Impossible Landmarks 3.28.2024

     Every academic field has produced giants. These are the titans who in many ways define the terms by which the discipline is conducted, chart the course that is followed, and articulate the questions to be asked. In theological inquiry, some names stand as the founders of the discipline. Irenaeus, Augustine, and Jerome come to mind. As the Church grew in numbers and influence Gregory the Great, Basil, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas defined the Great Tradition until the time of the Reformation when we meet Martin Luther and Jean Calvin. Luther and Calvin along with the counterreformation spearheaded by the Jesuits in Roman Catholic theology and additional emerging protestant voices have continued this theological conversation through the twentieth century into our contemporary studies and pulpits. “Recent” voices of individuals like Bonhoeffer and Barth offer their voice and pen to add further layers to the Great Tradition. Who knows what the current century will bring? 

    Two millennia of great thinkers are bound to produce a few geniuses. As well as a few knuckleheads. On the one hand, they help orient the contemporary reader as to her place in the ongoing and expanding theological discussion. A dialogue that the Apostles initiated in Acts 1. On the other hand, it can be daunting because there are so many thinkers and so many thoughts. Even for a lifetime of fruitful study and diligent work, it seems so inaccessible, like climbing an imposing and impossible landmark. 

    You need not feel that way and that is not what the great landmark theologians are for. They serve as guides and reference points. They are not the goal. The goal is to know the content of Scripture and the mind of Christ. Theologians both the universal and local are guides. They have been where you are going. They are pointing the way. The mountain is steep, and the path may be treacherous, but you can do this, and you must do this. If you are to preach and teach it is essential for you to be the theological shepherd for your people. Others have blazed the trail. Now the journey is yours to take. 

    In short, these great theologians, whom we consider impossible landmarks of learning, are examples and mentors for us. It is surprising how many (particularly in the early Church) primarily thought of themselves as pastor-theologians. Their job combined the leadership of a congregation or congregations with the training of others for the tasks of pastoral ministry, and for them, pastoral ministry always required a Pastor-theologian.     When we read their works of exegesis or theological guidance, we are using them as they were intended. The relatively recent development (300 years or so) of purely academic work in theology and other “ministry” disciplines, clouds our collective memory of the time when the giants of exegesis and theology led the Church and prepared ministers to serve. Perhaps you are the next landmark thinker whose diligent work in the Scriptures will prepare future generations for diligent service and ardent discipleship. Happy Easter, Preacher.

Certainty and Flux of Faith 3.21.2024

     My major professor in graduate school James Strauss used to repeatedly say “You don’t have to have exhaustive information to have accurate information.” This illustrates very well why so many otherwise intelligent people shy away from theological thinking. Accepting the Bible to be true and Theology to be an accurate presentation of Biblical information, there is a fear that we may leave something out or give an important topic short shrift. Rather than discouraging us this should be a relief! You are correct, you cannot know everything. But what you do know you should know deeply and intimately. Certainty and flux are both a part of deeply held faith and a hallmark of the best scholarship: Biblically, Historically, and Theologically. 

    The best, most profound thinkers are constantly rethinking, reevaluating, and recalibrating.  Dogmatism, used according to its least flattering definition, describes an attitude of inflexibility, intolerance, and insularity. The best in Christian thinking is none of those things. It is inquisitive, inviting, and integrative. Theology is about God. Not God. He is perfect. I’m not. He knows everything. I don’t. When people say they “don’t like theology”, what they mean is “I’m scared”. The cause of that fear is not information overload but anxiety about their own personal faith. 

Hermeneutics

    “Text” is the operative term in Hermeneutics and related fields such as semiotics. In this sense “text” may indicate any kind of media presentation, written, auditory, visual—even architectural. For the pastor-theologian, our primary texts are Biblical, Historical, and Theological—as we have been discussing since January. At some point, each of us must step down from our theoretical and objective soapboxes and clarify “This is what I believe”. This is step #1 towards not being afraid of our own theological shadow. 

