Book Review:
Who Needs Theology?
by Eric Landstrom
The Problem
Both
Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson have laid a tough task before
themselves. How do you affirm the idea that serious study of biblical
truth can thoroughly enrich both the individual's faith as well
as congregational faith when it is written that true servants
are as children before God? How does a person convey their delight
of theology to another who is happy to simply know that which
they know already? Is it not foolishness searching after answers
that perhaps only God Himself knows? Why not simply accept the
Bible as a child accepts the love from a parent without question?
The problem of conveying to our fellow
brethren that the study of theology is a good thing is further
aggravated by the fact that fallible human reason was the manner
that led to sin and corruption in the first place. In light of
this it can be understandable why many brethren view the study
of theology with the deepest of suspicion. But for those of us
who love theology, the reflection of biblical truth is as rain
to a meadow. Often the clouds may gather overhead, but as the
drops of rain permeate and soak into the soil; so too does the
understanding of theology saturate and underscore the believer's
faith! As the sun banishes the stormy clouds overhead and causes
the meadow to grow and blossom, so too does the knowledge of God
increase the faith, hope, and love of the believer and bring them
closer to God in their Christian walk.
Often times with books such as this, the
theologian attempts to state that the underlying idea of theology
is to answer the most basic question of "Why am I here?"
This basic assumption logically follows, as the authors suggest,
that the more profound question is how did something come from
nothing? These are valid questions for an unbeliever to ask and
it is hoped that the answers the unbeliever discovers will lead
them to accept the Christian faith. The problem that Christians
are presented by questions such as these is that they have already
been answered through faith. Although questions such as what is
the meaning of life are not frivolous, the Christian who is already
in possession of answers now hungers for knowledge which penetrates
and further reveals biblical truth. Therefore, what is the application
of abstract "professional" theology to the humble Christian?
The Christian--having already accepted the basis of those philosophical
questions with the belief that the Almighty God created all that
there is--asks why is there a need to delve into hypothetical
theories that often lead Christians to bitterly divide?
It is the reflection upon my own question
that I come to agree with Grenz and Olson that all peoples engage
in the practice of theology--even the Christian who asks why we
need theology because he already knows how it will end. Because
the Christian who truly has reflected upon his faith already knows
how he will die, it logically follows that he will then desire
to increase his knowledge and learn more of how to live
the life God expects of him. Thus the conclusion of denial affirms
the study of theology. To confirm this conclusion upon the hesitant
mind of our doubting brethren that theology has merit, effective
theology needs to be shown to increase Christian faith, guard
and defend against doctrinal errors, and increase the Christian
in application of biblical truth in their individual lives to
be truly acceptable.
I believe that Grenz and Olson do an excellent
job of explaining to the layman why we need to further study the
Bible and learn more of God (i.e., the practice of theology for
the enrichment of faith). However I do not believe that they properly
explained why the body of Christ has need for theologians, or
justified why the body needs objective theology, something which
is frequently perceived to dwell in abstract terms and definitions
that seemingly have little to do with the Christian walk on the
road to maturity. Further, while the authors do stress that everyone
participates in theology, they fail to present the idea that all
of us on one level or another do practice all five levels of theology
as outlined in their book Who Needs Theology?
One of the problems I hold that the authors
had in writing this book was the selection of the best approach
to explain the differences within the practice and application
of theology within the brotherhood of believers. For example,
Grenz and Olson divide theology into five categories but fail
to explain the role of the "professional" theologian
in a way that the average Christian may clearly see how this kind
of theology has application with in their own life. Why not further
develop the idea and parcel the "professional" class
into three groups that encompass the professional level of theological
reflection and study so as to better define its roll within Christianity?
Indeed, a trip down to a seminary reveals an academic class of
Christian whose vocation is to train other Christians who will
go and teach and preach to yet even more Christians. The "professional"
Christian vocation is also made up of another scholastic subdivision
whose job is to produce helps for other Christians so that they
too may greatly accelerate their studies of the Bible. Certainly
it is reasonable to stand on the shoulders of others that have
traveled the same paths to enable the Christian student to "see"
further down the path of understanding the Bible. The "professional"
Christian also is made up of those who would further define and
defend Christian doctrine and work to resolve philosophical dilemmas
such as the problem of evil. Following the precedent the authors
set, a chart of legitimate Christian positions along the lines
of Grenz and Olson would then look something like this:
Interesting, no?
In the end where does all of this posturing
and positioning leave the body? Does the rubberstamping of persons
into classification help to unify our brethren in faith? Does
it increase our understanding of the need for theology? In my
opinion, it does not. Reading through this book gives me the idea
that it started out as a series of individual essays that when
combined as a whole, fell a few chapters short of a really good
book.
Obviously the intent of the authors was
to justify theology, remove the fear of theological reflection,
and build a love of theology. While I personally do love theology,
I feel that the authors could remove some potential tension by
swapping out the word "critical" with the word "objective."
I will illustrate what I mean: A Moslem is critical of
the Christian faith, he is not objective. To the typical
Christian when something is said to be "critical," it
is often registered as an attack. This obviously is not the intent
of the authors but this is the preconceived perception
of those who question the worth of theology. Because of this,
it legitimizes their concern and thus should be tactfully addressed.
