Details 4.18.2024

     Last week we spoke about symmetry or balance. The next step is to link that symmetry with a solid respect for the details. Hermeneutics is composed of several related disciplines.  We want to do a thorough exegesis of the text. This requires familiarity with grammatical, syntactical, and discourse concepts of the original languages. Understanding languages, particularly ancient languages, is undergirded by a preliminary examination of the cultural, social, anthropological, and micro-historical processes that produced the society whose language is being studied and the specific people-group or organization (in our case, the earliest Church) that used that language.  And ultimately, we want to preach a message in recognizable colloquial English to our congregation.  The Hermeneutical task is not finished until the truth we learn is communicated to our congregation.

    This requires many detailed questions and accumulates a lot of data. For example, we ask questions like “How is the use of the term ἐκκλησία in the NT similar and different from the ways it was used in secular Greek?” This can be a daunting question. Here is a simple table taken from a Logos Word Study on ἐκκλησία.

Corpus                 Date                          Results

LXX           3rd/2nd Century      100 in 96 verses

New Testament     1st Century             114 in 111 verses

Apostolic Fathers     1st/2nd Century     89 in 77 verses

NT Apocrypha                                1 in 1 verse

Greek Classics                                  950 in 869 verses

     appreciate all that data, but it comes with risk. The risk of getting so buried in the details that one loses grasp of the forest whilst examining the trees. We have to become very good at determining as quickly as possible which of the details are relevant. Using the above table; The Classic citations are historically interesting but most come from materials that fall outside of the period of the “koine” or “common Greek.” There is only one citation from Apocrypha, not enough to draw any conclusions. So, we have eliminated 951 uses of the term without turning a page. The relevant questions that help determine how one wades through these details are: 1. Did the LXX use of the term “determine” how NT authors used it? 2. Did the Apostolic Fathers use the term the same way the NT authors did, along with the sub-question, how many of the citations in the Fathers are quotations, or allusions to the New Testament? In the end, the detailed work that needs to be done is comparing the LXX with the NT to determine the level of influence that the LXX exerts on the NT. 

    And there’s more! Consider this secondary issue. The papyri. There is a vast amount of data, from the same era in which the New Testament was written that is difficult to catalog and compare. You can do it. Most likely not by Sunday. This is where our lexical tools come into play. Now, for NT lexicography BDAG (Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.)  is the star of the show. And, as one would expect, the article is large, 7 pages. Yielding the following (I generalize) uses, Regularly summoned assembly, casual assembly, congregation, local assembly, and the universal Church. That is a lexical summary of the NT and early Christian literature. Another useful tool is Moulton & Milligan (Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930.) This lexical tool defines NT terms in light of the usage in the Papyri. In other words, it solves the data overload problem. For the word in question, ἐκκλησία, M&N also adds the specific nuance that in the first century the Latin-speaking West did not translate the term—they adopted it as their own. This detail is significant. At the time the NT was written everyone knew what ἐκκλησία meant: an assembly. The LXX and the NT seem to follow common usage until it is invested with specific Christian meaning. 

    The ultimate question then, in the context of preaching.“What does the Bible say about the assembly of God’s people?”  With the follow-up,  "How much of what the Bible says about the Church is merely organizational minutia, and how much is “theologically laden?” The details matter because they contribute to our understanding, not just of a term, but the use of the term in context. We don’t merely preach words and their definitions. We preach the text which is constructed out of those linguistic pieces. 

    A preacher who is exegeting Matthew 16.18, or any other text that deals with the Church can summon the needed linguistic detail in minutes. This little exercise took about 15 minutes with professional-grade Biblical Studies Software. Saving time in this part of one’s study allows for other avenues of investigation. Doing fast what can be done fast is essential for symmetry. Once we are overwhelmed by the details it is very difficult to get “un-overwhelmed.” It is far better to approach our task with intent. The goal is a solid Biblical sermon. I want to balance my workload so that I know all I can about the details that best inform my trajectory through the text. Our study of the text undergirds our preaching of that text. We are teaching, exhorting, encouraging, and at times correcting. We teach what the text directs us to teach. A solid Biblical hermeneutic takes us from the study to the pulpit with as much transferable information as possible. 

    A word is in order, about the preaching trajectories we choose as we move through a text. Last Sunday I preached from Acts 2.14-36. I noted upfront, in the introduction to the sermon that this was the first text I preached as the resident of this pulpit and that I had, in total preached this text 5 times since coming to Grayville. How is that even possible? Did I simply use the same message every time? Wouldn’t someone notice? Yes, they would, I did not use the same message, and it is possible. The text tells a single story, but that story has different nuances, characters, applications, points of emphasis, and degrees of engagement. The story is always the same but our choice of which details to emphasize defines different arcs or trajectories we can take through the text in preaching. To do so you must know the details of the text. 

    A preacher needs to become proficient at moving, so to speak, in and out of the forest. Sometimes examining broader structures, other times focusing on individual trees. When we learn to do that, when we can both delve into the details and grasp the larger structures then we are able to preach with balance, not only within an individual sermon but also throughout an entire year—even an entire ministry.

