I understand that systematic theology arises naturally from God's revelation. It is a true, right and necessary exercise for Christians to engage in. Systematic theology clarifies our understanding of God, and thus allows us to know him better, and to understand the way he has revealed himself, how we are made right with him through Jesus, as well as enabling us to live wisely under God. So I'm not anti-systematics. But I think I still have a disposition against it which I have only just become aware of.
The reason for this stance is I associate systematic theology with bad bible reading/teaching. Or perhaps bad isn't the most appropriate word, maybe more like unsound bible reading. That is, those who are strong on systematics often know their bible really well but don't read their bible well. So they see a word during bible study or when preparing a sermon and off they go. What they tend to say on this tangent is invariably sound biblical truth. On the other hand, perhaps because of these wild flights, they rarely exegete the passage well. The meaning of the word or concept within its context takes a back seat to them downloading their understood dictionary entry on the matter at hand.
One of the strengths in Mark Driscoll's preaching (which surprises many people considering his popularity) is his systematic theology. I was going to say MD made systematic theology cool again, but MD seems to make everything cool. What he has done is highlighted a felt deficiency in much modern preaching reagrding systematic theology (at least in my circles). You see, the bread and butter I was raised on was sound exegesis. Start with the passage. Actually my most repeated phrase in bible study is 'Where did you get that in the passage?' Now to be fair I don't ever want to change this aspect of my biblical understanding. I want to start small and build out from there. But the question is, do I ever get that far out from the details to see the systematic elements? I believe I don't. Or at least I haven't traditionally. The sound approach of biblical exegesis and making sure I understood the passage correctly has given me that emphasis, to the extreme that I realise now I have neglected the systematics to a large degree.
Back to Driscoll, because of his relatively sound systematic approach, he has gained a rightful esteem amongst evangelicals. But personally most of his exegesis is rarely as sound. Oftentimes it is simply useless in teaching the best method of reading the bible. At the Engage Conference a few years back everyone was saying, "Imagine having to follow MD into the pulpit?" But then when he spoke on the Sunday morning and was followed by Don Carson we all realised we'd had fairy floss for the entree. I love the guy as a brother in Christ, but I don't want people to replicate his teaching on the finer points of how to read the Bible. I mean, he always gets back to Jesus which is great. But I'm not sure if following his method you could start with the Bible and get back to such a sound systematic framework. Whereas an emphasis on what's in front of you on the page would be more likely to achieve this.
So what I anticipate over the next few years at college is my viewpoint and understanding of systematic theology to exponentially increase. The key thing post-college will be to show how the systematic theology comes to bear in the lives of individuals. And how to incorporate the more deliberate understanding of the framework I am reading the Bible from (I realise I must have a framework now which is largely intuitive but without much awareness), and how to show the way an individual section of the Bible both leads to and is sharpened by the systematic framework to which it relates.
The problem is I think most preachers (if I can narrow it down to that for now) don't have a platform from which they are able to do both. A congregation accustomed to detailed exegesis will generally be unwilling to accept further reflection time because the exegesis can be tiring to listen to in its extreme. On the other hand, those accustomed to stronger systematic emphasis tend to be less interested in the details of the passage, are less likely to read their bibles accompanying the talk and fade quickly on detailed examination of the actual text.
But it takes time to give an adequate exegetical basis to demonstrate both how to read a passage correctly to get to the truth in it, but also to show how the text leads to the systematic conclusions, and vice versa. Few preachers have the ability or desire to do both. But I think it is something to aim towards. Because an emphasis too far in either direction will have very real implications for the health of a congregation, their ability to feed themselves from God's word, and their ability to articulate their faith.
We all tend to lean to one extreme. I'm just realising I need to gravitate a bit more the other way.
"That is, those who are strong on systematics often know their bible really well but don't read their bible well. So they see a word during bible study or when preparing a sermon and off they go."
ReplyDelete...then they are not strong on systematics per definition.
Yes I see your point.
ReplyDeleteThough I'm not sure if it is quite as bad as I made it out to be. Those leaning in the direction of systematics are not necessarily unable to read and understand what is in front of them, but rather as I've seen it don't model a sound pattern of driving their systematic theology from the passage at hand.
But then again this may be evidence of a flaw in their method, which you have rightly pointed out would mean they are ill-equipped to test and modify their systematic framework in light of the text. This as you say, would evidence they are not really strong on systematics at all.
The main thing for me has been realising where I stand on the spectrum (towards exegesis) which highlights a deficiency (systematics).
Partly, the word 'systematics' is the issue for a lot of people. It conjures up visions of systems into which texts are forced.
ReplyDeleteHey, had a thought about the languages vs doctrine thing too. We really ought to say this:
We teach THREE languages at Moore. Hebrew, Greek and Christian Doctrine. Like Hebrew and Greek, Doctrine is a way of speaking , with its own vocab, grammar, syntax and history.
Yeah I like that.
ReplyDeleteI would only add:
Doctrine (like the other languages) is a way of speaking, with its own vocab, grammar, syntax, history and pain.
Oh yes. You just wait and see!
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you can do exegesis properly without some sense of systematics though can you? Because words and concepts carry some sort of systematic weight (even if people are often keen to commit illegitimate totality transfers and read in their favourite systematic). Paying attention to where a passage fits in the Bible's broader narrative is part of understanding how the particular passage works. Isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your reflections. And I like this:
"But it takes time to give an adequate exegetical basis to demonstrate both how to read a passage correctly to get to the truth in it, but also to show how the text leads to the systematic conclusions, and vice versa. Few preachers have the ability or desire to do both. But I think it is something to aim towards. Because an emphasis too far in either direction will have very real implications for the health of a congregation, their ability to feed themselves from God's word, and their ability to articulate their faith."
I like to think of studying and teaching the Bible like studying the body - each sermon is on a particular part of the body (a passage = a finger) - so it's good to do a breakdown of the actual components of the part you're doing - but if you're not paying attention to the role of the body part in the body, and in the body's tasks generally, then you're not doing your job. We've got to do anatomy (exegesis) and physiology (systematics) - and probably be exercise scientists as well - telling people how to use them. I reckon, to our peril in the circles we move in, that focusing on the anatomy part without paying regards to the bigger picture can produce an anaemic sort of Christianity.
"Paying attention to where a passage fits in the Bible's broader narrative is part of understanding how the particular passage works. Isn't it?"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, though the examples I'm thinking of with an added emphasis on exegesis still maintain a strong biblical theology but less on systematics.
Body analogy is helpful. And it's helpful because it highlights what I believe is ultimately a matter of emphasis whilst recognising the common aspects of each. You need some of everything. But then you also need more of some parts than others. Being aware of our comfort and prejudices will hopefully lead to appropriately modifying our approach.
I've very much been raised on a diet of what I like to call 'show your working' preaching. It was the same in maths in high school we were told to show your working that you did to get to the answer. That way even if the conclusion was wrong, the marker could see where you went wrong and how you got there (and award marks acccordingly).
This year I've come face to face with preaching that has focused more on the packaging than showing your working. It's not a matter of style over substance because the substance is good. But I think it lends itself to more of a systematic approach. But again it's not an either/or but a both/and. There's a balance there somewhere.
"I've very much been raised on a diet of what I like to call 'show your working' preaching. "
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering how much of a role pre-written Bible studies (which I know you don't really like) in line with the sermon series play a part in showing one's working in order to free you up to just preach the more packaged stylish version on Sunday...