Skip to main content

Exploring the Christian Way of Life: Introduction Part 2

In my last post I covered what I view as framing problems. These are structural problems within the institutions that produce theology that hold the discipline back, limiting its utility to the church. I proposed a new location for the production of theology: the part-time, lay theologian. Their location in the real world as well as their freedom from the methodological requirements of the academic world can make them an asset to the church and the pastor. Contemporary theology is suffering from more problems than just framing problems. In this post we will deal with two major issues with the way theology is approached.

The priorities of theology, at times, have been misguided, both classically and in the modern period. In the modern period, there has been an overemphasis on providing firm footing from which theology can proceed and an effort to put theology on the same level as the hard sciences. This has resulted in the dominance of prolegomena.[1] Prolegomena is necessary, but it does not deserve the pride of place it has received. Theology isn’t objective and that doesn’t invalidate it. In Bayesian statistics there’s a notion of priors. The researcher has prior knowledge and experience that provides context for the data. It’s perfectly appropriate to have a hypothesis that determines the starting point for research and also to make key methodological and interpretive decisions based on your knowledge and experience. It does not invalidate the research. This is a key concept for me. While I will say something about prolegomena and hermeneutics, I don’t plan on spending a lot of time on it. As a Christian I have the most important priors: knowledge of Jesus Christ and the filling of the Holy Spirit.

This dovetails with my second critique of the focus of theology, and this is something that we have inherited from the pre-modern period. Theology is too segmented. We have a number of discrete topics, doctrine of Scripture, theology proper, eschatology, ecclesiology, and so on. While it is helpful to have categories in which we can lump certain discussions, I don’t love the divisions we have and it leads to these topics being treated too independently. This leads, for example to glaring contradictions in the explanation of salvation in the work of Luther and Calvin (more on this later).[2] Theological topics need to be integrated better and ethics need to be central to our theology rather than an appendix. This approach also results in a real difference between the way theology is talked about and the way the Christian life is experienced. As I mentioned before, there is subjectivity to theology and that stems from the fact that conversion is a subjective experience. Salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring us into a relational and experiential knowledge of Jesus. The Christian life flows intellectually and morally out of this knowledge. Thus our theology should be centered on and driven by this knowledge and experience. It should be centered on Jesus.

The other barrier that we need to overcome is how muddled, confused, dogmatic, and in some cased wrong our understanding of certain theological words and concepts have become. What does it mean to say that ‘God is just?’ or ’what is faith?’ for starters. A long history is both beneficial and detrimental to the Christian way of life. There have been many, many brilliant minds through the millennia that we must learn from. Unfortunately, though, some terms in theology have become so central and so full of a particular meaning (faith in particular) that I don’t find it helpful to continue to use the word heavily. It would inhibit people from actually understanding what I’m saying. In other words, often we’re beyond redefinition. I would love to talk about ‘the Christian faith,’ but to almost everyone who hears that, they would assume I’m talking about a system of belief. In fact I’d be talking about something much fuller than that. Luther and Calvin both had contradictory explanations of salvation. In each was present the view that salvation has a basis in our subjective belief. However, within their work, you can also find salvation presented as solely the work of Christ and based on his faith(fullness).  I believe the Protestant tradition ran with the wrong explanation and it has wreaked theological and ethical havoc. Thus, when I talk about Christianity, I will opt for words like ‘fidelity’ over ‘faith’ and will revert to an older terminology and call it the Christian way of life. For that is what it is – a way of life that encompasses beliefs and especially actions.

So where do we go from here? Sometime in April we will start working our way slowly through the gospel of John. I can’t think of a better starting point because it’s focused on Jesus, especially on his meaning and significance to the earliest communities of the way. As I have mentioned before, I view these book studies as providing exegetical basis and warrant for further reflection. In the meantime, while I am preparing for that, I will write a couple of posts on prolegomena and hermeneutics, again because we do need to briefly cover it before we actually dive in (and I do enjoy thoroughly hermeneutics). There also will be a research paper appearing on this blog before June is up, I would imagine, but I still am not sure what I will cover in it. I hope these posts have resonated with you and that you are interested in joining me in the journey to explore Jesus and our relationship with him.


[1] For example, one quarter of Michael Horton’s dogmatics are covering prolegomena. For Barth it’s about a sixth. Vanhoozer went about twenty years before producing his first actual work of theology as opposed to prolegomena.

[2] Campbell outlines this clearly and carefully in The Deliverance of God pp.247-77.


Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…