    For those who preach this means balancing a sense of certainty with the very human fluctuations of faith. Fluctuations are not doubts, they represent the eddies of genuine inquiry. Rivers flow in a general direction. An eddy is a break in the current that temporarily changes that general flow. 

    Sometimes humans think reactively rather than reflectively. Flailing and failing to prepare for the various eddies in our intellectual rivers we substitute an unnatural and unobtainable certainty for the actual condition of humanity; we are limited beings, and our horizons always change. Certainty exists amid the flood not apart from it. 

    A consistent hermeneutic helps to channel that intellectual current so that we can work through an eddy without getting swamped. Before the advent of railroads on the 19th-century American frontier the way that rivers were harnessed was the artificial construct of a canal. Straight and true canals eliminated all eddies so that riverine traffic could continue unhindered. 

    There are far too many preachers who travel on intellectual canals, using limited hermeneutics, unable and unwilling to deal with the realities of either contemporary circumstances or the Biblical text. This seems safer and seems to free the inquirer from doubt. Such intellectual canals are artificial and incapable of dealing with the world before us. Real rivers have eddies, rapids, and obstacles. Avoiding them does not make them go away. We have to learn to read the current and shoot the rapids. 

    A sound hermeneutic grounded in scripture, aware of historical development, and in conversation with a variety of theological perspectives provides the discipline we need to get through the shifting currents of the Postmodern world. There will be times that you sense you are tipping. There will be times that you feel a sense of foreboding, that you have made a mistake or miscalculation. When you are solidly planted in the river of faith, in the great tradition common to all believers at all times and places, your vessel will make it through those rough patches. You will be a better preacher and your people will be better informed. We have to learn to be certain of what we can and we must be open to the fluctuations in the current that allow for growth.

Old, New, Bold, Awkward, Embarrassing 3.14.2024

     Many people are afraid of theology. It is a big word describing what most think is a big topic. Like most of those terms that end in “-ology” the prefix helps to put it into perspective. “Theo” is a transliteration of the common Greek term for God. The suffix “ology” commonly means “the study of”. In its simplest form Theology is the study of God. That is, of course, not how we use the word. And much of our mutual Christian experience in worship, devotion, preaching, or other spiritual practices is not so formalized as implied in such a noble term. 

    The primary reason people are afraid of theology is that they so rarely encounter it. Ultimately it is not their fault, it is the fault of those who have preached the shallow sermons they have heard or taught the hollow lessons which have slowly defrauded them of their birthright as Christians. 

`My contention is very simple. Good preaching is always Theological. Always. Good preaching and teaching provide Biblical exegesis, set in a comprehensible framework of History (in exegetical work this is called the “history of effects” or Wirkungsgeschichte, to use the German term.)  As we discussed last week, the confluence of the Bible and History is Theology. Good or bad, this is how the process is played out. But in a world populated by what has been called “the play-preachers” whose only measure of success is audience size and the entertainment value of their messages this kind of disciplined approach has no place. No Theology, in the long run, is bad theology. Error can be corrected. Apathy must be cured. 

    Theology is the necessary, ordered response to the confluence of Biblical teaching and human culture. It is an attempt to apply what God wants us to know in the real world. This is what makes our reluctance to engage in theological thinking so odd. Again, the absence of critical thinking about the intersection of Biblical truth is still a theology of sorts—A theology of abdication. When the Church lacks a sound theological core it is vulnerable to the cultural enticements of compromise and entertainment. Proper theology helps keep both at bay. This week I want to discuss some characteristics of sound theological thinking. 

Old

    Contemporary theological thinking extends and enlarges a conversation that has been going on since the incarnation. Its essence is the great conversation described by Jude as “…the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3 ESV) Paul calls this “sound doctrine” in 1 Timothy 1.10. This is the beginning of Christian Theology, and the conversation has been going on for 2,000 or so years since. You are a part of it whether you want to be or not. 

