“Constructive theology is a method of doing Christian theology that takes seriously theological and church tradition as well as modern critiques of that tradition being something universal, eternal, or essential;” (Wyman, xxx)

The aforementioned quote, from Jason Wyman’s, Constructing Constructive Theology, intrigued me. In layman’s terms, I understand this to mean the both/and when piecing together, or apart, the nuances of constructive theology. However, what strikes me is how constructive has become so broad in its meaning. Thus, I have to ask, how do we be pluralistic and yet, still have a Christian identity if everything is acceptable? Yes, there are truths in the world, but what is ours as Christians? Do all truths count on the …show more content…
Human beings - including within the bounds of Christianity - are thoroughly economic creatures, always exchanging goods and services with one another for survival or enjoyment”. (Wyman, 107) I would appreciate more clarification as this a rather heady proposition. Is she saying that no matter the class, gender or race, our theology can be constructed or ascertained through our economics? May I assume she is referring or hoping to inspire activism and service into our economic hermeneutic? I would enjoy discussing her stance in further detail as it is dense, but fascinating. Finally, in chapter five, Wyman writes that there is a difference between systematic theology verses constructive theology. The former appears is as its namesake claims, a finite set of systems used in determining “god-talk”. Yet, constructive is more open. modern and pluralistic. However, I don’t believe the two are all that different, or perhaps a better way to phrase it is, the two processes are need each other. To quote Luther, you can’t have true freedom without rules or boundaries. This again begs the question I asked early on in this entry, how do we asses our own theological truth if everything is open for discussion? Is tradition a bad thing? Or is our theology opaque and