[Music]
Welcome to another of our 'Why Study' series being run by members of the Department of
Theology and Religious Studies. And with me today is Dr Karen Kilby who is a systematic
theologian. So Karen why study systematic theology?
Well to answer that I need to start by saying what systematic theology is, and my own view
is it's best described as something like 'thinking' within the context of faith. That faith involves
thinking and that's what systematic theology is, simply thinking about faith. Now, why
do you start thinking? I think you start thinking because you run into problems, you're puzzled,
you're troubled, something doesn't make sense. I think a classic example of systematic theology,
or the beginnings of systematic theology, came from my son when he was six, we were
sitting in a church and he was listening to the sermon and they were saying that the most
important thing was love and he leaned over to me and he whispered, 'You shouldn't believe
that, that's not right', or 'You can't believe them', and I said, 'Why not?' and he said,
'Well because another time they were saying the most important thing is faith', and I
said, 'So what do you think'? And he said, 'Well they're probably equally important'.
Now it wasn't the most sophisticated of answers but pretty good for a six year old, but to
notice there's a problem, I don't understand how these things relate that I'm hearing,
that I'm inclined to believe because I'm a person of faith but they don't all fit together,
that's the beginning of systematic theology, trying to come up with answers. His answer
was, well, they're probably equally important. You might be able to come up with a better
one with a little more theological training. So I think it starts with faith and with troubledness,
with problems. There's a classic line from Evagrius Ponticus that people often quote:
'the theologian is the one who prays'. It makes systematic theology sound very pious.
I would rather say the theologian is the one who prays and stumbles in their prayer and
starts to think about their stumbling, you start to think about what's going wrong in
your faith, what doesn't make sense to you, what you don't understand, and that's the
beginning of thought.
Does that mean you have to have faith to do theology?
I don't think so, that was a description as though you have faith, there's certainly ways
into theology, into systematic theology, without faith. It can be looking at a fascinating
conversation going on within a community to which you don't belong, looking at the intellectual
structure of belief. You can do systematic theology in lots of ways, but the way it's
most often been done I think will be by people beginning from faith and raising problems
within their faith. Another thing about systematic theology, and for me this is why I study it,
it's very importantly caught on here, it's the broadest and most integrative thing you
could imagine. Because in order to do it you engage with scripture, with tradition, with
history, with all the other theological sub disciplines, often because they tell you you're
wrong, they cut you up short, so you've got to pay attention to them. But also all kinds
of other disciplines under the sun; philosophy, history, almost anything can come into systematic
theology and it integrates not only intellectually, but you're also engaged with yourself as a
person, particularly if you're coming at it from a perspective of faith, what makes sense,
what bothers you, why does it bother you, all your instincts come into play.
One of the questions I often hear is the word systematic, how systematic is systematic theology
because 'system' is often, to my mind, is something where you try to squeeze reality
into existing categories.
It's an awkward term 'systematic theology' because it does make everyone think you've
got a grand framework, and you've got a box for everything and everything in its box,
and it's all fitted out and I really don't think systematic theology has to, in some
people's hands it is, but it certainly doesn't have to be. My own interest in systematic
theology is much more exploring the limits of what we can know, what we can't know and
what we don't have to fit together and whether you might start with a problem and your conclusion
might be that you have to live with that problem, you might have explored all kinds of possible
solutions and the conclusion is to be a faithful Christian you need to be stuck on this problem,
so I'd say the problem of evil goes that way.
Your example of your six year old son is wonderful because it starts with a question, but does
systematic theology always begin with a question or does it ever begin with just awe?
I think that's probably another mode, it can begin with awe, it can be overcome by the
beauty of God, the beauty of something and wanting to articulate that, so that's another mode.
Because I'm often struck by the fact that a lot of systematic theologians that I've
chatted to over the years, they see their work in terms of artistic, they see it as a work of art.
I think there's probably different styles, and I'm probably talking about my own style,
and I myself tend to start with being slightly troubled by something, not understanding,
and it's the pursuit of understanding, of clarity within a context of a set of beliefs.
So I'm not standing back and saying, I don't think systematic theology is apologetics,
it's not philosophy of religion, it's not a question of evaluating, proving that Christianity
is true or asking if it's true or not; it's working on the presumption that the whole
thing is what's to be believed, but then how to believe it, what's the thought internal
to the process of Christian belief.
One of the things that intrigues me is that for the last thousand years people have been
arguing about Anselm's so-called ontological argument, as if it were some sort of knockdown
proof of the existence of God, yet Anselm makes very clear that he is actually beginning
in a prayer dialogue with his community, the community are actually still in the chapel
and he begins to ask. How do you relate to that picture?
Well I would agree that, and actually the ontological argument is often looked at out
of context as though it's an argument, but it's part of a much bigger thing which is
aesthetic, about putting together, so if you actually read the Proslogion you find out
that Anselm goes on, not to just to want to prove the existence of God, but he's wanting
a single ratio, a single way of thinking or a single formula that's going to allow him
to derive everything that needs to be said about the Christian faith. So what he's actually
looking for is a sense of aesthetic satisfaction of seeing how it all hangs together. So this
is your question of awe, he's looking to bring out the beauty of the Christian faith by its
sheer integration in the context of prayer. But my sense that theology often begins
with a problem you can also see in Anselm, because he starts talking about how he wrestled
and wrestled with this problem of how does everything fit together, and he nearly despaired
until suddenly it came to him in a moment of prayer. So this sense that there's something
that unsettles you that sets the mind to work in thinking, this is the nature of systematic
theology. So why study it, I never answered that question. Study it if, whether as an
insider or as an outsider, you find Christian faith interesting and you're puzzled by how
things make sense, by their relationship with each other, you're driven towards wanting
clarity, wanting some kind of understanding - I think that's why one studies systematic
theology. But also you're open to challenge because there is just no limit in what you
in principle ought to know, or what you ought to take account of as a systematic theologian.
It can be a bit daunting because there's always more that you should have known, but it's
also wonderfully exciting because there are always new areas to go and learn in.
If...
...there's a student watching this now, where do you start?
Yeah we talked about that before, it's a tricky question isn't it, because it's yeah...I think
start in the middle of things, start with what bothers you, start with what disturbs
you, or what most draws you, what you're most interested in and start reading about that.
So is it: how can the trinity make sense or what's the meaning of the cross? Start with
a particular question. You could say that you ought to be very logical and first study
method, and first study the sources and norms of theology, there are textbooks that will
take you through in a nice orderly way, but I think you should start in the middle of
the thing and start with what most interests you, and you pick up as you go along all the
methodological questions.
Okay well I think you have actually answered my question.
Right thanks very much.
Thanks Karen. And now to wrap up; one theologian, one vision of what it is to do theology and
one reply to the question, what is systematic theology? The question now is: what's your answer?
[Music]