Puzzlement re:denominational categories in Systematic Theologies

I ran a passage guide on Gen 1:1-3 and had results that puzzled me for at least 2 theologians.

Under Theology Proper ==> Independent I find Thomas Ridgley's a Body of Divinity From what I read (see link on his name) he appears to be lecturing on The Westminster Larger Catechism. So what is "independent" that places a Calvinist in it?

Under Theology Proper ==> Other I find Origen whom I would expect to find under Catholic, Orthodox, Pre-schism, Classical heresy ... but certainly not "Other" as much of his theology is seminal and mainstream ... and only particular topics place him in heretical territory

Under Theology Proper ==> Non-denominational I find Carl F. H. Henry who, from Wikipedia I would expect to find under evangelical. I understand that many evangelicals strongly prefer to call themselves "nondenominational". However, much of the Campbell-Stone movement also strongly prefer to call themselves "nondenominational" but there are strong differences between to two "nondenominationals". How am I to distinguish them?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rosie Perera

I can tell they've opened a can of worms with this. Diet of Worms, anyone? Now what category did they put Luther in?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730430#Comment_730430

They put Luther where he belongs "Catholic lite"[;)] And, yes, it is Lutherans who taught me that response.

JAL

I ran a passage guide on Gen 1:1-3 and had results that puzzled me for at least 2 theologians.

In case you're wondering, the denomination/tradition categorization is based on the known denomination/tradition preference/statement of the resource author.

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/105353/730279.aspx#730279

How am I to distinguish them?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730454#Comment_730454

In case you're wondering, the denomination/tradition categorization is based on the known denomination/tradition preference/statement of the resource author.

Unfortunately we all know that this statement is a gross simplification as Logos has taken the thousands of answers the various authors would have stated as their group and slotted them into a manageable number of categories. I checked carefully and didn't find any Apostolic Lutherans ( a Pietist Laplander/Finnish/Swedish branch of Lutheran ... they seem to be folder into Lutheranism. There are a view others where the classification theory escapes me but if I understand the rationale of a few cases that seem "odd", I should be able to see the full classification scheme. I'm not asking where the person should be - I'm asking for the definition of the category that makes me understand why they are there.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730460#Comment_730460

Denomination classification is a really nice feature to have, but as Rosie said this could be a real can of worms. It's only a good feature if a user is happy with the classification, and if you have followed the "Theology and Denomination" Faithlife group Collections project, which IMHO has been wildly successful, there is tons of polite disagreement and even uncertainty on authors' classifications.

I would suggest this, to make this feature bulletproof - let Faithlife categorize these resources as they are now, but expose a new resource field that we can see in the Library, which starts out blank. If we add the name of a denomination there, it uses that as its new classification. So in theory I go to Luther's "95 Theses" and I can enter into that new resource field "Progressive Catholic" (example showing it could be anything), and it will show up in that section when I run Systematic Theologies.

That way, if someone doesn't like some of the defaults (and no one will be pleased with where all resources are located), they can change them. And if you think about it, if a user always has to expand into sections they normally wouldn't look at only because in their mind a resource(s) is mis-categorized, why have the classifications at all? It is only a good feature if a user likes the classifications.

My .02..

John Brumett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730484#Comment_730484

I would suggest this, to make this feature bulletproof - let Faithlife categorize these resources as they are now, but expose a new resource field that we can see in the Library, which starts out blank. If we add the name of a denomination there, it uses that as its new classification. So in theory I go to Luther's "95 Theses" and I can enter into that new resource field "Progressive Catholic" (example showing it could be anything), and it will show up in that section when I run Systematic Theologies.

I agree. This would function like a custom guide for theologies. Please let us create our own categories.

Fr Devin Roza

Under Theology Proper ==> Other I find Origen whom I would expect to find under Catholic, Orthodox, Pre-schism, Classical heresy ... but certainly not "Other" as much of his theology is seminal and mainstream ... and only particular topics place him in heretical territory

I prefer having the classification than not having it. Some authors might be borderline, but it's a good start, and is important to get an initial orientation regarding systematic theologies. Plus, most systematic theologies are late enough that you avoid the more controversial debates.

Regarding Origen... I'm a fan of Origen myself, and so is Pope-emeritus Benedict for that matter (he dedicated 3 general audiences to his thought!), but "Other" is understandable. Origen personally spoke of himself as being Catholic (cf. Homilies on Joshua), and even said he would accept whatever the Church discerned regarding some of his more controversial ideas... but for better or for worse that same Church later condemned him as a heretic (after death). So... "other" makes sense. We just have to remember to look there. Same can be said for Tertullian, who went from Catholic to Montanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian).

