From Christianity Today here, is a fantastic interview with Ben Witherington III. I really need to get his book The Problem with Evangelical Theology. Here's how Dr. Witherington describes the problem:
It (evangelical theology) has exegetical weaknesses that are not recognized or owned up to by the various evangelical Protestant strains of theology. That's what it boils down to...
The issue is not really with Christology, the Trinity, the virginal conception, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, or the Bible as the Word of God. The issues I'm concerned about are the distinctives of Calvinist, Arminian, dispensational, or Pentecostal theology. When they try to go some particular direction that's specific to their theological system, that's precisely the point in their argument at which they are exegetically weakest.
Books like this give someone like me hope. I have long struggled with the theological distinctives in each theological stream. I am from a reformed presbyterian background, but I am not Calvinist enough for most Calvinists. My parents and grandparents grew up in the Assemblies of God and we attended until I was in sixth grade. Yet many of the pentecostal distinctives do not resonate with me. (Though I greatly respect my cousin's beliefs and scholarly insights!)
I have found it difficult to find a theological home in which to minister. Initially this is what attracted me to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). But they are "so open minded that their brains leaked out" (Steve Taylor, Whatcha Gonna Do When Your Numbers Up).
So are there any good theological homes for a mutt like me?
Witherington argues that postmodernism presents us with a "new opportunity to re-engage the biblical text, which is trying to present word pictures and stories to a world that wants not just answers to its questions, but also its imagination fired up."
These observations are especially poignant:
We have to remember that those who wrote the Bible were not late-Western Christians suffering from post-Enlightenment psychoses. These were people who lived in storied worlds, in an oral culture where storytelling was the essence of the thing. Most people in that culture were not even literate. They didn't live in a world bound by texts.
The Bible was not written in a text-oriented culture but for an oral culture. So these documents were meant to be heard. When you read them out loud in Greek, you notice alliteration and poetry and all kinds of things going on that are totally lost in translation. I think the oral dimension of the biblical world, very much connected to storytelling, is a crucial dimension and is a key to understanding the theology in those texts.
So a question for you all: Is Witherington on to something here? If so, how can we become more faithful to what the Bible teaches? Does postmodernism truly represent a new opportunity to be more faithful to what the Bible teaches as opposed to doctrinal distinctives?
Filed in: theology, hermeneutics
11 comments:
Intersting thoughts,
I share some of your concerns.
The Bible IS about 70-75% narrative [story] and about 15% poetry adn only 10-15% didactic. Much of the problem is that Calvinism/Arminiansim etc. etc. is Systematic Theology. Sytematic Theology is important because it is how we answer contemporary questions with the Bible. i.e. "what does a biblical worldview tell us what we should think about abortion in americal?". We answer that questions with Systematic Theology.
BUT, although sytematic theology is important it does not teach us about the Bible, it jsut teaches us what others thinks the Bible says. Calvinism is systematic theology that tries to answer the question "how salvation operate?".
Biblical Theology looks at the entire canon of Scripture and asks: "why did God put this story here? Why did God inspire Paul about that? Why did God put Song of Solomon in the Bible? Why does Jesus say that? What is the main message and story of all the Bible? Etc.
The point is that we will always use Systematic Theology. i.e. "I am a Calvinist, this is what i think Scripture teaches about this or that". But our systematic and worldview is best informed by our Biblical Theology.
If you want a weighter article about this topic i would encourage you to read this piece by D.A. Carson who is a Research Professor of the New Testament at Trinity.
http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/
I'm also bloggin on teaching scripture to iliterate unreached people groups in missions. Some interesting theological questions and challenges arise when you try to teach the Bible to illiterate people.
here is my site: http://orality.blogspot.com/
It was nice reading your article brother.
Rev
Oh, I think he's right on track here. I firmly believe that it is serious error to take one of these viewpoints (calvinism, armenianism, etc) as a stand alone theology. I think it's not just evangelical theology for that matter, but systematic theology in general that has this weakness. We need to have a biblical theology. Instead of looking at Scripture through the lens of our theology, we should construct our theology around what we see in scripture.
I think one of the main reasons this is unpopular is because many times we see tension and apparent contradiction in scripture, so instead of holding two truths in tension we try to hold on to one and explain the other away.
