Philosophical Theology or Theological Philosophy?

Depending upon our particular loves or passions, some of us might answer the above question rather vehemently. Others may call it a poorly worded question - after all, it is often argued, is there really that much of a distinction? Aren't theological questions philosophic ones? Aren't one's views on theology shaped by cultural philosophy?

These are valid questions, and if anyone desires to go into them, we can.

For now, however, given the audience, I'll begin with the premise that philosophy and theology are in fact distinct (while not necessarily entirely seperate) by virtue of Scripture. That is, in one such discipline we have Scripture as the foundation and rule, while in the other, it may not be necessary. It is only if we dismiss Scriptural authority that we lose this distinction (some, on either side of the discussion, would say that it is at a finer point: inerrancy; for the purposes of discussion authority will be fine enough). Thus, I'd find myself terming quite a bit of "theology" as theistic philosophy, in that it may line up with a bare theism (which is contended to be a foundational Christianity) and yet does not appeal to Scripture as its foundation and rule.

This distinction between philosophy and theology becomes more apparent in the children of the two disciplines - philosophical theology and theological philosophy. Come up with your own examples - where do Open Theism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Van Tillianism, Reformed Epistemology, Critical Realism (etc) fit in? Chances are we'd all give different answers based upon which label appeals more to us. Some Open Theists, for example, have contended that Open Theism is primarily philosophical and secondarily theological. Others, in response to arguments complaining about that precisely, have countered that Open Theism is actually primarily theological and only secondarily philosophical. One sounds more academic to some, and to others, one sounds more...well, godly. And so our labels limit our willingness to consider alternative philosophies or theologies (or some mixture of the two).

Thus, any answer to the above question (should we do philosophical theology [PT] or theological philosophy [TP]?) must be in at least two parts:
1. PT or TP?
2. What is the method that makes one's ideology PT as compared to TP or vice versa?


Those who know me well can guess which side of the fence I'd like to say I fall on.
After all, Adam loves all things theological. It's true - I'm more willing to consider something that is described as theological than philosophical. My attention has turned further and further away from reading and critiquing modern philosophers and more to intensely theological issues (Auburn Avenue theology, or Hoover vs. Wallace on harpagmos, for example). This doesn't mean that my love for philosophy has dwindled at all; it is simply that I deal with philosophic issues as subject to theological ones. In other words, for me, theology is primary and philosophy is derivative.

Take epistemology, for example. As a Van Tillian, my critiques of any variety of unbelieving epistemologies are very similar - I engage in discussion against them through indirect methods aimed at revealing that the proponents of any given unbelieving epistemology require YHWH and His grace even in order to posit their errors.
I believe that I hold to Van Tillian epistemology for Scriptural reasons. Any epistemic discussion with fellow believers is different than my uniform response to every other epistemology out there, because we both have the mind of Christ and we are seeking to better understand our Lord and His Word. When discussing epistemology with another Christian, I am concerned primarily with Scripture and what It says pertaining to epistemology - it is only after this that I am ready to deal with the issue more abstractly. Some others that I admire disagree with me very strongly on this point, though they would perhaps word it differently than I - perhaps as though we deal with epistemology as corresponding to what we know about reality or logic (these being our limiting principles rather than Scripture) while still acting within a bare theism.

I use the word "bare" here to capture the idea of God the unmoved mover as compared to YHWH the Covenant Lord - while the Christian who advocates PT may consider these to be the same thing, he may nuance it as the former. This nuancing, seen everywhere in the direct arguments for the existance of God, allows the PT'er to remain a Christian as a specific type of theist. Eventually, the PT'er will take his theistic epistemology and combine it with his Christianity.

In contrast, the Van Tillian argues immediately for the existance of YHWH - by rule of existance, there is no true bare theistic reality. God exists, and He is YHWH. Thus, this type of TP'er is more concerned with what YHWH has specially revealed about epistemology, and will intend to begin with this before moving on.


That said, I'd identify myself as a proponent of theological philosophy, and not of philosophic theology.

"But wait!" Some may say. "What about those initial questions? What about the influence of philosophy on the writing of Scripture, for example? In knowing the Greek understanding of logos, don't you come philosophically to understand the theology of John 1?"