That being said - this is really the type of thing that needs to be documented. If there is a clear criteria that is used to decide borderline cases, that should be included as well in the documentation, I think.

I would be in favor of allowing some sort of user classification as well... how about allowing users to "star" certain resources or traditions? Users could have a "favorites" section that would include the works from their tradition(s) + favorite resources, all lumped together. So, if someone wanted "Catholic" + Origen + Tertullian, for example, they would just star Catholic, then the individual works or Origen and Tertullian. Etc.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730509#Comment_730509

Remember, folks, this is in beta. So thanks for all the feedback, and keep it coming.

We're working on some documentation (going a little slow because I bashed my left index finger with the back end of an ax while driving a fence post in my garden over the weekend). Below is a list of denominational groups with a short comment/gloss about them. Regarding Origen, he is a puzzle — I don't believe we've actually classified his work (yet) which is why he's in "Other" right now.

Please, note the basic purpose of this grouping. It is not to have a perfect, comprehensive, hierarchical taxonomy of Christian tradition (ugh, is that even possible?); instead it is to place resources in hopefully useful groups for folks to better consider these references *before* they click the destination. There will be shortcomings and huge assumptions, but we hope it provides more light than heat.

That said, here's what we've got so far.

Adventist: The author of the work is identified with Adventism
Anabaptist/Mennonite: The author of the work is identified with an Anabaptist or Mennonite group
Anglican: The author of the work is identified with an Anglican or Episcopalian group
Baptist: The author of the work is identified with a Baptist group
Catholic: The author of the work is identified with Catholicism
Independent: The author of the work is identified with an independent church or group
Lutheran: The author of the work is identified with a Lutheran church or group
Methodist/Wesleyan: The author of the work is identified with a Methodist or Wesleyan group
Nondenominational: The author of the work is not associated with a particular denominational group
Orthodox: The author of the work is identified with the Orthodox Church (Eastern, Greek, Russian, or some other branch of Orthodox faith)
Other: The author of the work is identified with a group such as Church of God (Anderson, IN or Cleveland TN), Churches of Christ, or the United Church of Christ (Or, at present, the author of the work is not yet classified.)
Pentecostal: The author of the work is identified with a Pentecostal or Charismatic group
Presbyterian: The author of the work is identified with a Presbyterian church or group
Reformed: The author of the work is identified with a Reformed church or group

Thanks.

Also, on user-level classification: I'd recommend making a collection of the resources you want to include (your faves, or some other automatic collection), then use the guide section's "Settings" drop-down to filter to just that collection. If a resource in that collection is considered to be a systematic theology (current categorized list of 137 titles available in this post: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/105353/730572.aspx#730572) then it'll show up in the guide section.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730605#Comment_730605

Can people be considered in two groups, they will show up in both? There are quite a few authors considered and published in Catholic and Orthodox liturgy books for example.

EDIT: Just saw your list of the first 137 - probably no conflicts in the first group of people although I may be wrong.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730613#Comment_730613

Can people be considered in two groups, they will show up in both? There are quite a few authors considered and published in Catholic and Orthodox liturgy books for example.

At present, the answer is "No." Largely because of the thought it would lead several to report bugs of duplicated content.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730615#Comment_730615

Can people be considered in two groups, they will show up in both? There are quite a few authors considered and published in Catholic and Orthodox liturgy books for example.

At present, the answer is "No." Largely because of the thought it would lead several to report bugs of duplicated content.

That's highly unfortunate, because it means that Faithlife is going to intentionally mis-classify almost every single Christian author in its entire collection who wrote in the first thousand years of Christianity, from Augustine to Clement to the Cappadocians to John Damascene to John Chrysostom to Leo the Great... all of these people should be listed as both Orthodox and Catholic, because back then those weren't two different things.

EDIT: Well, I suppose there are the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians who split off before then, but if Faithlife carries any of their post-break early works, it doesn't have many.

Fr Devin Roza

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730605#Comment_730605

Also, on user-level classification: I'd recommend making a collection of the resources you want to include (your faves, or some other automatic collection), then use the guide section's "Settings" drop-down to filter to just that collection. If a resource in that collection is considered to be a systematic theology (current categorized list of 137 titles available in this post: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/105353/730572.aspx#730572) then it'll show up in the guide section.