I believe that the analysis of our faith
is a good thing and support the idea that all Christians should
reflect upon their beliefs and the impact that God makes in their
walk. Even the criticisms of the critical Moslem have their benefit,
for they work to further define and thus strengthen the unity
of the Christian faith. The failing of the particular approach
employed by Grenz and Olson does very little to remove the perception
that there is a division in the body between the clergy and the
laity.
This perceived chasm is a problem because
as Christians, we must all accept the doctrine that the body of
Christ is made up by an equal brotherhood of priests no matter
how educated or how "spiritual" individuals may consider
themselves to be. As brethren we are all in this together and
we should seek to separate ourselves from the Nicolaitane error
that there exist different "levels" or castes among
Christians. I believe that the authors' of the book Who Needs
Theology would readily accept that idea. In fact, I believe
that was one of their premises for authoring the book in the first
place--that various practices of reflection upon our own as well
as others' beliefs is a good thing because it defines our faith
and allows a basis for which to share the Gospel with our culture.
However, the approach used by Grenz and Olson to try to define
the role theology plays in the devotional life of the Christian
community has set up a dichotomy that I believe does not truly
exist.
Certainly if I were faced with trying
to explain why we need Christian theology to an indifferent
and potentially hostile audience, I too would wonder what the
best approach is. Although I recognize that it is hard to write
and easy to critique, I also recognize in the authors' attempt
to justify theology for the masses, they intentionally tried to
remain as theologically neutral in regard to doctrine all the
while trying to show the necessity of Christian reflection. To
do this they offered the idea that we could look at the different
divisions of Christian theology after first carefully arguing
that all peoples are in the act of practicing theology. Rather
than divide the body of Christ up into segments that ultimately
work to justify a division between the clergy and the laity, I
believe we should concentrate our studies on the different styles
or approaches of the study of God that the body of Christ pursues.
In this way the emphasis is moved from the "ivory tower"
mentality that many Christians hold towards Christians whose vocation
is to be professional ministers and servants to a spirit of unity
that delegates the different tasks to different portions of the
body of Christ.
There comes a point in the walk of those called to teach
when it is recognized that they are no longer studying the Bible just for their
own edification. This much is true, but there is a new emphasis that delights
in learning so as to be able to share and edify others as well. Depending on
how far this is carried, these same persons may find themselves needing to defend
biblical truth against false doctrine and out-right apostate teachings or they
may find themselves seeking to harmonize seemingly contrary teachings within
the Bible. Tackling these different aspects of the Christian faith naturally
moves the emphasis to the method employed to suit the task at hand, rather than
the position of the individual taking up the task. As I see it, this is the
failing of the book Who Needs Theology? Rather than elaborate on the
different applications that theology has regarding subjects like evangelization
or defining and defending the Christian faith, Grenz and Olson chose to speak
more of the positions of those that propagate the faith. But their approach
fails to address that the hesitation people hold towards theology isn't upon
the practitioners themselves, but upon the ideas they proliferate. These ideas
largely fall within well defined battle lines that are drawn along the movements
of liberalism, fundamentalism, neo-orthodoxy, and evangelicalism. And for the
most part, people recognize this. Regardless of where you fall, you must contemplate
that it was theologians who started these movements, these divisions, in the
first place.
It is because we war over a battlefield
made up of ideas that the fear of the professional theologian
perpetuates. Without a doubt many ideas that theologians contemplate
are given to vain philosophy. Because of this many people would
rather distance themselves from the occupation altogether rather
than determine which of these ideas are theological dead ends
and which ideas are truly constructive.
We should recognize, as the authors suggest, that theology in
and of itself is not necessarily evil. At the same time we would
do well to also recognize the limitations of our own philosophical
reasoning which may not encompass truth. In contrast, theology
derived from wisdom reinforces its truthfulness time and again
by its application and further reflection reveals that when a
truth proves itself true in all applications it is applied, it
is based off of an attribute of God Himself. Additionally, we
must recognize that we are all sinners and because of this the
conclusions reached based upon our logical reasoning do not necessitate
their truthfulness in the eyes of God.
As Timothy George wrote in summary of
a debate regarding the future of the Evangelical Movement in consideration
of the new Openness theological question:
Theology that is both Christian and evangelical
arises out of the wonder and terror of having been confronted
with the living God. It issues in confession, thanksgiving, and
praise. As Martin Luther declared: "It is not by reading,
writing, or speculation that one becomes a theologian. Nay, rather,
it is living, dying, and being damned that makes one a theologian."
Theologians are not freelance scholars of religion, but trustees
of the deposit of faith that they, like pastors, are charged
with passing on intact to the rising generation. In the pluralistic
culture of the academy, evangelicals must become subversives
or else lose their souls.[1]
The authors have asked, "Why do we
need theology?" I believe that Thomas C. Oden provided an
answer that best justifies the need for theology that is both
objective and reflective, saying, "If there is no immune
system to resist heresy, there will soon be nothing but the teeming
infestation of heresy."[2]
Amen.
[1] The Future of Evangelical
Theology, Christianity Today, February 9, 1998
[2] Ibid.
Return to the
Protestant Apologetics and Theology page