Theology is for Proclamation
Systematic theology, whatever else it might be for, has to be for proclamation. Not, heaven forbid, that systematic theology is what is to be proclaimed! That, I contend, is precisely one of the more persistent misadventures. Systematic theology, whether god or bad, gets substituted for and displaces proclamation. … systematic theology, while not itself to be confused with proclamation, should be the kind of thinking that advocates, fosters, and drives to proper proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ; it should be a systematic reflection that promotes the speaking of the promise. Such a systematic theology should be for proclamation in a double sense: it insists on proclamation; and it recognizes such insistence to be its ultimate purpose. That is, if systematic theology is done properly it will leave its practitioners in a position where they can, in order to complete their own task, do no other than proclaim.
… the question is not only whether the discipline is doing good but whether it might actually be doing some harm. Could it be that systematic theology as usually practiced actually frustrates the proclamation of the gospel? Such questioning may lend solace to those who have always thought evil in their hearts of the discipline, but the intent herre is quite the contrary. As the stock rejoinder has it: Every Christian who thinks at all about the faith or about what he or she is going to say or do, does systematic theology. It is done either well or ill, but done nevertheless. So the question raised here is directed to anyone who thinks at all about the faith and contemplates saying or doing something about it. Anyone who does such thinking and contemplation has to do some sort of systematic theology and should be concerned about doing it properly.
Proclamation … is explicit declaration of the good news, the gospel, the kerygma. It is at once more specific and more comprehensive than preaching, even through, as will also be the case here, we often use the two terms interchangeably. Proclamation is more specific than preaching because not all that we ordinarily call preaching–teaching, edifying, ethical exhortation, persuasion, apologies for Christian living–is necessarily proclamation. At the same time, proclamation is more comprehensive because it occurs apart from formal preaching, most notably in the sacraments and the liturgy, but also in the everyday mutual conversation of Christians.
Proclamation belongs to the primary discourse of the church. Systematic theology belongs to its secondary discourse. Primary discourse is the direct declaration of the Word of God, that is, that is, the Word from God, and the believing response in confession, prayer, and praise. Secondary discourse, words about God, is reflection on the primary discourse. As primary discourse, proclamation ideally is present-tense, first-to-second person unconditional promise authorized by what occurs in Jesus Christ according to the scriptures. The most apt paradigm for such speaking is the absolution: “I declare unto you the gracious forgiveness of all your sins in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Proclamation is not “about:” something other than itself, for example, “I baptize you…” The deed is done, unconditionally. It is not an account of what happened in the past, such as, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,” true as that is and, indeed, as much as it authorizes the primary discourse. Such accounts are past tense. Proclamation is present tense: I here and now give the gift to you, Christ himself, the body and blood of the Savior. I do it in both Word and sacrament. This is God’s present move, the current “mighty act” of the living God.
Via Forde’s Theology is for Proclamation, pp. vii-2. @Amazon
