1 - scripture
How is inerrancy best to be understood and expressed - if indeed it is the most appropriate and useful word to express and uphold the highest possible commitment of the authority of scripture? Can we move beyond the use of the word as line in the sand and actually articulate what we mean by it in the midst of a post-biblical culture? Can evangelicals actually have a mature discussion about this? (I really like what The Gospel Coalition is doing with this, actually)
2 - God
Now that the 'openness of God' distraction has been overcome, there still seems to be a tension between the position known as 'classical theism' and the more 'biblical personalist' position. How are the attributes of God to be addressed, then, by the biblical Christian? Does classical theism help or hinder?
3 - election
Election is always a tough one. Double or single? Have new readings of Paul made a difference to what needs to be said about Israel? What is the purpose of the doctrine of election, dogmatically speaking?
4 - the atonement
Even between those who would agree that penal substitution is an indispensible part of the Bible's teaching on the atonement - what place does it have within the whole scope of the Bible's teaching? How does it relate to other elements?
5 - justification
The debate between Wright and Piper over imputation reveals some faultlines. Imputation seems a necessary corollory of an evangelical testimony to justification by faith. But what are its exegetical foundations? And will 'union with Christ' prove to be a more fruitful model to explain this teaching? (with much good work to come from Moore's own Con Campell)
6 - anthropology
I think theological anthropology is right at the missional cutting edge, and the more thinking evangelicals can do about it the better. That is not to fall prey to the temptation to collapse theology into anthropology, or to get distracted by all kinds of anthropologically interesting byways, but to give a full and rich account of the meaning and purpose of human life lived under the hand of the God who is mindful of man (to steal from Psalm 8).
7 - sin
Sin is a corollory of the doctrine of man... Once again it is a missionally urgent task to give an articulation of sin that is as full-orbed as we can make it. This is one instance where 'biblically faithful' and 'culturally aware' are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The mute incomprehension of our contemporaries as they hear contemporary preachers talk about sin highlights the problem... The answer is not in their hearts of course. The word of God is better than we think it is.
8 - philosophy & theology
Evangelicals seem genuinely undecided about this as a group. Is philosophy good, bad, or indifferent? A friend, or a foe? Is a philosophy-less theology simply naive? or is a philosophy in addition to theology a blasphemy? What have we to say about thinking?
9 - apologetics
A connected issue, then, is that of apologetics. Ought we to do apologetics at all? Many evangelicals have invested very heavily in apologetics. But to what end? Are the models of apologetics - evidentialist, presuppositionalist (does anyone actually understand what the heck presuppositionalist apologists are saying?) - enough for the needs of the day?
10 - churchEvangelicals have always prided themselves on being ecclesiology-lite. They have achieved far more in terms of ecumenical co-operation than other forms of Christianity as a result. Ecclesiology is secondary. However, there are numerous settings where this needs to be revisited, given the rapid realignment of denominations and the retreat of Christendom. So you see some pretty heavy church-speak from evangelicals these days: the Nine Marks ministry says some pretty particular things ecclesiology-wise. The Federal Vision movement is likewise (though very different) heavy on sacraments and covenant/church talk. This is not an isolated trend.
11 - hermeneutics
I don't mean hermeneutics in the sense of perspectival readings etc, but in the sense of asking the question: what makes the bible a unity? In what does a richly theological reading of Scripture consist? There are some very exciting developments on this front, building on the work of a previous generation - biblical scholars now collaborating with theologians on the matter of scriptural interpretation.
37 comments:
Just wondering if you think it's valid to include one more - theological method. What is the theological method that should undergird the way we do systematic theology? What is the relationship between systematic theology and biblical theology?
I would want to add my point (made elsewhere) about coming to terms with other intellectual agendas and commitments, an area where I think the evangelical church is very weak. Whether this is covered partly by what you mean at (1) scripture, (8) philosophy & theology, or (11) hermeneutics, I'm not sure. Maybe it doesn't belong in the list, in the sense that there's no groundswell, and no obvious debate in this matter. But if you can give eleven points in a 10-point post, I guess I can try to break the rules in other ways ...