Thanks, Rick. Works for me (looks like that option does still need to be added to the Custom Guides section, but I imagine you had that in mind already for a future beta).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730605#Comment_730605

That said, here's what we've got so far.

Adventist: The author of the work is identified with Adventism

Anabaptist/Mennonite: The author of the work is identified with an Anabaptist or Mennonite group

Anglican: The author of the work is identified with an Anglican or Episcopalian group

Baptist: The author of the work is identified with a Baptist group

Catholic: The author of the work is identified with Catholicism

Independent: The author of the work is identified with an independent church or group

Lutheran: The author of the work is identified with a Lutheran church or group

Methodist/Wesleyan: The author of the work is identified with a Methodist or Wesleyan group

Nondenominational: The author of the work is not associated with a particular denominational group

Orthodox: The author of the work is identified with the Orthodox Church (Eastern, Greek, Russian, or some other branch of Orthodox faith)

Other: The author of the work is identified with a group such as Church of God (Anderson, IN or Cleveland TN), Churches of Christ, or the United Church of Christ (Or, at present, the author of the work is not yet classified.)

Pentecostal: The author of the work is identified with a Pentecostal or Charismatic group

Presbyterian: The author of the work is identified with a Presbyterian church or group

Reformed: The author of the work is identified with a Reformed church or group

Thanks Rick. This answers most of my questions and it reasonably understandable. my preferences that contrast with this, once I've seen your full list:

Restoration Movement ought to have their own category.
I am startled that the Congregational/UCC thread of theology is under other as I think of them as more influential than that
I still think pre-schism church fathers belong equally as Orthodox and Catholic. I feel strongly about this as there are many who have an anti-Catholic bias but are quite willing to read the same material when labeled orthodox.
I don't care for your definition of Orthodox because it obscures the historical factor of three major churches - Pre-calcedonian (Oriental Orthodox), Byzantine and Western and implies very wrongly that the Oriental Orthodox are simply a flavor of Eastern Orthodox. Therefore I would like your definition of Orthodox to explicit acknowledge it to be the combination of the Byzantine Orthodox (Greek, Russian et al) and the Oriental Orthodox (Pre-Calcedonian)

I'm going to try to diagram out your divisions and see if I identify any other oddities.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730618#Comment_730618

That's highly unfortunate, because it means that Faithlife is going to intentionally mis-classify almost every single Christian author in its entire collection who wrote in the first thousand years of Christianity, from Augustine to Clement to the Cappadocians to John Damascene to John Chrysostom to Leo the Great... all of these people should be listed as both Orthodox and Catholic, because back then those weren't two different things.

We understand the issue, but using two labels isn't necessarily the only way out. For example, we could create a label to represent material from these authors before Orthodox and Catholic were "two different things." Also note, the Systematic Theologies Passage Guide section doesn't attempt to classify every author available in Verbum/Logos resources; it only classifies a select group of resources (137 at present) that can be reliably understood as Systematic Theologies.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730618#Comment_730618

That's highly unfortunate, because it means that Faithlife is going to intentionally mis-classify almost every single Christian author in its entire collection who wrote in the first thousand years of Christianity, from Augustine to Clement to the Cappadocians to John Damascene to John Chrysostom to Leo the Great... all of these people should be listed as both Orthodox and Catholic, because back then those weren't two different things.

EDIT: Well, I suppose there are the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians who split off before then, but if Faithlife carries any of their post-break early works, it doesn't have many.

I have request that Faithlife do one of two things:

create a pre-schism category
duplicate all pre-schism theologians in the Catholic and the Orthodox categories.

I am not keen on trying to make any distinctions among pre-schism authors (think Origen & Tertullian).

In my own library classification, I went with:

Pre-Calcedonian / start of Oriental Orthodox group
Caledonian to Schism / start of Catholic and Byzantine (Eastern) Orthodox group
Schism to Reformation / start of the plethora of Protestant groups

many separate groups of the post reformation

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730624#Comment_730624

Thanks, Rick. Works for me (looks like that option does still need to be added to the Custom Guides section,

It's already there- just hidden

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730662#Comment_730662

We understand the issue, but using two labels isn't necessarily the only way out. For example, we could create a label to represent material from these authors before Orthodox and Catholic were "two different things."

That would be a good way out, as long as I can, say, simultaneously search for Pre-Schism* and Catholic (or Pre-Schism and Orthodox) materials with all of the same functionality with which I could search for just Catholic or just Orthodox materials.

*I'm not suggesting this as the label.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730659#Comment_730659

Thanks Rick.

You're welcome!

