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.