In thinking recently about the doctrine of the church I have been led to reflect further on the standard evangelical method of doing theology.
It is not too much of a caricature to say that much evangelical theologising is no different from a Bible Dictionary article. Or, that we are content with what such a dictionary article might say about a word.
So, asked to give an account of 'the doctrine of the church' we fly off to our Greek dictionaries and look for the word 'ekklesia'. How is it used? What does it mean? Or more often: what DOESN'T it mean? By this process we also hope to pick up - and correct - distortions in the tradition.
But of course, the NT usage of the word ekklesia and the Christian doctrine of the Church are two different (though related) things. We have other words, for example, that are used to describe the people of God in the NT (I don't think anyone denies this). What's more, this is not limited to words: we have a number of different texts doing different things that contribute to our knowledge. What's more, I think it is properly evangelical to give consideration to traditional answers to the questions we are asking.
That's not to say that this kind of process of checking how the Bible uses its terms isn't a necessary and useful one: merely that it isn't enough to do theology.
11 comments:
Yeah agreed. It would drive me crazy at MTC, when at the beginning of EVERY lecture, we'd do a word study for 30 mins on every occurance in the OT and the NT. Thus leaving 10 mins to discuss the theological and doctrine stuff.
It was such a waste of time. Bibleworks and 5 mins of homework would have been far more fruitful.
I guess its an easy way to fill up those 40 minutes! /sarcasm.
MikeT.
So you're saying we should go beyond sola scriptura?
On the contrary. We should do what the framers of sola scriptura actually did in doing theology!
(and I suspect you agree with me Byron!)
So, asked to give an account of 'the doctrine of the church' we fly off to our Greek dictionaries and look for the word 'ekklesia'.
Who's 'we'? Do you mean Broughton Knox and Donald Robinson?
I think it is done in our community in supposed imitation of what these guys did. Haven't got the Robinson volumes yet to check out whether this is what he actually did.
It's just that DWBR wrote an article on 'church' for the New Bible Dictionary one time, expressing the Knox-Robinson view. So I thought you might have had him in your sights.
Many critiques of Knox-Robinson on church begin by dismissing their work as lexicography.
Well I shall have to look it up!
I have to say somewhere along the line we inherited a lexicographical bent, for good or for ill.
What do you think of it?
Lexicography—It's a good start. I don't really feel that people should attempt anything else until about age 40. ;-)
It's probably also a good finish, meaning I don't really think that people should attempt anything else after about age 60.
Certainly I think it would've done Karl Barth some good, judging by the book I are currently reading, and will soon clunk out a few thoughts regarding. If only he'd been a bit more lexicographical on bits of Romans 9-11, we could have been saved a great deal of architectonic Christomonism.
Guilty as charged.
Well I shall have to look it up!
How'd you go?
I'll get there.
Post a Comment