Mike,
Great post mate. Good issues raised.
Mike,
At least for American evangelicals, I think the church/state question is still a major issue as well (perhaps at the top of the list).
At least, from an American context, the race issue/church segregation is still a problem in the Evangelical Church.
@fongster - something of what you say is in pt 11 hopefully
@ Bruce - likewise, I kinda hoped your point was on here under the sorts of points you mentioned
@ Celucien and DC: thanks for your suggestions. I think one of the issues for evangelicalism world-wide is the dominance of American thinking - and the inability of everybody concerned to remember that things are very different in America! Though it has to be said, the church-state issue has a relevance here, it is less pertinent.
the relationship between theory and practice (e.g. in theological education, church, church-planting, mission etc)... maybe this one is too localised, but it seems to be explicit / implicit in quite a bit of the blogosphere I am visiting at the moment???
Yes, you are right, GB - though I do wonder where theology is going to fit in all of that. How is the issue theological? That is an important question to keep asking I reckon.
Good call on the need for a missional anthropology. That's what your "You" was aiming for, wasn't it?
Maybe we can work something around the classic Reformed idea of humanity: simultaneously great and greatly deformed. We're powerful enough to create the chaos that we do.
Also, maybe we can work something around a teleological anthropology. We were created for glory - we reach for glory in stupid things, and thereby fall into folly and idolatry - Christ descended to lift us up as an act of grace.
What d'you reckon...?
[Jeremy Halcrow said:]
Blow me down and call me a tabloid journalist but these all look like timeless doctrines to me rather than 'issues' as such.
In other words what is 'new' here? Where does the 'today' part come in as described in the heading?
And why not Christology and the Trinity which continues to confuse the punters in the pews?
Well JH - I think the Trinity received a great deal of emphasis in the 90s and a number of good books were written by evangelicals on the subject - Robert Letham's for example.
Moore's Mark Thompson is working on a Christology - in one way, all theological issues relate to Christology. Perhaps this is a fair call.
You are right that the issues are all eternally returning ones. But they have perhaps new pertinence today, or lack clarity, or need particular attention to be rearticulated in the current climate. Theology never says much that is new anyway!
Perhaps the way to stave off further silliness in regards to the doctrine of God is the take seriously His Triune nature as revealed in the gospel. I don't mean some kind of constant and rather banal three-ness in our language but instead an appropriate acknowledgement of the persons of God in relation to each other. This, in my opinion, is the only way that evangelicals will ever be in a position to discuss the Holy Spirit - something we need to attend to rather urgently - without conflating Him with Jesus, the incarnate Word. At the same time we will never give the full weight Christology deserves in our explanation of the gospel without ensuring that Jesus is the-Christ-in-the-Spirit.
the theory / practice question fits in theologically because it can only be worked through christologically...
an entirely missing dimension (I think) in the entire 'practices' literature (de Certeau, Bourdieu, yadayada...)
11. (a) Prayer & God's intervention (or lack thereof) and sovereignty in the world. How do we reconcile a biblical view of prayer when we have no evidence of God's intervention apart from bringing people to himself? (That is, I can observe God bringing people to himself because I can observe conversions. Beyond that...). (b) How do we reconcile what we know about the way the world works at a quantum level with our theology of God's sovereignty? (Eg Polkinghorne's work, and the old but relevant question of 'Does God play dice?').
12. How can we *finally* get beyond issues of creationism v evolution (I feel tired just saying it), and understand ourselves as evolved beings - thin layers of consciousness inhabiting an organism with an ancient design and self-contained ecosystem - in light of what the bible says?