Symmetry 4.11.2024

    Symmetry is not a word that we generally use in describing the contents of Christian thinking. The model for Christian thinking we have been considering focusing on Biblical, Historical, and Theological reasoning is my attempt to bring a kind of balance to the reasoning process. Much Christian thought tends to be an unbalanced reaction to the fallen reasoning that we find in the culture around us. Because human reason is corrupted by the fall many Christians have concluded that a part of our reasoning process is to correct these real or perceived imbalances. 

    The consequences of this intellectual move can have at least two results. First, it results in a pendulum effect with Christian thinking oscillating between extremes. Secondly, it results in skepticism regarding other domains of knowledge, and skepticism is another word for doubt. The issue here is that Christians advocate the position that God is the creator of everything. Consequently, He has a stake in all domains of knowledge—even those (say quantum mechanics) not mentioned in Scripture. This puts Christians in the untenable position of trying to defend one belief (creation) at the expense of or in ignorance of another (an ordered universe.) 

    The complications of the twenty-first century do not allow us the luxury of embracing extremes when a basic understanding of other relevant knowledge may be essential for contextualizing the message in our current environment. Balanced Christian thinking privileges the Bible as the source of information for those matters the Bible directly addresses, uses it as a filter in considering other related concerns, and critically examines other domains of knowledge where the Bible is silent. Yes, silent. The Bible was ultimately written to speak to the Church throughout its generations, but it was written in specific times and places, (in history) far different from our own. 

    Consider an example. Our culture depends on science and technology to expand knowledge. There are certainly technological concepts in play in the Biblical text. In the book of Judges for example we are told specifically that Sisera, who commanded the Canaanite army had at his disposal 900 iron chariots, the implication being that his iron-age army was stronger than Deborah and Barak’s bronze-age army. However, the velocity of technical change in Canaan was certainly not on par with the global technopolies we face. As a New Testament example, Paul was certainly able to take advantage of Rome’s advanced transportation system, which was still not so complex as contemporary air, sea, and land travel between modern nations situated on then-unknown continents. So yes the Bible describes certain events, concepts, or trends that have some commonality with what we experience. That does not mean that we can turn to Judges 4 and use it as a model for navigating technological change in the twenty-first century. 

    This may sound like a retreat from Biblical fidelity. It is not. It is a common-sense, and Biblically appropriate approach to the many areas of knowledge that, despite the claims of many hyper-literalists, the Bible does not address. The question then, once again, is how do we develop and deploy a hermeneutic, fully cognizant of the Bible, History, and Theology, that has the balance that we need to proclaim Christ within our complicated and evolving culture? 

Boundaries

    It begins with the affirmation that Biblical hermeneutics should set appropriate boundaries. These boundaries require accurate translations of the text(s), valid understandings of the social and cultural backgrounds, and relevant cross-disciplinary clarification. To vacillate between cultural ignorance and cultural surrender regarding either testament skews the result of the exegetical process. Common sense, guided by a healthy dose of reality is what keeps us balanced. This balance requires humility, a reluctance to be dogmatic where we cannot, and a willingness to refrain from drawing inappropriate conclusions. 

    The central boundary we need to respect is the temptation to absolute certainty. Yes, there are many matters that the Scriptures teach as unashamedly true. Good boundaries remind thoughtful believers that what the Bible teaches and what we think it teaches, what we insist it teaches, and what we loudly argue it teaches, is not always the same thing.  Consider a couple of old, Restoration Movement mottos. 

Calling Bible things by Bible names. 

Where the Bible Speaks, we speak, where the Bible is Silent, we are silent. 

These are basically boundary markers, reminders that we must not overstate the explicit or implicit message of the Bible. It is, unfortunately, possible to be so focused on the “truth” that our overemphasis says more than the text does. Boundaries are the beginning of balance reminding us of our own limitations and our propensity to exaggerate. 

Critical Thinking

    If people really thought, I would not need to use a modifier (Critical) to describe it. Critical thinking is asking the right questions, in context, using the appropriate tools of inquiry.  That is what all thinking should be! Sadly, it is not. I am amazed at how ignorant many people are of easily knowable information, and how lazy some are about turning information to understanding. The number of smart people who do not know accurately what they think they know is staggering. Our nation, the world, and politics are polarized because knowledge has been sacrificed on the altar of power, deployed only to marginalize, and alienate. 

    Biblical knowledge should never be intentionally divisive. The truth itself may be rejected but this should be because someone hears it, considers it, weighs it, and rejects it, not because the presentation is biased. Critical thinking allows the inquirer to look at issues from multiple perspectives. It is based on intellectual honesty and a commitment to fairness not some unobtainable sense of objectivity.

    It is imperative for Christians to engage in the broad intellectual currents of our culture, to examine both the good and the bad. To assess the ongoing damage from sin and to appreciate the amazing diversity of beauty that is created by those alienated from the very Creator who filled them with such creativity. 

