Theology in the church

Christian Alexander said:

theologically informed preaching and teaching are not prioritized.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'theology'.  There's the theology of the churchmen, where they cut, label, re-slice, re-arrange, and argue.  That'd be Logos.  Then, there's the rest of the human race.  They also share in strong religious opinions ... they just also have  a life.

In our fundamentalist church, the pastor does his preaching thing.  But in Bible class, where folks can speak up (without frowns), it turns out they express pretty wild 'theological' opinions ... they just don't line them up, label them, debate, and so forth.

The same principle can be seen in the synoptics.  You have your argue-ers ... Pharisees, scribes, Herodians.  Slicing and dicing.  Then you have your crowds of Jesus followers ... also opinionated with 'theology' ... so much so, the Jewish leadership was concerned.

Back to Logos (and likely this forum), you're won't find too much discussion of the principle.  Dorothy Day was a big proponent of it.

I have often heard through the years the following;

What do I believe, well I believe what my pastor believes.

or I just believe in Jesus.

many of my friends, the deepest thing they’ve read is a 30 day devotional.

Christian Alexander said:

I believe the majority of evangelicals would concur that most churchgoers today behave without giving theology a though. The church itself rarely addresses theology in its sermons or teachings, in my opinion. A minimalist approach to theological distinctions seems to be popular right now, with the goal of fostering greater interdenominationalism within the church. Therefore, in an effort to be more “accepting” of the religious backgrounds and traditions of others, theologically informed preaching and teaching are not prioritized. How can I locate this in research and statistics using Logos Software? 

Once again, I have to caution about the approach of "I believe X; how can I use Logos to back up this belief?" I have no problem with you believing something (and I too share this concern), but think about why/how you have come to that conclusion already. It wasn't out of the blue, surely. You've noticed things. It's OK for your evidence to be your own experience or other things you've read. I just have an issue with "I have a belief or a theory and now I'm going to go looking for evidence to support my theory." Inductive reasoning forms beliefs from what you read rather than having a belief and looking for support for it. So I'd go in with an inquiring mind, willing to have your opinions shifted by what you read. If you find evidence that causes you to double down on what you believe already, that's fine too. Just don't approach it as an exercise in confirmation bias.

EastTN said:

I also share Christian Alexander's concern that there's a certain theological shallowness to much of popular evangelical culture today. I see it in the congregation I'm a part of, and it worries me.

I share this concern too. My reason for believing it is the existence of such books as Who Needs Theology?: An Invitation to the Study of God. "

To many Christians theology is something alien, overly intellectual and wholly unappealing. Even seminary students are known to balk at the prospect of a course on theology. Yet theology—most simply, the knowledge of God—is essential to the life and health of the church. // In this short introduction, Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson, two theologians who care deeply about the witness of ordinary Christians and the ministry of the church, show what theology is, what tools theology uses, why every believer (advanced degrees or not) is a theologian and how the theological enterprise can be productive and satisfying. Their clear, easily understood book is ideal for students, church study groups and individual Christians who want to strengthen understanding, belief and commitment by coming to know God more fully."

Clearly, the authors (one of whom I knew and heard lectures by at Regent College) saw an attitude of rejection of (or at best, ignorance of) theology among ordinary Christians in the pews.

I am fortunate that I am part of a congregation with lots of theological depth. Our sermons (by both lay preachers within the church and guest speakers) tend to take on tough theological topics. People in this church read widely on theological topics and discuss the books they are reading. I've had recommendations for many books from my friends in this church, some of which I've been able to get in Logos, and others of which I've requested in Logos. But this isn't necessarily with an eye toward clarifying our own denominational distinctions and NOT accepting the religious backgrounds and traditions of others. So I'm not sure that becoming more theologically educated makes one necessarily more focused and particular in one's beliefs.

I can't really give you recommendations within Logos for evidence to support your position. However, you might find Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind to be of use. Reading the first edition of that book made a big impact on me and was one of the reasons I decided to go study in seminary.

Not to be persnickety or nothing.... but if I remember right... "theo" = God, "ology" = study of. Given that, then "theology" would be the study of God. And what better place to "study God" than in the 66 books of your bible? It is God's word.... I don't know how many translations of the bible that Logos has, but it has a plenty.

David Paul said:

Yeah, but then there's a thing that is referred to as "Biblical theology", and it is considered an oddball in the greater historical scope. Systematic and missional theology, where the theology is effectively "crafted" to fit perceived preconditions, sort of became the rage. For some, raw, unfiltered Bible is akin to base ingredients. You don't have a cake until you do a lot of stuff to get the desired outcome. For many, the stuff that is done to the ingredient of the Bible is what theology is, not the Book's own articulations. For lots of folks, theology is a human reaction rather than a divine revelation.

Doubtless that's all true for some people. But done well and faithfully, I believe both biblical theology and systematic theology have a role in the life of the church. Biblical theology looks at specific texts and asks questions like "what does the book of Ezekiel tell us about God and God's will"? Systematic theology examines specific topics and looks across the entire biblical canon to ask questions like "what is everything God has revealed about sin and atonement, and how does it all fit together"? We need biblical theology to make sure everything we believe is firmly rooted in scripture, and to ensure that we don't study only those topics that are comfortable for us and that we're interested in. We need systematic theology to ensure that we're listening to the full breadth of God's revelation on important topics.

EastTN said:

David Paul said:

Yeah, but then there's a thing that is referred to as "Biblical theology", and it is considered an oddball in the greater historical scope. Systematic and missional theology, where the theology is effectively "crafted" to fit perceived preconditions, sort of became the rage. For some, raw, unfiltered Bible is akin to base ingredients. You don't have a cake until you do a lot of stuff to get the desired outcome. For many, the stuff that is done to the ingredient of the Bible is what theology is, not the Book's own articulations. For lots of folks, theology is a human reaction rather than a divine revelation.

