Though I do not confine my beliefs by the boundaries of man-made doctrinal systems, I do consider myself to be a conservative Reformed Presbyterian. As such, I try to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of my particular corner of the theological world. Our strengths? We seek to appreciate all of God's Word. We try to engage our minds, emotions (some of us, anyway), and bodies in our religion. We seek to apply our theology to all of life. Those, I believe, are good things and marks of faithful Reformed Presbyterianism. We have our weaknesses though, too, and it doesn't help anyone to ignore them. I'd like to take a few minutes to explore one of those weaknesses.
Presbyterians love their systems. To be a little bit more specific, we Presbyterians love our Systematic Theologies. We love having an answer to every question and we really love being able to fit any issue into the bigger picture so that all of our puzzle pieces fit together perfectly. There are two problems this dedication to systems can produce. The first one is that our system(s) begin(s) to guide our beliefs instead of the Bible guiding them. The result is that relatively clear Scripture is silenced, glossed over, or systematized away because our system states that it just can't mean what it appears it means. A perfect example would be the Scripture's teaching on the Sabbath (which I explored last time). I can't tell you the number of times I've heard Presbyterians give me a ten-step syllogism to explain why Paul doesn't mean what he says when it comes to the Sabbath. It usually includes a whole bunch of universal principles that cannot be Scripturally proven (simply by the nature of the claims made). If you agree with all those broader principles and logical deductions, well, by George, you'll come to the same conclusions that they do! If not, well, you're just wrong. We must never ignore Scripture because of our logic. Man is finite, and so are the exploratory powers of logic. Sometimes we have problems rationalizing different parts of Scripture, but we must never allow ourselves to ignore and twist portions of Scripture in order to make them fit with our views on other passages. Let me be very clear. I believe that Systematic Theology is a valid and edifying endeavor, both for the individual and for the broader Church. Not all doctrines are explicitly stated in Scripture and the Church has been given the Holy Spirit to work out some of the details that aren't explicitly written. However, when our logical deductions start trumping what is explicitly taught in Scripture, then we have an issue.
The second problem I've noticed is that our Systematic Theology can begin to shape how we view Church History, instead of the other way around. Studying Church history is an extremely helpful exercise and Presbyterians tend to pride themselves in doing so. The problem is that we often ignore the portions of Church history (like, say, anything before 1400) that contradict our fast-held beliefs or we misrepresent the big picture. We look back at theologians and claim they were on our side of a debate, not realizing that the debate we're having was totally foreign to their theological structure, or we only quote the authors that agree with us, totally ignoring that Church history is rarely monolithic. History, like Scripture, is twisted to fit the system instead of the system being altered to fit history.
Now, I suspect that all denominations probably struggle with these things. Finite creatures, at least those with a thirst for truth, will always be prone to trying to fit truth into their intellectual boxes. In some ways it is inescapable. When it comes to revelation, however, we must learn to rest in the infinite God instead of cramming Him and His truth into our finite theological systems. We also need to have grace with those who disagree with us, humbly recognizing our own finitude. One of the most frustrating experiences is when someone simply does not follow your logic. Instead of assuming that the issue is the other person's mental capacity and/or knowledge of Scripture, maybe we should reflect on whether or not we are holding to our systems at the expense of Scriptural truth. We should also be open to reading and learning from those whose theology doesn't line up exactly with ours. It is difficult to place a value on viewing things from a different perspective. Sometimes we'll realize we're way off base, while other times our existing views will be reinforced. Regardless of the outcome, it will help us to be more well-rounded in our thinking and theology.
Presbyterians love their systems. To be a little bit more specific, we Presbyterians love our Systematic Theologies. We love having an answer to every question and we really love being able to fit any issue into the bigger picture so that all of our puzzle pieces fit together perfectly. There are two problems this dedication to systems can produce. The first one is that our system(s) begin(s) to guide our beliefs instead of the Bible guiding them. The result is that relatively clear Scripture is silenced, glossed over, or systematized away because our system states that it just can't mean what it appears it means. A perfect example would be the Scripture's teaching on the Sabbath (which I explored last time). I can't tell you the number of times I've heard Presbyterians give me a ten-step syllogism to explain why Paul doesn't mean what he says when it comes to the Sabbath. It usually includes a whole bunch of universal principles that cannot be Scripturally proven (simply by the nature of the claims made). If you agree with all those broader principles and logical deductions, well, by George, you'll come to the same conclusions that they do! If not, well, you're just wrong. We must never ignore Scripture because of our logic. Man is finite, and so are the exploratory powers of logic. Sometimes we have problems rationalizing different parts of Scripture, but we must never allow ourselves to ignore and twist portions of Scripture in order to make them fit with our views on other passages. Let me be very clear. I believe that Systematic Theology is a valid and edifying endeavor, both for the individual and for the broader Church. Not all doctrines are explicitly stated in Scripture and the Church has been given the Holy Spirit to work out some of the details that aren't explicitly written. However, when our logical deductions start trumping what is explicitly taught in Scripture, then we have an issue.
Now, I suspect that all denominations probably struggle with these things. Finite creatures, at least those with a thirst for truth, will always be prone to trying to fit truth into their intellectual boxes. In some ways it is inescapable. When it comes to revelation, however, we must learn to rest in the infinite God instead of cramming Him and His truth into our finite theological systems. We also need to have grace with those who disagree with us, humbly recognizing our own finitude. One of the most frustrating experiences is when someone simply does not follow your logic. Instead of assuming that the issue is the other person's mental capacity and/or knowledge of Scripture, maybe we should reflect on whether or not we are holding to our systems at the expense of Scriptural truth. We should also be open to reading and learning from those whose theology doesn't line up exactly with ours. It is difficult to place a value on viewing things from a different perspective. Sometimes we'll realize we're way off base, while other times our existing views will be reinforced. Regardless of the outcome, it will help us to be more well-rounded in our thinking and theology.
Comments
Post a Comment