    Preaching means accurately exegeting Scripture and participating in this ongoing theological dialogue. This is what happens when we read the Apostolic Fathers or consider the thoughts of such luminaries as Augustine, Luther, or Johnathan Edwards. We may agree or disagree with their methods or conclusions, but if we pay attention and thoughtfully engage in the conversation we will always learn. 

New

    Theology did not end with the turn of the 19th century. The conversation has been continuing and will continue. There will be new thinkers whose words are added to the conversation. They will build upon the past and challenge the conclusions of the greats, perhaps your own theological heroes. They will drink from new wells like critical theory and social-cultural analysis. If you are like me, you will find much of this reading exasperating, tiring, and at times sophomoric. We don’t read things because we like them, we read them because we need to participate in conversations where what we already know, and think is not the center of intellectual attention. 

    The current theological conversation does not, at first glance seem to even be theological. The tools of analysis are largely imported from the social sciences, the language is more scientific, and the approach is man-centered rather than God-centered. Whenever you live, that is your context for ongoing cultural conversation. History will have something to say about how productive, informative, or durable contemporary theology will prove to be. Our job is to engage what is contemporary and new for the sake of engagement. 

Bold

    There are two kinds of theological encounters where boldness is necessary. Internal encounters and external encounters. We will need to think boldly if we are to understand what is Biblically accurate and theologically sound. I won’t dwell much on the external encounters because many other voices are shouting their solutions into the void.

     Suffice it to say the Church has never been a majority in any nation anytime, anywhere. Christians have always been alienated from their culture. The Bible says this is normal (in places like 1 Peter 1.1 where the word commonly translated as “exiles” can also be rendered “aliens”), History teaches that this is typical, and Theology teaches that this is reasonable. Proper Theology is a polite engagement with a culture that disagrees with us. 

    More important are the internal encounters which require us to be just as bold.  Different tribes of Christianity (denominations) largely evolved either from theological or organizational differences. Some of these differences are minimal. Some more grave. Some fall into the category of heresy, which means that they are so wrong that they cannot be reconciled with the Bible. 

    Some of these theological struggles rage across denominational battles. The current debate about what constitutes an “Evangelical” is a case in point. Many who claim this title do not show evidence of any intellectual, emotional, spiritual, or institutional impact of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It has become for them, a political label.  For authentic Christians using a historic descriptor for Biblical faithfulness in such an unbiblical and unhistorical fashion discloses underlying theological consequences. It takes a bold voice to say “Hey, the emperor is not wearing any clothes!” That is the job of theology.  

Awkward

    Theology can be awkward because we don’t like to have hard conversations about complicated topics. Again, ignorance, inattention, and apathy are still theological commitments. It is necessary for hard topics to be covered systematically, from the pulpit in transparent, cumulative preaching of Scripture. It is far more awkward to have these kinds of discussions one-on-one or in small groups. If we defer theology to these seemingly simpler environments they simply won’t be taken up. 

    Won’t that “take all the fun out of Church?” I mean “Do we really want to talk about the divinity of Christ, perseverance of the Saints, and the nature of human life from the pulpit? Shouldn’t we stick to some feel-good pabulum that makes everyone feel good?” No. No. NO. An ignorant Church that won’t have the hard conversations, whose preachers will not preach challenging sermons, whose leaders refuse to act with theological candor, will not be equipped to either win the lost or disciple the Saints. It will abandon engagement for either surrender or entertainment—or both. 

Conclusions.  

    The Church has always been a thinking institution. On the stage of world history, God’s plan in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament is God’s revelation of Himself and His will. Christian faith fuses behavior and belief into a system that transcends culture, language, nationality, race, and religion.                Theology is the great conversation humans have been having with one another about God’s Word and God's will in the world. Many parts of the conversation have been difficult. Old ideas, new perspectives, bold initiatives, and awkward encounters have been a part of this conversation and the very process by which the Church has strengthened itself so that it might speak to the fallen culture words of life.  

