From Berkhof to Grudem
I purchased my first "Systematic Theology" at the age of 21. (Always a late starter). It was written by Louis Berkhof.
As dry as dust, I nevertheless devoured it as a newbie - I didn't know any better - Everyone who was Anyone in my world at that time said I needed it.
Over the decades and with a few more similar titles on my shelves, I've come to see the limitations, problems - and even dangers - of books like this.
The Good
The blessings of SysTs - Grudem is now my go-to version - is that if you want a quick refresh of a particular doctrine, you can look up the index, go to the relevant pages and gen-up on that doctrine. Helpful. And since, like commentaries, that author has studied other SysTs you're likely to be reading the summed up opinion of many other teachers.
All accurate interpretation of Scripture involves deep understanding of doctrine, so a good underlying doctrinal grasp of the Bible always makes for better preaching.
The Problematic
The central problem with SysTs is they reverse-engineer how truth is actually presented in the Bible. Scripture's doctrinal content is not the only thing we should honour. We should also revere the method God has revealed his truth to us.
And there is no page of Scripture presented, laid out, if you will, as a systematic theology. Instead doctrine is unfolded in life, out of life, through life.
We learn that death is just a form of sleep, for example, not through flipping to "Death" in the index of a book and back to a particular page, there to read, "Death in Scripture is spoken of as sleep. This is because sleep is a temporary state which leads to awakening. In the same way, death, whether to eternal life or eternal perdition, always leads to an (eternal) awakening."
Instead, we learn that death is a form of sleep in the visceral faith-testing but triumphant story of Lazarus and his two grieving sisters. This doctrine is intended to calm the human hearts of his disciples, "Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up."
We learn of the Superiority of Jesus over the angels, not from a section entitled, "The Attributes of the Son of God" but from the impassioned exhortations of an inspired writer desperate to prevent a group of persecuted Christians going back to Judaism.
What a SysT does is to extract truth from life and then systematise it into a logical propositional form.
Older SysTs don't even bother trying to go on and apply that truth back to life, but many of the newer ones, realising this fatal applicatory error, attempt to apply the truth at the end of each chapter.
The basic problem is that SysTs have no example or warrant in Scripture.
Doctrine is never given for doctrine's sake, doctrine is always breathed into life situations to bring comfort, rebuke, encouragement.
The Dangers
There are a number of dangers with SysTs.
First, it's the wrong way to learn doctrine, as we have seen; it reverse-engineers the way doctrine is given in Scripture, where truth is birthed out of daily life.
Second, SysTs can make us lazy: we go straight to our favourite tome instead of searching the Scriptures (perhaps SysTs have already been superseded by AI...).
I heard of one Bible college of old where the students over the course of their student years were encouraged to write their own SysTs - that meant, at least, that they owned their doctrine.
Third, it's too easy to follow a human being (for that is all the authors are) rather than follow Christ. To be a Berkhof-ite or a Grudem-ite.
Fourth, it can close our eyes to truth. The very nature of any man-made system of ideas / thought / doctrine / is that it so easily becomes our paradigm, our closed system of thought. And while it may initially have taught us to see better, it can blind us to seeing truth that simply does not line up with the paradigm we have unconsciously swallowed, hook, line, and even, sometimes, sinker. Suppose we come across a truth in Scripture that seems to war against the one that we learnt from Mr B or Mr G? Will we have the courage to change our doctrine? Or will we - carelessly - ignore it?
Fifth, right doctrine can make us proud, for knowledge puffs up. I've heard of guys boasting how many SysTs they have on their long-suffering Billy book cases.
Finally - I cannot believe I have mentioned the T word in this blog! (Some of you will know I am no fan of the word "Theology" Doctrine yes, Theology no). This is because, like bi-ology and zoo-ology, like ge-ology and psych-ology, theology is a necessarily flawed human attempt to systematise a body of truth.
When Luther's mate Melanchthon, begins his attempt at a SysT, which he calls "Common Theological Topics" (Now, why didn't it take off?) he opens like this:
"Just as in the other arts it is beneficial to have the chief topics arranged according to a method of teaching and a logical series.... so also it is advantageous to develop a method of teaching in Christian doctrine."
No opacity there! SysT is just like the other arts.
But it isn't. Theologies ape the world's ways.
Divine Truth sets itself apart from all other bodies of knowledge.
Use but Beware
We're not arguing for book burning. But we are arguing for a very careful and discerning use of SysTs, old and new.
No comments:
Post a Comment