I'm going to try to diagram out your divisions and see if I identify any other oddities.

Thanks. The feedback is valuable and I'm looking forward to learning of any other rough edges you (and others) can help identify.

Part of the issue has to do with available resources. For example, there is only one self-identifed 'Orthodox' systematic theology in Logos at present (not taking into account previous and ongoing discussion about the Catholic/Orthodox terminology conundrum), so having multiple Orthodox categories isn't necessary right now.

Everyone: Know we're talking internally about this (really, I paused a few times while writing this to answer and send email in an internal discussion). Not sure what the solution will be.

Yay, beta releases! Honestly, we do appreciate all the feedback to help us make the Systematic Theologies Passage Guide section the best it can be for 6.4 release.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730669#Comment_730669

We understand the issue, but using two labels isn't necessarily the only way out. For example, we could create a label to represent material from these authors before Orthodox and Catholic were "two different things."

That would be a good way out, as long as I can, say, simultaneously search for Pre-Schism* and Catholic (or Pre-Schism and Orthodox) materials with all of the same functionality with which I could search for just Catholic or just Orthodox materials.

*I'm not suggesting this as the label.

Yes, coming up with a name for said label that most folks would easily understand is a problem (like how I dodged it in my earlier response to you?)

Any thoughts about using some sort of temporal terminology for resources that find themselves in that pre-schism period? (e.g. "Patristic" and "Medieval"?)

Fr Devin Roza

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730665#Comment_730665

I have request that Faithlife do one of two things:

create a pre-schism category

duplicate all pre-schism theologians in the Catholic and the Orthodox categories.

If I had to choose between these two suggestions, I would prefer duplicating in the Catholic and Orthodox categories when appropriate.

All the authors listed so far pre-schism openly identified themselves as Catholics, and are considered as such by Catholics (except at times of his life Tertullian).

Obviously these pre-schism authors are also validly considered as part of the Orthodox tradition as well.

For both Catholics and Orthodox, unity within tradition is quite important, both from a historical point of view (e.g. succession of bishops back to apostolic times) as well as a theological perspective (e.g. continuity of theological thought throughout these 2000 years, etc.). Both Churches consider that what Christians believed in 100 is what they believed in 500, and in 1000, and in 1500, and in 2000, obviously with development, but a development that respects the core and grows from it, guided by the Holy Spirit.

I think dividing these traditions along a pre-post schism would not reflect that historical and theological unity of tradition present in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Duplicating the entries, when appropriate, would respect that.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730674#Comment_730674

Any thoughts about using some sort of temporal terminology for resources that find themselves in that pre-schism period? (e.g. "Patristic" and "Medieval"?)

Yes, I do have some thoughts. Medieval doesn't work before the era starts too late--the early medieval era isn't understand to begin until about St. Augustine and it definitely ends long after AD 1054.

Patristic is better, but not perfect, because that era ends with the Damascene in AD 750, as you're presumably well aware. It does, however, safely include even the Apostolic Fathers. Now, there wasn't all that much written between AD 750 of note until after the Great Schism, and most of it was basically commentary on the patristic authors. I would think it pretty safe to include anything in there in the Patristic categorization for Faithlife's purposes, though.

So I would support a Patristic categorization name. It would be nearly technically accurate and understandable by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. There might be a better category name... but I have no idea what it is.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730685#Comment_730685

All the authors listed so far pre-schism openly identified themselves as Catholics, and are considered as such by Catholics (except at times of his life Tertullian).
Obviously these pre-schism authors are also validly considered as part of the Orthodox tradition as well.
For both Catholics and Orthodox, unity within tradition is quite important, both from a historical point of view (e.g. succession of bishops back to apostolic times) as well as a theological perspective (e.g. continuity of theological thought throughout these 2000 years, etc.). Both Churches consider that what Christians believed in 100 is what they believed in 500, and in 1000, and in 1500, and in 2000, obviously with development, but a development that respects the core and grows from it, guided by the Holy Spirit.
I think dividing these traditions along a pre-post schism would not reflect that historical and theological unity of tradition present in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Duplicating the entries, when appropriate, would respect that.

Fr Devin makes a very good argument, which I fully accept. Notwithstanding my last post, I would still prefer a Catholic and Orthodox duplication.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730694#Comment_730694

Yes, I do have some thoughts. Medieval doesn't work before the era starts too late--the early medieval era isn't understand to begin until about St. Augustine and it definitely ends long after AD 1054.

Yep. My thoughts were of the pre-1000 'start' of that era, but forgot to consider the end of it.