    

How the Doing is Done Matters 3.7.2024

    In January we dealt with the need for clear, accurate Biblical exegesis. In February our topic was the need for a clear, accurate Historiographical study. The common thread between those topics was an ongoing discussion about hermeneutics. There is no area of intellectual life that does not require some kind of interpretive process. Not having an interpretive process is, in itself, a hermeneutic, albeit a dysfunctional hermeneutic. March is upon us and so we discuss the third discipline which is susceptible to error through hermeneutic arrogance, ignorance, or avoidance—Theological study.

    The possible errors; Biblical, Historical, or Theological can be individual or compounded. Theological errors tend toward mixing Biblical and Historical errors, hence the order of our discussions. An error in any one of these disciplines can prevent us from being accurate in our preaching. If we are inaccurate then our congregation, class, or audience will be misinformed. Which calls this verse to mind:

“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” (James 3:1 ESV)

This is a reminder of our sacred obligation. James didn’t write this to discourage us but to encourage us. Diligent study, prayer, conversation, and worship help us maintain our balance and perspective so that we can equip the Church, in its several congregations, to prosper in ministry. 

    To conduct a fruitful conversation regarding theology during March, we must begin with definitions. Broadly speaking…Ahhhh! Just a pause, please.

 Terms and phrases like broadly speaking, tending or tends toward, probability and such are essential to understanding. Virtually all human knowledge is provisional. We serve an omniscient Savior. Omniscience is not communicable—you don’t have it and neither do I. Accurate and clear study presumes the provisional nature of our conclusions, even (maybe especially) those about the inspired text. This is why we need to work so hard, even after years of concerted study. We need to reevaluate our methods, presuppositions, processes, reading material, and research methods. It is very difficult to discuss these things without relying on the language of critical discrimination. End of pause.

    Broadly speaking there are two basic kinds of theology. Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology. For generations, the study of theology was called Divinity primarily because it was studied by those studying for ordained ministry. The reformation began the democratization of much of the curriculum leading to our own era, in which anyone can study anything and consider themselves an expert, whether they are or not. 

Systematic Theology

Axiomatic

    Systematic theology begins with conclusions, axioms which it then supports with the Bible, Philosophy, History, and other disciplines. This kind of theological presentation really began with the first encounters between the Christian faith and the classical tradition. While this kind of reasoning is useful in a heuristic and apologetic sense, the conclusions of such a process will only be as strong as its weakest axiom—and there are many ways to identify weak (wrong, inaccurate, incomplete) axioms. 

Categorical

    Systematic theology is categorical in that it organizes itself, using topical categories, related to the axioms it supports. We have come to call (even those practicing Biblical Theology) these categories doctrines. If you wish, you could just think of “doctrines”. I think the term categorical reminds us that they are derivative and preliminary, similar to other academic categories. Let me put it this way. “What the bible says about the Holy Spirit” is an important doctrine for discussion. Yet the phrase is hardly suitable for the title of a chapter or book. Pneumatology, however, is. And while Pneumatology certainly attempts to explain the Biblical phenomena of the Spirit it is possible to do so without the category. 

Synthetic

    Systematic theology is synthetic primarily in the way it treats the Biblical text. The whole Bible, the Hebrew Scriptures, and the New Testament are treated equally. Distinctions in history, epoch, and literary form, while acknowledged, tend not to impact the way that the theologian uses the text. Oftentimes Systematic theologians are trained apart from exegetical studies. 

    In effect, the hermeneutical grid of the Systematic Theologian consists of the preliminary judgment she makes about the axioms to be asserted and the categories into which they will be organized. After this, the Bible is mined for texts to support the system—regardless of the author's intent or the text's original meaning in context. 

    In systematic theology, the goal is methodological completeness, with titles like A Complete Body of Divinity, for example. Systematic Theology is primarily philosophical, closed, and determinative. 

Some critical thoughts. 

• The axioms, categories, and synthesis are not themselves Biblical. 

• While it may be objective in execution it is subjective in conception.

