What do you think?
Rate this book
Ethics: Systematic Theology (Systematic Theology (Abingdon)), Vol. 1
When it first appeared in 1986, James McClendon's Ethics laid claim to two compelling theological ideas. First, that a highly distinctive theological perspective characterizes the inheritors of the sixteenth century's radical reformation. At the heart of this perspective is what McClendon calls the baptist vision, a way of understanding the gospel that emphasizes the church's distinction from the world, and its continuity with the church of the New Testament. Second, that because of its emphasis on the centrality of discipleship, this radical-reformation outlook insists that theology's first task is to discover and explore the shape of the church's common life as the body of Christ; hence McClendon's novel decision to begin the task of writing a systematic theology with a volume on ethics.
Since its first publication, Ethics has been followed by Doctrine (1994) and Witness (2000). The completion of the overall work has brought into sharper focus many of the theological and ethical issues and concerns central to the baptist tradition. In this revised edition of Ethics , McClendon infuses his claim for the priority of ethics within the theological task with a new urgency, born of the fuller, more complete definition of the baptist vision that Doctrine and Witness have made possible. Ethics is central, he reminds us, because biblical faith rests on a set of distinctive practices that arise from our placement within a larger Christian story. In his revisions McClendon offers a more complete explanation of how the interaction of faithful practices and gospel story give rise to a way of life that is distinctively Christian.
Since its first publication, Ethics has been followed by Doctrine (1994) and Witness (2000). The completion of the overall work has brought into sharper focus many of the theological and ethical issues and concerns central to the baptist tradition. In this revised edition of Ethics , McClendon infuses his claim for the priority of ethics within the theological task with a new urgency, born of the fuller, more complete definition of the baptist vision that Doctrine and Witness have made possible. Ethics is central, he reminds us, because biblical faith rests on a set of distinctive practices that arise from our placement within a larger Christian story. In his revisions McClendon offers a more complete explanation of how the interaction of faithful practices and gospel story give rise to a way of life that is distinctively Christian.
368 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1986
15 people are currently reading
92 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 17, 2020
Great and very creative approach to Systematic Theology, interweaving biographical chapters throughout the work (on Sarah and Jonathan Edwards, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Dorothy Day). His divisions of Christian Ethics into three strands--Embodied Witness, the Community of Care, and the Sphere of the Anastatic [relating to the resurrection]--are very stimulating, as is his articulation of the "baptist vision." This is like no other Systematic Theology on my shelves.
July 4, 2013
With Pinnock, Grenz, and Olson, McClendon stands as one of those baptists that can make you proud to call yourself on in these days where "baptist" seems synonymous with fundamentalism. McClendon shows that the term means something far from.
This first volume powerfully sketches out a "baptist vision," one that, to his credit is inclusive of all Christian traditions: he even in one chapter shows how Catholic liberation theology falls with his inclusive "baptist" paradigm! Inclusive of all traditions (Catholic and Protestant) and all dispositions (liberal and conservative) even contexts (black, European, Latin American), this is the first systematic theology that interacts with this many conversations, and listening constructively and graciously. His "embodied ethics" section begins with a humbling argument for why Black theology achieved a level of religious embodiment in its experience in suffering slavery that white theology never did.
Such thoughtful engagement is found at every turn of the page as he builds a robust account of the Christian way of life that begins with (Part One) the goodness of creation and the body, (Part two) the power of community and forgiveness, and (Part Three) the power of the resurrection, which for him leads into a pithy defense of pacifism.
With insight, McClendon is also an excellent writer and, in particular, a storyteller. All other systems of theology look ugly compared to this one as he beautifully illustrates bodily love with the life of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards, the politics of community and forgiveness with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the coming kingdom in the life of Dorthy Day.
Like I said, if you are a baptist (or, generally, a low church evangelical in the pentecostal, anabaptist, methodist...etc. traditions) McClendon's trilogy is not only a must read, it is a game changer.
