[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”0521558263″ locale=”us” height=”333″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kuYQI5OmL.jpg” width=”222″ alt=”Sarah Coakley” ]A Communal Way of Doing Theology
A Feature Review of
God, Sexuality, and the Self: An Essay ‘On The Trinity’
Paperback: Cambridge UP, 2013
Buy now: [ [easyazon-link asin=”0521558263″ locale=”us”]Amazon[/easyazon-link] ] [ [easyazon-link asin=”B00E99YK5Y” locale=”us”]Kindle[/easyazon-link] ]
Reviewed by Joshua Brockway
Not many theologians, save those dedicated to the work of Karl Barth or John Calvin, choose to identify as systematic theologians. Few publishing houses have the ability or patience to publish extensive, multi-volume theologies in the tradition of the Institutes or Church Dogmatics. Seminaries and Universities rarely call the field systematics, but prefer the generic appellation of “Theology” so as to make space for the unique methodological approaches of their faculty.
It is no wonder, then, that some have said that systematics is passé. Philosophically, the early prognosis was sounded by the likes of Lyotard and Derrida. The Post-Modern assumption these two writers helped to articulate, namely that any attempt at constructing a comprehensive system, or meta-narrative is futile, has soaked into the consciousness of academics. Instead, professional theologians have turned to consider particular modes of theology. Instead, Feminist and Liberation theologians now write of contextual perspectives shaped by the cultural experiences of particular peoples. Still others seek out other arenas for their work, dividing up theological disciplines among historians, preachers, counselors, and teachers. The problem is, of course, that other theologians appear to have not received the memo.