Doubtless that's all true for some people. But done well and faithfully, I believe both biblical theology and systematic theology have a role in the life of the church. Biblical theology looks at specific texts and asks questions like "what does the book of Ezekiel tell us about God and God's will"? Systematic theology examines specific topics and looks across the entire biblical canon to ask questions like "what is everything God has revealed about sin and atonement, and how does it all fit together"? We need biblical theology to make sure everything we believe is firmly rooted in scripture, and to ensure that we don't study only those topics that are comfortable for us and that we're interested in. We need systematic theology to ensure that we're listening to the full breadth of God's revelation on important topics.

You have a more charitable definition of systematic theology than it may deserve. At one point, I considered getting a degree in it. Over time, I lost my sense that it was a good way to approach Scripture. What you describe as systematic, I would include under the rubric of biblical. There are probably reasons for the variance. If your description of "systematic" is taken, then I think it broadly fails at that task, not the least reason being there is often a great divide between systematized takes and Biblical ones. Part of my assessment here is based on what I've heard systematic theologians say of their own purview over and against a Biblical theological perspective. Another issue is that "systematic" often seems to describe less the idea of a "fine tooth comb" and more the objective of creating a system, where the outcome is the objective that drives the approach. I've also on a few occasions encountered systematic folks denigrating Biblical theology as the domain of backward rubes. In the end, I don't care much for either as entrenched technical terms, mainly because technical terms have a nearly unerring tendency to devolve into rigid, inflexible monoliths of error, with systematics being particularly prone to such outcomes. Models, by ontological inevitability, can never be the reality--that's exactly what the commandment against idolatry is about.

David Paul said:

Yeah, but then there's a thing that is referred to as "Biblical theology", and it is considered an oddball in the greater historical scope. Systematic and missional theology, where the theology is effectively "crafted" to fit perceived preconditions, sort of became the rage. For some, raw, unfiltered Bible is akin to base ingredients. You don't have a cake until you do a lot of stuff to get the desired outcome. For many, the stuff that is done to the ingredient of the Bible is what theology is, not the Book's own articulations. For lots of folks, theology is a human reaction rather than a divine revelation.

Welll.... here's to show my "unlearnedness".  Is "Biblical Theology" different than "Theology" other than one is the study of the Bible and the other is the study of God. And as such, how can one study God without the Bible? Are there resources in Logos that differentiate all this?

xnman said:

Welll.... here's to show my "unlearnedness".  Is "Biblical Theology" different than "Theology" other than one is the study of the Bible and the other is the study of God. And as such, how can one study God without the Bible? Are there resources in Logos that differentiate all this?

I'd advise you not to make it more complicated than it needs to be. All good Christian theology must be faithful to scripture. But just like there are different kinds of sermons - and people who think deeply about preaching have names for each kind - there are different kinds of theological studies, and there are names for the different types. I'm not in front of my "home" computer with Logos right now, but any good theological dictionary has definitions for the different branches of theology. Having said that, the names really aren't all that important unless you need to look for a particular type of theological work. 

Bill Anderson said:

xnman said:

Is "Biblical Theology" different than "Theology" other than one is the study of the Bible and the other is the study of God. And as such, how can one study God without the Bible? Are there resources in Logos that differentiate all this?

If you ask a dozen people what biblical theology is, you may get a dozen answers. I like this definition: "When we talk about biblical theology, we mean a theology that not only tries to systematically understand what the Bible teaches, but to do so in the context of the Bible’s own progressively revealed and progressively developing storyline." (Michael Lawrence, Biblical Theology in the Life of the Church: A Guide for Ministry, 9Marks (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 26) -- Available in Logos.

I like that definition. I took a class in Biblical Theology at Regent College (which was divided into OT and NT halves, taught by Bruce Waltke and Gordon Fee, respectively) and then TA'ed for Waltke's stand-alone Old Testament Theology class, which was when he was preparing his book An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, so I got to proofread an earlier version of that and helped him tidy up his manuscript.

The way I understand it Biblical Theology traces themes as they develop throughout the canon. Waltke's book is organized into chapters based on several of these major themes, and he titles the chapters to indicate that these are all gifts from God. So, for example, he starts with The Gift of the Cosmos, and after an introduction and a section describing the audience/purpose of the narrative, he goes into the structure and text of the main narrative (Gen 1:1-2:3), followed by a discussion of its literary form. Then he traces the development of the Creation theme throughout Scripture: in Doxological Literature, Legal Literature, Wisdom Literature, the New Testament, and in Biblical Typology.

He does similar coverage for first the Primary History: the gifts of ʾāḏām (humankind); the Bride; the Garden; the Noahic Covenant; the Abrahamic Covenant (The Chosen Seed); Election and God's Name; God as Deliverer and Warrior; the Old Covenant; Liturgy; I AM (Deuteronomy); Land; Warlords (Judges); True Strength; the Davidic Covenant; Kingship; God's History-Shaping Word; Providence; Return, Restoration & Reform (Ezra-Nehemiah). Then he covers Other Writings: Prophecy (The Prophets), Love (Ḥeseḏ, the book of Ruth), Hymns and the Messiah (Psalms), Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes.

I love that even though this is an Old Testament Theology, he traces these themes right up into the New Testament wherever possible. His coverage of the Gift of Land is so in depth that it is divided into three chapters: Joshua, the rest of the Old Testament, and the New Testament. VERY interesting in light of the major conflict over the land of Israel/Palestine today.

Anyway, those classes were transformative for me, and I love thinking about and reading the Bible thematically now. It's not the only way of course. I read it devotionally, and chronologically, and liturgically too, and sometimes at random. But Biblical Theology is a great tool for approaching the text.