This first volume powerfully sketches out a "baptist vision," one that, to his credit is inclusive of all Christian traditions: he even in one chapter shows how Catholic liberation theology falls with his inclusive "baptist" paradigm! Inclusive of all traditions (Catholic and Protestant) and all dispositions (liberal and conservative) even contexts (black, European, Latin American), this is the first systematic theology that interacts with this many conversations, and listening constructively and graciously. His "embodied ethics" section begins with a humbling argument for why Black theology achieved a level of religious embodiment in its experience in suffering slavery that white theology never did.
Such thoughtful engagement is found at every turn of the page as he builds a robust account of the Christian way of life that begins with (Part One) the goodness of creation and the body, (Part two) the power of community and forgiveness, and (Part Three) the power of the resurrection, which for him leads into a pithy defense of pacifism.
With insight, McClendon is also an excellent writer and, in particular, a storyteller. All other systems of theology look ugly compared to this one as he beautifully illustrates bodily love with the life of Jonathan and Sarah Edwards, the politics of community and forgiveness with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the coming kingdom in the life of Dorthy Day.
Like I said, if you are a baptist (or, generally, a low church evangelical in the pentecostal, anabaptist, methodist...etc. traditions) McClendon's trilogy is not only a must read, it is a game changer.
July 3, 2021
I just finished "Ethics; Systematic Theology--Vol.1" by James McClendon.
Since this is my first Christian ethics work I will not dive too deep since I have nothing to compare it to. All of my ethics studies were along different lines as will become apparent in my below.
One thing I wish he had done in his work on rights was to delve a bit deeper into what is a right; to add some flesh to the word. As is, as happens in modern day usage, "rights" is a plastic term that is equivocal. For instance with no structure to what a right is we hear people saying one has a right not to be murdered and one has a right to universal (to abstain from emotionalism) shoelaces. This is where one has a hard time differentiating between the two: why would one affirm that one has a right to not be murdered but not to universal shoelace provision? Do I agree with one and not the other? Why?
The structure that he should have provided would have been "for a right to be a right it must be negative." What this looks like in the real world would be that a right doesnt adjust due to time; negative rights are as applicable for the caveman as for the modern doctor or lawyer or homeless person. In justice, transcendent from governing bodies, all have the right to NOT be killed, stolen from etc.
But those darned proponents of universal shoelaceism: the reason this is not in justice a right is because in the execution of provision of "shoelaces for all" (as their slogan goes) someone has to be on the providing end (shoelaces dont just appear because of ones percieved right). Whoever is made to provide said shoelaces has, in their forced provision, had their negative rights--of not being stolen from--taken from them so that another's percieved positive right is fulfilled.
In other news, I think I see where the writer--an Anabaptist--gets to the stance that Satan has no being and is just the economic and governmental powers. Doing so bolsters his anti-governmental stance, "all evil comes from the man" (which I sympathize with) but this is letting the tail wag the dog. So in my keeping of the personhood of Satan I will affirm that he is a great influence upon the government (win-win for me).
I ordered vols 2 and 3 of this Systematic Theology because I like how he write, he is an Anabaptist, and i did so in spite of his metaphysical shortcomings.
Since this is my first Christian ethics work I will not dive too deep since I have nothing to compare it to. All of my ethics studies were along different lines as will become apparent in my below.
One thing I wish he had done in his work on rights was to delve a bit deeper into what is a right; to add some flesh to the word. As is, as happens in modern day usage, "rights" is a plastic term that is equivocal. For instance with no structure to what a right is we hear people saying one has a right not to be murdered and one has a right to universal (to abstain from emotionalism) shoelaces. This is where one has a hard time differentiating between the two: why would one affirm that one has a right to not be murdered but not to universal shoelace provision? Do I agree with one and not the other? Why?
The structure that he should have provided would have been "for a right to be a right it must be negative." What this looks like in the real world would be that a right doesnt adjust due to time; negative rights are as applicable for the caveman as for the modern doctor or lawyer or homeless person. In justice, transcendent from governing bodies, all have the right to NOT be killed, stolen from etc.
But those darned proponents of universal shoelaceism: the reason this is not in justice a right is because in the execution of provision of "shoelaces for all" (as their slogan goes) someone has to be on the providing end (shoelaces dont just appear because of ones percieved right). Whoever is made to provide said shoelaces has, in their forced provision, had their negative rights--of not being stolen from--taken from them so that another's percieved positive right is fulfilled.
