Which Theology text do we use now?

[Ian Gentles]

I know Wileys Theology was writen at denominations request. Today in the Seminary, colleges/universities, has the COTN a prefered Systematic Theology? Do we still use Wiley?

[Jim Chabot]

I do know that a letter was sent out from the General Church reminding professors that Wiley's theology is still to be considered as baseline.

Wiley is still the man!

[Michael Flowers]

At Olivet for the two courses on Systematic theology we used Allister McGrath's "Christian Theology" texts. I think the reason for that is the overall availability to the students and the conciseness (one volume instead of three) of those texts (the theology text and then a reader filled with quotes from the historical theologians of the Church). I do believe that the topics taken from that text though are meant to match up with the requirements of the denomination for theological education.

[Steven Burton]

Man if Wiley is the man I sure hope the professor can figure out what he is talking about. He has to have the hardest books I ever tried to read. It feels like the ideas are scattered all over the place at times. Although I do know SNU did not use Wiley in their systematic theology classes.

[David Graham]

Man if Wiley is the man I sure hope the professor can figure out what he is talking about. He has to have the hardest books I ever tried to read. It feels like the ideas are scattered all over the place at times. Although I do know SNU did not use Wiley in their systematic theology classes.

I still think that Wiley has his place, however, he's certainly not one of the greatest systematic theologians which the world has produced. But he was a great "compositor" of other theological opinions, even though they were generally out of date by the time his books were published.

Wiley to me is a pioneer who helped to systematise the theology of the "Holiness" churches at a time when no such indepth work was available. I see in his work a balanced portrayal of Revivalist/ Holiness theology in the context of historical theological othodoxy by which he gives to it a legitimacy which otherwise it might be hard pressed to find. Later Holiness theologians have done this more by a stronger association with Wesleyanism.

[Ian Gentles]

I still think that Wiley has his place, however, he's certainly not one of the greatest systematic theologians which the world has produced. But he was a great "compositor" of other theological opinions, even though they were generally out of date by the time his books were published.

Wiley to me is a pioneer who helped to systematise the theology of the "Holiness" churches at a time when no such indepth work was available. I see in his work a balanced portrayal of Revivalist/ Holiness theology in the context of historical theological othodoxy by which he gives to it a legitimacy which otherwise it might be hard pressed to find. Later Holiness theologians have done this more by a stronger association with Wesleyanism.

Is it time for the denomination to ask a group of church theologians to produce between them a new Systamatic Theology for the church?
As one poster has said, and I agree, Wiley isnt the easiest to follow.

[Billy Cox]

Is it time for the denomination to ask a group of church theologians to produce between them a new Systamatic Theology for the church?
As one poster has said, and I agree, Wiley isnt the easiest to follow.

Systematic Theology done by committee is a sure way to have a disjointed, messed-up systematic theology - just look at the way that Manual resolutions are handled by the General Assembly.

A systematic theology typically requires one person with authority over the work who can bring the various strands together in a 'systematic' way. Consensus and group-process has a way of elevating the strongest personality in the room, even if that person is not the strongest theologian. (or even if that person is not a theologian at all)

[Mike Schutz]

I use Dunning, Lodahl, and McGrath for the courses I teach, and I see benefits in each.

[David Graham]

I use a wide variety of theologians as my "sources" for any theological research I am undertaking.

I look to Wiley these days to give me a general overview on most theological subjects (e.g. Ecclesiology, Soteriology, Eschatology etc), but for more in depth study I look to Barth (of course), Alister McGrath on apologetics, Pannenberg with regard to epistemology, H. Ray Dunning on Holiness, Henri Nouwen on authentic Christian living, Australian theologians like Sir Alan Walker (on Evangelism) and Ben Myers with regard to contemporary ministry issues (both UC men of God), and Existentialists like Kierkegaard and Martin Heideggar with regard to cosmology and knowing & being.

Because I read these men and others I can't be categorised as a theologian of a particular ilk. The closest I come to is one who is sort of Evangelical Neo-Orthodox Wesleyan. (At least in that general area)

[Steven Burton]

Well you might be able to get ride of Wesleyan since there are some Orthodox leadership that acknowledge his work.

[John Reilly]

Stand by: I think Dr. Noble is writing an "Integrative Theology" to replace systematic. Currently, Dr. Noble is teaching "Integrative Theology" now at NTS and EuNTS ... no longer a systematic course.

[Wilson Deaton]

... now at NTS and EuNTS ... no longer a systematic course.

When I was at NTS (mid/late 80s), it was called, "Constructive Theology."

Wilson

[Pete Vecchi]

I use Dunning, Lodahl, and McGrath for the courses I teach, and I see benefits in each.