This is a very good question. In order to do my best to answer it, I must draw a parallel with regards to language. Even in our growth in understanding of linguistics (say, in affirming Biblical propositions over a culture specific wording of those propositions [which can be seen in the Greek text vs. textus receptus debate]), we are using language to change our understanding of language. We take Scripture's propositions in primarily through hearing and reading, and yet Scripture informs our understanding of hearing and reading through its testimony about Itself and about the Gospel and our duty to share it through language with others.

In the same way, we think philosophically in order to think theologically, and yet in turn our theology is able to shape our philosophy. I began at the age of four to memorize Bible verses (at that point, I believed that getting the syllables down was more important than the meaning of the verses). Even then, I learned these verses not with a mind empty of basic philosophic questions (good and bad, pleasant and unpleasant), but with a particular view in place. I was told that the Bible was always right, and so even at that age, I'd struggle with things that I didn't think were right. Eventually, my understanding changed. My philosophy changed. I go through the same thing today. This is what happens when an objective reality (YHWH) who is primary impresses Himself upon a derivative (me).

1 Cor 2:16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

But how should this change come about? I have answered, or at least started to answer, part one of the requirement - it is time for part two.

2. What is the method that makes one's ideology PT as compared to TP or vice versa?

The steps that I believe seperate my view of TP from PT are as follows:

1. Exegesis
2. Biblical Theology
3. Systematic Theology

Exegesis is first. In regards to the example of epistemology, I reccommend the exegesis of 1 Cor 2:6-16 by Richard B. Gaffin in the Westminster Theological Journal, Spring '95. If you promise to read it quickly and treat it nice, you can borrow mine. :) Then comes Biblical Theology, the tracing of exegeted themes throughout individual books and the canon. Following this, I refer to Systematics.

"Wait again!" Someone else may say. "How did you arrive at that method? Philosophically or theologically?"

From the exegesis of Scripture concerning the nature of revelation (especially progressive revelation), I quickly have steps one and two. Systematic theology, for me, is a summation of what steps one and two produce rather than a safeguard. These are the steps that I intend to apply to all issues of thought. Even if Scripture is silent on a direct behavior or idea, it may not be on a general principle that would direct said behavior (example - how often I read fantasy novels as subject to a theology of leisure). Some issues, I believe, are even more directly handled (such as the main questions of philosophy - metaphysics, logic, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics).

This is, of course, very bare and not intended to be polemical in any sense - hopefully, after reading this far, you're stimulated to reflection and response.

Judas and Da Vinci

[WARNING: This entry is long and probably not worth the time it takes to scroll down on it. But for those who like long posts, sarcasm mixed with critical thought, or are bored, take a shot at it.]

Friday night I happened to catch a small piece of a presentation on ABCnews Nightline. This particular presentation dealt with yet another view of who Jesus was (I’m sure many were grateful for someone finally being so great as to discover the truth that had been hidden for centuries about the most pivotal figure in history). This time the book was The Jesus Dynasty and the author is James Tabor. According to him,no he is not trying to destroy Christianity or emasculate the character of Jesus. He maintains that he holds to the core values that Jesus taught (or at least the values that Tabor says are the core of the teaching ministry of Jesus). The basics of his proposal are similar to views that have been espoused before, with very little being new information and creative thought. Suffice it to say, Jesus was not the Son of God born of a virgin and much of orthodox Protestantism’s understanding of him is incorrect. Tabor takes a Hegelian view whereby despite the myth of the New Testaments teaching on the Christ of faith, there are kernels of truth that are at the heart of this cultural myth that are important for humanity. Yes, it was merely another television program airing a view of Christianity and of Jesus Christ that was antithetical to Jesus Christ (the good news was that D. A. Carson was the Christian scholar who also appeared on the show to combat Tabor, and ABC probably could not have made a better choice with that pick). But it is a part of a rising trend in America today as a result of recent literature and media exposure.

