by logansrun 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Somewhere in Apocalypse Delayed James Penton writes that the JWs "have no systematic theology." I've heard this term elsewhere and have been wondering: Just what is "sytematic theology"? How does it differ from just plain 'ol "theology"? And, seeing that the JWs do have a theology, in what way do they not have a "systematic" one?
Anyone want to give a quick and easy answer?
Bradley
it is the process of logically laying out one's faith with reason instead of blind faith. Augustine was one of the first to give it a whirl as far as christianity. At least that's what I think, but probably one of the residnet scholars can give you more detail and explanation.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
Valis is pretty much on track.
A systematic theology is essentially a comprehensive, logically consistent system of belief; in Christian circles, it generally includes specific positions on a variety of technical issues.
The JWs have no systematic theology, because they never reasoned out their beliefs; they just tinkered with them from publication to publication. One example is the nature of Jesus. Sometimes, he will be spoken of as a creature; other times, he's divine. Another example is the basis of the ransom. They will present various analogies to try to make it sound reasonable (the cake pan with a dent, the closed factory, the unplugged fan, two men on a balance, etc), but they will never actually give a reasoned argument, based on clearly stated assumptions, as to why the ransom is needed or has any value.
It's not really surprising that the JWs don't have a systematic theology; not only would it make it much harder for them to constantly change their doctrines, but none of their people (except possibly Freddy) ever had the education that would be necessary to produce one.
Thanks Valis and Euphemism. I pretty much figured that was what it meant. Euph, you said:
The JWs have no systematic theology, because they never reasoned out their beliefs
Of course, the JWs would take great exception to this statement. In fact, most JWs view themselves as a completely rational religion, as opposed to, say, Pentacostals etc. They would hand you a "Require" brochure and say, "that's your 'systematic theology.'"
All the same, when I was a young JW really "sinking my teeth" into doctrine, I often wondered why we didn't just have one giant book which layed everything out without an "emotional" element -- like a true scholarly handbook.
Oh well.
Bradley
like a true scholarly handbook.
*LOL* That would most probably be very self defeating. I think the study of philosophy fell off for a good long time till people started to be able to read and heaven forbid they might try to make up their own minds! So you have people like St. Thomas Aquinas, IMO, who even in his attempt at a scholarly defense of his beliefs, got into the business of trying to hash out faith w/reason.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
Looks like you guys have it covered.
Not having a 'systematic theology', I guess, is another way of saying that they 'fly by the seat of their pants' and hope it works (or no-one notices).
The protestant encyclopedia of religion (1945) pg 757 says:
Theology is literally discourse about god; as the term is used, belief concerning god and other beliefs cognate to it. Systematic theology concerns these beliefs in ordered ilucidation and in their relation to contemporary thought and life - 'contemporary' in each age, the task of theology falling to be done continually as the outlook and even the meanings of words undergo change.
Theology began when pagan assaults and heresies forced a double strategy in the truth's defence; the one evoked apolegetic and the other strictly so named.
SS
SS...I'm lost to what that means. Is this source suggesting a systematic theology stays contemporary as the outlook of each age adjusts? Or that such a theology fails to do so while seeking to reexpress the unchangable in modern vernacular?
Let me have a crack at it! First I would say it is a belief system that includes "process" and "product", ie a methodology that allows for truthing at any level. The end result would be a consistant application of logic, reason and to the degree that mysticism and mistery are involved there is/are explanations that are not left to blind faith. Hence, for example, if a JUU claims that "true religion and science are in agreement" then they have to accept the standards of science for proofing their doctrins and any historical data supported by science. Otherwise, the statement is false and the theology is not "systematic". There are other examples but my sense is that "systematic theology" is not common amongs most sects of Chistianity as well as the other world religions. As they have aged and contending political forces divided them up into subdivisions, their consistency has been shattered along with any unity they once enjoyed.
carmel
thanks for trying to explain it to me but by that definition, "systematic theology" is an oxymoron.
