I’m not sure who invented the most commonly used systematic theological categories of Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology, Bibliology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Eschtaology, Hamartiology, Angelology, and a few others, but it is high time to develop some new ones.
Why?
Because these categories emphasize knowing at the expense of being and doing, but following Jesus involves all three. Theology, even though it means study of God, should not stop at just “the study,” but should move on to personal change and kingdom involvement.
As I was thinking about how to do this, I spoke with a Jewish Rabbi about their study (see the comment here). Jewish people do not really “do theology.” Their life of study is centered around action. They study with the sole purpose of learning how to obey the law. They have gone the complete opposite direction as Christian theology, emphasizing doing at the expense of knowing and being. In my opinion, this leads to some serious weaknesses in their thinking about why they do what they do. If you never ask “Why?” then the answers to the “How?” can become meaningless and legalistic.
So maybe there is some middle ground. Maybe there is a way to do theology that focuses not just on ideas, or not just on actions, but on both; where God is known, not just by what He is, but by what He does and what we are to do in response.
Concrete Theology
If we go this route, theological categories will not just be abstract ideas, but concrete actions and activities that we find God doing in history, and which we are to live out in our own lives. Reading the Bible then becomes not about uncovering proposition truth, but as a guide for learning how we can take a proactive part in God’s strategy for human history.
Toward that end, I propose the following six categories for the major activities of God in history, which are also the major ways of living like Jesus in the world:
- Creating
- Relating
- Communicating
- Judging
- Loving
- Redeeming
In a later post, I will provide further clarification on these six areas, but for now, what do you think? Can you come up with any other major activities of God in history (as we read about in Scripture), which do not fall under one of the six areas? Should any of these be removed from the list?
Definitely an interesting idea. I’ll look forward to hearing your clarifications of each category. Now I need to go look up Hamartology, as that was the only one I didn’t know the meaning of.
David,
Yes, it is not found in all theological works. It’s the “study of sin.” I have also seen Misthology (study of rewards), Anthropology (study of man), and a few others.
Good thoughts Jeremy. I think the classical categories are too arbitrary and gnostic; so we certainly need something different. Mike Bull built his theology around the 7 days of creating, and ended up with Creation, Division, Ascension, Testing, Maturity, Conquest, and Glorification. These are not so much categories, but more like a chiastic progression. Of course, he was trying to do a systematized biblical theology rather than systematic theology.
I think you could also build categories based on what God actually does in the 7 days of creation… these would include, creating, dividing, naming, evaluating, speaking, commissioning, resting.
I like yours too (especially the fact that the telos is action), and I think there is some overlap… but come on Jeremy, you really need 7 :).
Joe,
Good to hear from you. I hadn’t heard of Mike Bull’s divisions. Does he have a blog or can I read about these somewhere?
I tried to come up with seven, but then thought six was better, since it is one short of perfection. Ha ha. But really, the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. We never arrive at perfection in theology.
The Jewish Talmud always begins with page 2. Why? Because even when you have finished, you have never actually begun. I think Theology should be the same way. It is never finished, never finalized, always imperfect, always needing refinement and adjusting.
Hi Jeremy,
Mike Bull’s blog is over at bullartistry.com. He also has two books, a really thick one called Totus Christus, and a smaller one called The Bible Matrix. Be prepared for the weird and the deeper weird.
I like your reasoning behind sticking with 6 categories. It’ll be interesting to see how it develops.
Joe
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.
Hi Jeremy,
I enjoyed trading comments with you last week so I thought I would chip in my two cents here as well. First I would like to say that I agree with you that based on what I know (and it isn’t that much) that Jewish theology is indeed much more action oriented than Christian theology is. I don’t think that is necessarily good or bad (and I’m not saying you said that either). Much of Jewish theology began after the Babylonian captivity. They believed, with good cause, that God judged them because they violated the Mosaic Law. So they began to “build a fence” around the Mosaic Law to make sure they, as a nation, didn’t violate the it again. To further this they developed the theological tools necessary for building that fence (see pilpul logic or Talmudical hermeneutics). I think that this is just as theological as Christian theology but the motivation was very different.
As far as new categories for Christian theology goes I am not sure that replacing the old “noun” based categories with newer “verb” based categories (maybe you can call your new theology “Predicate Theology”) will necessarily spur Christians to more application. The fact that we are sinners does affect our priorities in a negative way.
The Bible does tell us that both application and knowledge are important (link here for scripture encouraging us to gain in both application and knowledge). I will save the discussion on gnosis versus epignosis knowledge for another comment some other day.
Glenn
Glenn,
Yes, maybe I’m just dreaming that changing nouns to verbs will solve the whole “head vs. heart and hands” dilemma in theology. But as Joe Anderson pointed out, the traditional categories seem to be based on Gnostic ideals. I haven’t thought much about that before, but he might be right, in which case, the categories need changing. Or maybe there should be no categories? Hmm….
Either way, I look forward to what you have to say about gnosis and epignosis.
Hi Jeremy,
I don’t have anything deep to say about gnosis and epignosis. I was always taught that the Bible teaches that there are two kinds of knowledge: gnosis which is an abstract, academic knowledge and epignosis which is knowledge that is taken to heart and can be applied. From what I have observed of other Christians, particularly on the internet so this may not be fair, is that they are full of gnosis but have little epignosis.
It seems to me that there are a lot of Christians but not a lot of application which I think you will agree with. Part of this is the individual believers’ fault (learning and applying truth is hard work) and part is that there aren’t many pastors who are feeding the Lord’s sheep.
I suspect you have studied the gnosis/epignosis distinction in seminary. For anyone else who is interested I think this article lays out the differences: Gnosis and Epignosis.
Glenn
I don’t remember them teaching that in seminary. But then, there is an awful lot they don’t teach in Seminary….
I do, however, seem to remember reading something about it somewhere, but I need to look into it further.
Hi gents
I traced a link here.
If you’d like a free copy of my book Bible Matrix (mentioned above), send me a postal address. I’d appreciate your thoughts on it.
Blog is at http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp
Kind regards,
Mike Bull
Mike,
Fantastic. Thank you. I’ll let you know what I think.
Also, there are some reviews on amazon.com :
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Matrix-Michael-Bull/dp/1449702635
What you are describing is basically the template for “Critical Theory” and its derivatives. You are also arguing against something that no one actually supports, not even the Seminary scholars. No one says that “It’s enough to know the Law.” The entire Epistle of James is basically addressing the necessity of faith and works walking together for the health of both.
In addition, the primary reason for Systematics is pastoral formation. Lay people are more interested in the “How shall we now live?” education topics. Theologians are more interested in “What does this mean?” topics. Think of the difference between Martin Luther and Charles Sheldon. Luther writes the Small and Large Catechisms, plus the Smalcald Articles; Sheldon writes “In His Steps,” which inspires others to write “What Would Jesus Do?”