Christian Systematic Theology Research Articles

John Goldingay. The Theology of Jeremiah: The Book, the Man, the Message

The Theology of Jeremiah brings refreshing clarity to a biblical book many Christians find confusing, contradictory, or overwhelming. In this new book, Goldingay compiles the conclusions from his recent NICOT commentary in an accessible, straightforward, and succinct account of Jeremiah’s history, message, theology, and life.Do not let its length fool you: this book clearly demonstrates Goldingay’s meticulous study of Jeremiah’s scroll (using Goldingay’s designation) and its historical context. Although Goldingay does not interact with secondary literature in this book, a discerning reader cannot deny his familiarity with the scholarly debates within Jeremiah studies. This book will undoubtedly shine in introductory undergraduate courses that exposit Jeremiah and in Bible studies as an introduction to Jeremiah, although supplemental interaction with specific texts would need to be developed by the instructor. Goldingay’s beliefs about the Jeremiah scroll shape the way that he presents his material. First, Goldingay approaches Jeremiah with the belief that the scroll was purposefully arranged to communicate specific theological truths exemplified by the prophet Jeremiah and his message. Second, Goldingay prioritizes Jeremiah’s original context and message in his interpretation. Third, Goldingay believes that the First Testament (to borrow his vocabulary), including the Jeremiah scroll, is informative to Christian practice, ethics, and theology today. Therefore, Goldingay’s The Theology of Jeremiah presents the Jeremiah scroll as a coherent theological unit and details its historical, religious, and cultural circumstances in order to help readers understand the importance of Jeremiah’s message for Christian living and belief.Goldingay divides his chapters into two sections with different focuses. The first four chapters discuss the Jeremiah scroll’s structure, themes, stories, and message. Here, Goldingay asserts that Jeremiah and Baruch are responsible for the bulk of the material but that the prophet’s disciples assembled and arranged his work in a theologically coherent manner soon after the destruction of Jerusalem. Because of this, he believes the scroll voices the exiled communities’ enduring confession that they were indeed unfaithful to God but that they also believed in God’s promises revealed to Jeremiah. Goldingay spends two of these four chapters fleshing out a detailed outline of the Jeremiah scroll. Overall, the structure Goldingay offers his readers strikes the perfect balance of being uncomplicated, yet detailed-oriented. As he works through his outline, Goldingay draws out the prominent themes of each section and discusses ways these themes reappear throughout the scroll. This section of the book uses Goldingay’s specialization in intertextuality to illuminate some of Jeremiah’s influences or allusions and draw out a historic perspective of who Judeans understood God to be and how God related to his people in the past. Additionally, this section also discusses the important historical events that inform God’s word for the people of Judah. Goldingay’s outline is primarily thematic, so some of the scroll’s climactic events or well-known designations for blocks of material may not appear here. However, patient readers will find that Goldingay discusses many of these in the second part of his book.Goldingay’s second section highlights the theological currents that run throughout the Jeremiah scroll, synthesizes them, and brings them into conversation with modern systematic categories. These chapters discuss who God is, how God interacts with his people, what sin is, the purpose and mission of a prophet, as well as humanities’ and God’s relationship with the future. In each of these chapters, Goldingay allows Jeremiah’s testimony preserved in the scroll to present its own account. He then explores how Jeremiah’s theology should inform categories from Christian systematic theology at the end of each chapter. Goldingay’s theological observations prove to be quite informative and help readers more deeply develop some of the images the scroll provides for thinking about God’s people (i.e., as a household or a domain) and sin (i.e., as corruption or shame). Although it is entirely clear that Goldingay draws extensively from the scroll throughout this section, his theological treatment of the text fluctuates in its citation consistency, occasionally leaving the reader to hunt down passages on their own.There is much to be praised about this book; it is no small feat to study the Jeremiah scroll and develop such a comprehensive and detailed, yet concise, outline and theological overview. Dr. Goldingay has dealt carefully with its testimony and reflected deeply on its theology. If I were to suggest one change, I would ask that he include a few excurses to tackle difficult theological themes directly. His audience would greatly value his input on topics such as the nature of repentance for human perpetrators of violence or injustice like Jehoiakim or Zedekiah, God naming himself as Judah’s enemy (Jer 21:5), and God’s prohibition of Jeremiah’s intercessory prayers for Judah.

