In one of the discussions Craig S asked about a comment I made about the reluctance to use the Bible in modern academic theology.
I guess I mean that in general in the academic practice of theology the Biblical scholars have tried to do their work with as little reference to systematic theology as possible AND vice versa. IN short, it's a turf war. The NT and OT guys and girls say to the theologians "you can't do that - that's our job" when the theologians start to do some exegesis of the text! Even quite conservative Biblical scholars seem reluctant to allow a place for a theological use of the Bible.
From the other side, the Bible is just not regularly seen as the authoritative source of the knowledge of God by academic theologians: partly I think because they fear that their use of their Bible is trespassing on another's field of expertise, as I said...Theology is held to more akin to philosophy and distant from the historical nitty-gritty of Biblical studies. And perhaps this is reflected in the differance between continental, rationalist thinkers and Anglo-Saxon empirical scholars. (It's a bit like Sydney and Melbourne...cultural differences do shape us more than we think!)
Writers like Francis Watson (NT scholar) and John Webster in Aberdeen as well as NT Wright and OO'D have reacted strongly to this in the contemporary British scene. They think this seperation of the departments of theological knowledge is disastrous. I agree! But of course, this begs the question of how the Bible ought to be related to theology...
What do people reckon?
19 comments:
Well, I have no knowledge of biblical academia, so I can't comment on that aspect at all.
But the biblical vs systematic theology question is one I've found interesting in the past.
When I started reading Calvin (never finished!) I remember being struck by how little he quoted the bible, and by how much he quoted the church fathers. If you take ST too far, I guess you end up with Roman Catholicism.
I don't want to be down on ST though - I find it so darn useful and interesting! At the same time, when I'm reading lots of ST I occasionally have a bit of disquiet - did God *really* mean for us to slice and dice the bible like this? Is there maybe a reason He didn't lay things out nice and topically for us?
The other thing I've wondered is if the relative newness of BT is an issue. If we take BT as "beginning" with Vos, its only really about 100 years old.
Maybe the "turf wars" are just growing pains, and we will see a synthesis of the two disciplines in the future?
Ha, final comment! (for now) Its clear to me that one of the great strengths of SydAng is its biblical theology - especially the knowledge at the lay level. I was attending other denoms for about 6 years, and you really notice the lack of "big picture" narrative awareness.
I would suggest the SydAng weakness lies in the opposite direction - a lack of systematic theology. Even at the clerical level...
When I was outside the denom I began doing a lot of study, especially of the old reformed catechisms. There is a lot of gold in there, and we can be blessed even today by it.
At one of my old churches (a charismatic evangelical church in Campbelltown) I took a group of "blue collars" (a truckie, a hair-dresser and a handyman) through the Heidleberg Catechism. They all said it was one of the best experiences they'd ever had.
Perhaps its time to rediscover our heritage again...
I am wondering if we are to truly be Biblical, we should be following the Biblical pattern of teaching about God.
If the OT prophets and priests and the NT Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors & Teachers didn't teach a systematic theology of God, do we really have a Biblical mandate to do so?
craig bennett
So is the Heidelberg Catechism BT or ST? There since to be a fuzzy line between the two, and the HC (along with other Reformed catechisms) sits in the borderlands. They do include expositions of Biblical passages (Ten Commandments and the Lord's prayer) and they are arranged according to the traditional loci of BT: Creation - Fall - Redemption - Recreation. So maybe BT is not that new after all. Maybe people are setting up false dichotomies here.
I don't really like this "Apostles, etc. didn't teach a Systematic Theology of God" idea. But maybe we have different ideas of what "systematic theology" means.
When I was first saved, I spent a lot of time in the NT. With very little knowledge of the Law and the Prophets I found myself in a poor position to understand some books, like Hebrews. Since then, I've spent more time on the law, prophets, poetry, and wisdom. Understanding the OT gives me a new found respect for the NT and a greater understanding. I'm not too familiar with anglican so I'm not sure if apochryphal (sp?) writings are used as canon.