So, in sum I guess I believe the greatest challenge for evangelical theology is to integrate or come to terms with the explosion in knowledge about our natural world that has come about in the last couple hundred years, and weed out the superstition that still exists in the pews and is encouraged from the pulpit.
This list is lacking an issue: theology and mathematics. It seems some of our foremost theologians are still undecided on what the number ten means.
"theological anthropology is right at the missional cutting edge, and the more thinking evangelicals can do about it the better"
"Sin is a corollory of the doctrine of man... Once again it is a missionally urgent task to give an articulation of sin that is as full-orbed as we can make it"
I agree, and I'm really interested. Any suggestions? Do you have particular research proposals in mind? or ministry emphases you think people should be pursuing?
As a pewsitter (although one with just enough theological education to be dangerous) I agree with Jeremy's comment on the Trinity. I can count on one hand the number of sermons on the Trinity I've heard in the 22 years I've been a Christian, and that includes the one I preached. What is needed is not heavy intellectual texts, but books that clearly explain the Trinity, and why getting the doctrine right matters, in plain, easily readable English.
I'm really glad that you included point 10 on your list... in my experience, the lack of emphasis on ecclesiology in the evangelical church has expressly NOT led to greater ecumenical co-operation. Perhaps you could expand this thought?
Also... Luke S., with due respect I would like to suggest that your thoughts are not free from certain presumptions about what counts (or can count) as "knowledge" or "evidence" - both positively and negatively. I think that you speak with confidence on some things about which there is much disagreement between logically valid thinkers, and that you assume ignorance about things for which there is perfectly valid evidence (albeit not empirical evidence). The thing you call "science" (which, in my understanding, is simply Baconian materialism, not science qua science) is a very young, often presumptuous, and philosophically tenuous bias toward understanding the world, not an objective means of evaluating knowledge.
Michael, as I've said elsewhere, I would have added other issues too such as how the church can relate to a more aggressive secularism that is intolerably pluralistic in some western countries, how to build post-colonial relationships with churches in the majority world, and better theologies of gender/sexuality that take into account debates about genetics, sociologies of gender, and cultural hermeneutics.
@Mike - some of those issues sound less than exactly theological to me, urgent though they are. When I hear the word 'cultural hermeneutics' I reach for my gun...
@Mikey - my experience is that evangelicals of many denominations have worked side by side in missions and in other organisations without a murmur of disagreement for years. This is because ecclesiology has been given its properly secondary place...
@Mikey, thanks for proving my point. Such hostility towards, uh, science is why Evangelical theology (and theology in general) will seem more and more quaint and arcane, divorced from modern thinking and stuck several hundred years in the past. But hey, if that floats your boat..!
@Jensen... thanks! That clears up my confusion. I thought you were talking about ecumenical co-operation between evangelicals and roman catholics or eastern orthodox.
@Luke S. Please forgive me if I sounded hostile... that was not my intention. I am not advocating hostility toward/denial of ANY evidence, but rather an inclusion of ALL evidence, and that is why I am suggesting that your point of view might not be taking account of some very important and valid thought because of a bias toward a particular methodology (please regard my particular wording here... I do not deny empirical "facts", just as I do not wish others to deny metaphysical "facts"... that those two things are known differently does not mean that one has a privileged epistemological status over the other... let's not BE naive in order to avoid LOOKING naive in the eyes of the current fashions of thought). Out of respect for Jensen, I will let you have the last word on this one, if you feel that you need to post one, in order to avoid ruining a perfectly good thread by going "off topic".
Sorry from a Catholic perspective this appears a little naval gazing why not come and join us then you would have no furthe rproblems
Goodness me! What has this got to do with the Gospel? How much of this has *anything* to say to those who havn't heard the Good News of Jesus Christ? This theology is the antithesis of mission. So, what are you going to do about that?
On the contrary: I think many of these issues ARE precisely a matter of have something to say to those who haven't heard - or who have heard and not understood. It is not at all the antithesis of mission but its embodiment, if it is true to its task.