Sunday afternoon I went to my local Borders bookstore (my favorite location for doing work off campus) to drink my large Mocha and revamp another Moody paper that would soon be due. Upon entering this store, directly in front of the revolving doors was a newly created stand. On one side of this were several editions of The Da Vinci Code. On the opposite side of the stand were two recently released books on the Gospel of Judas, otherwise known as the lost gospel. Thankfully, the aforementioned book from Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty, was also there to complete the collection. Here was a stand that every person who enters the doors of Borders from that side would be forced to see. It stood boldly and alone in front of the revolving door entrance. Clearly, such books were intriguing to most who entered. The normal routine was for someone, or a group, to walk in, pick up one or more of the books, look at the back, flip through some of the pages and maybe read a small section. Books are not cheap, so most put them back down and went on with their Borders visit. However, many did not put the books down but carried them to the register for their purchase. Doubtless, there were numerous others who were indifferent, and I assume there were others who after putting the book down, subconsciously added one more reason in their mind to dismiss the claims of Christianity. All the more reason to laugh at the foolish fundamentalists who believe in that Bible. Merely another event that adds to this “phenomenon” that is sweeping many Americans along. Soon enough, the controversy will be heightened when the new movie, The Da Vinci Code, is released.

I am sure that there are many Christians who are greatly distressed and angered about this recent rise in anti-Christian literature and propaganda, or at least frustrated by our culture’s joy in it. After a few moments of the ABC news program Friday night, my father had seen enough and went to bed (in similar fashion to when the Discovery Channel airs something about evolution or the universe being millions of years old). Across America I am sure this is how many Christians feel (usually this is the frenzy media sends Christians into). Oh what a state we must be in and how far this world has gone! To think, that people would actually say and write such things against Jesus or the Bible, and do so often not as atheists but as those who say they esteem Jesus and hold to the essence of his teachings. To think that people would do such work in the name of capturing and continuing the truths that are present in the “mythical” stories of the Bible. Yes there is a bit of sarcasm there because of the manner in which evangelicals are so easily disturbed by unbelievers, but nevertheless, I do understand the irritation that Christians feel as a result of these attacks against the Word that we live by and the Savior that we love. In fact, I am thankful for the scholars and theologians who respond to such fallacious works with well-argued, academic, and biblical answers. Continue on D. A. Carson! Continue on Erwin Lutzer, Darrell Bock, Peter Jones, and even Moody’s own Dr. Litfin! Thank God for these men of truth and valor who will stand by the Word of God and fight against the lies this world offers. (I must admit, I took a certain pleasure in taking the books from the Christian section at Borders that are meant to argue against or disprove the Da Vinci Code books, and placing them on that stand in front of the revolving doors where the anti-Christian bookstand was.)

But, lest with think that this recent trend is actually a new thing and that these present-day authors have come up with new things that we as Christians have not faced before, think again. This has always been the case and it will always be so. Literature and ideas (whether anti-Christian in a blatant manner like that of atheists or a more subtle fashion like those who want to separate the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith) written to distort the truths of the Scriptures and the God-man Jesus Christ are not a new thing. The Church has faced them and prevailed throughout the decades. For one of my historical classes I am researching two figures from previous centuries who may be considered pioneers in the modern attacks or alterations against the New Testament and Jesus Christ. G. E. Lessing (1729-1781) is known for his “great ugly ditch” that he found incapable of being crossed. One cannot get from historical truths (Biblical propositions or events) to eternal truths (what is rationally and really true). Therefore, he rejected the events of Scripture and denounced them of their ability to present anyone with clear demonstrable truth. Religion must be based upon rationality he said. He did not eliminate the usefulness of Scripture but denied its ability to be without error and transmit propositional truth. Though the tree is bad the fruit of it is good, and hence, insight can be taken from it. The other man was D. F. Strauss (1808-1874), and he wrote a complete revision of the life of Jesus. Much of the responsibility can be placed on him for separating the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith, as well as for the notion of the Bible as a myth containing kernels of truth within its mythical stories. Protestant liberalism that took hold in America a century ago largely can be traced back to the influence of those men. The effects of these two men from the 18th and 19th centuries have trickled down, evidencing themselves still today in popular material like The Jesus Dynasty or in more academic work like the Jesus Seminar.

