Saturday, January 12, 2013

Theology in service of the church

Paul Manata recently pulled up this several-years-old interview with Oliver Crisp, who recently taught philosophical theology at the University of Bristol in the UK and now is at Fuller Theological Seminary. I think this is a good overview of how I see my own interests developing:

Q: What made you want to be a theologian?

A: Encountering Jesus.


Q: How do you see the relationship between your work in academic theology and the Church's task of proclaiming the gospel?

A: Theology that is not done in the service of the Church is seriously defective, in my view. Although I work in a so-called 'secular' university, I am very conscious of the need to address the Church in what I do. I hope that in some small way my own work may be of use to the Church through the trickle-down effect of students of theology and prospective ministerial candidates getting trained in theology and reading the sort of stuff I write. I have taught in both secular and confessional contexts in the UK and North America, and I think effective theological education is of vital importance for the life of the Church. If we want an educated and effective laity, we need an effective and educated clergy to teach them.


Q: In some respects is analytic theology a retrieval of the methods of medieval scholasticism and Reformed Orthodoxy?

A: Yes, you might think of it in that way. As I have already indicated, I think it is in keeping with much of this tradition of theology. I hope it is a legitimate successor to a scholastic or Reformed Orthodox approach. It seems to me that both the medievals and the Reformed (and Lutheran) orthodox have much to teach us today. There is a theological richness in their work that we have lost. Theirs is also an unapologetically dogmatic approach - what John Webster has recently called 'theological theology'. That is the sort of theology I am interested in. I am not concerned with paddling in the shallows of theology, spending all my time in methodological or apologetic matters. I am not terribly concerned with questions about whether we can do theology or not. I am interested in getting on with the job of doing theology in the service of the Church.


Q: How would you configure the relationship between Holy Scripture and the traditions of the Church?

A: I've recently dealt with this in detail in the first chapter of my book, God Incarnate. I think that Scripture is the norming norm, the bedrock of all Christian theology. The 'tradition' consists in a cluster of different, subordinate norms, such as the catholic creeds, confessional statements (e.g. the Westminster Confession) and the works of particular theologians. But these are all subordinate to the Word of God.


Q: I have sometimes heard Evangelical preachers say that Jesus became a human person at the incarnation. Do you think that Evangelicals are sufficiently aware of the creedal heritage of the Church?

A: No, I don't. The creedal heritage of the Church is very important. We cast it aside at our peril. Some evangelicals are very much embedded in the tradition (e.g. some Episcopalians or Lutherans or Presbyterians). But evangelicals in what we might loosely term 'non-confessional' traditions, … tend to be less concerned about confessions, thinking they can simply leap over the tradition to Scripture. This is a mistake. We read Scripture in the household of faith, in company with the saints before us, not in isolation from them. And in so doing, we learn from our forebears (from their triumphs and their mistakes). It is folly and hubris to think one can set this great cloud of witnesses to one side in theologizing. Not that I think the fathers and Reformers of the Church trump Scripture. But they help us to understand Scripture better just as a teacher helps the student to understand matters that might be difficult to grasp were the student to be left alone with the class textbook.

[Edited 9:26 am to update Crisp's experience to Fuller.]

4 comments:

  1. This is a grounding word.

    It is excellent.

    The main thing I come away with in this little exchange points to the error I believe that has consumed evangelical and emergent spheres.

    It is sound and proper to say that we are to go into all the world and to the ends of the earth with the Gospel's message!

    That may be so. But if we are not there, grounded and established in Truth, before we go, I don't suppose we will have anything to equip those God is calling out of the world into His when we get there!

    We must first start where it all started and embrace the traditions there and look at history's story unfold as has been said above and I quote now "...We read Scripture in the household of faith, in company with the saints before us, not in isolation from them. And in so doing, we learn from our forebears (from their triumphs and their mistakes). It is folly and hubris to think one can set this great cloud of witnesses to one side in theologizing. Not that I think the fathers and Reformers of the Church trump Scripture. But they help us to understand Scripture better just as a teacher helps the student to understand matters that might be difficult to grasp were the student to be left alone with the class textbook....".

    First is birth. Then rebirth. Then grounding and settling in the Faith, rooting and grounding in Love and all the while being filled to the full with Living Hope abounding the power of the Holy Spirit. Once we have a confirmation, a disciple, the making of disciples, then it is true wherever that foot stands, walks or runs, His confirmation is that this is the diciple Jesus wants and will use.

    The mission may just be the next door neighbor and not the next door nation!

    Thanks for bringing this up again!

    I have been walking around in some blogs that think you guys are nuts at Triablogue and don't have the apparatus to make disciples!

    I think that's bunk!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Michael -- I agree with you about the need to be "grounded and established in Truth before we go". I also agree with your comment that "The mission may just be the next door neighbor and not the next door nation!"

      * * *

      I have been walking around in some blogs that think you guys are nuts at Triablogue and don't have the apparatus to make disciples!

      Can you provide some links? Believe it or not, I don't see my efforts here as a "ministry", much less an effort at making disciples. I can't speak for the other guys, but I see my role here as conveying information and (I hope) helping folks better understand a bigger picture. I don't try to do more than that.

      Delete
  2. John,

    as a whole "Triablogue" has apparatus but not all that is necessary. That takes the down on the ground dirt under the fingernails fellowship of a local group of brethren who can hold you accountable to the Word you walk and talk to be fully grounded. So, if you came away with the impression that I was implying just you and your work in here you might want to step back and see the all the trees the birds chirp in in here?

    As for adversaries all I can say is thank God when not all men speak well of you.

    I don't want to give any links. I suggest you just google Triablogue and see what comes up.

    Having said all that I just want readdress the point I made by being historically clear that I go all the way back in history and records not just starting with the 15th and 16th Century writers. My quotation above might imply to some otherwise so I just want to go on record as much and more than that quote going back farther than what is being embraced in it?

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Michael -- As for "apparatus", I Googled "Triablogue" and I'm familiar with some of the top discussions that are there, at least at the top.

      Separately, I tried to email you, and your old email [sbcglobal] doesn't work. Or at least it bounced me. Can you send me an email at johnbugay [at] google.com?

      Thanks!

      Delete