Patristic is better, but not perfect, because that era ends with the Damascene in AD 750, as you're presumably well aware. It does, however, safely include even the Apostolic Fathers.

That is in its favor. I'm sorry I didn't think of it (and very glad a colleague here at Logos did).

So I would support a Patristic categorization name. It would be nearly technically accurate and understandable by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. There might be a better category name... but I have no idea what it is.

Thanks, we appreciate the insight and feedback. (And I did see your followup, too).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730696#Comment_730696

I also prefer the Catholic/Orthodox duplication for two reasons:

it puts the historical perspective in one continuous thread of development
it provides a way to handle borderline cases rather than imposing an arbitrary date cutoff.

However, I would be satisfied by a Patristics/Preschism solution.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730702#Comment_730702

As promised earlier using Wikipedia as the "common knowledge" model:

The Faithlife groups:

Orthodox includes [Early Christianity], Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church
Catholic includes Early Christianity, "Roman Catholicism": Western Rites, "Roman Catholicism": Eastern Rites
Anglican includes Anglicanism but is modified by the second chart
Protestantism - see second chart
Anabaptist/Mennonite includes Anabaptistism

The Wikipedia Restorationist group has no equivalent in the Faithlife classification.

The Faithlife groups:

Adventist: The author of the work is identified with Adventism
Anabaptist/Mennonite: Includes Anabaptists also see above
Anglican: includes Anglicanism also see above
Baptist: includes Baptists
Catholic: See section above
Independent: not identified in Wikipedia chart
Lutheran: includes Lutheran and Pietism
Methodist/Wesleyan: includes Methodists
Nondenominational: not identified in Wikipedia chart
Orthodox: See section above
Other: includes Congregationalists and Holiness movement???
Pentecostal: includes Pentecostalism
Presbyterian: includes Presbyterians
Reformed: includes Continental Reformed Churches

The Wikipedia Puritan/Separatists group has no equivalent in the Faithlife classification

I would like to see the Faithlife groups brought closer to alignment with the Wikipedia model which means:

duplication the early Christian works under Catholic and Orthodox
Adding Restoration movement
More explicit handling of the puritan/Separatists and Congregationalists
More explicit handling of the Holiness movement.
Reserving the category of "others" to groups outside the Wikipedia scheme
A clarification of the category "independent"

John Brumett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730674#Comment_730674

Rick: Thannks for your willlingness to hear our feedback. I have a list of Theologies that should all be classified under the catagory of Dispensational

I posted this in the Forum under the title: Create Category Dispensational in Systematic Theologies Guide. Authors such as Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, Paul Enns, Lightner, Thiessen, Zuck and Swindoll. All of them have some connection with Dallas Theological Seminary which seminary I graduated from.

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730782#Comment_730782

I predict the potential for endless "feedback" for those tasked with this categorization project.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730949#Comment_730949

I predict the potential for endless "feedback" for those tasked with this categorization project.

True. This is one reason why we chose what appears to be the least subjective measure, the author's known denomination/tradition affiliation, as the resource-level classification. This has some issues with patristic authors (particularly pre-schism) as has been discussed, but that discussion has been helpful and focusing (thanks, all y'all involved there).

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730509#Comment_730509

I prefer having the classification than not having it. Some authors might be borderline, but it's a good start, and is important to get an initial orientation regarding systematic theologies. Plus, most systematic theologies are late enough that you avoid the more controversial debates.

[Y]

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730972#Comment_730972

What if we were to add an objective modifier based upon book publication dates and dates of denominational (for lack of a better word) transition.

Anything written by Clark Pinock before he left SBC would still be SBC, but after he leaves SBC he'd be an open theist (or more likely, whatever denomination he's in now).

So IF lets say he left SBC in 1970, anything written by him to that point would be SBC, post 1970 would be listed under his new tradition.

To simplify things for those who would send bug reports, any time we have an individual who will appear under more than one category, have an "on mouse over" even that causes a box to popup and explain things It could say:

[quote]Clark Pinnock was SBC until (date), at which point he converted to (denomination) and is thus listed twice.

Or you could simply classify him as Neo-SBC/Proto-(New Denomination). Personally, I like the former better.

It may sound like a lot of work, but were only talking about 137 titles - probably by fewer authors.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730752#Comment_730752

I would like to see the Faithlife groups brought closer to alignment with the Wikipedia model which means:

duplication the early Christian works under Catholic and Orthodox

Adding Restoration movement

More explicit handling of the puritan/Separatists and Congregationalists

More explicit handling of the Holiness movement.

