I recently heard someone say that theology is, at its core, an exposition of the revealed truths found in the Bible.
I think this definitely has a place in “doing” theology, but there is more. Consider a few thoughts on doing theology as both expositional and incarnational.
Exposition
Exposition enables us to explain, communicate, articulate, and disseminate the things that we believe in contextual, practical, historical, and applicable ways. It enables us to say “This is what we believe about this or that.”
So, when you read a creed or doctrinal statement, or when you hear a preacher explain a text, you’re getting a taste of expositional theology. Theology is being “done” by talking, explaining, and thinking about theological ideas.
Exposition enables us to proclaim, to defend, to correct, to exhort, and even to rebuke.
Incarnation
But articulation (even if it is flawlessly “correct” articulation and exposition) of theological ideas is not enough. Biblical faith is fundamentally faithfulness to the truth in practical and transformational ways.
Beliefs that are neatly communicated without practical expression are simply not going to effect change in the world. I would argue that theology is fundamentally an incarnation of the truth, and not just an exposition of it. There is a lot of Christology packed into this conclusion. (Stop and read John 1:14, 18; James 1:22).
Here’s what I mean by “incarnational” theology. When God wanted to say what he had wanted to say all along, Jesus came as the word of God, living in this world, in flesh and blood. Jesus embodied, and lived, and IS the truth. The truth is therefore personal (and by that, I mean the truth is A PERSON), and not merely expositional (Heb. 1:1-3).
Telling the truth (exposition) and living the truth (incarnation) must work together.
What do you think about this balance? What happens when we get lop-sided, opting for one aspect over and against the other, rather than embracing both?
I love theology. I love to think theologically. I am a Seminary trained minister (Liberty). As a former Vineyard minister from the 80’s, I love Anabaptist thought. With all that said, theology is not necessarily biblical. As Augustine and others have notoriously said, philosophy is the handmaid of theology. For years, I thought this placed theological constructs over philosophy. My assumptions were wrong. This statement is one of philosophical superiority over biblical simplicity. The Church Father’s were attempting to Christianize their systematic approaches to thinking and doing life from a Grecian pattern of thought. Augustine was first and foremost a man who was influenced by Manichaeism, with his secondary influence being Platonic thought. His great love was all things Roman (City of God), and he like many Father’s, attempted to incorporate their philosophy into church life. They succeeded. Our theological schools are Greco-Roman in orientation. This is why we struggle with the supernatural inclusions found within Scripture, and why we quickly devolve into a cessationist mindset, following the philosophers abandonment of Olympus’ influence. Yes, biblical truth is to contain ontological components, yet it has to be incarnational as a primary point of influence. Faith in its ability to influence and shape our lives supersedes the complexities of philosophies influences. Exposition is to be contained to Scriptural truth from a Christian perspective. To follow the model of the theologian, we will be forced to disregard biblical truth that does not conform to our philosophical perspective, and we will look for ways to undergird our vagaries and points of influence through the dissecting of portions of Scripture in order to prove a point, while disregarding context and flow from a proper hermeneutical approach. This point can be seen in Augustinian and Calvinistic acceptance of individual predestination over corporate predestination, being found in the predestined One, Jesus. this Calvinistic thought pattern has allowed Mani’s idea of predestined impulses of good or evil to infiltrate the church mindset, disallowing some from God’s presence, while allowing others based upon arbitrary predetermined choice before any personal actions were conducted. We call this perversion of thought double predestination. Stick to the Bible and exposit its truth. Let its mandates become incarnated once again.
Hey Rev.B! Thanks for the comments. Lots of strands in what you shared, but a couple of things stuck out to me.
“To follow the model of the theologian, we will be forced to disregard biblical truth that does not conform to our philosophical perspective.”
I think this is what you meant by “biblicist” on the FB comment, no? if so, I totally agree with you here. Theological systems, grids, and schemes (especially the ‘systematic’ kind) seem more like philosophy to me than true theology. My suspicion about his has caused me to hold rather loosely to identifying with any system (though, if I was forced to at gun-point, I’d say “Wesleyan-Arminian”).
My aim in this post is to think about “doing” theology by identifying NOT with a system, but with a person — Jesus. In that sense, I offer a bit of push-back to the idea of doing theology from a bibliocentric starting-place. Hang on.
I think the Bible is calling us to a Christo-centric way of thinking about theology (which may feel a little uncomfortable). In other words, I propose that the early believers were Jesus-Centered when coming to the Bible rather than being Bible-Centered when thinking about Jesus. There is, in my opinion, no other way to account for how the New Testament even came to be. After all, they were thinking about Jesus BEFORE the N.T. was written, and living (incarnating) what they knew about Jesus, which eventually found its way into what we now have (and call) the New Testament.
So – certainly, there was a lot of theology being “done” by believers before there was a lot of what we now have as the Bible. I hope this is making sense. The long and short of it is the difference between…
1. A Bible-centered faith in Jesus vs.
2. A Jesus-centered reading and application of Scripture.
I think there is a HUGE difference in those two things in terms of where the trajectory leads. What say you?