A Vision for a New Systematic Theology

I have been thinking for a while about a new concept of a systematic theology. Systematic theology, as traditionally practiced tends to be the product (or at least should be) of the fields of exegesis, historical theology, and comparative dogmatics all filtered through logic. This method on the whole has produced great results, witnessed in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion or Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. At the same time, Biblical Theology has seen great popularity, and produced great theological fruit. The movement has called the theologian to remember and be more sensitive to the exegetical basis of theology. For a time, these two disciplines remained separate, if not hostile to one another. Now, there seems to be greater recognition of the validity each, and the interconnection of the two disciplines. Alongside the development of biblical theology, historical theology has grown into maturity, through the work of such scholars as Phillip Schaff and Jaroslav Pelikan.

As a result of these developments, I have a vision for a new concept of a systematic theology. Rather than each of these disciplines existing separate for one another, I propose combining each of these areas into a single work. The organizing principle of systematic theology would structure the work. Introducing each topic would be a short synopsis of the area under consideration, followed by the Biblical theological analysis of the doctrine and a summary of the historical development of the teaching. Having set out the Biblical and historical basis of the doctrine, place would be given for the statement and defense of the position adopted within the work, followed by a critical but fair analysis of other traditions and major figures. The area would be concluded with a reflection on the practical value of such a doctrine, and areas of weakness and needed refinement and further reflection within that teaching. An extensive, annotated bibliography would be prepared for each section.

The difficulties with such a project are obvious. First, the scope of the project is massive, encompassing multiple volumes. Further, the work is more than a single individual is either qualified for or capable of. However, the size of the project is a relative non-issue, and multiple authors would allow for the more rapid completion of the project. Also, the presence of multiple authors adds not only variety, but balance in perspective and personality to the project. Second, the project, like other works, will over time become outdated, and the effectiveness and usefulness of the volumes will be lessened. However, even a dated resource can still retain value- consider the continued usefulness of Schaff’s History of the Christian Church. The work can also be designed, like some commentary series, to be updated and republished, and thus be kept current. Since most of the material in many sections will not change much over time, a separate appendix could be published containing any new data.

Of course, such a work is more a dream, and very well may never come to fruition. However, I think the need is present. If anyone has any other ideas or critiques of this idea, let me know. I would like to polish the concept- and who knows, maybe encourage the excitement and the energy needed to bring this project from a dream into reality.

The Book of Isaiah by Edward J. Young (or Tendencies in Older Evangelical Commentaries)

I recently finished the three-volume work The Book of Isaiah by Edward J. Young. This work is a major benchmark for conservative, evangelical commentaries from a non-dispensational perspective on this important and interesting Old Testament prophet. I benefited greatly from plowing through this large work. However, while I was reading it, two issues presented themselves to me about this commentary in particular and other commentaries as they share some common features.

The first thing that struck me from the opening pages of the commentary was the format. I have noticed that many older commentaries, and a few more recent works, treat the text in an atomistic, verse by verse manner. I think this is unhelpful for several reasons. First, it is poor hermeneutical practice to treat a text piecemeal, sentence by sentence. No one would chop up a story by Dickens, or a treatise by Locke and examine the work a sentence, or a phrase at a time. The proper manner to analyze a text is by those natural divisions of thought found in paragraphs or larger sections which encapsulate a single or related set of thought. Second, this method obscures the structure that may be found in the work or the section under consideration. At times in the Hebrew Bible, this structure is important in understanding a section, or the work as a whole. For example, in certain sections of Jeremiah particularly near the beginning, oracles are grouped around a common word or a common theme. Without noticing this pattern of attraction of common words or themes, one may easily misunderstand or misinterpret these oracles. The fact that they one is earlier in the book does not necessarily mean that they are historically earlier; nor does the fact that two oracles are juxtaposed imply that they have anything other than a accidental thematic similarity- the actual occasion of the two sayings may be widely divergent. Following the chapter and verse division of the English Bible obscures the actual patterns found within the text itself. Third, this method destroys the unity of the text. No author sat and wrote a series of loosely connected statements. They wrote thoughts, and these thoughts were related to each other- and these were related to his goal and his reason for writing. It is the larger thought which has priority, and informs the meaning and significance of the details (Of course I am not denying the fact that the parts inform the meaning and significance of the whole). Thankfully, this method has generally fallen out of favor; but this poor format obscures the insight and the value of some older works.

The second thing that struck me was how much this was a “Christian” commentary. While I think that Isaiah has great significance for the Christian this side of redemptive history, I also think he likewise had great significance for those before Jesus. Dr. Young, and many other conservative evangelicals focus on the meaning of the text in light of Jesus; but in so doing, leave little or no meaning for those before the formation of the New Testament church or before Christ. Thus, there are passages which speak of Israel as the servant of God, or as a light to the Gentiles, which Dr. Young says must refer to Jesus or the church in the New Testament age. Passages which seem to clearly have reference to the return from exile and the restoration of life in Palestine have reference to the Gospel and the inclusion of the remnant of the Jews and of the Gentiles in the church. As a Christian, I cannot deny the basic truth that redemptive historically the eschaton inaugurated by Christ fulfills the figures and the expectation found in the prophets. But I likewise cannot deny that Isaiah had significance and had a message for those in his own days. For me, this is why the sensus plenior is such a wise method- holding in tension the meaning for the original audience and also its fuller, redemptive-historical meaning in Christ and those united to him by faith. From both an exegetical standpoint, and in order to do justice to our brothers and sisters before the advent of Christ, I believe conservatives must pay more attention to the original meaning and situation of the Old Testament writings.