The sacred fire: Wittgenstein, Pseudo-Denys, and transparency to the divine

ABSTRACT In order to explore what it means to pursue philosophical investigations for theological reasons, this paper argues that Ludwig Wittgenstein continues and corrects Pseudo-Denys’ project in The Divine Names. I first argue that The Divine Names should be interpreted as attempting to render human thought transparent to the divine by relativizing our concepts. The success of this project is compromised because the concept of ‘unity’ is not relativized. I then develop the claim that Wittgenstein does relativize unity in a similar way and for similar religious reasons to Pseudo-Denys. As such, he can be read as continuing and correcting the Pseudo-Dionysian project. I conclude by reflecting on several of this argument’s implications for the relationship between philosophy and Christian systematic theology.

Apocalyptic Topography in Mark’s Gospel: Theophany and Divine Invisibility at Sinai, Horeb, and the Mount of Transfiguration

ABSTRACT For Mark, geography is never just geography; his topographical features have theological significance beyond their roles as narrative settings. This essay considers one such Markan feature, the mountain, from the perspective of his apocalyptic theology. In the apocalypses, the mountain is an axis mundi, a conduit between earth and heaven, and a place of divine self-revelation. This is, of course, a trope also found in the mountaintop encounters of Moses on Sinai and Elijah on Horeb. This essay examines Mark’s transfiguration scene against this theophanic background, suggesting that there is ambiguity in his account that calls into question interpretations of the passage straightforwardly as a theophany. Consideration of Mark’s account in narrative and canonical context suggests that this is an apocalyptic mountaintop theophany, certainly, but one which does not reveal so much as it hides: a “theophany of divine invisibility.” In this connection, Katherine Sonderegger’s most recent contribution to Christian systematic theology is considered. In Sonderegger’s doctrine of God, divine invisibility is not a sign of his absence but the very mode of his omnipresence. Even in mountaintop theophanies, God is the One who hides himself and who is present in his hiddenness. Placed at the intersection of the study of the apocalypses and contemporary Christian systematic theology, therefore, Mark’s comparatively tempered account of the transfiguration can be seen not as evidence of a theologia crucis but an emphasis on non-perception and revelation as the narrative expression of an apocalyptic epistemology.

Relationality and Intersubjectivity within a Socially Oriented Metaphysics: A Note on Ecclesiology

Given increased attention to the themes of relationality and intersubjectivity in contemporary Christian systematic theology, the author argues that these terms are best understood within the context of a new socially ordered metaphysics in which human beings enjoy a richer life through active participation in various forms of community life. He then applies this analysis to the life of the church.

Holy mothers of God: sex work, inheritance, and the women of Jesus’ genealogy

ABSTRACTIn this article I consider the stories of Jesus’ women ancestors in the genealogy which opens the Gospel of Matthew. Reading these stories in light of Marxist-feminist analyses of marriage, sex work and reproductive labor, alongside contemporary sex workers’ rights discourse, and through Marcella Althaus-Reid's claim that all theology is “a sexual act”, I explore their implications for contemporary debates about property and propriety in both Christian systematic theology and contemporary Christian sexual ethics – which cannot, of course, be disentangled from one another. To conclude, I return to the twinned questions of righteousness and purity which centrally define both theological accounts of Christian identity and Christian sexual ethics, suggesting that righteousness relies for its coherence not only on the abjection of those who fall short of its standards, but also on their labor.

