This is the second installment of the ongoing "Personal Theology Outline" series. The first installment can be found here. The third can be found here.
Establishing the Worldview
In my last post, I outlined how some general elements of my upbringing and several key life-events brought me to a place of what some might call "intrafaith skepticism." Yet, how is this sense of skepticism pacified? How is it alleviated? How do questions and answers work together? There are three main components of my approach to synthesizing my world.The Book that God Built
Because my paradigm is a Christian one, the Christian Canon is my foundation for everything. But, when someone proclaims that "the Bible is my foundation," how does that play out? I, for one, have been across the spectrum when it comes to this question.
Growing up, I adhered to a strict "literal" interpretation of the Bible. Whatever the words on the page said was what God meant. In some senses, this was well and good. That approach stems from a desire not to twist the Bible to mean anything other than what it says. And there are passages where that approach can work. But, there is one big problem with this--the fact that I, as a twenty first century American, have cultural views that are vastly different than those of a first century Jew or Greek. Thus, whenever I would read the Bible according to my definition of "literal," I would read into the text my cultural presuppositions. Unwittingly, I would reshape Jesus into my image. Now, He did not look just like me; He still had many things to correct me on and places to push me towards. But, the fact remained that He looked more like a twentieth century American than a first century Jew.
After some time, I realized the fallacy of reading the Bible outside its original context. Some might say that my first step into the wider world of Biblical criticism was obtaining a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. This tool allowed me to examine the lingual context of the Bible. I could look up the Greek and Hebrew equivalents of various words found in the Bible. This enhanced my knowledge of the text in that it became more than just one dimensional to me (albeit only two dimensional at the time) in that I now saw that the just one translation of the text really did not do it justice.
But, just owning a Strong's Concordance does not a make one a Bible scholar. I soon realized that, if I wanted to really understand what the Bible said, I need to understand the context in which each portion was written. Thus, I happened upon socio-rhetorical commentaries of various books of the Bible. These commentaries serve to paint the backdrop of the original culture. As a result, the original meaning can be interpreted through context.
Now, is this a set in stone interpretation? Not necessarily. Biblical studies are always progressing. Today, we are closer to a true reading of the Bible than we have been in millennia. Yet, this is not a static field. For example, the "New Perspective on Paul" is a relatively new movement in biblical interpretation (circa 1977). What will be the lasting effects of this movement? Will it become a interpretive norm? How will it influence future biblical scholars? Only time can answer these questions. But, biblical studies will never be the same because of this view (they will either be strengthen by explaining it away or strengthened by embracing it).
By the same measure, "new" scholarship is not the only scholarship that I find interesting. There is also a need for our modern theology to be consistent with that of the Early Church. Thus, readings of the writings of the Early Church Fathers provide wonderful insight into what the writers of the New Testament meant in their writings. Meanwhile, we also find that the Early Church Fathers were limited in their insights into certain matters in the Church. There is a balance of trust and skepticism that must be obtained with reading their works.
How does highly dynamic field of biblical scholarship affect me? The truth is that I must constantly be seeking the best scholarship in my interpretation of the Bible with regard for the fact that fresh and better scholarship is always emerging. That is the only way that I can get out of the way of the text and let it speak to and change me.
This tenet of my outlook also serves to strengthen my entire theological set. Because of this standard of intellectual integrity, I constantly seek to strengthen my worldview to the point where it can withstand the same criticisms that I may level against other views. This pushes me to better understand those things to which I adhere.
This filter also affects how I process exposure to new philosophies. I find myself searching to see if this new way of thinking would properly conform to my present theological/philosophical set or if it should replace some pre-existing element. Thus, my paradigm is always shifting, always adjusting to new ideas and circumstances.
After some time, I realized the fallacy of reading the Bible outside its original context. Some might say that my first step into the wider world of Biblical criticism was obtaining a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. This tool allowed me to examine the lingual context of the Bible. I could look up the Greek and Hebrew equivalents of various words found in the Bible. This enhanced my knowledge of the text in that it became more than just one dimensional to me (albeit only two dimensional at the time) in that I now saw that the just one translation of the text really did not do it justice.
