The counter to Systematic Theology is to focus primarily on
Biblical Studies and largely within a framework that is often called a
Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic.
This view approaches Scripture in terms of a context, a story
or narrative that is in a process of development. Themes are accentuated and
they both decipher and define how doctrines function as revealed within the
narrative and thus (necessarily) in different situations today.
There is a dynamism at work that allows doctrines to be
defined in a more fluid fashion that can sometimes 'seem' contradictory
depending on how they are paired or contrasted with other truths.
The complexities of the relationship between the Old and New
Testament present a perfect example of this dynamic. The nature of the
relationship is such that it cannot be defined in a systematic coherent way in
which absolute propositional statements can be made. Typically in a systematics
framework such statements are then utilised to predicate and deduce further
concepts which interact with the text, sometimes to the detriment and even
negation of what the text is actually saying.
If these systematising tendencies in any way restrict the
full import of the text, which they (by necessity) are wont to do, then the
resulting corpus of doctrine is on the one hand guilty of speculation and on
the other it represents something less than a complete picture of what
Scripture purports to teach.
While attempting to create a holistic structure the
systematician actually falls into a necessary reductionism. The parts are
reduced to make them integrate within the whole.
The Systematician counters by arguing that Scripture cannot
be dealt with in terms of atomistic contextualised definitions. In other words
terms and concepts can't be broken down based on specific instances. Doing so,
treats Scripture in a reductionist fashion akin to the scientific method.
Science breaks down the complex into the simple in order to explain it. Scripture
has One Author and thus a unified message (it is argued) and thus must necessarily
present a form of coherence.
The Redemptive-Historical approach of contextualising content
runs the risk of reductionism by focusing on author, setting and missing the
overall unified message which always points to Christ.
Indeed this can happen and certainly does in many modern
Evangelical approaches to Scripture. It's a valid concern but is not applicable
or attributable to those with a high and Christocentric doctrine of Scripture.
The Systematician may argue for Christocentricity but in
placing coherence as the central criterion for validity, it becomes clear that
logic and not Christ is the central organising principle. There are those who
would equate the two but in doing so they clearly will (ultimately) abandon any
form of orthodox historical Christology and Trinitarianism. Maybe that's what
they wish to call for but in doing so they need to be clear.
Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics when done properly places
Christ and the centre of all Scripture. Christ is the binding principle as
opposed to any systemic coherentism
or holism. Christ is the resolution of all purported contradictions, dynamisms,
dialectics and dualities. And yet resolution must be understood parallel to the
Incarnation. The resolution in human terms and categories will likely result in
mystery.
What will often seem to be incongruent or contradictory can
rest intellectually (and otherwise) in the Person of Christ. He is the
Revelation of God and thus faith in Him affords us the ability to set aside
such dilemmas. In addition the duality of His Person (as it were) allows for a
dynamic function in the realm of theology. He is the example, the very hermeneutic that in defiance of
empirically referenced and dependent logic allows us to formulate an
apprehension or understanding of God's communication to us in Scripture.
In fact grasping the wonder and centrality of the Incarnation
we should expect the very nature of Revelation to exhibit the same irresolvable
dialectic tensions. Just as we cannot hope to comprehend the Incarnation, we
should not even attempt to reconcile the Eschatology revealed in the
categorically temporal nature of theology. Our task as believers is to submit
to and accept what God has revealed.
Focusing on themes and context with this approach is not
reductionism. In fact in seeing Christ as the centre of the narrative, the
focus of the whole story we can find a unity. In truth the narrative, the text
comes alive and is enriched as we begin to see the typology is present
everywhere. The Scriptures are miraculous in their coherence to be sure but the
degree of wonder and awe is magnified when we suddenly see that Christ is
literally on every page. The book cannot be the work of men. There is no book
like it in all creation nor will there ever be. It is a divine supernatural
book.
There is another type of Biblical Theology that focuses on
context, atomises the text and breaks down even the themes into reductionist
and thus dissectible parts. This is but another form of scientific hermeneutic.
Rooted in unbelief, the centrality of Christ is eliminated. This variety is
commonly found in theologically liberal circles and has made serious inroads
into Evangelicalism. While these authors will occasion exhibit some insight and
extract some helpful bits from the text, their overall approach is defective
and must be rejected. Without a proper doctrine of Scripture, they're bound to
lose their way.
Beware any 'scholar' who posits a system in which an educated
unbeliever possessing the right 'academic' toolkit is able to understand and
explain the correct meaning of Scripture. This view, all too common among
Evangelical scholars reduces the Bible to a natural
book, one that is something less than a supernaturally produced work of
Spirit-wrought inspiration that has also been preserved by the God's
Providence.
Approaching Scripture without
inspiration and Divine Authorship in mind will focus excessively on human
authors and their own development
rather than the fact that as prophets, they are indeed human and in context.
Their humanity and character shine through but it is the Holy Spirit who is the
author.
The Holy Spirit doesn't point to a system. He points to a
person, the Incarnate Risen King, the Messiah Christ Jesus.
Christ is the coherence, the interpreter and discerner of all
parts of Scripture. All logical tangles, open ends and irreconcilable concepts
find their solution (again as it were) in Him.
It is telling the Divine Author chose not to communicate in
terms of an encyclopaedia but in narratives, epistles and apocalyptic vision.
This alone reveals a great deal about the contextual and historical nature of
how revelation is to be comprehended and interacted with.
This approach is not suggesting doctrines are to be left
atomised. This is yet another form of Nominalism dominating theology. And yet
no one is really suggesting that. What modern scholarship does is it produces
uncertainty with regard to the integrity of text, the nature of its message and
certainly its objectivity in terms of truth and sustainability as a timeless
and enduring standard.
Contrary to this view we have tremendous certainty, but the
nature of our knowledge is limited by the text itself. Different epistles will
say different things about salvation, atonement, Baptism. We take those
teachings as absolute. But we focus on the themes and contexts always tethered
to Christ and His Kingdom.
What we don't do is start trying to 'fill in' and develop
these ideas and bring them into an integrated whole... beyond what the text
allows. If we're left with uncertainties and seeming contradictions, then
that's what we're left with. The so-called Analogy of Scripture is a useful
tool but must be limited to certain categories. If it's used to cancel out what
portions of the text say, then it becomes Ockham's Razor in the hands of a
theologian.
Often the problem lies in a failure to leave what is said...
in its context, pertinent to the occasion. It's when scholars try to bind it
all together into a coherent system that 'problem texts' arise. Why are they
problems? Because they're not fitting in with the whole. 'Problem' means they
have to be contorted somehow. The problem isn't the text. The problem is the
system and even more importantly... the
method.
We have knowledge to look forward to. The eschatological
reality of the mind of Christ is a wonder worth waiting for. What we have now
is but the firstfruits, a foretaste of the glory that awaits us. Let us be
context to dwell in a state of informed ignorance. Such a reality makes us all
the more dependent on God and His Word.