（5）組織神学の（入門用）教科書談義

組織神学、と聞いてほとんどの読者は「何それ?」ではなかろうか。

しかし西洋キリスト教神学の伝統から言えば「神学する」とは組織神学のことを言うといっても過言でなかろう。

問題はそのやり方だが、やはり何でもそうだろうが「奥が深い」。

しばらく前とあるブログ記事を読んでいたら次のような嘆きというか失望のことばが紹介されていた。

曰く、

北米及び英語圏の福音派神学校・聖書学校で最も使用されている「組織神学」入門用教科書は○○のものである。

この記事に対してコメント欄にはほぼ一様に「嘆かわしい」側からの当該教科書の批判がなされていた。

その中にこういうのがあった。（まあー皮肉っぽいものではありますが。）

Kyle: Yep, I'm afraid you're right. In the opening chapter of his Systematic Theology (pp. 35-37), ○○○○ offers this truly amazing summary of how we should practice systematic theology: (1) "Find all the relevant verses" on a certain topic; (2) "summarize the points made in the relevant verses"; (3) "Finally, the teachings of the various verses should be summarized into one or more points that the Bible affirms about that subject."

Happily, this procedure "is possible for any Christian who can read his or her Bible and can look up words in a concordance". Wow, talk about "scientific" theology!

That description of theological method is hilarious. I thought I'd give it a try - so here's a systematic theology of pissing (following ○○○○'s 3 steps):

(1) I looked up "pisseth" in Strong's Concordance: 1 Sam 25:22, 25:34; 1 Kings 14:10, 16:11, 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8.

(2) The main point in these relevant verses is that the person "who pisseth against a wall" will be condemned and cut off.

(3) Therefore, here is what the Bible affirms about the subject: we should always use the restroom, and all those who piss on walls should be excluded from the church.

○○○○通りに神学すれば、「路上で用を足す者は教会から除外される」となる。とまあからかいコメントですね。

今度のコメントは○○○○の批判ではないですが、教科書の目的は「簡便な回答を与える」ことではなく、実際に神学頭を使うことだ、と申しております。

Hi Les and JBH -- thanks for your comments. And I agree: I hope we can avoid "erudite muck flinging"!

I also agree with you about the charismatic sections of ○○○○'s Systematic Theology -- I think this stuff is very interesting and creative, and it has helped to foster serious theological reflection on Pentecostal/charismatic experience.

But I still can't help feeling discouraged at the popularity of ○○○○'s book as a classroom text -- there are plenty of better books available! In particular, a good theological textbook should model actual theological thinking, instead of merely providing students with the illusion of ready-made answers. After all, many theological students will go on to become pastors: and in pastoral ministry, what's needed is not ready-made answers, but the ability to think theologically in new and unpredictable situations.

今度の方はシンガポールの方ですが、○○○○は退屈だ。それよりマクグラスの方がいいよ、と申しております。

（さらに脱植民地国で神学談義がこれほどつまらないのは、○○○○が圧倒的人気を博しているからかもしれない。と申しております。）

Hi Ben,

Though it's very late for me to comment yet the post and your question are irresistibly intriguing.

Over at Trinity Theological College, Singapore, McGrath's 4th ed. text is preferred as it's a good introduction to theology.

And that'll also lead the students to McGrath's other advanced works.

On the other hand, ○○○○'s text is surprisingly very dull. When I was looking for a systematic theology text, I'd never got enough reason to get ○○○○ though its latest edition's front cover is beautiful.

Not sure if his text is that popular worldwide, but it seems to be so in my part of the world.

If it's true that ○○○○ is the most widely used text, then no wonder the theological scene, especially at post-colonial countries like Malaysia and Singapore (where I'm from), is generally dull and unexciting as compared to other parts of the world.

以上、