But, just owning a Strong's Concordance does not a make one a Bible scholar. I soon realized that, if I wanted to really understand what the Bible said, I need to understand the context in which each portion was written. Thus, I happened upon socio-rhetorical commentaries of various books of the Bible. These commentaries serve to paint the backdrop of the original culture. As a result, the original meaning can be interpreted through context.
Now, is this a set in stone interpretation? Not necessarily. Biblical studies are always progressing. Today, we are closer to a true reading of the Bible than we have been in millennia. Yet, this is not a static field. For example, the "New Perspective on Paul" is a relatively new movement in biblical interpretation (circa 1977). What will be the lasting effects of this movement? Will it become a interpretive norm? How will it influence future biblical scholars? Only time can answer these questions. But, biblical studies will never be the same because of this view (they will either be strengthen by explaining it away or strengthened by embracing it).
By the same measure, "new" scholarship is not the only scholarship that I find interesting. There is also a need for our modern theology to be consistent with that of the Early Church. Thus, readings of the writings of the Early Church Fathers provide wonderful insight into what the writers of the New Testament meant in their writings. Meanwhile, we also find that the Early Church Fathers were limited in their insights into certain matters in the Church. There is a balance of trust and skepticism that must be obtained with reading their works.
How does highly dynamic field of biblical scholarship affect me? The truth is that I must constantly be seeking the best scholarship in my interpretation of the Bible with regard for the fact that fresh and better scholarship is always emerging. That is the only way that I can get out of the way of the text and let it speak to and change me.
A Seemingly Inconvenient Confession
A second element of my paradigm is something that some may find laughable. It is this: experience. Whatever view of God I uphold must be consistent with the good God that I have experienced in Jesus. Obviously, my portrayal of Jesus must be consistent with that of Scripture. But, I find that the view of God I have in theory must match what I have encountered of God in practice.
Many criticize experience as largely invalid. Yet, I find that few can hold to an idea that does not correspond or correlate to what their experience dictates in some way. For example, what is science? Is it not but an organized effort to describe the structure of the physical universe? Is it not just an effort to create a general description of our experiences? I would hold that theology could be described as the "science of God." Think about it: in theological study, we attempt to verify that our personal experiences correspond properly with reality as a whole. We are attempting to describe the link between experience and principle.
Furthermore, in the study of apologetics, we find that experience contributes to one of the three categories of apologetical issues (the others being presuppositional and evidential). While it is technically the more "irrational" of the categories, it does contribute to our worldview.
Having defended experience as a contributor to one's theology and worldview, I must at this point acknowledge its limits. While experience can be a filter for the peripherals of theology, if experience is ever found to be in conflict with Scripture, Scripture must take precedence. Yet, a theology devoid of experience is spiritually bankrupt. Where is the balance? Ultimately, it is indeed a tightrope. Experience often defines us. But, experiences can be misinterpreted. In the end, we have to give credence to experience without letting it pull us away from what is true Christianity.
A Homogeneous Blend
The final filter applied to my paradigm is a combination of intellectual integrity and logical consistency. That is to say, every element of my worldview must be free of contradictions and must flow together with perfect congruity. There must be smoothness and continuity. If I happen upon an element of my theological/philosophical model that is inconsistent with the whole, it must immediately be put to scrutiny. Many times, it is the one item that requires reshaping. Other times, it is a number of ideas surrounding the one that need revision. I hold to this approach because I believe that there is nothing contradictory in God and, thus, what I discover about Him must be consistent as well.This tenet of my outlook also serves to strengthen my entire theological set. Because of this standard of intellectual integrity, I constantly seek to strengthen my worldview to the point where it can withstand the same criticisms that I may level against other views. This pushes me to better understand those things to which I adhere.
This filter also affects how I process exposure to new philosophies. I find myself searching to see if this new way of thinking would properly conform to my present theological/philosophical set or if it should replace some pre-existing element. Thus, my paradigm is always shifting, always adjusting to new ideas and circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment