Building theology carefully

Whenever I am tempted to consign all theologians everywhere to the basket marked 'brood of vipers' for their slippery ways of sliding over hard texts into defective and dangerous thinking, I stumble across a Mark Thompson who reassures me that it is possible to deal well with matters of life and death.

This post, on what used to be one of my favourite quotes until I discovered it wasn't, is typical of the man's integrity and attention to detail.

Doing theology Luther's way

Carl Trueman points out:

I want to draw attention to the fact that Luther does not talk about what constitutes theology but about what makes a theologian. This is somewhat characteristic of his approach: many people have noted the importance of his "theology of the cross," which he articulated most dramatically at the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518; but the text of the disputation theses do not speak of a theology of the cross; rather they speak of a theologian of the cross. Theology, for Luther, is the words spoken by human beings in response to the words God has first spoken to them; thus, theology is a personal action; and therefore, there can be no discussion of theology without first discussing the agent, the one who speaks theologically. Theology is an abstraction unless it is understood as the action of the theologian.

From here.

It's not first and foremost an intellectual exercise! The failure to realize that is what distresses me about some of the theology I read from time to time.

Beware 'evangelical' theologians

Carl Trueman tells it like it is:

Finally, too few evangelical academics seem to have much ambition. Perhaps this sounds strange: the desire to hold a tenured university position, to publish with certain presses, to speak at certain scholarly conferences, to be in conversation with the movers and shakers of the guild—these seem like ambitions that are all too common. Yet true ambition, true Christian ambition, is surely based in and directed towards the upbuilding of the church, towards serving the people of God, and this is where evangelical academics often fail so signally. The impact evangelical scholars have had on the academy is, by and large, paltry, and often (as noted) confined to those areas where their contributions have been negligibly evangelical. Had the same time and energy been devoted to the building up of the saints, imagine how the church might have been transformed.

The whole article, from the 9 Marks blog, is here.

Whenever I pray for my favourite theological college, I ask God that he would cause the repentance or the removal of theologians and lecturers who are being tempted in this direction.

Don't go to Moore College to become a theologian

There are times when it's good to get straight to the point. Here, Andrew Barry says that it's a gracious work of God to turn someone into a theologian, and describes how it happens. Short and to the point.

Peter Jensen's doctrine of sin

It's strong.

It would be great if Peter preached more, wrote more, and archbished less. In fact, how great it would be if he were back at Moore College; not necessarily as principal, just speaking and teaching theological stuff.

It's a humble job, of course, to be a theologian, whereas to be an Archbishop is to be a prince of the church. Tony Payne compares the job of theologizing to being a sewage worker [edit: originally, Jim Packer—see comments], whose task is to make sure that once the brown stuff generated by humans hits the ocean, it's pretty much been cleaned up. It's a dirty, inglorious job they have, but true health depends on it.

Others want to glorify the job of theologian in deeper and profounder ways, turning them into mystics, magicians and wise people teaching the rest of us poor saps how we ought to be thinking about God—a sort of real life 'Defence against Dark Arts', where the poor students hope that they can pick up enough to save them from bad stuff.

But:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.

That's all we little ones need in the way of theology, and if the academic theologians are doing their work well, we won't really notice that anything else is going on.

Broughton Knox writes about his theology

I'm quoting from the unpublished manuscript by Broughton Knox entitled Robert Banks—a Reply, subtitled The "Apologia Pro Theologica Mea". The explanatory note underneath says it was "Written almost immediately after the publication of Banks' chapter in God who is Rich in Mercy, 27.2. 1990—not looked at since". It is a response to Banks' assessment of Broughton's theology in this book.

From page 4:

I hate having to justify myself but I am told I have an obligation to so as no one else is in a position to.

Robert Banks begins his criticism with the statement, "DBK seems to have developed his theological method too independently of the wider world of theological discussion".

Because he has had the slenderest personal contacts with me he has perforce to base this comment on my theological writings. He bases his comment on the fact that I am not constantly citing and footnoting references to contemporary scholars; but to assume that consequently I am unacquainted with modern theological scholarship is non sequitur, it doesn't follow logically. It is a question of what I am aiming to achieve, to accomplish by my theological writings.