• Systematic Theology makes it possible to read the scriptures in such a way that doctrines that are not taught in a single text, are determined to be true through the cumulative effect of similar texts, decontextualized and read together to supplement the argument. The more proper exegetical process concedes that if a doctrine is not taught somewhere, it is not taught anywhere—regardless of the weight of other similar texts. 

Biblical Theology

Exegetical

    Biblical Theology is canonical, contextual, and critical. The text(s) of scripture are studied in proper canonical context using all the available critical tools to determine the intent of the human author through whom God chose to work. Exegetical theology can be sprawling, messy, and frustrating. Using our example of the Holy Spirit, the Biblical theologian must determine the limits of His study, Old Testament, New Testament, or both? And then embark on the exegesis of all relevant texts without presuppositions. After amassing that data then conclusions can be drawn. 

Inferential

    Biblical Theology draws deductive conclusions only after the hard work of exegesis. It infers conclusions from the accumulated data rather than seeking to prove axiomatically derived categories. As a consequence, well-ordered Biblical doctrines often sit astride one or more of the categories of traditionally conceived systematic theologies. For example, is a Biblical theology of the cross a matter of Christology or Soteriology, or both? Consequently, one is justified in questioning the value of the axiomatic categories in the first place except as pedagogical tools. 

    Because Biblical theology begins with the text, the categories of study are derived from the text.  If any extra-canonical heuristic categories are used the theologian recognizes and articulates this truth. The best Biblical theologians structure their categories of analysis from the natural contours of the text, grouping similar materials (the Pauline Epistles, the Gospels) for analysis. Consequently, a solid Biblical theology is useful for the pulpit exegete who can find readily available theological data to buttress his own conclusions from the text. 

Organic

    Biblical theology follows the contours of the text, which controls the inferences made about the text so that broader conclusions from the respective divisions of Scripture flow organically from the text. 

    It is sometimes important for the Church to have reliable summaries of “what the Bible says about topic x”. Biblical theology addresses this issue by thoroughly examining specific texts in proper context(s). Then the theologian formulates all subsequent statements regarding individual doctrines in such a way that they can be verified primarily by the text in question, then by examining relevant parallel materials confirms what primary texts clearly teach. A doctrine is Biblical when it is founded on what a text teaches, not on what the reader wishes to know. 

Some Critical Thoughts

• Biblical Theology requires patience because it does not begin by defending preliminary conclusions—the axioms of Systematic theology. 

• Biblical Theology depends on exegetical skill. 

• Biblical Theology tends to be less “dogmatic.” Because it allows the Biblical text and the intentionality of the author to control meaning, rather than the theologian’s categories or natural curiosity. It is objective both in concept and execution. 

Conclusions 

    In Systematic theology the goal is completeness. Its preliminary strategy is topically driven and the Bible functions as a source of decontextualized data for confirming what the theologian has already concluded. 

     In Biblical Theology the goal is coherence. It is primarily hermeneutical, open, and provisional. While the canon is closed the Biblical theologian is constantly listening to the unfolding exegetical tradition to clarify and further define her always provisional conclusions. 

    The primary strength of Systematic Theology is that it provides an organized approach for teaching essential matters of the faith. The best available Systematic theologies are creedal tools.   By synthesizing and summarizing both the Bible and prior theological reasoning they provide a minimal understanding of what Christians have historically taught and believed. So long as that is the understanding. As a catechetical tool used for those who need a baseline even for asking relevant questions, it serves a useful role. The corresponding weakness is that it is what Christians have taught and that is not necessarily the same thing as what the Bible “says" if one assumes that what the Bible says is to be determined not by axioms but by reading and coordinating the various strands of Biblical revelation. 

    The primary strength of Biblical Theology is that it takes the Bible on its own terms. While it can be an unwieldy approach it is more faithful to the text even when the theologian is uncomfortable with the provisional nature of her conclusions. It is, however, better to be coherent and incomplete than complete and incoherent or worse—unbiblical.