Cities are not made for those who will not submit to the proper authorities. They are not made for those who do not wish to submit to the rules of those right authorities. They are made for those who wish to learn laws and customs and abide by them. These are citizens. The others are criminals. Criminals submit to all sorts of rules and authorities, usually their own or some criminal organization or leadership, but not to the right authorities, and hence, they are not true citizens of that city. They have made their own within it and merely exist within a place that does not belong to them.
It is often thought that Reformed Christians are the Christians of the Bible. After all, they teach through the Bible verse by verse, don't they? We identify them as citizens of the kingdom because they quote verses like a rooster crowing at 3am. They talk about theology and are faithful to their theologies, whatever they may be. They are the intellectual side of Christendom. But are they in submission to the right authority?
After being among Reformed churches for some time now, I can definitively say that many, not all, of them are actually Christians of Systematic Theology more than they are of the Bible. Their confessions, although stating that they are summaries of the Bible and that the Bible alone is the supreme authority, the norm that norms all other norms, are often treated above the Bible.
After all, if the interpretation of the Bible can be easily understood and the Bible itself is difficult to understand then a document that is seen as interpreting the Bible correctly is surely superior to the Bible as a reference for truth.
I'm sure many will disagree with my analysis, but I do want to point out that people are far more faithful to their theologies than they are to the Bible, especially when the Bible, accurately exegeted, may not support their theologies in the end.
Now, I believe systematic theologies are important as placeholders, but they must not supplant the rigorous application of exegesis to the text of Scripture. It rather should be assumed by every interpreter of the Bible that it will, as it intends to, supplant his theology.
Sometimes, it will supplant a superficial understanding of that theology and give it layers and nuance it did not have before. Sometimes, it will completely refute it. Other times, it will simply reveal to the interpreter that it does not say anything one way or another about an issue that he thought it said much about before. In any case, sola Scriptura demands more than just a meme hung on the wall. It demands absolute allegiance to the voice of the one who spoke it so that His words are considered above our first, second, and third impressions of it. It demands that we read it again, and then read it again, and then when you're sure of what it says, read it again. Then read it in the Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek. Then read the context again. Then act like the only thing you have is the immediate context and nothing else. Then act like the literary context of the book is all you have to interpret it and nothing else. Then read it again.
Systematics are summaries of topics one believes the Bible is addressing. They haven't historically been all that exegetical in nature, although some are attempting to change that. It relies heavy on impressions of the text and the individual depth of knowledge of the theologian of that text so that if the theologian is not also a biblical scholar the chances of misunderstanding the very texts upon which his theology is founded are high.
Yet, people see faithfulness to Christianity as a faithfulness to their confessions, their particular church's theology, some theological consensus in church history, the theology of their family or what they were taught when they first became committed to Christ. None of this is faithfulness to Christ because it makes Him second tier by making His Word second tier to our systematic expressions of it.
There is nothing wrong with confessions and systematic theologies unless they give people the impression that its all they need. These are the milk of the faith, not the meat of it, and if they are treated as milk then we do well to move up to the richer and meatier food of the Scripture. If we treat them as meat, however, we will inevitably mistake what we are eating as God's Word when it is merely the words of men summarizing, often superficially and out of context, the Word of God.
I hold to confessions. I think the Three Forms are, for the most part, true. But my faith is supported by a much deeper foundation and a much stronger substance than mere summaries of frankly what the writer of Hebrews calls "basic teachings about Christ" (Heb 6:1).
Exegesis is superior to systematizing because it tends toward reading out of the text rather than read into it. Biblical scholarship trumps systematics for this reason, not because systematics are not important and held by everyone but because one should challenge and change the other and the other should not challenge and change the one. He who's theology is not in submission to the exegesis of Scripture is not in submission at all. He is a criminal in a city made for the free.
No comments:
Post a Comment