By God's providence, from early youth, I have had very great opportunities of personal relationship and theological cross-fertilisation with scholars in the universities of England, Scotland, and America, and by their visits to Australia. And, of course, I have had access to the great libraries of England; the Bodley, Oxford, Cambridge, London, and the British Library, as well as the growing libraries of Tyndale House, Cambridge, and of Moore College, Sydney. I do not believe that I am unacquainted with the writings of modern scholarship.

If I do not normally constantly refer to them in the pages of what I write, it is due to my understanding of how theology should be written, or what the objective is. The objective is to make clear some aspect of "the whole counsel of God", and to then see how it applies to our life.

True theology is an explanation of God's revelation. Therefore there should be constant references to holy Scripture to assure the reader that what is being said is well grounded; but there is only need for an occasional reference to a writer in the last half-generation.

Most of Christian theology has been done in the past. A theologian should be very well acquainted with the pivotal thinkers of the past and of the present (of which there are one or two). Their thought will enter into his own thinking but, unless he is writing a history of theology, they will not be referred to by name.

A reason—and a most important one—that modern theological writers are not of much help—except to provide an interesting stimulus here and there, is that the presuppositions of their theological writings are so different from classical Christian theology that it makes much of their conclusions of little value. True theology must be based on, to quote our Lord, "What God has spoken to you". This is the Scripture as we have it in our hands. What God has spoken to us must of course be true, infallible and inerrant. Any other concept is unthinkable. Yet the members of the wider theological reading to which Banks believes I should be constantly referring reject this view of Scripture, which was the view of Jesus and his apostles and of all the theologians up to a generation or so ago. The "modern theological academy"

p.5...

has such a fundamentally different presupposition on which their theological thinking is based that an eclection that chooses this or that among their conclusions to include in the theological whole is likely to weaken rather than strengthen the result. This does not mean that a theologian should be unacquainted with modern writings, but it is more important to be acquainted with the older writings. My object and consequently style of writing does not quote either older or modern writers. But I am not criticised for not quoting the ancients, but only the moderns, and the deduction is drawn that I'm unaquainted with these latter!

Spurgeon and how to teach theology badly

The Spurgeonators over at Team Pyro have given us another cracker Spurgeon quote to be getting on with. Unfortunately, what Spurgeon criticizes here seems to be a besetting sin for some evangelical theological colleges and, in my observation, amongst some young evangelical theologians:

We remember the experiment of Daventry, under that eminently godly man, Dr. Doddridge, and we are not inclined to try the like under any circumstances. That worthy man did not dogmatize to "the dear young men" who came to his College, but adopted the plan of letting them hear the argument upon each side, that they might select for themselves. The result was as disastrous as if error had been taught, for nothing is worse than lukewarmness as to truth. Dissent became enervated with a faint-hearted liberalism, and we had a generation of Socinians, under whom Nonconformity almost expired. Both General and Particular Baptists have had enough of this evil leaven, and we are not inclined to put it again into the people's bread.

When I hear supposedly evangelical teachers quoting our theological opponents with approval and respect—men like Rowan Williams or NT Wright—I fear for their hearers and their congregations. It is a guaranteed formula for sowing confusion and for removing men's backbones in defence of the truth, and is not the way the Bible encourages us to produce fruit for the gospel.

Speaking of Spurgeon, I went to hear Mark Driscoll at the Ministry Training and Development conference at St Andrew's Cathedral yesterday. His exegesis of Acts 17 was seriously Spurgeonesque in its technique at a number of crucial points

for a somewhat contrasting view, I've posted on Acts 17 here, and here

by which I mean that the relationship between passage and conclusion seemed almost magical at times, and would take years of unlearning of Moore College exegesis lessons to be able to duplicate. Yet the conclusions at many key instances were irritatingly on the money, and stirred all of us up to de-institutionalize our thinking and get out there and speak the gospel to the non-Christian community with courage and conviction.

On balance, it was a great shot in the arm for hearers, and when I've had a bit more time to reflect, I'll post some more thoughts. There were other and good ways in which Mark Driscoll reminded me of Spurgeon, and I thank God for the way his gospel ministry has been used. It was good to hear Mark speak alongside Don Carson and Kent Hughes, and I'm looking forward to more today.

How to do theology

A seminal quote from Luther's Heidelberg Disputation:

19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom. 1.20].
20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.

Thanks Mark B.