Anonymous - why do you think that the God (2) who chose (3) to overcome (4, 5) our human (6) brokenness (7) and redeem for himself a new community (5, 10) based on his life-giving Word (1, 11) has nothing to do with the good news we share, (and also seek to understand (8) and defend (9))?
PS What's really missing from this list is hope (and eschatology), about which popular evangelicalism is still profoundly muddled.
Not to mention ethics!
In my response I'm going to assume a rather broad sense for "evangelical," and I'm assuming Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and people like Carson as a center and people like the late Grenz, as closer to the left side of evangelicalism (and British evangelicals tend to be more moderate on some of these issues than Americans, at least it seems so).
Regarding 1. Inerrancy, Carson is currently editing two volumes on Scripture that should replace (in a sense) the volumes he and Woodbridge edited a couple of decades ago, and I gather those should provide a strong restatement of how evangelicals see the issues.
2. seems a bit fuzzy to me. I'm suspicious of talk about "classical theism," so I guess the tension between the "biblical personalist" and "classical" concepts would need some illustration. As Fergus Kerr points out in a lecture he gave at Boston College (viewable online at frontrow.bc.edu), many theologians write about such things as the "classical" view of God in utter ignorance of the historical work that has been done on people like Aquinas, who of all people should be a model of the "classical" view, yet he hardly presents God as a static or inert substance, as the classical view is so often caricatured by liberal theologians (incidentally, this is a good example of theologian’s profound ignorance of substantive philosophical and historical work that bears on their field)
Depending on who you mean to address with 8, I think conservative Christians are in the best position we have ever been in philosophically, at least in the last century. Plantinga, Alston, Wolterstorff, and a host of other thinkers have completely redrawn the map of philosophy of religion and philosophical theology. It's mainly theologians who are ignorant of philosophers work; guys like Plantinga and Wolterstorff clearly have a grasp of theology (e.g. Wolterstorff's very impressive "Divine Discourse" or Plantinga's powerful "Warranted Christian Belief" as well as his numerous lectures and papers on Christian philosophy, accessible through www.calvin.edu). Moreover, Trinity has Joel Feinberg, a very well respected philosopher, whose work one would read in a number of non-religious contexts (e.g. on rights, ethics, etc.). So, we seem to be doing well overall on this, at least from where I sit as someone who just finished a philosophy program at an evangelical school. I don't see much if any academic hostility towards philosophy from evangelical theologians, but you may be thinking of things I'm not aware of.
I think you're dead right about 6 and 7. Sin's problematic for everyone except hard line liberals, I think, because it's the locus of a number of the most difficult problems in theology vis-a-vis modernity: the relation between history and theology (e.g. human nature according to science and human nature according to theology), the relationship of our context to problematic historic doctrines (e.g. original sin - how is sin transmitted? from who (who was Adam? How is he to be understood)? etc.) and - the issue you raise - the relationship between central Christian teaching and our cultural context.
Thanks Sam - that's great. Of course, I sit (like the British) just a shade to the left of TEDS (and I mean a small shade). I would want to say again - things are different in America. It is a different intellectual and spiritual culture, with different debates (often).
Are there any resources you could point me to that would help me understand the context you're in better? Or could you give a short summary of some differences between your context and that in North America? Thanks.
Echoing what one commenter said above, I think you really have to include eschatology in this list. There is a huge gap in Evangelicalism between what individual members consider appropriate eschatological views. Some denominations have premil/pretrib built into their core doctrines, but other, more "modern" Evangelicals (for lack of a better word) tend to ignore eschatology altogether have a belief that eschat is irrelevant to modern life and don't hold to any particular view of eschatology.
Given that for some (think the Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHay, Jack Van Impe crowd) eschatology is perhaps the central issue in modern Evangelicalism and for others it is considered irrelevant to modern evangelical life, I think this is an issue worthy of serious consideration in the Evangelical community.
