Systematic Theology is Symptomatic?

Systematic Symptomatic Theology

… emphasis on the “literal sense” of scripture, not in the sense of “taking everything literally” but in the sense of “discovering what the writers meant” as opposed to engagin in free-floating speculation.” “… the “literal sense” means the sense originally intended; thus, ascertaining the “literal sense” of a parable involves recognizing it as a parable, not an anecdote about something which actually happened.”¹

Oh yes, one of my favorite topics… you guessed it, more theology! Anyhow, most folks are taught some system or organized form of concepts and beliefs that are formed and reflected by a church tradition, or perhaps from the Bible itself. So they say…

Read this for a basic definition on Systematic theology; this wiki page conveys the basic point but it’s still lacking. As with anything (for example, coffee roasting), ones methodology and presuppositions going in often determine the outcome. I think that’s a fair analogy.

Therefore, symptomatic theology often begins on the wrong foot. Seeking to answer our questions and solve our problems before attempting to understand what exactly “a first century” Jewish audience was wrestling with, isn’t a smart approach. It’s one thing to say the text (Bible) seems to have a pervasive reading about it when it comes to topics like the Trinity.

A word of caution at this point, what we think the author means by words/phrases like “Gospel,” “Son of Man” and “Messiah” don’t usually line up in usage and meaning to what the author meant and how his audience understood these terms. Simply reading the text itself won’t due. The text comes from a world completely unknown to most. Dive into the world of first century Judaism.

This is exactly where Systematic theology falls short; there’s more of a focus upon later theological concepts and church teaching, which are reactionary to multiple situations, than the issues surrounding first century Jewish Christians. German Scholars throughout the centuries helped this separation from Judaism (more on this later).

Again, ones methodology is often ones downfall. Haha, suckers! Joking… So, returning to the basics, a text can’t mean what it’s never meant before. That doesn’t mean we can’t learn or draw simple, practical implications for today. That’s fine, but you can’t hold to adequacy do so if you’re starting off on the wrong foot.

The methods used and the worldviews (the lens we look through to see the world around us) we carry whether we realize it or not, needs to be examined. Easier said than done.

When folks approach the text looking to prove others wrong, uphold their crazy church teaching and even for devotional purposes, they run the risk of ignoring the intended aim and meaning of the text.

This isn’t doing justice to the text, which should be held within the broader story of all scripture. Not to mention church history; we have over two thousand years of Christian heritage (more on the role of history later).

This should do for now, I could keep going and going… Time to run, then eat or eat then run? Ye yes…

1. Wright, “The Last Word.“ [↩]

Tagged as: Christianity, culture, scripture, Systematic Theology