October 28, 2005
Does “working” mean “relative”?
Since I was in the first class, I thought I would do the first assignment for Amy’s “Theology and Culture” class. So if Amy’s version looks a lot like mine – I wrote mine first! The assignment appears below:
Discuss and assess the working definition of theology provided in class. How does it compare with others? What are its potential strengths and weaknesses? What concerns, if any, does it raise for you? How might such a definition influence the life and witness of the church?
In his working definition, John Franke, lays out the nature, task and purpose of Christian theology. He develops this further by associating local, confession and mission respectively to nature, task and purpose. The nature of theology is that it is local or contextual. The task of theology is to confess “the beliefs and practices of the Christian church”. Finally the purpose of theology is to focus on the mission of God’s people living in their “particular social-historical context”.
The nature-local, task-confession and purpose-mission definition of theology is expanded here. “Christian Theology is an on-going, second-order, contextual discipline that engages in the task of critical and constructive reflection on the beliefs and practices of the Christian church for the purpose of assisting the community of Christ’s followers in their missional vocation to live as the people of God in the particular social-historical context in which they are situated.”
This is most like Millard Erickson’s definition, theology is a “coherent statement of doctrines; based on Scripture, placed in the context of culture”. Franke’s task of theology and Erickson’s statement of doctrines are closely aligned especially in light of their purpose in the context of the current culture. In both definitions we see the ideas of what the Church is and who it is married together with what the Church does in formulating the definition of Christian Theology. It is much like the circular flow of the formal to the material to the formal to the material and on and on it goes as the definition of theology and the practice of theology relate to one another hand in hand. The deviation of Erickson and Franke is on the basis of Scripture alone being foundational and Scripture along with culture being co-foundational.
That deviation seems to come into clearer focus with Wayne Grudem defining theology as, “The answer to the question, ‘What does the whole Bible teach us about any topic?’” And noted Van Tillian scholar, John Frame, gives an even more concise definition than Grudem with the suggestion that theology be defined as, “the application of the Word of God by persons to all areas of life” (The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God). Franke’s departure here lies within his nature of theology being second-order or interpretive within an on-going and ever changing context. This is what makes his theology co-foundational with the Word of God and the currency of thought prevailing at any given moment in time, this moment being defined as post-modern.
This weakens our dependence upon Scripture as the Word of God being fully confident that He is eternal and everlasting; while placing this in the context of an indefinable, ever-changing post-modern worldview. Franke’s definition of theology seems most weak with its emphasis on context and culture, especially when placed in our current culture. Admittedly, he cannot easily define what post-modernism is and uses this basis as a defense against those that reject the ideals of a revolving door of truth view of post-modernism. In doing so he still provides a definition of post-modernism as the rejection of modernism.
How does this really weaken his view of Christian theology? By undermining the eternal truths that are found in Scripture and placing them in a contextual environment of the apparent absence of absolutes. By its very nature, post-modernism is difficult to define and characterize because of the revolving door on the definition of truth or its relativity to the truth bearer. The standard and rock of truth seems apparent in these words penned by the Apostle Paul, “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:1-6, emphasis added). Paul writes here to encourage the continual reflection and application of Scriptural truths to our lives to give us hope of unity with our Lord Jesus Christ.
Oddly enough the strength of Franke’s relative working definition of theology is found in these verses as well. The local nature of theology and its application to our own hearts is reflective of the vertical relationship we have with our God and is the very well of hope that we have. While the task and purpose of theology is the out-pouring of that hope, love and faith into the world around us or the horizontal relationship we have with our fellow man. Though Franke may appear to limit this outpouring into the Body of Christ alone, it can be inferred that the mission of the people of God is to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31) or “each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up”, Christian or not.
The strength of “assisting the community of Christ’s followers in their missional vocation to live as the people of God” should not be ignored. This is where the generosity of grace enables community to thrive and shine the light of Christ to the world. This generosity must be balanced and married together with sound doctrine or orthodoxy. Otherwise we run the risk of having these large communities of those that take the name of Christ on themselves, misunderstanding what that really means and its application of that to their lives, effectually rendering themselves in violation of the third commandment (Exodus 20:7). This alone does not condemn, but that there was never any true regeneration of their heart keeps them outside the family of Christ.
In the end I truly believe that Franke, Erickson, Grudem, Frame and myself (not that I am trying to place myself on par with any of them) are all attempting to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and…take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). The Spirit works in each of our hearts to manifest the knowledge of God within our personal relationship with Christ which is where the obedience to his Word is found in the unity of the “community of Christ’s followers”.