Eschatology? This is one of those points where I just don't see the problem being as bad in Anglo-Australian evangelicalism of my experience as it is in the US. We don't have the same political aspirations either, which is interesting.
The prob in my context with eschatology is perhaps a strident and unbiblical assertion of the radical discontinuity between this world and the next...
The prob in my context with eschatology is perhaps a strident and unbiblical assertion of the radical discontinuity between this world and the next...Yep - and that's exactly what I'm talking about. It is particularly common in our corporate songs and expressions of piety. Perhaps it is part of our lack of apsirations (political or otherwise) due to an otherworldly opiate function ripe for a healthy Marxist/Nietzschean critique. That is to say, a critique on the basis of the gospel, elements of which those two heretics help to highlight for us.
Thanks for your list, Michael. These lists often reveal something about ourselves as much as the groups they refer to. Certainly the descriptions do. I would think most of these could do with further work but are they the top ten to work on? For instance, I wonder whether we should stop shredding each other to pieces over out theories of Scripture (I don't count our theology of Scripture as a 'doctrine', nor a doctrine of humanity (though I have a keen interest in theological anthropology - read James McClendon, Jr, _Doctrine_ on the distinction). I don't know whether many Evangelicals are mature enough for discussions of the 'nature' of the Scriptures. I'd go straight for hermeneutics and wait for a discussion of theories of inspiration etc later.
When was the 'Openness of God' theology "overcome"? Was John Polkinghorne made mute? Did William Hasker recant? I reckon it was and probably is a worthwhile discussion even if you end up close to something like Graham Cole's "biblical personalism".
Election? Double? Sounds like the conflation of election and predestination; not to mention the assumption that the Calvinist-Arminian debates must be the terms of argument. I'd like to see more nuanced discussions about election-in-Christ, election for historical purposes, etc. Would there have to be such thing as a 'doctrine of election'?
I like your comments about the atonement. What are the stories that our understandings of the atonement arise from? Cf. Boersma utilising Irenaeus and N. T. Wright; or Oliver O'Donovan in Desire of the Nations. Somehow, we must escape treating the 'the atonement' and 'penal substitution' as virtually synonymous. (Somehow in this, we must also beware of how we use phrases like "the Bible's teaching" - maybe I've oversensitised to such phrases by speech act theory)
The debate between Wright and Piper over imputation reveals two macro approaches to the Biblical story. Being unpersuaded by "imputation" both exegetically and theologically, does this REALLY put me outside of Evangelicalism? Again, it seems like a necessary corollory only of a particular construal of what "justification by faith" might mean. And certainly not a universal one. Sounds like Con Campbell is on to a good thing.
Theological anthropology - absolutely - cf Middleton, The Liberating Image. On sin - ditch the assumption that we all 'get it', recover an articulation that is not locked only into 'lawbreaking', but power (or even 'the powers'), distortion, deviation... etc. etc... Not just 'rebellion' and 'pride' and 'selfishness'
Whose philosophy? Which rationality?
Ad hoc apologetics.
The sidelining of ecclesiology is not a good thing. But the sidelining of dividing over church governance, or competitive denominations was good. Ecclesiology is something worth grappling with theologically in relation to mission, ethics and eschatology. E.g. Newbigin, Gospel in a Pluralist Society, O'Donovan, Desire of the Nations, Yoder, Priestly Kingdom et al.
I'm with Byron - ethics and eschatology are a must.
Wow - definitely a good outline for a book I'd buy. Now you just need to farm out a chapter each to a bunch of mates and you're there.
Eschatology? This is one of those points where I just don't see the problem being as bad in Anglo-Australian evangelicalism of my experience as it is in the US.Maybe...although bad eschatology hasn't manifested itself in Australian politics, yet, this is a big issue outside Anglican churches in evangelical Australia. Particularly for the newer and more 'contemporary' evangelical churches - these guys ate up the Left Behind series when it first came out.
Post a Comment