But then again, why only go back a couple of centuries? While Jesus was yet alive did not many question who he was? Did not others deny his true identity and produce lies about him? Matthew 12:24 says, “But when the Pharisees heard it, they said,’It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.’" To think, people who witnessed the miracles of Jesus accused of him of being a companion of Satan, doing works by the power of Beelzebul. When Christ asked Peter who others said he was, there was a variety of responses from John the Baptist to Jeremiah before Peter answered correctly. In Matthew 26 when Jesus is before Caiaphas we are told that the Pharisees sought false witnesses who may lie about him in their testimony. In John 7:40-52, the reason for division among the people is because of dispute over the identity of Jesus. Attacks again Jesus, misrepresentations of who he was, and confusion over his identity is not a new thing; it began in the lifetime of Jesus.

In the period of early Christianity the most dangerous heresy was that of Gnosticism. Gnosticism relished in its supposed secret knowledge about Jesus and other truths hidden in the Bible. If there was ever a movement that declared false things about Jesus Christ and the contents of Scriptural truths, it came from the Gnostics, who considered themselves friends rather than foes of Christianity. Gnosticism is nothing without its proposed theories and false views of Jesus that were espoused. The Da Vinci Code and the Gospel of Judas are both fruits of Gnosticism. Clearly, we need not look at our nearby bookstore, or even go back only a couple of centuries and think that it was a novel idea to create new theories of Jesus and attempt to subvert the Scriptures. It was occurring in the very beginning of Church History, and it was even occurring while Jesus still lived.

Therefore, Christians, do not be deceived in thinking that this wave of literature against the Jesus you believe in is a new thing. Do not be deceived into thinking that there is new information about Jesus that has provided a new theory about him that will destroy Christianity or undermine your faith. Do not become angered at the books you see on the shelves at you favorite store, or at the special presented on the nightly news. God will not be mocked and there will be a day of reckoning. People are not doomed to give into the ideas and worldly beliefs offered to them. Christians are not in threat of having their faith strangled. We should not be surprised or flustered by the pagan culture’s delight in such fallacious works, but we should also expect God to continue to guide his people in knowledge of the truth. “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (I Cor. 2:14) Those who are blind will walk in blindness, but we have the mind of Christ and the Spirit of truth to lead us into all knowledge. Your faith has solid foundations! Christianity will prevail!


And here are some possible links that relate to the issue.

For the ABCnews article on The Jesus Dynasty go here: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=1815838&page=1
For their article on the lost gospel of Judas go here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1810169&page=1
For Albert Mohler’s response to the lost gospel go here:
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-04-07
For Mohler’s radio program, with guest Darrell Bock, on the issue go here:
http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2006-04-06
For Philip Ryken’s response on Reformation21 go here:http://www.reformation21.org/Counterpoints/Window_on_the_World/59/

March 8: Chapel on Eating Disorders

Following this morning's chapel, the three of us that make up Moodybloggers decided to write a short article a piece in reflective response.

Having a few loved ones who have struggled with eating disorders, I found myself greatly appreciative at the willingness of those involved to speak on such a taboo topic. I hope that this morning's chapel brought awareness to the many who are unfamiliar with the nature of eating disorders.

As to the content of each of the three speakers, I am also very thankful. It is on this that I would like to focus. It was identified this morning that eating disorders are a problem primarily of ideology, not of behavior. For those of us who've taken a psychology or counseling class, this is familiar.

We also heard that we should not simply tell people who struggle with the eating disorder ideology to "read their Bibles" - after all, daily devotionals are often already pursued by people who suffer. With this statement I agree, though not without a caveat.

We should beware the refutation of the statement "just read your Bible" - not because we disagree with the refutation, but because it is not enough to leave it at that. To be sure, if what we mean by "read your Bible" is to simply do one's daily devotions, we have taken so much content out of the concept of Scripture. Thinking Christianly can not be defined (or pursued) by ten minutes in the Word a day. Rather, we must exhaustively search God's revealed Word for the theme at hand. Thus our response is to recognize the ethical nature of our reaction to Scripture. God's Word says X about topic Y. Do I believe it?

