WHAT IS THEOLOGY? PART THREE

CONTINUATION OF MY PROFESSOR’S TESTIMONY

Before proceeding to read this third part of the series, please go back and read Part 1 and Part 2. Without that, Part 3 may not make much sense. Professor Roger E. Olson continues and says:

Everything I have said so far begs an answer to the question “What is ‘theology’—as I mean it here?” Because of the antipathies to theology I described so far, Stan Grenz and I wrote Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (IVP 1994). It has sold very well and is still being used as an introduction to theology in many Christian academic settings. What I say here will overlap some with that.

First, let me clarify “scholarly, academic” as qualifiers of “theology.” Most broadly defined “theology” is simply the study of God, thinking about God, the “science of God.” By “scholarly, academic” I do not mean “ivory tower,” “speculative,” “impractical,” or “disconnected from life”—including the life of the church. I MEAN THE STUDY OF GOD, THINKING ABOUT GOD THAT GOES BEYOND FOLK RELIGION—THE VERY INFORMAL, CLICHÉ-DETERMINED, FEELING-ORIENTED THINKING ABOUT GOD THAT MANY LAY PEOPLE (AND SOME PASTORS) REVEL IN (E.G., “GOD HELPS THOSE WHO HELP THEMSELVES”).

When I talk about theology as my discipline I AM TALKING ABOUT THINKING ABOUT GOD (AND MATTERS RELATED TO GOD) INFORMED AND SHAPED BY RESEARCH INTO AND REFLECTION ON SOURCES AND NORMS. WHAT SOURCES AND NORMS? Revelation (especially SCRIPTURE), tradition (in Christian theology that would be the Great Tradition of Christian thought and a denomination’s traditions), Reason, and Experience. Theology as I mean it is the study of God (and matters related to God such as salvation) shaped by research into and reflection on REVELATION, TRADITION, REASON and EXPERIENCE.

Who is theology’s audience? For whom is theology done? Well, of course, for a Christian such as myself, the primary audience is God; theology is done for the glory and enjoyment of God—and our enjoyment of him. But the secondary audience is the church—one’s own denomination and the church universal. The tertiary audience is inquirers—whether churched or not. Better than any simple definition of theology, as I mean it and claim to practice it (however imperfectly), is a thick description of it through explanation of its tasks.

Theology as I mean it, claim to practice it, and hope to defend it, has four tasks—grouped under two general headings. The two general headings, theology’s two major tasks, are CRITICAL and CONSTRUCTIVE.

Theology CRITICALLY EXAMINES truth claims about God (and matters related to God) in light of REVELATION, TRADITION, REASON and EXPERIENCE to determine, as much as possible, their truth status (or falsity) using those four criteria. It does this for the churches—to protect and preserve them in the truth of God.

The second step under “critical task” is to determine, as far as possible, the importance of true beliefs. Are they essential to Christianity (for example), not to Christianity but to a denomination or Christian tradition, or interesting but not essential to anything? (To me Isaiah White Tumwine, this is what I consider BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, a school I belong to)

As for the constructive tasks of theology: Theology attempts to develop cognitive models (doctrines) of God and matters related to God out of revelation, tradition, reason and experience and (second step) reconstruct them to be culturally relevant. (To me, Isaiah White Tumwine, this is what I call SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY).

These are extremely simplistic accounts of theology’s tasks, and they do not explore or explain the various possibilities for carrying them out, but I argue they define “theology” and are all necessary to its being “done” adequately.

Theology as I mean it does these tasks in that way—using revelation, tradition, reason and experience. One question that inevitably arises is about “biblical theology.” What is “biblical theology” in relation to what I am calling simply “theology?” As I understand it “biblical theology” has two distinct meanings. First is simply hermeneutics. Second is “theology done faithfully to the Bible.” I affirm both.

The first is useful, even necessary, for theology as I mean it, but theology as I mean it here (and in Part 1) goes beyond hermeneutics. Theology as I attempt to do it, evangelical Christian theology, also attempts to be biblically faithful. Theology is a distinct and scholarly discipline within the Christian academic context; it cannot be replaced by any other discipline without major loss.

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS SHAPED, IN PART, BY BELIEFS AND ITS BELIEFS SHOULD BE REASONABLE IN THE BROADEST SENSE IN LIGHT OF REVELATION, TRADITION, REASON AND EXPERIENCE. THEY SHOULD BE INTELLIGIBLE TO THINKING PEOPLE WHO EMBRACE CHRISTIANITY’S SOURCES AND NORMS (AS THEY SHOULD). THEREFORE, CHURCHES SHOULD RELY ON THEIR THEOLOGIANS FOR HELP IN SHAPING WORSHIP, MISSION, PROCLAMATION, ETC.

Throughout my thirty-one years as a theologian I have found very few churches that valued theology or theologians. Once I volunteered to serve as “theologian in residence” at a church where I was a member. I asked for no remuneration and made clear my only desire was to serve as a consultant whenever the church dealt with matters pertaining to doctrine. I am confident the church declined not for any personal reasons; I was “in good standing.” They simply did not care about theology.

Occasionally I have approached pastors and worship leaders with a comment about something theological and have usually been rebuffed. Here’s an example from many years ago. The guest preacher’s sermon was about the “imminent return of Jesus Christ” and resonated well with the eschatology believed by most members and pastors of the denomination which was clearly premillennial.

Immediately after the sermon, the worship leader had the congregation stand and sing “We’ve a Story to Tell to the Nations” which is blatantly postmillennial. (I knew the worship leader was not postmillennial and doubted that any church member or attender was, either.)

I approached the worship leader after the worship service and asked him if he noticed the dissonance between the sermon and the song. He didn’t. I had to explain it to him. He said “ONLY YOU WOULD NOTICE THAT.”. To me, that’s a sad admission. A WORSHIP LEADER, LIKE EVERY STAFF MEMBER AND LEADER OF A CHURCH OUGHT TO AT LEAST BE INCLINED TO LISTEN TO AND TAKE SERIOUSLY WHAT HIS OR HER OWN DENOMINATION’S TRAINED THEOLOGIANS HAVE TO SAY. (Mayengo Eliab… owulila?).

Unfortunately, my experience is that that is rare. The result is often a lack of intelligibility, coherence, in preaching, worship and mission.

A good Calvinist friend of mine says “If we are to get the message [of the gospel] out, we must first get it right.” I agree. I’m not at all convinced the majority of American Christian lay people or pastors (or church leaders in general) agree or care—in any way that would be corrective or transformative.