The Ethical Significance of the Infinity and Otherness of God and the Understanding of Man as »Inspired Subject«. Emmanuel Levinas as a Challenge for Christian Theology

The thinking of E. Levinas deeply influences the actual debates in Christian systematic theology. In catholic thinking, we know the norm of the Lateran Council in 1215: You cannot discern a similarity between God and man without discerning a greater dissimilarity between them. Do we take this norm seriously in our metaphysical ontology and theology? The otherness and goodness of God is the main problem in Levinas's philosophy and with regard to the catastrophes of the two world wars and the Shoa in the twentieth century he asks, what the significance of the talking about God in present times could be. Ethics has to become the »prima philosophia« because all our thinking and acting has an ethical significance and thus we may not forget this. Therefore, infinity and otherness receive an ethical meaning and constitute our responsibility as »inspired subjects« for the whole world. In the tradition of Jewish thinking, Levinas combines the unicity of each man and the universality of human responsibility for all people. In the face of the other, who is suffering, we are confronted with the face of God himself. What can we learn from Levinas today?

Christian Systematic Theology and Life Elsewhere in the Universe: A Study in Suitability

ABSTRACTChristian theologians have considered the significance of life elsewhere in the cosmos since the fifteenth century, but the brevity of these discussions calls for greater theological precision: the notion of multiple incarnations, for example, is often explored without reference to the detail of Christological formulations. Attention to the logical mode in which such work is set out is also fruitful, where the scholastic category of suitability or fittingness holds particular promise. As suitable, God’s actions are free and yet congruent, being consistent with the divine nature, with creaturely natures, and with the ends of God’s dealings with creatures.

What hope is there – for Klaus?

This contribution engages with Klaus Nürnberger’s eschatology as expressed in his Invitation to Systematic Theology. It suggests that his notion of Christian hope has to be understood in terms of the triad of core concepts that he offers, namely creative power, benevolent intentionality and a vision of comprehensive optimal well-being. These are dialectically related as thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Moreover, this dialectic comes to expression in his understanding of faith in the Triune God, namely as belief in God against God, God as Saviour against God as Creator. Two questions regarding the vision of comprehensive optimal well-being are raised in conversation with Nürnberger: Firstly, is the content of Christian hope focused on optimal well-being itself, that God’s project will prevail, that the vision itself will prevail or that God will prevail. Can these be treated as rough synonyms? Secondly, what are the implications of the emphasis on God’s Word for Nürnberger’s eschatology? Does his emphasis on conceptual clarification not allow a form of idealism that undermines his own emphasis on the historical? If so, is there sufficient room for the consummation of all things as part of the narrative of God’s work?Intra- and interdisciplinary implications: This contribution is of an intradisciplinary nature and is located within the field of Christian systematic theology. It is a review article that engages critically with the position on eschatology adopted by Professor Klaus Nürnberger in his two-volume work Faith in Christ Today (2016).

“The Best Apologetics is Good Systematics.” a Proposal about the Place of Narrative in Christian Systematic Theology

“The Best Apologetics is Good Systematics.” a Proposal about the Place of Narrative in Christian Systematic Theology

Introduction to David F. Ford, “‘The Best Apologetics is Good Systematics.’ a Proposal about the Place of Narrative in Christian Systematic Theology”

Introduction to David F. Ford, “‘The Best Apologetics is Good Systematics.’ a Proposal about the Place of Narrative in Christian Systematic Theology”

IS IT NOT GOD'S MERCY THAT NOURISHES AND SUSTAINS US....FOREVER? SOME THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ENTANGLED SUSTAINABILITIES

This essay explores the question whether and if so what contribution Christian systematic theology can make to contemporary discourse on sustainability and more specifically ‘ entangled sustainabilities ’ . It acknowledges that any such contribution would be deeply contested. It nevertheless suggests that one such contribution can lie in a critique of the underlying assumptions of discourse on sustainability and specifically any claims for ultimacy regarding whether, how and what it is that is supposed to be sustained. This critique is complemented by a constructive response on the basis of three classic aspects of faith in God ’ s providence. Accordingly, it is God ’ s mercy and therefore God ’ s justice that nourishes and sustains us. This cannot be taken for granted though, as it depends upon a reading of the signs of the time, in rapidly changing circumstances. Any hope to find something that could endure and be sustained forever may well be heretical.