Reserving the category of "others" to groups outside the Wikipedia scheme

A clarification of the category "independent"

I would support these recommendations. It may not be an issue now, but going forward I wonder if a "Unitarian" or "Non-Trinitarian" category might also be appropriate as FaithLife adds more resources.

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730969#Comment_730969

I predict the potential for endless "feedback" for those tasked with this categorization project.

True. This is one reason why we chose what appears to be the least subjective measure, the author's known denomination/tradition affiliation, as the resource-level classification. This has some issues with patristic authors (particularly pre-schism) as has been discussed, but that discussion has been helpful and focusing (thanks, all y'all involved there).

If you can do it successfully, then I shall rise up and call you blessed. Personally, I think you'll have more success putting corners on a circle. The best solution might be to publish per your "least subjective measure" and then allow users to modify or override as they see fit.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731000#Comment_731000

Personally, I think you'll have more success putting corners on a circle. The best solution might be to publish per your "least subjective measure" and then allow users to modify or override as they see fit.

[Y]

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730975#Comment_730975

abondservant inspired me with another concern--about converts claimed by two groups. I'll use an example person that I'm very familiar with even though he never wrote a systematic theology as this project seems to define it.

John Henry Newman (1801-1890) was one of the leading lights of Anglicanism when he became Catholic in 1845. Faithlife carries 10 volumes of sermons he delivered as an Anglican and two as a Catholic (as well as numerous other works). Those early sermons were written and preached by an Anglican priest to Anglican congregations in Anglican services. It doesn't get much more Anglican than that. Yet far more Catholics would be confused and unhappy to find Newman's Anglican sermons not listed as Catholic than to find them listed only as Anglican. To complicate things further, Newman wrote his classic and highly influential Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which Faithlife carries, as an Anglican cleric, but he published it unaltered after becoming a Catholic layman, with a note at the beginning about how he had sought the input of a Catholic bishop who'd told him to publish it as is. Furthermore, a number of Newman's Anglican works were late republished in editions slightly altered in accordance with his later Catholic views... large parts were reprinted verbatim.

If Faithlife is at all interested in reusing the classification system being developed for systematic theologies for anything else, how to deal with thorny cases like Newman's should be clearly figured out now.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731042#Comment_731042

Unfortunately, one has to use a judgment that I don't want Faithlife to make for me. Examples:

Jaroslav Pelikan who anyone reading knew was Catholic despite his claim to be Lutheran and his conversion on retirement to Eastern Orthodox
George Maloney who was Eastern Rite Catholic until he wanted to retire to an Orthodox monastery not a Latin Jesuit house

I personally lump Catholic (Western), Catholic (Eastern under the guise of Orthodox) Anglo-Catholic (Anglican minus those I'm not fond of) and Catholic lite (my ELCA daughter-in-law's term for Lutherans minus the "low church" fellows) into a single theological category - knowing in each case the 1-3 points of distinction between the groups. Several of the Protestant groups I don't know well enough to know the distinctions so I take whatever categories are thrown at me in particular circumstances.

My corcern is only that Faithlife provide understandable and commonly used classes - beyond that, I'll think for myself.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731091#Comment_731091

I would want to see C.S. Lewis as Catholic although any belief he professed to Catholicism on his deathbed, or soon before, is unverifiable. I guess at least some of these desires we have are because an author writes what resonates to us in our belief despite what they say they are [8-|]

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730702#Comment_730702

I also prefer the Catholic/Orthodox duplication for two reasons:

it puts the historical perspective in one continuous thread of development

it provides a way to handle borderline cases rather than imposing an arbitrary date cutoff.

However, I would be satisfied by a Patristics/Preschism solution.

The more I think about this, the less comfortable I am with a simple Catholic/Orthodox duplication. Pretty much everybody claims the early church fathers. For the sake of those who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox, I'd like to suggest:

Catholic/Orthodox/Patristic duplication; or
Patristic/Preschism

Either would seem a more Protestant-friendly solution than labeling these works Catholic/Orthodox.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731218#Comment_731218

Pretty much everybody claims the early church fathers. For the sake of those who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox, I'd like to suggest:

Catholic/Orthodox/Patristic duplication; or

Patristic/Preschism

Either would seem a more Protestant-friendly solution than labeling these works Catholic/Orthodox.

