Yesterday I posted on N.T. Wright’s assertion in his book, The New Testament and the People of God, that Biblical studies and theology need one another as disciplines. Today, I want to interact with his reasons and give some thoughts. From the outset I’ll say that I’m disinclined to agree with Wright, as you can read about here.
Wright’s first two reasons had to do with understanding the worldview of the author(s) and understanding one’s own presuppositions, respectively. I agree wholeheartedly with Wright on the subject of being sure to understand where the authors/editors/redactors/what-have-you are coming from. Normally I don’t consider such a task “theology,” though under Wright’s somewhat broad definition it does seem to fit.
Wright appears to define theology, and specifically “Christian theology” as the worldview which Christians hold generally. I don’t have a problem with this per se. In fact, I’d rather like it if Christian theology could stop at the broad strokes that Wright paints. However, it doesn’t–which is why I don’t find Christian theology, and here we might say Christian systematic theology, all that helpful in ascertaining either my own presuppositions or the presuppositions of the authors of the text. To imagine that the authors of the New Testament held anything remotely as developed as our own present day Christian theology is, I think, entirely incorrect. I’m quite sure, based on other things that Wright has written, that he would more or less agree with me on this, though obviously I cannot speak for him.
As to Wright’s third reason–that theology needs Biblical studies, I wholeheartedly agree. However, since theology is completely separated from Biblical studies (how many MTS students do you know who are learning the same number of languages and spending the same amount of time in the text as the Biblical studies majors?) it is, at present, merely wishful thinking. Systematic theology cannot exist without proof-texting. All systematic theologians create a system which seeks equilibrium within itself and, for this reason, is forced to discard much of the Biblical narrative; albeit in a variety of creative ways.
Now, to be fair, I believe that my disagreement with Wright comes down to one of semantics. When he says “theology,” I believe he means the broad strokes of Christian theology (ie, that there is a creator God who is interested in his creation; that human sin/rebellion has somehow hindered that interest; but that this creator God has intervened in creation and provided some type of correction to the world). In some ways, it is as if Wright holds a view of the world that I wish were real, but that simply does not exist in reality. That is to say, “theology” means those broad strokes of Christian faith; in which case I agree with his arguments. However, in reality theology is a very highly developed and specialized field that spends more time studying philosophy than the Bible, and more time reading Barth than Qoheleth.
So, at the end of the day I agree with Wright if we limit ourselves quite severely in our definition of theology. If we do this, than I think that he is correct in saying that Biblical studies and theology need one another, because it would, in this case, help to reveal the presuppositions of the authors as well as the readers (assuming for the moment that those readers consider themselves part of the Christian community). However, if we accept a more broad, and I believe more realistic, definition of theology I believe that Wright’s arguments quickly fall apart and that we are left with theology being more philosophy than Biblical studies, and as such something that is quite helpful in determining current beliefs of certain sects as well as various leanings of theologians, but not so helpful in determining the presuppositions of the authors.
Would that reality might conform to my desires in this case.
I think we have talked about this before, but for the sake of conversation I will distill my thoughts on the interplay of exegesis and theology. I think ultimately they [exegesis and theology] are inseparable. I think we fool ourselves when we make exegesis a hard science. It is not a mechanical process, as if by following the 12 steps of exegesis with precision, then one will come up with the right conclusion. In my opinion, exegesis is the science of art.
We are not a blank slate, every interpretive decision is shaded by our worldview that we carry into the text. This worldview includes our theology. You have made the claim that you think there are contradictions in scripture. That claim is now a theological presupposition that you carry into future texts and ultimately it alters how you interpret seemingly, or otherwise, contradictory texts. We all do this to some degree. There is not an exegete alive that hasn’t been altered by a theological system (or even by the lack of a system). Gordon Fee is a Pentecostal. His commentary on 1 Corinthians has been hailed by many as one of the best commentaries on 1 Corinthians in the English language. His commentary is written from a Pentecostal perspective, but because Fee is conversant with how different “systems” handle the text, he is able to navigate through the material in a way that is profitable for many. In my opinion, at least being aware of your theological biases makes you a better interpreter. We all have presuppositions and our presuppositions are not entirely bad, because they provide an entry point into the text.