I had been out of college for about 14 years when God called me to preach, and when I began my Bible College courses, the first course offered in the rotation at the site most convenient to me was Theology I, and the second was Theology II. Both courses used Introduction to Christian Theology by Wiley, and Grace, Faith, and Holiness by Dunning. While we had to read both texts for both courses, the first course was taught by a professor who used primarily Wiley, and the second course was taught by a professor who used primarily Dunning. I found Wiley easier to understand, especially when, during the first week's reading assignment I read the following in a sentence from Dunning, "When we extrapolate the hermeneutics..."

To this day when my wife and I are discussing something (for instance, a sermon idea I might have) that has the possibility of being over the head of the average listener, we will say something about that the idea is like "extrapolating the hermeneutics."

[John Kennedy]

I had been out of college for about 14 years when God called me to preach, and when I began my Bible College courses, the first course offered in the rotation at the site most convenient to me was Theology I, and the second was Theology II. Both courses used Introduction to Christian Theology by Wiley, and Grace, Faith, and Holiness by Dunning. While we had to read both texts for both courses, the first course was taught by a professor who used primarily Wiley, and the second course was taught by a professor who used primarily Dunning. I found Wiley easier to understand, especially when, during the first week's reading assignment I read the following in a sentence from Dunning, "When we extrapolate the hermeneutics..."

To this day when my wife and I are discussing something (for instance, a sermon idea I might have) that has the possibility of being over the head of the average listener, we will say something about that the idea is like "extrapolating the hermeneutics."

Hermeneutic extrapolation would appear, on its face, to be a a violation of the US Constitution's protection against cruel and unusual punishment. It shouldn't be tried at home.

[Ian Gentles]

I went to an interdenominational college. For theology we had Berkhoff and Wiley, an interesting mix.

[Jim Chabot]

I had been out of college for about 14 years when God called me to preach, and when I began my Bible College courses, the first course offered in the rotation at the site most convenient to me was Theology I, and the second was Theology II. Both courses used Introduction to Christian Theology by Wiley, and Grace, Faith, and Holiness by Dunning. While we had to read both texts for both courses, the first course was taught by a professor who used primarily Wiley, and the second course was taught by a professor who used primarily Dunning. I found Wiley easier to understand, especially when, during the first week's reading assignment I read the following in a sentence from Dunning, "When we extrapolate the hermeneutics..."

To this day when my wife and I are discussing something (for instance, a sermon idea I might have) that has the possibility of being over the head of the average listener, we will say something about that the idea is like "extrapolating the hermeneutics."

I've found the same Pete. Wiley is pretty straightforward, while Dunning tends to be convoluted. One must extrapolate Dunning in order to discern that which he is extrapolating.

[Eric Frey]

Can't believe no one has mentioned Mildred Bangs Wynkoop's Theology of Love...

[John Reilly]

Can't believe no one has mentioned Mildred Bangs Wynkoop's Theology of Love...

Eric, while Wynkoop's work, "Theology of Love" is essentially important to our distinctive doctrine of holiness, this work is not designed to be a comprehensive "Systemmatic or Integrative Theology."

[Ian Gentles]

Eric, while Wynkoop's work, "Theology of Love" is essentially important to our distinctive doctrine of holiness, this work is not designed to be a comprehensive "Systemmatic or Integrative Theology."

What exactly do we mean by "Intagrative Theology"?

[Mike Schutz]

Can't believe no one has mentioned Mildred Bangs Wynkoop's Theology of Love...

I love Wynkoop, and this book was essential in my becoming a Nazarene. Use it in teaching holiness, but it is not, nor was intended to be, a full-orbed presentation of our theology.

[Mike Schutz]

I had been out of college for about 14 years when God called me to preach, and when I began my Bible College courses, the first course offered in the rotation at the site most convenient to me was Theology I, and the second was Theology II. Both courses used Introduction to Christian Theology by Wiley, and Grace, Faith, and Holiness by Dunning. While we had to read both texts for both courses, the first course was taught by a professor who used primarily Wiley, and the second course was taught by a professor who used primarily Dunning. I found Wiley easier to understand, especially when, during the first week's reading assignment I read the following in a sentence from Dunning, "When we extrapolate the hermeneutics..."

To this day when my wife and I are discussing something (for instance, a sermon idea I might have) that has the possibility of being over the head of the average listener, we will say something about that the idea is like "extrapolating the hermeneutics."

I think many folks share your opinion. However, I find Dunning easier to read and understand than Wiley. Well, maybe that is not correct. I find Dunning's presentation of key theological issues to be more in line with the way I think. I understand Wiley, I just have a more difficult time explaining Wiley's thinking process to students than I do Dunning's.