Panentheism and the Classical God-World Relationship: A Systems-Oriented Approach

Panentheism has become a familiar term in contemporary christian systematic theology and philosophy, for it is widely believed to be an appropriate way to overcome the alleged dualism found in the classical god-world relationship. but what is meant by the term panentheism, and how does it work so as to avoid becoming still another form of pantheism or cosmic monism? in 2004 Philip clayton and the late Arthur Peacocke published a set of papers on the topic of panentheism that came from a conference in england on that topic in 2001.1 yet, while there were certain broad affinities in approach and content among many of the papers, none of them used precisely the same conceptual model for analysis of the concept. As one of the participants niels henrik gregersen commented, “The concept of panentheism is not stable in itself. The little word ‘in’ is the hinge of it all. There may be as many panentheisms as there are ways of qualifying the world’s being ‘in god.’”2 in this article, i attempt an explanation of the term on the basis of what i call systems theory. As i explain in the next section of this article, i have in mind with the term system a somewhat modified understanding of what Alfred north Whitehead meant by the category of society in his master work Process and Reality.3 That is, a system is a corporate or socially organized reality whose ultimate constituents are momentary self-constituting subjects of experience (actual entities).4 but, perhaps more strongly than Whitehead himself, i claim that societies/systems are more than simply the sum of their interrelated actual entities from moment to moment. They are specifically social or corporate realities, enduring ontological totalities greater than the sum of their parts or members.5 System rather than Aristotelian substance is for me the first category

Book Forum

The Book Forum presents essays that focus attention on one book, followed by a response from the author. The forums originate from panel discussions at academic meetings and may retain some of the style of an oral presentation, such as the use of the first person and references to the author by first name. The essays that follow are based on a panel discussion sponsored by the Christian Systematic Theology Section of the American Academy of Religion held in Chicago in 2012. The title of the session was, “The Authority of Doctrine: In Dialogue with Khaled Anatolios,” with Matthew Levering, Francesca Murphy, George Hunsinger, and Bruce Marshall as respondents. (Note: Matthew Levering’s response was not available for publication.) Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine, Ada MI: Baker Academic, 2011

Narrative as Philosophy: Methodological Issues in Abstracting from Hebrew Scripture

In the second half or so of the twentieth century, the dominance of modes of communication characterized primarily by “abstract propositions arrived at through rational argument”1 in what were considered to be paradigmatic works of Christian systematic theology came under fire on several fronts. Attempts to assert (or reassert) the value of narrative for Christian theology gained support across a broad swath of theological orientations, and in some cases – like that of the Narrative Theology movement associated in various forms with Niebuhr, Frei, Lindbeck, and Crites2 proponents of the rediscovery of narrative for theological methodology went so far as to argue that its employment is strictly indispensable for theology. Nevertheless, clearly, theology conducted primarily in terms of “propositional discourse” remains the norm. In contemporary analytic philosophy, too, the idea of philosophy’s incorporating (let alone consisting of) narrative at a deeper or more fundamental level than that of illustration or example – say, the occasional adventure story about a runaway trolley or sci-fi thriller about brains-in-vats and philosophical zombies – remains relatively exotic. But here, as in theology, the possibilities for a more substantial relationship between philosophy and narrative have not gone entirely unexplored. Among very recent works, for instance, Eleonore Stump’s Wandering in Darkness3 along with earlier publications in which she explored related ideas4 makes a particularly exemplary foray into this territory in connection with narrative in Hebrew Scripture, with implications for both philosophy and theology. And, now, Yoram Hazony’s Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture adds a new and important layer to the literature on the subject. This contribution, too, has significant implications for both philosophy and theology. So, it is on this issue – the expression of philosophical ideas of a general nature through scriptural narrative – that I will be focusing in this brief response. I will proceed, to begin with, in terms of the following (rough and simplified) way of cutting up the categories into which contemporary debate about the relation of narrative to philosophy can be helpfully organized5:

