Jan 20
Events, dear boy, events (not just Bible and theology)
Notwithstanding my often contrarian nature, I’m deeply reluctant to disagree simultaneously with two such doyens of the blogosphere as Michael Bird and Ben Myers. I might be accused of some anti-antipodean (maybe that should just be podean) bias. So rather than disagree, let me offer some further reflections on their respective posts.
Mike started off with a lament for what he saw as the subordination of biblical theology to systematics, and has some useful critiques of particular positions he instances. He argued for systematics as the end-point of biblical work. Ben responded:
It has never been the case that dogmatics is merely “the end process of exegesis and biblical theology” – nothing could be further from the truth! A better model would be that of a continuing spiral in which dogmatics influences exegesis, and then exegesis exerts a critical influence on dogmatics, and so on.
In a comment on that post Mike accepts the spiral, but still argues:
I would affirm that we had a theological creed before there was a scriptural canon; but, the earliest creeds (e.g. Rom. 1.3-4; 1 Cor. 15.3-4) have always included a reference to “according to the Scriptures” as the authorizing narrative for the emergence of a distinctive Christian theology!
Of course, the references to the scriptures (Rom 1:2, 1 Cor 15:3-4) are not to the controlling or even authorising narrative of Jesus life, death and resurrection, but to First Testament passages (and exactly which ones is not fully clear) which are freshly read in the light of the Jesus story. Experience and events prompt new readings (often entirely detached from any historical or literary context). The interplay between scripture, tradition and what God is perceived as doing now remains more complex than most systematized presentations of it.
The continuing spiral is not simply between exegesis and dogmatics with perhaps biblical theology acting as a middle term. (I leave aside for now, at least, the thought that biblical theology is a rather confusing and polyvalent term.) Events and experiences prompt new readings and new theologies, each interplaying with the other. Obviously, subsequent events lack the generative power and normative status of exodus for the people of Israel, or the Christ event for the church, but it is in events and experiences that scripture is re-read, and theology is regenerated.
I do not intend by that to decry either the analytic task of exegesis or the synthetic one of theology (a rather over-stated contrast). However, I do want to insist that the pastoral political and missionary context and impetus can’t be left out of this spiral. In those contexts theology is to be found in the readings and re-readings of our texts, the retellings of our story, as well as in the detailed and coherent reflection that teases out the implications of those re-readings and retellings, and explores whether they are are appropriate, self-consistent, fruitful and true in the light of the larger story.
(PS. The title of this post is taken from Harold Macmillan, former British Prime Minister: on being asked what the greatest challenges to a politician or statesman were, he replied “Events, dear boy, events.”
January 20th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Thanks for this excellent post, Doug. You’ve put your finger on an extremely important point here.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
As a layperson, I’m very frustrated with the tendency of pastors to base theological principles on Scripture severed from the larger story– and their subsequent encouragement for us to do the same in our personal “quiet time” to figure out what “God is doing in our lives.”
I long to hear faithful readings and retellings, and I’m tired of the incoherent, confusing and lonely message that spiritual growth comes from getting alone with God and reading his word in this manner.
Your statement that “subsequent events lack the generative power and normative status of exodus for the people of Israel, or the Christ event for the church, but it is in events and experiences that scripture is re-read, and theology is regenerated” is spot on.
I might add that reading the text in light of exodus for the people of Israel, and the Christ event for the church is the only way for the texts to maintain their generative power. We should retrain pastors to stop reducing the Christ event to his death on the cross for our personal sins and the reading of Scripture our private, pietistic relationship with God.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
“Of course, the references to the scriptures (Rom 1:2, 1 Cor 15:3-4) are not to the controlling or even authorising narrative of Jesus life, death and resurrection, but to First Testament passages (and exactly which ones is not fully clear) which are freshly read in the light of the Jesus story.”
My reading of Childs has lead me to agree totally with you here. The Bible is a “witness” to an external reality, which the church confesses to be Christ, and it is this reality which should be the object of theological exegesis. This reality then becomes the norm for interpreting the individual texts, as text and reality relate in a dialectic. It makes no sense to reject the reality in order to attempt some ‘unmediated’ interpretation. In fact, getting rid of tradition in order to read the Bible more objectively is what classic historical criticism has attempted to do, with theologically disasterous results. If theology is faith seeking understanding then I don’t see how we can get rid of the faith to read more accurately.
I’ve just posted an excerpt from Childs’ essay, “Does the OT Witness to Christ?” on this issue here, as well as my own views a few days ago here.
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
[...] between exegesis, systematic theology and ecclesial and individual Christian praxis. In an earlier post I picked up on a debate between Mike Bird and Ben Myers. Now Phil Sumpter has found one of his many [...]
February 5th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I’ve posted on this issue in relation to the Emmaus Road incedent here, inspired by an article by Moberly.