Comments on: Doctrine Good. Subjectivity Bad.

By: mattlumpkin

mattlumpkin — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:48:58 +0000

Adam,
I like the way you think. The relational analogy with your son is helpful.

However, over the love-motive (which is legitimate, though your son’s ability to know you is in some senses much greater than our ability to know God), I think the more persuasive argument for pursuing good theology is that bad theology can lead to some horribly bad things done by those who think it’s good theology. Good theology is no safety net against bad action.

The notion I would like to squelch is not the pursuit of good theology, but the idea that it is both necessary and sufficient for right action. Thus, it might be given a lower priority.

By: paul

paul — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:40:35 +0000

thank you thank you thank you for this. such a pastoral, sensitive, and much needed critique.

By: Adam Nigh

Adam Nigh — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:56:08 +0000

No Mark isn’t going to hell if he isn’t thinking in those categories (yet) but does that in any way reduce the authority of John’s Gospel which is quite clear on Christ’s pre-existence and divinity? If we can track a legitimate progress of theology within the NT itself, not a revision but a process of clarification, why can this not be extended forward to Nicea and Chalcedon, which are also not revising the NT but clarifying its collective Christological content?

Mattlumpkin: Is this an apologetic for wrong theology? Of course right theology isn’t necessary for obedience, My son’s present inability to write my biography with any depth or comprehensiveness doesn’t keep him from obeying me (his stubbornness does), but if he loves me shouldn’t he increasingly seek to grow in his knowledge of who I am as an expression of that love? I’m fine with putting obedience before doctrine, but I just don’t get all the rhetoric that seems to squelch the pursuit of good theology. Doesn’t wisdom and love for Christ motivate us to seek to avoid such false dichotomies?

By: Items of note (3/12/10) : Theopolitical

Items of note (3/12/10) : Theopolitical — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:46:27 +0000

[...] J.R. Daniel Kirk on doctrine and subjectivity. [...]

By: J. R. Daniel Kirk

J. R. Daniel Kirk — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:31:06 +0000

That’s a good point. I also wonder about putting too much weight on later confessional stances when I step back and realize that those are developments in the church’s doctrine, not what the NT writers themselves were working with. If Mark didn’t think Jesus was ontologically divine, or even pre-existent, is he in hell?

By: J. R. Daniel Kirk

J. R. Daniel Kirk — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:29:56 +0000

Too often the ethical traditions of the church have gotten so excited about the Decalogue (for example) that they speak as though what we’re supposed to do is tied to a “law” that remains unchanged in substance after the arrival of Jesus. Contrast an ethics of Decalogue-observance with the way Paul argues from the death and resurrection of Jesus (for example) to how Christians should be acting in community.

Thus, for example, the starting point in the Westminster Catechisms is to de-historicize the historical prologue of the Decalogue: “I’m YHWH your God who brought you up out of the Land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” is taken to refer to God being “our God and our redeemer.” Never mind the fact that God defines himself as our redeemer when he is addressed as “The God who justifies the ungodly” “The God who gives life to the dead” “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Etc.

By: Adam Nigh

Adam Nigh — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:48:45 +0000

I’m not familiar with McClendon’s work, but I see similar theological tendencies in Karl Barth, T. F. Torrance, Ray Anderson, and John Webster. These guys have shown me that systematic theology is not necessarily about binding Scripture up in a system but allowing the reality of Christ as he approaches us in Scripture to fully reshape our systems of thought and life. (I’m just reading my first book from G. C. Berkouwer and I think I’d put him in the same category.)

By: Ian Packer

Ian Packer — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:42:50 +0000

Daniel, can you tease out that last statement?

By: Ian Packer

Ian Packer — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:39:40 +0000

I wonder what you guys may have thought of the late James McClendon’s 3 vols of ‘systematic theology’ – vol 1 Ethics, Vol 2 Doctrine, Vol 3 Witness

Here’s a theologian very much concerned with orthopraxy intertwined with orthodoxy, narrative and even biography.

From Fuller…

By: Adam Nigh

Adam Nigh — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:34:08 +0000

“I’m ok with theology, but I want it to maintain its narratival character as much as possible”

Here we are in full agreement. And as a theologian, I’m ok with biblical studies, but I want it to maintain its theological character as much as possible.