Comments on: How Necessary is Doctrine?

By: J. R. Daniel Kirk

J. R. Daniel Kirk — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:28:15 +0000

Ah… I was thinking more in terms of the timeline of the Bible’s composition: OT to the end of the NT, not NT to Thomas.

I think you’re right about the early creeds demonstrating such a compulsion.

Look! Everyone! Adam and I agree!

By: Adam Nigh

Adam Nigh — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:20:08 +0000

“the people of God did not feel any particular compulsion to create a [systematic] theology for over a thousand years.”

I’m suggesting the early creeds demonstrate just such a compulsion toward systematic theology.

By: J. R. Daniel Kirk

J. R. Daniel Kirk — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:05:52 +0000

Not sure how I communicated that theology didn’t exist until the Summa. Didn’t mean to.

Why do Christians say, “I believe in God…” while the Jews cover much the same ground by praying the Eighteen Benedictions?

I think there’s more to the idea that Christianity turns to credo because it quickly became post-Jewish than folks are sometimes willing to countenance. The difference has more to do with culture and tradition than content.

By: Adam Nigh

Adam Nigh — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:58:03 +0000

Some interesting and helpful thoughts here. I (as always) appreciate the critique of evangelicalism that poses too stark a priority of doctrine over behaviour.

I’ve heard it explained that the reason Christians do systematic theology while Jews don’t is that it took the Word objectifying itself, becoming flesh in Christ, to give humans the opportunity to (subjectively, yes) respond to that revealed objectivity of the Word by seeking to articulate its (His) inner coherence. I’m married to that thesis, but I’m flirting with it, thinking about asking it out to dinner.

You imply that doctrine didn’t exist until Thomas wrote the Summa. I certainly don’t buy that. The Apostle’s Creed might not be a multi-book all encompassing theology, but it is definitely doctrine.

By: Lee Wyatt

Lee Wyatt — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:32:07 +0000

In working on a book on evangelism I discovered that the NT has its own “ortho”-word that I believe ought to replace the non-biblical “ortho’s” we regularly use. It’s found only in Galatians 2:14 – “orthopodousin” (“orthopodeo): to walk right. In the highly significant context of Paul’s rebuking Peter over his failure to either understand or practice “the truth of the gospel,” in his table fellowship in Galatia, this word seems to capture both the practice of and reflection on faith together. To WALK right, one has to actually do something; to walk RIGHT, one has to reflect on the direction of one’s feet. I may be reading too much into this verb but I’m going to try it out with folks for a while and see if it helps bridge the orthodoxy/orthopraxy divide.

Peace,
Lee Wyatt

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:25:27 +0000

Good thoughts, Daniel. It is so interesting to me to think about how the early church (and Jewish community before?) was identified not (primarily) by what they believed, per se, but by what they did (i.e., witnessing to the Christ event by word and deed). I really hope we are able to become more aware of the fact that our identity is wrapped up in the story of God, and not in our systematic theologies. Keep ‘em coming!