In other news, I think I see where the writer--an Anabaptist--gets to the stance that Satan has no being and is just the economic and governmental powers. Doing so bolsters his anti-governmental stance, "all evil comes from the man" (which I sympathize with) but this is letting the tail wag the dog. So in my keeping of the personhood of Satan I will affirm that he is a great influence upon the government (win-win for me).
I ordered vols 2 and 3 of this Systematic Theology because I like how he write, he is an Anabaptist, and i did so in spite of his metaphysical shortcomings.
December 22, 2023
Good stuff, in the first two chapters he lays the groundwork for his whole systematic theology. Just to show a few interesting thoughts that he had. With narrative, he uses the example of the courage of Achilles as being very different to the courage of Christ. The story surrounding both figures gives meaning to the word courage which is often attached to both, explaining that terms find their meaning in the story in which they are used. That it is through the adoption of the narrative of Scripture as our own story, that we learn to see the world differently, just as you get a different understanding of the meaning of the word courage when you have Jesus as your guide instead of Achilles.
Als found his emphasis on various practices in the church community a helpful lens for the local church. He explains that we learn what it means to follow Christ through various practices in the church community. He explains that the central practice of the Church community should be the Lord's supper through which we learn what the grace of Christ means and that this grace needs to rule every aspect of Church life if we are to prevent ourselves to becoming legalistic, just as we need evangelism to make sure that we do not become sectarian. Also loved the three biographies of Dorothy Day, Sarah and Jonathan Edwards and Bonhoeffer, his use of biographies to show how the Christian story takes root in the lives of people.
The only chapter that I found disappointing was his chapter on pacifism, it gave a one-dimensional view of the early church and just war theory. Also, his chapter on resurrection ethics was a bit too idealistic, it would have been better if he had moved this chapter on resurrection to the same section that he discusses the cross.
Als found his emphasis on various practices in the church community a helpful lens for the local church. He explains that we learn what it means to follow Christ through various practices in the church community. He explains that the central practice of the Church community should be the Lord's supper through which we learn what the grace of Christ means and that this grace needs to rule every aspect of Church life if we are to prevent ourselves to becoming legalistic, just as we need evangelism to make sure that we do not become sectarian. Also loved the three biographies of Dorothy Day, Sarah and Jonathan Edwards and Bonhoeffer, his use of biographies to show how the Christian story takes root in the lives of people.
The only chapter that I found disappointing was his chapter on pacifism, it gave a one-dimensional view of the early church and just war theory. Also, his chapter on resurrection ethics was a bit too idealistic, it would have been better if he had moved this chapter on resurrection to the same section that he discusses the cross.
April 5, 2021
As part of my my ongoing quest to read "baptist" rather than "evangelical" theology a friend recommended this book and I'm glad he did. I'm feeling better about being baptist every day. the author weaved his ethical theory around 3 strands (embodied witness, the community of care and the sphere of the "Anastatic" (Resurrection Ethics). I enjoyed the biographical bits if the book which made the theoretical aspects more accessible.
May 4, 2023
The three-fold way of approaching ethics helps to set the stage for the next two volumes on Doctrine and Witness. The character studies throughout the book are inspiring and enlightening. I especially appreciate the scholarship and the wide range of authorities cited throughout the book. I’ve underlined, highlighted, and annotated so much of the book for future reference. This take on systematic theology is a breath of fresh air.
April 5, 2020
He offers a thoughtful, Bible-based, coherent theological ethic. And gives definition to the idea of 'baptist.'
July 25, 2011
This first personal introduction to James McClendon was a return to my roots. Having been raised in an Anabaptist family and tradition, I was able to appreciate as never before how the ethics of this community coincides with the universal ethics that I now incorporate as my own life’s perspective. Many might shy away from a book that is not technically a part of “their worldview”, but I am at the point where I not only appreciate where I’ve come from, but I also want to learn more about how religion, atheism, humanism, secularism, philosophy, science, etc… all strive for what we consider to be the “good” or “truth”.
