#6 When we systematize the Bible, or pick and choose verses from its diversity for a “topical teaching” we deceive ourselves if we believe that we have somehow improved upon the Bible from the form that God actually gave it to us in. Prior to the late eighteenth century, Systematic Theology did not exist as a separate discipline from Biblical Studies. For most of the history of the church the study of the Bible was the study of Theology.
I know I’m treading on thin ice here! And, truth be told, when I was presenting the original
paper (upon which this series of blog posts is based) at the Society of Vineyard Scholars conference earlier year, I kinda breezed right over this section (knowing full well that probably a third of the people in the room had PhD’s in Systematic Theology), in order to avoid a barrage of rotten fruit being hurled in my general direction. But none-the-less, when putting together a topical teaching we do run the risk of thinking that we are somehow improving upon the text by presenting it as a systematic set of propositional truths on a given topic, as opposed to the original form that God choose to revel Himself (and His truth) to us in (e.g. primarily narrative, story, but also poetry, etc.) Winn Griffin puts it like this:
“ordering them in a human fashion, as if the reader could do a better job than the Spirit in putting the text together” …
“Evangelicals believe that God somehow has given us the wrong sort of book and it is our job to turn it into the right sort of book…”
To my second point above I turn to Joel B. Green:
“For most of the history of the church, theology itself was primarily an exegetical enterprise, with exegesis taking the form of homily and theological treatise… its capacity to speak in the present tense across time and space – was on prominent display. The rise of various forms of scientific exegesis from the eighteenth century forward has had the general effect of segregating professional biblical studies from everyday interpretive practices characteristic of the church, and of disconnecting not only biblical scholarship but often the Bible itself from the theological enterprise” …
“Since the lat eighteenth century, scholarly work has moved forward under the assumption that history and theology are separate things.”
Now I’m not sure that I’m ready to throw out entirely Systematic Theology as an academic discipline (for one thing: there’s no Trinity without Systematic Theology, IMHO), but I do think that we, as the church, need to spend a lot more time getting to know the narrative of scripture, reading scripture in community, immersing ourselves in the stories of the text, and teaching our congregations how to read the Bible for themselves, before we jump immediately into Bible dissection mode for our latest series on family, end times, finances, etc. [But for an opposing viewpoint see Luke Geraty’s excellent post Biblical Studies Needs Theology.]
What do you think? Do we sometimes go too far down the road of scriptural dissection in “applying” scripture or developing “relevant” topical sermons? What is, or should be the proper relationship between Biblical Studies and Theology? What do you think of Green’s argument from the history of the theological endeavor above? Let me know in the comments below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Click here to read the next post in this series
This is your best post in this series (so far), Brad! Excellent!
But do you really think Luke Geraty’s article is OPPRESSIVE? 🙂
YES!! I am finally oppressive!!!!
Thanks Robby. So what do you think of the whole “you can’t draw doctrinal conclusions from historical precedent” argument. And OBTW, I meant to type “opposing”
As a systematic theologian, I affirm what you affirm as good in this post, Brad. But if you think systematic theology means “Bible dissection,” then I reply in the most congenial tone possible, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
Systematic theology does not mean extracting propositional truths from the text. Charles Hodge thought that, but Charles Hodge does not speak for systematic theology.
I figured that’s what you meant, but I couldn’t resist. 🙂
The “you can’t draw doctrinal conclusions from historical precedent” — I would suggest that when Luke (not Geraty) wrote the Acts of the Apostles, he was writing a historical account to make a theological point (as well as tell the story). So, I’d say be careful how you apply your statement. On the other hand, I wouldn’t recommend it for, say, Jephthah (Judges 11:29-40). 🙂
Thank Jon. You were actually one of the people I was hoping not to offend when I presented this at the conference in April. But I’m pretty sure that you were in another session – LOL. Seriously though, as I was writing this blog, the last time I typed the word dissection I literally remember thinking: “gee, I really should bust out a Thesaurus and find another word” but weariness got the best of me and I just clicked “post.” I probably had topical teaching/preaching more in mind there, and I may be guilty of unfairly lumping Systematics in with Topical teaching (clearly they are not the same thing). Truth be told, much of my thinking here is borrowed from Winn Griffin. I will ask him to chime in here later tonight…
All – FYI, I was able to get Dr. Winn Griffin to offer some comments on this thread and am providing them here (below) verbatim, for the benefit of anyone else interested in his insights. Cut-and-paste of his remarks from another forum (Facebook) follow:
“Brad, thanks for your invite. As you have deduced, I am not a big fan of
Systematic Theology. However, that is one person’s opinion swimming
upstream within a history ST seems to have been the “going” field of
theology to enter. I am not surprised that a sharp thinker like Jon Stovell would defend his own chosen career path. He should.
While Charles Hodge may not the theologian who speaks for systematic
theology as referenced by Jon in his comment on your article, his
influence does speak to systematic theology. Hodges’ drive for an “error
free” Bible seemed to be presented in a way that even later systematic
theologians like Grudem may have bought into. While he may not speak
for all systematic theology, his influence, even in the Vineyard,
through Grudem , his books and teaching in the VLI expression of
education has certainly influenced many in the Vineyard as elsewhere. In
my book, whose influence you reference, my argument is that systematic
theology was the basic meat and potatoes of topical preaching which
invaded the church and was perfectly well suited for it in the drive of
modernity’s propensity to “prove” a position. As with all theology there
is “good and bad,” whether it is systematic theology or narrative
theology, et. al. I tend to think that the job of a systematic
theologian for the sake of the church is to right the popular
inclination to sling together a few verses for Sunday’s presentation
because their exposure to preaching has been adopted by watching others
do the same thing. The job of the narrative theologian is to tell the
story and let the listeners know that other parts of the story support
or echo the ideas that are being presented within a present narrative
story being told.”