"Ah ha!" you may say. "Scripture does not speak directly to eating disorders!" Of course, we've identified the issue at hand as one primarily of ideology, not of behavior. After all, if a person who struggles with an eating disorder (or self-mutilation, for another example) simply ceases the behavior, the underlying ideology that led to the behavior has not been dealt with. We can be sure that Scripture has quite a lot to say about the ideologies that may lie behind various self-harm practices.

I recognize that a collection of posts this small can not address all that needs to be addressed. They're not intended to. Instead, we desire to stimulate response and thoughtful, edifying dialog.

Again, I am thankful for this morning's chapel. I am also thankful for the ministry of Kalos and hope you will sponsor the group through your prayers and/or the purchase of the video they've made available.

A few questions for reflection:

How then as people who struggle should we look to change?
How then as members of the local church should we seek to be of service?
What does Christian counseling look like in response to this ideology?

Hearing Lyrics Rather Than Saying Them

When David Powlison, in his session at the 2005 Desiring God Conference on Suffering and the Supremacy of Christ, presented the hymn “How Firm a Foundation” as a means for counseling our souls, it was a new idea to me. Sure I had sung hymns before, and often I had even read through some of them as a personal call to worship, but I had never considered reading or using a hymn, or song in general, as a means of counseling or for the purpose of speaking truth to someone for the redemption that we always need in some area. It was a new and intriguing exercise then as Powlison walked us through the lyrics of this song, line by line (or “verse-by-verse” in a different way, if you like that phrase). One of the interesting things about that particular song is its unique point of view. It is different from most songs in that we are not singing truths from the position of us to God, but the words after the first verse take the vantage of God speaking to us. Because of that it has quite the impact if read and reflected upon intentionally. (If you want to know more about that particular song or Powlison’s message, you can listen to it here.

RUF (Reformed University Fellowship) has redone many older hymns in a new and more upbeat manner that is more accessible and pleasing to many of us. I would highly recommend their CD’s as well as the song’s they are bringing back to our attention (by the way, you can probably listen to it on iTunes over the network). As I was listening to the Belmont RUF CD, “For All the Saints: Indelible Grace III,” the very first song struck me as one that is so rich in its lyrical content that it also could have the capacity to counsel our own beings as well as others at needed times. If one reads the words while listening to the CD it is a penetrating and powerful song in its ability to exhort and rebuke, to make us hungry and to nourish us. The song is “Jesus, I Come.” It is not like “How Firm a Foundation” in its viewpoint, rather, in this song we speak words to Jesus. My hope is that these words in a small way can provide for some of you what we often need, a reminder and a return back to Jesus and what we possess in Him, as well as what we put off from ourselves and this world.

Jesus, I Come
1. Out of my bondage, sorrow and night,Jesus, I come; Jesus I come.Into Thy freedom, gladness and light,Jesus, I come to Thee.Out of my sickness into Thy health,Out of my wanting and into Thy wealth,Out of my sin and into Thyself,Jesus, I come to Thee.
2. Out of my shameful failure and loss,Jesus, I come; Jesus, I come.Into the glorious gain of Thy cross,Jesus, I come to Thee.Out of earth’s sorrows into Thy balm,Out of life’s storms and into Thy calm,Out of distress into jubilant psalm,Jesus, I come to Thee.
3. Out of unrest and arrogant pride,Jesus, I come; Jesus, I come.Into Thy blessed will to abide,Jesus, I come to Thee.Out of myself to dwell in Thy love,Out of despair into raptures above,Upward forever on wings like a dove,Jesus, I come to Thee.
4. Out of the fear and dread of the tomb,Jesus, I come; Jesus, I come.Into the joy and light of Thy home,Jesus, I come to Thee.Out of the depths of ruin untold,Into the peace of Thy sheltering fold,Ever Thy glorious face to behold,Jesus, I come to Thee.
© 2000 Greg Thompson Music.
The lyrics and an audio demo of the song, although it’s not the RUF version I was listening too, are at this site (see, “Jesus, I Come”) http://igracemusic.com/igracemusic/hymnbook/hymns.html

Biblical Theology of Sexuality: Introduction

Recently a request was made for an appropriate Christian response to homosexuality. While I wanted to just fire off an answer, I quickly realized that my response to homosexuality is contigent upon my Biblical theological understanding of sexuality. Thus, in order to give an adequate response, that is, to avoid the common cliches and unfounded claims, I'd have to show my work. After all, this blog isn't here for me to indoctrinate the readers on my say-so; if there is any indoctrination, let it rest directly and visibly upon the Word.

