This is also a repost from my myspace (and my last), but it is also fairly recent, as in… oh last friday.
I was reading a friend’s blog and the comments left on an article of his. One of the comments cites theopedia and I came away annoyed for two reasons.
First, I’ve looked at theopedia before, but I’ve been put off because on first look it seems like a democratized wikipedia, but it really *only* allows for a reformed and a hyper-literalized methodolical outlook which in my book restricts the conversation about the subject or the richness of the articles themselves. Encyclopedia’s do not have statments of faith.
“All of Theopedia’s content is, in accordance with the writing guide, required to conform to the following:
… Calvinism – Inasmuch as this refers to the five points of Calvinism and absolute predesination, we affirm it.
… Creation – We affirm a literal understanding of six-day creation.”
Not to mention that personally an editor must affirm:
“We believe the Bible is the written word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible is the revelation of God’s truth and is infallible and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice.”
Barth could not be allowed to be involved in the shaping of the website. Um… thats a fairly large exclusion and seems entirely counter to the point of theology – discussion. So point #1, one ought to proceed through theopedia with caution.
Unfortunately on the other hand, Gunton summaries do not seem to have a large presence on the internet, or Trinitarian Theology as a whole for that matter. Neither the Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology or Religion Online devote specific space, which is clearly a hole that will hopefully be fixed. The hole is worrisome, but points to a greater problem, or at least something that I think is problematic – the conversation about, or lack thereof, of Trinitarian theology.
Here at Union, whenever I refer back to a social Trinitarian God within my papers, teachers write good marks about it, but it rarely comes up in class. Thus, there isn’t necessarily a lack of acceptance in a very liberal seminary, but rather, little talk on it. And so I wonder, if Trinitarian theology is accepted by all manner of theologians, why is there seemingly little talk about it on the internet? It is not that people don’t ever talk about Gunton’s work or are impacted by it, so why is there seemingly, on the whole, a lack of talk on recent Trinitarian work?