    Learn. Listen, view, read, evaluate, examine, consider, and test the various domains of knowledge. Do so from a solid basis in the teaching of Scripture, do so with an understanding of the history of knowledge. And review the impact that knowledge has on theologians trying to bridge the gap between the wonders of scripture and the wonders of the created world. 

Breadth

    We are all the offspring of specific times and particular places. Transcending the limitations of our culture and context must be intentional. You need to have that intent. Each of us needs to expand the scope of our media and information intake. Each of us tends to like the music we grew up with, read books that affirm what we already know, and enjoy visible media that creates a sense of comfort. The materials we read, the music we listen to, and the films and programs we watch can become echo chambers and the seedbed of confirmation bias. In other contexts, this kind of insularity is called ghettoization. Ghetto’s trade homogenous comfort for reality. When we live in intellectual ghettos we become narrow, standoffish, boorish, temperamental, and arrogant. Just to be clear, Jesus was none of those things. 

    Broadening our horizons equips us to understand the various contexts in which we will be called to preach and teach the Scriptures. A broader appreciation for unfamiliar cultural expressions and  understanding other people and their native culture is not natural and requires us to be humble and accepting of others. If we remain in intellectual ghettos we eventually become ever narrower, to the point where we are insular, blind, and bigoted. Once again, Jesus was not insular, blind, or bigoted. Be like Jesus. 

    If you know the Bible, your own History, and are Theologically certain you should be comfortable rubbing elbows with those from different cultures and alternative religious traditions. Without balance, there is a good chance you will be an iconoclast whose certainty functions as a weapon. It is difficult both to “own” someone and serve them, to insult them and invite them to hear the Gospel. 

Conclusion. 

    Well, we all survived the Eclipse on Monday. I’m not actually surprised. There was a very vocal minority on the wackier side of the broader Christian community that used this beautifully creative act of our God to peddle conspiracy, mendacity, and…lunacy. Those who predicted the end or who vilify those who disagree with their narrow, egotistic, and nationalistic understandings of the Christian faith are a prime example of why we need balance. 

    Most of the Christians on the planet are not like us. Many of the most faithful in the broader Global flock come from different local and national traditions. They don’t speak English, they don’t read the King James Bible, and their traditions are 1,200 years older than our own. More than anything else symmetry is a matter of getting over ourselves. 

    You might be thinking, “What if I come into contact with something or someone that tempts me? What if I am shocked? Won’t this give Satan a toehold in my life? What if younger, more vulnerable people look at your plea for balance and find an excuse for heresy or immorality?” 

    To those questions, I offer this answer, versions of which I have used many times in many contexts. “Grow up, Get a job, and get over yourself.”  I’m sure that if Jesus had been around on Monday, He would have enjoyed the whole experience. I can imagine Him down by the Wabash, eating a sandwich and wearing those ridiculous glasses. I can hear Him asking where people came from and how they possibly found this little town. During His life, Jesus laughed and cried. He was filled with joy and anger. He spoke with kindness to the hurting and chastised the powerful. He knew the Bible. He understood His people’s history. He was able to debate theology. Above it all He was loving, kind, and good. Jesus lived a balanced life, and which changed the world. Perhaps it is time for us to look for the same kind of balance that Jesus demonstrated along with the grace, compassion, and love he had for every one of us. 

         

Eclipsed 4.4.2024

    It will be a big day one way or another. People all over Illinois are preparing. Most of us have known for months exactly how deeply we are embedded in the “path of totality.” Now we wait to execute our plan. 

    It is not uncommon to pray for sound weather. Generally, the prayer is not about the social and economic consequences cloud-cover on the day of a full solar eclipse. In the little town where I live hotel rooms are going for $1,000.00 a night. These are not suites! These are basic overnight, motel accommodations. This is more than 10x what they usually go for. The schools will be closed. Some businesses will be shuttered due to traffic issues. Even bare-bones camping sites in our public park are being rented for a premium. It just goes to show you that when the unusual occurs the usual is out the window. 

    It is at least an opportunity for the Church to be hospitable. While many clearly see this as an opportunity to cash in, we at the Grayville First Christian Church decided to be hospitable. If you don’t know what a pork burger is, suffice it to say that the description is accurate. In addition to giving away sandwiches we are giving away bottled water and have a good supply of eclipse glasses. The box does not say “single use,” which would be redundant considering how seldom such a thing is needed. 

    Any time there is a big, unusual event the Church needs to look for opportunities to be hospitable. It is almost like God has given us this opportunity to treat people with love and respect. In a world filled with stress and anxiety people need to know that the Church takes seriously Christ’s command to be neighborly and to extend His love to everyone. 

    The word eclipse has another use. As a verb, eclipse means that someone or something has been overshadowed, transcended, or become obsolete. Don’t get me wrong I think this whole eclipse thing is going to be a hoot. But this past Sunday we celebrated an event that eclipsed every other event. Nothing is as significant as the resurrection of Jesus. He eclipsed sin, He eclipsed death, He eclipsed the grave. So, just maybe whilst you are gazing through your protective eyewear next Monday you should give a brief word of thanks for our risen Lord who has eclipsed our every fear.

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.