Rock Concerts

Last weekend I went down to the Electric Factory in Philly with a few friends to see MxPx play. MxPx was awesome, but several things I observed before and after the show started making me realize that I really am getting older.

First, I remember how much smaller I felt than others in the crowd at rock shows when I was younger. While I am not that big now (but height helps), it is interesting that my perspective is beginning to change from being one of the smaller people at the show, to being one of the bigger people in the crowd. No longer being intimidated by the size of others in the crowd makes for a lot more boldness- even making it possible to get right up front after arriving after the first act at a pretty packed, big-city venue. (Of course having your friend shove you towards the front through four rows of people helps too). It is a nice feeling.

Not only size, but it also seems that I am older than most of the crowd. The first show I went to (Newsboys, but everyone needs to start somewhere, right) I was really young and thought everyone was older than me. Most of the other concerts I felt at least in my own age group in the crowd. However, for the past couple years, and at this show in particular- where the other bands which were playing are older, mid to late 90's ska acts- my friends and I really noticed that we were well above the mean age of the crowd- which we determined was about 17. It was really funny when one girl at this show said she just turned 16, barely one year older than MxPx is a band.

Not so nice is how much longer it seems to take to recover from a good show. The day after a concert is always rough with soreness, lack of hearing and loss of voice. But at least after this show (and the last show I went to, which was ironically MxPx) the soreness has lingered for much longer than I recall before. Furhter, perhaps accidental, after both shows I got sick. An unfortunate aspect of aging, but still I will rock on (that is so sickingly cliche, but oh well).

OPC's General Assembly

Since last Wednesday, the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has been in session. During the meeting this year two major items are on the docket for the commissioner’s consideration, the Report of the Committee to Study the Doctrine of Justification and the Amended Proposed Revisions for the Directory for Public Worship. Both of these documents and the issues surrounding them have major implications for the future of the OPC as a denomination. Please pray for wisdom and balance for those charged with considering these important issues.

Inspiration and Incarnation II

After a bit of a delay, I finally return to writing a little more about Dr. Enns’ book. I want to write about my second major concern with the book in this entry, and in subsequent entries deal with some of the responses particularly by those in the conservative reformed tradition to the book.

Dr. Enns notes that much of conservative, evangelical treatment of the Bible minimizes the humanity of Scripture, to the point of tacit denial. Sadly, as a general characterization, this statement is undeniably true. Dr. Enns labels this conception as docetic; parallel with those early heretics who denied the true humanity of Christ. As a remedy for this, Dr. Enns proposes the Incarnation as an analogy for an evangelical doctrine of Scripture- not a new concept in a conservative doctrine of Scripture. I cannot help but wonder though if Dr. Enns proposed correction tends to the opposite danger of Arianism- denying the true deity of Scripture.

I am not asserting that Dr. Enns truly holds to an Arian-like concept of Scripture. He says nothing explicitly or implicitly which leads to such a conclusion. Yet no good evangelical would explicitly state that he holds to a docetic doctrine of Scripture. What is at stake is a lack of balance. I recognize that fully addressing the divine aspect of Scripture was not Dr. Enns’ concern. Further, it could be argued that so much emphasis has been paid to the Divine that little need exists for further treatment; however, the lack on the human demands sustained and focused attention. Dr. Enns is clear throughout the book to acknowledge the human and divine in Scripture. Yet his emphasis on the human and the lack of synthesis with the divine leads one to question the unity of the two truths. Throughout the book, Dr. Enns presents data which points strongly to very human characteristics in Scripture, such as connection with larger cultural pattern of its time, clear signs of individuality in the various books composing the Old Testament, and observable patterns of interpretation by those using the Old Testament text, especially in the New Testament. While his concern is to present this data in order to bolster and protect the faith of the reader, I wonder if the lack of attention played to the reconciliation of the human with the divine might not lead some to serious doubts and questions. Many minds, like my own, need to hear not only that something is the Word of God, but need to see how the divine and the human can coexist and be reconciled by doing full justice to both truths.

The Chalcedonian Creed attempted to do justice to both the Divine and human in Christ, and to produce a systematic statement of the doctrine. Focusing exclusively on one aspect of the person of Christ to the exclusion of the other is not consistent with a fully orthodox Christological conception. To present a true statement of the person of Christ one must present “our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man…recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.” If the Incarnation is the analogy which one chooses as the basis for one’s conception of Scripture, then it is necessary to follow the analogy consistently and present the Bible “without confusion, without change, without division and without separation” in both the true humanity and the true divinity. Any doctrine that fails in this fails to be a truly orthodox doctrine of Scripture.