Since its original publication, God-The World's Future, has been widely and successfully as a comprehensive textbook in systematic theology explicitly crafted in light of the postmodern context. It explains the whole body of Christian historical doctrine from within a "proleptic" framework, "whereby the gospel is understood as announcing the pre-actualization of the future consummation of all things in Jesus Christ." This concept is skillfully deployed not only to organize the various theological areas or loci but also to rethink doctrines in light of key postmodern challenges from ecumenism, critical historical thinking, contemporary science, and gender relations. In this edition, Peters has updated each chapter, made substantive changes in the book's treatment of God and Christ's "offices," and elaborated his theology in light of developments in feminist and deconstructive theologies.
I think Peters is right that we need to rethink theology in light of modernity and post-modernity. Some of his reformulations are fascinating, some are built on weaker foundations.
Good: - Continuing creation - Sin as unbecoming evil - Centrality of the gospel - Proleptic eschatology - Hermeneutical question - Critical consciousness
Bad: - Separation of gospel and scripture - Fails to address the origin of evil if there is no historical Adam - Practical arguments for progressive Church structures without addressing biblical or theological concerns
I just finished "God; The World's Future: Systematic Theology for a New Era," by Ted Peters.
Prolegomena: Postmodernism-- The only thing I believe I would nuance here is how "truth" and "interpretation" are different (or "truth" is a hollow word...and I'm afraid that modern use of "you have your truth" misses the definition of what the word means for what we want the word to mean): there is one truth for a thing and man has many interpretations of that. Otherwise it is very good getting into how in faith we have a naive or premodern one that goes into deconstruction as modern and then reconstruction as postmodern. I fully agree. He speaks to the texts layout as following a trinitarian structure. Lastly he speaks to symbols in a refreshing way. Symbols point to but never fully explain that to which that point.
God: Classical Theism-- for such a postmodern ST he is stuck in the classical theistic rut which he grounds in the "I Am statement to Moses, the fathers, and creeds; Platonism and Plotinism even get shou-outs. Because this move its not surprising that "love" seems distant and the attributes are not what is revealed of God in Jesus. He violates his rationality and coherence principal trying to articulate the timelessness of God. He nuances immutability with it referring to God's trustworthiness but why even use it? It lives too close to immutability which sees God in toto as unchanging. Trinity-- his suggestion of using "identity" rather than "person" or "subsistence" harks back to Tertullians theater masks in a creative attempt to regain the original meaning. Theosis-- he did a good though brief job describing this. The Eastern church gets too much heat for this concept and its nice to hear a clear description.
Jesus: Person and work-- there are some gems here like his description of Nestorianism, Chalcedonian and Monophysitism, but he also falls over himself asking if God is free to define Godself; remember he just got done painting a thick coat of Plato on the attributes of God, not mentioning "love" (unlike fellow Lutheran, Aulen), until quoting Wesley. Real good take on the resurrection via Pannenberg: this began the end of time. I then bought Pannenberg's "Jesus, God and Man."
Spirit: Gifts-- even though this book has a post modern focus, Peters brings us straight back to Azusa speaking to discerning of the Spirits. As people today reach for some form of Transcendence in mediums, new age, etc. there need be people who can clearly hear God's voice.