The future of systematic theology

At the global level it has become increasingly difficult to isolate our understanding of the nature and purpose of Christian systematic theology from the reality of other religious traditions. This paper identifies three interrelated premises in the present Danish discussion on the relationship between Islam and Christianity. Through a systematic theological critique the paper offers an analytical reconstruction of theology as an academic and practical discipline and answers the overall question: What is the future nature and task of systematic theology in our religiously pluralistic age?

Principles of Systematic Theology

AbstractThe Holy Trinity is the ontological principle of Christian systematic theology. Its external or objective cognitive principle is the divine Word, by which, through the prophets and apostles and with the illumination of the Spirit, God's incommunicable self‐knowledge is accommodated to the saints. The internal or subjective cognitive principle is the redeemed intelligence of the saints. Systematic theology is thus ectypal knowledge (derived from God's disclosure of his archetypal self‐knowledge), and a subaltern or subordinate science. Its matter is twofold: God, and all things in God. Accordingly, it is best arranged as a treatment of God in himself, followed by a treatment of the outer works of God, with a theology of the divine missions as the hinge between the two. This arrangement offers a synthetic and conceptual transposition of the primary language of Scripture.

Trauma and Grace: Psychology and Theology in Conversation

This paper explores the contours of a conversation between recent developments in trauma theory and Christian systematic theology. Toward this end, I examine three levels of theological discourse in a linear progression and responses based on the work of some trauma theorists: (a) twentieth century conceptualizations of divine revelation using the metaphor of a “bridge,” (b) configurations of evil, sin, redemption, and theodicies, and (c) the use of sacraments and iconography as vehicles of solidarity and flourishing. As a burgeoning area of inquiry in academic circles, trauma theory both resists and is in need of the discipline of theology. I conclude that trauma theory and theology are not antithetical disciplines, and a consideration of both brings greater insights than the disciplines considered alone.

A Fresh Look at the Polarization between ‘Israel’ and ‘Canaan’ Identiteitsvorming impliceert beeldvorming: De polariteit tussen ‘Israël’ en ‘Kanaän’ opnieuw bekeken

In this article the relation between minority and majority is related to the process of identity forming in which a certain kind of mechanism can be perceived. The image presented of ‘the other’ will never be an objective image. The question is raised what it could mean for Christian systematic theology when this kind of mechanism appears to determine its heart. Christian theology is based upon the Deuteronomic theology which strongly contrasts ‘Israel’ and ‘Canaan’. Current research which questions the basis of this contrast and all its implications, calls for a renewal of theological constructions, and so for a theology which reflects the complexity of everyday life.

Die Vielheit des einen Gottes und die Vielheit der Götter Die Vielheit des einen Gottes und die Vielheit der Götter

In view of the fact that most of Christian systematic theology is still dominated by a metaphysical concept of unity, making it impossible for the theologian to accept 2 Cor 5:7 and its consequences, the author emphasizesthe irreducible plurality of the one true God and relates it to the plurality of false gods. Thus the unity of the triune God, who is nothing but love, can only be spoken of in strictly doxological terms.

Doing Christian Systematic Theology: Faith, Problems, and Mysteries

What is the foundation for Christian systematic theology? Moreover, what do Christian systematic theologians hope to achieve when they explicate the Christian Gospel? These are not new questions and others have attempted to provide answers that are more comprehensive and scholarly than the ones I will offer in this article. Here I want only to offer and elucidate a twofold principle that I have found helpful in doing Christian systematic theology. While I have attempted, over some years, to implement both aspects of this principle in the course of doing Christian theology, I have found them best expressed by John Paul II in his encyclical Fides et Ratio. There he states: