I’m searching for a good approach to theology that:
- Does justice to the Biblical narrative.
- Places an emphasis on practice rather than just knowledge.
- Is able to embrace not just the theological ideas of the past but also the cultural tensions of the present.
- Is taught and lived in community.
Any ideas?
I’ve read and studied Biblical theology, systematic theology, dogmatic theology, historical theology, practical theology, and narrative theology, and while they all have their strengths, none seem to meet all three requirements above.
The reason I am searching is because I want to focus this website on its original intent. When I started my Till He Comes blog in 2002, I wanted to focus on writing about Scripture and theology. I have somewhat strayed from that goal because I have not yet found a satisfying approach.
But I’m getting tired of circling the runway, and am running out of fuel, so I need to land.
Here is what I think my approach will be, and if I break a few wheels in the process, at least I end up on the ground.
- I am going to use Systematic categories (Bibliology, Christology, Soteriology, etc).
- I will approach these categories from a Biblical narrative and exegetical perspective. I don’t just want to see what the Bible says about these categories, but what the Bible says about them over time and through the progress of revelation.
- Church history and tradition will be factored in, but only after the Biblical data has been examined.
- Application to modern culture and issues will also be considered, with an emphasis on how the theological category leads to action and service.
What do you think? Is it possible? Should I put my hand to the plow? If I did, would you keep reading? Any other suggestions on how to do this?
Great idea, brother!
God redeemed Jesus. Jesus was born again. He was the last Adam prophet. He received the quickening spirit at age 30. Then he started ministering.
Pasted: Jesus was born again and received the spirit at age 30, then he started ministering like all the elders in Numbers 11:25. Luke 3:22.
The Roman Empire destroyed Jerusalem but they were not righteous. The Romans had blood on their hands and so did the Jews that followed the Roman Empire. They were both co-conspirators to kill Jesus and John the Baptist and the unrighteous killed all the prophets from Abel to Zechariah by listening to the serpent. Matthew 23:33-38. So, your theories lose. They killed the heir of King David. Mark 12:7. Matthew 31:33-40.
Anybody that believes God is a man is delusional. I used to be a Jesus freak but now I know Jesus was just a normal person like you or me. He was a man like Adam was but he was born again and received a quickening spirit in Luke 3:22. He was the new Adam. He was a prophet like Solomon was and he was a prophet like Jonah was but he obeyed God. You are the delusional ones. If a man walked around earth today and said he was God, you would send him to a mental institution. God is a spirit only. John 4:24. He can not be a man. Hosea11:9, Romans 1:20-25.
Jeremy,
I will definitely be reading. I like the idea of looking at theological concepts as they evolve over time in the Bible (those are my words; you might put it differently). We probably make frequent exegetical mistakes by assuming that an earlier author had the same understanding of something (such as the afterlife) as later authors. I’d like to explore that more. So yes, count me in!
Sounds good. I value your input as we go along. The idea of theological concepts as they evolve over time really excites me, but I think it will be the hardest part of this study. There is no way to be comprehensive, and the process of choosing which passages to look at in depth will influence the direction of the study.
Yah, you certainly won’t be able to cover it all. To make matters even more challenging, a lot of very critical material for following the development of Jewish thought is in the non-canonical sources. But if it was easy to sort out, we wouldn’t need biblioblogs now, would we? 🙂
Whew! You are right about the critical material in non-canonical sources. I have access to some, but certainly not all of that. I may have to start off with an extremely rough draft, and then add to it over time.
The first step then would be finding a skeleton structure. Based on the comment from Mike, I am now struggling over whether to use categories of ideas or categories of actions.
Re: your 1. You must therefore use the utmost caution since ST (in contradistinction to BT) has you bringing your conceptual frameworks to the text rather than receiving them from the text. Hewing to your 2. is your best and only protection here.
Re: your 2. Well stated, and the latter half of your second sentence is particularly important.
Re: your 3. I think you are ascribing too much importance to church history and tradition. (Yes, you read my sentence right.) I say this because Scripture (OT and NT) has the explicit affirmation of our Lord through His apostles. We do not have the benefit of His written testimony on anything that follows.
Re: your 4. Good. I have long felt that reading “with a view to do” was the best – and perhaps the only – way to understand Scripture.
I have also come to see that there is a wide disparity between knowing the Lord and theology even though definitionally they ought to mean the same thing. I think the discrepancy lies in the fact that theology is the remaking of the word of God into something academic – which is, of course, the antithesis of reading with a view to do.
My hope is that your posts bring glory to Him who died for us and released us from our sins by His blood.
Mike,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, I am quite nervous about using the ST framework, but I don’t know how else to organize it. I wonder if I could start with #4 and use some sort of action-oriented framework rather than an idea-oriented one…. But what would the categories be?
Jeremy, it sounds like my points resonated with you so I’m grateful, and don’t think I should offer any further advice. Best wishes on your project.
Yes, I appreciated your comment.
I talked with a Jewish Rabbi today and asked him why Judaism never wrote theology. The closest thing they have is the Talmud, which contains theological ideas, but which is primarily interested in explaining how to keep the law.
It uses six main divisions, which he explained to me, but here is the Wikipedia summary:
1. Zeraim (“Seeds”), dealing with prayer and blessings, tithes and agricultural laws (11 tractates)
2. Moed (“Festival”), pertaining to the laws of the Sabbath and the Festivals (12 tractates)
3. Nashim (“Women”), concerning marriage and divorce, some forms of oaths and the laws of the nazirite (7 tractates)
4. Nezikin (“Damages”), dealing with civil and criminal law, the functioning of the courts and oaths (10 tractates)
5. Kodashim (“Holy things”), regarding sacrificial rites, the Temple, and the dietary laws (11 tractates) and
6. Tohorot (“Purities”), pertaining to the laws of purity and impurity, including the impurity of the dead, the laws of food purity and bodily purity (12 tractates).