Theology is seen by McClendon as a “drive for truth”. So, theology (and Ethics) by his definition does not have to be inherently religious. He does say, however, that theology is a NARRATIVE. It is a way of living, and is not reducible to a single moral principle or value. Only through the course of a lived life can we see a specific moral pattern and place it in its context in time, place and community. That according to McClendon is what makes “Christian ethics” Christian, and, even though he doesn’t mention it, what would make “Muslim ethics” Muslim, etc… Where I find McClendon’s verbiage a bit misleading is that he seems to discard the universality of ethics. He downplays the importance of our basic relation to the “other” for the sake of elevating Christianity. I understand that in order to consider one’s self Christian, then it can only be done by the “Christian narrative”. However, I found his emphasis on the specifically Christian to be a bit too focused. The ethics of Christianity ARE present in other belief systems, but it will not be displayed in the “Christ narrative” or by acknowledging the supremacy of Christianity. However, is that what is ultimately important when we are considering the hungry, the weak, the oppressed and the poor?
I am appreciative of McClendon’s prophetic leaning Christianity in that we are to practice the high principles of that tradition (social justice, compassion, love) in the here and now. I just wish he would have looked for that common ground (which is there) in the other traditions a bit more, but that is my issue, and he clearly was out to show what it means to live the CHRISTIAN life vs. anything else. Although, I consider this recommended reading for its great insight into the Anabaptist tradition (including examples of lives such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Dorothy Day), which is one that will resonate for anyone pursuing the causes of justice, universal truth and the guiding force of love.
Theology is seen by McClendon as a “drive for truth”. So, theology (and Ethics) by his definition does not have to be inherently religious. He does say, however, that theology is a NARRATIVE. It is a way of living, and is not reducible to a single moral principle or value. Only through the course of a lived life can we see a specific moral pattern and place it in its context in time, place and community. That according to McClendon is what makes “Christian ethics” Christian, and, even though he doesn’t mention it, what would make “Muslim ethics” Muslim, etc… Where I find McClendon’s verbiage a bit misleading is that he seems to discard the universality of ethics. He downplays the importance of our basic relation to the “other” for the sake of elevating Christianity. I understand that in order to consider one’s self Christian, then it can only be done by the “Christian narrative”. However, I found his emphasis on the specifically Christian to be a bit too focused. The ethics of Christianity ARE present in other belief systems, but it will not be displayed in the “Christ narrative” or by acknowledging the supremacy of Christianity. However, is that what is ultimately important when we are considering the hungry, the weak, the oppressed and the poor?
I am appreciative of McClendon’s prophetic leaning Christianity in that we are to practice the high principles of that tradition (social justice, compassion, love) in the here and now. I just wish he would have looked for that common ground (which is there) in the other traditions a bit more, but that is my issue, and he clearly was out to show what it means to live the CHRISTIAN life vs. anything else. Although, I consider this recommended reading for its great insight into the Anabaptist tradition (including examples of lives such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Dorothy Day), which is one that will resonate for anyone pursuing the causes of justice, universal truth and the guiding force of love.
April 17, 2017
McClendon's Ethics is not for the speed-reader or for someone looking for a primer on ethics. He pleads in the introduction to read slowly, and if you don't, I doubt you will get much out of it.
This is the first book in his three-volume series on systematic theology, and as far as I know he is the only writer to tackle the challenge from an Anabaptist perspective. He begins with the assumption that the church is not the world - our story and theology is not the world's theology. And it would be a mistake not only try to appeal to the world's reason but also to try and conceal our differences.
Another central argument is against "decisionism" in ethics. He argues that through narrative we are able to understand our identity and therefore be informed in our ethics. His entire book argues against a modernist understanding of ethics. If we were to categorize McClendon, he would probably be post-modern in his attempt at systematic theology.
This is the first book in his three-volume series on systematic theology, and as far as I know he is the only writer to tackle the challenge from an Anabaptist perspective. He begins with the assumption that the church is not the world - our story and theology is not the world's theology. And it would be a mistake not only try to appeal to the world's reason but also to try and conceal our differences.
Another central argument is against "decisionism" in ethics. He argues that through narrative we are able to understand our identity and therefore be informed in our ethics. His entire book argues against a modernist understanding of ethics. If we were to categorize McClendon, he would probably be post-modern in his attempt at systematic theology.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews