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.