impact. Among the many current theological disciplines now available, systematic theology could help queer theology do just that. Systematic theology has three salient characteristics that could strengthen queer theology’s arguments; queer theology could also benefit from an acknowledgment of its systematic tendencies. One characteristic of systematic theology seems to be a logical, coherent argument based on a unifying principle. Another salient feature appears to be the way systematic theology is an ordered, in‐depth investigation of a broad range of topics. Finally, the third characteristic of systematic theology that could benefit queer theology is the way systematic theology suggests exploring cultural and social components of society and reinterpreting Christian truth in a way that accounts for this context. This often means advocating for change in order to make the Christian message more suited to the times. One can acknowledge the first tendency of systematic theology—it appears to be a logical, coherent argument with a unifying principle— in the theories of three authors: Paul Tillich, A. N. Williams and Christine Helmer. Helmer writes, “System represents a partial or total comprehension by thought of the reality of particular entities or actions” (1). In other words, systematic theologians try to make sense out of the world around them. One can see the principle of coherence in Helmer’s writing. A. N. Williams suggests systematicity’s characteristic of being logical in his article for The International Journal of Systematic Theology entitled “What Is Systematic Theology?” Williams seems to argue that systematic theology is “simply theology which makes explicit that rationality and that relationality” (55). Williams suggests that all systematic theology has three key characteristics: coherence, relationality and rationality (41, 48 and 53, respectively). This emphasis on rationality could be interpreted as an emphasis on logic. In addition, one can see that Williams stresses coherence as well. Finally, a well‐known and oft‐cited author on systematic theology, Paul Tillich indicates the need for unity, what he calls a “method of correlation” (8). This unifying idea coordinates “questions and answers, situation and message, human existence and divine manifestation” (Tillich, 8). Tillich seems to be arguing for the need for systematic theology to unify its message as it addresses its many areas of interest. Systematic theology also seems to consist of an ordered, in‐depth examination of a variety of topics. In their definitions of systematic theology, Leo Garrett Jr. and Daniel Jenkins seem to agree on the significance of these systematic tendencies. Specifically Jenkins seems to stress the in‐depth inquiry into a broad range of topics. He believes ethics to be part of systematic theology (Jenkins, 108). Likewise, “… to be systematic, theology must include a statement of the nature of theological method, of the doctrine of the Trinity, of God and [God’s] attributes or perfections; of creation; of Jesus Christ, his person and work, and related to him, of Christian anthropology in terms of [hu]man[ity], sin and grace; of the Spirit and the Church” (Jenkins, 107). Jenkins’s list appears to be quite comprehensive in scope and seems to demand quite detailed theological work. There seems to be no part of Christianity that systematic theology can or should ignore. Garrett, in his book Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical and Evangelical, recommends that systematic theology concern itself with the relationship of doctrines to each other and an ordered presentation of material (3 and 16). Here, one can see a range of topics Garrett believes systematic theology should address. Likewise, in Garrett’s work, the reader can see the ordered characteristic of systematic theology. One could argue that the third salient characteristic of systematic theology seems to be its evaluation of contemporary society and its appeal for change. Here again one can see...