Last week Oliver Crisp kicked off the 2016 Analytic Theology Seminar Series at Fuller Seminary. He gave a wonderfully precise and clear lecture on the relationship between Analytic Theology and Systematic Theology. Basically he answered the question:
Is analytic theology really systematic theology or is it really just ersatz theology?
The way that Crisp approached this question was to examine the works of three different exemplars of systematic theology. Scholars whom nobody would doubt their pedigree as analytic theologians. First he examined the purpose and project of John Webster, followed by Brian Gerrish, and concluding with Gordon Kaufman. All very different types of theologians, but systematic theologians nonetheless.
In examining the works of these theologians he came up with a “shared task” of systematic theology. Think of it as a minimalist account of systematic theology:
Shared Task: Commitment to an intellectual undertaking that involves (though it may not comprise) explicating the conceptual content of the Christian tradition (with the expectation that this is normally done from a position within that tradition, as an adherent of that tradition), using particular religious texts that are part of the Christian tradition, including sacred scripture, as well as human reason, reflection, and praxis (particularly religious practices, as sources for theological judgements.
What jumped out to me about this minimalist account of ST is that it involves to main claims. One claim is about the task and the other is about the sources. The task is one of explanation, the primary sources are religious texts (broadly construed) and other secondary sources.
To me this seems like a fairly minimal account of what systematic theologians do. Naturally some may have a more robust account than this, but none will have something less than this. It seems to me, and it certainly seemed to Crisp that Analytic Theology does what is described in “shared task,” however it does it in a way that uses the tools, methods, and sources of the tradition of philosophy we have come to call “analytic.”
So is Analytic Theology truly Systematic Theology? As long as it keeps to the shared task, I have no reason to say why not.
The story typically goes something like this: 1)I was taught evolution was a godless, anti-Christian theory. 2) I became very interested in “creation science” in order to defend Christianity. 3) I actually began to learn about science and evolution. 4) I was able to reconcile my faith and this belief. 5)Conclusion: evolution, contrary to what I was taught early on, is not a threat to the faith.
ase study on the term “biblical,” McCall applies the virtues of analytic theology to put D.A. Carson’s use of the term “compatibilism” under the microscope. This is an excellent example of how analytic theology can help us to do even biblical theology. In his chapter on historical theology he uses analytic theology to address several contentious Christological controversies: 1) the metaphysics of the incarnation and 2) physicalist Christology. In his chapter on culture McCall takes on recent discussions about creation and evolution. This is likely McCall’s least innovative case study. Nevertheless, this is probably one of the most “practical” of the studies. What the creation/evolution debate really needs is clarity, as the debate suffers from proponents on both sides speaking past one another in broad generalities about the opponents supposedly held position. Consider even how some of those involved in the debates tend to make it an all or nothing issue: evolution or creation, with no clear working definition of what exactly these terms mean. If the dialogue is to go forward these sides need nuancing, and McCall helps bring this to the table.