I don’t think these would be helpful divisions either. So the search continues. I might have to come up with my own.
Okay, I came up with six major divisions – based not on major concepts in Scripture, but major activities of God in Scripture. I’m fairly excited about it, and will try to start posting later this week.
I just stumbled upon your blog today as I was searching out Church Planting websites. I appreciate your deep undertaking and pray the Holy Spirit guide you through the process of discovering and unfolding deep truth.
Gerry,
Welcome! And thank you! Let me know what you find as far as church planting websites. Are you thinking of planting a church? Where and how?
Jeremy
I really appreciate the way that you don’t want to just settle for pre-fabricated theological frameworks in which to study the Bible. You’re right about all of the frameworks offering some strengths, but it is easy to become to narrowly focused. I don’t really have any advice for you since you are well more advanced than I am. I will mention that I like to read the Bible as intertextually as possible. I often try to see how authors in the Bible use each others thoughts/ideas to expand theological motifs throughout the canon. I guess this may fall under the category of Biblical/Canonical theology. Anyways, I enjoy reading your blog because you like to think outside of the “established boundaries.” Best of luck!
Thanks Josh. You are on the right track by reading the Bible that way. I’m excited about this theological project. I’ve been thinking about it off and on since I started this website ten years ago. I hope I can finally bring some of that thinking to fruition.
This looks great – I look forward to reading more!
Are you aware of the Gospel and Our Culture Network (http://www.gocn.org)? I haven’t explored the whole site, but their stuff on missional hermeneutics for Scripture (which can mean a wide variety of things including I think all four of your points) is very good – http://www.gocn.org/category/tags/missional-hermeneutic
Mark, yes, I love the GOCN website, but I don’t remember if I have read that article. I will go check it out. Thanks!
Jeremy,
In your post, I read that you planned to use the standard systematic categories. Then, in a comment, I read that you had come up with six divisions based on “major activities of God in Scripture.” In many ways, the categories/divisions that you use will dictate (or at least influence) the outcome of your theological study.
My area of study is biblical theology. I think that many biblical theologians make the mistake of starting with the standard systematic categories. Their biblical theology therefore falls within those categories.
If we are seeking to build a theology on Scripture, then I think that Scripture should play the deciding role in how we categorize our theology. So, I’m interested in seeing how your own study goes.
-Alan
Alan,
Yes, my was not too excited about using the standard categories, but didn’t know what else to use. After a few comments here, and talking with a Jewish Rabbi, I did some thinking, then discussed a few things with my wife, and have a new idea for moving forward. As you said, this new way focuses on Scripture. I will try to make a post about it later this week.
I read this one after new theological categories,this makes more sense to me now.I’m looking forward to reading what you unearth!
Thanks! I’m looking forward it also, since right now, I’m not sure where to go next… ha ha.
I read this one after new theological categories,this makes more sense to me now.I’m looking forward to reading what you unearth!
This is a story I have never told, and will tell here only because you do not know me. When I attended a denominational seminary, the president of the seminary taught theology classes. I took one of his classes . He gave me an A+ and told me that was the first A+ he had given in 40 plus years of teaching theology classes. He said I had the most brilliant theological mind he had ever run across in a living person. That was quite a compliment coming from him, a man the denomination considered to be their theologian extraordinaire.
One would think I would be writing and teaching theology. However, that is not the case. I still love theology, but came to understand a long time ago that a theology that is not lived out in following Jesus is a worthless, empty theology. Regardless of how much I know and understand, I know nothing if I do not walk with “the least of these”, if I do not spend myself on their behalf. If I am not loving my neighbor as myself, my theology is worthless and meaningless.
One can occupy oneself with learning, teaching, lecturing, writing & discussing. Of these things there is no end. But there is no understanding if we are not living it. My neighbor who is hurting or hungry cares not a whit about the differences between Calvin’s view of predestination vs. Arminius’ view. But when Jesus shows up in the person of one of His followers perhaps my neighbor will get a glimpse of God that has eluded many a brilliant mind.
I agree with Mike. Well said.
So do you think that theology should not be studied and learned? Does the pursuit of theological learning keep us from living like Jesus to our neighbors?
Studying and learning theology is fine. The problem comes in when we spend all of our time doing that but somehow have no time to live like Jesus lived. We don’t know our neighbors and don’t spend time with the kind of people Jesus knew. We go to seminars, “Bible studies”, conferences, read book after book and that’s our life.
Another problem can be that we are very selective in the theology we study. We study mostly the things that we feel support what we have already decided is correct. You probably know people who seem to spend their time studying everything they can get their hands on that support complementarianism, for example. If they’re not studying it they’re trying to convince people they are correct. I know some of these people. They don’t even know they literal neighbors, and have no interest in knowing them.
Obviously there needs to be some balance. I think of the guy (supposedly a Jesus follower – he seemed to understand some theological concepts very well) who asked me “So it’s o.k. to go to a prostitute, right?” He was serious.
Sam,
Great points. We definitely need to balance the study with the practical living. It is crazy to see the disconnect in people’s lives (and sometimes our own!) between what we know and what we do.
Sam,
Well said. And, apparently, well lived as well.
Jesus was “born again” at the age of 30 ? Where did that come from ? Whoever said it should study God’s Word. Jesus was God incarnate when He walked this earth. Some people really have some weird ideas.