Theology is my friend. Theology is my friend. Theology is my friend.
If I say it enough, I’m sure to believe it.
And I know it’s true. I am a theological reader of scripture. Once upon a time I thought that what I loved was theology proper, but then I discovered that what I thought of as theology was more like a biblical or exegetical theology. But I still love theology.
Ok, so why did I go into a fit of madness yesterday and post this as my Facebook status: “Dear Theology, I want to be your friend, but days like this make me want to disown you forever”?
I think it goes back to Monday’s post wherein I reflected on the impossibility of hearing things we don’t already “know.” The theology we bring with us to the Bible creates a way of “seeing” that determines what “scripture actually says.” And so, my FB friends were quick to point out that we all read the Bible with some theology, that we can’t lay that aside, etc.
They are certainly correct. Heck, I know people who think that the defining characteristic of Jesus is his command “Do not judge,” and they even think that the Sermon on the Mount proves them right! See? It’s hard to see what we don’t believe is there…
I’m currently wrapping up a course on The Cross in the New Testament. I’ve taught it twice and am about to teach it again next week. This class surveys the cross / death of Jesus in the New Testament, and then does some theological integration on the issues of discipleship and atonement theories.
Three big take-aways from both the lecture and the readings are these: (1) when the NT talks about the cross it is infinitely more concerned with how we live lives of faithful discipleship than it is with how the death of Jesus “works” to save us; (2) there are numerous models of “atonement” in the NT that address different facets of the problem of the human condition; and (3) penal substitution might be less pervasive than you think, and probably needs to be rethought in more biblical categories.
The problem with “knowing” how the death of Jesus works is that it keeps us from being able to see how the NT writers talk about it. The papers I’m grading demonstrate a fascinating reticence to embrace models other than a traditional penal substitution model; they often overtly state that we don’t have to do anything as Christians–and the cross of Christ tells us so. They then will chide scholars for not paying attention to the Bible (passages like Isa 53 in particular). *sigh*
This is why I have a love-hate relationship with theology–not because I’m not a theologian of sorts, or because theology isn’t important, but because our theological systems serve their purpose all-too-well: they give us grids for making sense of what we see in scripture, whether that’s the sense that scripture makes or not.
And this is why I’m more broadly skeptical of erecting any theological statement, howsoever so broad it may be, as the “grid” through which we read the scripture. The spiral of reading scripture and theological articulation must always allow for scripture to come back and correct the faith of both the individual and the church.
Theology: no better friend, no worse master.
Ok, so the pendulum errors are eisegesis and exegetical tunnel-vision, I get that. And I think most people resonate with the dynamic of letting Scripture breathe and speak for itself over imposing a contrived grid. I guess I’m just always so tired of the “just read the text” group (that you may not fit into). The context is the whole of Scripture penned by one *ultimate* author expressed through individual authors (I’m aware I’m not telling you new info). So if we can agree on that, I’m not sure why the everlasting misuse of Scripture by the vast majority of theologians out there bears any weight against the discipline which they are MISusing.
Judging by these posts I’m sure no one is able to make any headway with you on a possible value of creeds, confessions, and biblical-systematic theology, so it’s probably not worth commenting on. But for what it’s worth. And yeah, completely with you on battling a solely moralistic reading of every verse. I am not daring to be a Daniel by writing a comment.
“Ted”, I’m tracking with parts of your comment, but not entirely sure what other parts are saying. What are you saying in the “So…MISusing” sentence?
I do think that there is value in creeds, confessions, etc., but as historical markers and points that set trajectories or something rather than boundaries within which we might fall; or, if you will, tellings of the story that we might retell.
Daniel,
I think a possible frustrating that you are experiencing….has to do more with the particular vantage point of your students. I think it is probably at least partially the case that as students attending seminary are begining to reflect analytically about their faith and interpret the scripture they hold pretty close to the sides of the pool. I think this is probably a fairly good thing….I wonder if you would be as frustrated if you spent a significant time reading the sermons…of those who are interpreting the passages in light of many years of pastoral ministry?
Luke…what is…with…the constant ellipses in…the middle…of…your…sentences…?…It….is….driving……me………crazy…………………………………….!!!!
Once again I share your feelings here , Daniel (just as I did when I commented on your Monday post on the impossibility of hearing things we don’t already “know”). I often wonder whether it’s possible for people – who are trained to feel comfortable only when things fit into a particular theological position – to read the Bible on its own terms.
My own experience is different. I came to faith in a non-Western culture. Everything about Christianity was quite foreign. From the beginning I thought I should read the Bible on its own terms (but at the same time realizing that I had my own biases and presuppositions). When I went to Bible college many years later, I had already read the Bible many times. At College I found myself constantly wrestling with whether the doctrines presented to me were actually biblical.
I guess that’s why I like Biblical Studies.
Atonement theory is perhaps one of the most dearly held doctrines of the protestant church. For many people, penal substitution is the gospel! I think of the gospel coalition folks for instance. The gospel, for them, is the message of the cross via Luther and Edwards. I’m not anti-Lutheran, I just think, just as you’re arguing that scripture must always be reforming theology in its new contexts.
This is one of the reasons I like N.T. Wright so much. He’s not really saying anything “new” so much as trying to clarify again what the NT teaches. I know one of the best indicators of the need for good exegesis to reform theology is, as Wright often points to, Ernst Kasemann trying to free Romans from Nazi hands while remaining quite Lutheran. The church’s penchant for self-deception ought to be a constant reminder that nothing replaces good historical study and exegesis. Of course, we need our theology to help us evaluate “good” and so the spiral goes.
I like the critique. It takes a long time shift a paradigm, especially one so entrenched as penal substitution. I’m not anti-PS, but I agree that it needs to be rethought and that the Pauline passages on which most advocates hang their hat, are in fact not about substitution but participation.
Are we unwilling to relinquish the thought that understanding the Scriptures is all that there is to theology? We might wash away 1500 or more years of Christian history and theology if that’s the case…
The Scriptures should provide a framework, not the entirety, of our understanding of God’s interaction with humanity. It’s our job to better understand how we, through cross-shaped lives, become the sacrament the world needs (and that God instituted the Church to be).
Much of what I find frustrating with Protestant (especially Reformed) theology is a lack of explication on what I see as the nature of humanity: sacramentalism. Humans are not merely intellect (hello, St. Augustine!), nor are we merely body or spirit (Gnostic heresies!), but we are whole people, designed to combine all of these aspects of our being and put them into submission of the Crucified and Resurrected Lord.
For example, the Eucharist is not merely a “symbol”, for by “symbol” many mean only an image in one’s head. This is a sacrament, for it has something to do with all parts of our bodies and it informs our very way of life in Christian community.
We should not under-estimate the value of the 1500 years of church history and theology. But as someone who has grown up in a non-Western non-Christian culture and tradition, I do struggle with learning and understanding that (rich) church history and theology of the West. And how about the history and theology of the church in India, China, other parts of Asia, Latin America, Africa and indigenous Australians? I am sure they have heaps to offer too. And then I think about the absence of Western influence on the Chinese church in several decades in the 20th century. The church grew strong by reading the Bible and by the help of God’s Spirit. I guess that’s why I fall back to the Scripture as the dominant and primary resource for my life and theology.