I'm carrying on a series of earlier posts (see here) reviewing some of the essays from McGowan’s Always Reforming: Explorations in systematic theology (Leicester: APOLLOS, 2006). Next up are the two related essays by Stephen Williams, ‘Observations on the Future of System’, p. 41-66, and Richard Gamble, ‘The Relationship between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology’, p.211-239.
Using the topic of the Calvinist-Arminian dispute as a starting point and drawing on the works of Charles Simeon, Williams highlights the following key points in his essay: Firstly, that when one looks hard at his or her convictions in systematic theology, one discovers that coherence of convictions often happen in what he terms as the ‘religious (and if we may add piety) context’ of systematic theology over the ‘speculative context’ (p.45). In another words, as he states elsewhere, “Life, rather than thought, is the zone where coherence is demonstrated.” (p.52). Secondly, Williams advocates that systematic theology should follow the lead of biblical theology in being concerned more about the relation of particular doctrines to life than the mutual relation of doctrines (p.49). This leads in to the third point – that there may be a ‘wider system’ than what our individual ‘traditions’ of systematic theology has to offer us. If so, such a ‘wider system’ should be uncovered in relation to biblical literary genres and salvation history (p.53). Finally, we should be more concerned about ‘doctrinal rules’ (of engagement) rather than ‘doctrinal moves’. He states, “What matters is the notion that moves that we make within the body of doctrinal rules should not be the primary focus of our theological attention if theology is geared to worship, obedience, proclamation and service. The rules are what matters most.” (p.59).
In Gamble’s essay, he begins by first defining theology and the characteristics of scriptural revelation – how it is historically progressive, involves redemption, has a historic-organic nature to it, and how it consists of different literary genres. Gamble then goes on to explore the relationship between systematic theology and biblical theology, and his conviction comes clearly across – “[...] biblical theology is and should be considered the natural, proper, and even exclusive, structural framework for systematic theology.” (p.228). This would mean a ‘major recasting of most systematic loci or topics’ (p.226). Gamble recognises the ‘classical method’ of structuring systematic theology used at the time of the Reformation, and that this method has somewhat been largely passed onto us. The implication of allowing biblical theology to ground and drive our systematic theology would be that a more ‘objective’ way of arranging the topics or subjects in systematic theology – one that ‘comes from within [the bible’s] own pages’ (p.238). Unfortunately and disappointingly, Gamble stops short here in showing us or giving us a model of how this could be done.
Using the topic of the Calvinist-Arminian dispute as a starting point and drawing on the works of Charles Simeon, Williams highlights the following key points in his essay: Firstly, that when one looks hard at his or her convictions in systematic theology, one discovers that coherence of convictions often happen in what he terms as the ‘religious (and if we may add piety) context’ of systematic theology over the ‘speculative context’ (p.45). In another words, as he states elsewhere, “Life, rather than thought, is the zone where coherence is demonstrated.” (p.52). Secondly, Williams advocates that systematic theology should follow the lead of biblical theology in being concerned more about the relation of particular doctrines to life than the mutual relation of doctrines (p.49). This leads in to the third point – that there may be a ‘wider system’ than what our individual ‘traditions’ of systematic theology has to offer us. If so, such a ‘wider system’ should be uncovered in relation to biblical literary genres and salvation history (p.53). Finally, we should be more concerned about ‘doctrinal rules’ (of engagement) rather than ‘doctrinal moves’. He states, “What matters is the notion that moves that we make within the body of doctrinal rules should not be the primary focus of our theological attention if theology is geared to worship, obedience, proclamation and service. The rules are what matters most.” (p.59).
In Gamble’s essay, he begins by first defining theology and the characteristics of scriptural revelation – how it is historically progressive, involves redemption, has a historic-organic nature to it, and how it consists of different literary genres. Gamble then goes on to explore the relationship between systematic theology and biblical theology, and his conviction comes clearly across – “[...] biblical theology is and should be considered the natural, proper, and even exclusive, structural framework for systematic theology.” (p.228). This would mean a ‘major recasting of most systematic loci or topics’ (p.226). Gamble recognises the ‘classical method’ of structuring systematic theology used at the time of the Reformation, and that this method has somewhat been largely passed onto us. The implication of allowing biblical theology to ground and drive our systematic theology would be that a more ‘objective’ way of arranging the topics or subjects in systematic theology – one that ‘comes from within [the bible’s] own pages’ (p.238). Unfortunately and disappointingly, Gamble stops short here in showing us or giving us a model of how this could be done.
There is a common trend observed in both essays – and that is a call for systematic theology to be more grounded in biblical exegesis within the context of a recognition of salvation
history (i.e. biblical theology). Gamble has rightfully pointed out that at least one implication of the above conviction would be a rethinking of the loci or topics of systematic theology. Interestingly, in another book I’m currently reading, Michael Goheen and Craig Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), actually propose four levels of engagement when one reads Scripture – firstly, Scripture itself. Secondly, biblical theology which traces out the narrative shape of the biblical story. Thirdly, as one considers the narrative shape of Scripture, what one finds is a Christian worldview which sets out the main elements of beliefs that constitute the biblical story and sets them within a coherent framework. Fourthly, systematic theology and Christian philosophy which seeks to reflect on these Christian beliefs at a more theoretical level. They state, “The point of a Christian worldview [...] is that the biblical story embodies and implies a framework of basic beliefs that can be set out to equip Christians in their lives.” (p.27). I have a point of agreement and a point of disagreement with Goheen and Bartholomew. I think they might be on to something in suggesting the concept of a worldview as a bridge between biblical theology and systematic theology. Carson has also earlier suggested such a move in his Gagging of God. This is all the more so following recent definitions of the concept as involving not just the mind, but more so the heart , i.e. fundamentally, a worldview is about orientation and commitment of the heart. Thus the concept of worldview could have some mileage in (coming back to Gamble’s conviction) shaping the loci of systematic theology. The point of disagreement is that Goheen and Bartholomew might have drawn up too sharp a distinction between intellect and practice in their definition of systematic theology, relegating systematic theology to the former. More recent definitions of systematic theology have been keen to include the element of sapentia (wisdom). John Frame for example defines theology as ‘the application of the Word of God by persons to all areas of life’ (p.10 in Always Reforming) . This would mean a much closer coherence and overlap between the concepts of worldview and systematic theology than what Goheen and Bartholomew’s four-level scheme would have allowed for. 
No comments:
Post a Comment