Perhaps it is similar to the way we used to talk about middle school students and math. Some students just seem to find algebra easier, others geometry. One fit the way they thought more than the other. (For me, I never got either of them. I preferred literature and history. Perhaps that is why I would rather read Lodahl than either Dunning or Wiley.)

[Pete Vecchi]

I think many folks share your opinion. However, I find Dunning easier to read and understand than Wiley. Well, maybe that is not correct. I find Dunning's presentation of key theological issues to be more in line with the way I think. I understand Wiley, I just have a more difficult time explaining Wiley's thinking process to students than I do Dunning's.

Perhaps it is similar to the way we used to talk about middle school students and math. Some students just seem to find algebra easier, others geometry. One fit the way they thought more than the other. (For me, I never got either of them. I preferred literature and history. Perhaps that is why I would rather read Lodahl than either Dunning or Wiley.)

To be honest, it's been 19 years this month since I began that Theology I course where I first read the immortal words "extrapolate the hermeneutics" and that course went for one quarter (through November, 1993). The next quarter for Theology II went from December, 1993 to February, 1994. Since that time I may have picked up the Introduction to Christian Theology and the Grace, Faith, and Holiness books each about 4 times--and 2 of those times were when I put them into a box to move from my home office to the church I was called to pastor in 2004, and to take them out of the box to put them on the shelf in my church office with the rest of my books.

The point is, I can't say I know how each of the authors compares with the way I think, because I honestly haven't read anything by them in years; I haven't found a need to do so.

Just being honest.

[Jim Abrams]

My systematic classes used H. R. Dunning and all three volumes of Thomas C. Oden's Systematic theology (vol.1 The Living God, vol. 2 The Word of Life, Vol. 3 Life in the Spirit). Both continue to have a profound influence on me to this day. It was only years after I entered the ministry that I encountered Wiley's Christian Theology. I'm so glad to have had Dunning and Oden to help me make sense of Wiley! Although, I have a great appreciation for him and his pioneering works I have to admit that I do not find him very helpful. I'm looking forward to Dr. Noble's work.

[Eric Frey]

Eric, while Wynkoop's work, "Theology of Love" is essentially important to our distinctive doctrine of holiness, this work is not designed to be a comprehensive "Systemmatic or Integrative Theology."

Yeah... I thought of that after I posted it. It was required for one of my systematics courses (maybe 2 of them) so I was just thinking of texts that I'd used in systematics... Sorry.

[Benjamin Burch]

Are universities using systematic theology texts as primary textbooks? At ONU we used McGrath's two-volume series which is not at all a systematic theology, but a comprehensive survey of theology. Those are two very different things.

[Billy Cox]

While we had to read both texts for both courses, the first course was taught by a professor who used primarily Wiley, and the second course was taught by a professor who used primarily Dunning.

Haha. Behold the Nazarene approach to conflict management. "We can have it both ways, and call it middle ground."

Well, at least it wasn't one professor using Dunning and the other using Grider (which was written as a direct counterpoint to Dunning). Theological whiplash can be a painful experience.

[Billy Cox]

I love Wynkoop, and this book was essential in my becoming a Nazarene. Use it in teaching holiness, but it is not, nor was intended to be, a full-orbed presentation of our theology.

Every time someone reads Wynkoop, Richard Taylor does one counter-clockwise turn in his grave.

[Cam Pence]

Every time someone reads Wynkoop, Richard Taylor does one counter-clockwise turn in his grave.

Well, i mean, she did kill the Holiness Movement :-)

[Billy Cox]

Well, i mean, she did kill the Holiness Movement :-)

I love when an obscure allusion comes together.

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

I know Wileys Theology was writen at denominations request. Today in the Seminary, colleges/universities, has the COTN a prefered Systematic Theology? Do we still use Wiley?

Both Wiley and Dunning were recommended texts for my Integrative Theology classes at NTS (with the assumption that we had read them in prior classes, I think). Thomas Oden's three volume theology was required reading. I very much enjoyed both Dunning and Oden's work. I still refer to both of them on various issues.

Alister McGrath was used for my Intro to Theology course, but his would not be considered a systematic theology. It more covers the history of theology. Also, I didn't think it was very Wesleyan.

Dr. Noble is writing a new systematic theology, but I'm not sure that even he knows the expected completion date.

Also, Integrative Theology is the same as systematic theology. I'm not sure about other schools, but Dr. Noble chose to change the name because he wanted to move past the tendency to isolate different aspects of theology and instead attempt to "integrate" theological concepts.

[Todd Erickson]

Just as long as it's not the "Reflecting God" text, which was apparently written by committee, and bows to the patron saint of the church, Max Lucado.