This is why I had originally suggested a pre-schism group as one option. However, I came to the conclusion that as live theology the early church writings have little influence in most American Protestant theology. For example, J. I. Packer's Concise Theology:

or C. C. Ryrie's A Survey of Bible Doctrine

vs. the Orthodox Christos Yannaras' Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology

Or Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity:

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/730700#Comment_730700

Rick Brannen, I see today that people like Aquinas and Alexander of Hales have now been reclassified as medieval, rather than Catholic. This is fantastically counter-productive. They were Catholics. They were not Orthodox. They were not Protestants. And they were not their own church or ecclesial community unto themselves. There is no theological or historical ambiguity about this. No one but Catholics claim these people as members of their own church or denomination, and rightly so. There is no theological, ecclesiastical, or denominational separation between Aquinas and the post-Reformation Catholic theologians now labelled as "Modern Catholic[s]". None. Whoever severed these medieval figures from their proper affiliations made a grievous if well-intentioned mistake. Please undo it.

The moment an Orthodox person sees a medieval-era Orthodox theologian mis-classified as other-than-Orthodox, I expect that person to be displeased too.

Gabe Martini (Faithlife)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731286#Comment_731286

Rick Brannen, I see today that people like Aquinas and Alexander of Hales have now been reclassified as medieval, rather than Catholic. This is fantastically counter-productive. They were Catholics. They were not Orthodox. They were not Protestants. And they were not their own church or ecclesial community unto themselves. There is no theological or historical ambiguity about this. No one but Catholics claim these people as members of their own church or denomination, and rightly so. There is no theological, ecclesiastical, or denominational separation between Aquinas and the post-Reformation Catholic theologians now labelled as "Modern Catholic". None. Whoever severed these medieval figures from their proper affiliations made a grievous if well-intentioned mistake. Please undo it.

The moment an Orthodox person sees a medieval-era Orthodox theologian mis-classified as other-than-Orthodox, I expect that person to be displeased too.

FWIW, it was both Orthodox and Catholic employees at Faithlife that suggested a lot of these changes, so don't be hard on Rick. [:)]

There's no perfect way to do this, which I hope we can all appreciate. In the end, we just want to make it easy to find your results in certain texts, not take any theological position.

As it stands currently, "Medieval" is a period spanning the death of John of Damascus (AD 749) through the beginning of the Reformation. Many scholars would mark the end of the "Medieval period" with the fall of Constantinople (AD 1453). Our thought was to classify everything before the end of that period as "Patristic" (from the Apostolic era through John of Damascus), and then everything until the Reformation as "Medieval." From there, we'd follow denominational/ecclesiastical distinctions (which is where "Modern" Catholic and Orthodox come in).

That being said, we're also trying to take into account both the number of works currently in our format that fit within those periods, and what avoids making distinctions between East/West figures (when both communions would claim them as their own). Even with Thomas Aquinas, there is a lot of interest in his work in the East, all the way through important figures like Gennadios Scholarios, the first Constantinopolitan Patriarch of the Ottoman yoke. No one would claim he's an "Orthodox figure," but there is other work during this period that finds a home in both the East and West. This avoids that complication, IMO.

In the end, there's only so many texts (in our format) that could be considered "Systematic Theologies" and that would fit within this period.

We're still working through this, and are open to further discussion. I just didn't want you to think this was being done with malicious intent or with a non-Catholic/non-Orthodox bias. [:)]

Please continue to offer feedback.

Thank you!

Jacob Cerone

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731329#Comment_731329

Also, please know that we are listening to your insights and suggestions regarding a better classifications of Protestant denominations such as Other, Independent, etc.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731329#Comment_731329

Gabe - for my own purposes I've been down the pre-Calcedonian, pre-schism, pre-reformation route which is close to what you are doing under different titles. I found it somewhat difficult to get use because dates are not something I remember well so I was always looking for borderline theologians in the wrong place. And to some extent it "felt wrong" to segment continuous history. However, once I adjusted, it works well And it does force one to keep the major points in Church history in mind. And I find it helps me keep in mind the distinctions between the ACELO Churches (Anglican-Catholic-Eastern Orthodox-Luther-Oriental Orthodox),

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731284#Comment_731284

This is why I had originally suggested a pre-schism group as one option. However, I came to the conclusion that as live theology the early church writings have little influence in most American Protestant theology.

My impression is a little different. For instance, Michael Horton references the early church writings fairly frequently in his The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. I've also had several Protestant professors who have routinely assigned pre-schism readings. Granted, most have come from a Reformed background, and that's reflected in their assignments, but they do look outside of that tradition (and often place a fair amount of emphasis on the ecumenical councils).