I take the stance that you need to know the law to understand the fulfillment of the law and how it applies. The basics of christianity can be gained from the NT but to get to the meat of thw word, a firm understanding of both must be used. It's foundation building. The NT is based on the OT. Much of what Jesus said is the NT is quoted directly in the OT.
I feel out of my league with the discussion here, but I need to listen to this to sharpen my skills. If you want, you can always email me @ txvarmit @ yahoo.com
Peace.
I'd say the catechisms are definitely ST. They do roughly follow the biblical chronology, but there is not a real sense of the biblical meta-narrative there. The proof-texts jump all over the place.
And sometimes the order is not biblical anyway. In the HC, for example, the gospel comes before the 10 commandments...
Not a criticism - just an observation. I think the HC rocks!!
In exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason that Sinai comes after the Exodus!
Well, ok then. The gospel explicitly mentioning JC comes before the 10 commandments in the HC...
CraigS
If the OT prophets and priests and the NT Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors & Teachers didn't teach a systematic theology of God, do we really have a Biblical mandate to do so?
I think this is a legitimate question. Of course, we dont precisely know what they taught day by day in the early church.
One could argue that the book of Romans is the prototype systematic theology...
I reckon we should be careful not to lose the technical meaning of "begging the question"... :-)
Just how should the bible be related to theology?
Well if there is one thing that I have learnt this year, I would have to say that it is that the Bible should be at the core of our theology. I mean after all, think about what theology is. Isn’t it a systematic and rational study of the nature of God, ie what we know about God?
So how can God be known?
A saving knowledge of God is thru his divine self-revelation in Christ (Jn 10:48). The person and works of Christ is revealed to us thru the Scriptures, which the Holy Spirit enables us to understand.
If it is the Scriptures that are the way in which we can know God, shouldn’t they be at the very centre of our theology?
I'm playing with semantics here, I know.
I believe that the scriptures are our guide or foundation for our theology, that Christ has to be the centre of it.
I find it interesting that we use the creeds as well as part of our orthodoxy in creating our theology which though being scriptural are not scripture, and in understanding scripture use the writings of the early and later church fathers to often interprete what they mean so as for us to remain reformed.
How many theologians will create their theology through studying the scriptures only, without referring to Calvin for example, or a modern day example would be to see what Carson, Jensen, Piper would say regarding it.
Even from the words of those who propose Scripture to be the centre of our theology, I'm not sure it works like that in practice.
craig bennett
Which Jensen? ;)
Well MJ, etiquette demands you inject some thoughts into the discussion soon... ;-)
I know, I know...
Sorry for the delay in replying, but we have been moving from Sydney to Oxford. But we are now, so I'll get on to it...
Well perhaps the question all along ought to have been "how theology relates to the Bible" not vice versa...
The Bible itself in form is of course not a systematic theology in the sense we know it. Even I would insist Romans - it is occassional and polemical rather than systematic.
And that helps us put ST in its place somewhat: it is a repetition (Webster's word) of the teachings of scripture (focussed on Christ as the hermeneutical key!) and as such is a type of "exegetical reason".
Theology has new challenges because times change and because the questions asked of it are different in each generation. So it must strive to articulate the answers afresh each time. But the "answers" are sourced in the Word of God, always. It is because it is "living and active" that this is possible.
Theology has new challenges because times change and because the questions asked of it are different in each generation
Obviously true. But how is it that something as "fundamental" as Biblical Theology can arrive on the scene so late without undermining the theological systems that have gone before?
Or to put it more clearly - if we got on ok without BT for 1800 years, why do we need it now?
well I don't think we got on without it really... BT as I was taught it is not really a radical departure from what many theologians have done for all those years. I suppose it's the premise that counts: that the Bible is THE source and authority par excellence for theological reasoning, and that the WHOLE of it, despite its diversity, reflects the one mind of its divine author.
Of course, Origen and his Alexandrian school began here, and because they took seriously the whole bible as the word of God for us today, they produced some rather interesting allegorical results. What are you supposed to do with the OT if you are a pagan Christian, after all? BT is a fairly traditional alternative to the question in the tradition of the Antiochene school, who eschewed allegory on the whole for a "plain" reading of the text.
Post a Comment