Edgework

I was still in my teenage years when I identified two different ways of using the biblical text in the life of the church. One was to select a biblical text, study it, preach on it, and in the end cast about for a relevant application in our lives. I was not, and still am not, opposed to this approach. But I remember asking my Bible School teachers whether it was not appropriate, on occasion at least, to come to the biblical text with a burning contemporary question needing some answers.

The general consensus seemed to be that this latter approach was, for the most part, not advisable. Eventually, it was said, you would run out of questions to bring to the text. And, furthermore, it is open to biased interpretation because usually such questioners are already leaning in a preferred direction so the temptation would be to use the Bible to bolster that position.

However, I was not easily pacified. Why was it, I asked, that so much preaching was not meeting me at my point of need even while preachers were claiming to be preaching the “whole counsel of God.”

I meet people regularly who are skeptical about the process of “doing” theology. I remember speaking at a gathering of church leaders a number of years ago where I suggested that we need to do theology with integrity in our contemporary context. By that I meant that it is incumbent upon all biblically-literate Christians, especially their leaders, to keep coming to the biblical text with contemporary questions in order to find a faithful way forward. One person responded quite vehemently that it was not up to us to “do” theology; that had already been done. Our task was to be faithful to what we already believe to be true.

I have come across such a defensive posture many times. Underlying this approach to theology is the assumption that biblical interpretations valid today have already been spelled out by the great saints of the past. Our role is simply to accept those understandings; reciting questions and answers that we have all memorized long ago but have a habit of forgetting. (Of course every group has its favorite saint!)

I certainly don’t want to disparage faith heroes of the past who have wrestled long and hard with the meaning of the biblical text in their particular contexts. However, if you look behind theological formulations of the past, it soon becomes clear that they were constructed in specific contexts that had their own pressing questions as well as metaphors and idioms understood at the time. In some cases these doctrinal formulations defend biblical orthodoxy against perceived heretical teachings. At other times they actually reflect an accommodation to prevailing cultural sentiments foreign to a biblical worldview.

In one sense studying “historical theology” is relatively easy because with hindsight one can discern these dynamics more clearly than those that swirl around us in our own time. So, for example, it is not hard to discern the temptation of Gnosticism – which taught that matter is evil and spirit is good – that Christians struggled with in the early centuries. It is more difficult to see gnostic tendencies in our “common sense” theologies of the 21st century.

As I see it, those Christians who have an aversion to “doing” theology generally head in one of two directions. Some move into a defensive posture in an attempt to protect doctrinal understandings they grew up with. They are always on the lookout for any deviant thought that emerges in their circles which they see as probably leading the church down a slippery slope toward unfaithfulness.  Others cast about for a different theological system formulated in the past and hitch their wagon to it in order to rise above inherited biblical understandings.

Both of these options are not inherently wrong. Indeed, given the right contexts, they might be the preferred route to go. The problem that emerges, however, is that usually such persons do not address the burning issues of their own time. They assume that the hard work of theological discernment has already been done and that all important questions have already been adequately addressed, once and for all. And, furthermore, the theological system they ascribe to is, without question and without error, the best expression of the timeless truths of the Bible.

From my perspective, I think it is incumbent upon Christians to “do” theology in every generation and in every divergent context. Yes, we can learn from those who have gone before us; not so much to be able to recite their precise doctrinal formulations, but to understand how they “did” theology in their time. Even if, in the end, one comes to affirm the basic faith orientation one grew up with, it is likely that on some issues new work needs to be done because the 21st century context demands it.

But that is the rub. Throughout its history, the church has often railed against new discoveries and insights that emerge in an ever-changing context. So it ended up defending the cosmology found in the Bible even though it was discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe. It resisted medical and psychological help for mentally ill persons, claiming their problem to be demon possession. It denounced liberationists who wanted slavery abolished to be anti-biblical. And it resisted every step leading to the modern emancipation of women. Such tragedies happen when Christians become preoccupied with defending theological dogmas of another era without bringing their contemporary context into the interpretive process.

Our faith heroes of the past will be accountable for the way they did theology in their generation in their contexts. We are called to theological discernment in our own time and place. To be open to what the Holy Spirit is trying to teach us right now where we live (John 14:26) is both a faithful and energizing stance for contemporary Christians to have.