On a personal note, I think anything that helps more Christians connect directly with the early church is beneficial.

Gabe Martini (Faithlife)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731341#Comment_731341

Gabe - for my own purposes I've been down the pre-Calcedonian, pre-schism, pre-reformation route which is close to what you are doing under different titles. I found it somewhat difficult to get use because dates are not something I remember well so I was always looking for borderline theologians in the wrong place. And to some extent it "felt wrong" to segment continuous history. However, once I adjusted, it works well And it does force one to keep the major points in Church history in mind. And I find it helps me keep in mind the distinctions between the ACELO Churches (Anglican-Catholic-Eastern Orthodox-Luther-Oriental Orthodox),

Thanks for the feedback, MJ. We also considered Ante-Nicene, Patristic, Medieval, but decided that, given the number of applicable texts, there wasn't a real need to get that dissected.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731353#Comment_731353

My impression is a little different. For instance, Michael Horton references the early church writings fairly frequently in his The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. I've also had several Protestant professors who have routinely assigned pre-schism readings. Granted, most have come from a Reformed background, and that's reflected in their assignments, but they do look outside of that tradition (and often place a fair amount of emphasis on the ecumenical councils).

My experience, except with the Restorationists, is erratic - and in the last decade or so being pretty much what Logos foisted on me in packages. So I'll easily concede you may be right.

On a personal note, I think anything that helps more Christians connect directly with the early church is beneficial.

Hear ! Hear !

JAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731353#Comment_731353

This is why I had originally suggested a pre-schism group as one option. However, I came to the conclusion that as live theology the early church writings have little influence in most American Protestant theology.

My impression is a little different.

As is mine - Sproul, Horton & Company (White Horse Inn | Modern Reformation), and Boice immediately come to mind. Others do too, but I am less certain. Crossan and Borg perhaps.

EDIT: This post was not meant to be argumentative. I posted without thinking how it might seem I was piling on.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731376#Comment_731376

Being the curious sort I tried again using the following criteria

the resource is included in the Logos theologians dataset
it is in my library
it is a single volume (concordance can't merge collections yet)

This is NOT a scientific sample. But I highlighted references to creeds & confessions (purple) and patristic sources (yellow). Enlarge it so that you can see the counts - there is a very wide range in the relative frequency of use of the different classes of material.

Fr Devin Roza

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731329#Comment_731329

We're still working through this, and are open to further discussion. I just didn't want you to think this was being done with malicious intent or with a non-Catholic/non-Orthodox bias.

Thanks Gabe.

I'm not seeing these new categories yet, but the good thing about this type of classification (and it is a very good thing), is that it invites non-Catholic/Orthodox users to immerse themselves more in the Church Fathers and Medieval Christian authors.

Regarding the division, if you are going to go this route I prefer Patristic + Medieval over the other proposals that have come up in this thread, and the division at 749 and Reformation seems fine to me, although I would be just fine with 1453 as well. I also like how the terms "Modern" before Catholic/Orthodox leave open the fact that authors prior to these referred to themselves as Catholic, or occasionally as Orthodox, and certainly show an incredible continuity of thought between Patristic, Medieval, and Modern eras. The adjective "modern" implies continuity in development, which is accurate. I would prefer it over other adjectives like "Roman", "Eastern", etc. that would seem to limit geographically instead of temporally.

The main problem with the division and adjective, of course, is that there really isn't a break on behalf of Catholics or Orthodox even if there is development and reform at different moments of our history... but every solution has it's advantages and disadvantages, and this solution is fine with me as well.

Fr Devin Roza

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731383#Comment_731383

Being the curious sort I tried again using the following criteria

the resource is included in the Logos theologians dataset

it is in my library

it is a single volume (concordance can't merge collections yet)

This is NOT a scientific sample. But I highlighted references to creeds & confessions (purple) and patristic sources (yellow). Enlarge it so that you can see the counts - there is a very wide range in the relative frequency of use of the different classes of material.

Thank you. Very interesting.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/731390#Comment_731390

Being the curious sort I tried again using the following criteria

the resource is included in the Logos theologians dataset

it is in my library

it is a single volume (concordance can't merge collections yet)

This is NOT a scientific sample. But I highlighted references to creeds & confessions (purple) and patristic sources (yellow). Enlarge it so that you can see the counts - there is a very wide range in the relative frequency of use of the different classes of material.

Thank you. Very interesting.

Not only is it interesting, but I'm blown away by M.J.'s skills with the software. Clearly, I am no where near unlocking the full power of the system.