Yes, and to add to what you said Ben is that we must realize that systematic theology is inevitable. Whenever we apply Scripture to our present circumstances we apply it by Systematics. But as you pointed out Ben is that Systematics should not have a place in interpreting Scripture because it is, as you said rightly, a lens of theology. Rather, the Bible is our sole authority, and Biblical Theolgy tries to understand the Bible by the Bible's own terms and THEN we apply it by Systematic arguement.
I would call myself a Calvinist, but i would not use the 5 points in defending it. The 5 points is antithesis to the
Remanstrance in history. The 5 points is not thesis. A entire worldview must be built by Biblical Theology so that the 5 points is either accepted as accurate systematic or not. the fundimental issue with Calvinism and Arminianism is not found in a dozen "proof texts" that each side uses but in an entire worldview of Biblical Theology that gives those "prooftexts" its context.
anyways, i need to force my self to stop typing or else i will never end!
Peace,
Rev
Hi, good post. I do think Witherington is onto something, but I would've liked the interview to be a bit more pointed on details. I want examples of what Witherington is describing as exegetical problems of particular distinctives. My problem with most "distinctives" from particular points of view is not that there is biblical evidence for the distinctive--there is, usually for both sides of the argument--but that the people advancing a distinctive usually have an axe to grind and a position to defend.
You might be interested in my thoughts about this article from a classical Pentecostal perspective:
The Problem with Pentecostal Distinctives. There was some discussion and clarification in the comments section, as well.
Regards,
Rich
BlogRodent
Even in my denomination (which has no real theological distinctives), each church takes on the same certain views. We are Wesleyan-Arminian. We have championed the cause of female pastors, but we have almost none active as senior pastors. We allow any type of worship style, but we are mostly traditional.
I think it's mostly that we copy one another, paying no mind to deeper theology.
As far as pomo times being a new opportunity, I think any time allows a new opportunity to look at our faith anew. The trick is holding on to the basics without compromise while not revering tradition.
Amen, brother. Why is it that Christian groups are often more concerned with "distinctives" than with unarguables? Thanks for showing me what I am--a theological mutt. I think this is my first time to visit your blog (via Swap Blog), but you're on my list now. Peace.
Great discussion everyone! I am so encouraged that these thoughts resonant with so many. I often feel so alone in my theological journey. Theological mutts unite!
Grace and peace,
Steve
You're definitely on to something here. Theological mutt-that's me! I quoted from your post today on my blog. Peace.
Steve-Great heads-up with this post-this book and topic sound fascinating. Having grown up Pentecostal, and therefore basically Weslyian, I have always thought Calvinism a bit heavy-handed hermeneutically, but maybe my own tradition can be parochial as well. And maybe my head is in the sand a little bit, but is the Calvinist/Armeinan logger-head begining to fade a bit in our theological conscience? It doesn't seem to me to be as prominent an issue as it has been in recent memory. If so, it might be the case that we are generally coming around to Witherington's view.
To thow a wrench in this lovely discussion it seems to me that distinctives are more necessary than maybe we are admitting.
I can not think of too many controverial distinctives that are NOT important!
I'll mention Men/Womanhood roles since someone already mentioned it. This is a distinctive that affects your hermenutics. Either champoining female pastors will adjust your hermenutical approach to 1Timothy 2 and Paul's creation order arguement -or you already do have a hermenutic that supports that view. I think it is a dangerous because this issue is often argued at face value without saying: what does our hermenutic and textual examination say?
So how we get to a conviction about distinctives is what matters. The distinctives themselves also matter. All i was arguing is that Hermenutics comes first, application second, then disctinctives.
Facinating discussion,
Rev
Great discussion everyone!
Phil - thanks for your thoughts on this and your question. I don't know if it is fading or not. If the Calvinist/Armeinan logger-head is beginning to fade it most likely will be replaced by something else.
Rev- thanks for all of your contributions to this discussion. Would it be fair to say that it is the how that leads us to the distinctions? How we come to the text, how we approach it hermeneutically, all of this leads us to our distinctives. I think that's what you are saying.
As to distinctives being important, I doubt any would argue with that. The problem I have with distinctives is that they can often become tests for fellowship and heresy.
What I most struggle with and tried to articulate in my post is that I often fail to conform to any one theological streams distinctives across the board. For me, none of the streams says it all. Not one am I willing to go to the wall for! But try getting ordained having said that! (I may need to come back and delete this post someday! ;)
Post a Comment