That said, I'm going to be starting a series on a Biblical theology of sexuality, the focus of which, I believe, is the marriage covenant. Call that last part my thesis, I guess. This will bring out a response to issues of all sorts, including the proposed response to homosexuality. I've got a few other topics to address as well. Our intent at Moodybloggers is not to upset or alienate anyone throughout the course of these posts, but to know our Lord better through the persuit of His truth. If, in the course of this, you are upset by anything posted, please let us know - dialogue is of utmost importance with issues this volatile. Our aim is the edification of those who read and the giving of glory to Christ.

A second request - if you want anything specific to be addressed, say so. If it's in the scope of the study, there's no reason we can't do the work.

Thanks for reading.

The Knowledge of God (Tues. Founder's Week)

This morning's message from Christian Barbosu was used by the Spirit of God to convict many of us, and as with Dr. Easley's sermon last night, covered a broad spectrum of information relatively quickly. While most of my thought during Mr. Barbosu's sermon was on his major theme, my mind wandered to one of the points he made in passing as I filed through the lunch line on Culby 2. Well, that and the fact that he sounded eerily like Bela Lugosi, anyway.

That minor point was concerning the knowledge of God. This is, of course, a touchy subject with implications in every aspect of theology (and thus in every aspect of life). Mr. Barbosu spoke specifically concerning II Cor. 10:1-5

"I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away!— 2 I beg of you that when I am present I may not have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some who suspect us of walking according to the flesh. 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete."

This plays so stongly into our context here in the Moody world, and will be even more important when we leave (that isn't intended as a reference to graduation [seriously, get out of here every once and a while]). If we are talking about the knowledge of God (I take this to be 'knowledge concerning God'), what does it mean to "not [wage] war according to the flesh"?

Mr. Barbosu made an excellent point against mankind's rationalistic approach to God. In this sense, man thinks first of himself and all other subjects subordinately. In his mind, he is the final judge of what is logical, and thus believable. When a rationalist considers Christianity, he thinks of himself primarily (as judge) and of God secondarily (as the subject of judgement). If the rationalist decides God is up to par with his idea of what is logical, he becomes a Christian.

Of course, this comes into a problem. The Christian's knowledge of God is not arrived at by means of our evaluation of God, but by His gift of the mind of Christ (I Cor 2:14-16). This means post-modernism is under the gun as much as modernism is - even if a non-Christian doesn't value the modernist's faulty understanding of logic, he still acts as God's evaluator. To illustrate, think of either of these systems as a ladder. If we expect modernists to climb the ladder of modernism as high as it goes and then become Christians, we're expecting him to jump ladders. And I'm not talking about hopping up a couple of rungs, but leaping over to a ladder he simply can not reach - while staying at the same level. After all, he's been reasoning one way his whole life and now he's got to switch it all around. The same goes for post-modernists. To think that we can climb up with ourselves in the judgement seat and then become Christians and continue from the same place upward is absurd. It's impossible - we'd be denying the validity of the way we got there! If our method wasn't valid, how can our conclusion be valid?

We know according to I Cor 2 that the only reason we can understand the things of God is due to His giving of the mind of Christ. Instead of us climbing and jumping, he takes all of us - modernists and post-modernists alike - and places us in something altogether different, something altogether perfect as compared to our previous theory of knowledge, which was altogether absurd.

Our system of truth revolves around this imputation of the mind of Christ. We do not arrive at true knowledge of God via modernism. We do not arrive at the true knowledge of God via postmodernism. We arrive solely by His gracious hand, which pulls us off of our position on our futile ladders of false knowledge.

A man is not converted when he decides to find in favor of God, but when God finds in favor of him on the basis of Christ's completed work on the cross - God is the judge and we are what we are corresponding to what He wills.