The only problem that I have with systems is that often people who subscribe to them are unwilling to have them altered based on better evidence from outside of that held system.
Adam, I agree completely that A) exegesis is not a mechanical process and B) that knowing your own theological biases assists you in interpreting a text.
However, where I become concerned is when Christians begin saying “X cannot be true of this passage because Y was said in a different passage.” In other words, when Christians refuse to see certain avenues of interpretation/meaning in the text because it would violate what they feel to be foundational doctrines. At such a point the exegete has become the slave of a system.
In my opinion, someone who tries to understand the Bible, what it says, what it means, etc. must be willing to ask any question, and potentially come up with an answer that she does not like. This needs to include everything from who wrote the Torah (ie, not Moses) to God’s omnipresence.
At the end of the day, I think that theological systems do more harm to the interpretive process than good.
Calvin, I hear what you are saying, but even your claims (i.e your approach to exegesis) is apart of YOUR theological system that you are bringing to the text. I am not saying that your system is wrong, but you are presuppositionally bringing an agenda based off of your ideological concerns (which isn’t wrong, because every interpreter does it).
I was speaking to someone recently that admitted that they had never read a commentary, or a theological treaty and said, “ultimately who cares what Calvin or Luther has to say about this passage or that passage”. I am only concerned with what the Bible says”. The problem is that this person has been influenced by Calvin and Luther in ways that he could never have imagined. The influence was indirect (being that he admitted to never reading either of these individuals), but an influence is there none-the-less. The influence comes from Western Culture, from being identified as a Protestant, and from Pastors who have read them. All of these outside sources have become apart of his worldview. The question is not if the influence is good or bad, but to what extent has the interpreter all ready have been effected by the influences.
My point is that we are ALL slaves to our presuppositions. Once we embrace that we will become better interpreters. (I sound pretty Post-Modern right now).
hahaha….I meant treatise not treaty…thats what I get for not re-reading my post before sending it.
Adam, I agree. In the end what I am saying is a part of my theological system (or lack thereof?). I don’t disagree that knowing one’s presuppositions is important for exegesis. One also must be familiar with others’ systems because they used those systems to interpret the Bible. My friend Earl would tell us to be sure to know philosophy as well, since that plays into various presuppositions quite heavily.
However, at the end of the day I don’t think that modern Biblical interpretation benefits from having theological systems thrust upon it. I understand and agree that no one is free from presuppositions, but we need to strive as much as possible to avoid allowing our theological systems to influence our interpretation of the text. Rather, we need our interpretation of the text to decide what our theological system is (and, in so doing, realize that the Bible is not a systematic text and therefore our system probably won’t be perfectly balanced and systematic).
“. . . where I become concerned is when Christians begin saying “X cannot be true of this passage because Y was said in a different passage.” In other words, when Christians refuse to see certain avenues of interpretation/meaning in the text because it would violate what they feel to be foundational doctrines.”
As a student of biblical studies, my ears suddenly shot straight up at this. What biblical studies are YOU learning? Source Criticism… Form Criticism… Redaction Criticism… so on and so forth, they all at one point or another say X cannot be true because of Y elsewhere–they all think a meaning may or may not be valid because it disagrees with their perceived methodological or “systematic” doctrine. There is no difference here between “Christian” or otherwise, “theology” or otherwise.
I agree we should not look for ways to make our theology fit a text, but rather look for how the text might influence and change our theology. But if you were indeed a realist you would know that this is more of a Utopian ideal than the actual reality our situation can or ever will achieve. If the very texts were are looking at were written in such a manner, they wouldn’t even exist for us to look at to begin with. And no one is a clean slate looking at the text. We all have a system, we all have a preference, we all have a bias. And that will more often than not, even when we are on guard against it, color what we see and how we see it.
The wonderful thing about scholarship is NOT that it gives us a way to come to conclusions that aren’t determined by our theology, but it allows us to be challenged to think differently and to come to new and different theologies. And that situation will exist to the same degree whether we are speaking of theology or biblical studies.