In our daily challenge to "bring every thought captive" we must consider a few things. We have spoken of the objective placement that is common to all Christians. We all have the mind of Christ, due solely to God's work. Paul applied this specifically to the issue at hand in the Corinthian church - so how now do we "think Christianly"?

David Wells on the Disappearance of Theology

In No Place for Truth, sociologist-theologian David Wells answers what has happened to evangelical theology (that being the subtitle of the book). Part of his answer, to be simplistic, is that evangelical theology has disappeared. But it has disappeared in this way: “The disappearance of which I am speaking is not the same as the abduction of a child who is happily playing at home one minute and then is no longer to be found the next. No one has abducted theology in this sense. The disappearance is closer to what happens in homes where the children are ignored and, to all intents and purposes, abandoned. They remain in the home, but they have no place in the family. So it is with theology in the Church. It remains on the edges of evangelical life, but it has been dislodged from its center." (Wells NPFT 106)

His point is that many important traditional beliefs are not denied by evangelicals (as the latest Barna and Gallup polls continue to tell us), but that these beliefs have been moved from the center to the margins of evangelical life. So while most affirm God’s existence, life after death, the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and the effectiveness of prayer, these beliefs have little to no impact in their lives. Wells faults modernity with much of this, claiming it as the source for the polarization of our public and private lives. To give an example of this, “evangelical Joe” may have a Bible in his home and even believe it is God’s revelation, but this revelation does not determine Joe’s ethics or operations in how he conducts his financial business. For Joe, as for many evangelicals today, theology has become absent by being pushed to the margins, where its authority and effect are minimized.

Theology is “disappearing in the sense that while its articles of belief are still professed, they are no longer defining what it means to be an evangelical or how evangelicalism should be practiced. At its center there is now a vacuum into which modernity is pouring, and the result is a faith that, unlike historic orthodoxy, is no longer defining itself theologically." (Wells NPFT 109)
“It is in this sense that it is proper to speak of the disappearance of theology. It is not that the elements of the evangelical credo have vanished, they have not. The fact that they are professed, however, does not necessarily mean that the structure of the historic Protestant faith is still intact. The reason, quite simply, is that while these items of belief are professed, they are increasingly being removed from the center of evangelical life where they defined what that life was, and they are now being relegated to the periphery where their power to define what evangelical life should be is lost. This is not the sort of shift that typical polling [such as Gallup or Barna polls] will discover, for these items of belief are seldom denied or qualified, but that does not mean that the shift has not occurred. It is evangelical practice rather than evangelical profession that reveals the change." (Wells NPFT 108)

David Wells teaches Systematic Theology and Church History and by trade is both a theologian and a sociologist. This means not only does he know how to interpret the Word of God, but he also knows how to interpret the world wherein we live. For that he is a wise voice worth having his words heard and considered.

So consider what he has said in these brief quotes I extracted from one of his chapters. Consider it for yourself individually and consider it for the context which you live in. Some important questions that may need to be asked are where is evangelicalism today and how has it gotten there? (If you desired an answer to that question, No Place For Truth would be a good start.) Is theology and God’s Word [I see the former as being the church’s interpretation and explanation of the latter] at the core of my life, giving direction and definition to everything else, or has it been swept into the margins, not thrown away but put in the corner where it has no effect? As a Moody student, is it really at the center, or is it merely that thing that assists us in our academics and occasionally in our church life? Are your Christian family members, friends, or your church suffering from the diagnosis Wells makes of evangelicalism today, or do they remain part of the faithful few where the Lord still stands at the center exercising His rightful Lordship? If they are part of the first group, those who profess but do not practice their theology, how should and can you respond? And also, how do we live in a place where theology has disappeared and yet not let that happen to ourselves? (Wells just recently published a new book, Above All Earthly Powers, that helps with that question.)

What David Wells has said even in these few paragraphs deserves, no, it demands our attention. For if theology, which is the attempt to understand God based upon what He has told us about Himself in His Word, disappears from evangelicalism or from our own lives, then the result soon thereafter will be that God Himself will also disappear into the margins. Oh for God to remain at the center of our lives and at the center of our churches lives, where He is not inconsequential but is all encompassing and all determining. Friends, do net let theology disappear!